.jpg)
In a recent BBC Online interview, Dr Andrew Ball of the Open University spoke of their proposed plan for a sample return mission to Phobos, Mars' largest moon, to act as a precursor mission for a Mars Sample Return Mission.
No disrespect, but I've never understood the point of sample return missions. Surely any analysis of a rock sample back on earth ought to be able to be carried out in situ with current technology. The added expense, and danger (bio-security), is not justified in any way I can see.
One thing did interest me about the idea of sampling Phobos.
Phobos is thought to be composed of carbonaceous materials, at least on the surface, with a porous interior. Carbonaceous materials are composed of water and organic compounds - carbon and hydrogen.
Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen. Water, food, rocket fuel.
I could envisage an automated unit, a drill/refinery, that could mine the surface materials generating supplies for missions visiting or returning from Mars, or even stopping off before venturing further into the solar system.
But now think of this. The drill goes down 200m, then latches itself air tight to the top of the hole. Next, drop a thermal devise to the bottom of the hole, which blasts a cavern 50m diameter. The gas and water vaporised by the blast is captured by the refinery. The surface of the cavern may have been melted by the blast, sealing it, or could be sprayed with plastic to make it air tight.
Ready made space station, burried beneath the ground, safe from radiation.
Even more useful for visiting crews.
BBC Interview: Phobos Sample Return Mission
4 comments:
I agree that in situ analysis is safer/cheaper than sample return, and hence would be preferably if you could acheive the same science return.
But, sadly, our instrument technologies are just not up to it, for serveral reasons. Not all of the things we do on Earth can be easily miniaturised. Even then the process of taking a new instrument concept and getting it space qualified is pretty torturous.
More importantly, the iterative nature of science means that your results immediately tell you what instruments you should have flown - but of course now you've got to wait 30 years for the next mission!
The great things about a returned sample are:
* you can study miniscule amounts using laboratory techniques on Earth
* if a technique cannot measure to the desired accuracy etc. you can just keep the sample and perform the measurement when it can
* with each result you can refine your strategy and obtain an amazing amount of science from a few grams
* probably many more :-)
Of course there are disadvantages - you are sampling only one location, the risks and costs are high etc. But I think it's worthwhile.
What you say is fair. I suppose my irritation with sample return missions stems from my perception of them being another, lengthy, step between where we are now and human visits to Mars. I mean 15-20 years for the Mars Sample Return. WHY DOES IT HAVE TO TAKE SO LONG FOR CHRISAKE!!! (he said niaively and impatiently).
But really, at this rate I'll be dead before we set foot on Mars
Yes, I feel your pain! Certainly the old Aurora roadmap showed MSR as a stepping stone on the way to the first human missions.
But was this really planned to gather life-science or other relevant data about Mars, or more as a programmatic step to try and keep both the science and the human exploration communities happy?
I guess the problem now is that the US and Europe don't have the budget to go it alone, and so we have to wait for a time when we're both in budgetary sync - or wait for the Chinese :-)
Good post.
Post a Comment