Interior Layout of the habitat

Mark S · 2002-08-13 15:48:53

I have seen sketches of the upper floor of the habitat lander in Mars Direct, the ones that depict four bedrooms, an exercise room, and a galley. However, drawings of thehab's lower floor, including the stowage of the rovers, have been harder to come by. Has anyone seen these drawings, and if so, where can I find them?

I was also wondering about the cockpit of the lander where the crew would stay during launch and landing. But this question was answered by the MS website, which announced that the Euro Mars hab features a cockpit/communications room inside the solar flare shelter.

Phobos · 2002-08-14 21:56:48

You might check out this site. It's an interactive type thing where you just click around the hab to see various aspects of it.

Palomar · 2002-08-15 11:25:12

You might check out this site. It's an interactive type thing where you just click around the hab to see various aspects of it.

*Thanks Phobos. There's not much room in there, huh?

The upper level isn't quite what was illustrated in _The Case for Mars_. I'm interested in DIMENSIONS...how big -- per square feet -- is each bedroom, for instance?

I wish the best of luck to the first astronauts to Mars...but I have to admit feeling claustrophic just looking at the graphs, myself. ???

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-15 12:11:30

Goddamn, that thing is claustrophobic. No relations will be happening there, I can tell ya. I saw some videos of the inside of that hab (I just checked, they are no longer available), and it does look quite small. You can barely move around in there.

Now, I don't really see this as a big problem. I just wonder if it's functional at that size. This seems to be a model, not an actual functional, design. How hard would it be for them to build an actual working model? They could always claim that they are ?halfway there? and simply ?use? the model (with slight modifications) in Mars Direct.

Anyway, it would be quite an interesting thing to behold. Put some cameras in there, and you have yourself a Mars Reality show.

Palomar · 2002-08-15 12:43:15

Goddamn, that thing is claustrophobic. No relations will be happening there, I can tell ya.

*LOL! No kidding! Any sort of energetic love-making activity would knock that little tuna can out of its flight path!

And I'm also wondering if the one going to Mars won't be larger/more spacious than this one. I sure hope so!

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-08-15 20:18:12

According to Zubrin, the hab would have about 1100 square feet of free space. It's not exactly the Taj Mahal, but it should have plenty of elbow room.

Palomar · 2002-08-17 09:22:58

According to Zubrin, the hab would have about 1100 square feet of free space. It's not exactly the Taj Mahal, but it should have plenty of elbow room.

*If they made the hab larger -- say 1500 square feet -- but planned for the same amount of furniture, equipment, supplies, etc., how much of a weight difference would the added square footage create? Would the increased size effect mass and launch considerations?

I'm thinking they need at least 1500 square feet in the hab. Any extra elbow-room would be great. And couldn't they make it 3 levels, instead of 2? So long as they keep within a certain WEIGHT for the whole thing, would an additional 500 feet be a problem?

I'm thinking a 3rd level would be great as a "rumpus room," with extra windows perhaps for better viewing of the landscape...just a little extra "getaway" area for the crew, if such a luxury can be granted.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-08-18 14:18:46

*If they made the hab larger -- say 1500 square feet -- but planned for the same amount of furniture, equipment, supplies, etc., how much of a weight difference would the added square footage create? Would the increased size effect mass and launch considerations?

If you wanted to add a third floor you'd probably have to do additional construction in orbit as I doubt it would fit in the payload of any existing launcher. Doing two rocket launches to lift the components into orbit and then assembling them there would add significantly to the cost of the mission. And also adding the third floor would mean bringing along more fuel and maybe a bigger aerobrake for the landing on Mars which would add even more mass in itself. Mark S could prolly tackle this one. I think I'll go to astronautics and see what the maximum payload areas of our largest existing rockets are to get some idea. Anyhow if I remember right, they were going to launch a second hab module before the astronauts even left Earth as a backup. I don't see why they couldn't use both habs to effectively double their living space.

Palomar · 2002-08-18 18:23:14

*If they made the hab larger -- say 1500 square feet -- but planned for the same amount of furniture, equipment, supplies, etc., how much of a weight difference would the added square footage create? Would the increased size effect mass and launch considerations?
If you wanted to add a third floor you'd probably have to do additional construction in orbit as I doubt it would fit in the payload of any existing launcher. Doing two rocket launches to lift the components into orbit and then assembling them there would add significantly to the cost of the mission. And also adding the third floor would mean bringing along more fuel and maybe a bigger aerobrake for the landing on Mars which would add even more mass in itself. Mark S could prolly tackle this one. I think I'll go to astronautics and see what the maximum payload areas of our largest existing rockets are to get some idea. Anyhow if I remember right, they were going to launch a second hab module before the astronauts even left Earth as a backup. I don't see why they couldn't use both habs to effectively double their living space.

*I just now read the following from http://www.space.com/news/mars_society_020613.html, regarding the new TRIPLE-decker hab:

"Now on temporary display until early September at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, Illinois, Euro-Mars is outfitted with three decks for living and working space. That?s an extra deck contrasted to the earlier stations. Crew comfort and noise reduction is maximized in the new triple-decker habitat, Maxwell said."

*Good!

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-08-19 17:38:48

*I just now read the following from http://www.space.com/news/mars_society_020613.html, regarding the new TRIPLE-decker hab:
"Now on temporary display until early September at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, Illinois, Euro-Mars is outfitted with three decks for living and working space. That?s an extra deck contrasted to the earlier stations. Crew comfort and noise reduction is maximized in the new triple-decker habitat, Maxwell said."
*Good!

I guess three decks are possible. I hope they didn't just shrink the hab and split the same amount of area over three decks instead of two. They prolly didn't though, that'd be kinda pointless.

Mark S · 2002-08-20 13:58:33

The mass of the hab could be as great as 130 tonnes, assuming that the launcher is the Saturn V or equivalent. However, you couldn't get the hab out of earth orbit because you've wasted all your fuel putting it in orbit.

Zubrin estimates that 47 tonnes could be sent to Mars with Ares. I think that's a bit optimistic because the original specs called for the never-built Advanced Solid Rocket Motor. But, assuming that number's correct, and the hab weighs around 35 tonnes, you can afford to grow by 12 tonnes. Some of that mass would have to be aerobrake and heat shield, but you could still get more volume out of it, particularly if inflatables are used. In NASA's missions, an inflatable habitat is docked to the lander shortly after touchdown on Mars.

I wouldn't rule out relations in the hab. If it's possible in the backseat of a Camaro, the hab should be no problem

RobertDyck · 2002-08-20 22:01:45

You can see an image of the upper floor of the hab that was sketched for Mars Direct here. I have never seen published a drawing for the lower floor. One criticism I have of the FMARS and MDRS designs is that they don't have any rover storage, storage for the greenhouse structure, landing rocket or propellant tanks. I feel the analogue is not accurate.

As for launch weight, the Russian Energia with the EUS Energia Upper Stage could launch roughly 29.3 metric tonnes directly into trans-Mars trajectory (C3=15). This launch vehicle could be reactivated relatively cheaply (I'm the guy who called the Russians to ask), but there is a couple catches. The EUS is only 5.7 meters in diameter, and it accomodates a lower mass than Zubrin's design. TransHAB was designed to fit in the Space Shuttle then inflate to its full 8 meter diameter. The cargo bay can accomodate a payload 15 feet (4.53 meters) diameter so TransHAB had to be that small when deflated.

You could use a single story TransHAB style design. The laboratory could be separate; if only inflated once on Mars you wouldn't need micrometeor protection since Mars has an atmosphere. That would make the laboratory lighter. TransHAB was 3 stories and 25 tonnes. Reducing to 1 story would reduce mass, but to fit the navigation and landing rockets, propellant tanks, heat shield, parachute, landing legs, and life support for 2 years, you would have to eliminate the rover. You could send the pressurized rover on a separate launch.

Robert Zubrin suggested assembling the hab with pressurized rover and TMI rocket stage in Low Earth Orbit using 2 Energia launches, then proceeding on to Mars. Doing so would still have the constraint of the 5.7 meter diameter EUS. Circularizing the orbit in LEO then proceeding on to Mars would give you less total mass than direct launch to Mars, but the spacecraft has everything together when you leave Earth.

Robert Dyck

Bill White · 2002-08-20 22:39:03

This launch vehicle could be reactivated relatively cheaply (I'm the guy who called the Russians to ask), but there is a couple catches.

Robert - welcome - I have been reading your MSTechnology posts for years. Great stuff.

