New Mars Forums

I think this is certainly one way to go.  Getting a good seal between the gas pressuised heat (which you must have) and the toro is a challenge.  Not only is the upper chest a complex shape (unlike the lower and upper limbs) you also have to allow for breathing movement.  It can't be too high either, otherwise you constrict the neck, not a good idea    But, and this is important, it has been done, back in the 60's.

Jon

I suspect a multi-step process will be taken.  First, as people step onto the porch they will brush/scrape off the larger clumps.  Then compressed air jets (air showers will blow off most of the remaining dust.  Remember how effective even wind has been cleaning the rovers. In the airlock people may first vacuum their suit exteriors after repressurisation before doffing an outer protective suit, if needed. They may then vacuum and doff pressure suits or opening the interior hatch.  Good design of suits and surfaces would minmise dust adhering to them.  Good air filters will be able to handle any remaining airborne particles down to 0.1 microns.  This will eliminate everything except virii. 

It is important to remember that there are lots working environments on earth that have high levels of harmful dust - mines, metallurgical plants, drill rigs, etc. Millions of people work in these environments every day. There is a lot of experience in mitigating the risks posed by such dust.  The solutions require clever engineering, but are not particularly complex.

Jon

You are thinking of James Waldie, who works for BAe systems in Melbourne.  He has just finished a PhD at RMIT on a MCP glove prototype, this work was parly funded by Honeywell.  James is also developing a simulated MCP suit for use by the Mars Society, this has been trialed several times at Utah at once at Arkaroola.  Known as marsSkin, the suit is currently at Version 3.1.

The advantages of MCP technology over any other approach to space suit design are so extreme that I think it should be the prime approach to Mars EVA suits.  They offer lower risk, mass, consumable use, volume, and maintainance requirements along with greater flexibility, dexterity, ease of repair and confort.   

Jon

Rover storage is an interesting issue. I don't think any of the DRM incarnations address it either There actually lots of issues about rovers that are fudged or glossed over in both MD and the DRM.  probably not critical to the pruposes of these studies but they need to be addressed sometime, and a few people have. 

With MD I suggest the best place would be underneath the pressure hull.  if this makes the whole struck too high then the height of the pressure hull might have to be reduced.  As the hull is  8 m high and two decks would only occupy 5 m, I think there is volume to spare for this.

As far as I can tell (without them in front of me) the different incarnations of the DRM all have about 500-540 m3 volume, which is only about 20-35% more than the DRM.  Since the DRM has 50% more crew there is actually less space per person than with MD, although I don't think the difference is crucial.  It is worth noting that the hab in version 1.0 of the DRM  was 7.5 m in diameter, slightly smaller than MD's 8 m, although again this is not significant.

I agree that least some large internal spaces are desirable for crew well being, although I haven't seen any literature that specifies how large the spaces might have to be.  Sincenone of the DRM literature I have seen shows and internal layout and the MD hab layout is conceptual, a wide range of possibilities exist.  I suspect that some form of reconfigurable interior is also highly desirable.

On another matter you said earlier than the DRM had had three full decks.  This was my recollection also, but version 1.0 has only two decks, and I was not able, in a quick scan at least, to locate a mention to three decks in the in version 3.0 document.  Suggestions appreciated.

Jon

The Mars Direct (MD) habitat module is 8 m in diameter and 8 m high, with a volume of 400 m3.  Thus with a 4 person crew there is 100 m3 per crew member.  This compares favourably with the NASA DRM habitat module which 500 m3 of volume allows only 83 m3 per person for a crew of 6.  But both these numbers are at the high range compared with those of historic spacecraft.  Salyut 7 with a supported 3 people for more than 6 months at a stretch with 108 m3 of volume, Mir a similar number for missions of over a year on 284 m3, thus 34 and 91 m3 per person respectively.  So volume wise, 80-100 m3 per person seems quite acceptable.

Of course the crew of a MD habitat will spend most of its time in gravity, thus floor area rather than volume is perhaps a better measure of habitability than volyme.  The MD habitat module a floor area of 100 m2 spread over two decks.  While there indeed larger apartments this floor area is about the same as many 3 or 4 bedroom houses.  It is very generous I suspect compared to many of the small historic Antarctic bases and submarines.  So 100 m2 would also be acceptable.

No disagreement that the MD ERV as specified is too small.  But there are several solutions to this problem.

Jon

Don't forget India at number 5, and growing much faster than Japan.

However, Russia is not bankrupt and has made impressive economic progress in the last 10 years - paid off foriegn loans, improve cash reserves and averaged about 6% growth pa.  The very welcome news of a boost to space funding is a reflection of this.

Jon

GCNRevenger wrote:

"I think that is debateable, these items will have been put through some years of work, so you best not put faith in them to keep crews alive or to get them home."

Why?  Current space station modules have continuous operating lives, with maintainance, of at least 10-20 years.  Mars lander modules would have been  inhabited for only 18 months.  If they were powered down and partially depressured they should be available for use for many years, if required.  They may also serve as centres for a range of robotic operations as well.

I agree the the most likely scenario is that many different sites will be visited at first, resulting a scattering of temporary camps across the surface.  However these previous sites would be useful as backups and field camps.  Also sooner or later a site will be identified that will provide a base for a longer term base, and the older modules will remain in use.

So to me it makes much for sense to assume that Mars modules will have nominal operating lives of 20 years, if if this is not always utilised.

Jon

Excellent news!

Jon

Thanks, but I am familiar with most of those.  I am after details of the specific Kelper prize submissions issues, not Mars Direct, ISRU methods, etc., as such.

Jon

Thanks smoothvirus

Do you have his contact details?  A summary would also be helpful in the meantime.  What about the other submissions?

Jon

This is my first post here. 

I am trying to find some information of the different ERV designs that were submitted for the 2003 Kepler prize, but there does not seem to be much about. 

Does anyone have information?  And what it is the status of the prize - is it defunct?

Thanks

Jon