5 ms·

How will the probe return the Martian samples? Is there going to be a round-trip mission to Mars in the future which will be able to take these samples back wit

How will the probe return the Martian samples? Is there going to be a round-trip mission to Mars in the future which will be able to take these samples back with it?

NikolaeVarius 6y ago
No, leaving them in place for possible future mission
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  That's neat, but I can't help but wonder how it's more cost-effective than having the possible future mission reach a scoop out once it gets there and collect its own samples. "Hi Mars Recon 1! I'm Mars Perseverance! I brought you some decades-old rocks and dirt!" "Uh, thanks Perseverance. I, uh, might get my own though." ;)
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    You only need to send something optimized to pick something up and launch it. You don't need to send the digging gear/packaging gear that this Rover was going to use anyway
    - jessriedel 6y ago
      Digging and packing gear has been demonstrated many times, and sounds way less risky and complicated than robotic rendezvous and transfer on a planet's surface, which I believe has never been done. Moreover, why not just make the digging mission and sample-return mission the same mission? Like, was it really the case that (1) the current digging mission could not be delayed AND (2) there is little independent value for a later new digging mission AND (3) it is easier to rendezvous and transfer than just re-dig?
      - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
        I defer the decisions made by hundreds of scientists to the HN armchair general
        jessriedel 6y ago
        The point of my argument is not to challenge their expertise, the point is to either understand the technical motivation or to uncover non-scientific (e.g., political) motivations.
      - Robotbeat 6y ago
        Robotic rendezvous isn’t particularly hard, as long as you can land nearby. Robotic rendezvous happens regularly at ISS, and being on a planet should be even easier as you don’t have to worry about orbital mechanics or the fact that in orbit, things are moving around. On the surface, speeds are low and everything is sitting on the surface so it’s basically quasistatic. Also, except for the landing bit, it’s basically done by autonomy-assisted remote control. It’s not “Level 5 Self-Driving” or whatever. Also, picking a random sample near the landing site is not optimal. You want to pick really good samples. A rover like Perseverance that can take years to collect the very best samples over distances of several miles is much better. Remember, we already have “random” samples from Mars in the form of Martian meteorites on Earth. We want particularly good samples.
        jessriedel 6y ago
        The ISS has human operators in real time, so it's just remote operation. And ISS work still requires human intervention (with hands) for most complicated things. The only things that are done without real-time control are things that were failure prone in the past but have be mastered over years. And even then, the Russian autonomous docking system recently had major issues. The mention of self-driving cars, orbital speed, and the suggestion of sampling near the landing site all appears to be responding to an argument I didn't make. Most importantly, you haven't addressed my point, widely appreciated in spaceflight, that novel untested mechanisms are always one of the primary sources of risk.
  - jessriedel 6y ago
    I have yet to hear a good explanation for this. Rendezvous on the surface of the planet sounds much more challenging than simply taking new samples, even assuming you need significant equipment to ensure you're taking the most interesting samples.
    - Robotbeat 6y ago
      Perseverance will land using terrain-relative autonomous navigation, demonstrating fairly precise landing. There are multiple reasons to split the mission. Perhaps the main one is that ~1 ton is approximately the upper limit of existing Mars landing technology which is enough for a powerful rover like Perseverance that can carry several sample return canisters (and live long enough to find really good samples) OR a rocket capable of returning the samples back (with just a small, basic canister retriever rover). Yeah, you could just put a sampling arm on the rocket lander, but that's a lot of wasted opportunity (heh). Perseverance should have plenty of range, and the autonomous landing navigation tech should have sufficient precision that surface rendezvous should not be a major challenge.
    - sixothree 6y ago
      Go do some research and report back to us please. I would be happy to hear what you find.
  - Cogito 6y ago
    If they had a rover that could do all the same science and collect and return all the same samples as Perseverance, well they would send that instead of Perseverance. The mass budget for a return-to-earth mission is tiny. While simply scooping up some dirt and returning with it would be amazing, the potential science that could be achieved is far less than finding and collecting good samples will allow. Neil Armstrong is still revered by scientists today because he was such a good geologist - knowing what areas to investigate and samples to collect is essential. Perseverance will do the geologist work, and is set up for that purpose. Find, investigate, and collect samples that are likely to enable good science. The retrieval mission can focus on the extremely difficult job of getting them back to Earth.
Robotbeat 6y ago
Yes.
Rebelgecko 6y ago
ESA and NASA are collaborating to get samples from the surface to Martian orbit, and ESA is responsible for getting them the rest of the way back to Earth. Airbus just got a big contract for the return vehicle

How will the probe return the Martian samples? Is there going to be a round-trip mission to Mars in the future which will be able to take these samples back with it?

