Mars Mission - "H2Mars"

louis · 2017-04-17 07:21:42

Spacenut suggested we put up our individual mission plans as separate threads, hence this post.

H2MARS MISSION - PHASE ONE

BACKGROUND:

The Space X transit architecture would suit. I am of course assuming a Falcon Heavy to lift tonnage to LEO. However this is my own take.

Essentially the H2Mars (Humans to Mars) Mission architecture has the following main features:

1. Orbital assembly of Mars Transit Vehicle comprising Bigelow-style hab, supply and life support module, lander craft, fuel module and rocket engine.

2. Pre-landing of supplies and robots.

3. Apollo style lander approach for landing humans on Mars (ie fairly minimalist craft).

4. Use of PV as the main power source.

5. Six people landed as part of the mission - The Pioneers.

6. Total tonnage landed on Mars surface: about 67.5 tonnes. Total tonnage to LEO - c 350 tonnes?

Pre 2020 -

Identify preferred landing site. Provisionally located at 25 north and 35 west in Chryse Planitia.

Here is a link arguing this is a good landing site:

https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/explo … f/1019.pdf

Design pre-lander robots and supply units and HLC (Human Landing Craft).

2020 - (2 transits) Put two dedicated COMS and survey satellites into Mars orbit. Land 5 mini-rovers (enter Mars orbit in one craft that then splits during descent to allow the mini rovers to land in different areas). These mini rovers will scout for water and iron ore resources and assess the terrain. The best landing zone will then be selected. Total tonnage landed: 1 tonne.

2022 - (2 Transits) Using the mini-rovers as transponders, the first pre-landing supply unit is landed. This will comprise an automatic PV panel system of about 1000 sq metres which keeps a series of batteries charged (used by Rovers to charge their own batteries). In a second landing, a Landing Zone Robot Rover (LZR) will be landed. The LZR will automatically remove boulders and rocks out of the landing zone (500 by 500 metres) and lay down transponders on the perimeter. The LZR will also be available to serve subsequent static landers that require power charging. Total tonnage landed: 2.5 tonnes

2024 - (4 Transits) Land Water Locator Robot (WLR), Resource Processing Unit (RPU), Robot Gas Vehicle (RGV) and gas holder tanks (GHT). The WLR will scoop up the ice bearing soil and isolate the water, which will then be delivered to the RPU. The RPU will compress and process the Mars atmosphere to produce oxygen, argon and nitrogen. The RPU will produce methane and oxygen. The RGV will deliver the products to the GHTs. Total tonnage landed: 10 tonnes

2026 - - (4 transits) The Main Hab, main PV panelling and two supply landers will be landed. Supplies will include food, water, scaled down industrial machines and two small 3D Printers. Total tonnage: 9 tonnes.

2028 - (7 transits) The Farm Hab, Two Supply Landers, Industrial Hab, 2-person Human Rover, and two Human Landers (with 3 crew in each) will be landed.Total tonnage landed: 55 tonnes.

The LZR will mark out the precise landing area for the Human Landers.

After 48 hours, the two crews transfer to the Main Hab.

2028 - 2030 Activities include:

1. Locating and mining metals and other materials at the surface. Also locating of best water resources.
2. Producing pure materials e.g. pure iron.
3. Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen.
4. Dissociating the atmosphere into its constituent parts and isolating carbon.
5. Creating metal and plastic powders.
6. Facilitating injection moulding.
7. Casting basalt.
8. Producing plastic and steel and other metal products on a small scale.
9. Recycling waste materials.
10. Making bricks.
11. Making glass.
12. Exploration of the surrounding area to a limit of about 100kms.
13. Clearing of "roads" leading away from the base to interesting areas.
14. Experimental work on creating habitat space.
15. Farming - primarily salad vegetables and bean sprouts.
16. Self monitoring for medical condition.
17. Manufacturing rocket fuel.

2030 - Four human landers with 12 replacement Pioneers land at Chryse City. Return Ascent Vehicle is landed and fuelled with rocket fuel produced on Mars.

