totm may 2024 Mars Sample Return discussion thread

[PakledHostage]

22 hours ago, Minmus Taster said:

 By 2040 we'll have humans on mars, not to mention Tianwen 3 getting samples back over ten years earlier. 

I don't think we'll have humans on Mars by 2040. That's only 16 years away. Before that can happen, a manned spacecraft is required that can operate unsupported in deep space for 2+ years. That does not and has never existed. Realistically, we'll have to learn how to walk first by going back to the moon in the next decade or three, then once we can walk we'll be able to run to Mars. A robotic sample return mission is still our best bet before then.

[darthgently]

31 minutes ago, PakledHostage said:

Before that can happen, a manned spacecraft is required that can operate unsupported in deep space for 2+ years

I thought it was a matter of just short of a year, not 2+ years.  Do you mean on the surface?  Or for the journey?

[PakledHostage]

I mean for the round trip. Fly there, land, perform the mission and fly back. Depending on how they do the transfers, it could very reasonably be upwards of two years.

[kerbiloid]

Then almost 3 years.

[SunlitZelkova]

15 hours ago, darthgently said:

Perhaps more the reason to do the experiments on Mars where contamination of the samples is far less likely.  I think he has a point. And it very much is about geology, or areology also

True. Although I remember reading somewhere NASA currently has a requirement that MSR must happen before sending a crewed mission.

On the other hand…

The 1969 proposal had the Mars spacecraft having small probes attached that could take samples and bring them up to the ship to confirm whether there was life or not before landing.

Meanwhile DRM 5.0, using Constellation equipment, assumed no MSR and thus took into account landing at somewhere akin to Jezero in order to have a good chance of finding life.

———

My 2 cents- I’m a bit of a two face when it comes to this.

On the one hand, I think robotic MSR is necessary to have pristine samples and thus not risk contaminating the area, which astronauts might do.

On the other hand, much like how the Soviet Luna sample return missions obviated the need for a Soviet crewed lunar landing and helped kill that program, MSR might have people asking questions about why we need to go to Mars.

In which case I’d rather see a crewed mission and no MSR. Simply because landing people is cooler, not with any care for rather we have a responsibility to try and find life or not.

[kerbiloid]

Personally I see no connection between the MSR and the crewed missions.

The ability to deliver ground absolutely doesn't mean ability to fly there and back again, due to absolutely different scale of problem.

While a crewed mission could collect, sort, and study in situ as much ground specimens, as a whole century of rare MSR missions.

Absence of the traces of life at one place, tells nothing about its presence at others.
Thus, doesn't give a green light for the crewed missions anyway.

At the same time, a crewed lander is not an injection of virus, which would immediately start spreading around and occupying the planet.

[Minmus Taster]

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/05/nasa-wants-a-cheaper-mars-sample-return-boeing-proposes-most-expensive-rocket/

Yeah I don't know about this, this doesn't reduce the cost by much (the SLS costs more than half the original plan lmao) it just wraps it up into a neater and  Boeing manufactured bow. Would still be interesting to see unfold though.

[RCgothic]

Any SLS not used for Artemis is a waste IMO. 

[DAL59]

2 hours ago, RCgothic said:

Any SLS not used for Artemis is a waste IMO. 

Any SLS not used for Artemis is a waste IMO. 

But jokes aside, they're currently hardly making SLSs fast enough to run Artemis, so I doubt they'll have one to spare for MSR. 

Red Dragon was fairly far along, why not resume that and send one to Mars on an FH with a sounding rocket and the retrieval copters?

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, DAL59 said:

Any SLS not used for Artemis is a waste IMO. 

But jokes aside, they're currently hardly making SLSs fast enough to run Artemis, so I doubt they'll have one to spare for MSR. 

Red Dragon was fairly far along, why not resume that and send one to Mars on an FH with a sounding rocket and the retrieval copters?

Red dragon was set up without an orbital return system  but direct return from Mars surface as I understand, so the return rocket was more like an large tactical missile than an anti tank missile. Now launching an second rocket for the orbital module is an option and cheaper than SLS. 
But it also have development time, benefit is less mass restrictions, like use multiple helicopters for redundancy 

[DAL59]

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-exploring-alternative-mars-sample-return-methods/

7 potential options selected:

• Lockheed Martinin Littleton, Colorado: “Lockheed Martin Rapid Mission Design Studies for Mars Sample Return”
• SpaceX in Hawthorne, California: “Enabling Mars Sample Return With Starship”
• Aerojet Rocketdyne in Huntsville, Alabama: “A High-Performance Liquid Mars Ascent Vehicle, Using Highly Reliable and Mature Propulsion Technologies, to Improve Program Affordability and Schedule”
• Blue Origin in Monrovia, California: “Leveraging Artemis for Mars Sample Return”
• Quantum Space, in Rockville, Maryland: “Quantum Anchor Leg Mars Sample Return Study”
• Northrop Grumman in Elkton, Maryland: “High TRL MAV Propulsion Trades and Concept Design for MSR Rapid Mission Design”
• Whittinghill Aerospace in Camarillo, California: “A Rapid Design Study for the MSR Single Stage Mars Ascent Vehicle”

I love Blue Origin's 5000 IQ plan to tie a failing program to another one

[DAL59]

(Though we only have the titles, it could be something reasonable)

[kerbiloid]

Let them just send a Starship, and take them.

It's like the Red Dragon, just not Red, and not Dragon.

Edited June 8 by kerbiloid

[Minmus Taster]

22 hours ago, DAL59 said:

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-exploring-alternative-mars-sample-return-methods/

7 potential options selected:

• Lockheed Martinin Littleton, Colorado: “Lockheed Martin Rapid Mission Design Studies for Mars Sample Return”
• SpaceX in Hawthorne, California: “Enabling Mars Sample Return With Starship”
• Aerojet Rocketdyne in Huntsville, Alabama: “A High-Performance Liquid Mars Ascent Vehicle, Using Highly Reliable and Mature Propulsion Technologies, to Improve Program Affordability and Schedule”
• Blue Origin in Monrovia, California: “Leveraging Artemis for Mars Sample Return”
• Quantum Space, in Rockville, Maryland: “Quantum Anchor Leg Mars Sample Return Study”
• Northrop Grumman in Elkton, Maryland: “High TRL MAV Propulsion Trades and Concept Design for MSR Rapid Mission Design”
• Whittinghill Aerospace in Camarillo, California: “A Rapid Design Study for the MSR Single Stage Mars Ascent Vehicle”

I love Blue Origin's 5000 IQ plan to tie a failing program to another one

[kerbiloid]

What if put a bounty for the Martians on the Martian sample return.

It would solve at least three problems: 1. Humans meet the Martians (the ambassador); 2. Humans can see the technologies the Martians use for interplanetary flights; 3. Mars sample return.

[magnemoe]

On 4/16/2024 at 9:30 PM, PakledHostage said:

I don't think we'll have humans on Mars by 2040. That's only 16 years away. Before that can happen, a manned spacecraft is required that can operate unsupported in deep space for 2+ years. That does not and has never existed. Realistically, we'll have to learn how to walk first by going back to the moon in the next decade or three, then once we can walk we'll be able to run to Mars. A robotic sample return mission is still our best bet before then.

I mostly agree, end of 2030 might work but is unlikely, we are likely to return to the moon this decade however. 
And the manned mars mission would not be much exploring, you already dumped clusters of helicopters and rovers to explore so your job is to investigate.
 

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

What if put a bounty for the Martians on the Martian sample return.

It would solve at least three problems: 1. Humans meet the Martians (the ambassador); 2. Humans can see the technologies the Martians use for interplanetary flights; 3. Mars sample return.

Its illegal to hunt Bigfoot by law   Its lots of idiots and some might think an huge hairy guy in camouflage sneaking around as he is  hunting deer is an Bigfoot and shoot him. 
Some Chinese astronauts might use some weird military stealthy spacesuit just to test it on Mars. 
Its not an war zone where you have to wear correct uniforms. 

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

I mostly agree, end of 2030 might work but is unlikely, we are likely to return to the moon this decade however. 
And the manned mars mission would not be much exploring, you already dumped clusters of helicopters and rovers to explore so your job is to investigate.
 

Its illegal to hunt Bigfoot by law   Its lots of idiots and some might think an huge hairy guy in camouflage sneaking around as he is  hunting deer is an Bigfoot and shoot him. 
Some Chinese astronauts might use some weird military stealthy spacesuit just to test it on Mars. 
Its not an war zone where you have to wear correct uniforms. 

So it's settled that the new EVA suit should definitely look like a bigfoot, or wookie, costume.  Next issue

[DAL59]

New info from FOIA request