Mars Sample Return Options

[Vultur]

I still don't understand the necessity of biohazard precautions, except as a PR move. I understand the idea that even a tiny chance of a big disaster is worth avoiding - but the idea that Mars microorganisms could cause disease in Earth life is biologically laughable. (And 'gray goo' scenarios are just fear-mongering nonsense, whether biological or nanotechnological).

No Mars organism could survive Earth - even if the pressure, temperature, and radically different chemical environment wasn't fatal, the island biogeography effect would cause it to die off almost immediately. Lots of invasive species are a problem on Hawaii, but we don't see Hawaiian pests invading the continents. This is the same thing, but (literally) more than a million times moreso; Mars can't possibly have a biosphere complex enough for anything on it to be competitive with Earth life.

In a way, it can be compared to the LHC paranoia - except that we understand the reasons why a Martian organism CAN'T cause disaster far better than we understand the implications of high-energy particle physics.

EDIT: The main reason why I care is that I think we need to leave the option of direct-to-Earth MSR open.

EDIT again: At risk of a tl;dr:

In a hypothetical case where the funding was provided now (say *insert multibillionaire here* said "here's a blank check, do MSR") how soon could it be done, and what would the biggest challenges be?

[cbcnasa]

It is better to use the caution for the media which will say we don't know what can be brought back better to follow the slow procedure.

[Paolo]

This has passed relatively unnoticed, but it could be a step forward for an affordable Mars Sample Return Mission
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/aug/H...-194_ALICE.html
I have never been a fan of in situ resource utilization, I think its benefit must be weighted against the added complexity, but this seems relatively straightforward

[mcaplinger]

...but this seems relatively straightforward

Manufacturing nanoscale aluminum in situ seems fairly difficult. For that matter, even extracting aluminum in situ would be challenging.

I don't think that taking the aluminum to Mars and using in situ water would be a viable approach, but I could be wrong.

[Paolo]

I don't think that taking the aluminum to Mars and using in situ water would be a viable approach

This is what I meant

[mcaplinger]

This is what I meant

What's the relative mass fraction of aluminum and water in this? I can't get to more than the first page of the AIAA paper.

[Paolo]

Unfortunately there is not much technical information on ALICE on the net. The only thing I could find was the first page of the AIAA paper. Perhaps we could contact the authors and ask for a full copy

[Phil Stooke]

I'm looking for a map that I am sure I've seen, but now can't find. Can anyone help?

This was a map of a projected Mars Rover Sample Return mission with rover traverse. Back in c. 1988-90 there were several studies of these missions, especially at a set of ten sites identified at USGS by Harold Masursky and colleagues. Most of those sites were mapped in detail and published in the USGS Misc. Investigations series, identified as 'Science Study Areas'. Some of those maps (Olympus Mons, Memnonia, Mangala Valles etc.) showed the rover routes, others didnt. Some of the missing routes were shown in the Mars Landing Site Catalog.

But I'm missing one... Chasma Boreale. I am certain I've seen a map of a possible rover traverse in Chasma Boreale. Now I can't find it. It's not in the Mars Landing Site Catalog as I had mis-remembered. There is a version in a 1988 MEVTV workshop but it's not what I'm thinking of. Does anyone have any idea where it might be?

Phil

[PDP8E]

Chasma Boreale is the polar region traverse? ...here is Masursky's map for that region (bottom-ish)

 nph_iarticle_query.pdf ( 241.41K ) Number of downloads: 522

[Phil Stooke]

Thanks... but unfortunately that's the MEVTV workshop one that I have already. There's another one out there somewhere that I'm missing. But I'm grateful for you for finding that one.

Phil

[ElkGroveDan]

Phil whenever I've searched and searched for something I eventually turn to the amazing Google Book Search. A lot of old books are there full text, but a most are just a reference. Anyway, here are a couple of candidates that you might be able to track down in a library or the Library of Congress.

http://books.google.com/books?client=firef...nG=Search+Books

[Phil Stooke]

Also thanks for this! Sadly those don't include the map I'm looking for. I'm sure I've seen it, but I'm drawing a total blank now I'm trying to find it. I was so sure it was in the Mars Landing Site Catalog (the second of your links), but that has only text, not the map.

Truth is, if it could be found easily on Google I would have it already. I'm hoping somebody involved in this work might see this and remember it.

I really appreciate people trying to help with this!

Phil

[ElkGroveDan]

Truth is, if it could be found easily on Google I would have it already.

Well I figured that, but the Book Search requires a separate effort that most people overlook.

Good Luck.

[monitorlizard]

This is a real long shot, but might it be from "Viking Rover Studies", NASA Contractor Report 140391? This is from my (rather poor) memory, but I recall rover traverse maps for something like three different landing sites. It seems like one was a polar site, but it could have been the Martian south polar area. Anyway, the report is from July 1974, so it probably doesn't fit your criteria, Phil.

[Phil Stooke]

Thanks... that was indeed the south. I'm beginning to wonder if I dreamed the whole thing. I would have sworn that it was in the Mars Landing Site Catalog, but it isn't. The site is, but not the rover traverse. Did I confuse it with one of the traverses that is in the Catalog? Maybe. I'll post a few of the traverse maps I've made next week to show what I'm doing.

Phil