Mars Sample Return Options

[StargazeInWonder]

I would add that docking in Mars orbit is something new. That would make Mars EDL and Mars orbit docking new.

Agreed, almost nothing here seems truly new, but some aspects, like ERO, are operations that have been accomplished before, but have new parameters in this case. Rather than say that there are four completely original actions required here, it's more like six or seven that have been done before but have some new element or factor here. Is ERO from Mars orbit really harder than from an asteroid? Seems like no – just a little.

And given that two sample returns to Earth have had technical issues, it highlights that none of this is without significant risk.

It really seems like it's all quite doable – just a lot of new and newish risks in a sequence that has to be pretty infallible or those Perseverance samples end up somewhere we'd never get them back.

[bobik]

You'd think there would be more recent papers by now, but I haven't found them.

I have the impression that information on the MAV design has died down since industrial contracts have been issued.

[Explorer1]

Teleconference on Monday, 1 PM EST about the new plan for MSR

[John Whitehead]

About 15 minutes into the news conference, NASA Associate Administrator for Science Nicky Fox mentioned that one way to reduce MSR cost would be a smaller MAV. About time.

On the other hand, in subsequent Q&A she said no time for technology breakthroughs, must rely on high-heritage technologies.

They plan to solicit new mission ideas from industry and NASA centers (as has been done multiple times over multiple past decades).

About a half hour after the start of the news conference, the Washington Post reporter pointed out the seeming contradiction between "whole new approach" and "heritage technology."

(submitted here about halfway through the news conference)

[StargazeInWonder]

About a half hour after the start of the news conference, the Washington Post reporter pointed out the seeming contradiction between "whole new approach" and "heritage technology."

It would seem clear from the context that "whole new" means applicable technologies new to this specific mission plan and "heritage" means applicable technologies established previously in the history of spaceflight. So there's no contradiction, but it remains open if the intersection between the two sets might be the empty set.

The Washington Post writeup (behind a firewall for non-subscribers) doesn't mention this question, but quotes Bill Nelson as saying that:

1) A previously-projected cost increase from ~$4B to ~$10B is unacceptable.
2) A previously-projected delay to a 2040 return is unacceptable.

Further quotations from Nicky Fox, Scott Hubbard, and Bethany Ehlmann play out the dialectic that a cheaper outside-the-box solution that doesn't increase risk is desirable; desiring that doesn't mean that such a solution exists; but they are seeking such a solution now.

[bobik]

Science Mission Directorate Community Town Hall: NASA Response to Mars Sample Return Independent Review Board Report and NASA's response in written form.