Oh dear, things are not looking good. Trust the senate to get involved and slashing the budget as well, NASA won't be happy. :mad:
 
Apparently it’s the lander that’s driving the ballooning budget costs. Whether if it’s building was competed for rather than given to LM would drive down whoever makes is going to be very complex is anyone’s guess
 
Let's see if they can try and get the cost's down by some way Flyaway, it would be a shame if the powers that be cancel the lander as that was what Perseverance was all about.
 
An independent review of NASA's ambitious mission to return about half a kilogram of rocks and soil from the surface of Mars has found that the program is unworkable in its current form.

NASA had been planning to launch the critical elements of its Mars Sample Return mission, or MSR, as soon as 2028, with a total budget for the program of $4.4 billion. The independent review board's report, which was released publicly on Thursday, concludes that both this timeline and budget are wildly unrealistic.

Here’s the independent report on this proposed mission.

 
Oh dear not looking good for the NASA Mars Sample Return mission. Would it be possible to get a joint ESA/NASA sample return mission instead Flyaway? If it is funding that is the issue.
 
Oh dear not looking good for the NASA Mars Sample Return mission. Would it be possible to get a joint ESA/NASA sample return mission instead Flyaway? If it is funding that is the issue.
ESA as you can see are already involved in the project, not sure if they’d have the budget to contribute more than they already are.
 
Apparently it’s the lander that’s driving the ballooning budget costs. Whether if it’s building was competed for rather than given to LM would drive down whoever makes is going to be very complex is anyone’s guess
LM is not building it. It is JPL inhouse.
 
I can't shake the feeling that trying to do the sample collection with the current rover and then build a separate mission to pick up the samples and fly them home is the most Rube Goldberg way possible to build this mission.

OTOH, a single mission to collect samples and fly them home probably does end up being the sort of Battlestar Galactic mission they're trying to avoid.

Honestly, the energy budgets for MSR are terrible all around and it may just not be feasible within the current state of the art.
 
I can't shake the feeling that trying to do the sample collection with the current rover and then build a separate mission to pick up the samples and fly them home is the most Rube Goldberg way possible to build this mission.

OTOH, a single mission to collect samples and fly them home probably does end up being the sort of Battlestar Galactic mission they're trying to avoid.

Honestly, the energy budgets for MSR are terrible all around and it may just not be feasible within the current state of the art.
they don't want samples from just one spot
 
they don't want samples from just one spot

I'm aware. It's just that the idea of dumping the samples on the ground and planning another rover just to go pick them up and mount them on an ascent stage seems a bit baroque.

However, there's probably no economical way to build a mission to collect samples from a wide area while also carrying the ascent stage on the same vehicle. It just takes too much energy/mass.
 
I'm aware. It's just that the idea of dumping the samples on the ground and planning another rover just to go pick them up and mount them on an ascent stage seems a bit baroque.

However, there's probably no economical way to build a mission to collect samples from a wide area while also carrying the ascent stage on the same vehicle. It just takes too much energy/mass
there is no second rover. Just helicopters
The prime samples are onboard Perseverance
 
there is no second rover. Just helicopters
The prime samples are onboard Perseverance

I must be misremembering.

I could have sworn there was a version of the mission architecture that needed a small rover to go collect samples tubes dropped by the main rover and load them on the ascent vehicle. Maybe before Ingenuity proved out?
 
there is no second rover. Just helicopters
The prime samples are onboard Perseverance
The helicopters are a backup to the rover. In fact this report has told them to cut the number of helicopters from two to one.
 
Casey Handmer offers up some colorful commentary about that interview.

 
Nope. There was a plan in the early 1970s (around 1974/75 I think) to use a Viking lander as the basis for a follow up mission to Viking 1 and 2 that would have returned soil samples to earth via a rocket to a orbiter that would have returned to earth, where the samples would have in turn been delivered via re-entry capsule. NASA may have been planning mid-air retrieval for that phase but I'm not sure.

There was even earlier plans for sample return missions on both sides of the Iron Curtain. For example from 1966 (as part of a manned Mars flyby intended to be launched in September 1975):


EDIT:
About Soviet project Mars 5M return in the 70's

 
I wouldn’t think the LEM would be suitable for Mars in the FLEM proposal as depicted.
 
Speaks for itself as they say.

The NASA OIG has released the Audit of the Mars Sample Return Program today (Feb. 28).