NikolaeVarius 6y ago

No, leaving them in place for possible future mission

shadowgovt 6y ago
That's neat, but I can't help but wonder how it's more cost-effective than having the possible future mission reach a scoop out once it gets there and collect its own samples. "Hi Mars Recon 1! I'm Mars Perseverance! I brought you some decades-old rocks and dirt!" "Uh, thanks Perseverance. I, uh, might get my own though." ;)
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  You only need to send something optimized to pick something up and launch it. You don't need to send the digging gear/packaging gear that this Rover was going to use anyway
  - jessriedel 6y ago
    Digging and packing gear has been demonstrated many times, and sounds way less risky and complicated than robotic rendezvous and transfer on a planet's surface, which I believe has never been done. Moreover, why not just make the digging mission and sample-return mission the same mission? Like, was it really the case that (1) the current digging mission could not be delayed AND (2) there is little independent value for a later new digging mission AND (3) it is easier to rendezvous and transfer than just re-dig?
    - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
      I defer the decisions made by hundreds of scientists to the HN armchair general
      - jessriedel 6y ago
        The point of my argument is not to challenge their expertise, the point is to either understand the technical motivation or to uncover non-scientific (e.g., political) motivations.
    - Robotbeat 6y ago
      Robotic rendezvous isn’t particularly hard, as long as you can land nearby. Robotic rendezvous happens regularly at ISS, and being on a planet should be even easier as you don’t have to worry about orbital mechanics or the fact that in orbit, things are moving around. On the surface, speeds are low and everything is sitting on the surface so it’s basically quasistatic. Also, except for the landing bit, it’s basically done by autonomy-assisted remote control. It’s not “Level 5 Self-Driving” or whatever. Also, picking a random sample near the landing site is not optimal. You want to pick really good samples. A rover like Perseverance that can take years to collect the very best samples over distances of several miles is much better. Remember, we already have “random” samples from Mars in the form of Martian meteorites on Earth. We want particularly good samples.
      - jessriedel 6y ago
        The ISS has human operators in real time, so it's just remote operation. And ISS work still requires human intervention (with hands) for most complicated things. The only things that are done without real-time control are things that were failure prone in the past but have be mastered over years. And even then, the Russian autonomous docking system recently had major issues. The mention of self-driving cars, orbital speed, and the suggestion of sampling near the landing site all appears to be responding to an argument I didn't make. Most importantly, you haven't addressed my point, widely appreciated in spaceflight, that novel untested mechanisms are always one of the primary sources of risk.
- jessriedel 6y ago
  I have yet to hear a good explanation for this. Rendezvous on the surface of the planet sounds much more challenging than simply taking new samples, even assuming you need significant equipment to ensure you're taking the most interesting samples.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    Perseverance will land using terrain-relative autonomous navigation, demonstrating fairly precise landing. There are multiple reasons to split the mission. Perhaps the main one is that ~1 ton is approximately the upper limit of existing Mars landing technology which is enough for a powerful rover like Perseverance that can carry several sample return canisters (and live long enough to find really good samples) OR a rocket capable of returning the samples back (with just a small, basic canister retriever rover). Yeah, you could just put a sampling arm on the rocket lander, but that's a lot of wasted opportunity (heh). Perseverance should have plenty of range, and the autonomous landing navigation tech should have sufficient precision that surface rendezvous should not be a major challenge.
  - sixothree 6y ago
    Go do some research and report back to us please. I would be happy to hear what you find.
- Cogito 6y ago
  If they had a rover that could do all the same science and collect and return all the same samples as Perseverance, well they would send that instead of Perseverance. The mass budget for a return-to-earth mission is tiny. While simply scooping up some dirt and returning with it would be amazing, the potential science that could be achieved is far less than finding and collecting good samples will allow. Neil Armstrong is still revered by scientists today because he was such a good geologist - knowing what areas to investigate and samples to collect is essential. Perseverance will do the geologist work, and is set up for that purpose. Find, investigate, and collect samples that are likely to enable good science. The retrieval mission can focus on the extremely difficult job of getting them back to Earth.

Robotbeat 6y ago

Yes.

Rebelgecko 6y ago

ESA and NASA are collaborating to get samples from the surface to Martian orbit, and ESA is responsible for getting them the rest of the way back to Earth. Airbus just got a big contract for the return vehicle