Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mars Space Science

Bringing Rocks Back From Mars (economist.com) 65

Posted by msmash from the relay-race dept.
The Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission intended to achieve all this will require three launches from Earth over the course of a decade, and five separate machines. From a report: The organisations involved -- America's National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, and the European Space Agency, ESA -- are each responsible for specific craft in the chain of what David Parker, ESA's head of human and robotic exploration, calls "the most ambitious robotic pass-the-parcel you can think of." On December 11th, at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, space scientists and astrobiologists outlined the details of the MSR. The project will begin with the launch, next July, of NASA's Mars 2020 mission. This will carry to the planet a successor to Curiosity, a rover that has been crawling productively over the Martian surface since 2012. The Mars 2020 rover, yet to be named, will land in a 45km-wide crater called Jezero, in February 2021. Its main purpose is to search for signs of ancient microbial life. Around 3.5bn years ago, Jezero contained a lake. Mars 2020 will drill for samples from the clay and carbonate minerals now exposed on the surface of what used to be a river delta flowing into this lake.

When the rover finds something that its masters want to bring back to Earth, it will hermetically seal a few tens of grams of the material in question into a 6cm-long titanium test tube, and then drop the tube on the ground. It can deal in this way with around 30 samples as it travels to different parts of the crater. Once it has dropped a tube it will broadcast that tube's location to the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, a satellite already on station that is armed with a high-magnification camera. This camera will take photographs of the tube and its surroundings, so that the tube can be found at a later date. The tubes are intended to be able to survive for more than 50 years on the surface of Mars, at temperatures less than 20C. The next phase of the project will begin in 2028, when a "fetch rover" designed and built by ESA will be sent to Mars to find and collect the tubes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bringing Rocks Back From Mars More

Bringing Rocks Back From Mars

Comments Filter:

  • Seems complicated (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Enigma2175 ( 179646 ) on Monday December 23, 2019 @02:37PM (#59551142) Homepage Journal

    The whole plan seems too complicated. Why don't they just ask the SpaceX astronauts to stop by the site and pick up the titanium capsules for them?

    • or we can fake it like Capricorn One

    • I totally didn't read your post before I posted, and totally stole your joke. Although is it a joke really... :-)

    • The whole plan seems too complicated. Why don't they just ask the SpaceX astronauts to stop by the site and pick up the titanium capsules for them?

      Because they are on the "Mars to say" mission. They aren't coming back. The goal is to bring the samples to Earth for analysis.

      Unless you think the SpaceX mission will have a science lab on par with the best on Earth it's best if they leave the sites undisturbed. Let NASA spend the money on finding water and other natural resources to mine. After NASA publishes the results then SpaceX can come in to stake a claim for the best spots to mine.

      • At the absolute best, the SpaceX craft that arrives at Mars will carry an analytical lab no more than 18 months behind the state of the art when it arrives.

        That is on the order of a bit of accuracy.

        More realistically, the round trip will cost two bits of accuracy. (3 years)

        Practically, the first sample return from a SpaceX mars sampling mission will be some centuries and many analytical generations behind the first returns from a robotic mission. Who, after all, is going to waste effort going into a grav

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It would be very unwise to rely on that happening. Also Mars is large and getting around is going to be hard, so they might not even be able to reach the site of interest. Or maybe it will be of more interest if they know what is there first.

      • Also Mars is large

        Mars has a little over a half of the radius of the Earth ; so it has a little over a quarter of the surface area. It is a dry, almost air-free desert.

        Compared to Bubba's backyard-cum-pitbull breeding factory, that's a lot of dead dust. Compared to the agricultural land of Earth, it's not even a match for Earth. Great for breeding really hungry and expensive pitbull maniacs.

  • I still see Space Exploration as a worthwhile science.
    The general rule of science is with lack of additional information what we observe is probably in the middle of a standard deviation curve.
    As we explore more and other worlds we begin to learn on what makes the world unique and what we share in common with the galaxy.

    • I still see Space Exploration as a worthwhile science. The general rule of science is with lack of additional information what we observe is probably in the middle of a standard deviation curve. As we explore more and other worlds we begin to learn on what makes the world unique and what we share in common with the galaxy.

      Speaking of additional information...
      NASA has already confirmed there are several meteorites that originated from Mars, and some of them may contain evidence of life on mars.
      I know the evidence is dubious at best, but if they can figure out where on Mars those rocks came from, they could look for signs of life there too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_meteorite#Possible_evidence_of_life [wikipedia.org]

      • The (several dozen) meteorite's origin on Mars used data from NASA, but was done by people with no affiliation with NASA.

        Speaking as a geologist who read the ALH84001 paper immediately on publication, they didn't convince me on first or second reading. After several hours (and several good whiskeys) of discussing the paper with a biologist (my father), the number of people convinced by the McKay et al paper in the room remained stuck at zero. It has remained there since.

        McKay et al did a good job of pres

  • I cannot view TFS, but I doubt the MRO can image a 6 cm tube from orbit. It would be much more likely to image the rover (to positively ID the location) for future reference.

    Once it has dropped a tube it will broadcast that tube's location to the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, a satellite already on station that is armed with a high-magnification camera. This camera will take photographs of the tube and its surroundings, so that the tube can be found at a later date.

    • Okay I looked it up and, no, it cannot resolve a 6 cm tube. The smallest object it can resolve is 1 meter [nasa.gov].

    • If the tube is designed to reflect sunlight then it could easily see that light, regardless of the size. I'm sure the orbiter could also see an object 1mm across if it happened to be a laser pointed at the orbiter.

      • If the tube is designed to reflect sunlight then it could easily see that light, regardless of the size. I'm sure the orbiter could also see an object 1mm across if it happened to be a laser pointed at the orbiter.

        How? The sun is unlikely to be directly behind the orbiter. So unless the 6 cm tube has a built in MRO-tracking computer and actuated mirror, there's no way to direct sunlight back at the camera.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by quenda ( 644621 )

          How? The sun is unlikely to be directly behind the orbiter. So unless the 6 cm tube has a built in MRO-tracking computer and actuated mirror, there's no way to direct sunlight back at the camera.

          Laser on the orbiter, and corner-reflectors (cat eyes) on the tubes?
            But actually there is no need for the orbiter to see the tubes. It just wants to photograph the area, and record the location reported by the rover.

          • How? The sun is unlikely to be directly behind the orbiter. So unless the 6 cm tube has a built in MRO-tracking computer and actuated mirror, there's no way to direct sunlight back at the camera.

            Laser on the orbiter, and corner-reflectors (cat eyes) on the tubes? But actually there is no need for the orbiter to see the tubes. It just wants to photograph the area, and record the location reported by the rover.

            That was my thought. The orbiter can see the rover and that is enough.

    • Yeah, it won't photograph the tube itself. Just the surrounding area so they can make a "treasure map" to find it later.

    • a satellite already on station

      That means a satellite on station at the time of the rover dropping the tube, not (necessarily) on station at the time of writing the mission proposal.

  • Why? (Score:1)

    by rldp ( 6381096 )

    Why put a rock in a tube, is there some chance the rock is going to go anywhere in the meantime?

    Why not skip this and begin work on the "fetch rover" now? (Other than obvious answer which is everybody knows it will never exist)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pascoea ( 968200 )
      I assume it's a complexity issue. System 1 "only" has to stuff dirt in a tube. System 2 "only" has to go to Mars, pick it up, and bring it back. Instead of one system that has to perform both tasks. The same reason most of us own a washer and a dryer, they both perform a step in the overall process, but the steps are different enough that warrant a different machine. Trying to combine them results in an overly complex, expensive, and inefficient machine. Plus, if one breaks you don't have to replace t
    • I wondered that as well. Or: why not let the exploring rover keep its samples so they can be collected easily at a later date?
      The "fetch rover" isn't even the hard part. The return mission is.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Why put a rock in a tube

      I suspect it's a combination of easier pick-up, and avoiding space radiation. The surface of Mars has very little protection from solar and cosmic radiation. While it's true the top side of rocks are probably already heavily exposed, the bottom sides are less so.

      If there is a dust storm, finding specific rocks could be difficult. Pre-tubing them makes them stand out.

      Whatever system gathers the tubes may also pick up a few random rocks laying around. Tubing them just allows more caref

    • Landing a rover, driving it around, looking at & collecting samples is something we already know how to do, so we launch it now (well, next year). Collecting sample vials, loading them into a return vehicle and launching it is something we've never done before, so it might take longer, but it shouldn't stop us from proceeding with the part we're good at. Also, splitting up the risk is a good thing; the first part of the mission still has value even if the sample return part doesn't work (or gets delay

    • Why put a rock in a tube, is there some chance the rock is going to go anywhere in the meantime?

      It's probably to keep it from getting contaminated with dust and fines during a dust storm, and also to make it easier to find later if it gets covered over during a dust storm. I didn't do any research, those are just reasons which occurred to me off the top of my head. There may be other reasons.

