EVA Rover Use Contamination Risk Mitigation

louis · 2020-01-10 14:48:33

Some say it was a pyramid (ponzi) scheme! It certainly came to an abrupt halt.

I noticed they seemed to have dipped into this site, because some of the suggested approaches to settlement were very familiar, I think.

I never liked their "ten tin cans in a row". For one thing it could result in a complete disaster if you had a fire or explosion in one, causing damage to the next one and so on. It's much better to have separate habs accessed via pressurised rovers entering air locks.

SpaceNut wrote:

Mars One was an attempt to build on a sort of exisitng capsule capability that when grouped would comprise a one way mission of hearty souls.
sending 6 units
https://www.mars-one.com/images/tabs/_t … lander.jpg
with finally human crew of four in 2024
https://www.mars-one.com/images/tabs/_t … ap2011.jpg

SpaceNut · 2020-01-10 17:32:10

More power, air lose and risk of contaimination to living areas. There are also other issues. The ISS is by and far larger than the tin cans in a row and its got sensors and system to monitor plus prevent disasters for each segment of the entire unit. The segments are with closure hatches such as to be able to isolate a module and that still is possible with the tin can design.

louis · 2020-01-10 18:16:43

No risk of contamination if you have a double air lock system, so the rover enters the first air lock and connects to a second. The passengers crawl directly into the second air lock. Therefore you have no Mars dust contamination. In the unusual event of an EVA, there would be a shower facility within the second air lock for people to wash down.

Yes, the rover-hab system will require a little more power (not a lot) but it allows for safe operation. It's not just fire and explosion - it's things like possibly fungal contamination from agricultural habs, or poisonous gas leakage from industrial habs.

SpaceNut wrote:

More power, air lose and risk of contaimination to living areas. There are also other issues. The ISS is by and far larger than the tin cans in a row and its got sensors and system to monitor plus prevent disasters for each segment of the entire unit. The segments are with closure hatches such as to be able to isolate a module and that still is possible with the tin can design.

SpaceNut · 2020-01-10 18:24:40

Sort of like the airports to plane terminal gantry that unfolds and rolls out to the parked vehicle inside a room designed to clean things in. That would be fine for if we did not do any eva's from the rover to get out and do real science as we did on the moon as the suits will track in the contaminant to which we do not need more complexity and mass on.
As for fungus, bacteria or other harmful gasses we can detect for the gasses as we do other air born problems in closed up spaces. That is equipment that you would want anyways to prevent health issues from occuring.

louis · 2020-01-10 19:04:42

I think the need for EVAs in reality will be very limited. Maybe hands on geological investigations will be an example where people might need to get out and about...otherwise I really don't see the need, except for PR purposes. I imagine we would have specialist rovers for EVAs with their own airlock with brush down and shower system, to reduce contamination.

I would still maintain separate habs is an inherently safer system.

SpaceNut wrote:

Sort of like the airports to plane terminal gantry that unfolds and rolls out to the parked vehicle inside a room designed to clean things in. That would be fine for if we did not do any eva's from the rover to get out and do real science as we did on the moon as the suits will track in the contaminant to which we do not need more complexity and mass on.
As for fungus, bacteria or other harmful gasses we can detect for the gasses as we do other air born problems in closed up spaces. That is equipment that you would want anyways to prevent health issues from occuring.

With a Space X Mission One, you have 500 tons to play with. You might be looking at 150 tons for your energy system, maybe 50 tons for your methane manufacturing unit. Rovers, mining equipment, 3D printers and other "industrial" equipment might take another 50 tons.

SpaceNut · 2020-01-10 19:26:35

The brute force solution of multiple landings of starship to do what can not be done in the first 100 mT is not a solution its what nasa had trouble with in Battlestar galatica mission designs.

Each needing multiple lanchers to refill the ship is also an issue for going to mars. It just does not work for one let alone the sheer number of them to make the 5 go to mars. Then you have the power to refueling needs to be able to come home, the quantity of fuel to even get 1 ship home. Its not simple.

The 5 ship mission also has never had a starship ever land on mars and sending them all at once is not something that any mission will be designed around. As you could not risk losing even one for any reason planning it that way.

Every watt for a power source or sources, mass gram to metric ton of deliverables to mars matters for survival.
So whats the mass of the safe entrance garage?
Whats the mass and energy needs to make the garage port?
What is the total add ons for a safe habitat to rover connection egress unit?
What is the EVA mass and portable energy needs for operation for the rover for clean entrance system?

For a construction or foundary module its only going to a contaminant while in operation, so we close the connecting hatch and give safe haven with in the module for if a mishap occurs. So when the shift is done the equipment is turned of and the atmosphere is check to validate it before opening the connecting hatch.

SpaceNut · 2020-01-11 22:29:43

This is one way to do this...

Mars Surface Tunnel Element Concept

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi … 019637.pdf

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2020-01-10 14:48:33

EVA Rover Use Contamination Risk Mitigation

#2 2020-01-10 17:32:10

Re: EVA Rover Use Contamination Risk Mitigation

#3 2020-01-10 18:16:43

Re: EVA Rover Use Contamination Risk Mitigation

#4 2020-01-10 18:24:40

Re: EVA Rover Use Contamination Risk Mitigation

#5 2020-01-10 19:04:42

Re: EVA Rover Use Contamination Risk Mitigation

#6 2020-01-10 19:26:35

Re: EVA Rover Use Contamination Risk Mitigation

#7 2020-01-11 22:29:43

Re: EVA Rover Use Contamination Risk Mitigation

Board footer