Anyway, what do you estimate the cost of each Energia launch would be if someone proposed to buy say 4 launches?

Best guess - off the record. . .

RobertDyck · 2002-08-21 00:09:44

I asked the director of the international division of the Rocket Space Corporation Energia. He said the Energia rocket is available to anyone willing to pay the price to restore "certain elements of infrastructure" plus a per-launch cost, but he didn't say what that would be. In 1995 NASA asked what it would cost. At that time the cost was between $60 and $100 million US dollars to restore infrastructure, plus $120 million per launch. Inflation would increase that. On May 12 of this year the Kazakh's working on the roof of the vehicle assembly building caused the roof to collapse. We would have to add rebuilding the roof and repairing the vehicle assembly building to the "cost to restore infrastructure".

At least this is lower than the Stanford estimate that Robert Zubrin quoted in his book.

RobertDyck · 2002-08-22 04:36:49

Another alternative modification of the mission plan is to send the laboratory, greenhouse, and garage tent on a separate unmanned launch with the rover. That would reduce mass of the manned mission.

Any unmanned mission could start in LEO and use electric propulsion to slowly spiral away from Earth and use a least fuel (rather than least energy) flight path to Mars. That may mean 2 years to Mars rather than 6 months, but an unmanned flight could afford it. Electric propulsion (ion engine or hall thruster) has much greater fuel efficiency so it can deliver greater mass. Perhaps we should minimized the mass on the manned flight.

This would break Mars Direct into 3 launches: Earth Return Vehicle, base supplies, and manned habitat. Breaking it into 3 would suit the capabilities of Energia. The manned flight would use the EUS as the TMI stage, so that is off the shelf technology.

Is it just me or does this sound like something we could do by 2010 and within NASA's current budget? If the US congress doesn't want to pay for restoration of Russian infrastructure, then make it an international project and have Russia, Japan, and Europe pay for Energia. Australia can develop the spacesuit, and Canada can pay for specialty equipment. What does that leave the US to pay for? The habitat, ERV, and use of the Deep Space Network.

RobS · 2002-08-22 10:15:58

Robert, using an Energia and solar-electric propulsion, how much weight can we throw to Mars? Have you any way of estimating that? It may very well make sense to use solar electric propulsion to send the ERV to Mars, and solar-electric could be used to send the hab out of low earth orbit into an elliptical orbit. Then the astronauts could be delivered in some sort of space tug (something not yet developed, unfortunately), possibly with some supplies, and then a chemical rocket engine could ignite and send the hab and astronauts on their way.

It seems to me one of the NASA variants on their design mission used a Magnum rocket of about the launch capacity of the Energia and various forms of advanced propulsion. That may give some ideas. I will go look for a plan to send people back to the moon that relied on solar-electric and see what estimates it used.

-- RobS

RobS · 2002-08-22 14:41:37

Actually, now I think I can answer my own question. Zubrin in Mars Direct, page 105, says a solar thermal rocket engine (where mirrors heat hydrogen gas) can deliver 40 to 50 percent more payload than a chemical rocket can. I suspect the 40% figure applies to the hab and the 50% figure to the ERV, because the latter travels to Mars more slowly, so solar-thermal propulsion delivers a larger fraction of the total delta-vee. A 140-tonne to LEO vehicle can send 46.2 tonnes to Mars at the lower delta-vee for the ERV and 40.6 tonnes for the higher-delta vee hab. (Note these figures are more than the 28.6 tonne ERV and the 25.2 tonne hab because they include the aerobrake at Mars arrival, landing fuel, etc.; these weights are not spelled out in the Mars Direct book, unfortunately.) If one adds 40% and 50% to the numbers, one gets 69.3 tonnes for the ERV and 56.8 tonnes for the hab. If one scales straight down to an 80-tonne launcher, that translates into 39.6 tonnes and 32.5 tonnes, respectively.

Clearly, a third launch of an 80-tonne launcher is necessary. Perhaps it could lift the astronauts and 15 tonnes of stuff to the hab and ERV, such as supplies or maybe fuel. The latter would already be in an elliptical orbit around the Earth and from an energy point of view would be most of the way to Mars.

I suspect the numbers above can be improved on, though. Michael Duke et al., in their "A Lunar Reference Strategy" at the Romance to Reality website describe a lunar transportation system whereby a solar electric vehicle carries a lunar-based vehicle and a regolith processing plant to the Lagrange 2 point beyond the moon. The lunar-based vehicle then carries the regolith processing plant to the lunar surface. Duke (private email to me) said the entire complex was meant to fit inside the space shuttle and therefore weighs 24 or 25 tonnes. The lunar based vehicle plus landing fuel weighs 8 tonnes and the regolith processing plant weighs 8 tonnes. Therefore the solar electric vehicle, complete with its hydrogen fuel, also weighed eight tonnes. The delta-vee to the lunar surface from Lagrange 2 is 2.3 kilometers per second, whereas the delta-vee to Mars is 0.6 kilometers per second. The mass ratio to send 16 tonnes to a delta-vee of 0.6 kilometers per second using hydrogen-oxygen chemical propulsion is only 0.14:1; basically, 2 tonnes of fuel can send 14 tonnes of payload on that trajectory. Since we started with 24 or 25 tonnes, that means we have launched 14/25 = 56% of our initial low earth orbit payload to a trans-Mars trajectory. If our initial payload to low earth orbit were 80 tonnes, 56% is 44.8 tonnes. That gets us in the same ballpark as the throw weight of the 140 tonne to low earth orbit chemical rocket. If three 80-tonne launchers were used, you could send a rover and other important extras.

--RobS

RobertDyck · 2002-08-22 17:56:21

The Russian Soyuz spacecraft could be the space tug. Again, I'm in favour of using existing technology. The Soyuz-TM masses 7.25 tonnes, but that includes a 1.3t orbital module. If you flew Soyuz for a short duration mission (such as taxi to the the Mars spacecraft) you could do without the extended lift support; that would reduce it to 6.95t and retain reentry capability in case of emergency. Ariane 5 can lift 6.8 tonnes to geosynchronous transfer orbit (without circularization). ESA is hoping to use Ariane 5 to lift a manned spacecraft to service ISS, so they are at least working on man certifying it.

The Proton 8K82K/11S824F launched Fobos 1 & 2 to Mars. It can send 6.22t into trans-Mars trajectory. It should be able to lift 7.63t to GTO. There was work in the late 1960's to man certify the Proton as a backup for the Moon program. The Proton 8K82K with Block D upper stage would send a Soyuz 7K-L1 spacecraft into a translunar trajectory. That Soyuz was a Soyuz 7K-OK with the oribital module removed and life support added for 1 man for 2 weeks. It was ready for a circumlunar flight on August 1969, too little too late. But this does show the Proton was man certified at one time.

RobS · 2002-08-22 18:54:54

But could you put four crewmembers in a Soyuz? It's designed for three.

-- RobS

RobertDyck · 2002-08-22 19:50:34

That is the catch with a Soyuz. I would suggest a mission with 4 astronauts, but the NASA DRM and Russian mission plans call for 6. In that case, just send 2 Soyuz spacecraft.

Merp · 2002-08-24 00:44:34

Looking over the previous posts, I'm confused. Briefly, what is the mission architecture you are proposing?

If you send a crew of 6 don't all the weight allowances for the Hab go out the door?

RobertDyck · 2002-08-24 04:06:34

I advocate a 4 man crew, but then I also advocate a chemical TMI stage. Slowly spiralling out on solar electric propulsion is fine for unmanned spacecraft that can afford 2 years to get to Mars, such as delivery of the ERV or cargo lander. A manned spacecraft must get to Mars relatively quickly to reduce food and life support mass as well as reduce radiation exposure. This idea of slowly spiralling out and using a tug to carry astronauts just before departure from Earth orbit may avoid extended exposure to Earth's radiation belt, but it still provides a slow transit to Mars.

I mentioned the Soyuz as a space tug simply to avoid the preconception that a Mars mission requires a large array of entirely new equipment. If we ever hope to get to Mars we must stop trying to reinvent the wheel. Accept the fact that a lot of research is finished (eg. human exposure to zero-G, orbital rendezvous) and a lot of equipment is sitting on the shelf (Soyuz, Energia, Proton, Shuttle, ISS, life support). A lot has been completed to the point of a prototype and only requires polishing to produce flight hardware (MCP spacesuit, ISPP).

Palomar · 2002-08-24 08:39:01

*I wish someone would create a computer simulation of what the interior of the hab will look, which can enable people to take "virtual tours" of it.

--Cindy

P.S.: As regards *personal* items, how much will each astronaut be allowed to bring on board in terms of weight?

RobS · 2002-08-26 15:09:48

This morning I was able to walk through the EuroMars hab outside Adler Planetarium in downtown Chicago. I spent half an hour looking, but one could do it in five minutes; fifteen, if you read everything. It is an eight meter in diameter cylinder (that's about 25 feet) with a long snaking corridor working its way through 3/4 of the bottom floor from the entrance to the exit. (The other quarter is closed off, probably for storage.) It has four little windows a bit smaller than airplane windows for looking outside. The bottom floor is just an exhibit; it has no discernable wall pattern resembling its final layout. But it is helpful to stand inside such a space, look around, and get a sense of the total size of the hab. You can do more or less the same thing, though, by marking a circle 25 feet in diameter in sand or on a lawn.

The exhibits were fairly interesting. Included was a large globe of Mars as it looks today, and another globe of the same scale showing a terraformed Mars with Oceanus Borealis, snowcapped Tharsis volcanoes, and scattered lakes and rivers. Probably the most interesting exhibit was a small model of a Mars outpost, consisting of two habs and two greenhouses in a cross pattern, connected together by a central inflatable hub, with an ERV, a geothermal well, and a reactor completing the tableau. Very interesting. Someone should take a picture and put it on the web.

One diagram on a wall showed what the EuroMars hab will eventually look like. It will be three stories, a work area, a living area, and a dormitory area respectively (ground to top) with lots of storage space. I got the impression there was the equivalent of an entire floor of storage, or at least close; the actually living area is the equivalent of a bit more than two stories. There was an air vent in the ceiling of the bottom floor up which one could look, and it appeared that the rest of the space was not yet divided; there appeared to be no floor yet for the second floor.

The bottom floor design resembles the website design someone mentioned a few days ago, with two airlocks (the entrance and exit respectively, in Chicago), a spacesuit donning area, a lab, and a storm shelter that doubles as a sick bay. I can't describe the middle level, but I can describe the layout of the top floor pretty basically:

1. Take a circle and divide it into six equal pie slices.

2. Cut off the tips of the slices by drawing a small circle in the middle of the pie. Into that central circle, the various slices have doors that open.

3. Take every other slice and divide it into two equal slices. You now have six small slices. They are the bedrooms. Simple trigonometry will tell you that a 25 foot circle will have a 78 foot circumference; divided by 12, each room has 6.5 feet of width against the outer wall. They are also about 8 feet long and are barely the width of a door on the circular central hallway.

4. Take the other three large pie slices, which are separated from each other by pairs of bedrooms. Two of the slices are storage. I suppose on a real 2-level hab, one would be exercise and the other would be livingroom-kitchen.

5. There is one slice left. Divide it in half as well. Half is the bathroom and half is the stairway for going down to the middle level.

I hope that's clear enough. Twenty-five feet in diameter is bigger than I thought.

-- RobS

Phobos · 2002-08-26 20:57:03

Thanks for the great description. When you walked through it did you get the impression that you personally could live in something like that for about two years? The bedrooms are small but they're better than nothing. At least they give you some privacy. Personally, judging from your description, I think I'd be able to live in something like that with no problem.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-08-13 15:48:53

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#2 2002-08-14 21:56:48

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#3 2002-08-15 11:25:12

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#4 2002-08-15 12:11:30

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#5 2002-08-15 12:43:15

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#6 2002-08-15 20:18:12

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#7 2002-08-17 09:22:58

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#8 2002-08-18 14:18:46

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#9 2002-08-18 18:23:14

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#10 2002-08-19 17:38:48

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#11 2002-08-20 13:58:33

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#12 2002-08-20 22:01:45

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#13 2002-08-20 22:39:03

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#14 2002-08-21 00:09:44

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#15 2002-08-22 04:36:49

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#16 2002-08-22 10:15:58

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#17 2002-08-22 14:41:37

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#18 2002-08-22 17:56:21

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#19 2002-08-22 18:54:54

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#20 2002-08-22 19:50:34

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#21 2002-08-24 00:44:34

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#22 2002-08-24 04:06:34

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#23 2002-08-24 08:39:01

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#24 2002-08-26 15:09:48

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

#25 2002-08-26 20:57:03

Re: Interior Layout of the habitat

Board footer