1

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

November 10, 2020

Reply to Attn of: Science Mission Directorate

Summary of NASA Responses to Mars Sample Return Independent Review Board 

Recommendations

Mars Sample Return (MSR) is a highly complex and ambitious program of national importance.

As noted by the MSR Independent Review Board (IRB), it is one of the most technically difficult 

and operationally demanding robotic space missions ever undertaken. The nonconsensus report highlights this complexity and importance in laying out their observations, 

findings, and recommendations. The IRB recommends that NASA proceed with this important 

program and their detailed recommendations will inform the decisions we make moving forward 

to maximize . 

The IRB fully met the scope of its review as laid out in the Terms of Reference, identifying a

variety of critical cross-cutting factors across

priorities and integrated operations, technical approach, and schedule and cost. NASA accepts 

included in full below (in italics), and are 

followed by response (in bold) to each recommendation.

Our responses indicate the steps SMD has already begun taking to coordinate with our internal 

and external stakeholders, including our partners at the European Space Agency, to implement 

recommendations.

I want to thank the IRB Chair, Mr. Dave Thompson, and the experienced board he pulled 

together for their work to produce this comprehensive and rigorous review while meeting the 

constraints of a challenging eight-week timeframe. independent analysis provides us

with valuable, thought-provoking insights as we take the necessary steps to realize this 

ambitious mission, the hallmark of the groundbreaking work we do at NASA.

Thomas H. Zurbuchen, Ph.D.

Associate Administrator,

Science Mission Directorate
2

NASA’s Responses to the MSR IRB Recommendations

The IRB recommends that the MSR program proceed.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. NASA wishes to thank the IRB for 

the significant amount of time and energy that the Board Chair and members put into this 

independent investigation. Doing this review much earlier than past practice has made this 

Program stronger.

A. Organization and Management

A-1: NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) should scrutinize their normal 

business practices to identify adjustments needed to maximize program success, 

including using common management information and integrated schedule tracking and 

risk management tools.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. The Program Office will work with 

supporting NASA Centers and our ESA partners to ensure there is an ability to assimilate data 

necessary to understand program status and to facilitate a common understanding of risk. 

A-2: ESA should establish a small office at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)

and NASA should establish a similar office at the European Space Research and 

Technology Centre (ESTEC) to enhance MSR communications and problem 

resolution.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. Discussions to co-locate personnel 

from ESA and NASA are in progress.

A-3: The Program should conduct an independent assessment by NASA and ESA 

experts of the Sample Transfer Arm (STA) end-to-end design, development and 

programmatics in order to determine the lowest risk/highest reliability path forward.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. During Phase A NASA and ESA 

will conduct a review to ensure a low-risk, high-reliability implementation approach for the STA. 

A-4: NASA should conduct an independent assessment of all available Center resources 

at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and JPL, including in the analysis the option 

of industrial contracting of other MSR elements, such as the SRL, if necessary to achieve 

the best balance of technical capabilities and institutional capacity.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation to conduct an independent 

assessment of resource availability and the possibility of contracting other MSR elements. 

A-5: Simplify and clarify NASA Center organizational roles to the maximum extent 

possible, including the following steps:

 Unify full Capture Containment Model (CCM) subsystem responsibility where

possible and maintain tightly integrated plans for interface control and on-time

delivery of flight hardware
3

 Contract the Earth Return Module (ERM) and Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) to

companies with strong related experience

 Limit Ames Research Center (ARC), Langley Research Center (LaRC), and Glenn

Research Center (GRC) to technical advisory roles without flight hardware

delivery responsibilities.

NASA Response: NASA partially concurs with this recommendation. NASA will review Center 

roles, responsibilities, and procurement approaches to streamline and clarify interfaces and 

ensure MSR implementation benefits from established capabilities across the Agency and 

industry.

A-6: Involved NASA Centers must recognize the customer/supplier relationships they 

have to JPL and GSFC and manage, report and resolve problems within this framework.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. Agency management has vested 

program and project responsibility in JPL and GSFC. All participants understand this and have 

committed to resolve challenges within this structure.

A-7: Consolidate MSR and Mars 2020 (M2020 or Perseverance) under the NASA HQ MSR 

Program Director.

NASA Response: NASA partially concurs with this recommendation. During Phase A NASA will 

conduct a review of the organizational structure to ensure that M2020 operations are executed 

in alignment with the Mars Sample Return mission with sampling as the highest priority for 

M2020.

A-8: The IRB strongly recommends that Class A/Category 1 standards be applied to all 

aspects on the MSR program.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. The Program will be planned as a 

Class A implementation consistent with recent planetary science large strategic missions and 

will be focusing effort early in Phase A on an NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 8705.4 

compliance philosophy.

B. Science Priorities and Integrated Operations

B-1: A scientific advisory team (or dedicated subgroup) for both M2020 and MSR should 

be formed immediately and integrated into operations planning. The membership of this 

team should include leading sample analysis and mission operations experts. 

NASA Response: NASA partially concurs with this recommendation. The selection of Return 

Sample Science (RSS) Participating Scientists as part of the Perseverance science team will 

fulfil the role of an integrated scientific advisory team. This group, which includes representation 

from both NASA and ESA, is part of the science team that will determine the course of the 

Perseverance science investigation and which samples to collect. The steering group of the 

science team (the Project Science Group) is composed of the Principal Investigators from each 

instrument and two representatives from the RSS group. They are led by the Project and 

Program scientists. Furthermore, a Memorandum of Understanding is in development that will 

coordinate and inform M2020 operations and MSR design. A science community workshop is 

planned in January 2021, engaging leading sample analysis and mission operations experts
4

from M2020 and MSR, to deliberate on the strategy for caching samples, including factors such 

as whether and when to take duplicate samples, where to place the depot(s), and which 

samples to leave on the surface or keep on Perseverance. The workshop results will inform the 

MOU and serve as a guide for the Return Sample Scientists. 

B-2: Science operational decisions for M2020 after its landing should reflect sample 

acquisition as the dominant science priority.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. In September 2020, NASA 

Headquarters (HQ) gave the M2020 Project direction specifying that collection and 

documentation of a diverse sample cache is the top priority of Perseverance surface operations. 

The Project is proceeding in accordance with this direction.

B-3: In all sample acquisition and transport phases, careful attention should continue to 

be focused on backward planetary protection requirements and sample handling for 

scientific validity.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. The MSR Program is proceeding in 

this manner and has focused significant attention on backward planetary protection and sample 

integrity over the past several years.

B-4: Campaign-level baseline and threshold success criteria for sample return (including 

number of sample tubes and diversity of sample types) should be documented.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. MSR Baseline and Threshold 

success criteria will be specified in the Program Level Requirements Appendix (PLRA) before 

the Key Decision Point-B (KDP-B) milestone.

B-5: Reference scenarios should be developed for M2020’s sample caching strategy 

(when, where, and how many samples to deposit) in order to inform MSR’s Sample Fetch 

Rover (SFR) mobility, sample retrieval, and surface lifetime requirements.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. A large number of reference 

scenarios have been developed that characterize potential Mars 2020 surface operations and 

sample caching strategies. These scenarios will be discussed with the science community in 

January 2021 and documented in an MOU between M2020 and MSR. 

B-6: Selective sample collection and caching redundancy should be included in scenario 

planning, especially for early M2020 surface operations.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. Duplicate samples and caching 

redundancy will be incorporated into the sample caching scenario planning.

B-7: A campaign-level definition of what constitutes a M2020 contingency sample should 

be established and documented.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. This definition will be developed as 

part of the sample caching strategy activities.
5

B-8: Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) orbit should be adjusted to increase the 

efficiency of M2020 science operations so that the number of samples acquired by M2020 

is maximized.

NASA Response: NASA partially concurs with this recommendation. During Phase A NASA will 

study the robustness of the communications strategy supporting M2020 surface operations 

necessary to facilitate the success of the Mars Sample Return mission.

B-9: Planning and design of the Orbiting Sample (OS) need to be robust enough to 

ensure the sustained integrity of surface and atmospheric samples for an extended 

duration that should be defined by the MSR program.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. Mission requirements ensure the 

integrity of samples on the surface and in orbit for at least a decade.

C. Technical Approach

C-1: Complete Pre-Phase A and Phase A studies on the present schedule with an 

emphasis on architectural trades.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. 

C-2: The single-lander vs two-lander study currently being conducted should use as 

comprehensive a set of variations as possible and score the results with as quantitative 

a methodology as possible.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation.

C-3: This study should be augmented to include a strong focus on potential 

Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) incorporation on either a single-lander or 

two-lander approach, to achieve the following benefits:

 Type 1 launch option in 2028

 Possible longer surface timeline

 RTG-sourced heating of the MAV.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation.

C-4: Review requirements on the SFR to determine if some might be modified to enhance 

utilization of ExoMars mobility, Radioisotope Heater Unit (RHUs) and qualification 

inheritance and evaluate the ramifications of those modifications on the campaign. 

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. The current SFR design enhances 

utilization of ExoMars inheritance. NASA will investigate the potential addition of RHUs during 

integration and test phase, subject to agreement with ESA and U.S. international policy.
6

C-5: For the single vs dual-lander trade, include a focus on improving SFR ExoMars 

inheritance and increased traverse flexibility.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation.

C-6: Increase the MAV mass allowance.

NASA Response: NASA partially concurs with this recommendation. The MAV is subject of 

trade studies in Phase A.

C-7: Increase the thermal conditioning power allocated to the MAV.

NASA Response: NASA partially concurs with this recommendation. The MAV is subject of 

trade studies in Phase A.

C-8: Evaluate modulating the MAV’s Ultra-high Frequency (UHF) beacon signal with 

sufficient low-band telemetry to allow useful reconstruction of a fault during second 

stage flight.

NASA Response: NASA partially concurs with this recommendation. The MAV is subject of 

trade studies in Phase A.

C-9: Accelerate the definitization of the Capture/Containment and Return System (CCRS)

specifications that the Earth Return Orbiter (ERO) program requires.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. NASA and ESA are working to a 

joint requirements document. NASA is accelerating definitization of CCRS specifications as 

rapidly as possible. 

C-10: Synchronize, as much as possible, CCRS development, test, qualification, and 

validation milestones, and required delivery dates with the ERO development schedule.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. This is already in work. 

C-11: Maintain the CCRS pre-Preliminary Design Review (PDR) schedule as much as 

possible. 

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. NASA will work to maintain the 

current CCRS pre-PDR schedule, including requirements definition, maturation of all required 

technology and engineering developments, and all conceptual and preliminary design work.

C-12: Assign enhanced technical margins to areas in the CCRS that could affect the ERO 

interface.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. MSR flight systems presently 

exceed institutional margin guidelines. NASA will continue to enhance technical margins, 

particularly those across interfaces.
7

C-13: Bring to bear relevant expertise from similar Earth-return missions (e.g., Stardust, 

Genesis, OSIRIS-REx) to Earth Entry Vehicle (EEV) design, development, and test. 

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. The Program recently held a 

workshop with experts from past sample return missions, is reviewing lessons–learned from 

these programs, and will continue to engage relevant experts. 

C-14: Examine the possibility of EEV integrity sensors being incorporated in the design.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. NASA will study the ability to 

incorporate a range of such sensors in Phase A.

C-15: Develop a set of abort “safe havens” for sample preservation if things go awry at 

critical phases of the mission. Examples include the following:

 Selectively redundant backup sample depot to remain on surface

 OS release capability by ERO/CCRS after capture or containment for entry in Mars

orbit

 Survivable and trackable OS under various MAV and ERO failure scenarios.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. NASA has incorporated this 

philosophy into the current conceptual design which builds in safe havens on the Mars surface 

and in Mars orbit. During Phase A, NASA will continue to look for opportunities for additional 

safe havens.

C-16: In order to maximize the probability of mission success, “Test As You Fly” must be 

rigorously adhered to, including careful scrutiny of waivers. 

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. NASA intends to follow a “Test as 

You Fly” approach and will present any proposed exceptions to the SRB at lifecycle reviews

(LCRs).

C-17: Additional testing and Verification and Validation (V&V) activities should be 

undertaken to enhance mission success confidence, including the following specific 

ones:

 Flight test the MAV including at least ejection, ignition, and initial (high thrust)

flight segment

 Zero-g test of OS/CCRS capture and release mechanisms

 End-to-end IV&V of ERO/OS rendezvous and capture con ops.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. NASA agrees with the need for a 

significant test program to enhance design and operations confidence. The MSR Program is 

examining a wide range of robustness testing options and planning a rigorous V&V program.

D. Schedule and Cost

D-1: NASA and ESA should replan the baseline MSR program for SRL and ERO launches 

in 2028, with the potential of a 2027 ERO launch continuing to be studied for feasibility 

and potential benefits.
8

NASA Response: NASA partially concurs with this recommendation. The MSR team will 

continue to examine the 2026, 2027 and 2028 launch opportunities during Phase A, while

working to maintain current schedules to mature the design and retire risk as quickly as possible

during Phase A, while also working to minimize program impacts due to COVID. NASA, in 

consultation with ESA, will set the Program baseline and finalize the launch date at Confirmation 

(KDP-C).

D-2: Consistent with the absence of viable post-2028 launch opportunities, the PDR 

milestone should be maintained.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. Consistent with recommendations 

C-1 and C-11, the Program will work to complete the current Formulation plan and maintain the 

present timeline to PDR and Confirmation.

D-3: The MSR Program should establish a joint working group with ESA to fully explore 

and assess the potential impacts of ERO/CCRS schedule disconnects, and identify 

possible mitigations.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. Schedule disconnects that cannot 

be resolved between the ERO and CCRS projects will be brought to the MSR Joint Steering 

Board (composed of ESA and NASA representation).

D-4: The most-probable Phase A-D cost is $3.8-$4.4B, consistent with proposed schedule 

revisions and current baseline technical design and mission architecture. However, this 

estimate is based on preliminary information. Consequently, NASA should budget to the 

higher end of this range, which the IRB believes constitutes an 80/20 most probable cost. 

NASA Response: NASA partially concurs with this recommendation. Consistent with Agency 

practice, prior to Confirmation (KDP-C) NASA will plan to a cost range that bounds program risk. 

For MSR, the Agency has commissioned independent cost and schedule risk assessments 

much earlier than past practice to inform KDP-A cost and schedule range projections.

D-5: Consistent with the IRB’s belief in the importance of early work, the FY22-23 

budgets should be significantly augmented to assure 2028 launch dates are feasible.

NASA Response: NASA is continuing to refine budget estimates. Future funding will be 

addressed through the annual budget process. 

D-6: MSR should apply relevant best practices as recommended by the current Large 

Mission Study Team in schedule management and cost estimation methods. 

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. 

D-7: MSR should engage SRB in between any LCRs that are more than 12 months apart, 

given proposed schedule replan.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. 
9

D-8: MSR should manage risks cooperatively across all organizations, including 

establishing a process for escalating unresolved issues before they become major 

challenges, e.g., NASA/ESA interfaces.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. 

D-9: MSR should establish, document, and communicate HQ PP&C (Program, Planning 

and Control) Integration philosophy and processes early with emphasis on risk-informed 

cost and schedule estimates occurring on a routine cadence.

NASA Response: NASA concurs with this recommendation. The Program began planning the 

PP&C implementation in Pre-Phase A.
1
The IRB is pleased to present our report and offer our special thanks to Thomas Zurbuchen and 

Jeff Gramling at NASA HQ and Bobby Braun at JPL for their support for our work.

We also want to commend the NASA/ESA MSR team for their hard work and excellent progress 

over the last several years, including the difficult pandemic period this year. The team has 

formulated a comprehensive plan for carrying out what arguably will be the most challenging, 

and, in all likelihood, one of the most historic deep-space robotic programs.

Building on the foundation they have created, the IRB submits the results of our work in the 

form of 44 findings and 44 recommendations, all with the overriding goal of maximizing the 

probability of MSR mission success.

2
3
The MSR campaign is a highly ambitious and demanding planetary exploration program 

involving three advanced space vehicles — the Mars 2020 lander/rover, now on its way to 

Mars, and two additional vehicles in early development, the Earth Return Orbiter and the 

Sample Retrieval Lander, to be launched later in the decade. The campaign also includes a new 

ground-based sample handling and scientific analysis facility, which the IRB did not study.

4
The major elements of the two MSR vehicles that are the topics of this report are as follows:

- The Sample Retrieval Lander (SRL), built by NASA and launched on a U.S. rocket. The SRL’s 

payloads include the Sample Fetch Rover (SFR) and Sample Transfer Arm (STA), both provided 

by ESA, and the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV), developed and provided by NASA.

- The Earth Return Orbiter (ERO), developed and launched by ESA, carrying the Capture, 

Containment and Return System (CCRS), provided by NASA. The CCRS consists of two major 

elements, the Capture and Containment Module (CCM) and Earth Return Module (ERM).

5
MSR’s proposed organizational structure and work assignments, shown here, involve six NASA 

Centers (JPL, GSFC, MSFC, LaRC, ARC and GRC) and three prime ESA-member countries (France, 

U.K. and Italy). This chart is indicative of the complexity and challenges of the MSR program. 

6
7
The 10 members of the IRB spent a combined total of approximately 1,000 person-hours on 

the review, which was conducted between late August and late October 2020. All members of 

the board participated fully, engaging in discussions that were thorough and spirited.

The support provided by Jens Feeley, Laura Delgado Lopez, and Josh Handal from NASA HQ was 

terrific...we could not have produced our report without their experience, energy and 

diligence.

8
The IRB’s charter, as specified by Thomas Zurbuchen and summarized here, was 

comprehensive in scope. The formal Terms of Reference for our work is reproduced in the 

Appendix to this report. 

9
The IRB met in virtual plenary sessions on 25 occasions over a nine-week period. Our meetings 

included six formal presentations by MSR personnel of over 450 pages of technical and 

programmatic data. In addition, we conducted approximately 30 informal “splinter” sessions 

and expert interviews. We also reviewed four sets of internal and external schedule and cost 

analyses that informed our findings and recommendations.

Many of our detailed observations, findings and recommendations were drafted by members 

of four three-to-five person working groups, which were then discussed and finalized by the 

entire board. The topical outline of the main body of this report generally follows the working 

group organization, which consisted of these teams:

• Organization and Management

• Science Priorities and Integrated Operations

• Technical Approach

• Schedule and Cost

10
11
The IRB believes that NASA is now ready to undertake the MSR campaign, building on the past 

several decades of scientific advances and technological progress in Mars exploration.

We observe that the National Academies’ 2011 Planetary Science Decadal Survey pointed out 

the high priority of MSR. Since then, NASA and ESA have formed a major new partnership to 

carry out this mission, building on and extending over 50 years of highly-productive transAtlantic cooperation in space science.

During the pre-Phase A work over the last several years, the MSR team’s technical work has 

covered a broad span of architectural and system design options and has developed a deep 

engineering baseline for the mission. Their work provides a basis for finalizing the technical 

approach to the mission during the upcoming Phase A period.

In noting the substantial technical and operational demands of successfully implementing MSR, 

we underscore the high-risk/high-return nature of the program. As a result, the IRB has focused 

our primary efforts on identifying options to reduce the various types of controllable risks as 

much as possible.

12
This chart lists the IRB’s most important recommendations, which are addressed in greater 

detail in later pages of our presentation. The common theme in these recommendations is our 

belief that their implementation will substantially enhance the probability of MSR program 

success. 

The rationale for our recommendations include these major findings: 

• Currently planned 2026 MSR launch schedules are not compatible with NASA’s Class 

A/Category 1 mission risk levels.

• Planned Phase A studies should be enhanced, with an emphasis on the one-lander/two 

lander trade; additional trades which reduce MAV, SFR, CCRS and OS technical and schedule 

risk; and other trades which enhance the Validation and Verification program. 

The IRB also believes it is very important that NASA take the following steps: 

• The Preliminary Design Review (PDR) milestone should be maintained.

• Increase the 2022-2024 Fiscal Year (FY) budget profile by a total of approximately $500 

million. 

13
The IRB also provided responses to three specific questions and five sub-questions posed in the 

study’s Terms of Reference (see chart 9 and the first item in the Appendix). Those responses 

are shown here, with supporting rationale provided in later parts of this report.

14
15
16
The IRB offers 12 findings and eight recommendations in this category. In essence, we advise 

NASA to establish mechanisms to enhance interactions with ESA, simplify the organization 

structure, engage the strongest possible expertise in government and industry in each aspect 

of the program, and ensure all participating teams and organizations fully embrace their 

responsibilities for technical and programmatic performance. The IRB also stresses the 

importance of maintaining an MSR management approach appropriate to a Class A/Category 1 

mission. 

17
Here is a summary of our major recommendations relating to MSR organization and 

management. Two of these relate to NASA/ESA interactions, three concern NASA Center 

responsibilities and make/buy decisions, and one addresses NASA HQ program management 

consolidation.

18
Our main point here is that both NASA and ESA should bridge their differing management 

approaches and development cultures to avoid future friction between their project teams.

19
Building on the good relations that currently exist between ESA and NASA, here are two other 

ideas we recommend the agencies look into to facilitate the strongest possible interactions as 

the MSR program proceeds.

20
A critical area where close trans-Atlantic collaboration is especially important is the SRLmounted Sample Transfer Arm. During our review, the IRB was concerned that schedule 

mismatches exist between the JPL-developed performance requirements for the STA and the 

Leonardo design capabilities for it. We recommend that an independent group of NASA and 

ESA experts examine the current development plan and related allocations of responsibilities 

to determine the lowest-risk path forward.

21
One of the IRB’s earliest reactions to the MSR program plan was the unduly complex set of 

work assignments and related subsystems interfaces spread across the various NASA Centers, 

which in our view represent a substantial challenge to overall program success.

This situation manifests itself primarily in the ERO’s mission-critical payload, the CCRS, and its 

modules and subsystems, for which GSFC has the lead responsibility and JPL and other Centers 

have supporting roles. Among other concerns, the IRB is worried that higher-priority 

commitments at GSFC, particularly to the Webb and Roman programs, may prevent the Center 

from assigning adequate managerial and technical personnel to CCRS. However, the same 

concern exist with simply adding the CCRS project to JPL’s primary responsibilities, unless 

alternative acquisition approaches to its other MSR obligations (such as outsourcing the SRL to 

industry) can be found.

Independent of this CCRS system-level issue, the IRB also found potentially unnecessary 

fragmentation in subsystems and component responsibilities in the CCM between GSFC and 

JPL, and in the ERM between GSFC and LaRC/ARC.

22
Expanding on our CCRS findings, we also pointed out the opportunities to bring to bear 

demonstrated industry capabilities for detailed design, production and system integration of 

the ERM. We note that NASA’s research-oriented Centers do have much to offer in the areas of 

technical advise, but they lack recent flight hardware fabrication and contracting experience of 

relevance to MSR.

We have similar concerns with the MAV and recommend that the program look for 

opportunities to bring to bear demonstrated industrial system integration capabilities. 

23
The IRB’s recommendations concerning CCRS project management and that of its major 

elements, the CCM and ERM, is covered on this chart. As it shows, we believe these aspects of 

the MSR program are so important that they deserve another look at whether all internal NASA 

resources are being deployed to best advantage, and whether the use of greater industry 

outsourcing could provide both additional options for assigning Center responsibilities and 

stronger relevant experience in production and systems integration.

24
Since M2020 and MSR are two essential parts of the same Mars sample acquisition and return 

campaign, they must be highly integrated at all managerial and operational levels. Therefore, 

we recommend that M2020 and MSR be placed under the MSR Program Director at NASA HQ. 

We will have more to say about M2020/MSR integration at the operational level in the report’s 

next section.

The IRB strongly believes that MSR must be implemented to the highest of NASA’s standards, 

and tailoring must be minimized and carefully reviewed by institutional independent technical 

authority.

25
In our report’s second category, science priorities and integrated operations, the IRB presents 

five findings and nine recommendations. Here we stress the dominant scientific priority of the 

campaign — “it’s all about the samples!” — and the importance of tight integration of all 

aspects of M2020 and MSR.

26
A summary of the IRB’s recommendations on the criticality of scientific/operational 

interactions between M2020 and MSR is presented above. It elaborates on the “all about the 

samples” theme in several ways.

27
The IRB believes that sample scientists should be an integral part of M2020 surface operations 

and sample acquisition planning and implementation. The IRB recognizes and applauds the fact 

that several sample scientists were competitively selected recently as part of the Mars 

Returned Sample Science Participating Scientist program; these sample analysis experts should 

be integrated immediately into the M2020 surface operations. Moreover, a subset of the 

M2020 sample analysis and mission operations experts working on sample acquisition 

planning and implementation should be part of the recommended scientific advisory team that 

should additionally involve personnel involved with MSR planning and operations. This 

integration between the sample scientists and surface operations personnel for M2020 and 

MSR will be essential for ensuring compatibility between M2020 and MSR (for example, 

ensuring that the M2020 sample caching and depot locations are compatible with the surface 

lifetime and mobility requirements for the Sample Fetch Rover for MSR).

28
Despite the impressive capabilities of the M2020 instruments and payloads to conduct a 

variety of secondary scientific and ISRU-focused investigations, priority must be given to 

fulfilling the primary mission, i.e., the acquisition of a well-characterized and diverse sample 

suite.

29
MSR will be the first restricted Earth return mission since Apollo. This will require careful 

planning in the area of backward planetary protection as well as timely coordination with other 

agencies (such as NEPA).

30
In addition to the previous recommendations in the area of science priorities and integrated 

operations that follow from findings, the IRB has additional recommendations to safeguard 

samples and maximize the scientific impact of MSR.

31
32
Our third section, covering the broad topic of the mission’s technical architecture and system 

design approaches, consists of 21 findings and 17 recommendations.

We set the stage for this part of our report by noting the long string of serial events that are 

inherent and unavoidable in the MSR mission, including these eight first-time challenges:

- High-precision planetary landing

- Small object location in an unstructured environment

- Sample collection and transfer from one surface vehicle to another

- First launch from another planet

- Fully autonomous orbital rendezvous and capture

- Robotic sample handling and sealing to break-the-chain standards

- Departure from Mars orbit on Earth-return trajectory

- Safe atmospheric entry and landing under restricted return constraints

Successfully carrying out these and other mission-critical events, in many cases using newlydeveloped systems based on not-yet-proven technologies and with stringent design and 

performance requirements, highlights the substantial technical challenges facing the MSR 

team.

33
The IRB’s review of the technical approach to the MSR mission was quite extensive, facilitated 

by the excellent cooperation we received from JPL, GSFC, MSFC and ESA experts. As discussed 

on this and the following charts, our recommendations are organized into four main 

categories:

- Sample Retrieval Lander architectural options

- Mars Ascent Vehicle design and environmental factors

- Capture, Containment and Return System interfaces and schedules

- Validation and Verification discipline

We also discuss some of the ERO and SFR development challenges and highlight the 

importance of additional work on “safe havens” for the sample container at various phases in 

the MSR mission.

34
35
Beyond normal schedule constraints arising from orbital mechanics that most planetary 

missions face, MSR must deal with additional timeline factors relating to M2020 and SFR 

operational lifetimes and Mars seasonal weather patterns. Launch windows and transfer 

trajectories are available for the ERO in 2027 and 2028, and for the SRL in 2028. Launches in 

the 2030 opportunity have arrival conditions which are incompatible with MSR requirements. 

Important lander design decisions, particularly the possibility of using radioisotope power 

units, may contribute to relaxing some of the most critical timeline constraints, as discussed 

later in this section. 

36
As noted earlier, the MSR campaign must complete a long series of critical events requiring 

high precision and reliability, all of which are essential to the success of sample return. The 

program team has already properly considered and eliminated numerous potential 

architectures. Several fundamental alternatives are still being assessed and are to be 

completed in Phase A . They are focused on further reductions in technical and operational 

risks, improvements in technical margins and design flexibility, and reductions in product 

complexity, with consequent improvements in program success probability and reductions in 

cost and schedule risk.

The IRB’s perspective on these alternatives, which mainly revolve around lander options and 

trade-offs, are discussed in the following pages.

37
The IRB is concerned about the limited technical margins and restricted design flexibility in the 

current single-vehicle SRL architecture. We believe a two-lander alternative may open up 

increased margins and design flexibility, enable greater use of already-developed systems and 

subsystems. 

38
When coupled with the use of an RTG on the lander containing the MAV, the design may afford 

extended surface lifetimes, and reduced risk in the MAV’s surface thermal environment.

39
We recommend that the MSR program’s upcoming evaluation of the one- vs. two-lander trade 

use a comprehensive range of technical features (e.g., EDL systems, MAV guidance systems, 

SFR designs) and assess the options with probabilistic reliability models and similar 

quantitative tools. An essential factor to be considered is the range of benefits enabled by RTG 

use on the lander containing the MAV.

40
The project is working issues related to the SFR design and requirements changes that would 

improve inheritance from ExoMars rover design. However, those trades are still ongoing and 

conclusions were not presented to the IRB.

If increased traverse flexibility were possible, it would maximize sample collection options.

41
The fixed-mass-allocation design strategy chosen for the MAV is reasonable but subject to the 

risk of over-running the allocation, from which there is no design escape. Experience has 

shown that the smaller a launch vehicle, the more sensitive its dry mass to design uncertainty. 

The IRB recommends significantly larger dry mass and impulse margins than referenced in 

traditional standards.

Given a traditional power budget for a solar panel-powered SRL it is unlikely that more than 

50W would be available to thermal conditioning of the MAV. This would require the graphitecased MAV solid motors to experience over 300 day/night thermal cycles for which we have no 

experience data base. This risk can be reduced by increasing the thermal power allocation to 

reduce the depth of these cycles.

42
The IRB members were originally briefed that the ERO relied only on optical acquisition of 

either the OS or the nearby MAV second stage and had formulated a recommendation that an 

RF system be used to aid in the acquisition. We have since been briefed that indeed a UHF 

"beacon" will be included in the second stage and applaud this decision.

We therefore suggest that it would be a simple and low-mass impact addition to modulate this 

signal with a modicum of low-bandwidth telemetry conveying information about the MAV 

events and performance during the ascent, including critical events up to and including OS 

separation.

43
The IRB was not able to review the ESA-supplied ERO in the same level of detail as most other 

elements of MSR hardware. However, we did note that the ERO spacecraft is a very large and 

high-power vehicle, with a wingspan of nearly 40 meters and a solar array power level of 

almost 40 kilowatts (BoL at Earth). With this design, the ERO spacecraft will be among the 

largest solar-powered robotic space vehicle ever built and will exceed previous deep-space 

solar-powered probes by almost a factor of three. Therefore, we believe ESA’s and its industrial 

supplier’s focus on propulsion and power systems is appropriate.

In the following pages, our findings address the ERO’s payload interfaces with the NASAprovided CCRS, and its mission-critical role in OS location, rendezvous and capture while in 

Mars orbit.

44
45
46
The integration of the CCRS into the ERO is a substantial payload integration challenge and it 

needs to be recognized as such by both NASA and ESA.

The CCRS schedule is on the critical path for the ERO launch. From what the IRB members have 

seen, the ERO spacecraft could probably support a 2027 launch but may need to move to 2028 

due to the CCRS schedule.

47
The Earth Entry Vehicle (EEV), another element of the CCRS, also presents some first-time 

challenges.

48
The IRB is making this recommendation looking for ways to “safe” the OS in case of failure in 

order to mitigate the consequences. We admit that the examples we have noted are of 

uncertain feasibility. They are intended to excite creative thinking by the team in furtherance of 

this goal.

49
The suggested MAV flight test would verify the dynamics of lander-to-vehicle release, the 

thrust vector control and ignition of the first-stage motor, and the initial guidance capability to 

maintain attitude and azimuth for the vehicle. A full-up flight test might also be possible, 

which is being studied by the program.

50
In our final area, schedule and cost assessments, the IRB generated six findings and nine 

recommendations. In short, we believe MSR will require additional development time as well 

as increased funding totals and early-year budgets to ensure the highest levels of mission 

success. We also note that our estimated cost range is based on preliminary information, as 

the program is just completing pre-Phase A work, and could change substantially as final 

technical and organizational decisions are made. 

51
Our assessments of schedules and costs for the MSR program were informed by comparisons 

to the actual timelines of several recent robotic missions of similar difficulty and by internal 

and external estimates of development and operational costs based on preliminary program 

plans. The major results of our work relating to launch schedules, total Phase A-D costs, and 

early-year funding levels are listed above.

52
MSR has programmatic teams in place at the Program and HQ levels with combined Class A/Category 1 program and Mars 

mission experience, which is evident in the current maturity of MSR’s programmatic products. 

Because of Pre-Phase A work completed over the past 3+ years, the MSR Program has more than a notional understanding of the 

responsibilities and overall workflow that is typically seen in Pre-Phase A. Thus, the decisions already made as a result of the PrePhase A work provide the basis for the current cost and schedule estimates. The Program provided summary-level bases of 

estimate (BOEs), referencing modeling approaches and traceability to analogies used for estimates. However, detailed BOEs are

still being developed for the cost, schedule, and workforce estimates. 

The MSR estimates were built upon model-based parametric approaches for many elements of the program and grass roots 

estimates for some elements where detailed information exists. This was in addition to the high-level analogies typically seen in 

Pre-Phase A. For MSR, limited Program-level analogies exist from which to make comparisons (i.e., MSL and M2020); however, 

additional analogies exist at the component level, which were also modeled. 

The Phase A-D cost estimates were reasonably consistent with each other when normalizing the results according to various risk 

postures (e.g., design threats, schedule threats, etc.). Phase E cost estimates included an appropriate level of Unallocated Future 

Expense (UFE) given the uncertainty associated with the level of maturity of the Phase E definition. MSR’s Current Planning 

Budget ($2.935B) and Current Cost Estimate ($3.045B) are within the Program’s 50%-70% range estimate.

The schedule estimates were tied to the cost estimating and phasing methodologies and assessed risk to the planned July 2026 

launch date. The initial integrated master schedule (IMS) includes a top-level breakdown of work tasks and milestones, with 

logical sequencing established for many of the activities, including major integration points and key handoffs. Work remains on

several trade studies before the IMS can be fully developed to a discrete level of detail and fully integrated and sequenced, but 

the Program is in well positioned to continue maturing the IMS as a management tool.

As additional trade studies are completed and technical architecture decisions and interfaces are finalized, the Program will be

able to refine its cost and schedule estimates based on further grassroots and probabilistic risk approaches during the upcoming

Phase A period.

53
MSR has a number of cost and schedule drivers that could impact the proposed MSR launch schedules and associated cost range.

As organizational complexity increases, technical decisions tend to be costlier. MSR has a large number of total integrating 

activities/organizations, which could slow decisions and impact cost. There exists a potential for misaligning decision authority and 

mission responsibility, making the decision-making process less efficient, and resulting in cost and schedule growth.

In terms of NASA/ESA coordination, it will be necessary to have clear arrangements and documentation to mature the architecture, 

control the design, and develop, test, integrate and verify the product before acceptance and delivery. 

Since MSR is a complex Class A/Category 1 program and is still early in its lifecycle, its design will continue to evolve through Phase B; 

thus, its expected life cycle cost is a moving target. 

MSR architectural trade studies are still underway, and the remaining technical decisions could induce cost growth by introducing 

additional design and process. The degree to which requirements are solidified and interfaces are defined early can impact MSR cost 

and schedule success. ESA is ahead of NASA on many elements, requiring NASA to make decisions as rapidly as possible. Should the

process to define interfaces be slower than planned, schedule delays and/or increases in cost can result.

The degree of new design to undertake versus the choice of heritage systems can impact cost and schedule (e.g., new development 

challenges include the SRL, MAV, CCM, and ERM). It is imperative that technical readiness be achieved early in the MSR life cycle. 

MSR is in an environment where funding must be approved annually, which can lead to difficulties in managing large programs. 

Delays in funding availability cause the cost to meet schedule to escalate, requiring more funding than planned/requested on an annual 

basis. MSR is already anticipating a potential reduction in FY21 due to M2020 Phase E needs, although this will not be confirmed until 

the final appropriation is enacted. In addition, based on current estimates, MSR anticipates needing more funds than requested for FY22 

and FY23 (approximately $500M total). 

MSR has identified ~$180M worth of descopes, but most do not appear feasible to the IRB. The IRB did not identify any additional, 

significant descopes that would provide meaningful programmatic benefits. The lack of descopes decreases flexibility in cost and

schedule.

54
The current plan for a 67-month A-D schedule for SRL, a 69-month A-D schedule for ERO/CCRS, and 

both launching in 2026, is judged by the IRB to not be consistent with Class A/Category 1 mission risk 

levels (similar to MSL and M2020).

The SRL landing system is currently on the critical path, followed by propulsion. SRL is approximately 

13-17 shorter for the Phase A-D durations when compared to its nearest analogies (MSL and M2020). 

The IRB’s analysis placed the 80% confidence level launch date at February 2028. 

CCRS’s schedule is 18-21 months shorter than the Phase A-D durations of similar elements of MSL 

(SA/SPaH) and M2020 (SCS). The largest disconnect in the CCRS Phase A-D duration stems from the 

CDR to Delivery duration, which appears to be out-of-family at 22 months versus approximately 40 

months. A separate comparison with similar OSIRIS-REx elements reiterated that CCRS durations are 

out-of-family in the CDR to I&T timeframe. 

While MSR has been working to 2026 launch dates for both SRL and ERO/CCRS for the past year, the 

Program has identified schedule as its primary risk. Based on current analysis, the IRB recommends 

that NASA and ESA replan the baseline MSR program for SRL and ERO launches in 2028, with the 

potential of a 2027 ERO launch continuing to be studied for feasibility and potential benefits. 

55
The ERO development work currently is about one year ahead of the CCRS development work. The 

ERO PDR is planned for April 2021, whereas CCRS PDR is scheduled in March 2022. The development 

milestones are not planned to align until their respective CDRs – March 2023 for CCRS and April 2023 

for ERO. The potential impacts of the development schedule mismatch are not well understood.

56
Overall, the Campaign’s Current Planning Budget of $2.935B and the Current Cost Estimate of $3.045B are both 

on the low end of the Program’s 50% Confidence Level (CL) range estimate of $2.9-3.3 billion. In the Program’s 

assessment of the budget against 2027/2028 launch options, both the Current Planning Budget and the Current 

Cost Estimate fall below the Program’s 50% CL range.

Two independent cost estimates (ICEs) were completed, representing four different risk postures: MSR ICE 

w/In-House Build, MSR ICE w/System Contractor, MSR ICE w/Design Threats, MSR ICE w/Schedule Threats. 

Considering the four ICE scenarios, both the Current Planning Budget and the Current Cost Estimate fall below 

the 70% CL for all ICE scenarios, and below three of four ICE scenarios at the 50% CL. 

Per the Campaign’s Current Cost Estimate, MSR anticipates a potential budget reduction in FY21 due to M2020 

Phase E needs, although, this will not be confirmed until the appropriation is passed. In addition, based on 

current estimates, MSR expects to need more funds than requested for FY22 and FY23 (approximately $500M 

total). It will be important for NASA to reconcile this discrepancy as early as possible, since limiting funding in 

early years can cause further growth in later years while work is deferred and the schedule is stretched even 

more.

Based on the IRBs assessment of the range of cost estimates, and consistent with the IRB’s proposed launch 

schedule revisions, the current MSR budget is assessed to be inadequate. The MSR budget should be increased 

to a most-probable Phase A-D cost between $3.8-4.4 billion.

57
The IRB was briefed on preliminary findings from the Large Mission Study Team, and believes that MSR should 

consider relevant programmatic recommendations when the study is released. For example, MSR should consider 

the limitations associated with cost and schedule models and analogies for large missions and work towards 

establishing grassroots estimates with detailed cost and schedule bases of estimate (BOEs) as early as possible, and 

perhaps earlier than required. MSR should also consider the Large Mission Study Team’s findings related to 

establishing greater than 70% confidence in cost and schedule commitments with correct phasing, including that of 

Unallocated Future Expense (UFE). 

With the IRB’s proposed launch schedule changes, it is expected that several SRB-conducted life cycle reviews (LCRs) 

could be replanned such that they are more than 12 months apart. NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.5 

references that the Decision Authority may request checkpoint or other special reviews as prompted by “long 

periods of time” between LCRs and subsequent Key Decision Points (KDPs) or between KDPs. The IRB also believes 

that long periods of time between LCRs should be considered (e.g., PDR and CDR). The IRB recommends that MSR 

engage the SRB during these timeframes, using 12 months as a gauge for “long periods of time,” as it is not explicitly 

defined in 7120.5, nor the NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Handbook. 

As the NASA HQ PP&C Office takes shape, it should work with the JPL Program Office to establish and document the 

overarching PP&C Integration philosophy and processes early, and communicate them to all organizations. 

Specifically, the PP&C function should work to establish risk management practices cooperatively across all 

organizations, such that risks can be assessed in a comprehensive manner. Emphasis should be placed on performing 

quantitative risk analysis on a routine basis (e.g., quantified pre- and post-mitigated risk impacts, waterfall charts, 

probabilistic schedule risk analysis trending, etc.) to inform cost and schedule management estimates and risk 

management decisions.

58
59
In conclusion, the IRB unanimously believes the time is ripe to proceed with the MSR 

program.

We strongly recommend that NASA and ESA maintain mission success as the program’s top 

priority in all technical, programmatic and organizational decisions.

While we judge the current baseline mission’s development schedule and planning budget to 

not be consistent with the demands of a Class A/Category 1 mission, we think the 

recommendations in this report, if considered carefully and implemented diligently, will lead to 

a substantial increase in the probability of program success.

The IRB does not believe there are descopes available that could significantly reduce budget or 

shorten the schedule. 

60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70