{"id":1028283,"date":"2024-04-16T02:38:22","date_gmt":"2024-04-16T06:38:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/uncategorized\/nasa-to-look-for-new-options-to-carry-out-mars-sample-return-program-spacenews.php"},"modified":"2024-04-16T02:38:22","modified_gmt":"2024-04-16T06:38:22","slug":"nasa-to-look-for-new-options-to-carry-out-mars-sample-return-program-spacenews","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/mars\/nasa-to-look-for-new-options-to-carry-out-mars-sample-return-program-spacenews.php","title":{"rendered":"NASA to look for new options to carry out Mars Sample Return program &#8211; SpaceNews"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    WASHINGTON  NASA will seek out of the box ideas in a bid to    reduce the costs and shorten the schedule for returning samples    from Mars.  <\/p>\n<p>    In an April 15 briefing, agency officials announced they would    solicit proposals from NASA centers and from industry on    innovative designs to reshape its Mars Sample Return (MSR)    effort after an internal review confirmed the ballooning costs    of the overall program.  <\/p>\n<p>    That review found that the current program would cost between    $8 billion and $11 billion, the same range     offered by an independent assessment completed last    September. To fit that into the overall planetary science    budget without affecting other programs would delay the return    of samples from the early 2030s to 2040.  <\/p>\n<p>    The bottom line is that $11 billion is too expensive and not    returning samples until 2040 is unacceptably too long, NASA    Administrator Bill Nelson said at the briefing.  <\/p>\n<p>    To try to reduce costs and schedule, NASA will issue a request    for proposals April 16 seeking ideas on alternative approaches    for the overall MSR architecture or specific elements of it,    like the sample retrieval lander or Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV)    rocket that would place the collected samples into orbit.    Proposals would be due to NASA May 17, with the agency issuing    contracts for 90-day studies shortly thereafter.  <\/p>\n<p>    Im expecting to get everybody in high gear and that we have    the answers to this by this fall, Nelson said.  <\/p>\n<p>    While NASA is looking for innovative approaches, it is not    necessarily looking for new technologies. What were looking    for is heritage, said Nicola Fox, NASA associate administrator    for science. What were hoping is that well be able to get    back to some more traditional, tried-and-true architectures,    things that do not require huge technological leaps.  <\/p>\n<p>    One example she gave is technology that enables a smaller, and    presumably less expensive, MAV. The studies, she said, will    seek proposals that could return an unspecified number of    samples, and not necessarily all the roughly 30 samples that    the Perseverance rover will have on board when it completes its    work.  <\/p>\n<p>    NASAs hope is that the studies can significantly reduce the    cost and schedule for MSR, but officials did not set a specific    goal. Were definitely going to try, Nelson said, adding he    was counting on the expertise of NASA personnel and those in    industry to find a solution.  <\/p>\n<p>    The goal is to do better than a revised version of the baseline    architecture for MSR that NASA developed in response to the    independent report last fall. That architecture would see the    launch of the ESA-developed Earth Return Orbiter in 2030,    slightly later than currently planned, said Sandra Connelly,    NASA deputy associate administrator for science, during a town    hall meeting after the briefing. That would be followed by the    sample retrieval lander with the MAV in 2035, allowing samples    to make it back to Earth in 2040.  <\/p>\n<p>    One issue is the longevity of Perseverance. Connelly said the    new plan would have Perseverance complete its exploration of    terrain outside Jezero Crater and return to the crater floor in    2028. Once there, it would go into a quiescent state until    the sample retrieval lander arrived.  <\/p>\n<p>    Fox suggested in the town hall meeting that this baseline    concept would not fly given its projected high cost. In the    current budget climate that we have, $11 billion, as the    administrator said, is too much, she said. I wouldnt say the    entire thing is dead on arrival. What were looking at is how    we can infuse some innovation and heritage and simplification.  <\/p>\n<p>    MSR, though, will be on a fiscal diet the next two years. Fox    said that NASA plans to spend $310 million on MSR in the    current fiscal year,     near the low end of the range offered by congressional    appropriators in the final omnibus spending bill last    month. That is a little less than one third of the $949.3    million that NASA originally requested for MSR in its 2024    budget proposal.  <\/p>\n<p>    NASAs fiscal year 2025 budget request left funding for MSR as    TBD or to be determined. NASA now says it will seek $200    million for the program. Lori Glaze, director of NASAs    planetary science division, said at the town hall meeting that    the $200 million will come from a line for Planetary Decadal    Future in the original budget proposal, avoiding taking money    away from existing missions or research programs. It would,    though, further delay new missions, like a proposed Uranus    mission recommended by the latest planetary science decadal    survey.  <\/p>\n<p>    Nelson said he has had extensive discussions about NASAs MSR    plans with members of Congress, including senators and    representatives from California worried about the effects of    the changes on the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which    laid off 8% of its workforce in February in response to    reductions in spending on MSR. They seem to be quite    understanding of the predicament were in.  <\/p>\n<p>    However, in a statement a few hours after the briefing, Sens.    Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Laphonza Butler (D-Calif.)    criticized the budget reductions. These funding levels are    woefully short for a mission that NASA itself identified as its    highest priority in planetary science and that has been decades    in the making, they stated, asking Nelson to work with    Congress to better balance these cuts to protect the JPL    workforce.  <\/p>\n<p>    NASA officials said at the briefing and town hall that there    was no discussion of suspending or even canceling MSR, citing    its high ranking in the last two planetary science decadal    survey among flagship-class missions. Returning these samples    from Mars is such a huge priority for us. That is why were    doing all of these things, Fox said.  <\/p>\n<p>    Returning the samples from Mars remains an important    operation, Nelson said.  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>More: <\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/spacenews.com\/nasa-to-look-for-new-options-to-carry-out-mars-sample-return-program\" title=\"NASA to look for new options to carry out Mars Sample Return program - SpaceNews\">NASA to look for new options to carry out Mars Sample Return program - SpaceNews<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> WASHINGTON NASA will seek out of the box ideas in a bid to reduce the costs and shorten the schedule for returning samples from Mars. In an April 15 briefing, agency officials announced they would solicit proposals from NASA centers and from industry on innovative designs to reshape its Mars Sample Return (MSR) effort after an internal review confirmed the ballooning costs of the overall program. That review found that the current program would cost between $8 billion and $11 billion, the same range offered by an independent assessment completed last September.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/mars\/nasa-to-look-for-new-options-to-carry-out-mars-sample-return-program-spacenews.php\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"limit_modified_date":"","last_modified_date":"","_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[807137],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1028283","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-mars"],"modified_by":null,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1028283"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1028283"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1028283\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1028283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1028283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/futurist-transhuman-news-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1028283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}