New Mars Forums

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: Marsdrive Mission Design

I am sure that many have heard that Nasa is doing another study for the design of a manned mission to mars but can we wait for Nasa and the governments of the world to finally do what many in our hearts have known for a while that we can do with todays technology.

I have been visiting many sites that are working independantly on such a thought process to put a man on mars looking to near term methods and existing rockets to create a base for permanent settlement.

These efforts can be found on MarsDrive in an admin protected area of the forum and on a neutral site MarsDrive Mission Design there is also the effort on Mars 9 tons at a time using the Delta IV Heavy which can put 17,600 lbs into Trans Mars Injection. This is very simular to one proposal on MarsDrive but with the Atlas V instead. You can also catch the efforts on the nasaspaceflight forum thread titled New Mars Mission Design- Team Members Needed and if you wander around long enough through out the folders on Red colony you will find many of the descusions revolve around the same efforts as to what is need to get men to mars to stay.

Throughout much of the descusion it has been raised that the amount of mass to LEO is to great on the order of between 500 mt to 1200 mt depending on launch system, with a large amount of orbital assembly and a great difficulting in getting it all to the mars surface as the current EDL data indicates.

To this end then to lessen the IMLEO and place a broader term of years to get the manned mission effort with all the supplies needed on the surface wuth the greates degree of safety for the crews survival the idea of prepositioning these items by unmanned transport comes to mind.

So how can unmanned spaceflight assist MarsDrive and others in the design process?

Please join in to those other places for the manned portion of the descusion and let this be the unmanned thought process.

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: Marsdrive Mission Design

Some time ago it was decided to created an new area for discusion over on the yahoo groups discussion group area as a sort of neutral site for outsiders to come in (and team members) to give input and as a way to bring new team members in as well. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/marsdrivemission/

There has been lots of research done on this project and obviously the more that help will allow for it to be completed sooner. The many locations and groups have gathered quite a bit of data already but much more will be needed.

In addition there is a thread over on NASA Spaceflight forums which seems to be progressing nicely as well.

Currently the team is accessing all previous design reference materials as to aid in this project as part of the review process. We are seeking knowledgeable people who share a common vision of men walking and living on Mars to help.

Ther are many discusions which have been on going over on red colony with respect to many aspects of going to stay as well as progressive steps forward to colonize its surface.

Mars Colonization and Terraforming

There is also the Mars 9 tons at a time. effort as well that has progressed quite aways towards a mission as well.

MarsDrive has put together an initial plan hopefully accesible to others not in the group.

Terraformer

Member

From: The Fortunate Isles

Registered: 2007-08-27

Posts: 3,906

Website

Re: Marsdrive Mission Design

Apparantly accelerating at 1g for half the journey and the deccelerating at 1g would get you there in 1-2 days and it is possible to carry enough fuel. That would obliterate most problems of radiation and exercise on the way to mars. Cargo would take the slow boat as it doesn't need as much protection.

One note concerning location. The best location would me the caves. A mobile hab could then be 'driven' underground for radiation protection.

---

Use what is abundant and build to last

Tom Kalbfus

Banned

Registered: 2006-08-16

Posts: 4,401

Re: Marsdrive Mission Design

Wait for the two-day 1g mission to Mars and your going to have to wait a long time. We don't even have any technology that is close to that, but some type of nuclear rocket would for certain be required.

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: Marsdrive Mission Design

The group is trying to decide on the crew count and there respective roles during the mission.

This represents the thoughts of another:

Proposed mission skill-set list:

            Pilot (need 2).

            Doctor (need a surgeon and at least an EMT).

            Propulsion engineer.

            Electrical / communications engineer.

            Chemical engineer.

            Microbiologist.

            Geologist.

            Botanist (for the greenhouse experiment at least).

            Astrophysicist.

skill sets FOR A CREW OF FOUR:

            Mission Commander (lead pilot, one of the Engineering skills, Astrophysics or Geology).

            Flight Engineer (two of the Engineering skills, back-up pilot, possibly the EMT).

            Flight Surgeon (Physician, microbiologist, botanist).

            Chief Scientist (Geologist or astrophysicist or chemist, backup skills in the other sciences).

crew of six might look like this:

            Mission Commander (lead pilot, one of the engineering skills, one of the minor science skills).

            Flight Engineer (propulsion engineer, back-up pilot, possibly the EMT).

            Engineer (the missing engineering skill, backup to the other engineering skills).

            Flight Surgeon (Physician, microbiologist).

            Chief Scientist (Geologist or astrophysicist or chemist, backup skills in the other sciences).

            Researcher (Primarily the greenhouse specialist botanist, chemist).

Deciding on crew size is an important step for the mission profile as well as for its success.

The buddy system comes to mind for pairing of members for many of the explorational steps later when we are on the surface.

Terraformer

Member

From: The Fortunate Isles

Registered: 2007-08-27

Posts: 3,906

Website

Re: Marsdrive Mission Design

I'd say we already have nuclear rockets (the tech is there), it's just we don't need them yet as we havn't even started planning a mission outside Earths orbit.

---

Use what is abundant and build to last

cIclops

Member

Registered: 2005-06-16

Posts: 3,230

Re: Marsdrive Mission Design

I'd say we already have nuclear rockets (the tech is there), it's just we don't need them yet as we havn't even started planning a mission outside Earths orbit.

There are no working nuclear rockets and it will take many years to develop them. Mars missions are in the study phase right now, they may need nuclear propulsion ... see NASA's latest study Design Reference Mission 5.0

---

[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond -  triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space]  #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps]   - videos !!![/url]

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: Marsdrive Mission Design

Copied from another location though it talks directly to the very issue that man must resolve if we are ever going to land to stay for any amopunt of time.

