Mars Sample Return |
Mars Sample Return |
Apr 7 2006, 07:32 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 370 Joined: 12-September 05 From: France Member No.: 495 |
Next phase reached in definition of Mars Sample Return mission
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMJAGNFGLE_index_0.html |
|
|
Mar 29 2008, 06:06 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14433 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
What would be the requirements ( size, mass etc ) for a MAV with cubesat-to-orbit type ability. I'd have thought it would make a lot of sense to forgo any on-Mars assembly at this stage and just take a solid fueled vehicle in one piece.
Of course, in the future, as a precursor to ISRU methane production - a liquid fueled MAV would be an interesting project - but with something with so many weak links and challenges as MSR - I think where the potential is there to KISS, it would be crazy to do otherwise. You want as few launches as possible. Of course, even with an MSL or ExoMars cache - we have to presume they're dead. So you need to land close to them, and then go and get them with a rover ( MER-scale I guess) That's going to lead to something very special - revisiting a dead vehicle. Doug |
|
|
Mar 29 2008, 08:54 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 |
[...]
|
|
|
Mar 30 2008, 06:16 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 706 Joined: 22-April 05 Member No.: 351 |
Deciding first that Apollo 12 / Spirit is the kind of terrain we are betting everything on seems like a really bad idea. John, I agree with much of what you say. But I will play devil's advocate. There are lots of scientists who could learn a great deal about Mars with well documented samples from any of many places on Mars. They have the labs and just need the rocks. This cadre has been waiting patiently for their turn at enabling their science for decades since MSR was first seriously studied. However, given the cost of MSR (probably $3B+), I don't think the return of a sample suite from just anywhere is worth the cost. I think it makes much more sense to put down more rovers (and give them proper caching equipment) to find the best site. I think we need rovers rather than stationary landers simply because it would take incredible luck to hit the one spot that reveals the material that tells you whether this is the place to sample or not. Look how far Spirit and Opportunity had to travel to make their discoveries. Imagine having a stationary lander in that crater that Opportunity landed in and never being able to get close to the bedrock a few meters away. As for Netlander, I'd like to see each station carry a small Sojourner-sized rover with modern instruments to characterize just the local landing site. We can have great fun and drink lots of beer trying to decide how to best find the place to send MSR to. The key discussion is whether to commit now or after a series of ground truth missions. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th June 2024 - 06:34 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |