‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

NASA’s Mars Sample Return mission is dead

456 points · 391 comments · Muhammad523

  1. angelgonzales · · focus · HN ↗
    This mission is representative of what JPL has become. Leadership there increased the cost of the program to $11B and would not bring the samples back until 2040, they also designed the mission around legacy rockets like Ariane 64 instead of working to lower costs and increase capacity by working with industry and designing around Starship or New Glenn. The moon missions brought back 842 pounds of rocks and MSL would bring back 1.1 pounds. It’s directionally better to wait for manned missions to Mars so we can bring back tons of rocks or even do the research on Mars itself. It seems like the JPL mission is maximized to provide jobs to researchers and maximized for mission complexity rather than just buying rocks from a contractor with quoted price and lead time.

    I’d be interested in working there to help accelerate the program but I’m not if I would get support internally.

    1. 3lambda · · focus · HN ↗
      > It’s directionally better to wait for manned missions to Mars so we can bring back tons of rocks or even do the research on Mars itself.

      I'm worried it's arguments like this that doomed MSR [0]. Why spend 11 billion to get a couple rocks back in 2040 when Starship will be sending astronauts in 2030? But now it seems the near term goals of the Starship program are changing. At this point, who knows when we'll send people to Mars?

      > buying rocks from a contractor with quoted price and lead time

      I don't know about you but I'm not hearing anyone say they've reserved Starship mass-to-Mars-and-back. You're right that we should rely on private industry more. The CLPS program is the most comparable example (although time will tell whether it's a good one). But for a mission with the risk tolerance of MSR, the CLPS model doesn't work, IMO.

      And meanwhile the Chinese are planning on launching their sample return in 2028. They're gonna beat us by a decade.

      [0] My thoughts here are partially from this great blog post: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mceglowski.substack.com&#x2F;p&#x2F;who-is-the-villain-in-mars-sample" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;mceglowski.substack.com&#x2F;p&#x2F;who-is-the-villain-in-mars...

      1. joquarky · · focus · HN ↗
        &gt; meanwhile the Chinese are planning on launching their sample return in 2028. They&#x27;re gonna beat us by a decade.

        So what advantage, in the realm of all possibilities, would this give China that we should be seriously concerned about?

        We have such bigger existential threats right now that my emotional response to the quoted text is an aggressive lack of concern.

        1. ryandrake · · focus · HN ↗
          Exploring outer space is not necessarily about gaining some kind of “advantage” over others on Earth.
          1. vlovich123 · · focus · HN ↗
            That is literally the only reason anyone has invested in outer space. Even scientific missions are done with a dual national defense purpose. Think of it like PR whitewashing of the military and geopolitical reasons that motivate funding.

            Notice how the US space interest rapidly dried up with the death of the Soviet Union. I’m not sure if China really motivates the same thing because it’s an authoritarian semi-capitalist society - it’s the communist “people owning the means of production” that gets capitalists really worried.

            1. foltik · · focus · HN ↗
              Not that I have a solution, but isn’t that kind of disappointing? Why don’t we just do it directly, rather than only as a side effect of needless conflicts?
              1. ryandrake · · focus · HN ↗
                Yea that’s why I said it’s not necessarily about gaining advantage. It shouldn’t be.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.