NASA is considering two ways to get its precious Mars samples back to Earth, but the agency won't pick a winner for another 18 months or so.
Analysis of those samples, which are being collected by NASA's Perseverance rover, could reveal a wealth of data about Mars and its history — including, perhaps, whether the Red Planet has ever hosted life.
NASA is therefore eager to get the Mars material — about 30 cigar-sized, sealed tubes containing rock cores and sediment — home, and then on to laboratories around the world. But doing so has proven to be more difficult, and far more expensive, than originally envisioned.
Back in July 2020, for example, the maximum total cost of the Mars sample return (MSR) campaign — a collaboration between NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) — was estimated to be around $3 billion. But just three years later, the expected price tag had risen to $8 billion to $11 billion. And even with that expenditure, the samples likely wouldn't arrive on Earth before 2040.
Related: NASA wants new ideas for its troubled Mars Sample Return mission
NASA recently deemed this situation unacceptable. In April 2024, agency chief Bill Nelson announced that an overhaul of the MSR strategy is in the works, saying that NASA will seek innovative new ideas from its research centers, private industry and academia.
A few months later, the agency selected 11 MSR proposals from academic and industry groups for further development. Eight of the private groups got up to $1.5 million apiece to keep working on their ideas for the next 90 days.
Get the Space.com Newsletter
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!
Such work has led to another milestone, which NASA announced during a press conference this afternoon (Jan. 7): The agency is now focusing on two potential MSR architectures, which differ in the way they would put hardware down on Mars.
The first option would employ a rocket-powered "sky crane," the system that successfully landed NASA's Curiosity and Perseverance rovers on Mars in August 2012 and February 2021, respectively. The second would rely on private industry to provide the landing system.
Going with the sky crane would result in an MSR cost of $6.6 billion to $7.7 billion, Nelson said today. The commercial option — which NASA didn't discuss in detail, citing concerns about proprietary technologies and designs — would be a bit cheaper, at $5.8 billion to $7.1 billion.
"Either of these two options are creating a much more simplified, faster and less expensive version than the original plan," Nelson said.
He added that, with the newly announced revamp, the samples could land on Earth as early as 2035, provided that Congress allocates sufficient funding. About $300 million would likely be required for MSR research and development this fiscal year and each additional year going forward, Nelson said.
Both options would put the same hardware down on the Martian surface — a lander that sports a small rocket called the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV).
The lander will touch down near Perseverance, which will roll over to the newer spacecraft. The lander will then grab the sample tubes using a spare robotic arm developed for Perseverance's mission, placing them in a canister aboard the MAV. (There's apparently no room in the new architecture for an Ingenuity-like sample-retrieval helicopter, a possibility in earlier designs.)
The rocket will then launch the samples into Mars orbit, where they'll meet up with an ESA-provided spacecraft that will haul them back to Earth.
In either case, the MAV and lander will be less massive than originally envisioned, allowing for the possible use of a sky crane. (The baseline MAV/lander concept was too large for a sky crane, necessitating a new and unproven landing system. Even with the new rethink, the sky crane would need to be about 20% bigger than the one that landed Perseverance, agency officials said today.)
The lander will also employ a nuclear power source — a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), as used by Curiosity and Perseverance — rather than solar panels, as previously planned. The RTG provides two major advantages, according to Jeff Gramling, NASA's MSR program director.
"One is, it gives us the opportunity to operate during dust storm season. And the surface ops timeline is one of the main drivers here, to make sure we've got time to transfer the 30 tubes," Gramling said during today's press conference.
"The other is, it helps us make sure we can keep those solid rocket motors on the MAV warm, which is where they like to be," he added.
Related: Mars dust storm mysteries remain as scientists study the Red Planet
NASA is researching both landing options — the detailed engineering work that would be required for each, for example — and doesn't expect to make a decision until mid-2026. With that timeline, the European return orbiter could launch no earlier than 2030 and the lander/MAV no earlier than 2031, said Nicky Fox, who heads NASA’s Science Mission Directorate.
