IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

20 Pages V  « < 18 19 20  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Mars Sample Return
monitorlizard
post Oct 4 2009, 05:26 AM
Post #286


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 228
Joined: 8-May 05
Member No.: 381



I'll give it one more try,Phil. My best guess would be something from The First (or Second, or Third) International Conference on Mars Polar Science and Exploration. The First was held in 1998, the Second in 2000, and the Third in 2003.
The abstracts were published by LPI and may be available online, but are definitely available in print (First and Second) and CD-ROM (Third) form. Other than that, my only other guess would be an LPSC abstract. Good luck.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_PhilCo126_*
post Oct 4 2009, 09:31 AM
Post #287





Guests






Indeed, LPI has a few books on Mars Sample Return.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gndonald
post Oct 14 2009, 04:22 PM
Post #288


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 212
Joined: 19-July 05
Member No.: 442



The Beyond Apollo weblog has been posting a series of articles on Mars Sample return missions, the latest article covers a 1976 proposal to collect a sample of ice from the Martian South pole using modified Vikings.

See: Beyond Apollo: Mars Polar Ice Sample Return (1976).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil Stooke
post Oct 14 2009, 04:37 PM
Post #289


Martian Cartographer
****

Group: Members
Posts: 7285
Joined: 5-April 05
From: Canada
Member No.: 227



I should add that David Portree is trying to help me find that missing traverse map, but I've come to the conclusion I was confusing it with one of the others in the Mars Landing Site Catalog, possibly one at Durius Valles (site 079 in the Catalog). I was just so sure I had seen it, but that is, increasingly, a bad sign!

Phil


--------------------
... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil Stooke
post Oct 14 2009, 04:44 PM
Post #290


Martian Cartographer
****

Group: Members
Posts: 7285
Joined: 5-April 05
From: Canada
Member No.: 227



Here is an example of a set of perhaps little known traverse suggestions dating from the Mars Surveyor 2001 planning phase. Mars Surveyor 2001 was originally going to land an Athena rover similar to MER, which might travel a few tens of km. At the first landing site workshop, these traverses were suggested as well as lots of other sites without specific traverses. Then the mission was descoped and the rover would be similar to Sojourner with a maximum range of about 1 km. Then it was cancelled, and eventually the spacecraft flew as Phoenix, without a rover.

Phil

Attached Image


--------------------
... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vikingmars
post Oct 14 2009, 10:26 PM
Post #291


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 817
Joined: 19-February 05
From: Close to Meudon Observatory in France
Member No.: 172



Full inline quote removed. Hey - it was Phil's idea. - ADMIN

smile.gif ...And I like the "Thyra" crater site, because it's a few km away from our Columbia Hills in Gusev crater ! smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil Stooke
post Oct 15 2009, 02:04 PM
Post #292


Martian Cartographer
****

Group: Members
Posts: 7285
Joined: 5-April 05
From: Canada
Member No.: 227



Every time I look at that place I want to call it 'Thyra', but I have to force myself to correct it - it is officially 'Thira'.

(PS - you'll get into trouble for that big quote!)

Phil


--------------------
... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pospa
post Jun 16 2011, 11:14 AM
Post #293


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 147
Joined: 4-May 11
From: Pardubice, CZ
Member No.: 5979



These days, 16.-17.6. 2011 is 24th MEPAG meeting taking place in Lisboa, Portugal (I guess first time out of USA).
Another clear sign of NASA taking European guys more into the club.

At least 5 presentations about MSR are available today already - scientific objectives, sample size, number of samples, sampling priorities and strategies, etc., etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stone
post Oct 18 2015, 04:22 PM
Post #294


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 21-January 13
Member No.: 6845



Here might be the best place to ask a question I always have when it comes to MSR.

The rocket which launches the capsule from Mars needs a certain size, but the images I have seen are always impression from artists, and from the ExoMars rover I know how wrong this "impression" can be.

What is the rocket size to launch a 100kg satellite to a stable orbit around Mars?

I assume that that will be a solid fuel rocket with one or two stages.

Is there a nice program to do the calculations?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Oct 18 2015, 04:54 PM
Post #295


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1605
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (stone @ Oct 18 2015, 09:22 AM) *
What is the rocket size to launch a 100kg satellite to a stable orbit around Mars?

The math is simple enough -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation -- but the devil is in the details.

The 100 kg is obviously arbitrary. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconce...12/pdf/4342.pdf (which was just the first google hit I found) assumed a payload mass to orbit of 36 kg, 5 kg of which was sample -- this was a two-stage hybrid rocket. Total vehicle mass at liftoff is 288 kg. A single stage was found to be feasible if the payload mass was reduced to 1 kg.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Oct 18 2015, 05:32 PM
Post #296


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1605
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



BTW, http://web.stanford.edu/~cantwell/Recent_p...A_2013-3899.pdf is a good review of the history of MAV and ISRU development from the same group that's pushing this hybrid design. I'm afraid they are glossing over a lot of the system complexity issues with their design, but that's pretty typical for this area.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Oct 18 2015, 11:16 PM
Post #297


Administrator
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14018
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (stone @ Oct 18 2015, 08:22 AM) *
What is the rocket size to launch a 100kg satellite to a stable orbit around Mars?


FWIW - a sample return canister launched from Mars would almost certainly be an order of magnitude smaller than that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
scalbers
post Apr 27 2016, 06:04 PM
Post #298


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1265
Joined: 5-March 05
From: Boulder, CO
Member No.: 184



Greetings - here's an announcement of opportunity about MMX for Martian Moons Sample Return.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=48736


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JRehling
post Sep 30 2017, 03:11 AM
Post #299


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1991
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 321



I haven't seen last month's MSR news on UMSF yet and this is the place where it should go:

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis...ple-return.html

It seems like there's a disconnect between the short time between now and 2026 and the complexity of the architecture. I suppose it's possible to start a multi-mission sample return before the architecture is finalized (and perhaps, in the form of the 2020 rover, we already have), but that seems a bit risky with the stakes and costs so high.

If the Mars Ascent Vehicle has no rover and relies upon an already-active rover to survive long enough to deliver samples to it, that simplifies the architecture enormously, but risks the failure of the rover before the MAV arrives. I suppose a simplicity-and-risk tradeoff is inevitable with something as big as this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vjkane
post Sep 30 2017, 02:39 PM
Post #300


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 482
Joined: 22-April 05
Member No.: 351



QUOTE (JRehling @ Sep 29 2017, 07:11 PM) *
I haven't seen last month's MSR news on UMSF yet and this is the place where it should go:

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis...ple-return.html

It seems like there's a disconnect between the short time between now and 2026 and the complexity of the architecture. I suppose it's possible to start a multi-mission sample return before the architecture is finalized (and perhaps, in the form of the 2020 rover, we already have), but that seems a bit risky with the stakes and costs so high.

If the Mars Ascent Vehicle has no rover and relies upon an already-active rover to survive long enough to deliver samples to it, that simplifies the architecture enormously, but risks the failure of the rover before the MAV arrives. I suppose a simplicity-and-risk tradeoff is inevitable with something as big as this.

There has been on-going architectural studies and technology, for example paraffin-based fuels, for a sample return. Apparently NASA's managers think that an architecture could be chosen, technologies matured (a recent paper on paraffin fuels said the maturity was low), and the design and assembly completed by the mid-2020s. Without more details I'm skeptical.

A bigger issue may be what the overlapping development of three flagship-class missions -- Mars 2020, Europa Clipper, and Mars sample return, (ignoring a possible Europa lander) -- would do to the balance of the planetary science program. Topic for a near future post on my blog.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

20 Pages V  « < 18 19 20
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th October 2017 - 10:02 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and 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 a project of the Planetary Society and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep this forum up and running by contributing here.