Mars sample return rocket size

When NASA someday tries to return samples from Mars it sounds like they plan to collect various samples from different regions of Mars and send them to Earth on one rocket. It sounds complicated.

How small could they make a rocket to return samples from Mars? If they could make it small enough then maybe they could return samples from different sites in different rockets. I suppose the antenna for communications must be a certain size?

The failed Russian mission, Phobos Grunt, would have returned samples from one of Mars' moons. A similar mission to Mars itself would require heavier equipment but as a reference have a look.
en.wikipedia.org...

We have trouble getting crafts to mars , and you wanna talk about multiple ones ?


We should first learn and pack down our current tech and understanding before doing mutli missions don't ya think ?


Or you one of those space tourists whos ready to orbit the earth with todays tech ? Good luck


safety first . Reality second. hope third.


"(The last successful Russian interplanetary missions were Vega 2 in 1985–86, and the partially successful Phobos 2 in 1988–89.)" wiki quote phobes


Do you know what this means?

IT MEANS WERE NOT HALF READY.

reply to post by yourboycal2



Yeah after thinking about what you said their.
I am not sure I would feel safe with anyone aiming rockets at earth to bring us rocks?

Originally posted by Phage
The failed Russian mission, Phobos Grunt, would have returned samples from one of Mars' moons. A similar mission to Mars itself would require heavier equipment but as a reference have a look.
en.wikipedia.org...

Here is another web site with more detail:
Phobos Grunt spacecraft design

The reentry capsule is 7.5 kg according to that site. I suppose that is the smallest practical size.

For the Mars sample return are they planning to keep the return vehicle in orbit around Mars? So the samples would be launched from the surface and transferred into the return vehicle in Mars orbit?

Originally posted by yourboycal2
We have trouble getting crafts to mars , and you wanna talk about multiple ones ?


We should first learn and pack down our current tech and understanding before doing mutli missions don't ya think ?


Or you one of those space tourists whos ready to orbit the earth with todays tech ? Good luck


safety first . Reality second. hope third.


"(The last successful Russian interplanetary missions were Vega 2 in 1985–86, and the partially successful Phobos 2 in 1988–89.)" wiki quote phobes


Do you know what this means?

IT MEANS WERE NOT HALF READY.

edit on 3-12-2011 by yourboycal2 because: (no reason given)

That approach, in my view, is how NASA has spent almost 50 years now puttering around and playing with their slide rulers to accomplish little more than was accomplished by the end of the 1960's. We USED to have a shuttle...that is the one milestone that really stands outside of the Kennedy challenge put to NASA back then.

We'll get REAL progress in space when China or the private sector just goes full throttle and wide open to exploration and pushing the boundaries further and further out. Men will die... Hundreds of them, in all reality. So did men in building the airplane, ocean going ships and some 40,000 or more a year just using the automobile. However, NASA's absolute allergy to ever having something go wrong..and then learning from a mistake, has pushed them into a funk of almost total paralysis for doing anything meaningful beyond "station keeping" to what few programs they can defend and keep from inside their bunker mentality.

Push to just shove NASA off the cliff at this point.....or realistically....relegate them to a monitoring and regulatory agency at most. They DO have a lot to monitor and for collection and analysis of space related data, no one really comes second to the people at JPL and NASA. They just can't handle real world operations when losing a single life is enough to shut down programs for years.

reply to post by cloudyday

You should have used the past tense. It ain't gonna happen.

The cruise stage would have landed on Phobos. After the samples were collected the ascent stage (which rode atop the cruise stage) would carry the sample back to Earth.

I had to correct myself. There would be no rendezvous in Mars orbit.
www.russianspaceweb.com...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by cloudyday

 

You should have used the past tense. It ain't gonna happen.

The cruise stage would have landed on Phobos. After the samples were collected the ascent stage (which rode atop the cruise stage) would carry the sample back to Earth.