Perseverance's samples may therefore not be the first pristine Mars material to come to Earth. China aims to launch its own sample-return effort in 2028, which could get the samples home as soon as 2031. But that mission will collect material from a single site, whereas Perseverance has been snagging samples from a range of environments, many of which were exposed to liquid water in the ancient past.
China's planned "grab and go" architecture "does not give you the comprehensive look for the science community," Nelson said today.
"Will people say that there's a race?" he added. "Well, of course, people will say that. But it's two totally different missions."
Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.
Michael Wall is a Senior Space Writer with Space.com and joined the team in 2010. He primarily covers exoplanets, spaceflight and military space, but has been known to dabble in the space art beat. His book about the search for alien life, "Out There," was published on Nov. 13, 2018. Before becoming a science writer, Michael worked as a herpetologist and wildlife biologist. He has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology from the University of Sydney, Australia, a bachelor's degree from the University of Arizona, and a graduate certificate in science writing from the University of California, Santa Cruz. To find out what his latest project is, you can follow Michael on Twitter.
-
Jim Franklin
I'm surprised the decision hasn't been made already - leave them in place for human boots to collect and then sample, either investigating on Mars (unlikely) or sending them back to Earth with the first crew to land if Musk's timeline is taken on past timelines, around 2032.Admin said:NASA is considering two ways to get its precious Mars samples back to Earth but won't pick a winner for another 18 months or so.
NASA won't decide on Mars Sample Return plan until mid-2026 : Read more -
Rob77
If we get boots on Mars those samples will most likely be redundant, basically a museum piece. I'm sure future astronauts to Mars will have equipment that will be able to dig for samples deeper and in other locations that Perseverance couldn't get to.Jim Franklin said:I'm surprised the decision hasn't been made already - leave them in place for human boots to collect and then sample, either investigating on Mars (unlikely) or sending them back to Earth with the first crew to land if Musk's timeline is taken on past timelines, around 2032. -
Jim Franklin
The equipment needed is very specialised and sensitive, it is unlikely that such equipment will be lofted to Mars with the first Humans. A lot depends on wether the first humans there plan to stay or come back.Rob77 said:If we get boots on Mars those samples will most likely be redundant, basically a museum piece. I'm sure future astronauts to Mars will have equipment that will be able to dig for samples deeper and in other locations that Perseverance couldn't get to.
If I was in a position too - I would go. -
ChrisA
SpaceX might one day return a Starship from Mars to Earth, but their plan requires first building a fuel factory, fuel tank farm and launch tower on Mars. As they found out with the first Starship test, a simple launch pad will come apart and damage the engines, They need the tower (at least a short one with no "chopsticks") because they need the quick disconnect so they can continue to fuel until just seconds before lift off. They need the tank farm and fuel factory to feed the quick disconnect. For that kind of power and to keep it working for years, nuclear power is the only option. Solar does not work well on Mars.Jim Franklin said:I'm surprised the decision hasn't been made already - leave them in place for human boots to collect and then sample, either investigating on Mars (unlikely) or sending them back to Earth with the first crew to land if Musk's timeline is taken on past timelines, around 2032.
This might work, but building all that infrastructure on Mars will take many, many years and you can't use astronauts until you test the system.
Notice that not even SpaceX is suggesting that a manned return will be faster and cheaper.
If SpaceX were to do this, they would have to send a Starship on a one-way mission. Its primary cargo would be the MAV (Mars Accent Vehicle) and Starship would only replace the "sky crane". This might be the "commercial plan: NASA is considering. SpaceX could have a one-way Starship working in the foreseeable future.
