Mars Sample Return

Michel Van said:
It's NASA own fault...
They took the most complex mission architecture for MSR
A rover that take sample and drop them on Surface, otherwise the radioactive power source could alter the sample.
NASA has to send Solar powered Rover to collect those samples and bring them to Mars orbit launch system
what launch into orbit were dock with Ion drive Spacecraft that return the Samples to Earth

Means four spacecraft to build and launch and operate, what explain the US$11 billion program cost.
(The Rover of the four already active on Mars)

There were alternative propose in 1990s by Robert Zubrin.
Small Rover and Return craft with Methalox plant launch to Mars
After landing the Return craft produce propellants for return, while rover collect samples
once ready, the Rover load them it into return craft, who launch direct to Earth.
Click to expand...
Too much money is being spent on answering a philosophical question and as long as there are billions of dollars in budgets, scientists will continue to look for those damn bacteria under the rocks: "they must be nearby, we just need one billion more and another fifty years". In the meantime, we continue to use propulsion systems developed by the Nazis. Mars is full of holes, tomorrow something like the one that fell in Hellas could reach us... And only the Martian bacteria would be left to start over. We need a new nuclear-powered electromagnetic propulsion system that is powerful enough to deflect an asteroid or shorten the flight time of exploration probes.
 
Michel Van said:
It's NASA own fault...
They took the most complex mission architecture for MSR
A rover that take sample and drop them on Surface, otherwise the radioactive power source could alter the sample.
NASA has to send Solar powered Rover to collect those samples and bring them to Mars orbit launch system
what launch into orbit were dock with Ion drive Spacecraft that return the Samples to Earth

Means four spacecraft to build and launch and operate, what explain the US$11 billion program cost.
(The Rover of the four already active on Mars)

There were alternative propose in 1990s by Robert Zubrin.
Small Rover and Return craft with Methalox plant launch to Mars
After landing the Return craft produce propellants for return, while rover collect samples
once ready, the Rover load them it into return craft, who launch direct to Earth.
Click to expand...
I have to wonder how much of this truly byzantine pitiful mission architecture was driven by USG sunk cost and annual budget cycle constraints/appropriations considerations. Musk (god bless his little idiot savant heart) may well bring back Martian soil samples to gaia way before NASA.
 
Last edited:
I was looking at the tri-core SRB-X design. It might take some doing, but would two SRBs allow a Falcon Heavy core to air-start?

Perhaps improve the payload?

A single shot MSR might be a result.
 
publiusr said:
I was looking at the tri-core SRB-X design. It might take some doing, but would two SRBs allow a Falcon Heavy core to air-start?

Perhaps improve the payload?

A single shot MSR might be a result.
Click to expand...
Why? What is the purpose? How does this help? How is it cheaper?
Launch vehicle performance is not the issue.
Unworkable, SRBs lift from the top., Falcon Heavy booster lift from the bottom.
the spacecraft would be huge and more expensive. Need new facilities and infrastructure.
 
I don't know that such a conversion would be as expensive as MSR as it was planned---others looked at SRBs used on something besides shuttle--not just me:

A Falcon Heavy core is essentially Centurion---perhaps the guys at Georgia tech could look into such a modification.

Remember, SRB-X was designed from the start to carry a heavy, inert core stage---between them an Centurion's researchers, A Falcon Heavy core that can now air start might also be a way to help Starlink launches in case Starship causes trouble. Norgrum could be convinced to work with SpaceX perhaps.

Instead of being so quick to shoot something down---perhaps look at how much more a Falcon Core could lift if so augmented.
Elon might be open to that.
 
publiusr said:
Instead of being so quick to shoot something down---perhaps look at how much more a Falcon Core could lift if so augmented.
Elon might be open to that.
Click to expand...
no, he would be quicker than me to shoot it down. He is only going forward with Starship. He is not doing any major changes to Falcon9. this has been stated to you many times.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
A Falcon Heavy core is essentially Centurion---perhaps the guys at Georgia tech could look into such a modification.

