Scientists See Red on NASA Cuts of Mars Missions, AP
“To scientists, the message from the White House seems simple: Bye-bye, Mars. On Monday, upset Mars researchers are meeting with NASA officials to figure out how to reboot the program beyond the 2013 mission. If Obama’s budget sails through as outlined, “in essence, it is the end of the Mars program,” said Phil Christensen, a Mars researcher at Arizona State University. It’s like “we’ve just flown Apollo 10 and now we’re going to cancel the Apollo program when we’re one step from landing,” he said.”
– Second International MEPAG (Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group) Meeting (with WEBEX instructions)
– Live tweeting from this morning’s session at @NASAWatch hashtag #MEPAG
Keith’s MEPAG Observation: despite the fact that the Mars community is facing budget cuts all they can think about is more expensive missions to Mars. No interest in alternate approaches to sample return i.e. in situ characterization. FAIL.
NASA Official Announces Chair of New Mars Program Planning Group
“NASA’s associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate, John Grunsfeld, has named former veteran NASA program manager Orlando Figueroa to lead a newly established Mars Program Planning Group (MPPG) tasked to reformulate the agency’s Mars Exploration Program. Figueroa’s first assignment is to develop a draft framework for review by March 15.”
Scientists see red on NASA cuts of Mars missions, AP
“NASA said it does not quite know what a reconfigured 2018 mission would look like, but it would be cost-capped at $700 million and it will not be landing. If it is lucky, it may orbit Mars. After Curiosity lands in August, the next NASA Mars surface mission probably is close to a decade away, Grunsfeld said. To scientists, the message from the White House seems simple: Bye-bye, Mars.”
Well… that’s what happens when you let JWST run away with the science budget. There’s not an infinite amount of money available and when you routinely let projects get out of control, the science always suffers somewhere else. You have to make choices on what to fund and cancel projects who break with their projections, regularly. Otherwise, this kind of thing should be expected.
Do you actually have anything to share with us, Keith, or do you simply want to keep lobbing grenades?
I guess you haven’t heard about Twitter yet – you missed what I posted.
Combining a mission (and partnering) with the Europeans wasn’t “alternative” enough??
To be frank, sometimes international partnerships are much more expensive then doing it US only. Some parts of the ISS are 5-10x more expensive than they needed to be, because the point was more in the diplomacy / partnership itself than in the actual activity itself.
This is extremely true with certain Europeans, who were surprised when this wasn’t going over particularly well.
It wasn’t the common case with the ISS, but when it happens it is unavoidable. Can international partnerships be “economical”? Yes, but only if your partners and all the involved contractors move heaven and earth to keep it so – they generally don’t.
Same issues are true with large US missions too. This is also why small US missions can be so cheap and effective – high reuse, concise communications/involvement, steady design reviews and timely mission sign-offs. And no JPL prima donna’s.
A good point, but NASA has interminable discussions even between and within internal groups interfacing on a single project. Musk’s strategy with SpaceX was to minimize interfaces and keep all the decisions in-house, maybe not always correct, but at least timely.
Regarding ISS, is it true that right now the Russians can bring paying tourists but the Americans cannot? The US government does have lodges and hotels at federal sites such as Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon. Why not space?
MSR doesn’t need to be like JWST (or MSL).
I think that the move to split up into component missions was the right approach. I think they should take it further.
Lets assume you can get a rover that can last 10 years – thats something like 5 apparitions. What if you launch small missions that land sucessively along the rovers predicted path, and they each orbit sample packages that eventually accumulate on orbit. You then eventually afford a recovery mission that captures the accumulated samples and returns them … eventually … to Earth.
Think in terms of smallest missions that work incrementally and not with this end-to-end concept of a mission. And in getting statistical results – doesn’t matter if you lose a few along the way. Even if some fail to make orbit, fail to make return to Earth … we over the long space of time get portions of infrastructure working til the whole happens.
It might even be that case that the sample orbiting component reuses the landing engine by over months doing ISRU to refuel itself, then discards/exchanges components with sample payload before launching. Perhaps the rover serves some of the recurring function of launch, including communications/tracking/control functions.
Prediction: It is going to be one of the greatest ironies of Martian exploration history that the Mars Science Laboratory lasts a shorter amount of time, returns less science, and covers less geographic area than the Mars Exploration Rovers.
The number of times “one is better than two” is so infrequent in the universe, I honestly think half the justification for the MSL is that they wanted to be challenged in new ways with an entirely new system, instead of just sending another pair (or more!) of upgraded MERs.
Even Exo-Mars had it wrong. Instead of basing the design on MSL (like the original pre-Exo-Mars plan), it was going to be entirely new, just utilize Skycrane again.
And then there is mysterious “Trace Gas Orbiter” whose only justification is “because methane will direct us to life”… well I would have launched that, you know, in 2000 or so, pre-MER so we could know where to send the MERs.
NASA has no plan for Mars. Zero. There is no direction its going. It’s all independently designed, independently run fishing expeditions. I was in high school when the Mars Sample Return mission was imagined being “far in the future, in 2017”. That’s five years away. I’ve been out of college for hardly less than that.
You want to know why Chinese Space advancements make people nervous? Because of what is unsaid. They have a plan, and they execute it, methodically, step by step. Organized. Structured. Efficient. We Americans… well we can’t be bothered budgeting most anything right or honestly anymore. And we can’t be bothered making long term investments that will pay off years from now. And we can’t be bothered to hold people accountable when they’re awful at their jobs (looking at you every manager and project leader on JWST). So we just wing it.
And that is why Man on Mars will always be thirty years down the pipe. Because doing that requires more discipline than modern Americans, from the voter who supports a candidate in an election to the NASA project manager to the US Senator, can be bothered to muster. If Procrastination Nation can’t be bothered to properly plan which, how many and in what order robots it’s going to send to Mars, what business do we have sending people?
JonathanN3
I would think that the tesla all purpose roving service platform would be designed to add the solar panel option. Maybe have some tools for dust removal wipers or blower.
What if the money used on MSL had been used to add on dragon las/red dragon development and a cheaper tesla nuke rover (plus the solar option) that just drops out the bottom of a dragon once landing had been done.
We could be flying astronauts to ISS on dragons now and not paying the Russians.
Using lots of that MSL money for both missions/projects
No sky cranes, no Russian rides, same money.
Isn’t all you need to add to a dragon to land it on mars is fold out shields to increase surface area for the added weight?
A dragon IS a sky-crane
Keith, could you elaborate on “in situ characterization”. Is there a blueprint/powerpoint somewhere of a cheaper MS’r’ mission that involves this?
Is the supposed cheaper launch cost of SpaceX a factor in these meetings yet? Probably still too early, at least till they fly a few more times.
Any mention of a possible Red Dragon mission?
Are we men here, or are we chronic complainers?
Maybe it’s time for some people *hint-hint* to start writing serious white papers on affordable/sustainable Mars Sample Return missions.
Assuming it lands OK, couldn’t you use Curiosity to pick up some rock samples and “store” them (abet crudely) on the back of its deck. It could grab 4-6 samples with its arm and transport them (with some careful driving) to a small/low-cost ISU rocket landed near by, drop the samples into bins, close the door, then drive off a suitably safe distance — would suck if the rocket crashed on top of the multi-billion rover.
Methane/Oxygen ISU-fueled rocket launches into orbit with sample bin. Something (solar sail, solar-propulsion tug) rendezvouses, grabs sample bin, starts to putter back to earth while also demonstrating another critical technology for manned spaceflight (see, everything harmonizes between manned and robotic missions, Charlie is happy).
If successful repeat. If unsuccessful, fix and try again until successful.
Doug,
If Mars programs funding wasn’t being so thoroughly clobbered, I’d seriously consider proposing doing a sample-return in the piggy-back fashion you describe with every Mars program that could pull it off. Additionally, if missions were done often enough (and the timing could be reconciled) I’d propose using a cycling solar “tug” (of the type that Buzz Aldrin proposed). This would give us more sample returns for much less money, and also samples from a variety of locations and times.
I strongly advocate having missions do more than one task. The same argument applies to hardware items. Multipurpose missions and hardware not only significantly save money (over time, even though single missions may increase in cost), but also provide a kind of insurance since, if one task fails, in whole or in part, the other task(s) my well still succeed.
Down the road, the reusability and simplicity of a cycling tug is going to be a big money saver and time saver. In addition to sample-return missions, our tug could be used for supply runs, relocating natural resources from their source to where they will be processed, repositioning of other vehicles and more. I would consider it a big mistake to wait until a new program needs one to start development. Since we’d want the core of the tug to be standardized, we’d want to design, build and test one or more test units first, to learn what works best and how to optimize the design and construction. So, instead of making this a large line item on the critical path of some schedule (a classical NASA wrong move), make it a separate project, with costs more spread over time, and remove the time critical element.
I envision a tug as having two primary operating modes: 1) repeatedly fly a defined back and forth trajectory with stops at the end points (Loop Mode); and 2) relocate from A to B (Goto Mode). There would also be a Reset Mode for when problems occur, and a Go Home Mode to bring the tug to its maintenance location.
Each mode would have a data set to define it. Data sets can be revised or uploaded through long-range telemetry, as can program code. Loop Mode would fly elliptical trajectories so as to maintain one-way “traffic lanes.”
Steve
Maybe it’s time for some people *hint-hint* to start writing serious white papers on affordable/sustainable Mars Sample Return missions.
We did, they were uninterested.
Try again. Send copies to Bolden, Abdalati, Peck and Figueroa.
Putting a sample rack onto Curiosity once it has landed might be feasible in a 2016 window (I’d say 2014, but there’s no way anyone could get their act together that fast). Biggest technical challenge would be to put sample rack hardware within a kilometer or two ahead of the rover’s travel — high degree of targeting/landing accuracy which needs to be demo’ed anyway.
Since the hardware payload is light (see below) and involves zero electronics, you can use a simple airbag scheme for landing and just leave the hardware out in the open available for pickup. Actual sample rack weight would have to half a kilogram or less before you put samples in.
I haven’t found a user’s/technical guide for the MSL, but my working model involves a simple sample rack/tray hardware with a grab “point” for the tray exactly end of the drill bit end points. Three drill bits get swapped around on a regular basis anyway, so there’s also an opportunity to add new bits if some have been broken/lost.:)
The rack would be a lightweight (titanium or carbon fiber) square or rectangle, with 3 or 5 sample partitions and the remaining “sector” an open hole. The “peg”/fix point would be the solid sample inlets, so in theory, you pivot and level the rack, lowering it down. If you want, you have a simple twist clamp to fix the rack on the base of the solid sample inlets to hold the rack in place.
How the sample partitions are opened and closed are left as a future exercise, but you’d use either a drill bit or the scoop to toggle/open a partition, dump the sample in, then toggle partition closed.
Once the sample rack is full, you land a sample return rocket ahead of Curiosity in 2018. The rover drives up, pulls out an empty sample tray, reaches back, loosens the clamp, lifts up on the grab point, then puts the full tray into the sample return rocket, then loads the new tray onto the back.
Curiosity drives off to a safe distance — would suck if your sample return rocket hit your $3 billion rover — turns around to watch the launch. Return capsule #1 in orbit.
Conduct a second sample return launch in 2020 time frame. Use solar-electric tug to deliver sample pickup rocket and/or other hardware, pick up sample return capsules from 2018 and 2020, then come back to Earth.
MSL mechanical unknowns: 1) How much total weight the arm could lift using the grab point 2) Is there enough range of motion/clearance for the arm to drop a simple sample tray onto the top deck of the rover. 3) Would any sort of extensive reprogramming be required to grab and move tray?
If you’ve got problems in 1-3, then you get into more complex (expensive) solutions…
One pair of students did a (sort of) “mars cycler” nanosat design that could enter/leave mars orbit and do a slingshot maneuver around Earth. It was a demonstrator of a low cost concept to provide the return from Mars orbit component of MSR. It got interest from some of the “new space” firms, and ARC keeps up with the students as its very provocative.
But if you expect that it gets funding to even keep it on life support from NASA – forget it. They are still paying their own dime to go to conferences, travel to do presentations, barter for resources to do better and better simulations, get some help on long duration spaceflight / reducing error growth in orbital integration etc – they are getting to learn aerospace from old timers they are put in contact with.
My guess is that they’ll eventually get a piggyback launch that’ll allow them to ever so slowly develop a solar system transportation platform. At some point probably financed through small contributions from philanthropists temporarily enthused to kick in meager funds. Not NASA.
“… to a small/low-cost ISU rocket landed near by… Methane/Oxygen ISU-fueled rocket launches into orbit with sample bin…”Launching from Mars turn out to be nontrivial. There really isn’t such a thing as a “small/low cost” launch vehicle that can get you from the surface of Mars to orbit. If there were, MSR wouldn’t be a hard
–with that said, I do like the idea of an in-situ fueled Mars Sample Return, which demonstrates a technology as well as returning a sample– in fact, I’ve proposed it: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW…
The interesting challenge is designing a package with 1) ISU plant, 2) Rocket, and 3) Way to launch rocket while ISU plant/robotics intact for next unmanned use.
How much dirt/rocks would you want to bring back on a Mars sample return? (Note: As much as possible is an admirable answer, but not a valid one).
Keith, just as people wanted to contest you about the MSL cpu, costs and process, you’ll find the same backlash regarding cheap and efficient.
NASA is a network full of egomaniacs. Anytime someone comes up with a good and efficient idea, people will claim territory and reference their traditions with the all to common result of crapping it all to hell. For someone to truly plan a cost thrifty idea, it would involve excluding a lot of people.
If we could send probes to Jupiter and Saturn decades ago with toaster level technology and cannot do it today, there is no point in continuing NASAs development process as-is. The gradual time reduction of bang for your buck makes some of these ideas not worthwhile, and unsustainable congress after congress, president after president.
NASA needs an iron fist dictator who is only focused with getting the job done with the budget given. Cheap and efficient It’s not going to happen with this current administrative structure.
Why not do an x prize and go around NASA
If they can’t perform. Show em how!
Sounds good. Got $200 to $400 million cash to put up?
We already have rocks from Mars. Getting one more sample isn’t worth the billions a MSR mission is going to end up costing.
The exploration of Mars has devolved from the hunt for extraterrestrial life into an expensive geology field trip. It’s time to take the little money available and move on to the other planets.
“However, moonies sometimes misapply this argument, trying to make the
other planets/asteroids even less interesting, so as to make the Moon
more appealing. Like throwing mud on others in a beauty contest, it has
the effect of killing interest in space altogether. They don’t get this.” – prior comment.
Let me explain again. Want to reduce funding for NASA? Talk down Mars. Talk down Venus. Talk down Jupiter. Throw more mud.
Happy now?
Mr. Consequence
I just read your words from yesterday in the moon thread. Paul and I are kicking around that dragon birthday, Snow White and Seven dwarfs idea. Do you think their could be anyway to get funding for something like that for the birthday?
I made the point some where how easy a building can be built when ALL have a plan a schedule that ALL believe and they work together. It’s sad to know how easy it could be, yet how impossible it is. Anyway I’ll try to be careful with my comments. I hope I don’t hope appear to be throwing mud when trying to call for change.
Anyway thanks for truly doing your part
Joe Q
LOL I am the guy here that really is just a Joe tax payer
PS having taken your advice and learned to use the tech by learning how to use my iPod better I have gained my voice. Lol one finger is almost as fast a two lol
I type all my ideas in the note pad which works much better than the discus window then just paste it in.
I get a screwy idea just tap in a few note words. Lol
Billions is what happens if you use the management, planning and bookkeeping of the past decade or two. Time to get more creative in putting payloads on the surface of Mars and making sure the payloads that arrive are designed for more than a one-shot use.
“Getting one more sample isn’t worth the billions a MSR mission is going to end up costing“
Gonzo,
How do you know this? One of the fundamental reasons for the existence of science is that we can’t magically see details at great distances or from different times.
Steve
How do you know this?
Whenever decisions like this need to be made on where to spend our limited resources, such as NASA’s dwindling budget, we need to look at the evidence we currently have in hand and see what it tells us. What we see is that, while Mars is certainly interesting from a geological sense, much more revolutionary science can be gained by exploring the other planets and their moons.
We stopped going to the Moon because it cost too much to gather more rocks. Value is about getting something you really want for the cost of getting it. The Moon stopped having value to the taxpayers.
Mars is quickly becoming the new Moon. It’s time to move on.
Steve Mr. Wingo
How ever crude isn’t this the kind of plan that could help bring the two planet groups together ?
One thing that could been you together is somebody else taking your pie?
Earlier you said you wrote them and they weren’t interested. Well maybe it’s time to talk to the owner over the. Builders head.
Anyway if you guys could make suggestion to help my flock of dragons to make it a little more realistic I would sure appreciate it.
Raw looney/mars ideas III
x prize
Update per Pauls suggestions
X prize news flash
Flock of hopping, roller skating dragons head to the moon for a little drink.
What stuff would you need for a cheap x prize water mining project on the moon.
Mission program goal. To demonstrate that water can be mined with a cheap mobile mining, water making, fuel refining factory flock of dragon landers.
Mobile mining platforms.
Moving the flock
Hummmm we want to have all landing platforms be about the size of a Spacex Dragon.
If all dragons can fly they can hop too.
If they have enough fuel a dragon factory unit can hop to another location to stay up with the flock.
Plus our dragons need to like to roller skate.
Wouldn’t it be easy to have all looney dragon landers have wheels above their landing legs after landing impact you retract your legs a little so all dragon landers ARE rovers. No sky crane needed.
Maybe not for the very first moon sorties but have Spacex develop a moon fuel drinking Draco so that our flock can mine its own fuel to keep it on the move, sharing the fuel they mine.
How many dragons do you need in your flock? Hummmm
Let’s name them
Driller, baker, maker, tanker, seeker, science and survey, and talker
That’s seven lol and the Ice is Snow White
All these landers skins are solar collectors or they have collectors that follow the sun. Plus all dragons can plug into each other to share battery and solar power as needed.
DRILLER has the a ability to mine the water out of the ground.
BAKER has a nuke generator that cooks the soil to separate the water
MAKER manufactures the fuel
TANKER stores and transports fuel, you would need two of these to keep the factory running continuously.
SEEKER hunts for water with it’s fast rover that it garages for hops
SCEINCE AND SURVAY are just like Seaker but with different packages.
TALKER communicates with satellites or earth and has high gain antenna.
All units are mobile and can feed each other fuel as needed and could receive supples from any new dragons sent from earth to join the flock
Sooo using just 6 to 8 dragon size landers couldn’t you start a demo moon/mars factory?
How many dragons could a falcon Heavy get to the planet surface in one flight?
Couldn’t a falcon heavy easily leave a fuel depot in looney/Mars orbit? Or a point?
This idea was written to suggest possibilities and was not researched so any advice on how to improve or make possible the theme of starting a robot moon/mars mining operation for x prize like prices sure would be appreciated.
Time to go outside and watch some birds.
Couldn’t such a small mobile flock travel around the moon/mars leaving behind it loaded fuel tanks/depots which tanker could shuttle to where ever it is needed.
X prize mission
Pre dragon factory mission should be a tesla rover mission. The rover and dragon platform should be solar powered. You have a tesla rover inside your dragon that is lowered out the bottom after landing with standard science package on board(to follow the water lol). In addition you have wheels on your dragon platform and demonstrate platform roller skating.
Also once your standard rover has traveled off exploring you hop you dragon platform to another location to meet back up with you standard rover.
To demonstrate future mobile factory capabilities.
Also this gives tesla a chance to make a multi purpose rover that can be used again and again on other rocks to do science cheaper in the future.
Also having two rovers/hopper together on the moon/mars with cameras watching such a mission could be great fun for the public.
Joe Q
Seems to me that mining water for fuel on both the moon and Mars is very similar and the missions could be designed and executed together or one being used to shake out rthe system for the other. Since the moon is closer, no time delay and easer to land on, and lift from,it is cheaper so I would suggest testing the hardware there first.
Sharing similar platforms and rovers sure could greatly reduce cost.
So stop fussing about who has more pie and find away to work together to do it all cheaper.
It does take rocket scientist!
So y’ll be smart
Oh I’m a mars guy like Elon but i’m ready for him to shake out his hardware on the moon now. Then send it to Mars too! All for cheap!
I want some affordable hardware flying soon
Joe Q
This isn’t the first time I have taken thoughts from here, only to see that spacexs tool box looks like the cheapest. Best way to go.
News release:
2012-050
Feb. 28, 2012
Proposed Mars Mission Has New Name
The full version of this story with accompanying images is at:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/new…
PASADENA, Calif. – A proposed Discovery mission concept led by NASA’s Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., to investigate the formation and
evolution of terrestrial planets by studying the deep interior of Mars now has
a new name, InSight.
InSight stands for Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy
and Heat Transport and is a partnership involving JPL, Lockheed Martin Space
Systems, the French Space Agency (CNES), the German Aerospace Center (DLR), and
other NASA centers. The previous name for the proposal was GEMS (GEophysical
Monitoring Station). NASA requested that name be reserved for an astrophysics
mission known as the Gravity and Extreme Magnetism Small Explorer, which was
already in development.
“We chose the name InSight because we would literally peer into the interior of
Mars to map out its structure,” said JPL’s Bruce Banerdt, the principal
investigator. “With our geophysical instruments we will be able to see right
through to the center of Mars, and will be able to map out how deeply the crust
extends as well as the size of the core.”
InSight is one of three missions vying to be selected for flight in the
Discovery Program, a series of NASA missions to understand the solar system by
exploring planets, moons, and small bodies such as comets and asteroids. All
three mission teams are required to submit concept study reports to NASA on
March 19.
For more information, visit http://insight.jpl.nasa.gov/
.
I understand how the Mars supporters are upset at this time but this day has been coming for quite a while.
I support Mars as well but we have a huge problem in the allocation of resources and the question that should be on the table is how to look at the current system level designs in a manner that more can be done at a lower cost for science, and…..
An elevator pitch on why Mars is the most important destination to send even more hardware than has been sent in the past 15 years.
I am with Elon that the goal should be to colonize Mars. How does the existing Mars science program support that goal?
We have four rovers/landers there with another multi billion dollar one on the way just in the past 12 years. In all time, and stretching back beyond to the two Viking landers totaling six birds representing several billion dollars in hardware and we have yet to put even a low cost lander on the surface of the Moon since Richard Nixon was president.
This is a balanced science program?
It took the lunar community 22 years from Apollo to even the modest Clementine mission by DoD. It was 26 years from the end of Apollo to the modest Lunar prospector mission and only the last two years for something significant like LRO.
What can we do to work together as a community rather than tear each other apart? What unifying meme can be provided that gives context to Martian, Lunar, and outer solar system science?
That should be the question……
“That should be the question……“
Dennis, I think that has been the question, for the last 40 years. But because nobody has come up with a convincing, comprehensive answer, we pretend that question doesn’t exist. It’s sort of an unspoken mutual agreement. There is no challenge so daunting that it can not be successfully overlooked.
Steve
nobody has come up with a convincing, comprehensive answer,
They have done so at times. Doesn’t last.
Better way to say it is said answer doesn’t receive the respect it deserves. Because existing agendas are more desired.
Fantastic comment Dennis
What unifying meme can be provided that gives context to Martian, Lunar, and outer solar system science?
Ask myself (and others) this all the time. This is supposed to be asked by the decadal survey … but you see that’s not quite working.
I could give you my take on why … but in abbreviated form, it would come across maddeningly cryptic, where you’d be compelled to nitpick it not unrightly.
So let me try a better way. Look back on anything done on the Moon in 20 years – little I know. The weird thing is that the triggers for them seem to be other successes elsewhere. Its as if people wake up, find they can test something “local”, find funding, and … it sometimes happens.
So I tried a gambit – what if you could use this to start an “oscillator” / “resonator”? E.g. piggyback on the lunar result something done (say) on Mars, leading back into a bigger lunar project. Result – the minions of lunar orthodoxy blocked the attempt. Perhaps it was “impure”.
In politics we have something called “the memory of power”. Where something that once had clout, creates a desert around itself as a moat or Chinese wall, where it may live on in squalor waiting for any hint of restoration of its power. All must be controlled to that end … which can only happen “the one true way” …
Here’s a way to test it yourself. Try taking something back from another planetary program – example – skycrane applied to reusable lander for, say, ATHLETE on the moon. You don’t even have to be serious about it, just act as a goad to see how its received and dealt with.
My point is that the issue is parochialism that fights what you desire.
If the legacy launch providers would realize this is the same case whenever they backstab/trashmouth SpaceX efforts…
Dragon pickup
How hard would it be to put a dragon into mars orbit with just a few rocks, from mars
Could the super Dracos do the job with more fuel or would you need to add Merlin and a stage or just a Merlin that’s inside before your shield drops?
If it has already dropped it’s shield isn’t a dragon pretty light
Couldn’t a rover drive under a shieldless dragon and put samples in a basket.
Could you pick samples up with red dragon mission? After dropping off a rover?