Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!

[spacester]

Great data, Dan. I'll be referring to it, so I hope it's right <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />I love wet launching ideas. This could really develop a settlement out. Once the initial habitats are in place, converted tanks from former second stages of Earth launchers could just keep coming. We're talking about taking the spent second stage of an Earth launcher - which usually becomes space junk - and stacking it up with our other stuff in LEO for a trip to Mars. Once there, it gets delivered by locally produced deltaV to the settlement site. You may or may not fill it up with supplies and food. You might fully outfit it as a habitat, it hibernates until on Martia Firma (did I just make up a word?), and gets a rousing housewarming party.<br /><br />You would build in bracketry at a minimum. But you would most likely include the major structural stuff for your habitat equipment. This would avoid having to hand carry it in later, during outfitting for Mars injection in LEO.<br /><br />I'm not exactly planning on using STS to launch our propellant. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> But orbital assembly is the way to go. I'm thinking that with Delta IV Heavy and Atlas it's possible to talk about but just silly. (Wait! where did I hear that line? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> )<br /><br />With today's announcment I think the chances of Shuttle-C just went up. Way up. I shouldn't be hanging out here, I should be researching this Griffin fellow. Scottish name, right? He must have some Engineer genes going then.<br /><br />Refresh my memory, Shuttle-C lets the engine pod separate from the cargo container, and uh how do they get the engines back?<br /><br />Like I say, I'm rusty on some of this stuff. As I recall, Shuttle-Z was a very nice idea, and another one that sticks in my head is from our very own rogers_buck. Feel free to discuss. Primarily, my plans figure on SpaceX building a BFR sooner rather than later.<br /><br />Yeah, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[peterweg]

The MagBeam concept still seems to have massive potential (winglee is giving an update to NIAC on wednesday http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/meetings/fellows/mar05/agenda.pdf). But failing that, the cheapest method of sending cargo to mars independantly of the crew should be used, say, using slow ion drives (a space tug, say like the new ESA cargo delivery system that can automatically dock together to form a orbiting warehouse). The crew should be blasted there as fast as possible. Everything they need for the mission and return journey should be already station in Mars orbit or on the surface itself. Spend a decade sending supplies using SMART-1 type techniques and invest everything to get the crew there as fast as possible.<br /><br />So, what is the fastest method to get the crew (and nothing else except their one way supplies) to Mars and how much would this mass be from LEO?

 

[dan_casale]

An ION drive only works for stuff that is already in orbit. To get it to orbit we need an HLV or SHLV. But otherwise I agree, cargo can take the slow boat.<br /><br />So lets talk about equiping this adventure. Because we haven't determined the size of the first crew I will try to do it as a "supplies per person".<br /><br />Survival supplies for 960 days:<br />O2: @ 1323/Liters of gasous O2 per day.<br />1,270,080/liters of gasous O2 (Does anyone know how to convert this to LOX?)<br /><br />Water:<br />2 Liters/day drinking<br />2 Liters/day Hygine<br />3840 Liters<br /><br />Food:<br />This is a nice formula - Caloric requirements are determined by the National Research Council formula for basal energy expenditure (BEE). For women, BEE = 655 + (9.6 x W) + (1.7 x H) - (4.7 x A), and for men, BEE = 66 + (13.7 x W) + (5 x H) - (6.8 x A), where W = weight in kilograms, H = height in centimeters, and A = age in years.<br /><br />After lots of research the closest I could come was about 7 lbs/day/person based on ISS.<br /><br /><br />Environmentals (heating/cooling):<br />ISS has about 400KW of electrical power. That would drop to about 100KW on the surface of Mars.<br /><br />Other good links:<br />http://advlifesupport.jsc.nasa.gov/FY03Metric-HTML.html (this one looks the best.)<br />http://bioastroroadmap.nasa.gov/index.jsp <br />http://advlifesupport.jsc.nasa.gov/documents/JSC-39502A.pdf (Lots of Mars mission references. Page 47 has a good flowchart.)<br />http://virtualastronaut.jsc.nasa.gov/teacherportal/pdfs/Space.Food.and.Nutrition.pdf (menus for the different programs)<br />http://research.hq.nasa.gov/code_u</safety_wrapper

 

[scottb50]

If you combine the mass of the Oxygen required and the water needed for drinking, hygiene, as a working fluid from environmental control, as shielding outside of LEO and propulsion throughout the system the most economical means of doing it is to take a lot of water.<br /><br />The idea of using LH and LOX only makes sense when you don't have to contain them for a long period of time in a liquid state. This can be done by carrying liquid water and using solar power as needed to break it down into Hydrogen and Oxygen gasses and using solar electric power to liquify it when needed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[arobie]

Ok, so for the first launch opportunity:<br /><br />Two Martian Ships (I'm talking about the complete stack) are sent. That's two booster stages, two lander stages, and I guess no third stages. One booster will propel the ship containing the first generation power plant, and the other will propel the ship containing the first generation ISRU unit. Both boosters will remain in LMO until re-prop operation is underway. For this first launch opportunity, the second stages are lander stages instead of hab stages. The third stage would have been a manned lander/ascender, but we have no men at this point, and our second stage is already our lander/ascender. We can either use this extra space for freight: the probes, robots, and rovers, or we can fit those in with the power plant or the ISRU unit in the lander stage. I would have those, if possible, already packed in the lander stage for the journey. <br /><br />So First Launch Opportunity...<br /><br />*1R (First Round) Martian Ship Numero Uno:<br />-One Booster (Remains in LMO)<br />-One Second Stage containing a lander, one First Generation Power Plant, and one Small Habitat. (Utilize the power plant or bring own fuel cells?)<br />-No third stage?<br /><br />*1R Martian Ship Numero Dos:<br />-One Booster (Remains in LMO)<br />-One Second Stage containing a lander, one ISRU Production Trial Unit (including telepresence-controlled robot attendants), and the Site survey & prep probes/robots/rovers.<br />-No third stage?<br /><br />Now for the second launch cycle. Firstly, is this two and a half or five years later?<br /><br />If only two and a half years, then we will only have half of an Earth-Return load of propellant created by ISRU. If this is the case, we should use this propellant to prop up the landers on surface so that they may help transport supplies to the surface. If five years later, then we will have an entire Earth-Return load of propellant and can possibly send a booster back to Earth if we can have orbital reprop operati

 

[arobie]

I think we should keep an eye on Bigelow Aerospace's Inflatable habitats. They could be of use for the settlement plan. <br /><br />They are spacious (and I'm sure he will design even larger), they are attachable, they are durable (stronger than any spacecraft yet), they launch in a compacted state, and they will already be designed for us. We won't have to build them ourselves. <br /><br />They could be used on Mars itself for surface habs, as orbital refuges, or even as transit habs. For transit habs, at ejection burn, we could have one...maby two inflated, then after the burn we could inflate a few more that we had stored and compacted giving the crew plenty of space for a six month journey.<br /><br />In Mars orbit, we can either leave them single and have a many orbital refuges, or we can group them up and have a few larger complexes.<br /><br />What I have been able to find on them so far (As most private ventures, this one is pretty tight-lipped):<br /><br />Current full-sized<br />45 feet long and 22 feet in diameter<br />330 cubic meter volume (About the size of a three bedroom house)<br />Weighs ~25 tons<br /><br />The Five-Billion-Star Hotel- A (great) recent Popular Science Article on Bigelow's Inflatable Space Habs.<br />Inflatable Space Outposts: Cash Down on High Hopes- A space.com article. <br /><br />Just a thought while sitting bored after finishing a portion of my graduation exit exam waiting for everyone to be done. What do y'all think?

 

[alpha_taur1]

"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 />Well we know there is plenty of carbon on Phobos. You want methane? I'm sure that we could oblige. A bug factory might work.<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 />I wonder what temperature the interior of Phobos would be. It must be pretty close to ideal for liquid oxygen at least. Hydrogen can be compressed or absorbed into metal hydrides.<br /><br />hydrogen peroxide? <br /><br />Would hydrazine be any good to you? I think we could make that too.<br /><br />We just need that Phobos sample return mission to get more data.

 

[scottb50]

I think we need three ships from LEO, all three identical but autonomous. Prepared and launched separately from orbit they dock enroute. At Mars the modular ships disassemble, some modules going to the surface and others, carrying water, stay with an orbital hub where Hydrogen and Oxygen would be produced and shipped down to the surface for fuel cells.<br /><br />Two vehicles return to Earth and one stays in Mars orbit to support the surface station. Subsequent missions would bring up primarily cargo but also people, say 8 per vehicle.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dan_casale]

