No Mars sample return.

NASA is dropping the space aboard MSL that it was supposed to store
samples in for future recovery and return to Earth.
The space will instead be devoted to cleaning equipment for the MSL's
instruments: http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...cision_to.html

Pat

On Nov 22, 1:12 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
NASA is dropping the space aboard MSL that it was supposed to store
samples in for future recovery and return to Earth.
The space will instead be devoted to cleaning equipment for the MSL's
instruments:http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...cision_to.html

Pat

Just like our Selene/moon, whereas getting sample stuff back is simply
not an option.

~ BG

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 03:12:59 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

NASA is dropping the space aboard MSL that it was supposed to store
samples in for future recovery and return to Earth.
The space will instead be devoted to cleaning equipment for the MSL's
instruments: http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...cision_to.html

I think that was a good decision. A dedicated smaller, more nimble
sample collecting rover or crawler would probably be a better tool for
the job than MSL anyway. Let MSL be MSL and let MSR have its own rock
collector.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:
NASA is dropping the space aboard MSL that it was supposed to store
samples in for future recovery and return to Earth.
The space will instead be devoted to cleaning equipment for the MSL's
instruments: http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...cision_to.html


I think that was a good decision. A dedicated smaller, more nimble
sample collecting rover or crawler would probably be a better tool for
the job than MSL anyway. Let MSL be MSL and let MSR have its own rock
collector.


To me it sounds like they are nowhere near certain about getting funds
for MSR.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...


Brian Thorn wrote:
NASA is dropping the space aboard MSL that it was supposed to store
samples in for future recovery and return to Earth.
The space will instead be devoted to cleaning equipment for the MSL's
instruments:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...cision_to.html


I think that was a good decision. A dedicated smaller, more nimble
sample collecting rover or crawler would probably be a better tool for
the job than MSL anyway. Let MSL be MSL and let MSR have its own rock
collector.


To me it sounds like they are nowhere near certain about getting funds for
MSR.


Neither do I. It's wwwaaayyyy too expensive ($5 billion projected) for just
a couple of hundred grams of Martian dust. I personally don't think it's
worth it. Let them do research on Mars, it's a lot cheaper. I'd rather see
them minituarize an electron microscope or STM, that way we'll at least have
some ROI (return on investment).

These Martian missions keep getting more and more expensive. A decade ago
they could do a Martian lander for a quarter of a billion, MSL is already in
the multi-billion range. I'd rather sse them revive Beagle II, which can be
sent for $150-$200 million. MSR is simply too expensive and a multinational
effort will run into all kinds of political problems.

Bresco wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...

Brian Thorn wrote:
NASA is dropping the space aboard MSL that it was supposed to store
samples in for future recovery and return to Earth.
The space will instead be devoted to cleaning equipment for the MSL's
instruments:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...cision_to.html

I think that was a good decision. A dedicated smaller, more nimble
sample collecting rover or crawler would probably be a better tool for
the job than MSL anyway. Let MSL be MSL and let MSR have its own rock
collector.

To me it sounds like they are nowhere near certain about getting funds for
MSR.


Neither do I. It's wwwaaayyyy too expensive ($5 billion projected) for just
a couple of hundred grams of Martian dust. I personally don't think it's
worth it. Let them do research on Mars, it's a lot cheaper. I'd rather see
them minituarize an electron microscope or STM, that way we'll at least have
some ROI (return on investment).

These Martian missions keep getting more and more expensive.

That's because the mission objectives keep getting more ambitious.

A decade ago
they could do a Martian lander for a quarter of a billion, MSL is already in
the multi-billion range. I'd rather sse them revive Beagle II, which can be
sent for $150-$200 million.

Beagle II? Hah. If they want to send a paperweight to Mars, I could do
it for $100 million. Heck, I'm feeling generous - I'd doing it for $50
million. And it would work just as well as Beagle.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:17:15 +0100, "Bresco"
wrote:


These Martian missions keep getting more and more expensive. A decade ago
they could do a Martian lander for a quarter of a billion,

And it died after 100 days. The second quarter billion lander (MPL)
vanished without a trace. You get what you pay for.

I'd rather sse them revive Beagle II,

Which failed because they cut too much redundancy.

Brian

Bresco wrote:

These Martian missions keep getting more and more expensive. A decade ago
they could do a Martian lander for a quarter of a billion, MSL is already in
the multi-billion range.

I think that they should have built some more MERs, now that we know how
well they work and the R7D for them is already done. We'd still be very
limited as to where we could land them on the surface due to sunlight
and altitude above mean Martian ground level for the parachute to work,
but you could get a lot of info that way for a moderate-sized investment.
Our problem is that we don't standardize on a particular lander/rover
design like the Soviets did with their later Venera spacecraft.
As soon as we build something that works, we go onto a new design with
all the risks and R&D costs that go with it.
Note that MSL is a one-off spacecraft unlike the MERs... if it fails,
there is no back-up for it.
That's a throwback to the "better, faster, cheaper" way of doing things
rather than "let's send two, and hope at least one works" approach that
proved successful in Mariner 8/9 Viking 1/2, and Spirit and Opportunity.
In the case of Mariner 8, we did lose one, but Mariner 9 was able to
replace most of its lost mission.
But in the other cases, having two successes greatly increased science
return while not adding to R &D costs.

Pat

On Nov 22, 9:42 am, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
Bresco wrote:
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
hdakotatelephone...

Brian Thorn wrote:
NASA is dropping the space aboard MSL that it was supposed to store
samples in for future recovery and return to Earth.
The space will instead be devoted to cleaning equipment for the MSL's
instruments:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...cision_to.html

I think that was a good decision. A dedicated smaller, more nimble
sample collecting rover or crawler would probably be a better tool for
the job than MSL anyway. Let MSL be MSL and let MSR have its own rock
collector.

To me it sounds like they are nowhere near certain about getting funds for
MSR.

Neither do I. It's wwwaaayyyy too expensive ($5 billion projected) for just
a couple of hundred grams of Martian dust. I personally don't think it's
worth it. Let them do research on Mars, it's a lot cheaper. I'd rather see
them minituarize an electron microscope or STM, that way we'll at least have
some ROI (return on investment).

These Martian missions keep getting more and more expensive.

That's because the mission objectives keep getting more ambitious.

A decade ago

they could do a Martian lander for a quarter of a billion, MSL is already in
the multi-billion range. I'd rather sse them revive Beagle II, which can be
sent for $150-$200 million.

Beagle II? Hah. If they want to send a paperweight to Mars, I could do
it for $100 million. Heck, I'm feeling generous - I'd doing it for $50
million. And it would work just as well as Beagle.

A one-way splat landing is technically doable, though mass limited.

~ BG

"Bresco" wrote in :

These Martian missions keep getting more and more expensive.

They also keep getting more and more *capable*. They cost more, but they do
more.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **