You are not logged in.
Recently, NASA has started conducting focused research into the use of graphene for high temperature radiator panels. Mass reductions of 80% to 90% should be achievable using graphene. In addition to being extremely light, graphene is also a superb heat conductor. All said and done, we could have a 100kWe power source that can be stored within the dimensions of a 55 gallon drum and weigh around 700kg. That's substantially more compact than the notional solar power system I described in my previous post.
This reactor would be mounted in a small solar electric rover of somewhat novel design, modeled after NASA's ATHLETE robot. The reactor would sit on a steel base plate shaped like a drill head. The reactor would be slowly rotated until the core was augured into the Martian regolith. After emplacement, the radiator panels would be unfurled and a cable run from the planted reactor to the habitat module or propellant plant. Emplacing the reactor in a hole makes the actual exclusion zone quite small.
There should be no feasibility issues with delivering reactors and emplacement robots using Red Dragon spacecraft. Two Red Dragon spacecraft could prove the feasibility of the life support and propellant plant technologies required to send humans. The first lander has the reactor and ATHLETE / ice mining robot and the second lander has the propellant and breathing gas production plant demonstrator. After initial production has started, the manufactured propellants will be used to power a small methalox combustion engine to assist with ice mining and earth moving.
There would be more protection for the various reactors by having them in the ground thus eliminating the possible shredding that could happen to panels exposed to flying rock and sand debris in powerful storms. I wouldn't think that a catastrophic failure would be a problem with multiple reactors strategically placed in good locations and wired separately. I think that the first people on Mars are going to need to move fast with as little wasted time and movement as possible, getting a safe habitat completed. I would think that initially it is important to establish the necessities and in order of importance just as fast as possible in case Mars throws a storm or some other unforeseen danger at the crew. I think that the reactors would be quicker to install and provide power that could be depended on. Later on once safety was not as paramount, alternative power sources might be useful and even redundant systems as backup. I have some questions about methalox combustion engines? Will a supply of methane be brought down with the Dragons as a reserve in case it is more problematic to harvest methane on Mars than people think? And should the landing local be in the Tharsis region to be nearer to the methane in case it is relatively easy?
The quantities of chemical propellants required to deliver elements of robotic and human exploration missions to the surface of Mars is of relatively minor consequence if we have truly reusable rockets that we can refuel on the surface of Mars. The problem is that true rocket reusability and LOX / LCH4 manufacturing on Mars are technologies that have not been demonstrated.
The first tool that we need to land on Mars is a small nuclear fission reactor that generates 100kWe (SAFE-400 weighs 1200kg). Current solar panel and battery technology can't generate the continuous power required to run a LOX / LCH4 plant capable of mass producing those chemical propellants using less mass than a small fission reactor. The solar irradiance Mars receives is approximately 44% of what Earth receives. The particulate matter suspended in the atmosphere of Mars further reduces the solar radiation that makes it to the surface of the planet. Mars also has an Earth-like day/night cycle, which means solar panels only receive enough light for useful power production for about six hours of that cycle and batteries are therefore required to store electrical energy to continue operations at night. The propellant plant and ice mining vehicles that deliver ice to the propellant plant also require power to operate.
Absent leap-ahead battery and solar panel technology, nuclear fission is the most practical power production technology for the Martian surface environment. There are no technological issues to overcome with a small fission reactor, so the power production problem is merely a question of good engineering practices and the political will to overcome the aversion to using nuclear power in favor of a technology that works right now versus what may or may not work at some point in time in the future. We should continue to invest time and money into battery and solar panel development because those technologies are required for other uses, but using them for as a primary power production source for high power applications on the surface of Mars is a bridge too far.
I just don't see us landing fully fueled Earth return vehicles on Mars absent a mega rocket with the lift capability that SpaceX's ITS is intended to provide. The IMLEO requirement to do that is too high. Nuclear power is not a panacea, it's just the best technology we currently have for high power applications on the surface of Mars and an enabling technology for us to make use of local Martian resources in an effort to dramatically lower the IMLEO requirement and make the mission affordable with current NASA budgets and current chemical rocket technology.
The solar panels don't have much of a life span even in good weather something like 15 years or so, if this is the case than large arrays would have to be retrofitted or even rebuilt over and over again leading to loss of time and resources along with opportunity costs. I like your idea of nuclear fission reactors as it seems more direct and versatile. Would it be possible to have multiple reactors and even one in a air locked rover to provide mobile energy/power to off site projects or rescues? Another question I have that is not directly related to this one is this - what would be a convincing reason for all of the effort to go to Mar and establish a permanent base that would be so compelling that world political figures/world leaders would be willing to pony up trillions in order to fast track everything? I can think of many reasons that I think important but many in power don't seem as interested in scientific inquiry. I was thinking that maybe rare earth metal deposits if they could be found on Mars in large enough quantities might be an enticement?
I think Robert Zubrin was the first to suggest Roman arches by the way but not as I recall combined with trenches.
The Valles Marineris is about 120 miles wide so not sure how practical it is to use that, but there must be smaller natural canyons that could be used.
I agree about air locked garages. Seems to be the easiest way to get around on Mars, rather than clambering into a cumbersome spacesuit (IIRC, it can take over an hour to get into one).
I was sort of thinking the tail end of a small canyon in Noctis Labyrinthus, on the western edge of the Valles Marineris Rift System, close to the impact crater I am not sure if this would be too wide or not but it seems like it is close to interesting geology, wouldn't get as cold, would be close to equator for easier blast off, its closer to volcanoes which perhaps could provide valuable geologic resources like a mineral belt or gases etc, maybe even lave tubes, and green houses could be built on the rim in or by the craters. There seems to be a flat area for landing close by but I don't know if it is to soft to support a landing and I am not that knowledgeable about the height of the volcanoes near by but it looks like there is ice on them which might provide a water source that could be utilized without having to travel as far into the cold regions. Another thing that I was wondering about is whether it is possible to collect and harvest the ice fogs in this area for water etc?
Yes, this is a serious issue. I too favour underground locations - specifically dig our a trench and put over it a Roman brick roof or similar steel arches which are then covered in copious amount of regolith. That should predict against all but a direct hit.
I think all your questions are good. Sadly I don't have the technical information to answer them! I would say that the cratered surface can be misleading as that of course is built up over billions of years.
Photovoltaic panels on the surface could be at risk, so we would need to keep a reserve safe below ground.
Meteorite strikes mean that we can never really have a single pressurised environment - we need multiple pressurised environments (and if they are connected they need air locks to connect.
I have come round to thinking that a pressurised rover will contribute a lot to an initial colony - and I guess one good feature might be it would offer a potential escape, although bombardments are probably over in a few seconds or minutes.
Hi Louis, I like this idea of using arches as they would distribute much of the weight downward supporting much more weight on top and by having them in a trench this would eliminate the need for a complex drilling machine and a dozer or front end loader is simple to make in comparison. Instead of digging a trench though would it be good to erect the structure which could be prefabbed on earth within the Valles Marineris and then bull doze the regolith from above down onto it thus clearing a site above while at the same time accomplishing the work below of layers of protection? The walls of Valles Marineris would provide protection while driving to and from the structure during storms or impacts and temperature under tons of regolith might be more constant too? Harvesting wind and temp changes in and around the Valles Marineris might also be useful. An air locked garage made in the same way and connected to the underground location would allow for fast and easy escape and give protection to the rover.
Hi Tony,
Personally I favour establishment of a permanent, continuous settlement (but with temporary colonists - people who spend maybe 2-4 years on the planet before returning to Earth, who are then replaced by others arriving from Earth, but with increasing numbers as time goes on). A humanoid robot is probably therefore not necessary (humanoids are very complex with multiple joints which I would imagine would pose failure issues in the generally cold environment of Mars). That's not to say robots wouldn't be used - but I imagine they would be things like robot rovers for exploration, robot diggers for water and iron ore mining, robot cleaners for cleaning photovoltaic panels.
I suppose something like Big Dog - the Boston Dynamics robot - would be a good "pack horse" for Mars e.g. for carrying mined material back to base if a mine was located in a difficult area. Generally, though, Mars's surface is good for wheeled robots, especially once boulders are cleared.
If colonists could cycle through a permanent continuous settlement this would probably be better for physical, mental, and emotional health and makes sense once a sustainable settlement is in place. There is something about Mars that I find interesting and scary at the same time and this is the continual bombardment of its surface with large meteors and other types of debris. This is interesting because of the possibility of finding new materials like unknown elements which might further technology or even life that might have hitchhiked from a distant intriguing place but scary for other reasons. It seems to me like the initial phases of setting up the colony is going to take many people hours which translates into calories which jumps over into food production and all of the fun challenges to figure out but what if after all the effort and time spent on the settlement an asteroid or meteor or comet crashes into it and everything has to begin all over? I was thinking that maybe an underground settlement or rather a portion of the settlement where people could get out of killer storms where equipment could be safely stored and worked on, where radiation is not such a problem, where impacts could be safely dodged etc. but this would have to be really deep I guess and would take up so many resources to build. I was guessing that maybe a robot like a human might be able to dig without having to eat or sleep and could maybe overcome some of the problems associated with low gravity but I suppose cold weather and dust causing problems with joints etc and breakdowns kind of rules this idea out. Would a movable settlement be possible in the beginning to avoid impacts, what is the plan for avoiding these, and how do they detect them in the beginning? And are there possible sites where impacts are not a worry?
There are a number of ways at looking at this problem. A lot of mission architectures look to land on Mars (and return) a large craft.
But that sort of approach is not the only one. Another approach I favour is pre-landing supplies in smaller craft and having a small Apollo style lander go on to the surface (leaving behind the main transit vehicle in orbit). This approach also favour in situ resource utilisation - so it's important to get going on habitat construction, food growing, scaled down metal industry etc from the get-go.
TonyTMarsBeginner wrote:There are so many interesting areas dealing with Mars and two of these that I (new to all of this) seem to keep struggling with are the earth take off and the Mars landing. With our atmosphere it takes so much fuel to just get to space and the more you carry the more fuel needed so there seems to be an exponential of fuel needs and associated costs thereof. But with Mars landing is it the same problem but in reverse? Not very much atmosphere equates with too much speed so more fuel is needed to slow down and more weight causes more speed leading to more fuel needed for heavier loads etc. To me it seems like these two obstacles are central to everything else that is to eventually be accomplished. I mean it appears to me that everything is going to be prioritized according to weight, fuel, and cost. This is stating the obvious in some ways but in others it isn't. Especially when politics are tied up and in with the costs in the form of governments and politicians saying yes or no to budgets etc. I would bet on the importance of getting the most bang for your buck or the most possible resources on the first couple of trips before programs or politicians get changed. These issues play into long term stays vs short, permanent colonies or occasional visits, and a myriad of other things. So my questions are these- how much fuel would be needed to land all the prioritized tools, robots, and resources on the surface of Mars (not counting earth take off) - how would this happen would it be many little lightweight trips or a few large fuel burning trips to the surface- and lastly could fuel be realistically harvested from space or Saturn or someplace and held in orbit above Mars for these trips down?
I think this is a better approach and good for safety and communication reasons. Would it be a good idea to have a humanoid robot as one of the resources so that work and projects could continue between the human missions?
Thanks for the responses and I'll check out the book too.
There are so many interesting areas dealing with Mars and two of these that I (new to all of this) seem to keep struggling with are the earth take off and the Mars landing. With our atmosphere it takes so much fuel to just get to space and the more you carry the more fuel needed so there seems to be an exponential of fuel needs and associated costs thereof. But with Mars landing is it the same problem but in reverse? Not very much atmosphere equates with too much speed so more fuel is needed to slow down and more weight causes more speed leading to more fuel needed for heavier loads etc. To me it seems like these two obstacles are central to everything else that is to eventually be accomplished. I mean it appears to me that everything is going to be prioritized according to weight, fuel, and cost. This is stating the obvious in some ways but in others it isn't. Especially when politics are tied up and in with the costs in the form of governments and politicians saying yes or no to budgets etc. I would bet on the importance of getting the most bang for your buck or the most possible resources on the first couple of trips before programs or politicians get changed. These issues play into long term stays vs short, permanent colonies or occasional visits, and a myriad of other things. So my questions are these- how much fuel would be needed to land all the prioritized tools, robots, and resources on the surface of Mars (not counting earth take off) - how would this happen would it be many little lightweight trips or a few large fuel burning trips to the surface- and lastly could fuel be realistically harvested from space or Saturn or someplace and held in orbit above Mars for these trips down?
Thanks for the response.
Are there any estimates how long equipment like drills and robotics etc can last on the surface of Mars? How would dust and particulates as well as radiation impact duration of use? Also what is the best way to get the equipment to the surface controlled crash or rocket thrusters? Thanks.
This is my first time and I am new here. I have a few questions about the craters on Mars. Is there any place on Mars that does not have meteor impacts? Where is the safest place for a HAB in regards to impacts? And could there be precious metals worth mining in these craters? I am not sure if this is the correct place to ask questions, if it isn't maybe someone could let me know. Thanks for any feedback in advance.