Docstoc

design

Document Sample
design Powered By Docstoc
					Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 1 of 158



spacester             Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/04/05 06:19
PM
                   Mars Settlement Supports Mars Science

                   OBJECTIVES

                   The ultimate objective is to Settle Mars. The initial objective is to encamp as many
                   people as possible on the surface of Mars. Their primary job will be to stay alive.
                   Their secondary job will be to maximize the productivity of the chosen industries.
                   Their tertiary job will be to enable return trips for those who want to go back to Earth
                   or the Moon. Once those needs are reasonably secure, their job will be to do Science.
                   Settlement Supports Science; the more secure the people are in their ability to sustain
                   the settlement, the more Science they can afford to do.

                   The primary objective for Spaceships, especially manned craft, is to keep people
                   alive.

                   The two other major categories of equipment are Habitats and Factories. Habitats
                   should be amply sized and built to last for decades. Factories must see continuous
                   improvement, whether by on-site enhancements by the settlers, or by the delivery of
                   new and larger equipment.

                   Utilization of local resources should be maximized, but realistic goals for the
                   extraction and application of local resources must be set as well.

                   Discussion

                   The entire issue of where the money comes from will be ignored in the early stages of
                   this design. There is a solution envisioned for the financing problem, but first the
                   business case must be made. To begin making the business case, the vision will be
                   described.

                   The purpose is to settle Mars, to begin a colony if practical. This means a good
                   number of people need to stay for multiple cycles. Certain people would intend to
                   never go back, of those some would and some wouldn’t; others might commit to a
                   five-year hitch (twice the “typical” 2-1/2 year round trip). If enough long-timers
                   develop, so does the viability of the settlement.

                   It is readily apparent that the outlined approach will require the delivery of large
                   payloads to the Martian surface. Parachutes will not do the job. The only readily
                   available technology to do the job is rocket engines burning some kind of storable
                   propellant.

                   The mission design is heavily influenced by the study of the deltaV required for Earth
                   to Mars and back over a wide range of flight times and over the span of the next
                   several decades. There are opportunities for low deltaV Martian orbital capture
                   trajectories which call for the use of a particular stage strategy for the manned
                   spaceships.
                   The stack



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                            Page 2 of 158




                   The stages, from Low Earth Orbit, would be 1) An Interplanetary Booster Stage, 2)
                   Interplanetary Habitat and Orbital Refuge, 3) Martian Lander/ Ascender

                   The fleet is starting to develop: we’ll also need Martian surface-to-orbit shuttles
                   capable of grabbing a large payload in Martian orbit, burning the propellant needed to
                   set it down gently, detach, refuel and return to orbit.

                   That’s a lot, but it would be a complete transportation system to build a settlement
                   on. To get from Earth to Mars and back, we can use a three-stage fully reusable
                   spaceship: the booster stage, the habitat stage and the surface to orbit vehicle.
                   DeltaV – Driven Settlement Strategy
                   The Interplanetary Booster Stage would provide as much as 6.8 km/sec of deltaV to
                   the Martian Payload. This trajectory will be unconventional because it is not
                   optimized for minimum overall deltaV, but for minimum Mars arrival deltaV. Rather
                   than being tangent to Earth’s orbit, the trajectory is tangent to Mars’ orbit at arrival.
                   For manned missions, all these trajectories for the next 40 years require less than 1.7
                   km/sec deltaV to get captured in a HEMO (Highly Elliptical Martian Orbit) after a
                   200 day trip. This can be done with a modest engine burn, perhaps with an assist
                   from aerobraking.

                   Mars’ highly eccentric orbit, along with having a period about 1.9 times Earth’s,
                   leads to an 18-1/2 year cycle of energy requirements (deltaV) to complete a given
                   interplanetary transfer. The 6.5 km/sec will get you to Mars in 200 days during the
                   worst of the 18-1/2 year cycle. But many times, you can get there either faster or with
                   a bigger payload. In 2018, the departure needs 3.58 km/s and the Martian capture
                   needs only 1.37 km/s for a 200 day trip. In 2018, using 5.23 and 2.84 will get you get
                   there in 170 days.

                   For return trips, the trajectory will be tangent at Earth, so that the arrival deltaV is
                   also low. This lets you use the same spaceship stack both directions.

                   Enough numbers, the point is that this approach has a basis in the study of actual
                   missions, taking into account the highly eccentric orbit of Mars.

                   Options to consider
                   The booster stage would set the attached payload and itself on a trajectory to Mars.
                   You could use it as counterweight for a spin-gravity ship. Or it could separate soon
                   after departure, to shift to a different mission.

                   A better alternative could be to have the booster stage also get you into HEMO. Then
                   it could stay high in the gravity well and you could detach the second stage to get to
                   LMO (Low Martian Orbit). This would save on propellant, and with fuel supply
                   facilities in both HEMO and LMO, the stages can fill up and go on to the next
                   mission.