I had to correct myself. There would be no rendezvous in Mars orbit.
www.russianspaceweb.com...

edit on 12/3/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Actually, I meant the topic to be NASA's Mars sample return, but I can see why everybody would think I was asking about the Phobos mission. I was reading this document about a year ago:
MSR Workshop

It mentioned that scientists would like samples from different regions of Mars. I couldn't visualize how NASA would sample many regions unless they would launch a rocket from each region. If they could miniaturize these rockets and dock with a return vehicle in Mars orbit then it would work.

Just curious if anybody knows more about the plans for the Mars Sample Return. Or has the project been pushed off into the distant future?

reply to post by Phage


We send out all these probes with state of the art everythng. Out of curiosity does anyone know if any space agency who has sent probes to other planets attached microphone / listening equipment? Its one thing to see the surface from the rovers, adding sound to some of those videos would be cool.

I am curious if anyone has thought about maybe building a larger module for the international space station to specifically deal with return sample probes.

reply to post by Xcathdra

There have been some initial plans to do so but the scientific value of such data doesn't really justify it. While it might be fascinating to hear what the winds of Mars sound like it wouldn't go far toward the actual mission. The bandwidth for data transmission can be put to better use.

Might want to look into the NASA Stardust mission to see all that it takes to return a sample from deep space. I'm not sure that link specifies but should get you there with some searching.

Mars Science Laboratory was not planning on returning anything that was the Russian Phobos-Grunt. but that has been already said.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

There have been some initial plans to do so but the scientific value of such data doesn't really justify it. While it might be fascinating to hear what the winds of Mars sound like it wouldn't go far toward the actual mission. The bandwidth for data transmission can be put to better use.

Okay, I admit it. I am a human being. I embrace it.

Therefore,
* touching a moon rock, or a Martian rock, means something,
* hearing a Martian wind means something,
* walking on another body's surface means something.

I am content with doing that vicariously, but mankind needs that experience.

I was reading a few articles on the pre-history of mankind this morning; and was struck by the realization that perhaps 150,000 years passed with no significant development in technology or society, but when humans began to explore beyond Africa, the experience changed those who ventured outward-- Pottery and bronze and cities, then Iron, gunpowder. Art, religion, mathematics, languages, and then flight, and then space.

All because we ventured outward. Or so it seems.

----
Moreover...

Buzz Aldrin certainly found his voyage to the Moon, at least in part, a spiritual experience. Hints have been made that Neil Armstrong's silence might be ascribed by those who know him as a sense of being overwhelmed by his experience. I submit it changes who we are-- and makes us better.

Quantum physics, as I attempt to follow it as lay person, seems to underscore Shakespeare's, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy;" but, then, so does religion and spirituality.

Just perhaps, the unseen reality of quantum physics and human spiritual belief in the unseen are more than analogs. What we do, effects what we are.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

There have been some initial plans to do so but the scientific value of such data doesn't really justify it. While it might be fascinating to hear what the winds of Mars sound like it wouldn't go far toward the actual mission. The bandwidth for data transmission can be put to better use.

Makes sense however we should start thinking about doing some of the less interesting / scientific things if we want your younger generation to care about nd get captivated by exploration / science / math etc.

We need a new space race..

reply to post by Frira

"Cause its next. Cause we came out of the cave and we looked over the hill and we saw fire; and we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the west and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is whats next."

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

There have been some initial plans to do so but the scientific value of such data doesn't really justify it. While it might be fascinating to hear what the winds of Mars sound like it wouldn't go far toward the actual mission. The bandwidth for data transmission can be put to better use.

Makes sense however we should start thinking about doing some of the less interesting / scientific things if we want your younger generation to care about nd get captivated by exploration / science / math etc.

We need a new space race..

Imagine a miniature rover where schoolchildren are able to send the instructions and look at the pictures over the internet.

reply to post by cloudyday

Bad idea.
Joey would break it. Joey breaks everybody's toys.

Actually, the late, lamented Mars Polar Lander had a microphone on it - a contribution from The Planetary Society. Source Sadly, the probe crashed when its engine cut-off too high above the surface.