[HN Gopher] NASA to explore two landing options for returning sa...
___________________________________________________________________
NASA to explore two landing options for returning samples from Mars
Author : mpweiher
Score : 32 points
Date : 2025-01-11 11:13 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nasa.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nasa.gov)
| efitz wrote:
| Wait a few years and NASA will probably just be able to order
| some from the SpaceX online store.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Honestly, I think this is the most likely scenario. Congress
| doesn't have the stomach for long-term planning; one only has
| to look at Constellation/Artemis/SLS for an example.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Most of congress seems more interested in preserving jobs at
| Boeing, Lockheed, Rocketdyne and Northrop Grumman.
|
| Commercial Resupply and Commercial Crew are among the best
| things to happen to NASA: NASA can request funds for two
| competitors, everybody imagines the money will go to their
| favorite, and then the actual proposals and performance can
| decide who gets the money.
| efitz wrote:
| I said it kind of tongue-in-cheek but I think it would be
| wasteful and duplicative to do much robotic science on Mars
| since SpaceX is trying really hard to get there and could be
| paid a little on the side to return some samples. Undoubtedly
| they'll send robots to Mars before they send humans.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| There is a fair possibility this becomes true! Elon Musk wants
| hundreds of starships to visit Mars on a regular schedule.
| Beating him to the punch by a few years would result in a
| Pyrrhic mission for JPL.
| wongarsu wrote:
| With the current Starship that seems unlikely to be viable.
| But with iterative improvements similar to those between the
| first Falcon 9 and the Falcon 9 flying today it might be.
|
| I could see SpaceX sending one or two Starships every launch
| window (so every two years) by 2035, and human landings by
| 2050. Around that time you would start massive cargo
| deliveries for a colony, provided SpaceX can get the funds
| for that somehow (presumably that's what Starlink tries to
| do).
|
| That timeline is still ambitious, but I believe Musk is
| genuine when he says he does SpaceX mostly to drive Mars
| exploration. And time for him will eventually run out. He
| doesn't have another 50 years.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _could see SpaceX sending one or two Starships every
| launch window (so every two years) by 2035_
|
| I could see this by the 2026 window. Unmanned, granted, but
| there is a lot we need to learn about Mars, and Starship
| upgrades us from a horse to a train. (I'd also move up
| human landings to the 2030s. This is hard, but not
| unfathomably hard.)
|
| Where I think you're off is colonisation in the 2050s.
| _City on Mars_ is a good summary, but in short, we have a
| _lot_ of problems to solve before permanent settlement
| (versus a permanent base with a rotating crew a la the ISS)
| is in reach. (For starters, we have zero trauma medicine
| for low gravity, we don't know how to build closed-loop
| environmental systems, the Martian surface is essentially a
| planetwide superfund site, _et cetera_.)
| wongarsu wrote:
| The article is pretty light on details. But it was clear that
| their previous plan to return the samples by 2040 for $11 billion
| wouldn't get funded. Doing it faster for less money will require
| some out-of-the-box thinking.
|
| Commercial options to get to earth orbit have been booming ever
| since SpaceX proved it viable on a startup budget, and commercial
| resupply of the ISS is an incredible success. Commercial options
| for delivery to the moon are emerging. Commissioning a commercial
| provider with delivering the lander to Mars seems like the best
| long-term option. But it's not immediately obvious if it's the
| best option from the viewpoint of this single mission. Mars
| landings are really tricky, and NASA has by far the best track
| record nailing them.
| fooker wrote:
| > SpaceX proved it viable on a startup budget
|
| This is like saying Einstein proved it viable to discover
| groundbreaking physics as a patent clerk.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Before SpaceX we had Virgin Orbit and Blue Origin, two well-
| funded ventures that were burning money going nowhere, and a
| bunch of old big defense companies building rockets derived
| from ICBMs.
|
| After SpaceX we have Rocket Lab running a successful smallsat
| launch service with their Electron rocket, with ambitions for
| more; Astra making rockets that fit in standard shipping
| containers (to great interest of military customers); Firefly
| trying to break into the market of medium lift vehicles and
| lunar landers; Relativity Space trying to make better rockets
| with extensive 3d printing; and Stoke Space trying to make
| medium lift rockets with some whacky engine configurations.
| And that's just the US, lots of exciting movement in Europe,
| India and China too. Also let's not forgetting Blue Origin is
| about to finally launch their first orbital rocket, a design
| that's clearly inspired by Falcon 9.
|
| Sure, maybe of the above only SpaceX and RocketLab can
| already be called successful launch providers, and SpaceX is
| like 90% of the US launch market. But even if all the others
| end up failing, going from old defense companies and failing
| billionaire's toys to old defense companies, SpaceX,
| RocketLab and Blue Origin is a massive step up that likely
| wouldn't have happened without SpaceX
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Commercial options to get to earth orbit have been booming_
|
| The pipeline is full. But SpaceX maintains an effective
| planetary hegemony on LEO.
| therealfiona wrote:
| Sling a "Mothership" out there, undock the lander from
| mothership, land it, eject a couple flying drones to pick up the
| samples and pack them in the "mars-to-mothership-craft". Launch
| "mars-to-mothership-craft", dock with Mothership, return to
| Earth.
|
| <sarcasm>How hard could it be?</sarcasm>
| FL33TW00D wrote:
| They should just choose RocketLab:
| https://x.com/Peter_J_Beck/status/1876834824100401519
| i_love_retros wrote:
| It's ridiculous that we landed people on the moon in 1969 and we
| still haven't even got a plan for bringing a rock back from Mars.
| burkaman wrote:
| We do have a plan, but it was going to cost ~$10 billion and
| NASA is exploring cheaper options now. $10 billion is more than
| an order of magnitude less than it cost to land on the moon,
| but our societal priorities are (apparently) different now.
| i_love_retros wrote:
| Yes these days all that public money gets spent on
| infrastructure, housing, welfare... Oh, wait
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| You are right about welfare. Less on infrastructure and
| housing.
| mannyv wrote:
| At some point SpaceX could just drop an automated lab there and
| do analysis in situ.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-14 23:01 UTC)