                   Another variant of the booster stage would provide the capability to land large
                   payloads on the surface and return to orbit. These would likely never return to Earth
                   because they operate deep in Mars’ gravity well. They could also hop a habitat
                   around on Mars.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 3 of 158



                   The second stage would be the Interplanetary Transit Habitat. It would have
                   integrated tanks and engines with deltaV capability to get around in Martian orbit,
                   refilling prop tanks with Martian propellant (CH4 & O2). It would serve as an orbital
                   habitat and storage facility after making its journey. It could use water for shielding
                   that could be utilized as propellant in an emergency. Additional water could be
                   provided for the health of the travelers (think hot tubs). The habitat would be able to
                   mount large propellant tanks to enable a return to Earth. With this option, the return
                   trip would not have spin-gee.

                   There would be ample booster stages at Mars, having brought all the factories and
                   habitats and supplies before the first manned missions. Booster Stages could provide
                   the Earth return energy and spin-gee capability. Or they could return to Earth on a
                   Hohmann transfer and get ready for the next trip to Mars.

                   A spin-gee ship (Booster and Habitat stages) could remain intact after arriving in
                   HEMO, and spend the propellant to go down into the gravity well for easier shuttle
                   trips and to provide an orbital spin-gee refuge. Additional propellant would be
                   required to climb out of the well to use this same ship to return to Earth.

                   Mars Shuttle
                   The third stage would be a lander / ascender vehicle. A small, two or three person
                   vessel rated for 2 days of independent flight, but typically used only for half a day of
                   travel between the surface and orbit – lots of deltaV capability. While docked, it
                   could serve as an additional safe haven during CME events.

                   A Fleet to build a Settlement leading to a Colony
                   The fleet is outlined. Many details remain unexplained, but many have been
                   contemplated and not written up. A transportation infrastructure such as this is
                   necessary and possibly sufficient to establish a settlement on Mars with a strong
                   chance of becoming a Colony.

                   Booster stages can be mainly comprised of salvaged second stages from EELV
                   launches. Restartable engines, storable propellant, guidance systems. Variations
                   could provide all the cargo deliveries. Habitat stages can be sent to Earth orbit empty
                   and then stocked with consumables and equipment. They could even be empty
                   LH2/LOX tanks from a large second stage coupled with inflatable habitats.

                   The painfully obvious question is how to get all this stuff into Earth orbit. The
                   answer,
                   for me at least, is equally painfully obvious: pay a rocketship operator to do it.
                   Simple as that: hire it done.
                   Hire it done
                   In other words, we’ve got enough to worry about planning our Mars Settlement
                   without having to invent a launcher. The real questions are: how much mass will it
                   take, how much will it cost to deliver it to Earth orbit, and where does the money
                   come from? Figure that out; get the money, sign contracts to pay on delivery of
                   described goods to a specified LEO. Then let the marketplace make it happen and get
                   back to designing your vehicles and habitats.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 4 of 158



                   EDIT: ADDED link to Let's design a settlement and link to Finance thread

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/04/05 11:41
PM                 Spacester,

                   Very nice post. Well thought out and well said. Looks like there is much left to figure
                   out. This sounds like fun.

                   It seems the first thing we need to decide is "How many people?" Alot seems to
                   depend upon how many people we need to support: mainly how much we need to
                   send to Mars and how big the ships will need to be. So, how many people will we be
                   sending at first, and how many people do we want to have when the base is
                   established?

                   I think this was discussed in the original thread pre-crash. If so, what was decided
                   then?

                   Another thing, what will be the max payload mass of the three stage Earth orbit to
                   HEMO spaceship? Have you worked out any other specs of your space ship yet
                   Spacester?

                   "Options to consider
                   The booster stage would set the attached payload and itself on a trajectory to Mars.
                   You could use it as counterweight for a spin-gravity ship. Or it could separate soon
                   after departure, to shift to a different mission.

                   A better alternative could be to have the booster stage also get you into HEMO. Then
                   it could stay high in the gravity well and you could detach the second stage to get to
                   LMO (Low Martian Orbit). This would save on propellant, and with fuel supply
                   facilities in both HEMO and LMO, the stages can fill up and go on to the next
                   mission.

                   Another variant of the booster stage would provide the capability to land large
                   payloads on the surface and return to orbit. These would likely never return to Earth
                   because they operate deep in Mars’ gravity well. They could also hop a habitat
                   around on Mars."

                   I like option two the best, but the third option would be very useful early on in setting
                   up the colony. I suggest that we build atleast one (or more) for each; one for option
                   two and another for option three...if its within our budget.

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(planet)
03/06/05 10:01
PM                 Where I see the main problem with any mission such as this is getting from the
                   surface of Earth to LEO. If we project ahead five or six years we see Shuttle winding
                   down and basically Delta and Atlas being the only means of accessing orbit. For a
                   crew of 24, or so, we would be looking at four or five launches just to get the crew



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 5 of 158



                   into LEO, for 100,000 pounds of supplies, at least that many and for the transit,
                   return and rudimentary Mars structures, landers and other components needed to
                   support this number of people another five or even ten launches. It simply can't be
                   done. Even in the best of times Shuttles couldn't fly that many missions in three or
                   four years. Do we want the initial crew members waiting in LEO for the rest of the
                   crew for two or three years?

                   At a minimum we would need a launcher that could carry the crew as a whole and
                   supplies to LEO over a short time. I would think 100,000 pounds of lift capability
                   would be minimum.

                   Any mission to Mars is going to have to be from the ground up.

najaB                 Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/06/05 11:00
PM                 >If we project ahead five or six years we see Shuttle winding down and basically
                   Delta and Atlas being the only means of accessing orbit.

                   There's no need to be pessimistic!

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(planet)
03/06/05 11:49
PM                 Not pessimistic just realistic. There is nothing on the horizon that comes close to
                   what Delta and Atlas can do, let alone what would be needed to conduct a Mars
                   project like we are talking about. By all I have heard they are the means proposed to
                   get the CEV into LEO and by default everything else. Unless there is something else
                   I know nothing about.

                   Not that I don't have a proposal on how it could be done:

                   A re-usable first stage with four SSME's, two permanently attached SRB housings,
                   four turbo-fan engines and an attached upper stage powered by three RL-10's, Delta
                   second stage engines. Launch uses existing Shuttle facilities and Mobile Launch
                   Platforms.

                   Turbofans shut down nearing maxQ, SRB's burn out at two minutes and second stage
                   engines ignite, using propellant from the first stage tanks. SSME's shutdown and
                   second stage is released at roughly 80 miles altitude.

                   The first stage descends and starts the turbofans at 25,000 feet for return to the launch
                   site while the second stage and attached payload continue to orbit.

                   Once in orbit second stage tanks are then used to build LEO facilities, Tugs, Mars
                   and Lunar transit vehicles and landers as well as surface facilities. Second stage
                   engines are used in Space to power transit vehicles as well as landers.

najaB                 Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 6 of 158



(solar system)
03/07/05 08:55     In the 5 years or less Falcon V should be putting 5 people in orbit in a G-X3 for
AM                 around $20 million/launch. You can't even get an Atlas or Delta to the pad for less
                   than $50M.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/07/05 10:13
AM                 Plus there's every reason to believe we (SpaceX) could have a BFR soon after that . . .
                   what they need to make that happen is assured payloads . . . how about Mars
                   Settlement stuff?

Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(dust)
03/07/05 11:00
AM                 We also need to think about a staging location. It needs to be stable enough to hold
                   equipment until the next launch window. I propose one of the Earth-moon Larange
                   points. If L1 isn't stable enough, then what about L2, L4 or L5? (L3 is still too deep
                   in the Earth's gravity well.)

                   astronautix.com is currently not found. Does anyone have a new link?


Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(planet)
03/07/05 11:41
AM                 So 100,000 pounds of payload would take 12-15 launches instead of 8-10 for Delta.
                   And figuring G-X3 with two pilots and four passengers another four launches would
                   be needed to assemble a crew. This also doesn't include the hardware and propellant
                   that would be needed to depart for Mars, I would guess at least twice the mass as
                   supplies, minimum. Launch costs are not as important as delivered payload, if it takes
                   years to assemble a mission. Look at the time line for the ISS even if everything had
                   gone by the original schedule and how many more launches are still required, spread
                   over five years just to complete it.

                   My thoughts are building the entire system from the ground up. Basic design would
                   be two pieces, that vary in dimensions and in basic materials, depending on special
                   needs, but use an identical design to build individual Modules. Modules are
                   combined as needed. As an example the Modules used as propellant tanks and SRM
                   Housings for the first stage are the same as the Modules used as propellant tanks and
                   payload containers for the second stage, just different sizes. Second stage Modules
                   are converted into station elements and used as building blocks for various vehicles
                   and surface facilities once at Mars. Second stage engines are used for Tugs, vehicles
                   and landers.

                   A common design would be used for all the components needed, the only difference
                   between a small accumulator and a propellant tank being size. The simplicity would
                   be designing two basic pieces of hardware used universally, the economy would be
                   using the same basic Modules for many different uses besides Space applications,
                   everything from pen size Hydrogen tanks, for portable computers, to large scale fixed



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 7 of 158



                   and mobile tanks for surface use.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/07/05 12:00
PM                 Dan, High LEO is plenty stable enough, 500 km is good for over 100 years IIRC. So
                   I expect orbital assembly will be in high LEO.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/07/05 12:08
PM                 Scott, we need a BFR to make this work. As you point out, existing launchers will
                   require too many launches.

