Rocket Lab says NASA lacks leadership on Mars Sample Return

Rocket Lab has been on a roll lately, with multiple Electron launches, plans for an ocean platform for its Neutron rocket, and a second mission for in-space manufacturing business Varda under its belt. However, NASA has apparently rejected the company's Mars Sample Return mission proposal. Why? "We don't want to poke anyone in …

[Annihilator]

Size of problem

One thing I've often pondered, and never seen the maths on yet, but Mars is only about half the size of Earth. To launch anything significant into orbit from Earth needs a fairly BFR (Big Rocket), and I would assume that launching anything from Mars would need a rocket maybe a quarter the size if my fag-packet calculations are right. Assuming it's a Sputnik size launch from Mars, a rocket quarter the size/power of an Earth equivalent is still a multi-stage, 30-tonne rocket about 10m high - that in itself needs to be landed on Mars. I'm guessing my numbers must be way off, but right now I can't see any stories detailing what those engineering requirements might be.

The whole manned mission to Mars is an even larger problem.

[Andy E]

Re: Size of problem

The approach they are taking is to send the rocket (Earth Return Orbiter) to be used for returning the samples to Earth to a martian orbit (it won't land on Mars). It won't need to be as powerful or need as much fuel as a rocket that has to land and take off from Mars before journying back to Earth.

[tyrfing]

Re: Size of problem

Surface gravity 38% of Earth. But an atmosphere roughly 1% of the pressure. Atmospheric drag would make a large difference.

Most of the problem is that the plans tend to assume that the fuel and oxygen is shipped from Earth. Which makes it an enormous problem.

Landing empty and generating the fuel and oxygen on Mars would make things much simpler. There's a lot of talk about that.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Size of problem

Gravity is about 40%. But that's only part of your problem: you also have to take all your oxidation compound with you as there is no oxygen on Mars. But then again, you don't need to go anything like as high to be in orbit

Andy Weir's The Martian has some reasonably based pseudo-science on the kind of rocket that would be needed to escape the gravity well.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Size of problem

"there is no oxygen on Mars"

There is Oxygen on Mars, but it's mainly bound up in the rocks and ice rather than being available as a gas. To split water, first you'd need to find a good source of ice that isn't too contaminated and process that under pressure to keep it from sublimating away. You then need to turn it into H2 and O. Once you've done that, you need a way to store it until you have enough and are ready to use it. If we want a big storage tank on Earth, we just order one from a company that makes them. If you follow the tank from start to finish you wind up all the way back into the raw materials you find on Mars and how to collect and process those as well as having to get James Burke out of storage for an episode of "Connections". The next installment in the series is the machinery necessary to turn the O2 you have in that massive tank into a liquid that can be used to fill up the oxidizer tank of the rocket.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Size of problem

Well, yes, but I didn't want to get into the details, which is why I included the reference to The Martian. Take it with a pinch of salt but it's a good place to start.

Another approach which might make more sense once it becomes technically possible would be a winch from orbit. I know still oodles of problems to solve but nano-tube ropes could be made in orbit.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Size of problem

"Well, yes, but I didn't want to get into the details, which is why I included the reference to The Martian. "

There is an enormous amount of "hand waving" in the book and even more in the movie.

With no way to build a fire on Mars, basic smelting and shaping of metal isn't available. The only refined metal is what's been sent from Earth and that's all over the place, not in a central location. The advent of metalworking was a pivotal point in human development. Crude implements evolved and tools could be made that led to more sophisticated tools. We wouldn't have to relearn all of that, but we would have to figure out how to do it on a planet with no fossil fuels or fuel of any sort. All of that would have to be happening while at the same time sorting out how to stay alive and healthy.

I enjoyed "The Martian". I can go along with stories that do a certain amount of hand waving as I like "what-if" thinking. It's make believe for older engineers. I still pick apart SF tales for their impossibilities to see if it's a violation of physics or if it's just a level of engineering we don't have (yet).

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Size of problem

Low Mars Orbit velocity is only 3.5km/s. The Lunar modules in the apollo missions had 2,2km/s of delta V in the ascent stages and they had lots of weight this mission wouldn't have, like humans and life support. So I think a single stage to orbit with a solid rocket motor is easily possible.

[Tom Womack]

Northrop Grumman are proposing two solid stages

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-mars-ascent-vehicle-continues-progress-toward-mars-sample-return/

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20200002328/downloads/20200002328.pdf

NG have got to the point of doing Earth tests of the solid rockets they plan to use - three metres tall, 0.5-metre diameter, two solid stages.

"Ultimately, SRM1 featured 216kg of propellant, while SRM2 featured 54.4kg of propellant. Although the actual solid motor designs cannot be shown due to International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) ..."

[Dizzy Dwarf]

Re: Size of problem

"The whole manned mission to Mars is an even larger problem."

You're going to need a LEO staging post, a Lunar staging post and a Martian staging post.

Also plenty of comms sats around Mars.

Anything less than that will be a suicide mission.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Size of problem

It all looks pretty much like a suicide mission for anyone involved in leaving earth orbit. But I'm sure there's plenty of money to be made in suggesting otherwise.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Size of problem

"But I'm sure there's plenty of money to be made in suggesting otherwise."

A lot more people will make a lot more money planning and designing than there will be tangible ROI.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Size of problem

"I would assume that launching anything from Mars would need a rocket maybe a quarter the size"

It doesn't quite work out like that since coming "in-system" is more difficult. If you ever want a proper headache, take up orbital dynamics. I jest, once you can make mental images of what's going where, it gets easier.

[Anonymous Coward]

No need to rush

The samples are important but not time critical. While scientists may be chomping at the bit to analyse them, they aren't going to deteriorate if left on the surface for another year.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: No need to rush

That's not the issue. NASA has long suffered from political interference, often making long term missions impossible whilst not saving any money. Things could be about to get a lot worse.

Rocket Lab has been getting a lot of things right and probably does deserve more credit than it gets. But, remember the successful Ariane 6 launch from last week? Thought not: didn't get a mention here while the most recent SpaceX failures did.

Why not just give the job of NASA boss to Elon? What could possibly go wrong?

[MachDiamond]

Re: No need to rush

"Why not just give the job of NASA boss to Elon? What could possibly go wrong?"

There's no way they could get away with that. Maybe they could give the job to one of Elon's friends.......

[Andrew Scott]

Re: No need to rush

Maybe they should consider shipping better tools to mars to do the analysis of the samples than trying to bring them back to earth in the next couple of years.

[MachDiamond]

Re: No need to rush

"Maybe they should consider shipping better tools to mars to do the analysis of the samples than trying to bring them back to earth in the next couple of years."

The problem is that once you've analyzed something, it often leads to wanting to do further analysis and any sort of robot has to be purpose built to do things with little flexibility. Steve Squires, the PI on the MER rovers, has said on many occasions that a geologist walking around with a hammer could find out more things than a robot. Harrison 'Jack' Schmidt, the lone Apollo scientist, was key to finding interesting samples to bring back on the last moon landing. The downside is that the cost to send humans anywhere off-planet can pay for large numbers of robots.

Some sample return missions to Mars would make further missions far more productive. We'd know where to send them and have a better idea of the instruments they need to bring with them.

[tony72]

I don't think NASA seriously considered anything other than the JPL option. They had to be able to say they had considered commercial options, so box ticked, but they didn't really want to use one - being plausible probably actually counted against Rocket Lab.

[StrangerHereMyself]

Architecture

NASA refuses to consider a simpler "grab-and-go" architecture like the Chinese are doing and will end up cancelling the project due to cost overruns. They are stubbornly insisting their architecture has more scientific value. I would challenge this notion since if the MSR project is cancelled there will be no scientific return and we'll have to beg the Chinese for samples to study.

An example of the project's mismanagement is the almost eternal debate about the MAV (Mars Ascent Vehicle, the miniature rocket that will launch the samples back into Mars orbit and rendezvous with the return craft). They still haven't decided on its size, capabilities and propulsion (liquid or solid). It's a mess.

I see the entire MSR project going nowhere.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Architecture

"They still haven't decided on its size, capabilities and propulsion (liquid or solid). "

They still don't have a tested system for either propulsion method that's sat out in the cold for months and months. It's absolutely balmy here in Earth's neighborhood compared to circa Mars.

A first sample return should be a "wham, bam, thank you mam" where just getting some sort of sample is the goal rather than being choosy. It might make getting a pretty good size chunk possible over being particular and only getting a teaspoon here and there. The choice of taking samples and dropping them like turds to be retrieved later was weird. I'd have thought that sticking them in a box so they can be picked up or transferred in one go would have been much simpler.

[Joe Gurman]

Re: Architecture

The samples are already in containers on the Martian surface, where NASA rovers have dropped them.

[MachDiamond]

Re: Architecture

"The samples are already in containers on the Martian surface, where NASA rovers have dropped them."

Yes, but, the whole surface of the planet is covered in samples if you aren't being super choosy. It would really suck to find out that those selected samples looked neat, but turn out to be very meh after going through all of the complicated steps to get them.

[StrangerHereMyself]

Re: Architecture

Another good reason to switch to a grab-n-go architecture since the ascent vehicle doesn't have to survive months of the harsh Martian climate.

[Spherical Cow]

Re: Architecture

It does have to survive months of harsh interplanetary environment on the way there.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Architecture

will end up cancelling the project due to cost overruns

Pretty much a summary of NASA for the last 40 years. Nearly all the good projects were signed off before then and/or done with partners that stopped them from being shelved.

[Joe Gurman]

Simple enough?

Too many moving parts.

[Gene Cash]

Re: Simple enough?

Not really. Several small rockets instead of one honkin' huge one is usually the way to go.

It's why Lunar Orbit Rendezvous won out over Direct Ascent for Apollo.

I've watched the Rocket Lab YouTube video on this and it seems straightforward enough.

[IGotOut]

Am I the only one reading it this way?

They haven't said no at all. What they have said is "maybe next year". He says it's not leadership, but sometimes that's what it takes. Anything to him other than "Yes, here's the money" appears to be seen as a rejection.

With the current mess and corruption going on in the US government at the moment, NASA are probably wondering if they'll actually be around next year, yet alone getting soil from Mars. Spending this much money at this time would give the assholes "running" the government a chance to say "Look at all this money NASA is wasting"