The Astronomy Thread

Cybsled

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
17,831
14,362
I mean it was a complex mission. It would have to land, retrieve the samples, launch back into space, then reach Earth. We haven’t done that with a planet before
 

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
48,551
105,705
We've been going into space for 60 years now and gone to the moon and back. Shouldn't cost 10+ billion dollars to retrieve some already cached tiny samples.
 

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
5,926
10,156
For whatever it's worth, my brother-in-law was working the sample return mission at JPL and he thought they were already on a tight budget given the demands.
 

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
48,551
105,705
For whatever it's worth, my brother-in-law was working the sample return mission at JPL and he thought they were already on a tight budget given the demands.
It's crazy. They aren't doing any collecting of samples merely picking up what the current rover has already cached for them. It's the same thing with sls costing an arm and a leg for what it does.
 

Cybsled

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
17,831
14,362
It's crazy. They aren't doing any collecting of samples merely picking up what the current rover has already cached for them. It's the same thing with sls costing an arm and a leg for what it does.

This isn't from the moon or an asteroid, it's from Mars. While Mars does have lower gravity than Earth and the atmosphere is thinner, it's not insignificant (it's something like 38% gravity and the atmosphere will still offer resistance to any launch). You would a) have to fly the thing to Mars with enough fuel to not only lift off from Mars, but also give it enough oomph to transit back to Earth. Even if you did a "create fuel on site" scheme, that unto itself is very complex and hasn't been tested at any scaled level. You could also make the launch vehicle not the return vehicle and make it rendezvous with an orbiting return rocket that would bring the sample back, but that is also very complex and you still need the sample to get orbital velocity b) have to land the launch vehicle in a way where it has an optimal launch trajectory c) also be close enough to the sample sites so retrieval is practical. One reason they were excited that the drone copter worked well is because they provided for an alternative means of retrieving the samples as opposed to a rover, which in theory gives them a greater selection of landing sites
 

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
48,551
105,705
This isn't from the moon or an asteroid, it's from Mars. While Mars does have lower gravity than Earth and the atmosphere is thinner, it's not insignificant (it's something like 38% gravity and the atmosphere will still offer resistance to any launch). You would a) have to fly the thing to Mars with enough fuel to not only lift off from Mars, but also give it enough oomph to transit back to Earth. Even if you did a "create fuel on site" scheme, that unto itself is very complex and hasn't been tested at any scaled level. You could also make the launch vehicle not the return vehicle and make it rendezvous with an orbiting return rocket that would bring the sample back, but that is also very complex and you still need the sample to get orbital velocity b) have to land the launch vehicle in a way where it has an optimal launch trajectory c) also be close enough to the sample sites so retrieval is practical. One reason they were excited that the drone copter worked well is because they provided for an alternative means of retrieving the samples as opposed to a rover, which in theory gives them a greater selection of landing sites
$11+ billion dollars to return not even a pound of Martian soil. That is pants on head retarded.
 

Cybsled

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
17,831
14,362
Can complain about the price, but any 2 way trip to Mars (manned or unmanned) is going to be expensive because of the technologies and R&D involved
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user