WHAT WE FOUND

The MSR Program is facing significant obstacles completing its Formulation Phase—establishing a stable design with realistic cost and schedule estimates—in a timely and effective manner. As the Program prepares to recommend a life-cycle cost and schedule baseline at KDP-C, those obstacles include schedule and design/architecture issues with the CCRS. The CCRS’s Preliminary Design Review—which demonstrates the design is complete and meets all system requirements—was scheduled for October 2022 but was not completed until December 2023. To simplify the CCRS’s design, changes were made to its sample container sterilization system; however, the new system’s effectiveness must be studied, and the technology matured, before it can be used in space.

These schedule and design issues, adding about $200 million to the budget and resulting in one year of lost schedule, can be attributed in part to inadequate guidance during the Pre-Formulation Phase, a problem experienced by several NASA large flagship missions. NASA completed a Large Mission Study in October 2020 that noted while large missions require greater priority, resources, and attention during pre-formulation when key architecture decisions are made, little guidance exists to guide activities during this period. NASA has yet to incorporate the study’s results into its practices for these missions. Considering the CCRS’s schedule and design issues, the MSR Program is at least 7 months behind schedule in completing its Formulation Phase as its KDP-C, originally scheduled for August 2023, will not occur until at least March 2024.

The trajectory of the MSR Program’s life-cycle cost estimate, which has grown from $2.5 to $3 billion in July 2020, to $6.2 billion at KDP-B in September 2022, to an unofficial estimate of $7.4 billion as of June 2023 raises questions about the affordability of the Program. Characteristics intrinsic to big and complex missions like the MSR Program are hard to quantify in estimates but can drive project costs upwards throughout development. These include fully understanding the mission’s complexity, initial over-optimism, a less than optimal design/architecture, and the team’s ability to perform to expectations. When developing its cost and schedule estimate for KDP-C, and as the MSR Program addresses its architecture issues, Program management must consider these intrinsic characteristics and not attribute past cost growth to just the COVID-19 pandemic, inflation, or supply chain issues.

Additionally, MSR Program formulation is impacted by coordination challenges between NASA and ESA. While communication processes are formally documented and being followed, NASA and ESA are experiencing issues related to schedule transparency, asynchronous design progress, and mass allocation, which appear to stem from differing operational approaches, acquisition strategies, and agency funding mechanisms. The CCRS project team noted that significant progress has been made addressing interface issues between the two entities.

The MSR Program recently acknowledged it likely cannot meet the life-cycle cost estimate and launch dates established at KDP-B. A September 2023 report by an Independent Review Board recommended the Program consider modifications to specific mission designs. Accordingly, it is critical that before the MSR Program is approved to proceed from formulation into development, viable alternatives to the Program’s mission architecture are considered—including mission launch and sample return alternatives—as well as the value of the samples returned, the Program’s schedule, life-cycle cost estimate, and the Agency’s historic leadership position in space exploration.

 
Nope. There was a plan in the early 1970s (around 1974/75 I think) to use a Viking lander as the basis for a follow up mission to Viking 1 and 2 that would have returned soil samples to earth via a rocket to a orbiter that would have returned to earth, where the samples would have in turn been delivered via re-entry capsule. NASA may have been planning mid-air retrieval for that phase but I'm not sure.

There was even earlier plans for sample return missions on both sides of the Iron Curtain. For example from 1966 (as part of a manned Mars flyby intended to be launched in September 1975):


EDIT:
The 74 study Capture d’écran 2024-03-03 à 10.43.42.png
 
Wade got aspects of FLEM wrong I think.

Portree’s take:

If that had any kind of lander at all it would be small—like here:

That’s about as bare bones as you can make it. Telephone poles are fine for Earth rockets—on Mars you need something nice and squat.

Don’t know why Wade had an Apollo era LM depicted….maybe the phrase about Mars just being “the Moon with bad weather” stuck in his head ;)
 
Last edited:

The Planetary Society said in a March 7 it was happy the bill was done ...

However, the organization noted that the overall cut in NASA funding was focused almost entirely on NASA’s planetary science programs, specifically Mars Sample Return (MSR). “While Congress provided MSR with flexibility in its funding in 2024 and — crucially — emphasized its priority role in the program, the $483 million cut to the planetary division’s topline effectively ensures that MSR remains on ice for the remainder of the fiscal year,” the organization stated. “Raiding one division to support others is not a sustainable path forward for any decadal priority nor for balance within NASA’s science directorate.”
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom