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 17 2024, 01:41 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 99 Joined: 17-September 07 Member No.: 3901 |
In the budget agreement released Sunday, lawmakers clarified that the ultimatum in the Senate’s proposal was no longer on the table. Good news, recalling that the Senate in 2023 threatened to cancel MSR if the mission could not be squeezed into the optimistic budget and schedule.Immediate future work will focus on the system to deliver the samples to orbit. It could mean that NASA would launch the samples into orbit and then collect them some (maybe many years) later. I don't believe that's what is meant. Hopefully the meaning was focusing on rocket technology progress for launching off Mars. The MSR Chief Engineer (new at NASA HQ as of 2023Oct, see post #493) has a testing background, so it will be interesting to see if the official NASA response to the report from the second MSR Independent Review Board (IRB-2) refers to MAV testing, seemingly overlooked in the IRB-2 report (see attachment to post #493).Regarding the Planetary Society interview with the MSR IRB-2 Chair (Post #494 to #497), I concur with the disappointment that the interview lacked details. The last few years have shown that the MAV design became heavy enough to need a huge lander, even without a fetch rover riding along. Keeping things big would be the best outcome for science, to bring back the most samples. Compared to past Mars landers, a heavier one might shed less of its entry velocity aerodynamically. Possibly an inflatable decelerator would help to slow it down, or more of the slowing would use rocket propulsion. Another approach would be to make the MAV smaller by reducing its non-propellant mass (lighter rocket hardware and-or fewer samples). In any case, some kind of new engineering seems necessary for the lander, the MAV, or both. On 2024Mar5, a Mars science committee (MEPAG) stated to the Planetary Science Advisory Committee (PAC) that Mars scientists are looking forward to NASA's response to IRB-2, one slide from that meeting attached below (MEPAGtoPACslide2024Mar5.pdf). After the long wait since October, we will hopefully see a workable path forward for MSR.
Attached File(s)
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd September 2024 - 10:02 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. |