Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

SpaceNut · 2017-05-23 18:58:54

To RTG or not to RTG the size is the question to what we get for power output....segway to new topic....

SpaceNut · 2017-05-24 18:03:18

From solar topic:

Oldfart1939 wrote:

A 6 man mission (round trip) requires some 9+ metric tonnes of food (based on a 550 day planetary stay, and 360 days of travel aboard spacecraft.

Which when broken into what gets used by crew on the way out and back accounts for just shy of 4 mT, the launch to orbit could use the drago cargo truck trunk to get the outbound and return in 1 vehicle.

The landers being a dragon cargo of 2 mT capability for the stay requiring for the just over 6 mT, this is 3 if the volume of the food fits since there is no truck trunk for a landing.

So what is the raw number for water and recycling mass values?

Then what are the oxygen, recycling and moxie for mass numbers to solve in the same way?

Then once we deside on power types, count and batteries ect then we can again solve for how many dragons it will take....

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-25 08:41:57

SpaceNut-

I'm not really counting on any crewed Dragons to Mars. There will need be a larger version.

SpaceNut · 2017-05-25 18:59:47

But that is the go with what we have approach to which we can then better judge how the chunks need to be packaged for preloading mars. The we design to that common delivery system and stop creating different units for each type of product that is to be delivered.

I agree that we need bigger chunks than 2 mT per unit landing on mars but what can we get away with before we can not deliver it to earth orbit. Since the more payload to the surface requires more fuel to get it there. This become creepware for design....

louis · 2017-05-25 19:09:07

Why? The Red Dragon only has to get you to the surface.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

SpaceNut-
I'm not really counting on any crewed Dragons to Mars. There will need be a larger version.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-25 19:11:36

The SpaceX website has details posted for Falcon Heavy now state payload to Mars surface as 16.8 metric tonnes. My WAG for the net delivered payload after deduction of vehicle mass is 10 metric tonnes.

SpaceNut · 2017-05-25 21:51:30

Found daily numbers for not only the food, water and oxygen but also the other side of the equation of waste for a crew member of 1 to which the waste was a bit of a surprise.

Oxygen 0.84 kg/day
water 2.90 kg/day
food 2.45 kg/day

Co2 1.00 kg/day
waste 5.19 kg/day

RobertDyck · 2017-05-25 22:16:46

Here's one I got from a NASA website. Same numbers, more detail. Some detail looks questionable now: shower water, urinal flush water, clothes wash water, dish wash water. That currently doesn't happen on ISS. But it's a good numbers.

elderflower · 2017-05-26 02:29:54

Clothes wash water is pretty easy to reduce. Minimise them. Keep the hab a bit warmer.

SpaceNut · 2017-05-26 16:39:59

Yes we can stink a little bit but its the bacterium that will win out by not keeping some sort decorum with regards to others, which includes some sort of showering ect...

I had forgotten the water in the food totals but that really only will effect the out going leg to mars.

Dave_Duca · 2017-05-28 10:50:15

This looks a good spot to put the Article Link into.
http://www.livescience.com/59130-nasa-3 … wards.html

Since this Topic mentions SHELTER....

SpaceNut · 2017-05-28 18:43:35

We know that the first few shelters will be just the cans we come in, a possible inflaetable but its going from there many missions down the road that we will be thinking of using a 3D printed home.

Posted Dave_Duca's post to 3D rubber, building blocks and ceramics! I had posted a simular link from NASA's Centennial Challenges

We will be taking the unused cargo landers as they are emptied and moving them to form a larger living space from them with connecting fabricated tunnels from one to the next.

So we are not looking at sending 2 mT vehicles for a payload but are looking for leaps up the ladder in size to bring more in just a single launch.

That said we are waiting for some one to provide this?

We have seen that the Cygnus is quite adaptable and that it can hold 2,000 kg (4,400 lb) (Std) and 3,200 kg (7,100 lb) to 3,500 kg (7,700 lb) depending on launcher...

The total mass of the enhanced on the atlas Cygnus Launch Mass: 7,492 kg to which the service module would need to be altered for a mars landing....

kbd512 · 2017-05-29 00:50:31

SpaceNut,

The up-mass limitations of Cygnus are a function of the lift capability of the rocket that delivers it to orbit and the acceleration loads experienced during ascent. There's nothing written in stone that says we have to launch it aboard Antares or Atlas V. Falcon 9 can deliver Cygnus to ISS where the station's Canadarm can mate the PCM to a propulsion module. Alternatively, Falcon Heavy can simply TMI Cygnus.

There is an unpressurized Cygnus cargo module concept that NASA is working on with Orbital ATK that represents a viable means to deliver unpressurized cargo to include batteries, solar panels, water tanks, food, BEAM, small rovers, or scientific instruments to Mars. The lynchpin technologies for this Mars surface delivery scheme to work are HIAD and retro-propulsion modules. If we develop and test these sorts of technologies, then we can send pairs of astronauts to Mars.

Just a sidebar:

BEAM would be better for living in on the surface of Mars than Cygnus since it provides better radiation protection than an aluminum can. I would scale it up a little, though. Several could be joined together to create a mini base.

Maybe a SEP equipped Cygnus could store the consumables for a pair of astronauts and a single Falcon Heavy could TMI the Dragon V2 and Cygnus stack after Dragon performs the Apollo maneuver and docks with the PCM prior to TMI. That should give them two separate vehicles with life support and power, room to move about in the otherwise empty Dragon, and adequate radiation protection in the PCM. At Mars, Dragon would undock from Cygnus and use supersonic parachutes and retro-propulsion to soft land. Once on the surface of Mars, the astronauts would partially bury their pre-inflated BEAM using the tracked pressurized rover and transfer consumables from Cygnus UCM's into their BEAM or otherwise setup their base of operations.

This scheme requires three Falcon Heavy flights to deliver a BEAM + consumables, the pressurized rover, and an ascent vehicle + micro capsule during the first launch opportunity. The second launch opportunity requires one Falcon Heavy flight to deliver the Dragon and Cygnus. There's no Dragon to provide life support backup for the return flight, but this sort of scheme uses the vehicles that are best suited to the individual mission tasks. Dragon is a deep space capable spacecraft with launch abort capabilities for the astronauts to use to leave Earth for Mars, the Cygnus is a purpose-built consumables storage container for the inbound and outbound transits, and the micro capsule ascent vehicle provides a mass-viable means of returning to the Cygnus in LMO for spiral out and transit back to Earth. The micro capsule provides Earth return capability if Cygnus can't dock at ISS, for whatever reason.

Given a continuous exploration campaign, that's four flights per pair of astronauts per launch opportunity or twelve flights per opportunity.

Hmm...

Dragon V2 is supposedly $160M per flight, which I presume is $62M for Falcon 9 and $98M for Dragon V2.
Cygnus is supposedly $133M per flight, which I presume is $85M for Antares and $48M for Cygnus

Maybe we could consolidate cargos aboard this new SEP cargo carrier, but let's assume that doesn't exist because AeroJet is still working on it.

$1,200M for launch services, every two years
$300M for six crew, every other opportunity
$150M for three Cygnus
$60M for three BEAM
$60M for three pressurized rovers
$120M for three ascent vehicles

That's about a billion dollars per year for the hardware. I think we can do that. Apart from the ascent vehicle and pressurized rover, all other technologies are currently in active development. I've no idea what development costs will be. Maybe you could deliver the astronauts to the Cygnus PCM's in micro capsules to avoid the recurring costs associated with using Dragon, but then you're stuck without a lifeboat and minimally capable capsules for EDL and I don't particularly like that idea.

There's quite a bit of trade space here. Someone still needs to figure out what the development of the missing pieces will cost. Even so, this looks entirely doable within current budgets and at least a decade sooner than NASA's plan.

louis · 2017-05-29 03:43:55

I agree about BEAM, or rather, a larger BEAM. Very little money has so far been put into inflatables development. But the concept has been shown to work.

Re a pressurised rover, I think a fair amount of work has been done by NASA.

https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/295 … 139397.jpg

Space X could offer to fund further development.

Not sure what "up mass" you are referring to with Cygnus. The cargo mass I am seeing is 1.7 tonnes. Which may be useful, but doesn't seem in the Red Dragon league. Are you arguing for Cyngus because it can be landed with little propellant use?

How would you fund a billion dollars a year?

Maybe:

$200 million from leading universities taking part in the Mars University Research Station. They would be paying you for transit of people and equipment and for life support on the planet. Universities are well placed to obtain philanthropic donations for such projects.

$300 million from commercial sponsorship (remember Coca Cola alone spend over $3 billion pa on advertising and sponsorship - sponsorship could be split between rocket, spacesuits/overalls, shoes, rover and name appearances at press briefings - so packages of $50-$100 m perhaps).

$100 million from specific science experiments undertaken on behalf of various earth institutions (universities and research bodies - small scale up to $5 million each).

$150 million from sale of regolith and meteorites.

$150 million in "vanity" payments from various space agencies wishing to get their personnel to Mars. You give them a name check in the launch programme as well.

$200 million from exclusive TV and other rights and an Earth based Mars TV channel.

That's $1.1 billion right there.

kbd512 wrote:

SpaceNut,
The up-mass limitations of Cygnus are a function of the lift capability of the rocket that delivers it to orbit and the acceleration loads experienced during ascent. There's nothing written in stone that says we have to launch it aboard Antares or Atlas V. Falcon 9 can deliver Cygnus to ISS where the station's Canadarm can mate the PCM to a propulsion module. Alternatively, Falcon Heavy can simply TMI Cygnus.
There is an unpressurized Cygnus cargo module concept that NASA is working on with Orbital ATK that represents a viable means to deliver unpressurized cargo to include batteries, solar panels, water tanks, food, BEAM, small rovers, or scientific instruments to Mars. The lynchpin technologies for this Mars surface delivery scheme to work are HIAD and retro-propulsion modules. If we develop and test these sorts of technologies, then we can send pairs of astronauts to Mars.
Just a sidebar:
BEAM would be better for living in on the surface of Mars than Cygnus since it provides better radiation protection than an aluminum can. I would scale it up a little, though. Several could be joined together to create a mini base.
Maybe a SEP equipped Cygnus could store the consumables for a pair of astronauts and a single Falcon Heavy could TMI the Dragon V2 and Cygnus stack after Dragon performs the Apollo maneuver and docks with the PCM prior to TMI. That should give them two separate vehicles with life support and power, room to move about in the otherwise empty Dragon, and adequate radiation protection in the PCM. At Mars, Dragon would undock from Cygnus and use supersonic parachutes and retro-propulsion to soft land. Once on the surface of Mars, the astronauts would partially bury their pre-inflated BEAM using the tracked pressurized rover and transfer consumables from Cygnus UCM's into their BEAM or otherwise setup their base of operations.
This scheme requires three Falcon Heavy flights to deliver a BEAM + consumables, the pressurized rover, and an ascent vehicle + micro capsule during the first launch opportunity. The second launch opportunity requires one Falcon Heavy flight to deliver the Dragon and Cygnus. There's no Dragon to provide life support backup for the return flight, but this sort of scheme uses the vehicles that are best suited to the individual mission tasks. Dragon is a deep space capable spacecraft with launch abort capabilities for the astronauts to use to leave Earth for Mars, the Cygnus is a purpose-built consumables storage container for the inbound and outbound transits, and the micro capsule ascent vehicle provides a mass-viable means of returning to the Cygnus in LMO for spiral out and transit back to Earth. The micro capsule provides Earth return capability if Cygnus can't dock at ISS, for whatever reason.
Given a continuous exploration campaign, that's four flights per pair of astronauts per launch opportunity or twelve flights per opportunity.
Hmm...
Dragon V2 is supposedly $160M per flight, which I presume is $62M for Falcon 9 and $98M for Dragon V2.
Cygnus is supposedly $133M per flight, which I presume is $85M for Antares and $48M for Cygnus
Maybe we could consolidate cargos aboard this new SEP cargo carrier, but let's assume that doesn't exist because AeroJet is still working on it.
$1,200M for launch services, every two years
$300M for six crew, every other opportunity
$150M for three Cygnus
$60M for three BEAM
$60M for three pressurized rovers
$120M for three ascent vehicles
That's about a billion dollars per year for the hardware. I think we can do that. Apart from the ascent vehicle and pressurized rover, all other technologies are currently in active development. I've no idea what development costs will be. Maybe you could deliver the astronauts to the Cygnus PCM's in micro capsules to avoid the recurring costs associated with using Dragon, but then you're stuck without a lifeboat and minimally capable capsules for EDL and I don't particularly like that idea.
There's quite a bit of trade space here. Someone still needs to figure out what the development of the missing pieces will cost. Even so, this looks entirely doable within current budgets and at least a decade sooner than NASA's plan.

SpaceNut · 2017-05-29 13:00:57

The benifits of the Cygnus design is the company that makes them can put up to 6 docking ports on the can while the Bigelow inflateable max is 2 to which beam is has just the 1.

The standard or short original as explained is payload limited by the launcher so it's 2,000Kg at 19M^3 has simular comparible size to the Dragon but its the extended Cygnus that we are looking to make use of as it's a bit more capable when launched by something stronger than as Atlas V to having a greater payload of 3,00kg plus at an internal volume of 27M^3. Sure we need to create a stage to use for landing that is better and more capable that the current Serve Module that is attached but thats still a do able.

The benefits of an inflateable is mass for comparible size once inflated of 1/3 over the can approach and radiation protection on Mars surface for a crew to stay in.

SpaceNut · 2017-05-31 17:59:55

First Year of BEAM Demo Offers Valuable Data on Expandable Habitats

They have found that Galactic Cosmic Radiation (GCR) dose rates inside the BEAM are similar to other space station modules, and continue to analyze contributions to the daily dose from the Earth's trapped radiation belts to better understand the shielding properties of the module for application to long-term missions.

SpaceNut · 2017-05-31 18:32:02

Greenhouse post http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php … 71#p138771 for energy used for a crw of 1 for life support and volume of growing area using either solar light pipe to underground inflateable and for electrical LED as well....

SpaceNut · 2017-06-22 20:13:11

Bump
maybe the hijacking is done...

One of the things forgotten about is the ability to ration which can be done with water, food and even shelter to an extent but we can not do so with the air... unless we are considering less pressure as the mix would change to compensate for that lower PSI.

biodomes · 2017-07-29 07:25:39

SpaceNut wrote:

biodomes.eu
Something like this would work

RobertDyck as described this type anchored to concrete ring

Who knows, maybe we'll get more orders on Mars then we get on Earth

Our hex domes would definitely look cool on Mars

I'd post a link but apparently i'm not allowed

SpaceNut · 2017-07-29 09:54:31

Welcome to newmars biodomes and while we do not promote a specific product and or company,

we did see that a partial covered dome met the need to weigh the dome down, provide isulative temperature control and to still enable natural lighting.

From the site Why choose geodesic domes ? Here are just a few reasons

The features that make it appealing for mars use are in this list.

The dome of course will be serveral panes of glass when we are able to use insitu materials being processed from mars. Sure we may go with a plastics for the initial and be pressure control for shape but we will eventually need to expand as the presence on man continues after a single mission duration.

biodomes · 2017-07-29 11:00:14

Thank you SpaceNut ! I just found this forum because of the new backlink to my site, and i must say it's very fascinating ! I'm a space nut myself I collect astronomy documentaries among other things.
Our company has developed a new technology to build geodesic domes, that makes them structurally stronger then any other dome built so far. Hopefully we will be successful in bring our domes to the commercial market and also improve the technology in order to turn science fiction into science fact
Ceti%20dome.jpg

Although the domes with triangles are structurally much stronger, these hex domes look cooler

Last edited by biodomes (2017-07-29 12:01:22)

SpaceNut · 2017-07-29 15:26:23

The key to dome panel construction technology is that the panels are all the same such that you only need to bring one type or just the one mold to make them in and that the frame makes up for flexing the segments together. The internal pressure for mars to external must be equalized via a sealing system that allows the seal to be made from the compression of the air inside to the low pressure that is outside. The multi panel approach allows for safety if struck.

biodomes · 2017-07-29 21:25:40

The panels are definitely not all the same for our domes, more like +12 different panels for big domes. The dome is not spherical if the panels are all the same. Maybe for a very large dome it could be possible to build it from one single panel mold, but we haven't experimented with such a design.

RobertDyck · 2017-07-29 21:58:43

Wikipedia: Geodesic dome

A geodesic dome is a hemispherical thin-shell structure (lattice-shell) based on a geodesic polyhedron. The triangular elements of the dome are structurally rigid and distribute the structural stress throughout the structure, making geodesic domes able to withstand very heavy loads for their size.

A geodesic polyhedron is a convex polyhedron made from triangles that approximates a sphere. They usually have icosahedral symmetry which have 6 triangles at a vertex, except 12 vertices which have 5 triangles. It is the dual of a corresponding Goldberg polyhedron, with mostly hexagonal faces.

The idea is faces are all isosceles triangles. Support members are all the same length. There are only 2 types of joints: 6 triangles or 5 triangles meeting at a vertex. Standardization of parts reduces cost of manufacture, and makes assembly simpler.

You could use hexagons and pentagons, which does reduce the number of structural members, increasing visibility, but that increases the number of different types of parts. But if you use panels with different size higher vs lower, then technically it's not "geodesic".

louis · 2017-07-30 04:56:04

I would say the obvious use for domes is farming, perhaps in combination with solar reflectors mounted on higher ground to reflect additional sunlight onto the dome. Presumably that could be undertaken in a low pressure CO2 environment (with humans entering wearing breathing apparatus. However in a highly automated farming system humans wouldn't necessarily need to enter that often. The main issue would be heat loss, I guess, and perhaps dome cleaning.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#326 2017-05-23 18:58:54

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#327 2017-05-24 18:03:18

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#328 2017-05-25 08:41:57

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#329 2017-05-25 18:59:47

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#330 2017-05-25 19:09:07

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#331 2017-05-25 19:11:36

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#332 2017-05-25 21:51:30

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#333 2017-05-25 22:16:46

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#334 2017-05-26 02:29:54

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#335 2017-05-26 16:39:59

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#336 2017-05-28 10:50:15

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#337 2017-05-28 18:43:35

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#338 2017-05-29 00:50:31

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#339 2017-05-29 03:43:55

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#340 2017-05-29 13:00:57

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#341 2017-05-31 17:59:55

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#342 2017-05-31 18:32:02

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#343 2017-06-22 20:13:11

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#344 2017-07-29 07:25:39

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#345 2017-07-29 09:54:31

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#346 2017-07-29 11:00:14

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#347 2017-07-29 15:26:23

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#348 2017-07-29 21:25:40

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#349 2017-07-29 21:58:43

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

#350 2017-07-30 04:56:04

Re: Air. Shelter. Water. Food.

Board footer