NASA needs new ideas and tech to get Mars Sample Return mission off the ground
- Reference: 1713250628
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/04/16/nasa_msr_mission_update/
- Source link:
MSR, which would see NASA collect a series of [1]Martian rock samples for return to Earth, has struggled since its inception. A report issued by a NASA Independent Review Board last year found that the program's budget had exploded and this, along with [2]other problems uncovered by the Board, meant the MSR mission appeared to be in danger of failing.
"Mars Sample Return will be one of the most complex missions NASA has ever undertaken. The bottom line is an $11 billion budget is too expensive, and a 2040 return date is too far away," NASA administrator Bill Nelson explained during a conference call on Monday. "We need to look outside the box to find a way ahead that is both affordable and returns samples in a reasonable timeframe."
[3]
According to Nelson, MSR's costs must fall to between $5 to $7 billion to avoid the agency having to cannibalize other programs.
[4]
[5]
He also wants the Mars rocks to reach Earth before 2040, because "That's the same decade we want to put astronauts on Mars.”
NASA will therefore engage with the USA’s growing private space industry, its own Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and other NASA centers for ideas on how to reduce the cost of the program.
[6]
Concept art of the Mars Sample Return mission's various components – Click to enlarge
Nicky Fox, associate administrator of the NASA Science Mission Directorate, revealed on the call that the agency plans to release its solicitation notice for MSR partners on Tuesday, and plans to hold an industry day for the project next week. Proposals from collaborators will be due by May 17. said NASA wants full studies completed within 90 days so it can determine who'll get funding before the end of 2024.
In a [7]response [PDF] to the Independent Board’s MSR report from last year published on Monday, Fox explained NASA is soliciting "innovative" ideas for the mission such as a smaller Mars Ascent Vehicle (the craft that will carry the samples from the surface into orbit) and other forms of tech that would reduce the budget, mission complexity, and risk.
[8]
With so much money on the line in the face of NASA's [9]budgetary woes , a mere $310 million has been allotted to MSR in the current fiscal year. Fox explained that meant the program is effectively paused in light of the findings from the IRB.
[10]Dragonfly delayed – formal confirmation of journey to Saturn's moon slips into 2024
[11]NASA's satellite pit stop project runs out of gas
[12]Hundreds of workers to space out from NASA's JPL amid budget black hole
[13]NASA's Mars Sample Return Program struggles to get off the drawing board
The $310 million, Fox added, will only be used to complete NASA's internal review of MSR, solicit the studies from industry partners, and continue work on any aspects of MSR that could still end up being used in future iterations of the scheme.
Both Nelson and Fox said several times on the call that MSR remains a priority mission for NASA and that they want the project to continue. Nelson explained that the agency made the choice to continue the program because it's too important to the US's science goals to cancel.
"We were put in this situation because of cutbacks in spending by Congress," Nelson lamented. "That's the whole point of what we've announced today."
Is MSR effectively over?
[14]Garry Hunt – principal investigator on the imaging team for NASA'S Voyager mission and a long-time JPL research scientist – told The Register that news of the MSR project has him worried.
"When Bill Nelson said the only way we could [launch MSR] the way it's set up now is to cannibalize other missions I was worried," Hunt said. "We cannot gamble on these things."
Hunt told us that he believes the US must succeed with MSR, but it has to move the timeline up. "If NASA can't bring this forward the Chinese will have been there and done it," Hunt warned.
[15]
"This mission has got to succeed," he added, saying that the US's national space prestige is at risk. Hunt believes JPL should take a leadership role in the future of MSR, with the best of the private American space industry used to form the rest of the team.
"America should use its total space capabilities," Hunt declared, arguing that they aren't all found in NASA labs. If the agency can put together the right team Hunt believes the mission can succeed.
