Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!

Page 5 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jhoblik

Guest
I would like to again bring attention to design our mission as simple from resource point of view and increase hardware complexity only if duplicate or triplicate our redundancy for survival purpose.<br />If we talk about required resources we could list them as:<br />-energy<br />-food(major part could be provided from water, food will be dehydrated )<br />-water<br />-oxygen(could be provided from water)<br />-fuel(could be provided from water)<br />-shielding(could be provided by water)<br /><br />We have 6 basic resources, 4 of them could be directly derived from water and fifth of them will contain as major part water, I will strongly suggest to think again about water as major resource.<br />Major part of water will be use for fuel purpose and shielding. We could compromise our shielding(shield just part ship) to use saved water in emergency situation for purpose to create oxygen for breathing(if it is necessary), or use as drinking water or generate fuel. <br />Our interplanetary ship will be not design around fuel tank. If think that water could be store in multiple tanks, something like rubber bag and easy tight to ship where space will be available. I am not sure if water will change to ice at the earth orbit, if so by changing color of bag from high reflexive it heat up ice and changed to water.<br />Water could be through electrolysis separate to H2 and O, Oxygen could be use for breathing purpose or liquidation unit will generate LH2 and LOX , fuel for rocket engine.<br />It is true, that we need powerfully resource of energy. But we need develop this resource any way for Mars station, where we will use same concept to create fuel from ice/water for our ascent rocket.<br />My idea:<br />- decrease complexity of resources <br />- decrease development(what will be use on Mars will be use in interplanetary ship), <br />- increase resource and hardware redundancy for survival<br />- major parts of our system are were simple device(nuclear rector, electrolysis reactor)
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
We are not in a survival situation, not are in having people rough it for a short period of time. We are settling up a long term settlement where people can live productive lives, which means healthy ones. <br /><br />The fact is poor hygiene kills. Not washing at all will lay <br />your crew open to a wide range of dieases both unpleasant and lethal. Ulcers, allergenic reactions, gastro-enteritis, fungal infestations, scepticemia, respiratory infections, and poisoning from environmental toxin accumulation are inevitable if you neglect hygiene. Small groups isolated groups living in close quarters are especially vulnerable, especially when medical facilities are limited. Prevention is better than cure, and the prevention of a great many diseases is a matter of simple cleanliness of both the person, their food air, and water, and the environment. It is not for nothing that people say cleanliness is next to godliness.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <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>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
There is no point taking water to Mars. You take they water you need for the trip, that is all. Mars is a water rich planet. You can extract water from the atmosphere anywhere (although the equipment is bulk and uses a fair bit of power) or the ground in many places (although that might need some treatment to remove salts). Water to Mars is coal to Newcastle.<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>
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
I meant the water baseline for 'liner' doing the trip to Mars. Taking 175 tonnes of water aboard for 250 day trip so that each 28 crew member can spend 25 litres per day is more pipedream, less real option. Especially if it's not used as propellant afterwards, which would require working machinery to recollect,clean and electrolyse anyway.Once in Mars there's plenty of ISRU water to splash around.<br /><br />And to clarify the baseline, I meant the liner has all the equipment to recycle water, from excrements, washing water, air conditioning, all possible sources. Even with considerable redundancy it would weigh a lot less than 175 tons, SWAG 30 tons including the water.
 
D

dan_casale

Guest
jhoblik:<br />Your points about water as a primary resource is valid. <br /><br />I have problems with a some of your ideas, so please provide solutions.<br /><br />Energy - Carrying only water, instead of LOX/LH2 or LOX/CH4, eliminates fuel cells and combustion technology as an energy source. This leaves only Solar and Nuclear.<br /><br />Oxygen - If the hydrolizer breaks, how much spare O2 do you carry?<br /><br />Propellent - Are you using water as the propellent? ie. Nuclear/steam rocket. Or is this a chemical rocket LOX/LH2?<br />If the hydrolizer breaks, do you have enough propellent stored to keep you from crashing into Mars or missing Mars completely? <br /><br /> />>On Mars I am expecting as method to go orbit use aero-capture. For redundancy, fuel could be created before departure to Mars, if it will be needed to support to capture ship on Mars orbit.<<<br />Then you have not eliminated the storage tanks for the propellent. therefore the rocket is both more massive and more complex.<br /><br /> />>It will increase our flexibly in case of emergency.<< Not really, water is in a much lower energy state than LOX/LH2, thus an important emergency energy source has been eliminated.<br /><br /> />>I am not sure if water will change to ice at the earth orbit, if so by changing color of bag from high reflexive it heat up ice and changed to water. <<<br />Interesting idea. How can leaks be detected and fixed?<br /><br />Keep the ideas comming.....
 