  • Can't they just ask Musk for a few? (Score:5, Funny)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday December 23, 2019 @02:44PM (#59551186)

    this will require three launches from Earth over the course of a decade

    Since Musk will have a populated Mars colony by then, can't they just ask him to ship a few rocks back on one of the return flights? Seems a lot simpler.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by aix tom ( 902140 )

        At least, once it runs over a pedestrian in space, we know it still has some minor flaws to iron out....

    • can't they just ask him to ship a few rocks back on one of the return flights?

      Why not "post" him an analysis lab so the material can be analysed in situ?

      That would also prevent any possibly harmful Martian material from contaminating Earth.

    • What return flights?

      Musk has promised it, so it is not going to happen.

  • How about a Mars bar?

    • Deep fried, I assume.

      I've never actually tried one, but I have been to chippers where they offer deep fried Mars bars. I have eaten deep fried pizza though, and it was as delightful as you'd expect, particularly as it cooled down and the grease started to congeal.

      However, it is not true that the Scots will deep fry absolutely anything before eating it. I've never heard of anyone even proposing a deep fried caber. Yet. And deep fried whiskey is an idea that would probably get you a starring role in a witch

  • While I agree the chance of a runaway disease being brought back is pretty small, it's not zero, and we shouldn't assume our probability estimation skills for such are sharp, being it's new territory.

    Maybe build a Mars-rock lab on the space station and/or moon and don't let the astronauts back on Earth for about a year.

    Economist is quota-paywalled, by the way.

  • To bring back rocks. But Musk is sending humans to mars in 2024. Please explain this discrepancy.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Ummmm (Score:4, Informative)

      by jpapon ( 1877296 ) on Monday December 23, 2019 @07:31PM (#59552160) Journal
      I worked on the sample return project, and there are a number of reasons for dropping the tubes as you go. The biggest is safety - if you store all the tubes on the sample collection rover, and the rover gets stuck, you're screwed.

      We did consider using small caches of hardware 6 tubes or so to make the collection problem easier, but doing this added too much scope to a 2020 rover that was already seriously behind schedule.

      I think the biggest reason though is it pushed out some complicated engineering (the recovery mechanism) out to the 2028 return mission, and allowed the 2020 team to focus on just the sample collection mechanism.

  • It's appalling that space exploration is inching along like this. If we put even half of our defense budget into space exploration, maybe we could combine grabbing the samples AND bringing them back. Our species is doomed if this is the speed of our progress.

  • Wouldn't it be faster and cheaper to build a robotic lab on Mars to analyze the samples? The lab could be added to over the years with more capabilities and replacements for broken components. Aerial drones could collect samples and bring them to the lab. What can we do in labs on Earth that could not be done on Mars?

    • Wouldn't it be faster and cheaper to build a robotic lab on Mars to analyze the samples? The lab could be added to over the years with more capabilities and replacements for broken components. Aerial drones could collect samples and bring them to the lab. What can we do in labs on Earth that could not be done on Mars?

      I take it that you are unfamiliar both with actual labs and with rovers. The Mars Rover 2020 weighs about 1000 kg, less than a small car. Can you cram a research lab into a small car? No, you cannot. Many pieces of lab equipment are a substantial fraction of this total weight. A modern compact scanning electron microscope weighs in around 100 kg. Make a list of all the different instruments that exist that you might want to use to search for traces of life in a Mars sample. Heck if you bring the samples to

      • All true, but also there is the lead time. For launching a mobile lab in November 26, 2011 the feature freeze on the Curiosity rover was in late 2004.

        Seven years is a long time in the life of cutting edge instrumentation.

  • Why bring them back at all? What we want is the data. Curiosity has a pretty powerful laboratory in it. Is there anything important that it cannot do?

    • Dating samples by isotope analysis? Bearing in mind that frequently used isotope dating systems range from nuclei weighing over 230 atomic mass units ("amu") (uranium-lead, lead-lead, thorium-uranium series) to 145amu (samarium-neodymium) to 87amu (rubidium-strontium) to 40amu (potassium-argon system). That's a big ask from one mass spectrometer and it's associated wet-chemical chain. In particular, one end of the wet chemistry chain needs to perform ion exchanges to separate near-neighbour transition metal

  • I'm getting old. I hope I'm around to see the analysis of actual clay samples from Mars.

  • Grabbing rocks from another world that could have had life at some point, and bringing them back to earth.

    Next Plague anyone?
    • There is a ha-ha-but-serious argument that Mars may have been where life in the Solar system originated, before being transferred to Earth when the Hadean crust stabilised enough.

      Now, panspermia is never a satisfactory solution (someone once amplified Einstein's "God doesn't play dice with the universe" quip by adding that "God doesn't throw the dice where the observers can't see them" ; panspermia is very definitely throwing the dice where they can't be seen), but at least the transport leg of this panspe

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close