                   As far as your module approach goes, we need to talk.

                   From an engineering standpoint, there is no such thing as "identical but different",
                   which is what you seem to be proposing. I fight this every day at work.

                   Modularity and commonality are excellent goals, but when reality rears its ugly head,
                   engineers are forced to back slowly away from these concepts. For now, we can
                   accept your point of view as a laudable goal, but must realize that it's not that simple
                   by any means.

najaB                 Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/07/05 01:13
PM                 /*Off-topic post deleted by najaB */

Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(dust)
03/07/05 04:48
PM                 I wonder how fast USA could put together a shuttle-C stack if the main engines and
                   cargo pod were single use. I think what would qualify as the BFR with about 70 tons
                   of cargo to 500 km orbit.

                   I wonder if the ET would fail during max-Q on a propellent only launch (no cargo
                   container). A STS, propellent only launch should provide about 140 tons of
                   propellents to a 500 km orbit.

                   Even if the propellents go up last, there should be a facility to maintain propellent
                   temperature on orbit. Would that be in addition to the one on our Mars rocket?

                   What kinds of orbital facilities are included in this Mars quest?
                   Is Earth going to be our only propellent source, or should an attempt be made to get
                   propellents from the Moon?

                   *Edited* changed mi to Km and added type of cargo for clairity.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                           Page 8 of 158



Dragon04              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(molecule)
03/07/05 06:47
PM                 There are already tons and tons of usable raw materials floating around the planet.
                   We call it "space junk".

                   It would be nice to devise a way to use what's already up there in any way we can.

Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(dust)
03/07/05 07:00
PM                 While that may be true, it might require a refining/manufacturing station to process it
                   into something that will meet the Mars objectives.

Mental_Avenger   Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/08/05 08:16
PM             Well written, spacester. Good job.

                   BTW, I have had essentially fatal crashes of both computer systems, and have been
                   relegated to using the library computers for a month or two. Inconvenient, but not
                   impossible.

                   Habitats should be as large as possible and should last for at least (hopefully) 100
                   years. The more volume in the habitat, the easier the maintenance of (and more
                   consistent) the air quality. I still advocate the pre-fitting of cargo modules from
                   unmanned pre-supply ships for use as habitats. Pre-wired and pre-plumbed, with
                   fittings for attachments throughout, they would be easy to convert to living quarters,
                   workshops, or whatever else is needed. As long as we are going to boost the mass to
                   Mars, we might as well get double-duty from it, killing two stoned birds with one
                   rock, so to speak.

                   Although thin, the Martian atmosphere extends out almost as far as our own. This
                   allows a long breaking time for parachutes. I don’t think that such a fuel-saving
                   resource should be discarded so lightly. Even if parachutes/parasails cannot take a
                   payload all the way down, they should at least be able to dramatically reduce the
                   amount of descent fuel required.

                   Reusable multipurpose shuttles have proven to be expensive and highly inefficient
                   here on Earth. They also requires a great deal of maintenance and refitting. I suggest
                   that the same would be true for Mars. If significant savings can be obtained from
                   parachutes/parasails, unmanned cargo vessels should be able to make the trip from
                   Earth to Mars orbit AND land the cargo on the surface.

                   Since the mass of the cargo vessel will have to be boosted to Mars anyhow, it seems
                   foolish to return it to Earth. As long as it is there, land it on Mars and make a habitat
                   out of it. Since initially, a Mars settlement will require a large amount of supplies,
                   and since relatively little will be returned to Earth, returning empty vessels would be
                   extremely wasteful. As mentioned above, pre-fitted cargo vessels would make
                   durable, economical habitats on Mars.



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 9 of 158




                   One last point. Having “cargo” alone lifted to LEO would create another set of
                   problems. Transfer of cargo in orbit would not be easy. Pre-fitted, pre-loaded vessels
                   could be lifted into LEO, where boosters could be mated for the trip to Mars. Rather
                   than entire ships being returned to Earth, only the unmanned booster section would
                   be returned. That should result in a more economical movement of supplies.


spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/08/05 09:43
PM                 Hey, welcome aboard mental! I was hoping you’d show up.

                   Excellent post yourself there sir, anticipating me in some areas and leading me in
                   others. Fun. To all, keep in mind that the development of my plan didn’t really start
                   until we did that lost thread, and I’ve tried to come up with a plan that everyone will
                   buy into. There’s something in it for everyone. So I’m gratified to see mental and I
                   are on the same page (for the most part).