Longer term -

The base will be the main industrial and research centre on the planet for several decades and its main provider of food. Roads (or trails if you prefer) will be cleared of rocks and boulders to the south creating a route to Valles Marineris, then to the West to Olympus Mons. Later, roads will be cleared south east to Hellas Planitia and east to Utopia/Elysium Planitia. These roads will follow the ancient river valleys. Along these roads, stopping stations will be established every 10 kms or so with a full range of supplies - fuel (e.g. methane, iron powder or oxygen), food and electric power (PV panels charging chemical batteries).

Once the planet has been fully explored the site for a major new Mars city can be identified. This would require the Musk-style ITS. The city would incorporate domes, covered canyons, and all the facilities you would expect in a major city. Pressurised self-drive cars and buses will ferry people from one part of the city to another. The city will likely be located close to a major water glacier or other water resource.

Last edited by louis (2017-04-18 13:05:23)

SpaceNut · 2017-04-17 21:13:46

The 2020 mini rovers are probably not going to do the exploration in a timely manner or to the extent of digging or sampling as power and mass for drilling and processing need power and mass to accomplish.
While the power of MSL is probably on the ball park the remaining would need to be retooled to cover the ground between locations without damaging the wheels, then there is the suite of testing systems needed to prove out what can be done with its content that is scooped up and considered for use.

louis · 2017-04-18 01:47:33

I was thinking more of using them to detect the chemical signature of water and iron ore rather than digging down to any great depth...The idea was to sample a fairly large area where you are already getting a reasonable water signature, and then choose the one with the best. Probably worth building in a bit of mobility so you can do a few sample within the area you have landed. They could also report on number of rocks and boulders in the immediate vicinity.

SpaceNut wrote:

The 2020 mini rovers are probably not going to do the exploration in a timely manner or to the extent of digging or sampling as power and mass for drilling and processing need power and mass to accomplish.
While the power of MSL is probably on the ball park the remaining would need to be retooled to cover the ground between locations without damaging the wheels, then there is the suite of testing systems needed to prove out what can be done with its content that is scooped up and considered for use.

louis · 2017-04-18 03:11:30

One thing I note from the MIT paper is that the difference in PV power obtainable between 25 degrees north and 31 degree north (the latter being the highest) is trivial. You gain hardly anything for your extra 6 degrees and no doubt pay a cost in terms of heating requirements or ability to undertake external activities. My proposal is for a landing at 25 degrees north in Chryse Planitia, so I am happy we will be getting near the maximum available there.

Regarding battery storage, I am seeing suggestions of an average 24-30% energy loss on storing to chemical batteries.

I would think there is quite a lot of flexibility about night time power. Most life support work (e.g. oxygen production, water filtering etc can take place during the day - EDITED from "at night"). Night storage heaters can be used e.g. heat bricks during the day which are exposed at night to provide heat. Hot water will stay hot for a long time if in a well lagged tank. If anything, I am a bit surprised a hab will be using 2kws per person at night...I am struggling to think what for. The fridge? Maybe it is usage in the evening and early morning which is the issue. Dinner, breakfast, morning ablutions. But again, even cooking for dinner can be done earlier in the day. The water will still be hot for showers...

SpaceNut wrote:

The 2020 mini rovers are probably not going to do the exploration in a timely manner or to the extent of digging or sampling as power and mass for drilling and processing need power and mass to accomplish.
While the power of MSL is probably on the ball park the remaining would need to be retooled to cover the ground between locations without damaging the wheels, then there is the suite of testing systems needed to prove out what can be done with its content that is scooped up and considered for use.

Last edited by louis (2017-04-19 01:34:32)

louis · 2017-04-18 05:05:55

Just to add to the longer term aspects of the mission proposal...

We would probably want to clear a road to the north east towards Deuteronilus Mensae (at about 42 degrees north and about 25 degrees east) where large water glaciers have been identified.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/ … 00302.html

It's quite a distance from Chryse Planitia -I would estimate about 3300 kms or 2000 miles. But once you have your supply chain of self-driving water rovers maybe bringing a couple of tonnes a time, the actual distance is relatively irrelevant, except in terms of energy usage. Such rovers could probably cover 400 miles a sol. The rovers could run on methane and oxygen, which they would take on board automatically at stopping stations every 50 miles or so along the route (which would be supply automatically by dedicated methane rovers). One rover would bring 2 tonnes every 10 days. 10 rovers would bring 2 tonnes of water every day. 100 rovers would bring 20 tonnes a day. With water recycling I imagine that would probably sustain quite a large community of 1000.

Last edited by louis (2017-04-19 01:37:46)

SpaceNut · 2017-04-18 20:58:07

I agree that road clearing is an important need to do as we would want to limit damage to the equipent moving materials plus on the surface of mars.

Here is how the angle affects what we recieve..... http://solarpaneltilt.com/ http://longsgap.com/SolarWind/SunAngle.html
https://www.wholesalesolar.com/solar-in … efficiency

[url=https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/22925/0000491.pdf?sequence=1]Solar Radiation
Incident on Mars and the Outer Planets: Latitudinal, Seasonal, and Atmospheric Effects[/url]

The battery improvements were posted by kbd in another topic we are talking about.

Life support is also marginal as we have onboard the ISS and we still have not gotten anything of size to mars yet.

The list of "2028 - 2030 Activities" are highly energy intensive as well as a big need for processing and other equipment that is needed.

louis · 2017-04-19 02:20:50

Thanks for that info SpaceNut.

Cleared roads or trails mean less damage to vehicles, as you note. Also, greater speed. Also, I think it will be easier to lay down markers that can be "read" by robot vehicles on cleared roads e.g. maybe quite small black basalt stones on the lighter surface texture the equivalent of central lane markeings. Place them a couple of metres apart. However, laying those would require a major effort so initially though I think you would need a robot programmed by compass, transponders and an ability to differentiate between rocky and cleared terrain and some sort of front crash avoidance system (telling a south travelling robot to go right in the event of another vehicle coming towards, while the north heading robot does the reverse). Maybe transponders every say 3-5 kms would work. 600 to be laid down on a 3000 km route. However, even they might not be necesary if your robots are intelligent enough.

I think 900 kgs to Mars (Curiosity) stands as the record. Not so bad really given NASA were hardly throwing major resources at the landing problem.

Given Space X's confidence about retro rocket landing (always my favoured technology) I think we can be confident we can land larger loads of maybe 3-4 tonnes with relative ease. Well, those are the sorts of pre-landing loads I have in mind as you build up supplies and equipment in the landing area.

The energy-usage levels for the 2028-30 activities are quite high, but I wasn't intending we attempt all of these "proof-of-concept" items simultaneously. A small farm hab would run more or less continuously but the other industrial activities would mostly be carried out in series.

I think we should particularly explore the options with basalt - found in many parts of the planet including parts of Chryse Planitia. I'm wondering whether we could cut slabs of basalt which could then be bonded to form useful basins e.g. for electrolysis.

https://www.restaurantsupplystore.co.uk … ArvO8P8HAQ

SpaceNut wrote:

I agree that road clearing is an important need to do as we would want to limit damage to the equipent moving materials plus on the surface of mars.
Here is how the angle affects what we recieve..... http://solarpaneltilt.com/ http://longsgap.com/SolarWind/SunAngle.html
https://www.wholesalesolar.com/solar-in … efficiency
http://solarpaneltilt.com/optsolargraph.jpg
[url=https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/22925/0000491.pdf?sequence=1]Solar Radiation
Incident on Mars and the Outer Planets: Latitudinal, Seasonal, and Atmospheric Effects[/url]
The battery improvements were posted by kbd in another topic we are talking about.
Life support is also marginal as we have onboard the ISS and we still have not gotten anything of size to mars yet.
The list of "2028 - 2030 Activities" are highly energy intensive as well as a big need for processing and other equipment that is needed.

SpaceNut · 2017-04-19 17:12:24

I am wondering how the likes of a Space x would handle the incresing tonnage in this outline of dates for missions as the first is: but first what is the transits?
2020 - (2 transits) Total tonnage landed: 1 tonne.

2022 - (2 Transits) Total tonnage landed: 2.5 tonnes

2024 - (4 Transits) Total tonnage landed: 10 tonnes

2026 - - (4 transits) Total tonnage: 9 tonnes.

2028 - (7 transits) .Total tonnage landed: 55 tonnes.

Now I can easily see the increase from the 1 to 2.5 as that is a bit more fuel, larger parachute but the next leap in just only 4 years from the first is not just a simple fuel amount as that is quite a bit more fuel to design in for plus as the tonnage goes up so should the engine count.....

louis · 2017-04-19 17:56:58

By transits, I am referring to separate transit craft. So, for example, in 2024 there are four separate transits, with each craft averaging 2.5 tonnes (in terms of tonnage delivered to the surface). By tonnage landed, I mean "cargo" tonnage - stuff we are actually using in the mission whether it be habs, supplies, machines, or mobile robots, rather than any structural tonnage (except in the case of the lander which will be an emergency habitat).

They are guesstimates but I hope not too far off, as they are based on some research.

SpaceNut wrote:

I am wondering how the likes of a Space x would handle the incresing tonnage in this outline of dates for missions as the first is: but first what is the transits?
2020 - (2 transits) Total tonnage landed: 1 tonne.
2022 - (2 Transits) Total tonnage landed: 2.5 tonnes
2024 - (4 Transits) Total tonnage landed: 10 tonnes
2026 - - (4 transits) Total tonnage: 9 tonnes.
2028 - (7 transits) .Total tonnage landed: 55 tonnes.
Now I can easily see the increase from the 1 to 2.5 as that is a bit more fuel, larger parachute but the next leap in just only 4 years from the first is not just a simple fuel amount as that is quite a bit more fuel to design in for plus as the tonnage goes up so should the engine count.....

SpaceNut · 2017-04-20 19:23:14

Due to using what we have for a launcher and capsule to get to mars there is a lot of simularities to the Mars One as that is basically what they are attempting but there time scheduel is lacking in many ways but I am sure that is as far as the simularities go....

http://www.mars-one.com/mission/roadmap

Is Mars One Feasible?
http://web.mit.edu/sydneydo/Public/Mars … LEASED.pdf

There were some other reports of success rate for there design so that may have slowed where the progress for where they are in the initial timeline....

louis · 2017-04-21 04:26:10

Thanks for the links SpaceNut. I will look at those in more detail.

Some big differences, I think.

1. Mine is not a one way architecture. I think it too risky to assume permanent continuing residence on Mars by the original colonists. We simply don't know enough about the health effects of living permanently on Mars in 0.38G . So I would definitely plan for return after 2 years of the pioneers...and then gradually lengthen stays to 4, 6 years over a couple of decades as the health effects become clearer.

2. I am not looking to send identikit habs. That seems to limit your choices a lot. I think we need specially designed habs: an accommodation hab, a farm hab and an industrial hab. Later on these specialised habs would multiply. From a safety point of view these habs should not in any case be directly connected. Pressurised rovers can be used to pass from one to another.

3. I think I take a more aggressive approach to ISRU. Whilst Mission One might be considered to be largely experimental in terms of ISRU, from Mission Two onwards I would be looking to implement wide-ranging ISRU and create a full small scale industrial infrastructure within a few years. This might sound crazily over-ambitious but I don't think such an approach has ever been tried before and it hasn't ever been technically feasible before with such relative ease. What do we need to do? Under the H2Mars concept going forward, we need essentially to ensure:

(a) We have a huge per capita energy budget (we probably need to ratchet up to 100 KwE average per person ). Could be nuclear, RTGs or PV that form the main source. This should be quickly supplemented by Mars ISRU energy e.g. solar reflectors. For a 100 person colony that might mean 1 million sq. metres of PV panelling. But that be only 60 tonnes or so of pannelling delivered over a couple of decades.

