Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

SpaceNut · 2021-09-22 19:23:53

The cruise stage is the mass issue for all rockets delivering a probe or lander to mars.
Thats the portion from the bottom of the payload image to that while collar just before the shell.

Edit

you can not stack back shells since the cruise stage that is attached contains the solar panels that sends power into the rovers computer that fly's the craft to mars. There is no way to stack just back shells as that would require a permanent means to hold them in place for the long trip to mars and have the extra power harness for each rover to keep powered up and charging for the duration of the trip from earth orbit to mars.

What you saw in the payload shroud was the earth departure stage along with the cruise and rovers back shell. So no 12 crafts in a single launch even with a Falcon Heavy.

tahanson43206 · 2021-09-23 09:27:01

For SpaceNut ....

First, thanks for the images you found and sent to the Lander Team!

They clearly show the Delta II fairing, with detail of the rover and all the support hardware needed to set it safely on Mars.

The Falcon 9 fairing is of a greater diameter, and the fairing length would (probably) be greater as well.

However, the point I wanted to introduce here is that your reminder about the rocket stage needed to perform the injection burn for the flight to Mars can be sized to push more than one rover on it's way. SpaceX is now routinely delivering dozens of communications satellites to LEO using a single first stage and a single second stage.

We can (it seems to me) be fairly confident that SpaceX can launch ** one ** of Dr. Johnson's probe packages. What is not yet clear is how many such packages can be launched simultaneously on a single rocket. We should start with the assumption all 12 can be packed into a single bus for delivery to the Mars transfer orbit, and then accept a reduction in the number if necessary.

The capability of a Falcon Heavy would (of course) be greater than that of a Falcon 9.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2021-09-23 15:27:46

I found out where the CanaDrill technology and two leading figures went, sometime around 2010. Both Jim Richard and Dale Boucher are now at Deltion Innovations, Ltd, in Canada. The Canadrill technology has undergone further evolution under the name Destin drill, as an intended lunar drill, capable to 1 m. The most current version is Destin TRL6, meaning they (or somebody) considers it to be "technology readiness level 6". I have the contact data for both men.

While I'd like to see a deeper drilling capability for Mars, it is gratifying to see that the technology is not dead. I will try to contact one or both men about some version for Mars that might go deeper.

It has taken me some days of searching to locate this information. And I sort of just stumbled onto it.

GW

PS - there is no longer a tractor tower to worry about when trying to put multiple probes into a payload shroud. There is only the deliverable throw weight onto a Mars-bound trajectory to worry about. The MER probe design includes the transit stage.

SpaceNut · 2021-09-23 17:37:06

gave name and more in post 183 and 97, 98 and 99 for this exact details.

https://deltion.ca/mining-in_space/

DESTIN
1 m lunar drill, contiguous sample
A suite of tools for augering, sample collection in consolidated and unconsolidated material
Sample transfer receptacle for parsing sample
Optional substrate differentiation package
No consumables, autonomous, tele-operable
Deployments: NASA RESOLVE Analogue Mission 2012
Mass: 42kg
Volume: 2.1m x 0.05m x 0.6m
Power: <150Watt DC nominal
Operations: 15-degree slope
Temperature: -20C to +40C (operations); -40C to +50C (storage)

DESTIN TRL6
1 m lunar drill
Advancement of DESTIN drill head to TRL6
Auger with bit temperature sensor, consolidated and unconsolidated material capture
Successfully drilled and captured sample in NASA Glenn dirty thermal vacuum chamber (LN2, 10-6 Torr).
Drilling medium: 2% and 5% frozen moisture CHENOBI (TM) simulant.
Mass: <20kg
Power: <60Watt average
Temperature: operations at 100K
Volatile retention: in core samples

kbd512 · 2021-09-23 20:11:02

Some more tidbits on Canadian off-world drilling rig development work:

Lunar ISRU CSA Perspective & Status - Lunar ISRU Workshop 2019 - Columbia Maryland - July 15th-17th 2019 - Martin Picard - Space Exploration Canadian Space Agency (CSA)

tahanson43206 · 2021-09-24 15:25:15

For RobertDyck re Canadian participation in this undertaking....

You've reported upon your observation of Canadian politics in the past, and indeed, quite recently.

My recollection (from impressions picked up over time) is that you are not close to the folks who are holding the reins at the moment.

Indeed, I get the impression your history of political activity might be a source of discomfort to some folks who are attempting to manage a Nation as complex as Canada.

Never-the-less, you ** may ** have the ear of someone on the political scene who can trigger an avalanche of interest in support of the GW Johnson lander venture. At present, and until he tells us otherwise, I am under the impression GW Johnson is seeking opportunities to talk directly to folks in Canada who've been working the "celestial drill" problem for decades. It would be a ** very nice ** addition to that initiative to find a politician who would see an advantage to leading Canada toward participation in the September 2022 Mars Landing Pad initiative.

I estimate the cost of a single Falcon Heavy (loaded with landers) at $300MM(US).

Canada could afford that investment easily enough, especially if the (hypothetical) politician can persuade the population this is a "good idea".

You could (theoretically) make this happen, if your words were to reach the right person.

If you decide to pursue this, best wishes for success!

Update at 19:19 local time ...

We have more than one active member who reports being from/in Canada.

We have at least one active member who reports living in Italy. Italy could certainly afford $300MM(US) for a Falcon Heavy to visit one of 12 sites.

We have at least one active member who reports living in Spain. Spain could certainly afford $300MM(US) for a Falcon Heavy to visit one of 12 sites.

We have at least one active member who reports living in Germany. Germany could certainly afford $300MM(US) for a Falcon Heavy to visit one of 12 sites.

We have at least one active member who reports living in the Netherlands. The Netherlands could certainly afford $300MM(US) for a Falcon Heavy to visit one of 12 sites.

We have at least one active member who reports living in Northern England. Northern England could certainly afford $300MM(US) for a Falcon Heavy to visit one of 12 sites.

We have at least one active member who reports living in Southern England. Southern England could certainly afford $300MM(US) for a Falcon Heavy to visit one of 12 sites.

We have at least one active member who reports living in Texas. Texas could certainly afford $300MM(US) for a Falcon Heavy to visit one of 12 sites.

If there is someone who would like to be represented in this list, please let us know.

SearchTerm:Landing probe sponsor opportunites

(th)

GW Johnson · 2021-09-25 12:41:54

The letter to Elon Musk at SpaceX headquarters in California was mailed Saturday, and likely arrived in SpaceX's mailbox Wednesday or Thursday. It seems probable that Musk might see it sometime this coming week, if at all (he may have someone go through his mail for him). That letter offers the rotating tank idea for his tanker ullage problem. But, it also mentions that we have a concept proposal for the engineering lander intended for the crewed landing sites. Whether Musk will return the contact, who knows?

Meanwhile, for the engineering lander concept proposal, I have reached out by email to Mr. Richard and Mr. Boucher at Deltion. My guess is that they will not see that contact until Monday, since I sent it to them at their workplace email at Deltion. Whether they respond, who also knows? But I think one of them might. If he does, our concept proposal will be that much stronger.

Meanwhile, does anyone have any experience at searching US patent files for prior art? The question at hand is whether the rotating-tank centrifugal-force idea for propellant ullage has already been invented. I can just barely cope with email, exrocketman, and these forum postings.

Being old often sucks.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2021-09-25 12:44:44)

SpaceNut · 2021-09-25 18:16:41

Well that would be a call for an EEO complaint against those that would say it as you are far from it...

I do hope that the letter does garner some interest as we know that its needed just as much as the science is.

Geological surveys are a must for the 167 crew to mars to be successful if we use a starship.

First, from a safety standpoint of the landing site able to support that landing mass.

Second, from the stand point of water to make the mT's of fuel plus more for the crews needs.

To critique the lunar rover for Mars use its a fail for several reasons.
One, temperature for mars nights, solar not as intense or of simular duration, soil are way different for mobility

SpaceNut · 2021-09-26 18:43:02

The next 2 launch landing periods.

http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/EMa.htm
Leave    Month Day    YearArrive Month Day Year
2022.6033 8 7 2022    2023.3120    4    22    2023
2024.7387 9 26 2024    2025.4474    6    11    2025

A MARS MISSION STILL IN THE WINGS LOOKING FOR A RIDE SHARE
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecr … d=ESCAPADE
https://blogs.nasa.gov/escapade/2021/08 … rd-launch/

tahanson43206 · 2021-09-26 19:07:30

For SpaceNut re #209

Thanks for the link to clowder.net ... The author says the dates are approximations.

Earlier in this topic, someone published a set of dates in 2022 that are a bit later than August, but definitely in that time frame.

Your link to the ESCAPADE page is a reminder that (big if) IF we (Dr. Johnson to be exact) wins a GO offer from a funder, then there would be an opportunity to be generous to others who are competing for scarce launch opportunities.

The Big Enchilada would be a full Falcon Heavy, and there should be a ** lot ** of opportunity for generosity with funding on that scale.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-09-26 20:34:08

Falcon heavy does have limitations for going to mars
https://macroinvent.com/wp-content/uplo … ersion.pdf
Currently the upper limit of mass to LEO is 63mT of which Earth to Mars is 25 percent of the LEO mass (one way).

Much like starship we need a refueling concept to get more mass to mars using the Falcon heavy vehicle.
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/F9Prop.Depot.pdf

The Roadster is all that has been sent so far with a Falcon Heavy thus far

tahanson43206 · 2021-09-27 10:25:20

For SpaceNut re #211

Thanks for doing the research you showed us in this post!

I am unsure of why you think more mass capability is needed from Falcon Heavy.

GW Johnson posted figures for Falcon Heavy Mars throw earlier in this topic.

The Roadster was a "dummy" payload with tremendous social impact and therefore company marketing value.

The Roadster can be understood as a minimum throw of which the Falcon Heavy is capable without modification

Please see if your resources allow you to be more precise in your discovery of the maximum mass that Falcon Heavy can throw to Mars.

GW Johnson is estimating that a Falcon 9 can throw 3 or 4 landers, and a Falcon Heavy can throw up to 12 landers.

If you can discover more precise numbers for both launchers that would certainly be helpful for those who have to try to design the Mars stage for either vehicle.

While refueling is going to be important for Starship ventures, it is not needed for Falcon 9 or for Falcon Heavy.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2021-09-27 14:22:46

TH: I might add the name DESTIN to the other drill names mentioned in the proposal. Do we have a copy of Robert Dyck's resume? Still had not heard from anyone by email at noon today (Mon). I figure we have to the end of the week to have the final concept proposal ready. -- GW

Spacenut: direct from the SpaceX website. Falcon-Heavy flown non-recoverably has max payload to LEO 63.8 metric tons, GTO 26.7 metric tons, and Mars 16.8 metric tons. Flown similarly non-recoverably, Falcon-9 lists as 22.8 m.ton to LEO, GTO 8.3 m.tons, and Mars 4.02 m. tons. -- GW

tahanson43206 · 2021-09-27 14:45:15

For GW Johnson re #213

Thanks for the reminder that I've not yet written my resume. The one from years ago was for employment in IT, and it has little to do with the current time.

I'll double check the files at NewMarsMember tomorrow morning. I can't remember if Robert sent a resume. I do recall that kbd512 and SpaceNut sent theirs.

A worse case scenario is to simply omit the names who do not sent in resumes, if you get a request.

On the other hand, we both may come through in the next few days.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-09-27 17:58:01

https://www.spacex.com/vehicles/falcon-heavy/

Velocty Payload C3=~10 km2/s2 (Trans-Mars)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/mission/launch_stage2.html

Stage II is restartable, and fires twice. The first burn occurs during the final portion of the boost phase and is used to insert the second and third stage spacecraft stack into a low Earth orbit. The second stage is programmed to shut itself off once the rocket and spacecraft are in orbit around Earth.
Prior to the third stage firing, the spacecraft is only going about 19,500 mph and it is stuck orbiting Earth. The motor firing boosts the speed to roughly 25,000 mph (escape velocity) and frees the spacecraft to escape from Earth orbit.

https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/mission/launch_stage3.html

To reach escape velocity, the solid rocket motor burned for about 90-seconds for both Rover A and Rover B, using approximately 2,020 kilograms (4,453 pounds) of solid propellant that is composed primarily of ammonium perchlorate and aluminum. This propellant produces an average of 66,000 Newtons* thrust.

third stage 2,020 kilograms (4,453 pounds) of solid propellant
Allocated Mass in kg (lbs) Cumulative Mass in kg (lbs)
Rover 185 kg (408 lbs) 185 kg (408 lbs)
Lander 348 kg (767 lbs) 533 kg (1,175 lbs)
Backshell / Parachute 209 kg (742 lbs) 742 kg (1,636 lbs)
Heat Shield 78 kg (172 lbs) 820 kg (1,808 lbs)
Cruise Stage 193 kg (425 lbs) 1,013 kg (2,233 lbs)
Propellant 50 kg (110 lbs) 1,063 kg (2,343 lbs)

payload to mars 2,020 kilograms (4,453 pounds) of solid propellant + 1,063 kg (2,343 lbs) = 3,038 kg (6,796 lbs) but with starting velocity 19,500 mph

GW Johnson · 2021-09-28 12:09:20

Spacenut:

If I understand correctly, the third stage motor is a solid, that takes it from an orbit about the Earth onto the Mars transit trajectory. That departure speed with respect to Earth is a bit faster than just Earth escape. That's why these sources talk about ~2000 kg of solid propellant. I don't remember anymore whether MER went by Hohmann min energy or something a bit faster (around 6 months one-way).

But the burnout speed with respect to the sun has to be pretty close to the perihelion velocity of the transfer orbit. It has to be more-or-less tangential to Earth's orbit in the posigrade direction, too. That perhelion velocity with respect to the sun is a couple of km/s higher than Earth's orbital velocity about the sun. It takes a pretty good size motor to effect "trans-Mars-injection", from almost any practical orbit about the Earth.

The cruise stage has 50 kg of storable propellants in it. They used some of that for a midcourse correction to have it arrive "just right" to make a free entry off the interplanetary trajectory and still hit the target. Midcourses are very small delta-vees, fine adjustments as it were.
I'm guessing that there might have been in that 50 kg budget enough propellant for more than one mid-course burn to further "fine tune" the targeting at Mars.

If we need more for higher precision targeting, then we need more. You just make the tanks on the cruise stage a bit bigger. And there is not a reason in the world why we cannot use min energy Hohmann as the transfer orbit. 8.5 months? Unmanned. Who cares?

We no longer need to fit the Delta Heavy they used back then. We don't have to fit Atlas-5, either. There's more room and more throw weight with Falcon Heavy (or Falcon-9). But we might need a custom payload shroud to package a dozen such on a Falcon-Heavy. Not bigger diameter, just longer.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2021-09-28 12:19:20)

tahanson43206 · 2021-09-30 17:52:38

For GW Johnson....

RobertDyck won the race to deliver his resume before me ... I'm deal last!

However, I ** found ** my resume from 2006 (last time I needed it), and have notes for the volunteer work I've done, so expect to put something together this weekend.

(th)

GW Johnson · 2021-10-02 12:58:39

Sounds like a good plan to me.

I am assuming you have Robert's resume.

GW

tahanson43206 · 2021-10-03 17:10:59

For GW Johnson re #218

I don't need a copy of RobertDyck's resume.

It is sufficient you have it ready for when you need it.

I'm still working on mine.

****
For you regarding your current lander plan...

SpaceNut has raised an issue that I find surprising, but reasonable.

SpaceNut used the example of uncertainty in drilling for water in New Hampshire (or anywhere in must US States) as a reason to question your assumption that a single drill operation at a landing site might give an accurate picture of the amount of water available under a given proposed landing site.

Please explain why (or why not) a single drill operation at a prospective site would be (or not) sufficient to confirm there is enough water present to refuel a Starship.

Related (and you may need to ask for help from your friends in other disciplines) ... is there a way to measure the amount of water present in a volume of Earth, if you generate a signal (?RF ? Audio) at 10 meters depth?

In other words, taking SpaceNut's question as a starting point, is there a way to prove a landing site has enough water to refuel a Starship without drilling multiple holes?

We know that orbiting sensors can show the presence of water to some depth below the regolith.

What (I gather) is unclear is how much recoverable water is actually present?

Is there a technology that we don't know about that could stimulate all the water in a volume of Regolith around the drill to emit radiation showing it's abundance?

Water is known to respond to a very precise microwave frequency by "jiggling" in "time" with the waves of RF, so that the water becomes hotter and hotter.

Perhaps a transmission of that frequency from the tip of one of your drills could help to measure water in the regolith without having to drill more holes.

Tip of the Hat to SpaceNut, for asking the question in the first place.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-10-03 17:25:26

If we had to live with it topic of the depth of just 1 ft having the 1 liter of water topic just to see where we stand for being able to sustain an oldfart1939 mission. Of which the task for it its to get deep well information.

SpaceNut · 2021-10-07 17:55:46

SpaceNut wrote:

TH,
A 10 meter drill does not fit into a 5m back shell which is what was used for the MER's.
1 meter is the other drill for the moon.
The esa drill is different in that the center is a pivot point that reduces the through into the ground post 185 in scouting topic has a drilling depth of 1.7 m and 2 meters sideways
This is computing what we know to be true to prove a minimum of what is required. It would be good to see higher levels of depth with the GW work but those are still years away and we can figure this out now. Doing this proves we could go now not wait for the larger vehicle if we send the equipment to the site first and especially if its automated. It also proves the value of doing GW's mission so as to make it easier for the larger vehicle.
Louis we have no ground proof of any thick Ice...

SpaceNut · 2021-10-07 17:56:35

RobertDyck wrote:

SpaceNut,
I attended the 4th Canadian Space Exploration Workshop at headquarter of the Canadian Space Agency. When was that... 2004? NORCAT had a prototype of their drill on display. It was a multi-segment drill. You know how an oil well has multiple segments for the drill string? Each new section of pipe is screwed into the last. The NORCAT drill does the same thing, but smaller. The NORCAT drill uses an electric motor, and the drill bit is dry, meaning no lubricant required. That makes it applicable for Mars or the Moon. The drill string proposed for Mars would have 10 segments, each 1 metre long. That allows it to fit within an aeroshell for landing. You might think that allows it to drill 10 metres deep, but a portion of the last segment must remain above the surface for the rover to hold and the motor to turn. So expect maximum drill depth 9.5 metres. Later designs increased to 20 segments, so it could drill 19.5 metre depth. And yes, that still means the segments fit within a 1 metre diameter aeroshell. Well, maybe a little more. The proposal in 2004 was for a rover the size of Spirit or Opportunity (MER's), not a big rover like Curiosity.

SpaceNut · 2021-10-07 17:57:43

tahanson43206 wrote:

For RobertDyck re #17
Thanks for repeating your post about the 2004 NORCAT meeting, and for adding new detail about the demonstration you saw.
SearchTerm:Drill Canadian design for Mars or Moon
(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-10-07 18:03:20

Thanks for the information but thats unlike what is still being worked on in the last image in post 204 which does not appear to be segmented at all.

Any vehicle or lander will need a sample drill with a shaft extender to be able to increase the depth but in addition you need the ability to raise the motor assembly so that you are not playing with the mechanism that holds the shaft. Of course with each sample we will remove the drill sample piece to have that sample removed and tested with a new extender piece plus new drill added to that overall length. Which again means rising the height of the unit so as to be able to re-drill in the same hole.

kbd512 · 2021-10-07 20:53:44

GW,

GW Johnson wrote:

Meanwhile, does anyone have any experience at searching US patent files for prior art? The question at hand is whether the rotating-tank centrifugal-force idea for propellant ullage has already been invented. I can just barely cope with email, exrocketman, and these forum postings.

I'll keep searching, but this was rather interesting:

A Detailed Historical Review of Propellant Management Devices for Low Gravity Propellant Acquisition

It seems that Jason William Hartwig (guy who published the paper in the link above, has been a very busy boy- 837 page Bible of cryogenic fluid management in low gravity- give it time to load):

LIQUID ACQUISITION DEVICES FOR ADVANCED IN-SPACE CRYOGENIC PROPULSION SYSTEMS

Also, read the links from this page:
https://patents.google.com/scholar/10640897181136651319

As far as prior art is concerned (this is from ESA):

EP 0 476 720 A2 - Passive propellant management system

As far as the measurement apparatus to determine how much propellant is actually in the tank and how much to load, I think ULA has already determined how to do that:

Numerical Modeling of Pressurization of Cryogenic Propellant Tank for Integrated Vehicle Fluid System

Last edited by kbd512 (2021-10-07 21:13:02)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2021-09-22 19:23:53

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#202 2021-09-23 09:27:01

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#203 2021-09-23 15:27:46

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#204 2021-09-23 17:37:06

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#205 2021-09-23 20:11:02

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#206 2021-09-24 15:25:15

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#207 2021-09-25 12:41:54

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#208 2021-09-25 18:16:41

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#209 2021-09-26 18:43:02

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#210 2021-09-26 19:07:30

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#211 2021-09-26 20:34:08

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#212 2021-09-27 10:25:20

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#213 2021-09-27 14:22:46

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#214 2021-09-27 14:45:15

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#215 2021-09-27 17:58:01

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#216 2021-09-28 12:09:20

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#217 2021-09-30 17:52:38

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#218 2021-10-02 12:58:39

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#219 2021-10-03 17:10:59

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#220 2021-10-03 17:25:26

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#221 2021-10-07 17:55:46

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#222 2021-10-07 17:56:35

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#223 2021-10-07 17:57:43

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#224 2021-10-07 18:03:20

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

#225 2021-10-07 20:53:44

Re: Scouting Mars for Landing Sites

Board footer