SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

Oldfart1939 · 2017-01-22 13:32:20

I'm not wishing this to become a politically driven thread, but just an above-board discussion about how we are going to make progress towards the goal of landing men on Mars in the next 8-12 years. I have no enthusiasm for the ULA SLS system, as it was designed and built without a real end use in mind, but only as a political expediency to avoid throwing away all of the Bush project Constellation research and development monies.

I'm just going to state my personal view here and then let others chime in and see whether a consensus emerges. NASA has essentially lost it's sense of it's original goal, which under Kennedy was getting man to the moon. Now, the money they're allocated is in my mind, being frittered away on a wide ranging and potentially pointless (at least at this point in time) endeavors. I'm fully on-board with Dr. Zubrin's "lets go to Mars NOW, using the technology we've had for nearly 40 years." Research on "impossible drives," solar electric drives, and Earth Sciences, all need to be massively scaled back--if not eliminated outright. The Asteriod Redirect/Retrieval mission doesn't really get us very far out of LEO--or even as far from Earth as a back to the moon program would. I would much more prefer that NASA start doling out more $$$ to various contractors, such as SpaceX, Boeing, and Lockheed-Martin for some interlocking projects that would advance human spaceflight activities.

Dr. Zubrin, in his book "Entering Space," suggests some "prizes," or awards for achievements; NASA could earmark funds as rewards for accomplishment of certain milestones along the way. So far we haven't ever flown a working Nuclear reactor in space, and that's something we need on the surface of Mars. If we ever hope to really accomplish anything w/r exploration and study of Europa, we'll need that power. Solar just doesn't cut the mustard in the outer solar system. Get some funding for methods of long term cryogenic storage of animal embryos, eggs, and other agricultural sources for potential colonization.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-01-22 13:45:57)

SpaceNut · 2017-01-22 15:57:00

I am not seeing NASA agency offices changing to the commercial mode of operations anytime soon even if we change the head of Nasa to a MUSK type. The Agency centers are to into cutting edge developement, engineering and broad based sciences....

Could the Nasa to be still fund as previously done with the COTS program and have NASA assist with the technology transfer.. That is the way to go but NASA needs to stop building Rockets with the likes of cost plus contracting.....

Oldfart1939 · 2017-01-22 16:42:13

SpaceNut-

Agreed re: NASA building cost-plus contract rockets!

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-01-22 16:43:17)

SpaceNut · 2017-01-22 17:52:07

Commercial industry as well eliminates the standing army of employee's that are not working between launches as well. Industry pay scales are lower than that of the governement contractor.....
Less designs using unobtainium or gold to make things out of ect.. these are factors for why Space X is much lower in cost.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-01-22 18:24:58

I've quoted Zubrin's Book "Entering Space" several times, wherein he states that the biggest commodity the "major contractors" are selling in the cost-plus contracts is OVERHEAD! These herds of people simply milling around add to the COST side of the equation, and the profit is in the PLUS!

RobS · 2017-01-22 20:01:47

There are several possible results of a Space X / NASA relationship:

1. No relationship because Space X goers bankrupt. A string of launch failures could do this. Least likely result.
2. NASA insists (or is stuck with) the Space Launch System for everything and lands its first mission on Mars at Muskville in 2045 and the crew is greeted with champagne and finger foods by the Space X team, which has already been there 15+ years. Next least likely result.
3. NASA drops the SLS and related expensive hardware and pays for rides on the Space X system.
4. A partnership of some sort allows NASA to waste a little money on a few token SLS "contributions" to the program, while also contributing other essential expertise and possibly some new hardware. I suspect this is most likely because it saves face/covers someone's ass.

SpaceNut · 2017-01-22 21:29:39

Since congress pass a bill back in2010 and it go signed by the President it is going to be very difficult to undo it, one can only hope that Nasa does wise up for all its agencies locations and begin working to make it happen rather than just paying funds for a small amount of work output....

louis · 2017-01-23 17:23:31

I agree with your basic point about NASA's failures. Musk is in the driving seat now. But Musk is a good politician and is careful to make it appear like he isn't. Musk needs NASA for launch facilities and coms and that's about it. Space X can do the rest.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

I'm not wishing this to become a politically driven thread, but just an above-board discussion about how we are going to make progress towards the goal of landing men on Mars in the next 8-12 years. I have no enthusiasm for the ULA SLS system, as it was designed and built without a real end use in mind, but only as a political expediency to avoid throwing away all of the Bush project Constellation research and development monies.
I'm just going to state my personal view here and then let others chime in and see whether a consensus emerges. NASA has essentially lost it's sense of it's original goal, which under Kennedy was getting man to the moon. Now, the money they're allocated is in my mind, being frittered away on a wide ranging and potentially pointless (at least at this point in time) endeavors. I'm fully on-board with Dr. Zubrin's "lets go to Mars NOW, using the technology we've had for nearly 40 years." Research on "impossible drives," solar electric drives, and Earth Sciences, all need to be massively scaled back--if not eliminated outright. The Asteriod Redirect/Retrieval mission doesn't really get us very far out of LEO--or even as far from Earth as a back to the moon program would. I would much more prefer that NASA start doling out more $$$ to various contractors, such as SpaceX, Boeing, and Lockheed-Martin for some interlocking projects that would advance human spaceflight activities.
Dr. Zubrin, in his book "Entering Space," suggests some "prizes," or awards for achievements; NASA could earmark funds as rewards for accomplishment of certain milestones along the way. So far we haven't ever flown a working Nuclear reactor in space, and that's something we need on the surface of Mars. If we ever hope to really accomplish anything w/r exploration and study of Europa, we'll need that power. Solar just doesn't cut the mustard in the outer solar system. Get some funding for methods of long term cryogenic storage of animal embryos, eggs, and other agricultural sources for potential colonization.

Terraformer · 2017-01-24 05:12:14

Focusing all of NASAs resources on a flags-and-footprints mission to Mars is a dreadful idea. Better to not go at all, and spend the money instead on building a Lunar base, than go and never get out of LEO again for another half century.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-01-24 09:49:32

I would rather see some of NASAs resources utilized towards a major probe to the moons of Jupiter than the stupid asteroid redirect mission. Europa and the other outer moons are scientifically interesting, as Callisto offers a potential base possibility away from the radiation hazards of the Jupiter van Allen belts. A lander on Europa would offer a much higher scientific payback than some of the other NASA projects.

RobertDyck · 2017-01-24 14:14:20

I agree the asteroid redirect mission is stupid. In general asteroids are a good idea, but use an unmanned probe to bring a sample all the way back to Earth. Bringing a boulder off an asteroid to lunar orbit, then a manned mission to that boulder? That's just an excuse for Constellation hardware. Asteroid sample return was done by the Japanese, and could be done by NASA with a capsule similar to Genesis or Stardust.

However, I have to counter what Terraformer said. Mars Direct does not have to be "flags and footprints". Robert Zubrin argued to scout the surface of Mars with manned missions, leaving habitats on the surface to act as "warming huts" for future explorers. That was a good idea in 1990, but this is 2017. NASA argued for robotic exploration as a "precursor" to human exploration, but Robert Zubrin argued for humans. I claim that now moot, robotic exploration is done, finished, over. Start construction of the permanent base with the first human mission. Of course that will require 3 more unmanned missions: (1) technology demonstrator for ISPP, (2) technology demonstrator for aerocapture, (3) a rover with drill to prove water exists at the proposed base site.

But a mission like Mars Direct can be the start of a permanent human base. I keep using the project I was part of as the example. Mars Homestead Project, phase 1 - Hillside Settlement. It used a Mars Direct hab to land permanent settlers on Mars. Then 2 more, each carrying 4 crew, for a total of 12. Then another hab, but the 4th had no crew, it was backup. And the 4th would have an earth moving construction vehicle instead of a rover. (Carefully avoiding the argument of skid-steer vs tracks.) They would use in-situ materials to build a permanent base. You could accuse Mars Direct as being "flags and footprints" but what I'm describing is a lot more. First 4 crew member, then 8, then 12, then apartments and atrium for all 12. Then 24. Then those 24 crew members build the settlement to receive the first 100 from Elon's Mars Colonial Transporter.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-01-24 15:16:55

NASA cannot seem to get their heads wrapped around the idea they're no longer the only game in town. Do they really want to compete with Elon Musk, or work in concert with SpaceX? Utilize NASA assets to construct a Martian GPS system for the planet, bring a nuclear reactor, transport a drilling rig for water; these are all "things to do." Mars has no magnetic field, hence compasses are ineffective for surface navigation; GPS solves the problem of surface navigation. A reactor supplies ample power for a ISPM, as well as power for heating and lighting for the first small outpost.

