Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

louis · 2012-01-29 15:18:04

Here's a list I prepared a little while ago of supplies needing to be delivered to the Mars surface for a first mission comprising six people. Any comments? Incidentally, I think many of these supplies could be landed robotically, ahead of the arrival of the first colonists...

Air locks 2000Kgs
Gas pipes and cylinders 700kgs
Food 1000Kgs
Water 700kgs
Personal hygiene (soap, towels, wipes, shavers, sanitary towels etc) 260Kgs
Water recycling units 500 Kgs
Electrolysis facility 200kgs
Sabatier reaction facility 200kgs
Clothes 180kgs
Space suits 2400kgs
Solar Energy 3000 kgs
Cabling, electric connections 800kgs
Digger 1000kgs
Three rover trikes 300kgs
Home Habitat 1500kgs
HH Gym equipment 200kgs
Fittings for HH bathroom 300kgs
HH sleep area equipment 350kgs
HH kitchen equipment 350Kgs
Farm Habitat 1000 kgs
Hydroponic equipment 4,200 kgs
Farm tools 200kgs
WorkHab 800 kgs
Solar-electric smelting oven 100kgs
Scaled down machines 600kgs
Tools 50kgs
Storage Hab 400kgs
Medical supplies 250kgs
Mining equipment 300kgs
Electric motors 400 kgs
Batteries 500kgs
Laptops and computer equipment 100kgs
Waste disposal/containers 100kgs
Pyrolysis Unit/vent 200kgs
Communications 300kgs
Miscellaneous 500 kgs
TOTAL 27,430kgs

SpaceNut · 2012-01-29 16:54:27

The tanks can be a reused item in every lander that is not going back to orbit....just need coupling fittings to connect pipes to them. This also saves on the mass for the Water recycling units, Electrolysis facility, Sabatier reaction facility, Hydroponic equipment ....

louis · 2012-01-30 16:56:56

Thanks for the reminder of the uses to which the tanks could be put.

I wrote that list a couple of years ago. I think given the progress being made by Space X in terms of launch costs, we could afford some more mass. I would like to upgrade the digger to a 3 tonne pressurised rover-digger. That would be very useful for mining without need to don spacesuits.

SpaceNut · 2018-06-20 18:28:19

Looking back to the lists for BFR this would need some updating....

elderflower · 2018-06-25 02:43:41

How much redundancy is included? You can't rely on a single survival critical unit, apart from your space vehicles.

louis · 2018-06-25 04:19:04

You're right Spacenut...That was from a few years back...for a much smaller landing design. It would be interesting to see how it might change in relation to a Space X 800 tonne mission...I'll take a look at that.

Last edited by louis (2018-06-25 04:21:11)

Oldfart1939 · 2018-06-25 14:45:04

Louis-

Your estimates for food are abysmally low by a factor of 14. The first 6 man mission has no assurances of a prompt resupply. My calculation for a single year with a crew of 6 is calculated:

170 pounds x 6 = 1020 pounds, or in metric terms, 463.7 kg. The standard mammalian diet generally requires a 2 % of the live body weight (mass) for a weight maintenance diet with moderate exercise, which calculates to 9.27 kg per day for the crew. This is 3,384.5 kg food for a 365 day Earth year, then times 2 for a stay between Hohmann transfer windows. We are now at 23,691 kg food. Then we need to have a 100 % overstock in case a transfer window supply mission suffers a catastrophic accident. Try 47,383.63 kg of food stockpiled for the whole crew for 4 years.

Terraformer · 2018-06-25 14:52:05

How much of that food is water, though? On a calorie basis, the average adult needs 500g of carbohydrate, or 250g of fat, per day.

Unless the planners are those from The Martian, the crew should have plenty of redundancy. I think we could spare more than a 60 day supply for the crew if we had a mission that big...

louis · 2018-06-25 15:02:22

Those were supplies to the surface. It was a different type of mission design - a near 100% ISRU enterprise. The point would have been to establish 100% food production immediately. So the 1000 Kgs of food supplies did not reflect the food intake of the crew.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

Louis-
Your estimates for food are abysmally low by a factor of 14. The first 6 man mission has no assurances of a prompt resupply. My calculation for a single year with a crew of 6 is calculated:
170 pounds x 6 = 1020 pounds, or in metric terms, 463.7 kg. The standard mammalian diet generally requires a 2 % of the live body weight (mass) for a weight maintenance diet with moderate exercise, which calculates to 9.27 kg per day for the crew. This is 3,384.5 kg food for a 365 day Earth year, then times 2 for a stay between Hohmann transfer windows. We are now at 23,691 kg food. Then we need to have a 100 % overstock in case a transfer window supply mission suffers a catastrophic accident. Try 47,383.63 kg of food stockpiled for the whole crew for 4 years.

SpaceNut · 2018-06-25 17:16:32

Lets redirect the discusion of food back to the Air. Shelter. Water. Food.
topic until we have the numbers to come back to this one with. Plus I have more articles for that topic to give links to in order to help...

louis · 2018-06-25 17:20:32

For a Space X style mission. Six people and six BFSs landing on Mars. 800 tonnes of supplies.

STANDARD FOOD SUPPLIES 10 tonnes

STANDARD WATER SUPPLIES 5 tonnes

ENERGY SYSTEM
(PV array/PMAD/chemical batteries/methane electrical generator/methane&oxygen supplies) 150 tonnes max.

EMERGENCY WATER AND AIR SUPPLIES
(emergency supplies in event of low energy output or launch failure) 100 tonnes

HOME HAB
(including all fittings,incorporating kitchen/diner/meeting area, gym/basketball corner) 3 tonnes

LIFE SUPPORT CENTRE 2 tonnes

FARM HAB 2 tonnes
(producing salad foods)

INDUSTRIAL HAB 2 tonnes

SCIENCE LAB HAB 2 tonnes

ROVER HAB 3 tonnes

PROPELLANT PRODUCTION PLANT 20 tonnes

HYDROGEN FEED 100 tonnes

PRESSURISED HUMAN PASSENGERS ROVERS 12 tonnes
(2x base rovers and 2 x explorer rovers)

ROBOT ROVERS
(5 robot miners, 2 explorer rovers) 10 tonnes

SMALL ROBOT ROCKET HOPPER EXPLORER 1 tonne

MEDICAL SUPPLIES 2 tonne
(inc x ray machine and ultra sound)

HYGIENE SUPPLIES, CLOTHES, SPACE SUITS
(soap, toothpaste, sanitary goods, wipes etc etc) 3 tonne

INDUSTRIAL 3D PRINTERS 5 tonnes
(x5)

CNC LATHES
(x3) 2 tonnes

METALS FURNACE 2 tonnes

MARS COMPRESSED BRICK FACILITY 1 tonne

PROCESSED MATERIALS FROM EARTH
(steel, range of plastic pellets for 3D printing, range of industrial chemicals, wood) 12 tonnes

MARS-EARTH COMS SYSTEM 2 tonnes

SPARE PARTS AND TOOLS
(rocket parts, machine parts, electric motors, standards parts
like nuts, bolts, rods, screws, drills etc) 5 tonnes

CONTINGENCY RESERVE 20 tonnes

TOTAL 477 tonnes

NOTES:

This is a useful exercise, really gives you an idea of the scale of an 800 tonne mission. I am finding it v. difficult to use up the 800 tonnes of potential cargo!

Some possible variables: Space X may be assuming heavier duty PV panels, which could certainly raise the tonnage significantly. They might be thinking in terms of creating living space (more habs) for the next wave of pioneers, who may be more numerous.

They might be thinking of getting farm production earlier than I would. If so they might thinking of bringing in hundreds of tonnes of soil, fertiliser, nutrient solutions and so on.

Last edited by louis (2018-06-25 17:26:00)

SpaceNut · 2018-06-25 17:28:03

Keep in mind that mass has a volume of area that we will also need in order to fill up the inside area of a bfr with the correct items on each nicely balance not only by its mass but also due to the volume in will occupy with in it.

louis · 2018-06-26 03:24:45

You're quite right. Perhaps we could be expecting to lose 20% of potential mass to the volume problem? If so, an 800 tonne limit might be closer to 640 tonnes.

SpaceNut wrote:

Keep in mind that mass has a volume of area that we will also need in order to fill up the inside area of a bfr with the correct items on each nicely balance not only by its mass but also due to the volume in will occupy with in it.

Quaoar · 2018-06-26 07:39:11

louis wrote:

You're right Spacenut...That was from a few years back...for a much smaller landing design. It would be interesting to see how it might change in relation to a Space X 800 tonne mission...I'll take a look at that.

I think if you do your mission with the BFR you surely need a megawatt range nuclear reactor, your Sabatier facility weights more than 200 kg and you need at least two of them for redundancy.

louis · 2018-06-26 09:38:38

The new list in post #11 equates to about 1MW across the surface mission,using flexible lightweight PV panelling at about 0.5 kg per sq metre. A 1MW nuclear power solution would probably mass in the 150 tonnes range but it's difficult to say as no one has yet explained how and where it will be set up, and the amount of shielding if any to be used.

Quaoar wrote:

louis wrote:
You're right Spacenut...That was from a few years back...for a much smaller landing design. It would be interesting to see how it might change in relation to a Space X 800 tonne mission...I'll take a look at that.
I think if you do your mission with the BFR you surely need a megawatt range nuclear reactor, your Sabatier facility weights more than 200 kg and you need at least two of them for redundancy.

Quaoar · 2018-06-26 10:07:57

louis wrote:

The new list in post #11 equates to about 1MW across the surface mission,using flexible lightweight PV panelling at about 0.5 kg per sq metre. A 1MW nuclear power solution would probably mass in the 150 tonnes range but it's difficult to say as no one has yet explained how and where it will be set up, and the amount of shielding if any to be used.

Los Alamos one-megawatt-heat-pipe nuclear reactor has a weight of only 493 kg, and it's very sturdy and reliable having very few moving parts.
You can dig a 20-meter-deep hole 500 m far from the landing site, tow the reactor there with the rover and do the start-up when you are back.
Producing 1100 tons of propellant is not a piece of cake and you need a robust power source able to work continuously day and night. Take in mind that martian sand-storms cannot topple a lander like in the movie "The Martian", but they can last for a month obscuring the sun, drastically reducing the power supply to your life support and the ISPP-device. That's why you need one nuclear reactor, or rather two of them - one working and one for back-up - for your first mission.

Last edited by Quaoar (2018-06-26 10:14:41)

louis · 2018-06-26 12:29:43

Sounds to me like you have confused the Kilopower and Megapower projects. The 2MW project is stated to be designed to weigh 35-45 tonnes.

https://github.com/briligg/moonwards/wi … r-(KRUSTY)

Can't see a 1MW plant ever getting down to under half a tonne.

You accept the need for a back up nuclear reactor? So that's doubling your tonnage.

Is it safe to send these two large nuclear plants with no shielding to Mars, where they will then be handled by the pioneers?

What's powering your Rover? How do you dig a 20 metre hole?

What happens to all the waste heat from such a large plant?

They haven't even produced a Kilopower 10Kwe unit yet only smaller proof of concept plants.

My energy system proposals fully take account of the need to provide reliable power. The system is overdesigned at about 140% of normal insolation power capacity.

Quaoar wrote:

louis wrote:
The new list in post #11 equates to about 1MW across the surface mission,using flexible lightweight PV panelling at about 0.5 kg per sq metre. A 1MW nuclear power solution would probably mass in the 150 tonnes range but it's difficult to say as no one has yet explained how and where it will be set up, and the amount of shielding if any to be used.
Los Alamos one-megawatt-heat-pipe nuclear reactor has a weight of only 493 kg, and it's very sturdy and reliable having very few moving parts.
You can dig a 20-meter-deep hole 500 m far from the landing site, tow the reactor there with the rover and do the start-up when you are back.
Producing 1100 tons of propellant is not a piece of cake and you need a robust power source able to work continuously day and night. Take in mind that martian sand-storms cannot topple a lander like in the movie "The Martian", but they can last for a month obscuring the sun, drastically reducing the power supply to your life support and the ISPP-device. That's why you need one nuclear reactor, or rather two of them - one working and one for back-up - for your first mission.

Last edited by louis (2018-06-26 12:30:34)

Quaoar · 2018-06-26 15:11:39

louis wrote:

Sounds to me like you have confused the Kilopower and Megapower projects. The 2MW project is stated to be designed to weigh 35-45 tonnes.

Sorry my data were referred to a reactor only. A complete molten salt heat pipe nuclear power system has a weight of almost 3.5 kg/kWe.
Here is a 15 MW reactor for a NEP spaceship that weight 52.91 tons

You have to note that 4.29 tons are the shielding mass, that on Mars you can easily make using a wall of regolith bags.

These reactors are modular, so 1 MW reactor complete would weight almost 3500 kg, something less if you use regolith bags for shielding.
Here the whole article:

https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/han … sequence=1

louis wrote:

You accept the need for a back up nuclear reactor? So that's doubling your tonnage.

But it also doubles the probability that you can make your return propellant.

louis wrote:

Is it safe to send these two large nuclear plants with no shielding to Mars, where they will then be handled by the pioneers?