I disagree,  the Advantages of the Moon are Illusory.

The Fuel needed to go to LEO and perform
Trans_Lunar Impluse & Orbit Insertion.
is not tremedously Lower than sending a 
similar sized ship into Mars Orbit using a low
energy transfer orbit.   That's a bene courtesy of
the Martian Atmosphere.

True, the energy (fuel) needed to go from LEO to TMI is about the same as TLI, but landing on Mars directly requires a heavy EDL system. Entering LMO reduces the weight of the EDL but requires as much energy as landing on the Moon. Unless the crew return within 30 days they have to stay on the Martian surface for about 300 days and require a lot of consumables. Reaching Mars escape velocity requires twice the energy as reaching Lunar escape. The transits are extremely demanding too in terms of consumables, all of which have to be taken to Mars for the return trip. This is why the mass requirements in LEO are of the order of 600 tons compared with 150 tons for a lunar mission. Going to Mars is very expensive, returning much more so.

A very simple analysis indicates risk is proportional to mass and time. The mass ratio is about 4 to 1, the time ratio about 700 to 14, that gives a risk ratio of about 80 to 1.

Some of the IMLEO can be removed by preplacement but the problem is getting the items to the common base site not within kilometers but within football fields or with mobility for the items built in.

SpaceNut

Administrator

From: New Hampshire

Registered: 2004-07-22

Posts: 29,433

Re: Marsdrive Mission Design

Way back when I gave a bit of important data as it relates to Consumables for the trip In-Space Operations and will add some more to the efforts in response to the question of recycling and life support.

I believe the ISS is currently around 80% with goals to come closer to the magical 100% thou we may not achieve it. The latest effort has to do with the use of the scrubbed CO2 and waste H2 from electrolysis in a Sabetier reactor to allow for some more of the water to be created. Lat I knew thou the thought was to dump the methane over board but that also could be used in a methane fuel cell to get rid of the carbon and have more water made in the process.

Here is more data:

NASA Advances Water Recycling for Space Travel and Earth Use

Nov. 12, 2004

ISS crewmembers must save as much water as possible. Each is allocated about two liters daily. They stretch the ration by collecting, cleaning and reusing wastewater, condensate in the air and urine. A new technology to improve recycling on the ISS is being developed by engineers at Hamilton Sundstrand Space Systems International, Inc., Windsor Locks, Conn., and researchers at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), Huntsville, Ala. The Water Processor Assembly (WPA) will be the first major hardware delivery of the Regenerative Environmental Control Life Support System. The WPA and the Urine Processor Assembly make up the Water Recovery System (WRS), which feeds the Oxygen Generation System. These combined systems will support up to a seven-member crew.

"The Water Processing Assembly can daily produce 35 gallons of potable recycled water," said Bob Bagdigian, MSFC Regenerative Environmental Control and Life Support System Project Manager. After the new systems are installed, annual delivered water to the ISS should decrease by approximately 15,960 pounds, about 1,600 gallons. The WPA is scheduled for delivery in 2008.

At NASA's Ames Research Center (ARC), Moffett Field, Calif., a water recycler enabling reuse for three years without resupply is being developed on a timeline to fit into exploration plans, according to ARC scientist Michael Flynn. A preliminary engineering development unit can hourly recycle 13.2 pounds, about one gallon, of waste into drinkable water.

other useful links...
about the Environmental Control and Life Support System

http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/back … /eclss.pdf

For ARMS images, visit:

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/index.cfm

Water recycler images:

http://amesnews.arc.nasa.gov/releases/2 … vpcar.html

JSC water recovery systems:

http://advlifesupport.jsc.nasa.gov/water/index.html

Urine recovery is an engineering challenge:

"Urine is so much dirtier than ordinary humidity," Carrasquillo explains. "It can corrode hardware and clog hoses." ECLSS uses a purification process called vapor compression distillation: urine is boiled until the water in it turns to steam. The steam—essentially clean water vapor except for some traces of ammonia and other gases—rises into a distillation chamber, leaving behind a concentrated brown soup of impurities and salts that Carrasquillo charitably calls "brine" (which is discarded). The steam is cooled and condenses back into liquid. This steam distillate is then mixed with the humidity condensate, and the water further purified to become potable. ECLSS can recover 100 percent of moisture in the air, and 85 percent of the water in urine, resulting in a net overall recovery efficiency of about 93 percent.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/pd … _eclss.pdf

Having too much and too little Oxygen and too little water on the International Space Station (ISS)

Early studies (after the accident) of the implications of these constraints showed that the amount of water available would limit the crew complement to one, instead of the three person crews which normally comprised an ISS Expedition crew. The water source is 40 kg flexible containers and is recycled from three sources, dehumidification of the air, human waste and fuel cell H2O by-product.

Waste water is recycled through the catalytic oxidation reactor (COR) which recovers most of the effluent water, however it produces some by-products including brine. In the event, NASA located a British manufacturer who specializes in compact marine desalination equipment. The company designed a modified unit to recycle the COR waste water brine and met a required upmass target of less than 3 kg. The water recovery unit was delivered to the ISS on Russian Progress 12P in 2004.

Russian Cargo Ship Launches Towards Space Station

Expedition 15 commander Fyodor Yurchikhin and flight engineers Oleg Kotov and Clayton Anderson will prepare to unload the some 5,111 pounds (2,318 kilograms) of supplies from the unmanned cargo ship.

Progress 26 is laden with 1,600 pounds (725 kilograms) of propellant, more than 100 pounds of oxygen and air, as well as over 496 pounds (224 kilograms) of water. The cargo ship is also packed with about 2,954 pounds (1,339 kilograms) of dry cargo, ranging from food and clothing to spare parts and science equipment.