                   I didn’t describe the cargo ships, I like your architecture very much, that’s a good
                   way to build a settlement. I’m thinking that my booster stage is your booster stage,
                   I’m thinking that bad boy has serious deltaV capability ~7.2 km/s ~ and is the only
                   thing to come back except for returning settlers. BTW, tanks can be detached from
                   the main booster stage and shuttled down to surface for our stockpiles of ISRU rocket
                   fuel. More tanks to Mars each trip.

                   On manned flights, the booster would power you into a HEMO to keep itself high in
                   the gravity well. Then the second stage – a true spaceship – would take you down so
                   you can access the surface from LMO with your two-way taxicab (third stage). The
                   second stage remains in higher LMO orbit for the duration: a permanent orbital
                   haven, possibly even with spin-g. I want a nice transit and orbital habitat for our
                   explorers, several inflatables would be great.

                   I’m thinking the manned return habitat could be an unused facility, shipped on the
                   Hohmann schedule unmanned, stored in orbit until a few months before the return
                   journey. It would seem to increase the reliability as opposed to a facility that’s seen a
                   year and a half of hard use.

                   We could take some boosters down into the gravity well for tug duties, but other than
                   that they should stay high. We’ll get a new surface habitat from the second stage prop
                   tanks and cargo container, plus to boost an attached payload from LEO to HEEO then
                   LMO then entry, or even a direct entry from Earth?. I dunno, stretching the design a
                   bit IMO.

                   We want to send that booster back to HEEO for the next cargo mission. The second
                   stage is for Mars to keep. This is a long term proposition, and once those bad boy
                   boosters are in orbit, we should use them as long as we can. So we don’t want to land
                   them. Keep them high in the well to not waste fuel. We would do the cargo using a
                   similar staging strategy as for manned:




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 10 of 158



                   Manned and cargo: Interplanetary Booster (tanks and engines and “avionics”), goes
                   from LEO to HEMO, drops the stages, drops a tank assembly, waits, goes to HEEO
                   or LEO to repeat the cycle.

                   Second Stage:
                   Manned: Habitat stage with surface / orbit taxicab third stage
                   Cargo: Cargo container with descent engines.

                   (This is pretty much the same thing mental described, I’m just emphasizing the
                   staging strategy.)


spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/10/05 12:46
AM                 That was brutal! Spyware attack keeping me from posting!

                   I’m shifting the discussion from the precursor thread, where we had progressed to the
                   point of talking about pace of development. Here’s what I’ve envisioned:

                   Precursor missions would establish a well-surveyed and mostly prepared settlement
                   site. We would put trial versions of the key technologies on the surface and attend to
                   them with robots controlled from desktops across the world. We need
                   communications and power, and that’s where I hope to get the government to step in
                   and help out.

                   I’m thinking we should put all our settlement eggs in one basket until we have an
                   established settlement. It would be great to have multiple settlements, but this thing is
                   already hugely expensive, we gotta draw the line somewhere.

                   First launch opportunity:
                   · First generation power plant (electricity) – preferably nuclear, solar is possible
                   · ISRU production trial unit – sized to provide one return trip for the benchmark crew
                   size after 5 years of production.
                   · Telepresence-controlled robot attendants for the ISRU facility.
                   · Site survey and site prep probes / robots / rovers to prepare the entire settlement
                   area, including the transportation link between the Habitat and the ISRU facility
                   · A small habitat with test animals for initial study of 0.38 life science.
                   · Two boosters for the above, power plant booster lingers in LMO, ISRU booster
                   returns to cis-lunar space.

                   We can’t go forward with the plan if we can’t make rocket fuel to get everybody
                   home, and we need to get a site ready for the first habitat. The boosters will prove
                   they can serve multiple missions:

                   Second launch cycle:
                   · Second generation power plant (electricity) – preferably nuclear, solar / fuel cell
                   · Prototype habitat is landed on the prepared site. The first martians are (e.g.) lab rats,
                   rabbits, guinea pigs and freshwater tropical fish. Question; Can they live for as many
                   as five years in a habitat with a lot more capacity than needed? Primary activity is



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 11 of 158



                   food production experiments, robots harvest the plants and feed them to the animals.
                   · Second generation ISRU is delivered and expected to produce one benchmark return
                   trip after 1 Earth year. Additional tanks delivered, first generation ISRU refurbished,
                   and serious stockpiling of rocket fuel begins.
                   · First generation orbital reprop operations: Prop Shuttle from ISRU operation
                   performs rendezvous with an Interplanetary Booster Stage in LMO, transfers
                   propellant, returns to ISRU site. Repeats with other boosters if possible.
                   · Earth Return Habitat delivered to LMO, remains with its booster in LMO
                   · Vehicle Package delivered: (2) ISRU Prop Shuttles, surface tractor, Mars Hopper
                   propulsion module.
                   · Boosters remain in HEMO unless filled in time for return trip

                   Third launch cycle:
                   · Third generation power plant (electricity) – preferably nuclear, solar is possible
                   · First possibility of main manned mission. If everything has been going smoothly, go
                   ahead and settle Mars with a sizable crew.
                   · Crew leaves their transit habitat in LMO for use as orbital refuge. If it’s a spin-g
                   habitat, 1-g therapy might be possible, including surgery.
                   · A second Habitat is landed in any case. Food production module is attached.
                   · Earth Return Habitat delivered to LMO, remains with its booster in LMO. Third
                   stage is a habitat for the Hopper vehicle.
                   · Third generation ISRU – triples previous production rate.
                   · As cargo canisters are emptied, thy are converted to habitats of various degree of
                   comfort, from simple pressurized volume to hot tub / spa units.
                   · Second generation orbital reprop operations: Prop Shuttle from ISRU operation
                   performs rendezvous with an Interplanetary Booster Stage in HEMO and returns to
                   ISRU site. Multiple Prop Shuttles begin filling all interplanetary booster stages up.
                   Some Boosters go back to Earth.
                   · If everything is going great, the scientists are able to hop around the surface all over
                   the place and do so much science they won’t know what to do with all the data. We’ll
                   really get to know Mars in a hurry. Settlement Supports Science.

                   Fourth Launch cycle:
                   · Crewed mission (perhaps the first) with another habitat.
                   · Earth Return Habitat delivered to LMO, remains with its booster in LMO
                   · Additional equipment as circumstances warrant.
                   · Fourth generation ISRU – doubles previous production rate.
                   · Third generation orbital reprop operations. Booster recycling begins in earnest.

                   Now that’s a pretty robust infrastructure. The settlement is now a net exporter of
                   deltaV and Habitat life has become routine. The settlers have achieved their primary
                   objective of staying alive, their secondary objective of maximizing food production,
                   and the tertiary one of enabling their trip home. The Science produced is fantastic.
                   Late generation development of the technologies should allow us to start talking
                   about a colony.


Alpha_Tauri           Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(comet)
03/10/05 01:50




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 12 of 158



AM                 "Is Earth going to be our only propellent source, or should an attempt be made to get
                   propellents from the Moon? "

                   For all your propellant needs, refuel at the Phobos propellant refinery. Where else
                   would you get high grade liquid oxygen and hydrogen, separated by solar electrolysis
                   from top grade Phobos ice, and stored at just the right temperature, and none of these
                   take-off and landing losses either.

                   Have no fear "Phobos' is here!

                   Phobos Refinery,
                   Phobos,
                   Via Mars
                   The Solar System

trigged               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(atom)
03/10/05 08:13
AM                 Spacester,
                   I would also think about prepositioning some fuel at Mars prior to human launch to
                   provide a backup for a lander system in case the fuel is not able to be manufactured.
                   This could be just enough to return the lander(s) to the orbiter and return the orbiter
                   to Earth via a very slow route. One thing I have learned is to be redundant!
                   Eldon

Dan_Casale            Current Launch systems
(dust)
03/11/05 05:08
PM                 I understand that we will be contracting out for launch services, but we also need to
                   know what services are available in the US and else where.
                   In the US:
                   Atlas-V-551
                   8,200Kg to GTO
                   5 meter faring

                   Delta-IV heavy
                   10,843Kg to GTO
                   5 meter faring

                   STS - shuttle-C
                   27.6 feet diameter (8.4 meter)
                   79,256Kg to 400Km *updated w/shuttle_guy's figure*
                   34,380Kg cargo continer with reuseable engine pod

                   Outside the US:
                   Ariane 5
                   8,000Kg to GTO
                   I couldn't find information about the Russian launch systems.

                   Here's my thoughts:



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 13 of 158




                   Stuff that could be wet launched, would be loaded into the ET. Large stuff that can't
                   be we launched would be launched in the Shuttle-C, and smaller stuff would be
                   launched on one of the expendables.

                   Once on orbit, the items are assembled into cargo shipments. A propellent only STS
                   launch should provide more than 200,000Kg of propellents. Refuel the cargo
                   shipment and off to Mars you go.

                   Now I'm not sure how to land something the size of an ET that is packed with
                   settlement equipment. I suspect that you would put it into Mars orbit and then send it
                   down in smaller loads.

                   This implies that there is an assembly station in LEO and a perhaps a disassembly
                   location (moon?) in Mars orbit.

                   *Updated with better information.

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/11/05 08:15
PM                 Spacester,

                   I like the plan. Extremely well thought out. Everything fits and the plan still remains
                   flexible. It moves at a nice steady pace without becoming too drawn out. Good job.

                   Now for my questions and comments.

                   I don't quite understand the Mars orbit to surface transportation system. How will the
                   first arriving payloads to Mars be delivered to the ground? Later we will have a
                   manned lander/ascender shuttle, but what will be used in the beginning to get those
                   first payloads to the surface?

                   At the first launch opportunity, a small habitat with test animals will be sent. I
                   assume that it is staying in Mars orbit until the second cycle, since the second cycle is
                   when you talk about landing it. Correct?

                   Also at the first launch opportunity, the ISRU booster will be sent back to cis-lunar
                   space. Is that possible yet? Where will the propellant come from?

                   In the second, third, and forth cycles an Earth-Return Habitat is dropped into LMO
                   and also in the third cycle the crew leaves their transit habitat in LMO. The transit
                   habitat is their orbital refuge, and the E-R habs could serve as spin-gee orbital
                   refuges. That's part of the reason they are dropped into LMO in the first place
                   according to your opening post.

                   The other reason they are dropped that low is for easier re-proping, but is that really
                   more efficient? Would it ultimitely cost less fuel all together to re-prop in HEMO?
                   Proping in LMO takes less propellant to get the prop-shuttles there, but they have to
                   transport more propellant for the E-R habs to be able to get out of LMO. I guess what



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 14 of 158



                   I'm asking is where is re-proping ultimately more efficient for E-R habs, in LMO,
                   HEMO, or somewhere inbetween?

                   If the case is that it is more efficient to re-prop E-R habs in HEMO, then we should
                   not drop so many in LMO. Their main advantage would be an easy access orbital
                   refuge. I don't think we would need three of them. If it is that it is more efficient to
                   reprop in HEMO, then we should leave the second two that arrive up there in HEMO
                   and just drop the first one down into LMO. That would leave two habitats, the crew's
                   transit habitat and the one E-R hab, in LMO mainly I figure in case of an emergency.

                   Other than this, there is nothing else I can find to comment on. This is definitely an
                   ambitious plan, but I don't see any reason why it's not possible.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/11/05 09:22
PM                 Hi Arobie,

                   Thanks, but if was so well thought out, you wouldn't have so many questions.

                   The truth is, the hardware and logistics are not all that well thought out. As I was
                   writing it up I saw problems and did my best to fix them, but it's still very much a
                   draft proposal. We're getting a little ahead of ourselves in the design process, but
                   everyone always wants to talk hardware, so I put it out there.

                   So all of this is "negotiable" - basically, that's the main difference between the two
                   threads, the precursor thread is where I stick to my guns in order to explain the more
                   radical stuff. This thread is where we work together to come up with a solid plan.

                   I'm thinking the first payloads are landed using the second stage. Rather than being a
                   habitat stage, it's a lander stage. I don't have it all worked out. I think some of the
                   second stages never leave the surface, but it kinda bugs me that those rocket engines
                   aren't re-used. So some of the stages should be able to detach from their payload and
                   return to LMO to bring down future large (unmanned) payloads. Not an easy thing to
                   do.

                   The test animals need to go to the Martian surface to test their adaptability to 0.38 g,
                   so they will descend along with the other equipment. I'm proposing a very small
                   habitat the first cycle, and a full-scale habitat the second cycle. I probably shouldn't
                   call the second one a prototype, in principle it could support an entire crew, but I
                   want to run an extended evaluation during the second cycle. By the time the third
                   cycle rolls around we'll have a bunch of in-situ data. We'll have a chance to make
                   changes to the design for the third cycle's surface habitat, and if the second cycle
                   habitat runs well, the settlers will have twice the volume (not counting any converted
                   tanks).

                   You're right, the first generation's boosters do not have the prop to go back to Earth
                   yet. Way to pay attention.

                   You ask very good questions on the logistics and efficiencies of the re-prop



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 15 of 158



                   operation. I don't have all the answers. The basic principle I'm trying to get across is
                   that the interplanetary booster should not go deep into the well without a very good
                   reason. As a rule, it should stay in HEMO until it gets filled up for the return trip. But
                   in the early stages, we may want to take the hit on prop usage to keep the operation
                   simpler. Plus we'll need to demonstrate LMO re-prop operations before sending
                   settlers.

                   The second stage must go into the well, that's where it belongs. But don't try to land it
                   full of people, shuttle them down with a small third stage. I'm thinking that we keep
                   two transit habs on orbit for redundant orbital refuge and after the third crew arrives,
                   the first transit hab is brought down to grow the settlement. Repeat for susequent
                   crews. Sorry I was not more clear on that, hopefully this paragraph does not conflict
                   with my previous post.