The reactor must not be handed. It must be shielded by distance and by either a wall of regolith bags or a hole in the terrain. You can also choose your landing site near a little meteor crater, so just have to put your reactor in the crater, as Zubrin had suggested, connect the cable, start it up and forget about it.

louis wrote:

What's powering your Rover? How do you dig a 20 metre hole?

lithium battery and solar panels for normal cruise and fuel cells for heavy loads. The crater solves the problem of digging, but a digger arm for the rover may be also useful.

louis wrote:

What happens to all the waste heat from such a large plant?

Heat-pipe radiator with no moving part. In Mars atmosphere, even if it's very thin, the radiator might be more efficient than in space, so we can save extra weight.

louis wrote:

They haven't even produced a Kilopower 10Kwe unit yet only smaller proof of concept plants.

They haven't also produced a BFR. But rockets and nuclear plants are yet existing technology.

louis wrote:

My energy system proposals fully take account of the need to provide reliable power. The system is overdesigned at about 140% of normal insolation power capacity.

But what if there is a sand-storm that block your propellant production for two months and you also loose a lot of LOX-CH4 due to boil-off, because you cannot run your cryocooler?

Last edited by Quaoar (2018-06-26 15:13:07)

louis · 2018-06-26 16:58:44

Well we seem to have a range of designs and a range of claimed masses but so far not even a 10Kwe pilot model built. However it is claimed the 10Kwe Kilopower unit would mass 226 Kgs (but not clear whether that is with or without shielding). So at a minimum that would be 22.6 tonnes for 1 Mw, and you would probably want to add on a couple more units for redundancy, so more like 23.1 tonnes. That's before you add on PMAD, cabling etc.

Of course most advocates for nuclear reactors accept you will need to also build in PV panelling and chemical batteries to allow for exploration missions, mining and so on. And in the case of moving reactors and digging holes for them, that will also involve presumably PV power for that. So whatever your nuclear reactor tonnage, you will be adding to it with other energy systems.

And there seem to be different views as to how much shielding is required.

The issue of waste heat is important I think because if you could easily melt the ground beneath your reactor or start a flood or other instability. I am sure all those issues can be addressed, but they are adding a lot of complexity to the mission - unnecessarily in my view.

I think it's reasonable, since we may have a mission to Mars beginning in 2022, to ask what is available now, not what might be available in 20 years' time.

The link you gave is to an undergraduate's thesis. I don't think we can take that seriously.

Quaoar wrote:

louis wrote:
Sounds to me like you have confused the Kilopower and Megapower projects. The 2MW project is stated to be designed to weigh 35-45 tonnes.
Sorry my data were referred to a reactor only. A complete molten salt heat pipe nuclear power system has a weight of almost 3.5 kg/kWe.
Here is a 15 MW reactor for a NEP spaceship that weight 52.91 tons
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2R7Q8q4Wm9Q/ … MWeNEP.png
You have to note that 4.29 tons are the shielding mass, that on Mars you can easily make using a wall of regolith bags.
These reactors are modular, so 1 MW reactor complete would weight almost 3500 kg, something less if you use regolith bags for shielding.
Here the whole article:
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/han … sequence=1

louis wrote:
You accept the need for a back up nuclear reactor? So that's doubling your tonnage.
But it also doubles the probability that you can make your return propellant.
louis wrote:
Is it safe to send these two large nuclear plants with no shielding to Mars, where they will then be handled by the pioneers?
The reactor must not be handed. It must be shielded by distance and by either a wall of regolith bags or a hole in the terrain. You can also choose your landing site near a little meteor crater, so just have to put your reactor in the crater, as Zubrin had suggested, connect the cable, start it up and forget about it.
louis wrote:
What's powering your Rover? How do you dig a 20 metre hole?
lithium battery and solar panels for normal cruise and fuel cells for heavy loads. The crater solves the problem of digging, but a digger arm for the rover may be also useful.
louis wrote:
What happens to all the waste heat from such a large plant?
Heat-pipe radiator with no moving part. In Mars atmosphere, even if it's very thin, the radiator might be more efficient than in space, so we can save extra weight.
louis wrote:
They haven't even produced a Kilopower 10Kwe unit yet only smaller proof of concept plants.
They haven't also produced a BFR. But rockets and nuclear plants are yet existing technology.
louis wrote:
My energy system proposals fully take account of the need to provide reliable power. The system is overdesigned at about 140% of normal insolation power capacity.
But what if there is a sand-storm that block your propellant production for two months and you also loose a lot of LOX-CH4 due to boil-off, because you cannot run your cryocooler?

Quaoar · 2018-06-27 04:23:29

Well, I think we can do better, but however 22 tons are acceptable to have in return one MWe of continuous power.
I'd rather perform the BFR mission in a Zubrin-like fashion, sending first an unmanned BFS with LH2 and a nuclear reactor on an unmanned rover, that is lowered on the ground (a reactor on a rover is easier to deploy unmanned than a big solar array, but if you know a good way to do the latter is OK the same). The second manned BFS will go to Mars only when the refueling of the first is complete, so we will not bet the life of the crew on the success of the propellant production.
Having an unmanned ship, which takes all the risks, we don't need a backup reactor and can spare mass for other stuff.

Last edited by Quaoar (2018-06-27 04:25:38)

louis · 2018-06-27 05:22:39

I am not saying I accept the 22 tonnes figure. Others here have given higher figures with shielding. I am simply saying that would appear to be the minimum claim. You're now adding mass with unshielded reactor-carrying rovers that can't be used for other purposes. Probably a tonne a time.

Quaoar wrote:

Well, I think we can do better, but however 22 tons are acceptable to have in return one MWe of continuous power.
I'd rather perform the BFR mission in a Zubrin-like fashion, sending first an unmanned BFS with LH2 and a nuclear reactor on an unmanned rover, that is lowered on the ground (a reactor on a rover is easier to deploy unmanned than a big solar array, but if you know a good way to do the latter is OK the same). The second manned BFS will go to Mars only when the refueling of the first is complete, so we will not bet the life of the crew on the success of the propellant production.
Having an unmanned ship, which takes all the risks, we don't need a backup reactor and can spare mass for other stuff.

kbd512 · 2018-06-27 06:29:46

Louis,

If we accept that mission one is not the right mission to try to make all of the return propellant from scratch, then the electrical power requirements are a lot more manageable. The reactor is not going to "start a flood" or "melt the ground". That's just made-up BS. Fire pits dug into frozen ground don't do that and they can get even hotter than the reactor. I think it's cute that you saw The China Syndrome and though that Hollyweird BS was real, but that's as far as it goes. Seriously, go test that for yourself if you don't believe me.

Fire Pit Snow Pictures, Images and Stock Photos

Sorry, bud, but there's no China Syndrome to be had.

The 10kWe KiloPower unit will have a mass of 1544kg using HEU from US DoE stocks. A 10% scale flight quality demonstrator was built and testing is nearing completion. All materials are the exact type intended to be used for flight hardware. It's not a paper concept. You can argue that till the cows come home and pretend nothing was built, but you're still wrong and NASA still intends to test this in space in the early 2020's. The mass figures for KiloPower that I've quoted includes shielding using the tested materials. Pretending we don't know what anything will weigh is quaint, but not reflective of reality. ANSYS can tell you what a solid block of homogenous material of given dimensions will weigh.

KiloPower is TOPAZ technology, multiple copies of which are still in GEO as this is written, with better efficiency using Qinetiq turbo-generators instead of thermionic conversion, a lower U235 burn-up rate for longer life, and higher mass associated with lower operating temperatures and more shielding.

The recent innovation of the use of stainless steel composite metal foam (316L combined with T15) as a combination high-Z / low-Z shielding material could greatly reduce shielding mass or the same mass could shield the entire core. The material shields against neutron, low and high energy gamma, and X-rays. It's not quite as good as pure Lead or Tungsten, but by weight, it's better. More importantly, the mechanical properties of the steel foam enable it to resist high temperatures and it has lower thermal conductivity to contend with the made-up ground melting problem.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2012-01-29 15:18:04

Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#2 2012-01-29 16:54:27

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#3 2012-01-30 16:56:56

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#4 2018-06-20 18:28:19

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#5 2018-06-25 02:43:41

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#6 2018-06-25 04:19:04

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#7 2018-06-25 14:45:04

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#8 2018-06-25 14:52:05

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#9 2018-06-25 15:02:22

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#10 2018-06-25 17:16:32

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#11 2018-06-25 17:20:32

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#12 2018-06-25 17:28:03

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#13 2018-06-26 03:24:45

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#14 2018-06-26 07:39:11

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#15 2018-06-26 09:38:38

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#16 2018-06-26 10:07:57

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#17 2018-06-26 12:29:43

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#18 2018-06-26 15:11:39

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#19 2018-06-26 16:58:44

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#20 2018-06-27 04:23:29

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#21 2018-06-27 05:22:39

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

#22 2018-06-27 06:29:46

Re: Manifest for First Mission (surface supplies)

Board footer