louis · 2017-01-24 19:12:00

I think they want to be left alone with their 101 projects - many of great intrinsic interest, don't get me wrong - rather than be obliged to focus on a small number. Musk essentially has just one focus: getting to Mars. I think NASA realised 2 or 3 years, that Space X should be left to run with the Mars project. It's just politics as to how it's handled. I am assuming Trump will like Musk's vision and drive and back him.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

NASA cannot seem to get their heads wrapped around the idea they're no longer the only game in town. Do they really want to compete with Elon Musk, or work in concert with SpaceX? Utilize NASA assets to construct a Martian GPS system for the planet, bring a nuclear reactor, transport a drilling rig for water; these are all "things to do." Mars has no magnetic field, hence compasses are ineffective for surface navigation; GPS solves the problem of surface navigation. A reactor supplies ample power for a ISPM, as well as power for heating and lighting for the first small outpost.

kbd512 · 2017-01-24 19:37:26

NASA needs to stick with a humans to Mars mission. That's the present focus for technology development and the most attainable and worthwhile human space flight goal to achieve at this time. We could practice landing on the moon to support Mars missions, but I find little value in maintaining a base there. Apart from communicating with Earth, all other problems associated with actually living on Mars are exacerbated on the moon- even more extreme thermal environment, long day-night cycle, zero atmosphere, zero radiation protection, substantially less gravity, and extraordinarily abrasive regolith... Magnificent desolation.

SpaceNut · 2017-01-25 21:24:31

Rather than Nasa competing for either moon or mars against the commercial market it needs to embrace it and help them help Nasa to achieve the goals of not only going to both but to make it sustainable from not only a science perspective but also from a corporate level as well...

Dook · 2017-02-01 23:57:59

Oldfart1939 wrote:

I'm not wishing this to become a politically driven thread, but just an above-board discussion about how we are going to make progress towards the goal of landing men on Mars in the next 8-12 years. I have no enthusiasm for the ULA SLS system, as it was designed and built without a real end use in mind, but only as a political expediency to avoid throwing away all of the Bush project Constellation research and development monies.
I'm just going to state my personal view here and then let others chime in and see whether a consensus emerges. NASA has essentially lost it's sense of it's original goal, which under Kennedy was getting man to the moon. Now, the money they're allocated is in my mind, being frittered away on a wide ranging and potentially pointless (at least at this point in time) endeavors. I'm fully on-board with Dr. Zubrin's "lets go to Mars NOW, using the technology we've had for nearly 40 years." Research on "impossible drives," solar electric drives, and Earth Sciences, all need to be massively scaled back--if not eliminated outright. The Asteriod Redirect/Retrieval mission doesn't really get us very far out of LEO--or even as far from Earth as a back to the moon program would. I would much more prefer that NASA start doling out more $$$ to various contractors, such as SpaceX, Boeing, and Lockheed-Martin for some interlocking projects that would advance human spaceflight activities.
Dr. Zubrin, in his book "Entering Space," suggests some "prizes," or awards for achievements; NASA could earmark funds as rewards for accomplishment of certain milestones along the way. So far we haven't ever flown a working Nuclear reactor in space, and that's something we need on the surface of Mars. If we ever hope to really accomplish anything w/r exploration and study of Europa, we'll need that power. Solar just doesn't cut the mustard in the outer solar system. Get some funding for methods of long term cryogenic storage of animal embryos, eggs, and other agricultural sources for potential colonization.

I don't understand the perceived sense of urgency that some of you have. What's the hurry? Mars isn't going anywhere. I want to see humans land on Mars in my lifetime as well but not if we don't have the technology to reduce the risk so we can do it safely.

We aren't going to Mars with Apollo hardware. Remember Apollo 13? They made it home because they were only 3 days away. If that happens on a Mars mission the crew dies. We can't go to Mars safely with Apollo hardware.

NASA has many goals, not just Mars.

To get to Mars we do need a big rocket. Whether the SLS is big enough or not depends on how much you want to put on Mars. What's wrong with multiple landings? Two or three ISRU return vehicles pre launched on Mars then we go with a lander/rover and a crew. Oh, it's just not fast enough for you, right? Other than that, what's wrong with it?

NASA doesn't have to dole out dollars to SpaceX, Elon Musk is footing the bill. Also, we don't have any real control over SpaceX. What if Musk jumps the gun and starts sending people into space and they start dying in space or on Mars? Or they get to Mars and SpaceX goes out of business so NASA has to send resupply missions to Mars every 6 months just to keep them alive?

We need a working nuclear reactor on Mars? Who told you that? We really don't. You have a perceived sense of urgency. It's not worth going there until you can reduce the risk, and, when we do go, it's going to be with a crew of about four and they're going to come home. Then, we'll go again with a crew of four who will also come home. That cycle will probably go on for probably 15-20 years.

Solar doesn't cut the mustard in the outer solar system? Humans won't be going into the outer solar system for a very, very, very long time, if ever. The vehicles we're going to send out there are going to get better and better over time. What is the desire to attempt to colonize a cold and barren rock? The novelty of it would wear off in about 10 seconds.

GW Johnson · 2017-02-02 10:39:28

Well, if you are on Mars and just keeping lights on and the bedroom warm, you can do it with mostly-solar at several KW. You'll need to back that up with some sort of radio-isotope generator during sandstorms. Some of those dust storms last for months. Most do not. It is unpredictable, fundamentally. And you will need all your air and water and food as packed supplies. And you must bring your return propellant with you.

On the other hand, if you are making air and water out of local ice, you will need a lot more electricity to do it, because electrolysis is typically only about 6% energy efficient. Maybe some gear is better, but certainly around 10% at best. Consequently, you're looking at an awful lot of solar with a huge backup by the radioisotope stuff. Dozens to a few hundred KW. You're still living on packed food, and you must bring your return propellant with you.

Add food production locally in a greenhouse construction of some kind. It needs lights and warmth, too. That's still more solar backed up with radioisotope generators. Getting to be a rather large electric power station. Starting to push a MW. And you still have to bring your return propellant with you.

Now add in local propellant production, which requires power for the sabatier, and an enormous electrolysis plant, and very power-hungry devices to liquify the oxygen and the methane. You have to make hundreds, perhaps thousands of tons of propellant in the space of about a year. Now you are looking at multiple-MW worth of electric power station capacity.

Some sort of real nuclear power plant is starting to look better and better, is it not? That's the lightest way to produce MW quantities of electricity, and it needs no backup. Just ship two reactors, so you still function if one fails.

We know already how to do these things to send crews to Mars and support them safely. Any one of the scenarios above could be made to work. But none of them fit with minimalist mission designs that insist on direct shots to Mars and direct shots home. Too big and heavy for that.

As for the trips, we know that spin can produce artificial gravity. If you are not exposed to zero gee during the months of the transit, then you arrive fully fit for whatever gee challenges await you. It's just that you don't do that in a little spaceship. About the max spin rate is 4 rpm, requiring a radius of 56 m.

Folks have proposed cable-connected things to achieve that out of modules that are otherwise too small, but the transient dynamics of start-up and stop are horrendous. We already know how to deal reliably with the transient dynamics of semi-rigid spinning structures. So, spinning a baton-shaped object end-over-end is a safe, reliable, already-known way to do this. Put your hab module at one end of a string of propellant tanks and supply modules, with the engines at the other. Put flywheels in the middle. What could be simpler? And therefore more reliable?

As for radiation, the electromagnetic things aren't yet ready for application, which leaves us with passive shielding ready-to-go, best done with hydrogen-rich materials to reduce secondary-shower effects. If you're manned, you have water and wastewater, and you have propellants. Use them for your shielding. It's all in where you put the tanks. Nothing more than that.

We actually knew enough to have done this successfully by about 1995. I remember during Apollo that the Mars mission was planned for the 1980's. We didn't really know enough back about 1970 to have done this without killing the crew from microgravity diseases and radiation exposure.

But it wasn't until the last few years that we had rockets cheap enough to afford to go. And SLS ain't what I am talking about. You do it with commercial launchers and orbital assembly by docking.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-02-02 10:52:33)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-02-02 11:40:24