Remember, SRB-X was designed from the start to carry a heavy, inert core stage---between them an Centurion's researchers, A Falcon Heavy core that can now air start might also be a way to help Starlink launches in case Starship causes trouble. Norgrum could be convinced to work with SpaceX perhaps.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. Falcon 9 is nowhere the same structurally.
GT has no real expertise on this and the Centurion guys would be long gone. there is no corporate memory for studies like this.
SRB-X was designed to lift a 3rd active shortened SRB. Nothing like a liquid booster for air start.
Nothing like these is going to "help" Starlink. these are 2-4 years from flying.
 
FighterJock said:
Why the long wait? I thought that NASA would have wanted the samples back a lot sooner than 2026.
Click to expand...
Gotta design and build all the craft.

Gotta launch them at the appropriate timing to get to mars (at planetary conjunction, give or take). Then they still take ~9months to make it to Mars. Landers land, wander around for a while to get samples, and then launch back up to Mars orbit. From Mars Orbit, you need to wait for the proper planetary alignment to return at minimum delta-V.
 
There might be a *little* help in this regard:
phys.org

'Tube map' around planets and moons made possible by knot theory

Just as sat-nav did away with the need to argue over the best route home, scientists from the University of Surrey have developed a new method to find the optimal routes for future space missions without the need to waste fuel. The paper is published in the journal Astrodynamics.
phys.org

With that and FH…maybe?

As per this article, a rocket able to get to space from Mars need only be…pencil sized?

The One-Pound Problem

All the Mars Ascent Vehicle has to do is deliver 16 ounces of rocks in a container the size of a grapefruit to Martian orbit. If only it were as easy as it sounds.
www.smithsonianmag.com www.smithsonianmag.com

Now I am not like some who are too quick to throw cold water on things—but even I have problems believing that.

I have always been of the belief that rockets must increase in size even as Brunel believed in ship growth when there were lots of cheap Clippers about.

Rovers folded up a dozen different ways with Rube Goldberg skycranes—that’s one thing.

Lifting off another planet? Whew…
You certainly won’t be doing THAT with a Delta II.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
Instead of being so quick to shoot something down---perhaps look at how much more a Falcon Core could lift if so augmented.
Elon might be open to that.
Click to expand...
No, look in a mirror. Instead of being so quick to propose a new or bigger rocket, first think economics (reusability, cheaper, etc). That is how SpaceX does it. Cost matters, lift capability is secondary.
 
publiusr said:
There might be a *little* help in this regard:
phys.org

'Tube map' around planets and moons made possible by knot theory

Just as sat-nav did away with the need to argue over the best route home, scientists from the University of Surrey have developed a new method to find the optimal routes for future space missions without the need to waste fuel. The paper is published in the journal Astrodynamics.
phys.org

With that and FH…maybe?
Click to expand...
The lower the energy that route uses, the longer it takes.

Hohmann Transfer Orbits were originally thought of as the lowest energy routes, and they are the lowest energy direct routes.

Those other weird transfer orbits take something like 5x longer.


publiusr said:
As per this article, a rocket able to get to space from Mars need only be…pencil sized?

The One-Pound Problem

All the Mars Ascent Vehicle has to do is deliver 16 ounces of rocks in a container the size of a grapefruit to Martian orbit. If only it were as easy as it sounds.
www.smithsonianmag.com www.smithsonianmag.com

Now I am not like some who are too quick to throw cold water on things—but even I have problems believing that.

I have always been of the belief that rockets must increase in size even as Brunel believed in ship growth when there were lots of cheap Clippers about.

Rovers folded up a dozen different ways with Rube Goldberg skycranes—that’s one thing.

Lifting off another planet? Whew…
You certainly won’t be doing THAT with a Delta II.
Click to expand...
Something the size of an SM3 has enough thrust to make mars orbit.
 
Last edited:
What I suggested
Tube with ascent stage the spine of a ramp with a retrieval rover atop it.

Rover rolls off---tube rises on its own.

Bulb has compressed air (not MOXIE) to thump hypergolic ascent vehicle.

To load MAV, robot loads samples in bolt action style.

A drinking bird whose tube is an air rifle shooting a hypergol gyrojet with a sample inside the hollow point.

All I can come up with.
 
publiusr said:
The SLS plan:

25 metric tons to the Martian surface as per Ars. (I’ll spare you the venom of the usual line up of haters.)
Click to expand...
Inane idea. You also don't get this. It is not about capability, it is about cost. We have no way of building an aeroshell or lander to land 25 tons cheaply.
publiusr said:
Good to see Jim shoot down the idea of a lander being “delicate” as one NSF screed had it.