Of the two, Sky Crane has worked twice already on Mars while Starship has yet to reach orbit. I can now see why NASA wants to wait before they decide. At Starship still can't reach orbit and do a fuel transfer by 2026, they go with Skycrane. Witch lander they use SkyCrane or Starship I really just a detail, most of the mission remains the same. -
ChrisA
Have you seen what this equipment looks like? It is not just the instrument but the support system and people who surround it. We are talking about a lab 100X larger than any conceivable lander. And even worse, this kind of analysis is not something a typical astronaut could do. or any small team could do.Rob77 said:If we get boots on Mars those samples will most likely be redundant, basically a museum piece. I'm sure future astronauts to Mars will have equipment that will be able to dig for samples deeper and in other locations that Perseverance couldn't get to. -
EJD1984 What does this mean for CCRS (Capture Containment Release System) being worked on at GSFC. Since it sounds like this will be used in either Option 1 or 2, and needs to fly with the ESA Return Vehicle (which is still in full design). I would guess full design and development would (re)start on CCRS ASAP.Reply -
ChrisA IReply
The way I read it was that only the lander will change. Landing on Mars is =hard and they are looking at reusing the existing Sky Crane. But this meant a lot of mass had to come off the payload.EJD1984 said:What does this mean for CCRS (Capture Containment Release System) being worked on at GSFC. Since it sounds like this will be used in either Option 1 or 2, and needs to fly with the ESA Return Vehicle (which is still in full design). I would guess full design and development would (re)start on CCRS ASAP.
The commercial proposal, if I had to guess, was to use Starship as the lander. It would carry the MAV. So only the lander changes. But it appears NASA is going to wait told SpaceX to "show us, don't tell us" Starship can work. -
Jim Franklin ChrisA said:SpaceX might one day return a Starship from Mars to Earth, but their plan requires first building a fuel factory, fuel tank farm and launch tower on Mars. As they found out with the first Starship test, a simple launch pad will come apart and damage the engines, They need the tower (at least a short one with no "chopsticks") because they need the quick disconnect so they can continue to fuel until just seconds before lift off. They need the tank farm and fuel factory to feed the quick disconnect. For that kind of power and to keep it working for years, nuclear power is the only option. Solar does not work well on Mars.
This might work, but building all that infrastructure on Mars will take many, many years and you can't use astronauts until you test the system.
Notice that not even SpaceX is suggesting that a manned return will be faster and cheaper.
If SpaceX were to do this, they would have to send a Starship on a one-way mission. Its primary cargo would be the MAV (Mars Accent Vehicle) and Starship would only replace the "sky crane". This might be the "commercial plan: NASA is considering. SpaceX could have a one-way Starship working in the foreseeable future.
Of the two, Sky Crane has worked twice already on Mars while Starship has yet to reach orbit. I can now see why NASA wants to wait before they decide. At Starship still can't reach orbit and do a fuel transfer by 2026, they go with Skycrane. Witch lander they use SkyCrane or Starship I really just a detail, most of the mission remains the same.
Whilst Mars has lower gravity than Earth, there is still a substantial challenge to lift off the surface, its still 3.78m/s and is only part of the equation, although that is significantly more than any body we have lifted off from except the Earth, this is well within the capabilities of Starship.
If we assume a lift off weight of 10t payload, insluding the crew and all their provisions, a Starship would require around 238t of liquid methane and LOX to give it a
Mars Surface to Low Mars Orbit (LMO)Δv required: ~4.1 km/sb. Low Mars Orbit to Earth Transfer OrbitΔv required: ~1.5 km/s (Assuming an efficient Hohmann transfer trajectory)Total Δv:~5.6 km/s
Thus, claims that this is difficult are spurious. If Starship were designed to only be a one way trip, there is no reason for the design being capable of lifting off the planet.
The issue any such mission would have is O2 production for LOX, current prototype systems would take in excess of 10 years to produce the required 184t of Oxygen using even a scaled up MOXIE @ 2kg per hour would take in excess of 10 years - to produce the required 54t of Methane would take around 2 years if you also take into account that for every 100kg of CH4 required, you need to first produce 25kg of H2, which would need to be electrolysed from water.
Of course, an alternative way for the sample return would be for a Starship crew to take a solid propellant rocket with them - it would require to have a lift of weight of around 500kg with a 25kg sample payload, around 1m diamter and 4.5m length.