You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Fair enough, I appreciate the opinions. I'll probably think the MSR subject over a bit and come back to it. Hopefully, we'll see some opinions from different people too.
Again, a unmanned MSR mission might be a difficult sell to most Mars Society and SpaceX fans. Sometimes, I think that the science isn't important to many people, and they might suggest the advantages of human exploration of Mars for scientific studies as kind of a selling point more than scientific interest. I mean, what's the real goal; exploration/science, or just getting humans on Mars? Is it just an engineering endeavor?
If you really think that Mars study isn't that important, you may want to start saying that now. With technological advances within the next 20 years, exploration of the solar system is going to be fine without humans going along. For me, I honestly admit having humans go to Mars is not mostly about science. I'm interested in scientific study, but getting humans to Mars and it's scientific study are two different objectives.
I'm not so optimistic about the timelines I hear for 'boots on the ground.' I could see an orbital recon mission with sample return in about a 5 year timeframe. Say, two people with control over landing probes, drilling (I hope), and return of the samples. Even this would take substantial will and funding. I just don't see SpaceX paying the whole bill and doing aggressive things without the support of the federal government and NASA.
Some MSR particulars were discussed on the New Red Dragon subject, and I also see MSR comments many other places like the 2020 thread.
I believe that surface samples might be valuable, but perhaps from many different locations over Mars. Presently, a remote rover has very limited range capabilities. Maybe it's the transmit times, or perhaps just because of a lack of trust in AI capabilities.
There are images I've seen with the tracks of the later Apollo missions compared to Mars missions like MER. It really shows that human exploration goes much farther/quicker.
Remember with the premature end to the Apollo program, many people thought we didn't need additional lunar samples and the ones already collected would keep us busy enough? Later, we understood that there was a lot more to learn. The Moon is a big place; Mars is a big place. Just the permanently shadowed craters of the Moon would be great places to explore and collect samples. And, there has been a lot of work already done on drilling Lunar core samples. I recall receiving regolith simulant samples from NASA Ames like 10 years ago that they were using to develop drilling techniques.
So, I believe that MSR would be a good idea, but I think it should not be a two mission project like 2020 with a different lander-MSR vehicle, and instead an in-place drilling of core samples to a depth greater than 3 meters. We could go a lot deeper btw, and the Moon would be an excellent location to test drilling and returning samples.
Mars 20 2-whatever should identify the best place within it's range to collect core samples and deploy a transponder at the location for a later MSR mission. And, hopefully, not a lot later!
I kind of wanted to focus on the MSL vs no MSL thing first, then move on to samples, but perhaps that wasn't practical. Still interested in what others think about the merits of even having a unmanned MSR mission.
Yes, I recall seeing part of the quarantine trailer many years ago (the side with the door and window). I can't even recall where it was. The federal government had passed a regulation right before Apollo lunar landings called the Extra-Terrestrial Exposure Law. I wonder if it's still in effect? I've also seen one of the cases specially used for lunar samples. Wow, the sealing mechanism was incredible. So, plan on spending a million or so on travel luggage. :-)
Planetary protection and sample safety could be a subject of its own, because it can be complicated and controversial. Keep in mind that probe missions to Mars are aimed to miss Mars and only make the correction for final entry later. The subject of Mars protection is going to be big. For example, SpaceX has that moto of Occupy Mars. Even a little militant sounding. Employees of JPL would be wearing shirts that say Study Mars. Anyway, there's an obvious difference in opinion. Almost exploration vs. exploitation. Maybe we should know more before sending humans, and this would be a good argument for my position on having a MSR and maybe several missions first. Find a good location to start a human base and determine the levels of protection.
Anyway, in my opinion, no samples should be directly returned to Earth from Mars. Just look at what happened to the Genesis spacecraft. For me, it's the importance of preserving the valuable (and expensive) samples. Also, you must consider the possibility of some dangerous microbe - there's uncertainty. All samples should be placed in Earth orbit, retrieved and maybe delivered to a sample module on the ISS for study. Then, lots could be delivered on return crewed flights and further processed at laboratories on Earth. Same goes for lunar samples.
The "dusty catcher's mitt" mission is interesting. I recall the stardust mission. The main problem is that many scientists particularly geologists like to have context information for samples. Anyway, the article is from 2014; have they received any funding for this proposed mission to date?
Yes, this MSR subject sounds like it's going to be controversial which kind of surprises me. I thought the majority would indicate support. However, this is interesting in itself. If I would have posted to some other space exploration forum, you would expect people to say that robotic missions where far superior to human missions because humans are fragile and 'needy', that is, we require lots to exist in our comfort zone. But, within the context of a Mars Society forum, the big question is whether a MSR mission would help or hinder the goal of humans on Mars. I understand why there would be resistance. We received the first lunar samples from Apollo, haven't got any more samples, and the Moon is a lot closer. Again, interesting; what seems to be a totally anthropocentric view of studying and using Mars. Think about it; terraforming a planet is probably the opposite of planetary protection. But, there's another subject thread on terraforming I think, and we want to stay on topic.
Yes, NASA has problems with the execution of missions. There are problems with NASA centers cooperating and not being territorial. And, everyone seems to always want a piece of the pie. So, I wonder how much cooperation SpaceX is really going to get when it comes to things like unmanned/robotic missions. Even if it does speed things along and cost less.
So, continuing the topic specific, MSR or no MSR, I believe that at unmanned sample return would be a good use of time and money. It has the potential of yielding profound results. It would prove concepts, and demonstrate that the technology exists to return from Mars; even if it's some soil or water samples. People talk of 250 gram total sample return; one person weighs a lot more than that! It would provide the opportunity to test concepts for future human missions and perhaps identify things that would be very useful to development on Mars. I believe that the results, even if it doesn't prove life did or does exist, would encourage funding (and the necessary will) for human missions.
This is intended to be a general discussion of MSR. MSR is mentioned under many different subjects on this forum, and some posts go into details. This will allow general discussion of MSR and I would like to start with a discussion of Why a MSR Mission, and also Why Not MSR if you wish.
After we get the opportunity to provide opinions on the merits of MSR, I would like to shift to sample size and location. I see that often this is a first consideration, and then people tend to work backward from there.
Finally, perhaps we can discuss specific missions and maybe in some detail. These could be past, present, and your own concepts. BTW, I'm presently doing research on past concepts to gain some historical perspective on this subject.
I recall reading about the placement of transponders in The Case for Mars. So, if Red Dragon already has proven inertial navigation this would be a big plus. Still, was the plan for Red Dragon to land by 2020 or for 2020 to drive to Red Dragon? Maybe a little of both? Of course a problem is that good landing sites are usually not the most interesting locations for surface samples. Anyway, could 2020 provide the beacon to help guide Red Dragon to the landing site? Seems it would be favorable to have at least one external reference point. Additionally, it seems wait time would be critical for a Red Dragon sample return mission because of power. Sorry, but that's another problem I see with Red Dragon. What's the power source? The capsule doesn't work very well for the deployment of solar arrays. Maybe NASA would authorize RTG for a Red Dragon mission?
Perhaps the alternative should be that 2020 carries a transponder that would be placed at a particularly interesting site. Then, a future mission could be directed there to collect samples for return. So, no cache samples, just transponder placement.
Again, I think the Moon would be an excellent proving ground for sample collection and return. It doesn't have the narrow windows of opportunity and the relay of information is much better. But, I'm probably one of the most impatient people to get Mars Sample Return done.
Thanks again for your answers and clarification. There is so much information on this forum, and again I'm trying to learn how the forum operates. Remember, you all have been going at this for years and I'm a newbie. It took me almost a week to post, and just today I saw where to start a new topic.
Thank you for your patience if I went off topic and asked questions with obvious answers. I just learned more stuff by going back in this and related topics today.
For accuracy of landing, hasn't SpaceX demonstrated this by the recovery of the Falcon 9 first stage using grid fins and steerable engines? This is why I'm wondering why this same technology can't be used for a Mars landing. Not suggesting a Falcon 9 landing, but the mass would be pretty large, maybe a lot more mass than Dragon. But, the configuration of the landing craft (long tubular airframe with stable landing legs) would make it an excellent choice for a drilling rig and for the stable launch of an ascent rocket.
I'll be posting a new topic but I need a couple days to think it through. I hope you will join the conversation.
Yes! OMG, it took me a second after I read your post Oldfart1939, because I couldn't believe that someone could actually agree with me. The original things I didn't like about the Red Dragon concept was the ideas of deploying a rover, picking up cached samples from 2020, not using In-Situ LOX and maybe LCH4, the small sample size, and short stay. There are others, and I still think SpaceX could do better.
SpaceX is a capable company, but developing a rover would take a lot of resources and time they need for other things. Just look at the development and operation of rovers by JPL. It takes a lot of engineering and testing under strict conditions.