Sad how Ariane 5’s mean solids shook Webb all to pieces…wait…'
Click to expand...
The issue was about solids in general. It is about SLS specifically. Europa Clipper, JWST and many other spacecraft would not be able to handle the SLS launch environment, due to its solids and attach methodology. Ariane 5 solids did not cause a similar environment.
 
In terms of cost, the SLS cores are extant ---that's done...if Orion can't get straight.

Secondly, you are saving by having one launch.

Most importantly, you are getting experience here with a pretty sizeable lander.

Even with SLS, this should be below $10 billion--no assembly...one shot.

To Scott,

I think SM3 might need a heater to keep that solid propellant supple.
 
publiusr said:
1. Secondly, you are saving by having one launch.

2. Most importantly, you are getting experience here with a pretty sizeable lander.

3. Even with SLS, this should be below $10 billion--no assembly...one shot.
Click to expand...
1. No, that is not true. Costs for multiple launches is not an issue. 3 Falcon Heavy launches is less than 1/2 SLS cost.
2. not relevant. And still is more expensive than the existing plan
3. Still too much. No way to do a large lander cheaply.
 
publiusr said:
To Scott,

I think SM3 might need a heater to keep that solid propellant supple.
Click to expand...
Hadn't considered that point. But I maintain that a ~3000lb rocket will be plenty to put samples into Mars orbit, whether solid or liquid fueled.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hadn't considered that point. But I maintain that a ~3000lb rocket will be plenty to put samples into Mars orbit, whether solid or liquid fueled.
Click to expand...
The project of record (the "current" project), had heaters for the MAV. That was one of the problems, power production - solar array sizing and mass
 
publiusr said:
Mars being chilly would seem to work in favor of cryogens.
Click to expand...
Hydrolox sucks, it's so hold that even just parking tanks in open space won't be cold enough without some significant help.

IIRC the good option is liquid Methane for fuel and a mix of LOx and ... N2O(?) as the oxidizer, because that mix is still liquid at something silly like -40deg. Long term storable.
 
spacenews.com

Intuitive Machines making upgrades to second lunar lander

Intuitive Machines says it has identified several changes it will make to its Nova-C lunar lander ahead of its second mission late this year.
spacenews.com spacenews.com

Altemus (Steve Altemus, CEO of Intuitive Machines) added that the company plans to submit a proposal to NASA for industry studies for a revised Mars Sample Return program that could bring back samples cached by the Perseverance rover faster and less expensively than the agency’s own baseline plan. “Intuitive Machines has engaged the agency and intends to provide a solution set based on a technology architecture we have been developing for lunar material return,” he said, without elaborating.
Click to expand...
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hydrolox sucks, it's so hold that even just parking tanks in open space won't be cold enough without some significant help.

IIRC the good option is liquid Methane for fuel and a mix of LOx and ... N2O(?) as the oxidizer, because that mix is still liquid at something silly like -40deg. Long term storable.
Click to expand...
Methane and LOX is no different. Neither is close to liquid at -40
 
It is always good to look at different approaches.
Controlling temperatures will likely still be needed. I think Byeman said Delta II warmed its kerosene for energy where Zenit used denser chilled fuel--or vice versa.

In seemingly unrelated news--phys.org had an article called "Scientists generate heat over 1,000° C with solar power instead of fossil fuels.'

Perhaps on Mars this could keep chemicals lukewarm...but it may not scale---no amount of magnification will allow moonlight to burn a spot on paper, or so I heard at Cosmoquest.

In terms of propulsion, perhaps this new quartz solar heating element could serve to generate a non-nuclear NTR.

Solar Thermal needs you to carry the array with you.

Maybe this new method of solar energy could heat an element that--at maximum temperature--could be slammed home in the breach of a simple ARCA type water rocket to where it might actually have a chance to work.

Don't know if this could be done on Mars or not.

The idea is to keep a solar array in place allowing just a small rocket to benefit without its own solar collection apparatus.

An Estes bedwarmer, if you will.

Fireplace heats the rock--rock heats the bed...or something....

How interesting would it be, if the method of propulsion from War of the Worlds shot the MAV cylinder home...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom