Mars Sample Return: Will NASA’s ambitious mission ever happen?

Yesterday, NASA announced updates to their flagship mission Mars Sample Return (MSR) to cut costs and return the samples from the red planet before 2040. However, given the challenges the agency currently faces, I'm not sure the plan is feasible, even with the changes. Here's my breakdown of the mission, and my questions and criticisms about what NASA announced.

🔭 SUPPORT AD ASTRA

💫 FIND ME

⏱ TIMESTAMPS
00:00 - Introduction
00:45 - Why I care about MSR
03:38 - Why MSR is complicated
05:14 - The original mission
08:22 - NASA's changes
12:15 - My questions and criticisms
13:13 - Punting the decision
14:26 - Schedule and budget
16:12 - Expectations still may be too much
20:24 - I'm not sure MSR will happen

🛰️ SUBSCRIBE
For more space and STEM videos, subscribe to Ad Astra: @adastraspace

[stevebell]

Such enthusiasm – a great inspiration.

[GneasYTC]

Excellent analysis as usual, Swapna.
I really hope they can find a way to do the sample return more quickly than envisaged.
I'm itching to see what those samples can tell us, but I doubt I'll make it to 2040! 🤞

[paulalexandredumasseauvan]

excellent report and discussion, thank you! 👍☺

[stile]

I've heard about this from multiple sources but they all left me with questions, which you did a much better job of explaining. Thanks!

[zapfanzapfan]

2:05 No, that was a Jedi dropping his light saber 🙂

[algi]

I heard an interesting argument: the problem with NASA is that it's the organization providing a service to itself. It's both providing spaceflight technology and doing the spaceflights. It's like an airline that builds its own planes. So, basically NASA asks too much from itself, and the only limit to what to ask is their budget. I wonder if this would be simpler if a separate government org would be doing Mars sample return, a separate org would do Lunar base, and a separate org would provide space engineering for these space flight orgs.

[annando]

What is your opinion about Rocket Lab's proposal for MSR? They stated that they could do this for much less money and much faster.

[littlewink]

If the combined efforts of US Government, US science and US space engineering working continuously over many years can at best manage 15 years to grab and return a few kilo's of Martian rock what are the the odds of making even one manned Martian landing let alone setting up a Martian 'colony'?
What we may well end up with are a few 'Apollo style', travel, land, look around grab a few samples and rapidly return missions with the usual hoopla, flag waving and self congratulating followed by a long period of 'analysis and reassessment' about manned missions to Mars and a return to robot landers of greater size and sophistication.
The same is going to be the case for lunar exploration where any 'base' is going to be a cramped flimsy contraption much like an early Antarctic base station but one in a permanent blizzard and totally dependent on outside sources for personnel, food and supplies and always teetering on the edge of disaster. Especially if it's an American base built to 'cost' and constantly bemoaned as a cost we can not afford and cost cut to the max.

[oldmanstumpie]

It would be amazing if SpaceX can bring some samples back before 2040. Suggested methodology: 1. Fly to Mars, 2. Get out and pick up samples, 3.Refuel, 4. Fly home.

[danygauthier]

Why did you not talk about the third option? Rocket lab offered to do it all fast and at a fixed price of only 4 Billion ❤

[pmjdk]

I agree with you that NASA deserves admiration for what they've accomplished, but they're not good at doing things the cheapest way possible. I hope someone will find a cheaper way of doing MSR and make it happen.

[odril]

MSR started with a lie: "robotic missions are cheap" during the "faster-cheaper-better" era. If the managers would have been honest, they wouldn't be in this mess now.

[OliverGrumitt]

I also would like to add that people could be sent to pick up the samples instead but that would be incredibly risky and costly, and the cost would be far greater than using robotic craft. It may very well be that the search for life on Mars may simply be not worth the risks of failure and to life. Certainly there is no chance of finding life more advanced than microbes, and people in general would not be excited by that.
And then there is the problem of contamination both by craft already on Mars and future ones. As a recent asteroid sample mission showed, it is very very difficult to completely sterilize spacecraft so any life in those samples may be from Earth rather than Mars.
Myself, I am more excited about the Europa Clipper mission and the Dragonfly mission to Titan, both of which to me off more value for money than a Mars sample return mission. And as for Mars itself, since Ingenuity has shown it is possible to explore Mars by flying above the ground, a drone mission to explore Mars’s huge canyon, for instance, would also offer more value for money and would be a lot, lot cheaper indeed.

[joeker]

JPL wanted to do a tech demonstration, bigger lander, more acuate, with helicopters. NASA just couldn't spend money like in the Apollo era.

[kevanhubbard]

I'm doubtful getting to Mars is much much easier than getting back off it!

[rotofotonz]

I think RKLB will fund their own MSR mission as part of Neutron development test program

[camonthecoast]

Great video! The solution for speed and budget is Rocket Lab’s proposal. Much faster and cheaper and would be at pace with the Chinese mission.

[Klaus]

Well darn! I’ll likely be dead before the samples get here.

[philipeagles]

It's all so complex and expensive, like the plan to get a Starship onto the surface of the moon requiring multiple on orbit refuelling of the lander.

[Bionicbuddha_X]

Don't bother with Mars Sample Return. Just bring the entire Lab to Mars with Starship.