J

jhoblik

Guest
You are right, what I mean, water from Earth will be used as resource just for trip between Earth and Mars and back. On Mars we will use local resources, but technology of ISRU and liquid unit will be same. <br />If Mars moons will have resource of water, we could even re-supply our space ship there. If there is major resource of water, it could be major resource of water(fuel, oxygen for breathing, drinking water) needed during transportation between Mars and Earth and back.<br />
 
J

jhoblik

Guest
1/ Fuel cells or combustion technology needs fuel(hydrogen, methane). This fuel has to be produce, couldn't be carry from Earth. Our only option as resource of energy is now nuclear. We couldn't compromise our mission on basic as not have enough energy. Nuclear reactor from weight point of view in the life time of reactor is best option.<br />2/ Water is use as basic resource for breathing oxygen, drinking water, but major as material from which we create through electrolysis H2 and O, to produce LH2 and LOX, as fuel for rocket engine.<br />Fuel for braking at Mars will be just for emergency purpose and it will be use only support aero-capture, it will be small amount, it means small tanks for LOX, LH2 has to be available, but it will filled only in case we needed.<br />
 
S

scottb50

Guest
Energy - Carrying only water, instead of LOX/LH2 or LOX/CH4, eliminates fuel cells and combustion technology as an energy source. This leaves only Solar and Nuclear.....<br /><br />I don't see any reason to carry LOX/LH2 for an extended period. Where does it eliminate fuel cells and combustion technology? You lose me there. <br /><br />Solar is constantly available in transit and available at least half the time in orbit. I would think it just as easy, and as safe, to have multiple sources for Solar Power and multiple storage facilities for Hydrogen and Oxygen. The only time they would have to be liquid would be when we use big engines and then it would be easier to just hasve to contain that amount for a relatively short time.<br /><br />Oxygen - If the hydrolizer breaks, how much spare O2 do you carry?<br /><br />If you have multiple, redundant sources, multiple Solar generators and multiple hydrolizers it would be equally as safe as having more cryogenic storage capability, assuming you on carrying LOX/LH2, or another type of fuel. Rather than benign water.<br /><br />Propellent - Are you using water as the propellent? ie. Nuclear/steam rocket. Or is this a chemical rocket LOX/LH2?<br /><br />There is no reason for Nuclear power. The mass of Solar collectors, compared to reactors, plus the dangers of just putting a reactor into orbit, pretty much eliminate them.<br /><br /> <br />If the hydrolizer breaks, do you have enough propellent stored to keep you from crashing into Mars or missing Mars completely?<br /><br />This goes back to redundancy. What if the cryogenic storage breaks? Too much Hydrogen leaks out, which it is notorious for doing? I think the odds are better taking liquid water and hydrolizing it as needed.<br /><br /> />>It will increase our flexibly in case of emergency.<< Not really, water is in a much lower energy state than LOX/LH2, thus an important emergency energy source has been eliminated. <br /><br />Yes, we have gone over this energy state thing rep <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Q

quasar2

Guest
i wonder if it would be easier to just be immersed in water. how detrimental is this over extended peiods? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
I would think you would get pretty pruney in a few days. I was thinking more along the lines of two Modules, one inside the other with the larger Module filled with water. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