JPL is probably freaked out about cross-contamination, proper sealing, storage, and delivery of the samples to the 'delivery ship' which doesn't even exist. I don't blame them. The idea of collecting rover samples and delivery to another vehicle for transport is not good. Yes, debatable, but fraught with peril. Things like rendezvous on Mars. If the 2020 (2022?) rover can't deliver the samples, their mission would still be OK because of the other science. But, what about a Red Dragon with no rover bringing the samples? Yeah, that would be disappointing. Would you want to design, build, and actually fly a system when you don't know how it's going to be finished? 2020 should fly without cache samples; don't hold it up for this.
One mission, and could be Red Dragon; drill in place, and I would suggest contacting companies that drill core samples for a living before contacting JPL. Then, figure out a pneumatic transfer system with carousel storage and purging between samples. Give this challenge to all the young-smart people at SpaceX that never sleep or take a day off and they could do it.
Thank you. So, LCH4 does sound good, and maybe there would not be a significant boil off of LOX during the journey to Mars.
I'm serious about the topic of Mars Sample Return (MSR) at the conference. I see there has been a call for papers for presentation at the conference. It's interesting that there are related subjects suggested, but MSR is not specifically listed. What an interesting topic which includes this subject btw. (Had to mention to stay on topic.) The History and Future of MSR. Would you go to that presentation? Invite SpaceX to speak about Red Dragon, etc.
Recently, I've began to accept that I may never see humans on Mars in my lifetime. But, not seeing the sample return mission is difficult to swallow. There have been so many delays, and now missions are being linked to get this done, like Mars 2020 and a JPL return mission that's just some artist sketches with no funding.
Maybe it will come to giving a colonist some plastic bags and a box with a return label to JPL. :-) Sorry, guess I'm being a bit of a smart A. But, how many lunar samples did we have before Apollo??? I just though we had become more technically capable of robotic missions and getting this done would be so valuable. Hey, maybe cp30 will jump out a hatch from a Red Dragon to get those samples!
OK, I see what you mean with the positive attributes of the Dragon design and also the necessary landing scenario for large vehicles. But, would a landing from Mars orbit with power descent require such a substantial heat shield? Would a trade off between the energy and complexity of Mars orbit first vs. the difficulty of direct re-entry be worth it? And, of course how about getting back; direct to Earth vs. rendezvous in Mars orbit before the burn to Earth.
Again, doing some looking around on the forum, Mars Sample Return (MSR) is mentioned many times in many topics. It doesn't surprise me. MSR would be very important for science, testing and proving technology, and can't forget the psychology. After all, it's difficult to talk about sending humans when not one gram has ever been returned. Yeah, I know, there's the one-way trips.
I would like to start a new topic with just the subject Mars Sample Return Mission and just leave it open. NASA mission, SpaceX mission, In-Situ propellant production, whatever. It would be cool to see some summaries of previous suggestions and maybe some new ones. This would be an excellent subject for the Mars Society Annual Conference this year too.
But, before that, I would like your take on the use of propellants like LOX and RP-1 (LH2, Cryo Methane too) and their engines for Mars landing? Do you think these propellants and engines could be used for a long duration flight? Also, what would you think about using the same vehicles and collection methods proposed for MSR for Lunar Sample Return first? There are some really interesting possibilities for Lunar samples that where not collected during Apollo.
Thank you; that helps to make some sense on why this idea started. I took a look at the info from 2011 on the original Red Dragon topic. The background helps. I've been following the various ideas for a SRM for about 10 years now. Mainly because of my interest in rocketry and the rocket that would be used for the sample return from the surface of Mars.
Currently, I would think that SpaceX would conclude that sending a Dragon capsule to Mars would be a bad idea. Businesses must be very careful about the inadvertent messages they send. The message could be "we can land a capsule on Mars with no hope of survival if there was a crew." You probably don't want to send humans without a significant support system, and this should go first. Also, what if the capsule crashes? That would be a serious public relations problem, and NASA would not be very happy if samples where waiting to be picked up. Usually, you send capsules that are intended for humans on test flight missions to demonstrate their safety. Like the last Orion flight test with the re-entry.
I need to gain more experience with the forum before I try to start a new topic. I noticed that some topics start with some guidelines. I originally considered making my first post to the Sample Return with In-Situ Propellant Production topic, but it listed 250 gram sample return (thought that was a bit small), and a billion dollar constraint. I hear a billion dollars thrown around so much any more it's kind of lost its meaning to me. I know it's not practical, but I have a results based value system now days.