Arobie:<br />I'm sure you have thought this out but I not sure I got it.<br /><br />Equipment for first window:<br />1 - ISRU unit, assumed to be fuel production unit for C2H4/Lox propellent.<br />2 - Landers (Why two?)<br />1 - Power unit, assumed to be for ISRU unit.<br /><br />I would add:<br />1 - ISRU unit to find (drill for) water.<br />1 - Hydrolizer to process some water into additional hydrogen for propellent ISRU unit.<br />1 - Green house unit for growing food<br />1 - Hydroponic unit for growing fish<br />1 - Hab unit for settlers. This should be pressurized after landing so we know it is working when settlers arrive.<br />1 - Additional power for all base processes.<br />Long term storable food/water and medical/scientific/maintenance equipment.<br />Communication equipment.<br />1 - waste recycler unit to turn waste products in to carbon, oils, hydrogen, Oxygen, and minerals.<br /><br />Requirements before the second window:<br />ISRU fuel and water units must be full.<br />Hydrolizer input and storage tanks must be full.<br />Green house and Hab must be at correct temperature/pressure.<br />Communication equipment must be functional.<br /><br />Second window and beyond:<br />Same equipment as first plus additional repair parts for any failures that have occured to existing equpment on Mars.<br />2 - Rovers<br />seeds for greenhouse<br />Fish for Hydroponics<br />Personnel<br />Food for 960 days.<br /><br />LH2 tanks are equipted with refrigeration units to maintain proper temperature for trip.<br />All equipment is shipped as one unit.<br />Habitat is spun to produce 1 G during trip to Mars.<br />

 

[spacester]

Great posts everyone! I’m just posting at the bottom of the flat thread . . . commenting on stuff since my last post . . . <br /><br />MagBeam is in the category of FutureTech. I love future tech, but have no use for it in my settlement plan. No use whatsoever. When it becomes AlmostAvailableTech, I’ll include it in my plans. The slow cargo / fast human approach is of course the way to go, but I want to use the same interplanetary booster stages, recycle them between manned and cargo flights. So that means cargo goes by Hohmann and manned flight trip time is flexible according to the required payload, the opportunity’s dV and the residual prop you want after arrival. The benchmark manned flight time is 200 days, but in 2018 for example it would be closer to 170 days.<br />***<br />Excellent data, Dan, thanks for all the links. I haven’t found time to check them all out, great stuff so far . . . <br />***<br />Water shielding, water derived propellant, that makes sense to me, that’s the basis for the envisioned transit habitat. We’re coming from the Water Planet, after all; let’s bring the water we need to be healthy and safe.<br /><br />The plan has to assume that LH is not storable unless shown otherwise, and Mars arrival dV for some years is greater than maximum aerobraking dV, so I just don’t see LH2/LOX engines in the interplanetary booster. Kerosene / LOX would seem to make sense, but can we make Kerosene at Mars?<br /><br />So I’ve come to the surprising conclusion that the interplanetary booster has CH4 / O2 engines. I know I know, you’re carrying all that carbon all over the place, but that’s what seems to make sense. Shoot, most everything would have the same propellant, because Mars is supplying all the dV for this enterprise and we want to refill any stage we can with Martian propellant.<br /><br />I like the idea of LEO refueling with solar power-derived LH2 and LOX from water. But I suspect the production rate, especially counting liquefaction power, would have a h <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tfrederick9]

I'm a little late here but....... Are we assuming that Mars has been preped for humans? By this I mean, are there comm and MPS (Martian positioning satellites) in orbit? I think this would provide a huge bang for the buck so to speak. It could make landing much easier, not to mention no comm black out during when the settlement is on opposite side from Earth.<br /><br />As a thought to all, repair work. It will have to be done, I think we should accept that. What I'd propose is sending up key components as well as "raw" parts. IN addition send the tools to make those parts into anything need, so send up some circut boards to fix something, and virgin boards for use in whatever is need, or make new hardware. The same goes for a small machine shop.<br /><br />Is there any data on minerials on Mars? By this I mean, could steel be made? This would certainly open up a new way, where the current team builds habs from on site materials for the next team, and so on. We could then us that hab space to double the personal, extra cargo, whatever.

 

[dan_casale]

Spacester, <br />I think we need more information so we can proceed. Do you want to outline your planning steps so we can help fill in the details, or shall we continue with our different tangents?<br /><br />The nine life support systems (as defined by NASA) are:<br />Air Supply<br />Communications<br />Electricity<br />Food production and delivery<br />Recreation<br />Temperature control<br />Transportation<br />Waste management,<br />Water supply<br /><br />I add:<br />Construction<br />Information storage/retrival/processing<br />Mining/refining/fabricating<br /><br />MagBeam as in electromagnetic launch rail. I think this is farther advanced than AlmostAvailableTech, as it is used on some trains in Japan (I believe). I would assume that this would be the prefered launch method from any airless body, until tethers and elevators become reality.<br /><br />I am also a fan of water shielding and on board LH2 refrigeration. If we are making propellent on the "fly", that works for me also. But I have mission safety concerns because if your hydrolizer breaks, you have no engines. So I think that enough to abort the mission needs to always be available.<br /><br />The first piece of equipment should be the piece that determines where the base is going to be. The second should be all the ISRU equipment. Everything else we listed should come third. The Martians are last to arrive.

 

[alpha_taur1]

"Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2) is a mono-propellant. "<br />So is hydrazine. It has been used quite a lot for small scale rocketry.

 

[spacester]

IIRC hydrazine is difficult to store for long periods of time because of its corrosiveness. Isn't that the reason for Soyuz' 6-month lifetime? <br /><br />But I'm not at all sure about that, and for all I know H2O2 has the same problem.<br /><br />*sigh* I can't take the time to research things like I used to . . . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[slayera]

Well I have a couple of ideas to share, not sure if that is what your looking for or not. <br /><br />1. Power. Ever thought about satellite power? The solar arrays would gather the power and beam it down. Beats nuclear any day, because you would have to keep reshipping the stuff and waste. You could also power up ships to coming and going. Your in orbit so you maximize you solar power as compared the surface. Or how about wind generaters, hear it blows there alot.<br /><br />2. CO2 spliters, carbon and oxygen. With the carbon you can make carbon fiber, with the carbon fiber you could build the all the structures plus many other tools. <br /><br />3. I don't know how this would work out, but I have wondered if you could just launch one ship and just use gravity assist in an never ending loop of the inner solar system dropping off and pick up payloads. Kind like a train on the tracks. Then use satelite to recharge it on the swing bys for power. <br /><br />4. Lauch off Olympus Mons, that puts you half up into the atmosphere already. I have no idea if that is doable. <br /><br />And a question for you, what possible products could you make on Mars, that we could not already have on Earth, the Moon, or a by draggin an asteroid to us?<br /><br />Good post btw, I hope it can be pulled off. <br />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"are there comm and MPS (Martian positioning satellites) in orbit?"</font><br /><br />Good question, also how much do we rely on governmental comm/tracking infrastructure here on Earth? Are there currently any other options than NASA/DSN?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Is there any data on minerials on Mars?"</font><br /><br />Mars is loaded with iron, iron oxides give it the distinctive red colour. Early pioneers might be interested in the 'blueberries'. At Oppy's location there seems to be abundance of them and it looks like they contain mostly hematite, which is a good iron ore.<br /><br />After ISRU for producing basic consumables (oxygen, water, propellant, food) is up and running, making steel should be right next on the list. If suitable aluminium ore is easily available then that too. First martian steel beams and sheets need not to be of top notch quality because we are not building spacecrafts (yet) but basic hab structures. I wonder how welding goes in Mars, is the atmosphere inert enough that you could do basic stick welding with plain steel stick without flux cover. MIG welding should be easy since argon can be collected from martian atmosphere.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"IIRC hydrazine is difficult to store for long periods of time because of its corrosiveness."</font><br /><br />Hydrazine is de facto propellant in deep space probes which require years of storage. It's nasty stuff but manageable using proper materials. Humans and hydrazine don't mix well at all. For instance when satellite builders fill up hydrazine tanks they put on ventilated hazmat suits.

 

[alpha_taur1]

That's true. Actually there is nothing to prevent hydrogen being stored as a pressurised gas instead of liquefied. It can be liquefied at a later date, as long as the equipment is compatible with cryogenics etc.

 

[crossovermaniac]

One idea I had was to use electric propulsion for all unmanned cargo vessels. Ten NASA-457M Hall thrusters with a combined thrust of 30 Newtons powered by a nuclear reactor would take about a year or two building thrust and spiraling out of Earth's orbit. Once captured by Mars' gravity, the ship would decelerate using an aerobrake shield. Because of the high specific impulse of electric rockets, the fuel would only make up a fraction of the weight of the ship. From my caculations, only 9% of the ship's mass would be fuel. Which means that up to half of the ship's mass would be payload. A 100 ton ship could deliver between 30 to 50 tons of useful cargo to the surface of Mars. Heavy equipment like catapillar tractors and bulldozers could be delivered to Mars.

 

[arobie]

Dan_Casale,<br /><br />All that I did in my breakdown was take the information that Spacester put out in this post and break it up into ships, just to get another perspective on it. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> -- added for clarity<br /><br />About why I put in two landers the first round...I quess it depends on whether we want to send one with enough propellant in it's tanks to bring down a load and then get back into orbit to pick up the other load and transport it down also, or send two each with each enough propellant to transport one load down to the surface. This is a question of logistics and efficiencies and depends on what we haven't decided yet: masses that need to be transported and what type of lander we use. I quess like Spacester has said, we seem to be getting ahead of ourselves. Sorry...I started it. <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /><br /><br />I agree that there is more that we need to send than we have brought up already, and most of what you've listed I agree we should send, although, I don't know if we need to send a settler hab unit this early, it will be several more cycle's till our settlers show up. For the second cycle and beyond, I think we should send Mars buggies instead of rovers. I would send rovers the first cycle before we land anything else to scout out our planned base location, to get an up close feel for the area before we try to land there. Everything else should stay in orbit until our scouting is over with. I don't know, One, two, or three weeks just to know <i>exactly</i> what we're dealing with on the surface.<br /><br />Also...<br /><br />Thanks for the data on our current launch options and also on food and water needs of people per day. Very useful and gonna be needed data.

 

[arobie]

Spacester,<br /><br />Thanks for the compliments, but that really is your plan. I took what you put out, digested it, then regurgitated it back out broken up not only into the cycles you had, but also the cycles broken up into ships also. It gives us the opportunity to look at it from another perspective.<br /><br />I do agree that we are getting a little ahead of ourselves. It's apparent looking back over the plan. Alot of things depend on assumptions about unmade decisions. The plan is in no way concrete, and I expect our plan at the end to look much different. It can give us a place to start later after we have done much more work and made more decisions about settlement concepts. <br /><br />First piece of equipment we land:<br /><br />Like I've said, I would land a rover or two. From information gained from the big space agencies, we can decide where we want to settle, but it seems unlikely they will do in depth mapping and observing of the exact location we want to put our settlement for us. Our rovers can take aerial pictures while descending to give us maps, and can drive around a bit to analyze scenery, see the sights (pun intended), and determine where the best place would be to place the ISRU, best place for habs, best place for landing/launching, and so on...<br /><br />Everything else can wait in orbit until we're ready to land the real equipment. I don't imagine it should take too long...<br /><br />Glad to hear you like inflatables. We'll just have to wait and see if the idea takes off. I wish Bigelow luck.

 

[arobie]

tfrederick,<br /><br />You're right about repair work. I hadn't even thought about it yet. You're right we need to plan it into the settlement. We will need to send up a machine shop along with everything else. It'll need to go up when our settlers are sent.<br /><br />Our list of needed stuff is getting longer and longer...<br /><br />Just a thought to all, <br /><br />We might not be able to spread our settlement out over the cycles as long as we are finding we want to. The longer we wait to send people, the better the chance things could wear out and break. If we wait too long before sending our settlers, our pre-sent equipment such as our ISRU and power plants might fall into disrepair before they get there. That would not be a good thing for the first settlers.<br /><br />Like tfrederick has said, we need to take into account the possibility of equipment breaking.

 

[JonClarke]

Despite this toxicity , hydrazine has been used almost all manned spacecraft (Soyuz, Salyut, Almaz, Mir, ISS, Gemini, Apollo, Shuttle) with very few problems. It has also been been used in a great many boosters - Titan, Proton, Long March, Ariane 1-4.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

Manned spacecrafts usually don't have problems because, well, they are manned so almost everything possible is made to assure mission success. And if manned mission goes fubar a little toxic spill to nature is dwarfed by humane losses. AFAIK worst hydrazine related accident so far was crash of russian Proton in 1999 that spilled tens of tons hydrazine in Kazakhstan.<br /><br />Original issue was propellant manufacturing on Deimos, hydrazine would be a poor candidate for that because despite being quite simple molecule it's manufacture process is rather complicated compared to hydrogen or methane.

 

[JonClarke]

I was merely pointing out that its toxicity, of itself, is not something that has precluded it's widespread usage. <br />I agree that hydrazine would be difficult to make on the Martian moons, although mainly because there isn't a ready nitrogen source on them. However it certainly is much more complex to make than some other propellants.<br /> <br /><br />The next most storable propellants, in a Mars context are either CO/O2 or methane/O2, and are readily made from the atmosphere. For the Martian moons methane/O2 is the best. <br /><br />If hydrazine is needed if could be made on the surface of mars using readily available materials. As a start you would need synthesis of ammonia from hydrogen and nitrogen, the first from water electrolysis, the second from the atmosphere (Haber process). The ammonia would then have to undergo partial oxidation by chlorine (from electrolysis of chlorides, derived by solution extraction from the soil) to form chloramine and then further reaction with excess ammonia to form hydrazine (Raschig process). The parallel oxidiser, nitrogen tetroxide, is made by the catalytic oxidation of ammonia and oxygen.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>