dan_casale

Guest
I'll do my best to explain:<br /><br /> />>I don't see any reason to carry LOX/LH2 for an extended period. Where does it eliminate fuel cells and combustion technology? You lose me there.<<<br />From LOX/LH2 and a fuel cell I can get electricity, heat and water.<br />From LOX/CH4 and a reformer/fuel cell combo, I get electricity, heat, water, and CO2. CO2 is only good if you are growing plants on the trip to Mars.<br />From LOX/LH2 or LOX/CH4 and an ignition source, I get light, heat, water, and for CH4, I also get CO2.<br />LOX/LH2 each require seperate tanks, so that is more tank mass.<br /><br />I can still use LOX/LH2 or LOX/CH4 as shielding.<br />I have one less piece of equipment to worry about during the trip.<br /><br /> />>If you have multiple, redundant sources, multiple Solar generators and multiple hydrolizers it would be equally as safe as having more cryogenic storage capability,....<<<br /><br />Lets assume we are traveling to Mars and our craft is hit by a CME and the accompanying solar storm is expected to last several days. This causes a sudden rise in voltage in our solar panels which in turn trips the breakers. What is your alternate power source? (nuclear, apu, fuelcell,...) How much battery back-up are you carrying? What if this happens at a time when a corrective engine manuver or OMS burn is required?<br /><br /> />>...You can't burn crude oil in your car either, until it is distilled and the gasoline separated. <<<br />Exactly. Distilling uses energy to "skim off" the highest energy parts of crude oil. Just like Hydrolizing water.<br /><br /> />>Hopefully early missions will tell use just how much water is available on Mars, but to count on it from the beginning is short sighted.<<<br />I agree. However, the base will need to be sited in a place that needs water. So by the time people are sent, the water supply should already be in place.
 
S

smradoch

Guest
to Scottb50<br /><br />You opposed using of nuclear energy and using solar energy instead for electrolysis. I think it's not feasible. How many kW can you obtain with solar panels? Several houndreds? It's not enough. You will need several MW of electrical power.
 
S

scottb50

Guest
From LOX/LH2 and a fuel cell I can get electricity, heat and water.....<br /><br />From low pressure Hydrogen and Oxygen gas you can still power a fuel cell, or multiple indepenant fuel cells for that matter. There is no need for LOX/LH2 unless you are using it for major propullsion events. Thrusters and such could easily use gaseous Hydrogen and Oxygen.<br /><br />From LOX/CH4 and a reformer/fuel cell combo, I get electricity, heat, water, and CO2. CO2 is only good if you are growing plants on the trip to Mars.....<br /><br />Our crew will generate plenty of CO2, why introduce more? It would be a good experiment in global warming though. I still don't understand why you need both LH2 and CH4?<br /><br />I can still use LOX/LH2 or LOX/CH4 as shielding.....<br /><br />I would question the effectiveness of a gas for shielding and the containment requirements to use LOX/LH2 as shielding. You have a lot more equipment to worry about than if you just use liquid water. How are you going to keep LOX and LH2 liquid for extended periods?<br /><br /><<Lets assume we are traveling to Mars and our craft is hit by a CME and the accompanying solar storm is expected to last several days. This causes a sudden rise in voltage in our solar panels which in turn trips the breakers. What is your alternate power source? />><br /><br />I would think with stored gasses and fuel cells located in the shielded areas a Solar event would cause very little problem. You might temporarily lose generating capability, but I wouldn't think it would be long term.<br /><br /><<What is your alternate power source? />><br /><br />With multiple fuel cells in each independant Module, multiple independant Solar arrays and the ability to produce and distribute gas throughout the ship any sort of problem could be localized and dealt with. Solar power and batteries could also be used for emergency backup if more redundancy is needed.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

tfrederick9

Guest
Spacestar, guys, gals and those watching at home; since Spacestart just sitting around doing nothing <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> , do you think its time for a website that can sum up and provide info on things.
 
A

arobie

Guest
Dan_Casale,<br /><br />Excellent job! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />The outline covers everything we've laid out so far and includes what we need to discuss. It's a summary and checklist for our hardware. Thank you for the expansion. <br /><br />Everything looks good except for one thing that caught my eye. Under the inflatable surface habitat, you have spin-gee. Other than that everything is great.
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
<font color="yellow">"do you think its time for a website that can sum up and provide info on things."</font><br /><br />Definitely. I'd suggest some wiki-system. We use Confluence at work but it is commercial. Don't know anything about OSS wikis but I suppose there are many and some even usable?
 
D

dan_casale

Guest
>>...you have spin-gee.<<<br />I have stopped the Gee's from spinning. Bummer of a cut-paste error.
 