When asked what would happen if NASA can't find a way to shrink the MSR's budget to $7 billion and get samples back to Earth before 2040, NASA administrator Nelson didn't mince words, either: "There's no reason not to try." ®
Get our [16]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/29/nasa_martian_sample_return/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/25/nasas_mars_sample_return_mission/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Zh5MPh@phGuNz-et-5ZvkwAAANQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Zh5MPh@phGuNz-et-5ZvkwAAANQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Zh5MPh@phGuNz-et-5ZvkwAAANQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://regmedia.co.uk/2023/09/25/mars-sample-return.jpg
[7] https://science.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/mirt-04152024-updated-signed.pdf
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Zh5MPh@phGuNz-et-5ZvkwAAANQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/12/nasas_fy2025_budget_request_means/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/29/dragonfly_delayed_formal_confirmation_slips/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/04/nasa_osam1_satellite_servicing/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/07/nasa_jpl_layoffs/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/04/mars_sample_return_audit_warnings/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2018/09/18/garry_hunt_interview/
[15] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Zh5MPh@phGuNz-et-5ZvkwAAANQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[16] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Priorities. Decision time.
Since the time scale of the sample return mission is starting to look very similar to a mission to send people to Mars, it is time for a decision. Sample Return is very very expensive. Humans on Mars is very very very very expensive. Do one, or the other well, or do both badly, possibly resulting in a failure to do either. The only sure thing on cost and time is that they will get higher and longer respectively for both missions.
Re: Priorities. Decision time.
Part of the problem with sample return is that it's been re-scoped at least twice. There was a plan to build "fetch" rovers to collect the samples, the plan was then modified a few years later to use helicopters. If they had stuck with the original plan, the fetch rovers *could* have been being manufactured by now. e.g. at one point, the plan was for the "fetch" rovers to use the same radio design as the ESA EXOMars rover, meaning there was no design work to do. Re-use of already designed parts could really keep the mission cost down, and speed up the launch date.
Re: The other rescopes
One of the early plans was a ~100kg rocket to go from Mars surface to low Mars orbit (LMO) then transfer the samples to a vehicle able to get them back to Earth.
That plan got killed because people decided the transfer in orbit was too difficult.
The revised plan required landing all the kit required for LMO->Earth on Mars with a big rocket to lift it back to LMO.
That plan did not last long because it is too big fo parachutes + hovering sky crane.
Next up, do not land the return propellant but manufacture it out of CO2 and ice.
Another plan is to make some dinky pump fed hypergolic propellant rockets that have better thrust to weight ratio than pressure fed hypergolics.
Every one of these plans requires making kit that has no other purpose than to return a few hundred grams of samples to Earth. It would be like flags and foot prints on the Moon then cancel for 50 years because it is too expensive. I would go for a five year delay on Mars sample return studies, work on making access to space cheaper then look at what can be done with kit available off the shelf at that time. There will be plenty of flag waving opportunities with Artemis, plenty of new capabilities. The interest generated could be enough to fund MSR and get it ready to go before people get thoroughly bored of yet another Moon mission.
Re: Priorities. Decision time.
Sample return is much cheaper than putting humans on Mars. There is no need for months or years of food supplies, equipment for air and water recycling. Radiation shielding can (mostly) be done away with in favour of using radiation hardened electronics. And, at the end, the mission will be to return a mass to earth measured in kilograms, rather than potentially tonnes when you include all the things required to get a squishy human from Mars surface to orbit safely. And don't forget the mass budget for fuel to bring the spacecraft earthwards. The heavier the return craft, the more fuel you will need to transfer from a martian orbit to an earth orbit.
Re: Priorities. Decision time.
But on the other hand, humans find it remarkably easy to (a) select 'interesting' looking rocks and (b) pick them up and stow them away in a locker, even if the lid won't shut.
Sensible suggestion
Get the guys from Iron Sky to go to Mars.
They have an easier gravity well and superior technology.
Don't forget that they designed the first rocket to put an American into orbit. (The Yankee ones were only good enough for short hops.)
They followed up with the rockets for Gemini and Apollo.
Credit where credit's due.