You are not logged in.
NASA must delay deorbiting the ISS, U.S. lawmakers say
U.S. lawmakers are moving to delay the International Space Station’s retirement, giving more time for commercial replacements to be built
Meghan Bartels
Fri, March 6, 2026 at 1:37 PM EST
NASA could soon be scrambling to shore up the U.S.’s presence in low-Earth orbit, thanks to a key Senate committee that wants the space agency to extend the life of the International Space Station (ISS) past its current retirement date. If made law, the move would have international consequences for human space exploration.
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has added a draft measure to the NASA Authorization Act of 2026 that would order the space agency to extend ISS operations through 2032, two years longer than currently planned. The draft measure also forbids NASA from deorbiting the station until a replacement commercial space station is operational.
Perhaps the most ugly truth of human spaceflight is that the ISS is old and its days are numbered. Construction began in 1998, and humans have maintained a continuous presence on the orbiting outpost since November 2000. But space is a harsh environment, and the longer the massive station remains in orbit, the higher the chances are that a catastrophic failure could send it tumbling down to Earth.
Right now NASA and its international partners hope to keep the ISS working through 2030. (The station was built such that it requires both NASA and the Russian space agency’s full attentions; neither side can operate it alone.)
Then the station will die: SpaceX is building a beefed-up version of its Dragon vehicle to safely destroy the ISS in 2031. NASA hired SpaceX for the task in June 2024 on a contract worth up to $843 million—a remarkably tight time line to design and build a specialized vehicle for an operation that must proceed flawlessly or risk raining debris on Earth’s surface.
At the same time, NASA has also been working to support private companies to develop new orbital outposts that it could use to house astronauts and their research in low-Earth orbit. NASA worked with the now defunct company Bigelow Aerospace to test an inflatable module, for example, and the agency has hired Axiom Space to build what will initially be a module for the ISS but will subsequently undock and fly independently as the seed of a new station.
Yet just as NASA has repeatedly delayed the ISS’s retirement—the station was built to last 15 years—so, too, have the time lines for would-be commercial replacements slipped.
The Senate committee—and particularly its leaders, Republican senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Democratic senator Maria Cantwell of Washington State—are trying to speed things along via the authorization bill. Congress is meant to approve an annual authorization bill to set NASA’s priorities and an appropriations bill that allocates money, but the former is often neglected; the most recent finalized NASA authorization bill dates to 2022. And like all bills, the proposed measure must be approved by the full Senate and House of Representatives and then signed by the president to become law.
But even if the measure never becomes law, it’s an important signal of how key legislators think about NASA’s purpose and priorities. The language is stark. It sets an aggressive time line for making real progress on establishing commercial space stations: under the bill, NASA would need to release requirements for such stations within 60 days and final language to solicit proposals within 90 days and would have to enter contracts with two or more companies within 180 days. And the bill explicitly links the space station’s retirement schedule with the successful operation of a commercial replacement by forbidding a controlled deorbit until that time.
NASA and U.S. legislators alike have long worried that the inevitable demise of the ISS—whether controlled or not—could leave the country with no capacity for long-duration human spaceflight. Currently, the only other existing space station is China’s Tiangong station, which launched in 2021. Ultimately, it doesn’t seem like the U.S. is ready to give up on the ISS just yet.
Sorry still no replies or changes to the homepage of newmars.
17/22/38 03/07/26
38468 26066
"Shopping List for Mars Construction Testbed"
1. Regolith Simulant Ingredients
Traction sand / construction sand (angular)
Black Diamond blasting sand (basaltic fines)
Stone dust / crusher fines
Red iron oxide pigment
Optional: gypsum powder
2. Sifting & Grain-Size Control
Sieve set: 1 mm, 500 µm, 250 µm, 125 µm, 63 µm
Hand or electric sieve shaker
Plastic/metal collection bins
3. Thermal Processing Equipment
Drying oven (100–150°C)
Shallow metal trays (2–3 cm depth)
Thermocouples / digital temperature probes
Heat-resistant gloves
Cooling racks
4. Cold-Weather / Heated-Tent Environment
Heated work tent or insulated shelter
Portable electric heater (1–2 kW)
Thermal blankets or foam insulation panels
Cold-weather PPE
5. Construction & Binder Materials
Epoxy resin kits
Sodium silicate (waterglass)
Sulfur binder (pellets or powder)
Geopolymer binder
Thermoplastics: PLA, ABS, Nylon
Fibers: glass, basalt, polymer
Plasticizers and hardeners
6. Molding & 3D Printing Tools
Casting molds (tiles, bricks, beams, panels)
3D printer (standard or modified for regolith extrusion)
Mixing bowls, spatulas, measuring cups
Digital scale (0.1 g resolution)
Optional: vibration table
7. Measurement & Testing Tools
Compression tester (manual or hydraulic)
Bulk density cylinder
Moisture meter
Digital calipers
Notebook or digital logbook
8. Optional: Full Mars Workflow Simulation
Pea gravel (4–8 mm)
3/8" crushed stone
Extra stone dust
Small rock crusher (for gravel → sand processing)
For 1 cubic meter of Mars‑sand analog:
60% angular construction sand
25% basaltic fines (Black Diamond blasting sand)
10% stone dust / crusher fines
3% red iron oxide
2% gypsum (optional)
This produces a 63 µm – 1 mm grain band after sieving.
This is the material you’ll use for:
Molds
3D printing
Binders
Adhesives
Tiles
Bricks
Panels
Structural elements
And because you’re using heated tents and cold ambient conditions, your Earth results = Mars results.
Materials List for Earth‑Based Mars Construction Workflow**
Below is the complete materials list for preparing 1 cubic meter of Mars‑sand analog and running the thermal + construction tests under Mars‑equivalent conditions.
This list is designed so anyone can reproduce the workflow in a cold‑weather environment with heated tents, matching Mars operational constraints.
1. Regolith Simulant Ingredients (Earth‑Based)
[] Angular construction sand (traction sand, concrete sand, or all‑purpose sand)
[] Basaltic fines (Black Diamond blasting sand, trap rock fines, or crushed lava rock)
[] Stone dust / crusher fines (adds fine sand and coarse silt fraction)
[] Red iron oxide pigment (for Mars‑like color and chemistry)
Optional: gypsum powder (to simulate hydrated sulfates)
Target grain band after sieving:
63 µm – 1 mm (Mars construction sand fraction)
2. Sifting and Grain‑Size Control
Sieve stack with mesh sizes:
1 mm
500 µm
250 µm
125 µm
63 µm
[] Hand shaker or small electric sieve shaker
[] Collection bins for each fraction
3. Thermal Processing Equipment (Earth Equivalent)
[] Drying oven (100–150°C capability)
[] Shallow metal trays (2–3 cm depth)
[] Thermocouples for monitoring bed temperature
[] Insulated gloves for handling hot trays
Heat‑resistant racks for cooling baked regolith
This replicates the Mars moving‑tray reactor driven by 30 kW thermal waste heat.
4. Environmental Simulation (Cold‑Weather Mars Analog)
[] Heated tent or insulated work enclosure
[] Portable electric heater (to maintain Mars‑equivalent working temps)
[] Thermal blankets or insulation panels
[] Cold‑weather PPE (for operator comfort and realism)
This allows Earth testing in winter conditions to mimic Mars operational constraints.
5. Construction & Fabrication Materials
For testing binders, adhesives, plastics, and structural methods:
Binders:
Epoxy
Sodium silicate (waterglass)
Sulfur binder
Geopolymer binder
Thermoplastics:
PLA
ABS
Nylon
Adhesives:
Toughened epoxy paste
Low‑outgassing epoxy
Additives:
Fibers (glass, basalt, polymer)
Plasticizers
Hardeners
6. Molding and 3D Printing Tools
[] Casting molds (tiles, bricks, panels, beams)
[] 3D printer (modified for regolith‑binder extrusion if desired)
[] Mixing bowls and spatulas
[] Vibration table (optional, for settling mixes in molds)
Digital scale (for precise binder ratios)
7. Measurement & Testing Tools
[] Bulk density cylinder
[] Compression tester (manual or hydraulic press)
[] Moisture meter
[] Calipers
Notebook or digital log for recording power, time, and throughput
8. Optional: Gravel & Dust for Full Mars Workflow Simulation
If someone wants to simulate the entire Mars chain (not just the final sand):
[] Pea gravel (4–8 mm)
[] 3/8" crushed stone
[] Extra stone dust (to represent Mars dust fraction)
[] Small rock crusher (to simulate gravel‑to‑sand processing)
How to play mars insitu on earth as the same for Mars, not finely processed as the simulants have done so far on earth.
This uses the same processing unit that starts for water from regolith but now uses the together mars ready course sand grain materials.
This is what is the same point on earth that cohesively makes mars on earth with the same rules.
Building Mars‑Ready Construction Methods on Earth Using a Unified Regolith Workflow**
Over the past several months I’ve been developing a practical, end‑to‑end method for designing and testing Mars construction techniques on Earth. The goal is simple:
Use the same starting material state, the same temperature controls, and the same process steps on Earth that we would use on Mars — so every experiment directly transfers.
Below is the full workflow, broken down so others can follow, critique, and build on it.
1. Why Start With the Same Material State?
On Mars, a scoop of raw regolith contains:
Dust
Sand
Gravel
Larger rocks
After processing, only the sand fraction (63 µm – 1 mm) becomes the primary feedstock for construction, 3D printing, molding, and binder experiments.
Typical assumed distribution per cubic meter of raw regolith:
20% dust
50% sand
30% gravel
This means:
To get 1 m³ of usable sand on Mars, you must process 2 m³ of raw regolith.
On Earth, we skip the upstream waste and directly prepare 1 m³ of Mars‑like sand as the standard starting point.
2. Earth Equivalent: Creating the Final Mars‑Sand Product
To match the post‑processed Mars sand, I prepare a mixture with:
Angular construction/traction sand
Basaltic fines or Black Diamond blasting sand
A small amount of stone dust
A touch of red iron oxide for color and chemistry
Then I sieve to keep only the 63 µm – 1 mm fraction.
This becomes the canonical Earth starting material for all construction tests.
3. Mars Thermal Processing → Earth Thermal Processing
Mars:
A 10 kWe fission surface power unit produces ~30 kW of thermal waste heat.
That waste heat drives a moving‑tray “pizza oven” reactor.
Regolith is baked to remove water and volatiles.
Baked sand exits as the construction feedstock.
Earth:
I use a drying oven to match the same temperature window and tray depth.
Same cycle times, same thermal behavior, same handling.
This ensures thermal results (binder curing, moisture removal, sintering behavior) match Mars conditions.
4. Mechanical Chain (Mars vs. Earth)
Mars System
[] Telerobotic battery‑powered bulldozer
[] Track‑scoop head lifts regolith
[] Auger removes large rocks
[] Fine fraction enters heated tray reactor
[] Water is collected for fuel or life support
[] Baked sand is stored for construction
Earth System
[] Load prepared Mars‑sand simulant
[] Dry in oven to match Mars thermal profile
[] Sift if needed to maintain grain band
[] Use in molds, 3D printing, binders, adhesives, plastics, etc.
The workflows are intentionally parallel.
5. Why This Makes Earth Tests Directly Transferable to Mars
Because I match:
[] Material state (post‑processed sand fraction)
[] Temperature controls (cold ambient + heated tent/enclosure)
[] Process steps (tray heating, sifting, mixing, molding)
[] Operational constraints (limited power, batch cycles, abrasive material)
…any binder, adhesive, plastic, mold, or 3D printing technique I test on Earth behaves the same way on Mars.
This includes:
Cure times
Flow behavior
Strength
Shrinkage
Layer adhesion
Thermal response
The only major differences left are gravity and atmospheric pressure, which can be tested separately if needed.
6. Engineering Metrics Gained From Earth Testing
By running the full workflow on Earth, I now know:
[] Power per batch
[] Power per cubic meter of sand
[] Man‑hours / robot‑hours per cycle
[] Throughput per sol
[] Thermal cycle times
[] Handling and loading times
Wear points and maintenance intervals
These are the numbers mission planners and ISRU designers need — and they come from real operations, not theory.
7. Why I’m Sharing This
This approach gives us a repeatable, Mars‑faithful method for testing:
Regolith construction
Binders and composites
3D printing
Molded blocks and panels
Thermal processing
Robotic workflows
Power budgeting
Habitat fabrication techniques
Anyone can reproduce this workflow on Earth with simple equipment and a consistent simulant.
I’m sharing it so others can:
Build their own rigs
Test their own binders
Validate their own construction ideas
Compare results using the same starting point
If we all use the same 1 m³ Mars‑sand standard, our results become comparable and cumulative.
The thickness of your jettisonable HIAD (Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator) shield is determined by the "thermal soak"—how much heat penetrates the layers before the ship slows down—rather than just the surface temperature.
On a Starship-scale Earth entry, you aren't just looking at a single layer; you’re looking at a layup (a multi-material sandwich). Based on NASA's LOFTID (Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator) data and current PICA-Flex performance, here is the "Turkey" on the thickness requirements:
The Total Layup Thickness: ~50mm to 75mm (2 to 3 inches)
To protect the ship's steel during a Mach 25 entry, the total stack height of the flexible shield would need to be roughly 50mm to 75mm. This is remarkably thin considering it replaces a 25–50mm rigid tile plus its mounting hardware.
The Layer Breakdown:
Outer Ablative Layer (PICA-Flex): 15mm – 25mm
This is the "sacrificial" part. It is a 3D-woven carbon fabric impregnated with phenolic resin. During the peak 1500°C+ heat flux, this layer chars and "outgasses," creating a protective boundary layer of cool gas that pushes the plasma away.
Insulation Mid-Layers (Carbon/Ceramic Felt): 30mm – 40mm
Beneath the PICA-Flex, you need several layers of "felt" (like Sigratherm or Pyrogel). This does the heavy lifting of stopping the heat from reaching the inflatable structure and the ship.
Gas Barrier (Teflon/Zylon Laminate): ~2mm
A thin, gas-tight membrane that ensures the inflation gases don't leak out and the 10,000°C external plasma doesn't leak in.
Why so thin? (The Surface Area Advantage)
The reason this can be thinner than you'd expect is the Ballistic Coefficient.
Starship (Standard): Falls like a heavy dart. It hits thick air while moving very fast, causing a "spike" in heat flux.
Starship (HIAD): If the centerline bag expands the width to 15 meters, the ship behaves like a "giant shuttlecock." It begins slowing down at 80km–90km altitude instead of 60km.
Because you are braking in thinner air, the peak heat flux (W/cm²) is lower. You are trading a "short, hot spike" for a "long, warm soak."
Mass Comparison: The "Turkey" on the Scale
Component — Hex-Tile System (Static) vs HIAD-PICA System (Jettisonable)
Areal Density: ∼15–20 kg/m² vs ∼8–12 kg/m²
Total Shield Mass: ∼8,000 kg vs ∼4,500 kg
Jettisonable Mass: 0 kg (Dead weight) vs ∼4,000 kg
By jettisoning the charred 4-ton shield before the landing flip, the Starship becomes significantly "lighter on its feet" for the final suicide burn.
The Centerline Airbag "Stand-off"
The airbag itself (the tori) would be inflated to a thickness of roughly 1 to 2 meters.
This creates a literal dead-air space between the 1500°C heat shield and the 800°C structural steel.
This air gap is your "safety margin." If the PICA-Flex develops a small tear, the plasma has to travel through 2 meters of pressurized nitrogen before it can touch the ship's hull, giving the RCS (Reaction Control System) time to compensate or the ship to slow down.
The Bottom Line
You are looking at a 3-inch thick "blanket" supported by a 6-foot thick "air cushion." This is a much more resilient solution than a 1-inch thick "glass cracker" (the current tiles) glued directly to a flexing steel plate.
Would you like to detail the "Trench Seal"—how the edges of this 15-meter wide blanket stay tucked into the ship's 9-meter body during the high-speed ascent?
For the monolithic PICA skin—the thin, rigid "shroud" that protects the ship before the HIAD/Airbag inflation—the thickness is optimized to survive only the first 300–400 seconds of peak reentry heating.
Because this shroud is jettisoned, we don't need the massive 50mm–80mm thickness of a permanent shield. Instead, we can use a "High-Flux, Low-Soak" strategy.
The Monolithic PICA Skin: 12mm to 18mm (0.5 – 0.7 inches)
This layer is essentially a "sacrificial veneer." Its job is to ablate and maintain the aerodynamic shape of the belly until the ship slows down to the deployment velocity (~Mach 10).
Recession (Ablation): During Earth entry, PICA-X typically loses about 5mm to 8mm of material due to surface charring and recession.
Insulation Margin: You need an additional 7mm to 10mm of "virgin" material behind the char layer to ensure the heat doesn't melt the structural adhesive or the stowed HIAD fabric before the jettison event.
The "Clean Break" Attachment
Since this skin is monolithic (or made of 4–5 massive longitudinal panels), it doesn't use the thousands of individual studs like the current tiles.
Linear Explosive Bolts ("Zip-Cord"): The skin is held in place by a perimeter of frangible joints.
Aerodynamic Overlap: The edges of the "fixed" tiles on the sides of the ship overlap the "jettisonable" shroud, forming a natural shingle that prevents high-pressure plasma from sneaking underneath.
Internal Standoffs: The skin is held 10mm–20mm away from the steel by ceramic spacers. This air gap provides a final layer of protection against heat soak before jettison.
The Sequence: From Shroud to Airbag
Entry Interface: 15mm Monolithic PICA — Hull Temp ~20°C (Ambient)
Peak Heating: 9mm PICA Remaining — Hull Temp ~150°C (Soaking)
Mach 10: JETTISONED — Hull Temp ~200°C
Mach 8: HIAD Airbag Inflated — COOLING (Radiative)
Why This Works
By using a thin monolithic skin first:
You eliminate the Gap Heating failure point entirely during the most dangerous part of reentry.
You protect the HIAD fabric from the "initial punch" of Mach 25 plasma, which would be too hot for even the best carbon weaves to endure for long.
The total mass of a 15mm PICA skin over the windward belly is roughly 2,000 kg—less than half the weight of the current tile system.
The "Aero-Dynamic Push":
When the pneumatic latches fire, the high-pressure gas trapped in the stowage trench (and the beginning of the HIAD inflation) physically "kicks" the PICA skin away from the ship. This prevents debris from hovering near the hull and damaging the flaps.
well I ran the pdf through copilot to get info.
1. Mission Motivation & Context
A crewed Mars mission is becoming feasible due to SpaceX’s Starship, reusable launch systems, and falling launch costs.Existing architectures lack detail, rely heavily on risky ISRU assumptions, or require enormous power systems.
Mars Direct 3 aims to be simple, safe, modular, and achievable with near‑term technology.
? 2. Core Innovation: The Big Ship – Small Ship Strategy
Starship is used as a cargo lander only — it does not return to Earth.A smaller vehicle, the Caravel, is used for crew transport and Earth return.
This separation:
Reduces fuel production requirements dramatically
Reduces solar/nuclear power needs
Improves safety by reducing ISRU dependence
Allows multiple cargo ships to pre‑deploy infrastructure
⚠️ 3. Three Major Concerns Addressed
Concern 1: Reliance on water extraction for return fuel
Extracting hundreds of tons of water is risky (machinery failure, contamination, inaccessible ice).Mars Direct 3 avoids this by bringing methane from Earth and producing only oxygen on Mars.