S

spacester

Guest
Here's how the energy picture breaks down for me vis-à-vis the current debate:<br />1. You want to be energy rich. You want to bring as much stored energy as you can.<br />2. IMO we cannot settle Mars without Nuclear energy. This means something like Boeing's 5 MWe plant (thanks, Scott) needs to be landed on the surface. (How much does that bad boy mass?)<br />3. The overall settler strategy dictates that we reject any FutureTech that has other than high confidence of delivering the goods.<br />4. Nuclear is politically problematical, but not impossible.<br /><br />Now how does this translate to the current debate? <br /><br />Stored energy seems to exclude solar, which is unfair so solar is in the list of options. A reliable, affordable, proven solar energy system for the transit hab is under consideration. BUT, we need to see numbers, calculations, and evidence that this system meets all those criteria. Even if that is shown, the system takes a performance hit going out to Mars orbit, and that fact must be fully accounted for.<br /><br />My political instincts say that if we need a nuclear power plant for the settlement itself, we should try for one on the manned flights. This is the one area when we don't get to set our own policies – we're running the show, not NASA, but we'll need broad public approval to launch nuclear material, and that's a tough thing to count on from a planning standpoint.<br /><br />So we might be forced to choose to plan two different plans in their entirety: with or without nukes? <br /><br />Or do we say that if we can't get nukes, we can't settle Mars, so there it is, game over, therefore we have to plan on having at least one nuke on the surface? Do we then insist on nuclear power for the transit?<br /><br />Or do we supplement the transit's solar energy with chemical energy of some form? (What is the energy density of compressed H2 and what are the leakage rates thru stainless steel or aluminum?) IOW, do we bring a bunch of our water already separa <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

jhoblik

Guest
What about to bring to orbit just nuclear reactor and ask government lunch plutonium for us. It will be a little bit expensive, but it could be done, there were mission that already had plutonium on board Pioneer 10,11, Voyager 1,2,…
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Let's not get too carried away with nuclear. Yes, it is compact and provides high power density. However, it has many disadvantages<br /><br />1. It is an imported energy source with relatively short operating life, probably a few years.<br /><br />2. There is no realistic likelihood of local resources providing fuel. If there were the infrastruccture, technology base, and human resources needed to process ore into fuel would be prohibitive until you had a very large population.<br /><br />3. Large units will require prohibitive infrastructure support, especially in the form of cooling, safety management, handling, and containment systems.<br /><br />4. Operating reactors will pose a significant radiation hazard<br /><br />5. Decomissioned reactors will pose a major hazard and waste disposal and decomissioning infrastructure, as we have on earth would be prohibitive.<br /><br />6. As pointed out, there are major political concerns associted with launching radioactive material into orbit.<br /><br />I am not saying we exclude nuclear, but confine it to applications where we really need it. this is probably early in the settlment building program We need to develop indigenous energy sources as soon as possible, realistically this is means solar, supplemented by wind. Experience with the MERS has shown that dust accumulation is not as big a problem as feared, at least in windy locations. In additional cleaning of panels could be easily automated. Areas of high winds would be slected from orbit, using absence of dust as a guide. Furthermore LIDAR tracking from orbit of dust motion will help model area of high local winds, combined with DEM data area suitable for wind farms should be easily selected.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <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>
 
D

dan_casale

Guest
Spacester:<br />Good levelset. I think we are on the same page, but I have some questions (of course).<br /><br /> />>Or do we say that if we can't get nukes, we can't settle Mars,...<<<br />No, I think that the two rovers are proving that solar on Mars is a viable option. However, we still don't know the effects of a dust storm on solar.<br /><br /> />>Or do we supplement the transit's solar energy with chemical energy of some form? (What is the energy density of compressed H2 and what are the leakage rates thru stainless steel or aluminum?) IOW, do we bring a bunch of our water already separated, and make water on the way? I don't think the numbers work out, but I'm not sure. Somebody somewhere must have studied this already. <<<br /><br />I'll see what I can find on the subject.<br /><br /> />>Do we really think that solar alone is the way to provide an energy-rich flight? How big would those panels be to support 28 people and all the systems we need for safe journeys? What about the mass of all the associated electrical equipment? <<<br /><br />No, solar alone isn't enough. I believe we need at least a 30 day supply of energy from another source for both the transit to Mars and on the surface. I have a lot of information on solar already. I'll put it together and give a per KW figure until we can come up with better figure for the amount of energy we will need. Do you think it is valid to extrapolate from ISS as the power required for 3 people?<br /><br /> />>The benchmark trip time is 200 days;....<<<br />I have a problem using this figure. This is a one-way, no mistakes, everything goes perfect figure. I think we must use a round-trip, nothing works right figure of 960 days. If we can skip the landing, then a figure of 700 days would work. But it doesn't leave time for a resupply mission if the lander can't take-off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts