Sample-return mission to Mars needed before manned mission.

[spacefire]

Why not a sample-return mission to Mars? Based on the MEPAGs report, the martian dust would be the number one hazard for astronauts. Thus, that very dust needs to be carefully analyzed.<br />Rather than going to the Moon trying to relive the glamorous past, this sample-return missionshould be the main priority for NASA.<br />I think it would get people a lot more excited than manned flight back to the Moon, simply because it will be something never done before.<br />http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-dust-05c.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

NASA is already looking into this with plans for a sample return in 2014 or 2011.<br />http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mars_2003_05.html<br /><br />Expect a lot of mindless fear mongering about this concept.<br />http://www.icamsr.org/<br /><br />

 

[spacefire]

I hope they pull it off. I'm wondering if Russia+ESA have any plans for sample return missions. Maybe this will be the next big space race! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

"The new Aurora programme’s core activities still include technology studies for a Mars sample return mission, exploration architecture design and analysis of future lunar surface research"<br /><br />http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/10/18/202167/Europe+adds+Kliper+to+Aurora+plan.html<br />

 

[tomnackid]

If nothing else, a sample return mission using propellent made on mars will be a big boost for a manned mission.

 

[dobbins]

It will also mean that the sample return will be a failure if the propellant generation test is a failure.<br /><br />

 

[spacefire]

I don't think ISRU should be attempted until at least the second manned mission to Mars. There's just too many unknowns to base your return trip on hardware operating on another planet which nobody has even stepped on yet. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[krrr]

Russia plans a sample return mission from the Martian moon Phobos in 2009. Phobos' soil is said to contain a substantial amount of Martian material.<br /><br />The 8 to 9 kg sample return capsule (containing 200 to 400 g Phobos soil) is supposed to crash-land in Russia (without parachutes!) in 2012.<br /><br />Some info here and in the Novosti Kosmonavtiki forum.

 

[josh_simonson]

A non-returning rover or probe may demonstrate the collection of in-situ oxygen and methane prior to a mission that actually uses this capability. That would prove the concept well enough to use on a sample-return mission - and a successful sample return mission would prove it enough for use in a manned mission. Though probably an unmanned supply mission would land and generate the fuel before humans even depart earth.

 

[CalliArcale]

Oh, I hope that Russian mission is a success. Phobos has seemed to enjoy devouring Russian spacecraft; they've lost two attempted landers already. It would be just the thing to reinvigorate Russian unmanned space exploration.<br /><br />Plus it would be way cool. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Mars misisons just aren't practical without ISRU. they certainly should we well tested before you send people there. Sample return missions are a good way to do pilot plant tests.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Certainly failure of the ISPP plant would lead to a mission failure. But if you don't use it there are lots of other technologies that could also fail. MSR scenarios with ISPP typically use multiple spacecraft and MOR. If there is a launch or rendezvous failure the mission is just as dead as if the ISPP plant did not work. Or any one of a plethora of other mission critical systems. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

Good engineers try to decrease the chances of mission failure. Making a sample return mission dependent on an unrelated technology's test working is a prime example of piss poor engineering.<br /><br />

 

[kdavis007]

What if the return mission fails? I say we take a chance...

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Making a sample return mission dependent on an unrelated technology's test working is a prime example of piss poor engineering. "</font><br /><br />So don't make the mission fully dependept on ISPP. Send two or more probes, some without ISPP and some with, or send probes that can return additional amount of samples if their ISPP works

 

[JonClarke]

Why do you think ISPP is an unrelated technology? It may not be essential - you can design a mission without it - but it makes the mission a lot simpler in many ways. <br /><br />So it is just as much an enabling technology for a MSR mission as Mars Orbit or Mars Surface Rendezvous, Obviously it would be a well tested before you actually sent the mission, pioggy backed on other flights, for example the way ISO2 production was to have been investigated on the later cancelled 2001 Mars Surveyor mission.<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

Thou shall not endanger the primary mission.<br /><br />This commandment hold true regardless of what the primary mission is. You don't piggyback ANYTHING on that endangers the primary mission. If you are doing a sample return, you do a sample return. If you piggyback anything else it has to be something that won't contaminate the sample or keep you from getting it back.<br /><br />

 

[najab]

><i>You don't piggyback ANYTHING on that endangers the primary mission. </i><p>And there's no good reason to believe that the ISPP demonstrator has to endanger the primary mission, all they would be sharing is the ride to Mars.</p>

 

[dobbins]

From an earlier post<br />" If nothing else, a sample return mission using propellent made on mars will be a big boost for a manned mission."<br /><br />The discussion concerns relying on Martian fuel to return the sample. That endangers the primary mission. If the primary mission is a fuel test then you can piggyback a sample return as a secondary mission, a bonus. The primary is a sample return so NOTHING that stops you from getting an uncontaminated sample back can be part of the mission profile. If the probe is going to run some tests after the sample is on it's way back fine, that's another story.<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

Good ideas all <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />How about landing a sample return mission near to where the next generation rover will be operating and getting that to go and collect samples for return. The rover could also spend the previous two years collecting samples.<br /><br />In case the rover doesn't last the two years between missions the sample return should have the ability to at least scoop up material itself al la Viking.<br /><br /><br />

 

[spacefire]

I am a bit undecided whether I like the In Situ Propellant Manucfacture to be experimented with a sample-return mission. I mean, nobody dies if it fails, but you don't get your money worth either.<br />I don't think ISRU (In Situ Resource Utilisation) will be practical for the first manned missions because it will require a primary and a backup plant deployed in close proximity to eachother. I'd rather have two fueled orbiters and two fueled landers waiting for the astronauts just in case, and I don't think the costs would be higher than two processing plants on the surface. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

I agree, separate the sample return mission from a ISPM test. However if seen as a combined mission they could use variations on a common spacecraft bus.<br /><br />For example launch a sample return preloaded with propellant, at the same time you could use the lander developed for that mission to land a separate ISPM test elsewhere on the planet.<br /><br />Two years after that you could launch another sample return to the ISPM test and use the reduced mass due to less propellant to add a dedicated sampling rover.<br /><br />Sort of like mars direct but for robots.<br /><br />It might even be possible to use the propellant generated by the ISPM to relocate the ISPM to a different part of Mars for a separate mission two years later.....<br /><br />All very speculative and risky but good for technology development and science.<br />

 

[spacefire]

yeah, this sounds like a pretty good plan and a good investment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[cuddlyrocket]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Are you saying that we should take the propellant for the first manned mission to Mars from Earth. If so, that will be <i>way</i> more expensive that putting ISRU plants on the surface (about 10 times on the last estimates I saw). Or are you saying that there should be redundant return systems on the surface before men are sent?

 

[JonClarke]

I think you are missing the point. If you use ISPP for MSR it would have to be an operation system, extensively tested in simulation chambers on earth and probably as a secondary experiment on an earlier mission. How is different from relying on autonomous Mars orbit rendezvous, which is at present equally untried and will also require extensive testing?<br /><br />The primary advantage of using local propellant production reduces the mass you need to take to Mars for a given earth return payload by very large factor. Or, if the landed mass is mixed, increase the mass returned by a similar factor. As most recent MSR proposals i have read are talking about a few 100 grams of sample any technology that increases the return mass without an astronomical increase in launch requirements needs to be looked at very carefully.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>