Mars lander idea

[willpittenger]

I think that missions to Mars should establish a orbital way station. It would not need to be much. Just two docking ports, tiny emergeny living area, and a fuel/oxygen transfer system. I figure the mass of one ISS node would be sufficent.<br /><br />The concept is that you would leave the landers docked to the station when not in use or on the surface. You make your fuel for the trip home on the surface and use the lander to orbit the fuel for the trip home. The station would assist in transferring the fuel. (Without the station's transfer system, astronauts would need to spacewalk so tanks could be transferred. That is what we do when ISS needs fuel or oxygen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

From Mars along with any oxygen needed for the crew. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

Where is the oxygen on Mars?<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, the idea seems plausible but there is not sufficient oxygen on Mars as I recall from the Zubrin studies. Of course, the oxygen could come from Earth or a lunar facilitie if one sophisticated enough exists by then. I'd recommend an internal automated transfer system rather than astronaut EVA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

One other thing about this idea, this sounds like a good one for private enterprise to do, especially in conjunction with say, a limited mining operation on Phobos or Deimos. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

What advantages does your suggestion offer over existing proposals such as ISPP for direct return or for an ascent craft that docks with the return craft in Mars orbit?<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>

 

[qso1]

If I may offer my 2 cents worth. I don't see any real advantage of this proposal, as you say over ISPP or direct etc. Its too early to tell if there would be some advantage but currently, the advantage I do see is utilization of this vehicle or similar one for operations concerning Mars moons. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

Carbon dioxide electrolysis is a well-known process and can be described by the following chemical reaction:<br /><br />2CO2 --- /> 2CO + O2<br /><br />It is used to extract oxygen out of the atmospheric carbon dioxide by means of a yittria stabilized zirconia solid electrolyte. It is also known as "solid oxide electrolysis".<br /><br />http://neptune.spaceports.com/~helmut/exploration99/strategy1/2_5_3_utilization_martian_resources.html<br /><br />http://www.mines.edu/research/srr/sanders.html<br /><br />http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/ISRU-III-99/pdf/8018.pdf<br /><br />NOTE FROM MATTBLACK AFTER REFERENCES:<br /><br />Even if LOX/Methane propulsion is NOT adopted for any Lunar/Mars vehicle's Ascent Stage and LOX/Ethanol was chosen instead, a *partial* ISRU process could still be undertaken to produce the LOX oxidiser on Mars:<br /><br />Since between 4-6 tons of 'feedstock' LH2 for LOX/Methane ISRU would have to have been brought all the way from Earth anyway in the classic "Mars Direct" and Nasa DRMs, you could delete that LH2 payload requirement and include it's equivalent tonnage with the high-grade Ethanol load anyway. And if you use pump-fed LOX/Ethanol engines instead of pressure-fed LOX/Methane motors, you'd make up for some of the lost isp difference and have a less time and energy-consuming fuel making process to boot. This simplified oxidiser-making method might save ISRU equipment weight over full Sabatier equipment and yield a reliable process, which could be trialed first during lunar missions by obtaining Lunar oxygen from regolith.<br /><br />Er... Copyright (C) 2006 by Mattblack?! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[john_316]

Hey Matt heres a stupid question or two<br /><br /><br />Do they know if they have found petroleum on Mars? Yeah "Oil" so they could refine it to make RP-1 (Kerosene) and use a Kerosene-O2 mixture for the Lander instead?<br /><br />I know they would have to drill for it if they found it. I mean they found Methane so I imagine that Hydrocarbons are abundant on Mars in various forms including possibly crude oil (natural gas too) of some sort. <br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[mattblack]

The methane on Mars could really only come from two sources -- volcanic or organic. As for there being crude oil for petroleum, well; they'd first have to find evidence of fossilised plant life and if they do, I don't see why not!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Since between 4-6 tons of 'feedstock' LH2 for LOX/Methane ISRU would have to have been brought all the way from Earth anyway in the classic "Mars Direct" and Nasa DRMs, you could delete that LH2 payload requirement and include it's equivalent tonnage with the high-grade Ethanol load anyway. "<br /><br />Hmmm...but that 6 tonnes of feedstock turns into 20 or so tonnes of methane fuel once processed on Mars. The equivalent load of ethanol would be what, 24 tonnes? <br /><br />"This simplified oxidiser-making method might save ISRU equipment weight over full Sabatier equipment and yield a reliable process, which could be trialed first during lunar missions by obtaining Lunar oxygen from regolith."<br /><br />Well if the description in Zubrin's book 'the Case for Mars' of ISRU is anything to go by, the real energy hog of the LOX production process is splitting oxygen off of CO2 via electrolysis. Even the Mars Direct system must use CO2 electrolysis to get enough O2 for an ideal propellent mix loadout for the Earth return vehicle. The nuclear reactor power of the Mars Direct plan is mostly used for electrolysis of water and CO2. <br /><br />That's the real advantage of the Sabatier process, it produces water and methane. And water is much easier to split with electrolysis than CO2. I'd hate to see the size of the electrical power system needed to derive all the oxygen the Earth return vehicle needs just from electrolysis of CO2!<br /><br />Though if you want a really simple Mars rocket that exploits ISRU, you could use a bi-propellent rocket that burns C02 collected from the Martian air. All that is required is a relatively low powered compressor and cooler to collect and store all the oxidizer the Earth return vehicle would need. There has already been an actual test of a rocket engine that burns liquid CO2 and magnesium slurry. Pretty wild. <br />