Anyway, that's why I hope someone else that's knowledgeable would take this on.
I appreciate your knowledge on this topic SpaceNut (mod). You and others know a lot more about Red Dragon and launch vehicles that me. To be honest, I lost interest in Red Dragon kind of early.
I've noticed that I've become a little anxious over the last couple of years. I would like to see some great progress in Mars exploration before I go, including a sample return mission or two. The USA had such promise in space exploration. Now, it seems like things like Red Dragon are just throwing us a bone.
It seems like NASA's goals and SpaceX goals are different for a sample return mission, but perhaps a collaboration would still be best. I suggest get there and get back with landing site subsurface collection of samples, but that's my opinion.
This is an interesting topic with lots of good information and I don't want to take it off topic. Perhaps there will be another topic about sample return missions with SpaceX technologies in the future.
Thank you for being kind. It's difficult posting the first time, and if you're joining in kind of a 'devil's advocate' position it's more difficult. I had second thoughts; did I go OT, did some think I was an idiot, make them angry, etc.
Many of you are remarkably capable people with lots of knowledge in trajectories, electronics, chemistry, history, etc. I'm not an aerospace engineer, just a retired contractor and my hobby is rocketry. What I am good at comes from years of walking into a hardware store and thinking, "how can I get this done?" This approach is what is needed if you are going to do big things with less money. I know that SpaceX doesn't have a 'go to Mars aisle" for parts, although that would be a kick. I wouldn't even dismiss the Dragon parts because a good heat shield would be valuable. But, when you have to start spending time and money redesigning things like the hatch, it takes energy away from the project goal. Then, you have to think, OK, now I have the hatch open...
In my opinion, the Mars Society and SpaceX already have the big ideas. But, you need to execute big too. For SpaceX, it's go big or stay home frankly. Otherwise, just let JPL and NASA plug along for like forever. (Hopefully, you still think I'm doing OK :-)
For me, landing Red Dragon on Mars doesn't do it.
I'm new to the Mars Society and this forum. In fact, this is the first forum that I've participated in. I have to say that the thought and quality of the information here is remarkable. Something you don't see on social media like Facebook. It also makes it a little intimidating to post. There's been a lot said years before I came along on this particular subject and others that are related, so please forgive me if some of this is 'old news.'
When I first heard about the Red Dragon proposal, it seems like many people were encouraged by the possibility. Also, the use of the craft did seem logical; an existing craft capable of re-entry with thrusters for landing. You can envision it getting and landing on Mars. It would even send a good statement about future human missions because it's designed to carry humans. However, after that, it kind of reminds me of the round hole-square peg problem. It seems every time I hear something new about this mission, the square peg is being hammered into the round hole. Please don't be offended, because the Dragon is a really nice square peg! It will be perfect for it's intended purpose. But, I'm seeing more hints that people are having their doubts about using this craft with all the necessary modifications. But, as I know too from personal experience, after you have been hammering on that peg for awhile, it gets more difficult to stop.
Just for example, I've heard that a rover should be deployed. But, the Dragon has a hatch designed for the egress of humans and we are not sending cp30. But, you got to have a rover; how else are you going to get the image of the Red Dragon sitting on Mars! Maybe after the hatch opens, a really long 'selfie stick' could be deployed. LOL And, if you want to have Red Dragon be part of a sample return mission, OMG
If someone was starting from the beginning and thinking about what present technologies SpaceX had that would be useful for a SRM, I would think there would be some real good ones, but not the Dragon. For example, grid fins, landing guidance to pin-point landing, deployable landing legs, reliable engines that can have multiple starts. Then, you modify something like the second stage of a Falcon 9, land, on-site production of LOX, drill core samples (no rover), have the landing craft hold the return rocket (a longer tube is a good configuration, a relatively short tear-drop shape isn't), and return the samples to an Earth orbit. No direct re-entry. Give something real good for Orion to do; collect the return samples and assure their containment.
The reason I don't think a rover should be included is that rovers are very complex, and complex goes hand & hand with expensive. Expensive to design, build, and operate. An in-place drill rig for core samples, not so complex. Lots of science for the buck.
Have on-site production of LOX for a hybrid motor for the return orbit. I believe that In-Situ production of LOX is science btw. It's a good step towards production of cryo Methane.
There are details, but I don't want for this to be a novel. I already wrote more than I intended, and hopefully, I'm not just suggesting another square peg.
Pages: 1