Mars Sample Reboot
Heir to Artemis
NASA has long dreamed, desired and sought to return regolith samples from Mars, following back-to-back programs to investigate the martian surface dating back to the 1976 Viking landers. These seminal landers carried a miniature automated laboratory to detect for life on Mars, which rather controversially returned a positive result for metabolic but not organic life. Subsequently these positive test results were dismissed as anomalous, possibly erroneous, largely because the reaction couldn’t be more deeply analyzed. NASA now intend to perform a Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission to test for traces of life in a laboratory environment on Earth, hopefully to provide a more definitive answer to this haunting question. However, like Heracles, they have some trials to overcome, before the MSR argosy can finally launch: -
Insufficient budget – in 2020 the budget for MSR was projected to be $4.4bn, whereas now it is expected to cost $10bn. Unfortunately congress are unlikely to allocate the substantial increase required to NASA science budget, given the current freeze to discretionary spending.
Inadequate personnel – NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) will lead the MSR program, ideally from development through to final operation. JPL is situated in California, which possesses many high tech industries, who unfortunately act as a magnet for their highly skilled staff… Hence JPL is unable to commence any substantial work on MSR until they resolve this ongoing staffing problem, with little prospect of a speedy resolution.
Technical complexity – JPL intend to build a large Sample Retrieval Lander (SRL) massing 3.4 tonnes, which is three times heavier than any previous Mars lander. To prepare for its arrival, their existing Perseverance rover will collect samples of Mars regolith and store them safely in small titanium tubes. With any luck Perseverance should be able to deliver these samples to the SRL, assuming it lands within range of the rover. However, Perseverance will have been operating for more than a decade at this point and possibly suffered some kind of failure that leaves it immobile. Hence the SRL will be equipped with one or more small flying helicopters, similar to the Ingenuity drone currently in operation on Mars. These drones are designed to retrieve the sample tubes from the Perseverance rover, if for any reason it is unable to reach the SRL. Then the samples will be loaded onto a Mars Ascent Vehicle which will send them to orbit inside an Orbiting Sample Container. An Earth Return Orbiter (built by the ESA) should then rendezvous with the Orbiting Sample Container and return it to Earth, where it will descend inside a small entry capsule. All told a highly complex operation, in an alien environment, with little inherent redundancy.
There’s a certain heroism attached to the MSR mission considering all the challenges they face, coupled with the extreme technical difficulty. Assuming, of course, they are doing the right thing and it achieves something of broad benefit. NASA’s planetary protection protocols normally prohibit the return to Earth of any potentially hazardous organisms, however, there’s no accepted proof of life on Mars, as previously discussed. If something hazardous is contained within these samples, NASA intend to rely on containment precautions during atmospheric entry, capsule retrieval and laboratory investigation, to minimize any possible contamination of Earth.
“Rigorously preclude backward contamination of Earth by extraterrestrial life or bioactive molecules in returned samples from habitable worlds in order to prevent potentially harmful consequences for humans and the Earth’s biosphere.” ~ NASA/Planetary Protection
Considering all the inherent difficulties and possible dangers presented by this mission, a complete overhaul of this program would seem justified. If MSR somehow passes the "preliminary design review" stage it could easily become mired in sunk cost and international commitments, making any changes difficult to implement and possibly adding expense to the project.
Certainly the former head of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, Thomas Zurbuchen, has some concerns with the MSR program: -
"This was the thing that gave me sleepless nights toward the end of my tenure at NASA and even after I left. I think there's a crisis going on."
New Dawn
This kind of legacy program is very much an extension of how NASA used to operate, i.e. sending probes and landers to perform increasingly complex missions around the solar system. More recently they have begun to pursue a more practical path with Starship HLS, which can place whole teams of scientists on the moon, supported by hundreds of tonnes of scientific equipment. This should allow NASA explorers to perform in-depth scientific investigations in situ, letting them achieve more in a handful of days than autonomous rovers could manage in years of more measured work. The next logical step would be to extend such operations to Mars, i.e. send teams of specialists to the red planet to perform planetary science missions, accompanied by a complete mobile laboratory. Likely any team would have to remain on Mars for at least 2 years, waiting for the optimum Earth return window to open; however, this should allow them sufficient time to identify any Mars hazards, without exposing anyone on Earth. The cost to mount such an operation would be comparable to MSR, due to SpaceX’s drive for low cost manufacture coupled with the fully reusable architecture employed by Starship.
Fear of Unknown
No doubt this adoption of Starship based missions could cause concern among more conservative sections of NASA, particularly in regional centers like JPL. Although realistically this might alleviate their recruitment problem, considering anyone who works at the center could be offered a place as a mission specialist. In addition, this new approach should allow JPL to build on their existing expertise, as they would be responsible for developing the portable laboratories and exploration equipment required to support these crew science missions. Likely too they would have access to a much roomier budget i.e. from the NASA Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate. Perhaps the cherry on the top, each mission could attract a plethora of awards, stemming from all the profound planetary science discoveries made possible by this approach. While some apprehension is understandable, particularly for regional centers with limited experience of crew operations, realistically this should grant them a first-mover advantage in an emerging sector, before crew missions become mainstream at NASA and Space Force.
In conclusion
It seems the nature of space exploration will change and center more on human presence supported by mobile laboratories and deep-tech robotics. This promises to deliver more definitive results and obviate the need for overly complex missions based on questionable assumptions. The change could be difficult, for some more than others, yet the profound benefits promise to lift all boats. A new wave is coming, who knows where it will take us, if we choose to ride it.