(b) We have flexible energy storage (energy that can be moved around the planet).

(c) We gather in all possible resources from Mars (water, atmospheric gases, iron ore, aluminium, basalt, magnesium, titanium, etc) and supplement those where necessary with strategic imports from Earth.

(d) We import a range of small scale manufacturing devices: 3D printers, CNC machines, looms, industrial saws etc

(e) We build on Mars other parts of the industrial infrastructure e.g. furnaces, kilns, electrolysis facilities and so on.

(f) We put in place primary production facilities e.g. steel, plastics, basalt melting, and then secondary e.g. -sheet metal, stell wire, ball bearings, powders for use with 3D printers, basalt fibres etc

(g) On the basis of the above, we follow a phase one industrial manufacturing plan to create the products we need on Mars: solar reflectors, steam engines, gas cylinders and tanks, electric generators, household goods (furniture, kitchen ware, plumbing, hygiene items etc), electric motors, vehicle chassies, wheels, construction materials and so on. These can be warehoused initially in habs brought from Earth.

(h) We develop a programme of full ISRU Mars hab construction. Basically this could be cut and cover with some use of Mars bricks, cement and so on. Other techniques may be brought in, including robotic construction, sandbag construction, small glass domes and so on. The cut and cover habs will be especially useful for expanding food and plant production.

Amazon sell 480 million items (currently expanding by nearly 200 million per annum!). Fortunately we don't have to produce the full range of items most of which will be multiple variations on themes. Probably not even one million items do we need to produce. Maybe not even 100,000. But probably 10s of 1000s of different parts and end products.

We won't eliminate Earth-sourced imports completely but gradually these can be reduced as Mars begins producing its own copper wiring, electronic circuit boards, computer chips, PV panels and so on.

Part of the solution involves ensuring we play to our strengths on Mars. Flexibility and small scale is key. We won't be looking to develop heavy equipment like large diggers,earth moving equipment, huge cranes and so on. That means in turn we are going to avoid (at least for the first few decades) building say skyscrapers or large tarmaced roads or huge dams or anything else on a mega scale. Keep it small and simple!

Also, don't make a rod for your own back. Do we need to produce paper on Mars? Not really. We'll have our laptops brought from Earth. We don't need paper, pens or pencils. In one move, you save yourself a lot of work. Let's apply that same principle across the board. Healthy people can sit comfortably on a bench. They don't need a sofa to sit on. If they're tired they can relax on their bed.

Another element is automation. People who tour modern factories are often surprised to discover how few people are involved in manufacture. Clearly full automation plus energy is key to ensuring per capita productivity on Mars is hugely in excess of that on Earth.

SpaceNut wrote:

Due to using what we have for a launcher and capsule to get to mars there is a lot of simularities to the Mars One as that is basically what they are attempting but there time scheduel is lacking in many ways but I am sure that is as far as the simularities go....
http://cdn.mars-one.com/images/tabs/_ta … ap2011.jpg
http://www.mars-one.com/mission/roadmap
Is Mars One Feasible?
http://web.mit.edu/sydneydo/Public/Mars … LEASED.pdf
There were some other reports of success rate for there design so that may have slowed where the progress for where they are in the initial timeline....

SpaceNut · 2017-04-21 17:37:46

We will also develope faster once the mars crews start to recycle the used or broken "electronic circuit boards, computer chips", the used landing fuel tanks and other parts toward making a new device or alterning an old one to a new function.

louis · 2017-04-22 02:13:28

Agree cannibalising of parts and recyling is going to be v. important on Mars. What is "economic" or "efficient" on Mars is measured against the cost of imports from Earth post landing which are likely to be at least $4 million per tonne and probably more like $12 million. That means maximal recycling and parts reclamation make sense in most cases.

SpaceNut wrote:

We will also develope faster once the mars crews start to recycle the used or broken "electronic circuit boards, computer chips", the used landing fuel tanks and other parts toward making a new device or alterning an old one to a new function.

SpaceNut · 2017-04-22 16:46:26

Another aspect of road clear is that the path taken also removes soft sandy areas from the travel route as well lessoning the hazard of getting stuck.

The cargo landers will also serve as added livingspace, possible greenhouse area and so much more to allow for future expansion such as science rooms, ore processing areas for manufacturing ect....The equipment sent also needs to be able to move a missed landing sites lander to where we would want it to be as all by itself it will not give much reuse capability after being emptied and is a waste of transportation if left in use in the location that is not part of the central grouping.
.
The trouble with not having a common core design also means there you must have planned a stepping methods in the designs to be able to keep changing what is launch on the 2 yr mars window launch cycle.

SpaceNut · 2017-06-21 20:14:24

Using todays tech and hardware a 2 person mission is possible...

http://members.marssociety.org/inspirat … ration.pdf

louis · 2017-06-22 17:13:21

Thanks for the link SpaceNut. Pretty thorough - and their plan includes a lot of my elements.

Didn't see any reference to a Mars Analogue Facility. I think that would be an essential element in testing and mission prep.

SpaceNut wrote:

Using todays tech and hardware a 2 person mission is possible...
http://members.marssociety.org/inspirat … ration.pdf

SpaceNut · 2017-06-22 20:24:58

Its time to stop waiting and see if we can plan a small first mission with what we have. Even if its a short stay sending return fuel to mars surface for the MAV and mostly spinning to keep healthy due to the long return timing.

Here is another http://members.marssociety.org/inspirat … /TIMEx.pdf The Indo-Martian Express

louis · 2017-06-23 05:46:52

I'm not so keen on flybys and Phobos missions... I want the real deal!

I want to see the Red Dragon on the Mars surface before too long...2020 could be doable...maybe a robot cargo mission first?

SpaceNut wrote:

Its time to stop waiting and see if we can plan a small first mission with what we have. Even if its a short stay sending return fuel to mars surface for the MAV and mostly spinning to keep healthy due to the long return timing.
Here is another http://members.marssociety.org/inspirat … /TIMEx.pdf The Indo-Martian Express

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2017-04-17 07:21:42

Mars Mission - "H2Mars"

H2MARS MISSION - PHASE ONE

#2 2017-04-17 21:13:46

Re: Mars Mission - "H2Mars"

#3 2017-04-18 01:47:33

Re: Mars Mission - "H2Mars"

#4 2017-04-18 03:11:30

Re: Mars Mission - "H2Mars"

#5 2017-04-18 05:05:55

Re: Mars Mission - "H2Mars"

#6 2017-04-18 20:58:07

Re: Mars Mission - "H2Mars"

#7 2017-04-19 02:20:50

Re: Mars Mission - "H2Mars"

#8 2017-04-19 17:12:24

Re: Mars Mission - "H2Mars"

#9 2017-04-19 17:56:58

Re: Mars Mission - "H2Mars"

#10 2017-04-20 19:23:14

Re: Mars Mission - "H2Mars"

#11 2017-04-21 04:26:10

Re: Mars Mission - "H2Mars"

#12 2017-04-21 17:37:46

Re: Mars Mission - "H2Mars"

#13 2017-04-22 02:13:28

Re: Mars Mission - "H2Mars"

#14 2017-04-22 16:46:26

Re: Mars Mission - "H2Mars"

#15 2017-06-21 20:14:24

Re: Mars Mission - "H2Mars"

#16 2017-06-22 17:13:21

Re: Mars Mission - "H2Mars"

#17 2017-06-22 20:24:58

Re: Mars Mission - "H2Mars"

#18 2017-06-23 05:46:52

Re: Mars Mission - "H2Mars"

Board footer