I've mentioned on another thread the necessity for a full Nuclear power plant in at least the 100 Kw range of output; that happens to coincide with Dr. Zubrin's Mars Direct planning. Actually, the concept of having 2 of them is even better; these could be flown there well in advance of the first human mission, along with the robotic Sabatier reactor system. I'm in agreement with a minimalist approach, but having a bit more backup equipment and food/water available is the better option. One Nuke plant for propellant and LOX production, in addition to another one for the Habitation and as a charging station for a battery operated short distance rover. My idea for the rover is a roof and sidewalls covered in solar panels. Elon could actually get the ball rolling with his Red Dragon flights beginning next year; load the vehicle with food and other necessary survival supplies in addition to the experiments. This could preposition maybe 1500 pounds of food as an emergency backup food supply for the first missions. Granted, this isn't nearly enough to sustain an isolated crew of 7 explorers for the 550 days between Hohmann Transfer windows. How much food is required? My calculation is based on the following: each crew person requires 2% of their body weight per day of highly caloric food in order to do outside and exploration work involving physical labor. I have chosen a 7 man crew based on realistic manpower and mutual psychological support. I've allowed a 200 pound per person weight, although this is probably erring on the high side of requirements. An FAA standard "passenger" is 170 pounds, so smaller individuals DO need apply!
So... here's the math for food stockpile needed for said crew: (200 pounds per person)x(7 persons)x(550 days)x(0.02) = 15,400 pounds of prepositioned food. Granted, some food will be brought along with the Mars crew, but based on my calculations, not enough to last the entire duration of the mission between Hohmann windows. So...how do we cope with these requirements? Smaller crew members stands out immediately; reduction in the size of the initial crew comes in second. We cannot reduce the calories needed without severe mission success and health complications. Why have I chosen the number of crew members that I have? It's based on a military principle of "triads," groups of 3 sent to perform ANY task. A triad can almost always effect a self rescue. One tem member injured? Then there are 2 team members available to move the injured to a safe haven (a rover). With just a single small rover, one triad at a time will be outside the Habitat doing research. The second triad will be doing a combination of (1) resting, (2) housekeeping, (3) sample and data analysis, (4) further mission planning. I have included a 7th person as a Mission Commander, and as a completely qualified backup to any other mission member. Like it or not, as a former military Squad Leader, there has to be someone "in charge of things," or chaos can result. These first missions will have, out of necessity, somewhat a military organizational flavor.
As an alternative mission model, we could do either a 4 or 5 crewmember mission, but the odd number is best at breaking any impasse w/r to mission critical decision making.
Food requirement for a 5 crewmember mission, all of smaller stature/weight at 170 pounds; calculation: (170 pounds per crewmember)x( 5 crew members)x(550 days)x(0.02) = 9,350 pounds. And no...I haven't even begun to calculate the water required. A major water reclamation system is essential, one similar to that on the ISS. That could also be flown ahead and in place in a prepositioned Habitat module.
Those of us here at the Mars Society website have a far better appreciation of just how much is involved with a human mission, much less a colonization effort. This is where NASA should be involved, not building a next to useless SLS system.
I envision something a bit less optimistic and certainly less grandiose than those of Elon Musk for our first efforts, but a permanent presence on the Red Planet is in my goal. These first missions to land pioneering equipment should be the goals for 2018, 2020, and 2022. I'd LOVE to see a manned mission by 2024, but realistically not until 2026 or 2028. Not unless some serious cash is thrown at the problem!

Oldfart1939 · 2017-02-02 12:04:11

As an addendum to my previous post:

A timeline for Mars Exploration and Development:

2018-SpaceX landing demonstration using aero-braking and retro-propulsive landing. Possibly carrying the Sabatier reactor and Oxygen generators.

2020-SpaceX landing of a larger payload; vehicle should/could carry a supply of food and a 100Kw Nuclear reactor.

2022-SpaceX landing of second Nuclear reactor and possibly a small rover suitable for manned use; more pre-positioned foodstuffs.

2024-SpaceX landing of the BFR (another appellation for the ITV, MCT, etc...whatever name they're using this week!); LOTS of food, construction supplies for erection of a Habitat; POSSIBLY a human crew. Given the delays in the Falcon Heavy program, highly unlikely by 2024.

2026-More likely to accomplish the goals stated for 2024.

2028-Most probable first manned mission.

As this is strictly one man's best guess, along with much hand waving, feel free to hit me with all the slings and arrows of outraged fortune!

louis · 2017-02-02 15:16:46

GW Johnson wrote:

Well, if you are on Mars and just keeping lights on and the bedroom warm, you can do it with mostly-solar at several KW. You'll need to back that up with some sort of radio-isotope generator during sandstorms. Some of those dust storms last for months. Most do not. It is unpredictable, fundamentally.
GW

GW, there is an alternative: make methane. You can send an initial PV unit robotically together with a robotic methane manufacture set-up. Send it 2-4 years in advance and you will have plenty of methane to drive generators.

Remember that no dust storm actually completely obscures the solar radiation, so there will be continuing power.

SpaceNut · 2017-02-02 18:58:35

Dook wrote:

I don't understand the perceived sense of urgency that some of you have. What's the hurry? Mars isn't going anywhere. I want to see humans land on Mars in my lifetime as well but not if we don't have the technology to reduce the risk so we can do it safely.

The urgency has to do with funding Nasa to go around in LEO for what has been an eternity along with the fund wasting constellation plus SLS... Waiting does nothing to push the worlds peoples outward.. I have a bunch of unobtainium for space use but we will be waiting long after we are dead to use it....

GW Johnson · 2017-02-03 10:49:21

Louis:

Making methane on Mars is useless unless you also have oxygen to react it with, at around 4 tons of oxygen for every ton of methane.

You either bring the oxygen from Earth, or you make it from ice by electrolysis. If you have landed your methane-making sabatier rig at a spot without ice, you are screwed.

Even if you land it at a spot with ice, if you don't have the right gear to extract the water, you are still screwed. Getting water from wet dirt requires earth-moving equipment and high-volume processing equipment, both very energy-hungry. Drilling into a glacier for wet steam extraction is entirely different hardware, also somewhat energy-hungry to make the steam.

Those differing outcomes and unpleasant little facts of life are why I keep saying you have to "properly explore" multiple sites before landing your equipment at one and setting up shop. Most of the mission plans I have seen focus on only one site without doing the "proper exploration", raising the probability of landing with the wrong equipment, and thus dooming the crew.

"Proper exploration" -- humans who can react to the unexpected, on site, digging and drilling deep. None of that is possible reliably with remote sensing, the key word being "reliably". Too much inference in remote sensing. You simply have to find out "what all is there, and where exactly it is". You simply can't do that looking from a distance, or just walking about on the surface picking up rocks.

Musk tried to address this, in my opinion inadequately, in his Guadalajara presentation that revealed his concepts for the giant Mars rocket and spacecraft. His big ships land at one place, supposedly. But he says he will send Red Dragons every opposition to be "pathfinders" for the big manned ships.

I presume by pathfinders, he is looking for the right site with ice to make his methane plant worth it. It's just that no robot can "properly explore" in the sense I described above, and tele-operated stuff is extremely limited with a 20+ minute light delay one-way.

GW

Oldfart1939 · 2017-02-07 09:25:55

Actually GW, methane is the component of the MethylOX system requiring components brought from Earth, H2. The CO2 atmosphere of Mars does NOT require finding water for O2 production; 2C02 ----> 2 CO + O2. This reaction is definitely energy hungry, being endothermic even though catalyzed. The metal catalyst simply ensures the correct output of molecular Oxygen. Yes, "ice is nice," but not essential. I've seen some suggestions about a modified ISPP that simply brings the methane or RP-1 from Earth and produces 80 % of the Fuel-Oxidizer couple on Mars; instead of the Methane production, only Oxygen is produced.

On the other hand, if ice is available and converted to water, then electrolysis is the way to go for producing Methane in addition to Oxygen.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-02-07 09:28:13)

GW Johnson · 2017-02-07 11:23:16

Well, I don't understand just how propellant is to be made on Mars nearly as well as I understand designing flight vehicles and propelling them. My chemistry is on-the-job stuff making and burning solid propellants, and on-the-job stuff burning fuels with air in all sorts of ramjets.

It was my understanding that the "sabatier" thing makes methane out of CO2 and a source of hydrogen. That hydrogen, and the oxygen to react your methane with, had to come from "somewhere". That somewhere is ice on Mars. Which sounds like ice mining and electrolysis to me.

Reading some of these conversations, it appears that there is another device or process called "moxie" that makes oxygen out of CO2. That still begs the question of hydrogen for the "sabatier" thingie.

My real question about doing any of this is two-fold: (1) where is the electricity going to come from, and (2) how are we going to make the hundreds of tons (not grams, not kilograms) we are going to need to send a crew back off of Mars, before they expire from having been there too long?

To send any sort of credible ascent vehicle up will require a gob of propellant, that's just rocket equation stuff. The bigger the vehicle, the bigger the gob of propellant. I have yet to see how a handful of tons of equipment sent in some Red Dragons can make such quantities over a few months' time, even assuming your robots can do the right kind of ice mining to support it.

Doing it with "sabatier" plus "moxie" raises the power required dramatically, and still has the hydrogen requirement. I don't forsee a solution here that does not require a very large plant (several dozens of tons of hardware), and a nuclear reactor to power it, regardless of the details.

And if you go with electrolyzing Martian water, the equipment and procedure is very site specific, as is the rate-of-return. Cooking wetness out of regolith requires processing thousands of tons to get hundreds of tons of water, no way around that. Drilling into a buried glacier and injecting steam only requires making steam, and you get a lot of water, depending on the relative regolith-water proportion in the buried glacier. Factor of 2 instead of 10 stuff. But not every site will have a drillable ice deposit.

If the buried ice isn't massive to support drilling, then you are forced into strip-mining for ice. Now you are back to processing thousands of tons again, although the yield is higher than damp regolith generally.

Knowing the difference takes a crew with a drill rig on a rover that can reach, say, a hundred meters down. I don't see how robots can do that job, it requires human adaptability on site to deal with the unexpected. Same as all sorts of drilling activities here. That's why we have never automated drilling here. No can do.

Which in turn says the very first crews land with their return propellant, and explore the site to find out which propellant technologies, if any, would actually work there. Why land them if they turn out not to work?

So the whole idea of sending the first crew to Mars depending for thjeir lives on making their own return propellant seems to be a very serious case of cart-before-the-horse. To me it defies logic and common sense. And ethics.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-02-07 11:28:11)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-02-07 12:15:08

GW-

One nice thing about some of these reactions is the ability to do them on a continuous flow basis through long tubes packed with the appropriate catalysts; one gas or combination of gasses goes in one end and a product--or mixture of products--come out the other end. That means they run 24/7 continuously. The power requirement for the Sabatier reaction isn't bad at all as it's an exothermic reaction, hence self sustaining. The splitting of CO2 is more energy intensive due to the endothermic nature of the reaction. Bond breaking requires net energy input, but in the Sabatier there are also bond formation reactions in sequence which are always exothermic. Mainly the energy will be needed for compression and liquefaction. Dr. Zubrin has a small nuclear reactor for energy in the Mars Direct model, and specifies a 100 Kw unit as a minimum. Sucking up enough Martian CO2 is an ongoing process requiring some major compressors, intermediate storage tanks, and receiving storage tanks for the prepared gasses. Liquefaction requires more compressors and heat exchangers, hence more energy needed. In the long run, we'll require storage facilities to accept and store these cryogenic fluids. No set of solar panels is ever going to provide the total energy for such a system, so nuke power is the ONLY option. Just for comparison, a normal subdivision home has a 100A main breaker--nowadays probably a 125 A breaker. Run full tilt, that means 27.5 Kw power consumption if everything is 220Vac. But most households have an average rate of power consumption around 5-8 Kw. In reality, a bigger nuclear plant would be required if ISPP and all other applications are fully powered for the Mars Base.

As an addendum: If we DO find ice as a source of water, then we'll be needing a lot more power in order to run the electrolysis reaction AFTER melting the ice!

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2017-02-07 12:42:48)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2017-01-22 13:32:20

SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#2 2017-01-22 15:57:00

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#3 2017-01-22 16:42:13

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#4 2017-01-22 17:52:07

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#5 2017-01-22 18:24:58

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#6 2017-01-22 20:01:47

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#7 2017-01-22 21:29:39

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#8 2017-01-23 17:23:31

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#9 2017-01-24 05:12:14

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#10 2017-01-24 09:49:32

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#11 2017-01-24 14:14:20

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#12 2017-01-24 15:16:55

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#13 2017-01-24 19:12:00

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#14 2017-01-24 19:37:26

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#15 2017-01-25 21:24:31

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#16 2017-02-01 23:57:59

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#17 2017-02-02 10:39:28

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#18 2017-02-02 11:40:24

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#19 2017-02-02 12:04:11

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#20 2017-02-02 15:16:46

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#21 2017-02-02 18:58:35

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#22 2017-02-03 10:49:21

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#23 2017-02-07 09:25:55

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#24 2017-02-07 11:23:16

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

#25 2017-02-07 12:15:08

Re: SpaceX, NASA and the new administration; the path forward?

Board footer