 

[mattblack]

Which is why Zubrin and others always specified an 100kw or more reactor! If Nasa isn't 'allowed' to develop full LOX/CH4 ISRU, the disassociation of carbon dioxide into oxygen would be the simplist and next best thing, used in conjunction with ethanol (or kerosene), both of which need no refrigeration, just a little insulation to stop them freezing. To think: we use alcohol products as anti-freeze for our car radiators, but the Moon and Mars can sometimes be colder than either Canada or Siberia!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

<br />"the disassociation of carbon dioxide into oxygen would be the simplist and next best thing [to full Sabatier ISRU]"<br /><br />Deriving oxygen from Martian air purely from CO2 electrolysis uses much more power than it would by applying the Sabatier process first. <br /><br />"Which is why Zubrin and others always specified an 100kw or more reactor!"<br /><br />Your suggestion would require an even bigger reactor.<br /><br />Plus an ethanol/LOX rocket would need to carry multiple times the mass of ethanol fuel compared to the mass of hydrogen feedstock that could produce all of the methane for a methane/LOX rocket.

 

[mattblack]

>>Plus an ethanol/LOX rocket would need to carry multiple times the mass of ethanol fuel compared to the mass of hydrogen feedstock that could produce all of the methane for a methane/LOX rocket.<<<br /><br />Yes, I realise that. I suggested that the deletion of the hydrogen feedstock, it's insulation and refrigeration gear might offset some of this mass difference. The isp difference between LOX/CH4 and LOX/Ethanol is about 15 percent (330 sec vs 380 sec) but a little of that difference could be offset by the above points and the inclusion of pump-fed over pressure fed. Let's face it: these reactions would never be benificially exothermic.<br /><br />Why am I bothering with this subject? I just wanted to understand the alternatives if LOX/Methane is definitely not funded, which would be a crying shame, as deferring the technology until Mars missions are on the table would definitely risk it's outright cancellation.<br /><br />LOX/Ethanol for ISS/Moon CEV & LSAM: Do-able and clearly superior to hypergols. But for Mars -- clearly inferior than LOX/Methane. But just in case, make the technology as mature and as efficient as possible.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

By efficient scheduling of power requirements and using a semi-direct architecture so you just need to reach Mars orbit you can reduce your power requirements to 20 kW.<br /><br />CO-O2 is a bit too low energy for rocket propulsion, but is a good fuel for running a ground vehicle, either through an diesel engine or fuel cell.<br /><br />Ethylene is another proposed useful alternative to methane, and much more storable.<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>

 

[mattblack]

Ethylene? Sounds interesting! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[chriscdc]

How much hydrogen is required for these systems. If it is small enough, you could store hydrogen on a material with a large surface area. You could combine this with the radiation absorbing properties of hydrogen and thus have a dual use insulation material. <br /><br />If you can get H2 to adsorb to the surface of a material such as carbon nanotube ribbon ( ~ a kg per km^2), you could have an excellent micro-meteorite shield which when you heat up on mars would release the stored H2.<br /><br />Does anyone here know much about H2 adorption to surfaces?

 

[scottb50]

If you forget about ethanol and LH2 and take water, converting it the LOX and LH2 as needed in Mars orbit you could carry a lot more propellant. Take the equivelent of the CO2 conversion equipment in water and you save the weight of cryogenic storage for Hydrogen for up to two years. In your equation 2CO2--->2CO + O2 you leave out the 1100 C temperature required and the means of supplying it.<br /><br />I think the quickest, cheapest, safest and best understood means of operating in Space is using water converted as needed to LOX and LH2. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I've got some stuff somewhere on ethylene, but can't think where. I will look.<br /><br />From memory it's quite energetic, almost as much as methane, denser than methane (so less storage volume required, and non cryogenic. Less hydrogen is required than methane, reducing the hydrogen import requirements to the point where atmospheric water extraction might be sufficient. It's manfacture is only slighly more complex than methane and is of course very familiar technology.<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>

 

[mattblack]

Especially good if you land at or near one of the Poles on Mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Or can journey there readily while on the surface. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Were you asking me?<br /><br />* Ascent/Descent craft could be reused. They would remain either docked to the platform or on the surface while waiting for the next crew.<br /><br />* Fuel could be obtained from the surface. (The orbiting outpost would need some of that fuel to remain in orbit.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

OK, for that to be viable each mission will have to go to the same latitude north of south so that it could be serviced by the orbit which will have a fixed inclination. <br />You will also need a multiple use Mars-orbit single stage shuttle that needs minimal servicing between missions. <br />So not something for the first phase of exploration, and possibly quite useful when a mars station has been constructed.<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>

 

[willpittenger]

You points are valid; however, if you put the station into a relatively high inclination orbit, you could access most of the surface with good timing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>