Mars Sample Return

Foust Forward | Who gets the final word on Mars Sample Return?

The timeline for NASA’s MSR assessment means that a decision might be made just before the Trump administration takes office. While the incoming administration has said nothing about MSR specifically, it’s likely they will, at the very least, review any decision made by NASA Administrator Bill Nelson in what are likely his final weeks on the job.

Radical changes to the program could be on the table. A program that is years behind schedule and billions of dollars over its initial cost projections could become a target for a Trump administration focused on slashing government spending. On the other hand, canceling MSR would open the door for China to become the first nation to return samples from Mars, dealing a blow to American leadership in space exploration.

Alternatively, MSR could be overtaken by events. Elon Musk has discussed sending Starships to Mars as soon as 2026. With Musk in Trump’s inner circle, he could make the case for using Starships to return samples faster and cheaper than conventional approaches. SpaceX is among the companies that participated in the MSR studies, but has shared no details about its proposal, other than indicating it would rely on Starship.
Click to expand...
 
Let's wait and see what happens when the new Trump administration enters office, NASA needs a new administrator pronto for the Mars Sample Return mission to get of the ground.
 
Falcon Heavy enough?

Starship as a whole too big to sterilize easily...JPL may not like that.
 
FighterJock said:
Let's wait and see what happens when the new Trump administration enters office, NASA needs a new administrator pronto for the Mars Sample Return mission to get of the ground.
Click to expand...

I wonder if we will see a return of Jim Bridenstine as NASA administrator?
 
So will Jared Isaacman be pro sample return or against it GTX? I suppose that it will be interesting to see what happens when the new administration enters office.
 
He *might* allow one more flight of SLS (heck, even Paul Allen's sister wasn't that mean)--but MSR looks as dead as my states chance of passing a lottery bill.

Maybe--maybe...MSR supporters could endure the oncoming storm by siding with pro-SLS forces...they would fall independently. otherwise and even after a shotgun wedding things still don't look good.

The planetary protection Faucis will scream--but Starship is coming--an SLS/FH launched craft would be simpler to clean.

America doesn't need Marshall to launch probes--but with NewSpace, America may not need a JPL to build them either.

Hey Pasadena! We have an old saying in the South:

"Dance with them that bring ya."

Now we're both out in the cold.
I have cancer--so my dancing days are purt' near over, anyway.

What killed Old Space wasn't Elon--it was infighting--failure of vested interests to get along.

And it isn't just in spaceflight...
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
America doesn't need Marshall to launch probes--but with NewSpace, America may not need a JPL to build them either.
Click to expand...
That would be wrong. Launch vehicles are easier than spacecraft. CLPS is proof.
 
What about a joint ESA/NASA mission to save on costs? I would rather see that than the mission getting cancled outright.
 
ESA makes the service module for Orion, right? They are going to try to save that--besides, it was part of ARM as I recall --and MSR might need it similarly

MSR/Artemis have to join forces.

The human vs. robotic infighting has weakened both to the point of cancellation--and now Elon has put his wedge in the crack and Trump to hammer it home.

To me, this all goes back to Europa Clipper...which was the equivalent of you picking up a hitchhiker to be nice, only for him to be repo man who tows your new car off after a hospital stay lays you up. Trying to do the right thing backfires--and no good deed goes unpunished.

That's a bad feeling, trust me.
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
MSR/Artemis have to join forces.

The human vs. robotic infighting has weakened both to the point of cancellation--and now Elon has put his wedge in the crack and Trump to hammer it home.
Click to expand...
that would be wrong. they are unrelated and different budgets
publiusr said:
The human vs. robotic infighting has weakened both to the point of cancellation-
Click to expand...
What "infighting'? proof please.

publiusr said:
and now Elon has put his wedge in the crack and Trump to hammer it home.
Click to expand...
What "wedge'? proof please.
publiusr said:
To me, this all goes back to Europa Clipper...which was the equivalent of you picking up a hitchhiker to be nice, only for him to be repo man who tows your new car off after a hospital stay lays you up. Trying to do the right thing backfires--and no good deed goes unpunished.
Click to expand...
Huh? The problem was Europa Clipper shouldn't have been on SLS in first place.

So, the correct analogy is the equivalent of being forced to ride on oversized expensive off-roader with a rough ride. And it is going to pick you up late. And then jumping on to an opportunity to take a cheaper, more reliable SUV with a smooth ride that will get you there but just a little later. And the funny thing is that taking the longer way there is also cheaper than leaving later with shorter ride. (Prelaunch manpower costs are higher than operations teams costs).

publiusr said:
That's a bad feeling, trust me.
Click to expand...
Why should we? You have been consistently wrong about current and historic events with your offbase interpretations.
 
Last edited:
Anyway here is the two propose Chinese Mars sample return mission timeline in case anyone want comparison.


Liu Jizhong, chief designer of Tianwen-3, shared plans for consecutive launches using Long March 5 rockets. Mission may launch components in Nov-Dec 2028, land on Mars in Aug-Sep 2029, and return samples by July 2031. Source:https://m.weibo.cn/status/OvT9Wto3Y
Click to expand...
Plan 1

Mars Orbiter/Returner launch on Long March 5 in November of 2028
Lander/Ascender launch on Long March 5 in December 2028
Orbiter/Returner arrive in Mars orbit in August 2029
Lander make landing on Mars in August or September 2029
Ascender took off with sample around February-March 2030
Returner return to Earth in October or November 2030, and arrive on Earth in July 2031

Plan 2
Lander/Ascender Launch on Long March 5 in May 2028
Mars Orbiter/Returner Launch on Long March 5 in November 2028
Orbiter/Returner arrive in Mars orbit in September 2029
Lander make landing in July 2030
Ascender took off in October 2030
Returner make it way back in November 2030 arriving on Earth in July 2031
 
Outgoing NASA administrator urges incoming leaders to stick with Artemis plan [Jan 6]

Ars: What's going on with the Mars Sample Return mission? You made an important decision about a year ago by shutting the current program down for a re-think.

Bill Nelson: On Tuesday, we're going to announce the Mars sample return decisions, and it will not put the new administration in a box. We're going to work it up with options for them to consider, and then, in large part, it's going to be their decisions because of the funding. But sooner or later, the samples will be returned from Mars, and therefore, we will have an idea that millions of years ago, was there life on Mars? And what happened? And what can we learn if there was life that we could become better stewards of ours?

Ars: Do you think you have some options that are affordable for the mission? From a schedule and cost standpoint, it was looking pretty untenable.

Bill Nelson: Well, that's why I pulled the plug on it, because it was too costly, and it was going to take all the way to 2040, and that's unacceptable. So I think you will see in the options that we're going to present on Tuesday that our desire to bring it in quicker and cheaper is certainly doable.
Click to expand...
 
NASA to Explore Two Landing Options for Returning Samples from Mars [Jan 7]

To maximize chances of successfully bringing the first Martian rock and sediment samples to Earth for the benefit of humanity, NASA announced Tuesday a new approach to its Mars Sample Return Program. The agency will simultaneously pursue two landing architectures, or strategic plans, during formulation, encouraging competition and innovation, as well as cost and schedule savings.

NASA plans to later select a single path forward for the program, which aims to better understand the mysteries of the universe, and to help determine whether the Red Planet ever hosted life. NASA is expected to confirm the program – and its design – in the second half of 2026.

“Pursuing two potential paths forward will ensure that NASA is able bring these samples back from Mars with significant cost and schedule saving compared to the previous plan,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “These samples have the potential to change the way we understand Mars, our universe, and – ultimately – ourselves. I’d like to thank the team at NASA and the strategic review team, led by Dr. Maria Zuber, for their work.”

In September 2024, the agency accepted 11 studies from the NASA community and industry on how best to return Martian samples to Earth. A Mars Sample Return Strategic Review team was charged with assessing the studies and then recommending a primary architecture for the campaign, including associated cost and schedule estimates.

“NASA’s rovers are enduring Mars’ harsh environment to collect ground-breaking science samples,” said Nicky Fox, who leads NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. “We want to bring those back as quickly as possible to study them in state-of-the-art facilities. Mars Sample Return will allow scientists to understand the planet’s geological history and the evolution of climate on this barren planet where life may have existed in the past and shed light on the early solar system before life began here on Earth. This will also prepare us to safely send the first human explorers to Mars.”

During formulation, NASA will proceed with exploring and evaluating two distinct means of landing the payload platform on Mars. The first option will leverage previously flown entry, descent, and landing system designs, namely the sky crane method, demonstrated with the Curiosity and Perseverance missions. The second option will capitalize on using new commercial capabilities to deliver the lander payload to the surface of Mars.

For both potential options, the mission’s landed platform will carry a smaller version of the Mars Ascent Vehicle. The platform’s solar panels will be replaced with a radioisotope power system that can provide power and heat through the dust storm season at Mars, allowing for reduced complexity.

The orbiting sample container will hold 30 of the sample tubes containing samples the Perseverance lander has been collecting from the surface of Mars. A redesign of the sample loading system on the lander, which will place the samples into the orbiting sample container, simplifies the backward planetary protection implementation by eliminating the accumulation of dust on the outside of the sample container.

Both mission options rely on a capture, containment and return system aboard ESA’s (European Space Agency’s) Earth Return Orbiter to capture the orbiting sample container in Mars orbit. ESA is evaluating NASA’s plan.
Click to expand...
 
NASA WILL FINALIZE MARS SAMPLE RETURN ARCHITECTURE NEXT YEAR

NASA Will Finalize Mars Sample Return Architecture Next Year

Posted: January 7, 2025 6:46 pm ET | Last Updated: January 7, 2025 9:18 pm ET | NASA has decided to wait until mid-2026 to choose a final architecture for the Mars Sample Return mission while they do engineering studies of two options: either use JPL's sky crane or a commercially provided heavy...
spacepolicyonline.com

arstechnica.com

NASA defers decision on Mars Sample Return to the Trump administration

“We want to have the quickest, cheapest way to get these 30 samples back.”…
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com

One source with experience in crafting and implementing US space policy told Ars that Nelson's deferral on a decision will "tee up MSR for canceling." Faced with a decision to spend billions of dollars on a robotic sample return or billions of dollars to go toward a human mission to Mars, the Trump administration will likely choose the latter, the source said.
Click to expand...

In a statement, the Planetary Society said it is "concerned that NASA is again delaying a decision on the program, committing only to additional concept studies."

"It has been more than two years since NASA paused work on MSR," the Planetary Society said. "It is time to commit to a path forward to ensure the return of the samples already being collected by the Perseverance rover.

"We urge the incoming Trump administration to expedite a decision on a path forward for this ambitious project, and for Congress to provide the funding necessary to ensure the return of these priceless samples from the Martian surface."
Click to expand...
 
If China is on schedule seems like they could potentially get the first sample.

Sure American mission are a lot more extensive and impressive.

But historical win of being the first does have prestige of it own.
 
Which is why NASA has to stop messing about with funding and get the samples back home.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1876878068918489409
View: https://twitter.com/RocketLab/status/1876878068918489409


We can wait another year, or we can get started now.

Our Mars Sample Return architecture will put Martian samples in the hands of scientists faster and more affordably. Less than $4 billion, with samples returned as early as 2031.

This is not our first encounter with the Red Planet. The orbiters, rovers, landers, and helicopters of Mars all bear Rocket Lab’s fingerprints. We can deliver MSR mission success too.

More: http://rocketlabusa.com/missions/mars-sample-return/
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1876834824100401519
View: https://twitter.com/Peter_J_Beck/status/1876834824100401519


Or…a better 3rd option- Rocket Lab does it for billions less and years earlier using our proposed architecture.
Click to expand...
 
[Rocket Lab] got little response from NASA on its MSR study. “It was pretty frustrating,” French said. “We received very little to no feedback on our inputs.”

He said Rocket Lab wants NASA, rather than to continue studies of MSR, instead open the program to a commercial competition. “If NASA wants to show leadership, it’s to lean into commercial capability and be bold and compete,” he argued. “We’re pretty hopeful with what the new administration is going to bring and how they respond to this set of recommendations.”
Click to expand...

spacenews.com

Rocket Lab asks NASA to open up MSR to commercial competition

Rocket Lab is asking the incoming administration to reconsider NASA’s plans for Mars Sample Return (MSR), arguing it can offer a better alternative.
spacenews.com spacenews.com
 
So they should Flyaway, it would be good to see NASA working alongside commercial competition to get the Mars samples back to Earth.
 
Boeing Idea of MSR
SLS /manned Orion capsule /habitat and power block
somewhere at $30 Billion program cost
https://twitter.com/x/status/1883027289191088210
View: https://twitter.com/SpaceBasedFox/status/1883027289191088210


Boeing Management must be on Drugs...
FrankBooth.jpg
 
In my opinion it would be much cheaper to send an automated laboratory with Artificial Intelligence to Mars and do all the tests in situ directing the procedures from Earth. Money is much needed here and now for other much more vital things.

First, we must become strong, rich and vital, then all that thing of planting the flag in other worlds.
 
I agree with you too Justo Miranda, anything to keep costs down would be beneficial to help in saving the Mars Sample Return mission.
 
Justo Miranda said:
In my opinion it would be much cheaper to send an automated laboratory with Artificial Intelligence to Mars and do all the tests in situ directing the procedures from Earth.
Click to expand...
that is contradictory.
1. Don't need AI if "directing" the procedures from earth
2. There is little AI can do. The laboratory would be quite limited in what it can analyze.
3. We have done as much as can done with the limited mass available. it would be cheaper to bring the samples back to do the proper analysis.
 
Byeman said:
that is contradictory.
1. Don't need AI if "directing" the procedures from earth
2. There is little AI can do. The laboratory would be quite limited in what it can analyze.
3. We have done as much as can done with the limited mass available. it would be cheaper to bring the samples back to do the proper analysis.
Click to expand...
You got it wrong: we sent a laboratory with AI to do all the necessary analyses making its own decisions and we from Earth decide if it has done a good job or should repeat the tests using a different procedure, which is what we should have done with the Vikings.
 
Justo Miranda said:
You got it wrong: we sent a laboratory with AI to do all the necessary analyses making its own decisions and we from Earth decide if it has done a good job or should repeat the tests using a different procedure, which is what we should have done with the Vikings.
Click to expand...
wrong. There isn't enough mass to allow for a proper"laboratory" on Mars. AI can't help because if you don't have the necessary instruments, tools or chemicals, you can't do a "different procedure". Also, how is AI going to determine if it has done a "good job"? What would AI base that on?

The fact that you think that is what we should have done with Viking means you don't even understand the basic problem. There couldn't be a "laboratory" on Viking due to limited mass available. Scientists came up with three experiments that would detect life.
There were a fixed number of tests by these experiments that could be done due to limited chemicals, tools, instruments, etc. Some items were single use only such as ovens due to the inability to clean them out and then resterilize them (there were multiple ovens to allow for multiple runs). AI would not have helped or change anything.

For instance, take a simple test such as soil acidity, which just take litmus paper and distilled water. You can only do so many tests as long as you have paper and water. But what do you do if you get different results each time? You can't get more paper or water. You can't get a different comparison chart or a different sets of eyes. You can't get a pH meter.
 
Byeman said:
wrong. There isn't enough mass to allow for a proper"laboratory" on Mars. AI can't help because if you don't have the necessary instruments, tools or chemicals, you can't do a "different procedure". Also, how is AI going to determine if it has done a "good job"? What would AI base that on?

The fact that you think that is what we should have done with Viking means you don't even understand the basic problem. There couldn't be a "laboratory" on Viking due to limited mass available. Scientists came up with three experiments that would detect life.
There were a fixed number of tests by these experiments that could be done due to limited chemicals, tools, instruments, etc. Some items were single use only such as ovens due to the inability to clean them out and then resterilize them (there were multiple ovens to allow for multiple runs). AI would not have helped or change anything.

For instance, take a simple test such as soil acidity, which just take litmus paper and distilled water. You can only do so many tests as long as you have paper and water. But what do you do if you get different results each time? You can't get more paper or water. You can't get a different comparison chart or a different sets of eyes. You can't get a pH meter.
Click to expand...
If we are not able to build a robot laboratory that does this work, we will not be able to bring the Martian soil samples "automatically" either, the technological level is similar in both cases. There is also the danger that what the probe brings us is another Andromeda Strain, better to detect it there than in Tedros' WHO.
 

Attachments

  • unnamed.jpg
    unnamed.jpg
    36.1 KB · Views: 3
  • Tedros-Adhanom-Ghebreyesus.jpg
    Tedros-Adhanom-Ghebreyesus.jpg
    76 KB · Views: 3
Byeman said:
wrong. There isn't enough mass to allow for a proper"laboratory" on Mars. AI can't help because if you don't have the necessary instruments, tools or chemicals, you can't do a "different procedure". Also, how is AI going to determine if it has done a "good job"? What would AI base that on?
Click to expand...
Well, we could free a lot of mass if the laboratory would stay on Martian orbit, and sample-recovery rockets would dock with it. Basically a big Martian sattelite with robotic autolabs & docking nodes, allowing to dock additional research modules, if required. The sampling rockets would be send as separate missions over many years, gathering probes all across Mars and docking with the lab sattelite to unload them.
 
Justo Miranda said:
If we are not able to build a robot laboratory that does this work, we will not be able to bring the Martian soil samples "automatically" either, the technological level is similar in both cases.
Click to expand...
wrong, the technology is not at all the same. Lunar samples have already been brought to earth "automatically" by USSR and China. Retrieving samples from Mars, robotically, is only a cost issue and not a technology issue. It is matter of the size of the spacecraft(s) (and hence launch vehicle (s)).

Building at "remote" automated laboratory is issue, because there is no such thing, especially one that would operate in the environment of the Mars surface after enduring earth launch, transit and Mars landing. There are no life detection analyzers. Like most robotic probe payloads, it would have to bespoke. The process would have to start with determining what tests can be done and can be adapted. The tests don't actually detect life but changes due to life processes (maybe a microscope can be included but some of the samples would have to be processed to allow for viewing. Once the tests are determined, then experiments can be designed for each test with sample handing mechanisms, manipulators, instruments and analyzers specific to each test. All these items would be bespoke because there are no off the shelf equivalents. Each experiment would have to be isolated from each other to prevent cross contamination. This is same process that was used for the Viking "laboratory" and its three test/experiments. the differences in today's technology isn't going to change this. Technology may enable new and different tests and operating them easier. AI isn't going going to change much, it can't change the experiments or add more. The only things that can be changed once the experiments are designed and built are variables like temperatures, amounts of reactants, durations, etc.
 
Dilandu said:
Well, we could free a lot of mass if the laboratory would stay on Martian orbit, and sample-recovery rockets would dock with it. Basically a big Martian sattelite with robotic autolabs & docking nodes, allowing to dock additional research modules, if required. The sampling rockets would be send as separate missions over many years, gathering probes all across Mars and docking with the lab sattelite to unload them.
Click to expand...
Not really,
a. braking into Mars orbit uses a lot of propellant.
b. zero g causes a whole lot of sample manipulation issues
c. only a lab in polar orbit can accessible to sites all across Mars but is hard to launch into and deliver items to.
d. Doesn't make sense to add onto it because crew missions would be happening before the need to add to it
 
Justo Miranda said:
Of course it is not the same, it is much cheaper and less dangerous, bad news for civil servant-type scientists.
Click to expand...
That is just plain idiotic response. Nobody is talking about a crew mission. Your point was comparing a robotic laboratory and robotically returning samples (which are not as the same technology level). Not crew retrieved samples.
Additionally, NASA astronauts are not "civil servant-type scientists". They are civil servant or military astronauts.
 
Byeman said:
a. braking into Mars orbit uses a lot of propellant.
Click to expand...
Aerobraking with inflatable shell could solve the problem.

Byeman said:
b. zero g causes a whole lot of sample manipulation issues
Click to expand...
Rotating section?

Byeman said:
c. only a lab in polar orbit can accessible to sites all across Mars but is hard to launch into and deliver items to.
Click to expand...
Any other mission profile would meet even harder problems, you know. Polar orbit station at least make it possible to access all interesting areas of Mars. Neither Mars-to-Earth sample return nor manned expedition would not have such mission agility.

Byeman said:
d. Doesn't make sense to add onto it because crew missions would be happening before the need to add to it
Click to expand...
We aren't sure when exactly Martian manned missions would starts, and anyway I suspect that Mars orbital station would be quite useful anyway. It's MUCH easier and cheaper to send humans to Low Martian Orbit than on Mars surface; and orbiting Martian station would allow real-time control of Mars probes and rovers, making the automatic missions much more efficient.

P.S. Actually, it may be quite a good idea to launch a server station with pathfinding AI running to control Martian rovers in real time. Current way of controlling rovers from Earth - with very long signal transmission and even longer path analysis - is highly inefficient. If we give rover controls to AI station on Martian orbit (with a set of relay sattelites around Mars), we could simplify the situation by just sending AI the generic orders "move the rover ten miles west to the A7543/b crater", leaving the pathfinding to AI.
 
Byeman said:
That is just plain idiotic response. Nobody is talking about a crew mission. Your point was comparing a robotic laboratory and robotically returning samples (which are not as the same technology level). Not crew retrieved samples.
Additionally, NASA astronauts are not "civil servant-type scientists". They are civil servant or military astronauts.
Click to expand...
No more free money for stupid projects and endless missions that go through Venus to Saturn, adding several years to the budget.

Welcome to reality.
 

Attachments

  • istockphoto-2045400088-612x612.jpg
    istockphoto-2045400088-612x612.jpg
    15.2 KB · Views: 1

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom