Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!

[spacester]

Mars Settlement Supports Mars Science<br /><br />OBJECTIVES<br /><br />The ultimate objective is to Settle Mars. The initial objective is to encamp as many people as possible on the surface of Mars. Their primary job will be to stay alive. Their secondary job will be to maximize the productivity of the chosen industries. Their tertiary job will be to enable return trips for those who want to go back to Earth or the Moon. Once those needs are reasonably secure, their job will be to do Science. Settlement Supports Science; the more secure the people are in their ability to sustain the settlement, the more Science they can afford to do.<br /><br />The primary objective for Spaceships, especially manned craft, is to keep people alive.<br /><br />The two other major categories of equipment are Habitats and Factories. Habitats should be amply sized and built to last for decades. Factories must see continuous improvement, whether by on-site enhancements by the settlers, or by the delivery of new and larger equipment.<br /><br />Utilization of local resources should be maximized, but realistic goals for the extraction and application of local resources must be set as well.<br /><br />Discussion<br /><br />The entire issue of where the money comes from will be ignored in the early stages of this design. There is a solution envisioned for the financing problem, but first the business case must be made. To begin making the business case, the vision will be described.<br /><br />The purpose is to settle Mars, to begin a colony if practical. This means a good number of people need to stay for multiple cycles. Certain people would intend to never go back, of those some would and some wouldn’t; others might commit to a five-year hitch (twice the “typical” 2-1/2 year round trip). If enough long-timers develop, so does the viability of the settlement.<br /><br />It is readily apparent that the outlined approach will require the delivery of large payloads to the Martian surface. Parachutes will not do <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[arobie]

Spacester,<br /><br />Very nice post. Well thought out and well said. Looks like there is much left to figure out. This sounds like fun. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />It seems the first thing we need to decide is "How many people?" Alot seems to depend upon how many people we need to support: mainly how much we need to send to Mars and how big the ships will need to be. So, how many people will we be sending at first, and how many people do we want to have when the base is established? <br /><br />I think this was discussed in the original thread pre-crash. If so, what was decided then? <br /><br />Another thing, what will be the max payload mass of the three stage Earth orbit to HEMO spaceship? Have you worked out any other specs of your space ship yet Spacester? <br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Options to consider <br />The booster stage would set the attached payload and itself on a trajectory to Mars. You could use it as counterweight for a spin-gravity ship. Or it could separate soon after departure, to shift to a different mission. <br /><br />A better alternative could be to have the booster stage also get you into HEMO. Then it could stay high in the gravity well and you could detach the second stage to get to LMO (Low Martian Orbit). This would save on propellant, and with fuel supply facilities in both HEMO and LMO, the stages can fill up and go on to the next mission. <br /><br />Another variant of the booster stage would provide the capability to land large payloads on the surface and return to orbit. These would likely never return to Earth because they operate deep in Mars’ gravity well. They could also hop a habitat around on Mars."</font><br /><br />I like option two the best, but the third option would be very useful early on in setting up the colony. I suggest that we build atleast one (or more) for each; one for option two and another for option three...if its within our budget.

 

[scottb50]

Where I see the main problem with any mission such as this is getting from the surface of Earth to LEO. If we project ahead five or six years we see Shuttle winding down and basically Delta and Atlas being the only means of accessing orbit. For a crew of 24, or so, we would be looking at four or five launches just to get the crew into LEO, for 100,000 pounds of supplies, at least that many and for the transit, return and rudimentary Mars structures, landers and other components needed to support this number of people another five or even ten launches. It simply can't be done. Even in the best of times Shuttles couldn't fly that many missions in three or four years. Do we want the initial crew members waiting in LEO for the rest of the crew for two or three years?<br /><br />At a minimum we would need a launcher that could carry the crew as a whole and supplies to LEO over a short time. I would think 100,000 pounds of lift capability would be minimum.<br /><br />Any mission to Mars is going to have to be from the ground up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>If we project ahead five or six years we see Shuttle winding down and basically Delta and Atlas being the only means of accessing orbit.</i><p>There's no need to be pessimistic!</p>

 

[scottb50]

Not pessimistic just realistic. There is nothing on the horizon that comes close to what Delta and Atlas can do, let alone what would be needed to conduct a Mars project like we are talking about. By all I have heard they are the means proposed to get the CEV into LEO and by default everything else. Unless there is something else I know nothing about.<br /><br />Not that I don't have a proposal on how it could be done:<br /><br />A re-usable first stage with four SSME's, two permanently attached SRB housings, four turbo-fan engines and an attached upper stage powered by three RL-10's, Delta second stage engines. Launch uses existing Shuttle facilities and Mobile Launch Platforms. <br /><br />Turbofans shut down nearing maxQ, SRB's burn out at two minutes and second stage engines ignite, using propellant from the first stage tanks. SSME's shutdown and second stage is released at roughly 80 miles altitude. <br /><br />The first stage descends and starts the turbofans at 25,000 feet for return to the launch site while the second stage and attached payload continue to orbit.<br /><br />Once in orbit second stage tanks are then used to build LEO facilities, Tugs, Mars and Lunar transit vehicles and landers as well as surface facilities. Second stage engines are used in Space to power transit vehicles as well as landers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

In the 5 years or less Falcon V should be putting 5 people in orbit in a G-X3 for around $20 million/launch. You can't even get an Atlas or Delta to the pad for less than $50M.

 

[spacester]

Plus there's every reason to believe we (SpaceX) could have a BFR soon after that . . . what they need to make that happen is assured payloads . . . how about Mars Settlement stuff? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dan_casale]

We also need to think about a staging location. It needs to be stable enough to hold equipment until the next launch window. I propose one of the Earth-moon Larange points. If L1 isn't stable enough, then what about L2, L4 or L5? (L3 is still too deep in the Earth's gravity well.)<br /><br />astronautix.com is currently not found. Does anyone have a new link?<br />

 

[scottb50]

So 100,000 pounds of payload would take 12-15 launches instead of 8-10 for Delta. And figuring G-X3 with two pilots and four passengers another four launches would be needed to assemble a crew. This also doesn't include the hardware and propellant that would be needed to depart for Mars, I would guess at least twice the mass as supplies, minimum. Launch costs are not as important as delivered payload, if it takes years to assemble a mission. Look at the time line for the ISS even if everything had gone by the original schedule and how many more launches are still required, spread over five years just to complete it.<br /><br />My thoughts are building the entire system from the ground up. Basic design would be two pieces, that vary in dimensions and in basic materials, depending on special needs, but use an identical design to build individual Modules. Modules are combined as needed. As an example the Modules used as propellant tanks and SRM Housings for the first stage are the same as the Modules used as propellant tanks and payload containers for the second stage, just different sizes. Second stage Modules are converted into station elements and used as building blocks for various vehicles and surface facilities once at Mars. Second stage engines are used for Tugs, vehicles and landers.<br /><br /> A common design would be used for all the components needed, the only difference between a small accumulator and a propellant tank being size. The simplicity would be designing two basic pieces of hardware used universally, the economy would be using the same basic Modules for many different uses besides Space applications, everything from pen size Hydrogen tanks, for portable computers, to large scale fixed and mobile tanks for surface use. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Dan, High LEO is plenty stable enough, 500 km is good for over 100 years IIRC. So I expect orbital assembly will be in high LEO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Scott, we need a BFR to make this work. As you point out, existing launchers will require too many launches.<br /><br />As far as your module approach goes, we need to talk.<br /><br />From an engineering standpoint, there is no such thing as "identical but different", which is what you seem to be proposing. I fight this every day at work.<br /><br />Modularity and commonality are excellent goals, but when reality rears its ugly head, engineers are forced to back slowly away from these concepts. For now, we can accept your point of view as a laudable goal, but must realize that it's not that simple by any means. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

<i>/*Off-topic post deleted by najaB */</i>

 

[dan_casale]

I wonder how fast USA could put together a shuttle-C stack if the main engines and cargo pod were single use. I think what would qualify as the BFR with about 70 tons of cargo to 500 km orbit. <br /><br />I wonder if the ET would fail during max-Q on a propellent only launch (no cargo container). A STS, propellent only launch should provide about 140 tons of propellents to a 500 km orbit.<br /><br />Even if the propellents go up last, there should be a facility to maintain propellent temperature on orbit. Would that be in addition to the one on our Mars rocket?<br /><br />What kinds of orbital facilities are included in this Mars quest?<br />Is Earth going to be our only propellent source, or should an attempt be made to get propellents from the Moon? <br /><br />*Edited* changed mi to Km and added type of cargo for clairity.

 

[dragon04]

There are already tons and tons of usable raw materials floating around the planet. We call it "space junk".<br /><br />It would be nice to devise a way to use what's already up there in any way we can. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[dan_casale]

While that may be true, it might require a refining/manufacturing station to process it into something that will meet the Mars objectives.

 

[mental_avenger]

Well written, spacester. Good job.<br /><br />BTW, I have had essentially fatal crashes of both computer systems, and have been relegated to using the library computers for a month or two. Inconvenient, but not impossible.<br /><br />Habitats should be as large as possible and should last for at least (hopefully) 100 years. The more volume in the habitat, the easier the maintenance of (and more consistent) the air quality. I still advocate the pre-fitting of cargo modules from unmanned pre-supply ships for use as habitats. Pre-wired and pre-plumbed, with fittings for attachments throughout, they would be easy to convert to living quarters, workshops, or whatever else is needed. As long as we are going to boost the mass to Mars, we might as well get double-duty from it, killing two stoned birds with one rock, so to speak.<br /><br />Although thin, the Martian atmosphere extends out almost as far as our own. This allows a long breaking time for parachutes. I don’t think that such a fuel-saving resource should be discarded so lightly. Even if parachutes/parasails cannot take a payload all the way down, they should at least be able to dramatically reduce the amount of descent fuel required.<br /><br />Reusable multipurpose shuttles have proven to be expensive and highly inefficient here on Earth. They also requires a great deal of maintenance and refitting. I suggest that the same would be true for Mars. If significant savings can be obtained from parachutes/parasails, unmanned cargo vessels should be able to make the trip from Earth to Mars orbit AND land the cargo on the surface.<br /><br />Since the mass of the cargo vessel will have to be boosted to Mars anyhow, it seems foolish to return it to Earth. As long as it is there, land it on Mars and make a habitat out of it. Since initially, a Mars settlement will require a large amount of supplies, and since relatively little will be returned to Earth, returning empty vessels would be extremely wasteful. As mention <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

Hey, welcome aboard mental! I was hoping you’d show up.<br /><br />Excellent post yourself there sir, anticipating me in some areas and leading me in others. Fun. To all, keep in mind that the development of my plan didn’t really start until we did that lost thread, and I’ve tried to come up with a plan that everyone will buy into. There’s something in it for everyone. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> So I’m gratified to see mental and I are on the same page (for the most part).<br /><br />I didn’t describe the cargo ships, I like your architecture very much, that’s a good way to build a settlement. I’m thinking that my booster stage is your booster stage, I’m thinking that bad boy has serious deltaV capability ~7.2 km/s ~ and is the only thing to come back except for returning settlers. BTW, tanks can be detached from the main booster stage and shuttled down to surface for our stockpiles of ISRU rocket fuel. More tanks to Mars each trip.<br /><br />On manned flights, the booster would power you into a HEMO to keep itself high in the gravity well. Then the second stage – a true spaceship – would take you down so you can access the surface from LMO with your two-way taxicab (third stage). The second stage remains in higher LMO orbit for the duration: a permanent orbital haven, possibly even with spin-g. I want a nice transit and orbital habitat for our explorers, several inflatables would be great. <br /><br />I’m thinking the manned return habitat could be an unused facility, shipped on the Hohmann schedule unmanned, stored in orbit until a few months before the return journey. It would seem to increase the reliability as opposed to a facility that’s seen a year and a half of hard use.<br /><br />We could take some boosters down into the gravity well for tug duties, but other than that they should stay high. We’ll get a new surface habitat from the second stage prop tanks and cargo container, plus to boost an attached payload from LEO to HEEO then LMO then entry, or even a <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

That was brutal! Spyware attack keeping me from posting!<br /><br />I’m shifting the discussion from the precursor thread, where we had progressed to the point of talking about pace of development. Here’s what I’ve envisioned:<br /><br />Precursor missions would establish a well-surveyed and mostly prepared settlement site. We would put trial versions of the key technologies on the surface and attend to them with robots controlled from desktops across the world. We need communications and power, and that’s where I hope to get the government to step in and help out.<br /><br />I’m thinking we should put all our settlement eggs in one basket until we have an established settlement. It would be great to have multiple settlements, but this thing is already hugely expensive, we gotta draw the line somewhere.<br /><br />First launch opportunity:<br />· First generation power plant (electricity) – preferably nuclear, solar is possible<br />· ISRU production trial unit – sized to provide one return trip for the benchmark crew size after 5 years of production.<br />· Telepresence-controlled robot attendants for the ISRU facility.<br />· Site survey and site prep probes / robots / rovers to prepare the entire settlement area, including the transportation link between the Habitat and the ISRU facility<br />· A small habitat with test animals for initial study of 0.38 life science.<br />· Two boosters for the above, power plant booster lingers in LMO, ISRU booster returns to cis-lunar space.<br /><br />We can’t go forward with the plan if we can’t make rocket fuel to get everybody home, and we need to get a site ready for the first habitat. The boosters will prove they can serve multiple missions: <br /><br />Second launch cycle:<br />· Second generation power plant (electricity) – preferably nuclear, solar / fuel cell<br />· Prototype habitat is landed on the prepared site. The first martians are (e.g.) lab rats, rabbits, guinea pigs and freshwater tropical fish. Question; Can they live for as ma <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alpha_taur1]

"Is Earth going to be our only propellent source, or should an attempt be made to get propellents from the Moon? "<br /><br />For all your propellant needs, refuel at the Phobos propellant refinery. Where else would you get high grade liquid oxygen and hydrogen, separated by solar electrolysis from top grade Phobos ice, and stored at just the right temperature, and none of these take-off and landing losses either.<br /><br />Have no fear "Phobos' is here! <br /><br />Phobos Refinery, <br />Phobos, <br />Via Mars <br />The Solar System

 

[trigged]

Spacester,<br />I would also think about prepositioning some fuel at Mars prior to human launch to provide a backup for a lander system in case the fuel is not able to be manufactured. This could be just enough to return the lander(s) to the orbiter and return the orbiter to Earth via a very slow route. One thing I have learned is to be redundant! <br />Eldon

 

[dan_casale]

I understand that we will be contracting out for launch services, but we also need to know what services are available in the US and else where.<br />In the US:<br />Atlas-V-551 <br />8,200Kg to GTO<br />5 meter faring<br /><br />Delta-IV heavy <br />10,843Kg to GTO<br />5 meter faring<br /><br />STS - shuttle-C<br />27.6 feet diameter (8.4 meter)<br />79,256Kg to 400Km *updated w/shuttle_guy's figure*<br />34,380Kg cargo continer with reuseable engine pod<br /><br />Outside the US:<br />Ariane 5<br />8,000Kg to GTO<br />I couldn't find information about the Russian launch systems.<br /><br />Here's my thoughts:<br /><br />Stuff that could be wet launched, would be loaded into the ET. Large stuff that can't be we launched would be launched in the Shuttle-C, and smaller stuff would be launched on one of the expendables.<br /><br />Once on orbit, the items are assembled into cargo shipments. A propellent only STS launch should provide more than 200,000Kg of propellents. Refuel the cargo shipment and off to Mars you go.<br /><br />Now I'm not sure how to land something the size of an ET that is packed with settlement equipment. I suspect that you would put it into Mars orbit and then send it down in smaller loads.<br /><br />This implies that there is an assembly station in LEO and a perhaps a disassembly location (moon?) in Mars orbit. <br /><br />*Updated with better information.

 

[arobie]

Spacester,<br /><br />I like the plan. Extremely well thought out. Everything fits and the plan still remains flexible. It moves at a nice steady pace without becoming too drawn out. Good job.<br /><br />Now for my questions and comments.<br /><br />I don't quite understand the Mars orbit to surface transportation system. How will the first arriving payloads to Mars be delivered to the ground? Later we will have a manned lander/ascender shuttle, but what will be used in the beginning to get those first payloads to the surface?<br /><br />At the first launch opportunity, a small habitat with test animals will be sent. I assume that it is staying in Mars orbit until the second cycle, since the second cycle is when you talk about landing it. Correct?<br /><br />Also at the first launch opportunity, the ISRU booster will be sent back to cis-lunar space. Is that possible yet? Where will the propellant come from?<br /><br />In the second, third, and forth cycles an Earth-Return Habitat is dropped into LMO and also in the third cycle the crew leaves their transit habitat in LMO. The transit habitat is their orbital refuge, and the E-R habs could serve as spin-gee orbital refuges. That's part of the reason they are dropped into LMO in the first place according to your opening post. <br /><br />The other reason they are dropped that low is for easier re-proping, but is that really more efficient? Would it ultimitely cost less fuel all together to re-prop in HEMO? Proping in LMO takes less propellant to get the prop-shuttles there, but they have to transport more propellant for the E-R habs to be able to get out of LMO. I guess what I'm asking is where is re-proping ultimately more efficient for E-R habs, in LMO, HEMO, or somewhere inbetween?<br /><br />If the case is that it is more efficient to re-prop E-R habs in HEMO, then we should not drop so many in LMO. Their main advantage would be an easy access orbital refuge. I don't think we would need three of them. If it is that it is more eff

 

[spacester]

Hi Arobie,<br /><br />Thanks, but if was so well thought out, you wouldn't have so many questions. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />The truth is, the hardware and logistics are not all that well thought out. As I was writing it up I saw problems and did my best to fix them, but it's still very much a draft proposal. We're getting a little ahead of ourselves in the design process, but everyone always wants to talk hardware, so I put it out there.<br /><br />So all of this is "negotiable" - basically, that's the main difference between the two threads, the precursor thread is where I stick to my guns in order to explain the more radical stuff. This thread is where we work together to come up with a solid plan.<br /><br />I'm thinking the first payloads are landed using the second stage. Rather than being a habitat stage, it's a lander stage. I don't have it all worked out. I think some of the second stages never leave the surface, but it kinda bugs me that those rocket engines aren't re-used. So some of the stages should be able to detach from their payload and return to LMO to bring down future large (unmanned) payloads. Not an easy thing to do.<br /><br />The test animals need to go to the Martian surface to test their adaptability to 0.38 g, so they will descend along with the other equipment. I'm proposing a very small habitat the first cycle, and a full-scale habitat the second cycle. I probably shouldn't call the second one a prototype, in principle it could support an entire crew, but I want to run an extended evaluation during the second cycle. By the time the third cycle rolls around we'll have a bunch of in-situ data. We'll have a chance to make changes to the design for the third cycle's surface habitat, and if the second cycle habitat runs well, the settlers will have twice the volume (not counting any converted tanks).<br /><br />You're right, the first generation's boosters do not have the prop to go back to Earth ye <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

The Phobos Propellant Refinery, that's great! I know there's been at least one serious study on doing exactly as you describe. The takeoff and landing losses are an important point.<br /><br />If you can get that operation going, we would reduce our mass budget for ISRU equipment somewhat.<br /><br />But more importantly, LH2/LOX would be problematic because to use anything but CH4/O2 engines for surface and surface to orbit operations would require landing the propellant. <br /><br />Of course the main problem with cryos is lack of storability. Especially for returns from Mars to Earth, we're looking at over six months travel time and those engines better work when you get back.<br /><br />We could build ships with two sets of engines I guess . . .<br /><br />I love Phobos, I just don't see how to include it in my plan. <br /><br />Yet <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <br /><br />Wait, actually I do have an idea. Two words:<br /><br />Hydrogen Peroxide. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Redundancy is good, but certain founding strategies short circuit or nullify some of the conventional thinking.<br /><br />In this case, if we cannot make rocket fuel at Mars (or Phobos), we cannot settle Mars. The fuel import cost would be too enormous to bear.<br /><br />If we cannot settle Mars because we cannot make fuel, we should just quit and give everybody their money back.<br /><br />No redundancy required in terms of fuel source. What we want IMO is redundancy via the number of pieces of equipment and perhaps different design approaches. <br /><br />Redundancy is good. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>