Concern 2: Enormous power requirements
Producing 710 tons of methalox for a Starship return requires ~1.9 MW and 57,000 m² of solar panels.Caravel needs only 140 tons of oxygen, requiring ~205 kW — a 10× reduction.
Concern 3: Lack of detail in existing plans
Mars Direct 3 provides a fully specified architecture: vehicles, rovers, ISRU, power systems, contingency plans, and mission timelines.?️ 4. Safety as the Primary Goal
The architecture is designed so the crew survives even if:Water extraction fails
ISRU fails
Up to three of four ships crash
A global dust storm lasts a month
The crewed lander crash‑lands but remains intact
Cargo lands far from the intended site
This is one of the strongest safety‑first designs proposed for Mars.
?️ 5. Vehicles & Hardware
Starship (Cargo)
125 tons to Mars surfaceBecomes a static industrial facility after landing
Carries methane, ISRU equipment, solar panels or reactors, cranes, and rovers
Caravel (Crew Lander/Return Vehicle)
32‑ton dry mass180 tons fuel capacity
~170 m³ habitable volume
Uses Raptor Jr. engines for safe low‑thrust Mars landing
Returns to Earth via rendezvous with a Starship in Earth orbit
Raptor Jr. Engines
Small methalox engines for landing6 engines, each ~8 tons thrust
Allows soft landing without soil excavation risks
Rovers
Tanker rover (fuel) — moves methane/oxygen between shipsTanker rover (water) — moves extracted water
Pressurized rover — 500 km range for exploration
Solar panel deployment rover — automated panel setup & cleaning
⚡ 6. Power Systems
Two options:Solar
Caravel return fuel requires 24.8 tons of panelsStarship‑only architecture would require 98 tons
Big Ship–Small Ship strategy drastically reduces mass and complexity
Nuclear (Kilopower‑like reactors)
10 kW per reactorCaravel+Starship mission needs 25 reactors (~32.5 tons)
Starship‑only mission needs 97 reactors (~126 tons)
Immune to dust storms and night cycles
? 7. First Launch Window (Uncrewed)
Two ships are sent:Starship Victoria
Main ISRU and power plantCarries:
45 tons methane
CO₂ electrolyzers
Water electrolyzers
Sabatier equipment
Gas liquefiers
Solar panels or reactors
Deployment rovers
Becomes a permanent industrial facility on Mars
Caravel Pinta
Uncrewed Caravel used for redundancy and pre‑deploymentProvides backup return capability and additional cargo
1. Cargo to Mars Surface
From the table in Section 2.1:Caravel payload to Mars: 26.5 tons
This is the maximum mass the Caravel can deliver to the Martian surface when used as a cargo lander or when carrying equipment ahead of the crew.
? 2. Cargo on Crew Flight (Launch Mass Breakdown)
Section 3.1 gives the launch configuration:Dry mass: 32 tons
Fuel at launch: 64.3 tons
Cargo: 26.5 tons
Total launch mass: 122.8 tons
This confirms the same cargo capacity: 26.5 tons.
? 3. Cargo on Return to Earth
Section 3.3:Caravel returns with 5 tons of cargo
This is the mass of samples, data drives, small equipment, etc.
So:
Return cargo capacity: 5 tons
? 4. Cargo carried by uncrewed Caravels
The uncrewed Caravel (e.g., Caravel Pinta) also carries 26.5 tons of cargo, identical to the crewed configuration.This is important because Mars Direct 3 uses multiple Caravels to pre‑deploy redundancy and backup return vehicles.
Caravel Mission Mode Cargo Mass
To Mars surface (crewed or uncrewed) 26.5 tons
Return to Earth 5 tons
Launch cargo inside Starship (LEO) 26.5 tonsWhy this matters in Mars Direct 3
The architecture relies on:Starships delivering heavy cargo (up to 125 tons each)
Caravels delivering precision cargo and redundancy (26.5 tons each)
Only Caravels return to Earth, so their cargo return mass is intentionally small (5 tons)
This division is what makes the Big Ship–Small Ship strategy work.
Since starship even as cargo payload can not bring LCH4 due to boiloff with no active cooling system and is not large enough to carry the methane as gaseous either.
Shipping water would be better as it does not boiloff....
Trying to do without prefilling of numbers being generated making use of excel and auto fill to do my best
starting post is carried from the previous days 3-05-2026 last number for the day 238411 - last post 238419
3-6-26 postings
Martian Calender - I have created a martian calender...
Martian Calender - I have created a martian calender...
Orbital Platforms
Orbital Platforms
Orbital Platforms
Daily Recap - Recapitulation of Posts in NewMars by Day
Mars Direct 3 is a Mars mission architecture developed by Miguel Gurre
sent out follow up emails as to the issue for the web masters
Trying to do without prefilling of numbers being generated making use of excel and auto fill to do my best
starting post is carried from the previous days 3-04-2026 last number for the day 238401 - last post 238410
3-5-26 posting
Orbital Platforms
Orbital Platforms
Martian Calender - I have created a martian calender...
Martian Calender - I have created a martian calender...
post removed pothole
Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.
Much of this was based on Starship and that due to many things it should be converted to a 2 stage booster to put more reasonable payloads into orbit that can do work without refueling...
We have been basing on Mars edl that Nasa wanted years ago.
Forty 40 Ton Mars Delivery Mechanism
This creates a 100 mT payload rocket to ride as a modified starship 2nd stage booster which would accommodate a series of ships all capable of going to the more and modified for the moon as well.
With most pieces being reusable with more capability at less refueling amounts.
First we are in need of a man rated delivery and return from LEO. This is a transfer ship of crew and modular canister payload system.
second is an ERV that transit to mars carrying the crew to awaiting transfer point in orbit for a MAV for Mars that is waiting in Mars orbit.
Third ship carries the Crew and for Cargo to the Mars landing site. To which once the cargo is off loaded it can be refueled and sent to orbit to bring back down more cargo if any is waiting.
It sure is walking and quacking like.... Duck
its been reported...
How come when I type in www.newmars.com, the home page is in Russian and when it translates, it is about Casino's???? When I click on it as well ^
The home page is screwed up.
Void
Trying to do without prefilling of numbers being generated making use of excel and auto fill to do my best
starting post is carried from the previous days 3-03-2026 last number for the day 238392 - last post 238400
3-4-26 postings
Martian Calender - I have created a martian calender...
Martian Calender - I have created a martian calender...
Orbital Platforms
Orbital Platforms
Orbital Platforms
Orbital Platforms
Orbital Platforms
Daily Recap - Recapitulation of Posts in NewMars by Day
composite materials topic wiki has been updated
composite materials topic wiki has been updated
For a pressurized habitat you need high specific strength, tensile capacity, and controlled failure modes—that's real structural composites territory.
Let's talk about a system that actually fits that brief.
1. What a pressurized composite shell really needs
For a habitat at roughly Earth-like pressure:
High tensile strength: The shell is mostly in hoop tension; compressive-only materials (concretes, geopolymers) are not enough on their own.
High specific strength: You want light skins that carry pressure, not meter-thick heavy walls.
Leak-tight and damage-tolerant: Multiple layers, controlled crack paths, repairable.
That points to fiber-reinforced polymer skins plus a lightweight core—a classic sandwich composite—backed up by regolith for radiation and micrometeoroid shielding.
2. Architecture that actually works on Mars
2.1 Separate the jobs
1 . Inner pressure shell:
o Thin, strong, lightweight composite. o Carries the pressure load.
2 Outer shield:
D Regolith berm or blocks.
o Provides radiation and impact protection, thermal inertia.
3. Structural frame (optional):
c Rings, ribs, or a lattice that the composite panels attach to. o Can be metal or composite.
This way, the composite mass stays low, and regolith does the "heavy" job where weight is tine.
3. Realistic composite materials under your constraints
3.1 Skins: high-performance fibers + low-temp resin You basically have two options:
1 . Import both fibers and resin (early phase):
Fibers: Carbon or aramid (Kevlar-class).
Resin: Epoxy or toughened thermoset that cures at <80 cc.
Pros: Lowest risk, lowest process temperature, minimal equipment. Cons: You're importing all the high-value material.
2 Import resin, make fibers on Mars (mid-term):
Fibers: Basalt-like or glass fibers from regolith.
Heat source: Solar concentrators for melting (N I 400-1500 oc), so electrical power stays low even though temperature is high.
Resin: Still imported, low-temp cure.
Pros: Big reduction in imported mass (fibers are the bulk of the skin mass).
Cons: More complex equipment; you accept high temperature but not high electrical power.
Either way, the curing temperature of the composite can stay in the 50-80 o c range.
3.2 Core: regolith-based, low-temp, lightweight
The core doesn't need huge tensile strength; it needs shear stiffness and buclding resistance:
Option A: Regolith-geopolymer foam or honeycomb o Make a thin-walled lattice or honeycomb from geopolymerized regolith at
<80-1 oo oc.
Low density, good shear stiffness.
Option B: 3D-printed regolith lattice c Print an open-cell lattice (trusses, octet, etc.) using a low-temp binder (geopolymer, phosphate cement, or polymer). c Skins bond to this lattice.
Option C: Imported polymer foam (early phase) c Very low mass, easy to process, but imported.
The core is where real Mars regolith can shine without needing to be high-tensile.
4. Equipment set for lightweight structural composites
4.1 For skins
Fiber supply:
Early: spools of carbon/aramid fiber from Earth.
Later: solar furnace + fiber drawing Line for basalt/glass fibers from regolith (thermal, not electric).
Layup and curing:
Equipment:
Simple layup tables or mandrels (for curved panels).
Rollers, vacuum bagging gear.
Low-temperature curing oven or heated tent (50—80 o c).
Electrical power:
Pumps, controls, and heaters: typically 10-30 kWh per ton of cured composite.
4.2 For cores
Regolith processing:
Excavation, screening, milling (if needed): 20—50 kWh/ton of core material. Binder handling (geopolymer/phosphate):
Mixers, dosing pumps, low-temp curing chamber: 5-20kWh/ton. Forming:
0 3D printer or molds for honeycomb/lattice.
a Drives and actuators: a few kWh per cubic rneter of core.
4.3 Assembly
Panel bonding:
Adhesive bonding or co-curing skins to core. o Low-temp cure again (<80 0C). Integration into habitat:
Mechanical fasteners or bonded joints to rings/ribs. o Sealant layers and inner liners for leak-tightness.
5. Power and mass picture for a habitat shell
Let's sketch a ballpark for a small cylindrical habitat:
Habitat: 4 m diameter, 10 m long, 1 bar internal pressure. Composite shell:
c Sandwich panels with N2—3 mm skins and N50-100 mm core.
o Total composite mass maybe on the order of 5—10 tons (depends on design). Electrical energy to fabricate (order of magnitude): Skins:
a Layup + curing: say 20—40 kWh/ton + 100—400 kWh total. Cores (regolith-based):
o Regolith processing + forming + curing: 40-80 kWh/ton 200-800 kWh. So you're in the rough range of 300—1200 kWh of electrical energy to fabricate the shell, spread over weeks—well within a tens-of-kW power system.
The high-temperature part (if you make fibers locally) is driven by solar thermal, not electrical, so it doesn't blow your power budget.
6. Why this meets your criteria Structural composite:
o True fiber-reinforced skins + engineered core high specific strength, sujtab[e for pressure shells. Light in mass:
o Thin skins, low-density core, regolith only where it doesn't hurt (shielding, not pressure).
o Usable for pressurized habitats:
o You're essentially building aerospace-style composite pressure shells, just with regolith-derived cores and possibly fibers. • Low electrical power and low temperature:
o All chemistry and curing kept below N80—100 o c.
c High-temperature melting (if used) offloaded to solar concentrators. If you want to go deeper, we can pick one concrete configuration—say imported carbon fiber + regolith lattice core + 50 kW peak electrical cap—and walk through a more detailed mass and panel-by-panel design.
does mars temperatures support chemistry and curing kept below N80—a 00 o c
Mars absolutely can support composite chemistries that cure below 80—100 oc, but only if you design the process around the planet's thermal environment rather than trying to use ambient conditions alone. The key is understanding what Mars does provide, what it doesn't, and how to bridge the gap with low-power equipment.
What Mars actually gives you thermally
Mars is cold—very cold. Typical Surface temperatures range from about 20 o c at midday near the equator down to —100 oc or Lower at night, with an average around —62 c c.
That means:
Ambient Mars temperatures are far below any composite curing temperature, even "low-temp" resins that cure at 40—80 oc.
You cannot rely on the environment to provide cu ring heat.
You can rely on the environment to provide excellent heat sinks for cooling and for stabilizing temperature gradients once curing is done.
So the question becomes: Can we heat composite parts to 40—80 oc with low power? The answer is yes—because the mass of the composite shell is small, and the insulation requirements are modest.
Why low-temperature curing is still feasible on Mars
Even though Mars is cold, heating a composite panel to 60-80 oc is a small, localized, low-power task. You're not heating a building—you're heating a thin laminate or a sandwich panel.
Typical composite curing energy
For a 2—3 mm composite skin panel:
Mass: ru5—10 kg/m2
Heat needed to raise resin + fiber to 80 oc: NO.2—0.4 kWh/m2 Curing oven losses (with insulation): NO. 1—0.3 kWh/m2
So curing a 10 rn2 panel might take only 3—7 kWh of electrical energy.
This is well within the capability of a 10—20 kW power system, even if you cure multiple panels per day.
How to achieve 40—80 oc curing on Mars with low power
1. Insulated curing tents or small ovens
Lightweight aerogel or multilayer insulation.
Electric resistance heaters or heat pumps.
Very small volume very low power draw.
2. Solar thermal assist
Even though Mars is cold, sunlight is still strong enough for:
Black-body absorption tents (greenhouse-like curing enclosures).
Solar concentrators to preheat air or thermal mass.
This can reduce electrical power by 50—80%.
3. Localized heating
Instead of heating the whole panel:
Use heated molds, heated platens, or resistive heating blankets. Only the composite itself reaches curing temperature.
This is how many low-temp aerospace composites are cured on Earth.
Which composite chemistries work below 80—100 oc? These are all compatible with Mars: Low-temperature epoxies Cure at 40-80 oc.
High strength, excellent for pressure shells.
Imported resin mass is small (tens to hundreds of kg).
Toughened thermoplastics (low-melt) Some soften and bond at 70—120 oc.
Recyclable and repairable.
Polyurethane or polyurea systems
Cure at ambient to 60 oc.
Good toughness and crack resistance.
Bio-derived polymers (mid-term)
Chitosan, starch-based, or lignin-based binders.
Cure at ambient to 80 DC.
Can be produced from life-support waste streams.
All of these are compatible with Mars's thermal environment as long as you provide a small heated enclosure.
Why this is enough for pressurized composite habitats A pressurized habitat shell is thin:
2—4 mm composite skins
50—100 mm lightweight core
Total pane( thickness: 5—10 cm
Total mass: a few tons
Heating a few tons of material to 60—80 oc over several days is trivial for a Mars base with even 10—20 kW of electrical power.
The cold environment actually helps once curing is done:
Composite strength increases at low temperature.
Thermal contraction can be managed with proper design.
The outer regolith berm provides thermal stability.
The real limitation isn't temperature—it's binder and fiber supply
Mars's cold climate doesn't stop composite curing. The real constraints are:
Resin availability (imported or ISRU-produced).
Fiber availability (imported carbon/aramid vs. solar-made basalt). Panel manufacturing throughput.
Temperature is the easiest part of the problem.
If you want, I can map out a full low-power curing system sized for a specific habitat (e.g., 4 m x 10 m cylinder) and show the exact kWh/day needed.
1. Example habitat and shell
Let's pick something modest but realistic:
Habitat: Cylinder, 4 m diameter, 10 m long
Internal pressure: NI bar
Composite shell: Sandwich panels o Skins: mm fiber-reinforced polymer o Core: N70 mm lightweight regolith-based lattice/foam c Total panel thickness: •v8 cm
Surface area of the cylinder + two endcaps is roughly 125 m 2 . Assume we build this from 10 m2 panels + about 13 panels.
2. Heating and curing one panel Take a 10 m2 panel:
Skin mass: N7 kg/m2 x 10 rn2 70 kg
Core mass: say 20 kg/m2 x 10 m 2 200 kg
• Total panel mass: Q70 kg
To heat that from, say, 0 oc to 70 oc:
Energy z 0.07 kWh per 10 kg per 70 oc + —1.3—1.5 kWh into the material Add oven/tent losses and inefficiencies -•3—5 kWh per panel is a reasonable target so:
Per 10 m2 panel: N3—5 kWh to cure
AIL 13 panels: N40—65 kWh total curing energy
That's electrical energy, not counting any solar thermal assist.
3. What the curing hardware Looks Like Curing enclosure:
Type: Insulated tent or small oven that fits one 10 m2 panel at a time
Insulation: Multilayer foil + foam/aerogel panels Heat source:
Electric resistance heaters or heat mats c Optional: solar-heated air loop to pre-warm the enclosure Power draw:
Suppose the heaters are rated at 2 kW.
To deliver 4 kWh to a panel, you run them for about 2 hours (plus some soak time).
You can easily do 2—3 panels per sol on a 10—20 kW base, even with other loads.
4. Total curing load for the shell
If we take the mid-range 5 kWh per panel:
13 panels x 5 kWh z 65 kWh total curing energy Spread over, say, 7 sols:
-9-10 kWh/s01 average
With a 10 kW power slice, that's less than 1 hour of full-power curing per sol, or longer at lower power.
So from a power-system perspective, curing the entire composite shell is a small, schedulable toad, not a dominant one.
5. How Mars temperatures fit into this Outside, it might be —60 oc.
• Inside the curing tent, you hold 70 DC.
• Good insulation keeps the heater duty cycle low.
• After curing, you can let the panel cool toward ambient or toward a controlled intermediate temperature before installation.
The cold environment is a challenge for holding temperature, but because each panel is relatively light and the enclosure is small, the absolute energy required stays low. If you'd like, next step could be: pick materials (e.g., imported carbon fiber + low-temp epoxy + regolith lattice core) and we can rough out how many kg of Earth-supplied stuff you'd actually need for that 4 m x 10 m habitat.
February 27, 2026, the new Artemis launch schedule looks like this:
Artemis II: Launch in April 2026, will orbit the Moon to test the systems that will be used for the landing in 2028 by Artemis IV.
Artemis III: Launching in 2027. This will be a low Earth orbit mission to test the spacesuits. This mission will involve docking with a spacecraft either from SpaceX’s Starship or Blue Origin’s Blue Moon craft. Artemis III was originally the mission that was intended to land on the Moon in 2028. But now, that will be Artemis IV, so Artemis III is now a new mission.
Artemis IV: Launching in 2028. This will be a new Moon landing mission.
Artemis V: Also launching in 2028. This is also a Moonshot, but for later in that year.
here is the still for 11
here is the still for 10
SpaceX's Flight 11 (Oct 2025) demonstrated improved structural integrity and less heat shield distress compared to Flight 10, despite both successfully achieving controlled ocean splashdowns. Flight 11 featured, for the second time, a V2 Starship that handled intense, intentional stress testing—including missing tiles in key areas—with less visible damage than Flight 10.
Flight 11 vs. Flight 10 Landing Breakdown:
Heat Shield/Damage: Flight 11 showed less, yet still significant, heat damage compared to Flight 10. Flight 11 lacked the metallic test tiles that caused excessive oxidation and orange coloring on Flight 10, though it still experienced high-heating, resulting in small flames and venting.Stress Testing: Both flights tested thermal protection, but Flight 11 intentionally left gaps in the heat shield without backup protection to test endurance, proving superior durability.
Performance: Both vehicles successfully executed the landing flip maneuver and soft splashdown. Flight 10 achieved a near-bullseye landing, and Flight 11 continued this precision.
Insights: Flight 10 was described as "charred" and "battered" due to its tests, while Flight 11 was in better condition, indicating progress toward full reusability
Both flights provided critical data, with Flight 11 demonstrating that the Starship could survive and maintain control despite severe, intentional damage to its thermal protection system.
here is the other view from space x
If you open the image in its own tab and zoom in on the image you will see the rust and holes still
I see flight 10 had the white from the nose plus the coloring, while 11 had just the staining colors and evidence of burning still.
vectran epoxy coating layers able to resist a 0.5 bar differential of air pressure
Yes, Vectran-reinforced epoxy composites can be engineered to resist a 0.5 bar (7.25 psi) air pressure differential. This pressure level is common in applications like inflatable space habitats, where Vectran provides the structural strength and an internal epoxy or bladder layer maintains the gas seal.
Key Factors for 0.5 Bar Pressure Resistance
Structural Integrity: Vectran fiber is five times stronger than steel and ten times stronger than aluminum on a weight-for-weight basis. It is frequently used in high-pressure applications such as NASA Mars Rover landing airbags and high-pressure pipes.
Gas Permeability: While Vectran provides the strength, a standard epoxy coating acts as the air barrier. Research indicates that epoxy coatings can achieve gastight seals at pressures up to 2.5 bar when properly cured.
Layering and Thickness:
Gastight Performance: For liquid crystal polymers like those used in Vectran, a coating depth of approximately 1.0 mm has been shown to maintain a gastight seal at 0.5 bar for extended periods.
Bonding Strength: Inserting an interfacial layer (IPL) between the resin and substrate can relax stress singularities and improve the overall bonding strength of the joint.
Permeability Trade-offs: Barrier performance against gas is highest when the epoxy is slow-cured at room temperature without high-temperature post-curing, which can sometimes increase permeability.
Typical Applications
Aerospace: Used in spacecraft tethers, parachutes, and inflatable habitats where maintaining an internal pressure differential (often around 0.5 to 1.0 bar) is critical.
Inflatables: Inflatable "drop stitch" fabrics with epoxy-infused reinforcements are used to create rigid, highly pressurized panels that resist bending and bowing
In a Mars habitat designed with a redundant "safe haven" architecture, the number of layers required for the secondary pressure vessel typically ranges from 3 to 5 distinct functional layers.
When an outer regolith-shielded dome fails—causing a loss of external counter-pressure—the internal "safe haven" must transition from a low-stress environment to a primary pressure vessel capable of holding a 0.5 bar (7.25 psi) differential.
Required Layering for a 0.5 Bar Safe Haven.
To ensure safety and gas retention, a Vectran-epoxy composite shell generally utilizes the following stack:
Gas Barrier (Bladder): A dedicated internal layer, often made of aluminized Polyethylene or Tedlar, to prevent the "slow leak" common in porous composites.
Structural Vectran Weave (The "Tendon" Layer): High-tensile Vectran fibers (liquid-crystal polymer) to carry the hoop stress of the 0.5 bar internal pressure.
Epoxy Matrix / Sealant: A slow-cured epoxy coating (approx. 1.0 mm thick) that encapsulates the Vectran, providing rigidity and a secondary seal against micro-fissures.
Redundant Impact/Scuff Layer: An outer "sacrificial" layer to protect the structural Vectran from debris or abrasive regolith particles if the outer shield collapses.
Thermal Control Layer: Often an outer layer of Multi-Layer Insulation (MLI) or silverized Teflon to manage the extreme temperature drop that occurs once the regolith shield is removed.
Why a Single Layer Fails
While a single thick layer of Vectran-epoxy can technically hold 0.5 bar, space safety protocols (like those used in the NASA Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM)) require multi-layer separation. This prevents a single crack or puncture in the epoxy from propagating through the entire structural wall, ensuring that if the outer "dome" fails, the inhabitants have a gastight, structurally sound backup.
i would like details on specific epoxy formulations, brands and application methods (e.g., vacuum infusion vs. hand layup) for this pressure level?
For a Mars habitat intended to resist a 0.5 bar (7.25 psi) differential, the choice of epoxy and application method is critical for ensuring both structural integrity and a gas-tight seal.
Recommended Epoxy Formulations and Brands
For space-grade applications, the primary requirement is low outgassing to prevent the degradation of the matrix in a vacuum and to avoid contaminating the habitat's internal air.
Aerospace-Grade Epoxies: Look for resins that meet NASA ASTM E595 standards for low outgassing.
Master Bond: EP21LSCL-2 is a common choice for its low outgassing properties and ability to form high-strength, gas-impermeable bonds.
Huntsman Araldite: Specifically the Araldite MY 720/Hardener 976 system, which is a staple in aerospace composites for its high thermal stability and mechanical performance.
Gurit: The PRIME™ series is widely used for large-scale infusion and is optimized for low viscosity and high-strength results.
Formulation Type: A two-part bisphenol-A (BPA) based epoxy is typically used for its balance of mechanical strength and barrier properties. Adding a polyamide hardener can improve the flexibility and impact resistance of the coating
Vacuum Infusion (VARTM) – Best Choice
Pros: Achieves the lowest void content and the highest fiber‑to‑resin ratio (approx. 70:30), resulting in a stronger and more gas‑tight laminate.
Cons: Requires more setup time and specialized equipment.
Hand Layup – Not Recommended
Pros: Simplest and cheapest application method.
Cons: High risk of pinholes and trapped air; typically produces a resin‑rich (50:50) laminate that is more brittle and prone to cracking under pressure.
Vacuum Bagging – Acceptable
An intermediate method where hand‑laid material is compressed under vacuum to remove excess resin.
Better than hand layup but less consistent and higher void content than full infusion.
Process Details for Vacuum Infusion
Dry Layup: The Vectran fabric is laid into the mold dry. This allows for precise orientation of the fibers to handle the specific hoop stresses of the dome.
Vacuum Draw: A vacuum bag is sealed over the dry fibers, and all air is evacuated. This "pre-compacts" the layers and allows for leak testing before any resin is introduced.
Resin Injection: The epoxy is drawn into the mold by the vacuum pressure. This ensures every fiber is fully "wetted" without introducing new air.
Curing: A slow room-temperature cure (24–48 hours) is often preferred for gas barriers to minimize internal stresses, often followed by a controlled "post-cure" in an oven to reach full mechanical strength
Nice letter for the Heatshield but I think they are going to look just at the cause of gas vapor coming from the honey combo of Avcoat material formula to alter, That's only a guess rather than looking at cure time and heat since its a liquid mixture that is hand packed rather than from a machine.
rying to do without prefilling of numbers being generated making use of excel and auto fill to do my best
starting post is carried from the previous days 3-02-2026 last number for the day 238375 - last post 238391
3-3-26 postings
Rocket Monopoly - United Launch Alliance
Martian Calender - I have created a martian calender...
Martian Calender - I have created a martian calender...
Daily Recap - Recapitulation of Posts in NewMars by Day
Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.
Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.
Why Artemis is “better” than Apollo.
Starship is Go...
Starship is Go...
Starship is Go...
Starship is Go...
Wiki making composite upper floor for habitat
Wiki making composite upper floor for habitat
vectran is one we have looked at but what are the low-temp epoxy + regolith lattice core See my thinking
You're speaking my language now—Vectran skins over a regolith lattice is exactly the kind of "real" structural composite that makes sense.
Let's break it into two pieces:
• low-temp epoxy systems that play well with Vectran regolith lattice core concepts that stay light but structural
1. Low-temperature epoxy options with Vectran
Vectran is a liquid-crystal polymer fiber: high strength, low CT E, low creep, and it's already been used in Mars hardware. For a pressure shell skin, you want an epoxy system that:
Cures S60—80 oc (ideally can gel at room temp, post-cure warm)
Has good fiber adhesion to LCP fibers (Vectran), which usually means a compatible sizing on the fiber plus a moderately polar epoxy
Is toughened (rubber/thermoplastic modifiers or nano-fillers) so it doesn't shatter at Mars-cold temperatures
Has low shrinkage and low outgassing
You don't need one specific brand; you need a class of systems with these traits:
1.1 Ambient/low-temp structural epoxies
Two-part amine-cured epoxies that cure at room temperature and can be post-cured at 40—60 oc.
Widely used in aerospace secondary structures and bonded joints.
Pros: simple mixing, no high-temp ovens, long pot life versions exist.
Use: wet layup or infusion of Vectran fabrics, then bag and cure in a 40—60 oc tent.
1.2 Latent low-temperature curing epoxies
Epoxy resins with latent curing agents (blocked amines, dicyandiamide, etc.) designed to cure at 40—80 oc with good structural properties.
Pros: long storage life, controllable cure, good for prepregs or film adhesives.
Use: Vectran prepregs or adhesive films to bond skins to the regolith core.
1.3 Toughened epoxies
• Epoxies modified with rubber particles, thermoplastics, or POSS-type additives to improve toughness and thermal performance at low temperature.
• Pros: better impact resistance and damage tolerance—critical for a pressure shell, Use: same curing window (50—80 oc), but better behavior under micrometeoroid or handling damage.
Practical combo for Mars: A Vectran fabric with a Low-viscosity, toughened, amine-cured epoxy that gels at room temp and post-cures at N 60 oc in a small insulated oven/tent. That keeps your process simple and power-light.
2. Regolith lattice core concepts You want the core to:
Be light (low density)
Provide shear stiffness and buckling resistance
Be made mostly from Martian regolith
Cure below N80 oc
Here are three realistic families.
2.1 Geopolymer regolith lattice
Material: Martian regolith (milled) + alkali activator (Na/K hydroxide or silicate) geopolymer "cement".
Form: 3D-printed or cast open-cell lattice (octet truss, honeycomb, etc.).
Cure: Often at ambient to N60—80 oc, so compatible with your low-temp envelope. Pros:
Mostly in-situ mass.
Good compressive and shear properties for a core.
Cons:
Needs alkali activators (imported or ISRU from brines). Needs water loop management.
2.2 Magnesium/phosphate regolith Lattice
Material: Mg/Ca-rich regolith fraction + phosphate binder + magnesium phosphate-type cement.
Form: Thin-walled lattice or ribbed panels. Cure: Ambient to oc, with high early strength. Pros:
Strong, relatively fast curing.
Good for ribs and frames under compression. Cons:
Phosphate source (imported at first).
Chemistry must be tuned to local regolith.
2.3 Regolith-fil[ed polymer/composite lattice
Material: Thin polymer or composite ribs (could be Vectran/epoxy or glass/epoxy) forming a lattice, with regolith micro-fill or light foamed infill.
Form: Think of a truss-core or isogrid: most of the stiffness from the rib geometry, regolith just adds damping and local support.
Cure: All at <80 oc (same as skins). Pros:
Very high stiffness-to-weight if designed well.
Regolith is there but doesn't have to carry high tension. Cons:
More imported fiber/resin in the ribs. c More complex manufacturing.
3. How Vectran + low-temp epoxy + regolith lattice fit together
A realistic sandwich panel for a Mars pressure shell could look like this:
Outer skin: Vectran/epoxy laminate (2—3 mm)
Core: 50—100 mm regolith-based lattice (geopolymer or Mg-phosphate)
Inner skin: Vectran/epoxy laminate (2—3 mm)
Bonding: Low-temp toughened epoxy film or paste adhesive Process:
1. Make regolith lattice modules (low-temp geopolymer or Mg-phosphate) in molds or via 3D printing.
2. Lay up Vectran/epoxy skins on simple molds; cure at N 60 o c in a small oven/tent.
3. Bond skins to lattice with a low-temp epoxy adhesive; co-cure or secondary cure at
OC.
4. Join panels into a cylindrical or dome shell with Vectran/epoxy splice joints and internal rings.
This gives you:
True structural composite behavior (skins in tension, core in shear)
Low mass compared to solid regolith structures
Mostly in-situ mass in the core, with imported Vectran + epoxy as the high-value fraction
If you want to go one level deeper, we can pick one core type (say, geopolymer lattice) and rough out:
target density and strength
approximate kg of Vectran and epoxy per rn2 of shell how many kWh/sol you'd need to run that production line on Mars.
rying to do without prefilling of numbers being generated making use of excel and auto fill to do my best
starting post is carried from the previous days 3-01-2026 last number for the day 238368- last post 238374
3-2-26 posting
Martian Calender - I have created a martian calender...
Rubble Pile Sinter/Glass Jar/Double Cone, Ceres
Cost-Effective Credible National Defense
Wiki making composite upper floor for habitat
Wiki making composite upper floor for habitat