                   Note that if all this deltaV is coming from Martian propellant, all these rocket engines
                   need to be designed for CH4 / O2. I don't think any such engines have ever been
                   built, so that will be the first priority once we get started.


spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/11/05 11:56
PM                 The Phobos Propellant Refinery, that's great! I know there's been at least one serious
                   study on doing exactly as you describe. The takeoff and landing losses are an
                   important point.

                   If you can get that operation going, we would reduce our mass budget for ISRU
                   equipment somewhat.

                   But more importantly, LH2/LOX would be problematic because to use anything but
                   CH4/O2 engines for surface and surface to orbit operations would require landing the
                   propellant.

                   Of course the main problem with cryos is lack of storability. Especially for returns
                   from Mars to Earth, we're looking at over six months travel time and those engines
                   better work when you get back.

                   We could build ships with two sets of engines I guess . . .

                   I love Phobos, I just don't see how to include it in my plan.

                   Yet

                   Wait, actually I do have an idea. Two words:

                   Hydrogen Peroxide.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/12/05 12:03



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 16 of 158



AM                 Redundancy is good, but certain founding strategies short circuit or nullify some of
                   the conventional thinking.

                   In this case, if we cannot make rocket fuel at Mars (or Phobos), we cannot settle
                   Mars. The fuel import cost would be too enormous to bear.

                   If we cannot settle Mars because we cannot make fuel, we should just quit and give
                   everybody their money back.

                   No redundancy required in terms of fuel source. What we want IMO is redundancy
                   via the number of pieces of equipment and perhaps different design approaches.

                   Redundancy is good.

spacester             Re: Current Launch systems
(solar system)
03/12/05 01:02
AM                 Great data, Dan. I'll be referring to it, so I hope it's right

                   I love wet launching ideas. This could really develop a settlement out. Once the
                   initial habitats are in place, converted tanks from former second stages of Earth
                   launchers could just keep coming. We're talking about taking the spent second stage
                   of an Earth launcher - which usually becomes space junk - and stacking it up with our
                   other stuff in LEO for a trip to Mars. Once there, it gets delivered by locally produced
                   deltaV to the settlement site. You may or may not fill it up with supplies and food.
                   You might fully outfit it as a habitat, it hibernates until on Martia Firma (did I just
                   make up a word?), and gets a rousing housewarming party.

                   You would build in bracketry at a minimum. But you would most likely include the
                   major structural stuff for your habitat equipment. This would avoid having to hand
                   carry it in later, during outfitting for Mars injection in LEO.

                   I'm not exactly planning on using STS to launch our propellant. But orbital
                   assembly is the way to go. I'm thinking that with Delta IV Heavy and Atlas it's
                   possible to talk about but just silly. (Wait! where did I hear that line? )

                   With today's announcment I think the chances of Shuttle-C just went up. Way up. I
                   shouldn't be hanging out here, I should be researching this Griffin fellow. Scottish
                   name, right? He must have some Engineer genes going then.

                   Refresh my memory, Shuttle-C lets the engine pod separate from the cargo container,
                   and uh how do they get the engines back?

                   Like I say, I'm rusty on some of this stuff. As I recall, Shuttle-Z was a very nice idea,
                   and another one that sticks in my head is from our very own rogers_buck. Feel free to
                   discuss. Primarily, my plans figure on SpaceX building a BFR sooner rather than
                   later.

                   Yeah, landing on Mars is not easy. We're talking some seriously large pieces of
                   equipment we need to plunk down. Certainly we can use some aerobraking due to the



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 17 of 158



                   tall atmosphere, but ultimately it comes down to rocket power.

                   The settlement strategy identifies locally produced deltaV as one of the enabling
                   technologies to make the whole shebang work. Landing of large payloads is an
                   important test of that capability. Initially of course the fuel will be from Earth, but
                   maybe the first test of ISRU resupply is a sample return mission, which would help
                   prove the re-use capability of the lander. Settlement Supports Science.

                   The problem is sidestepped with the manned missions, the second stage stays in orbit
                   and multiple trips made to ferry down several small payloads (the crew).

                   I've suggested using the same Interplanetary Booster for all missions, for several
                   good reasons. But the design of the second stage lander for cargo flights will be
                   nothing like the second stage habitats, except for the total mass being equal.

                   For cargo, the primary mission will be to land the payload it's attached to at a precice
                   location on the Martian surface after being powered into Martian orbit for free.

                   I envision a few possible configurations for the lander: the LEM-on-steroids
                   approach, Delta Clipper geometry, or possibly a sky crane. I'd want to talk to John
                   Carmack about it, too.

                   The reason the sky crane is attractive is that you don't have to lift the payload off of
                   your engine assembly. You drop the load and then translate over to the ISRU
                   propellant storage facility. The other designs seem to require a crane to lift the
                   payload off so you can use the engines again.

                   One could consider the possibility of scavenging the engines for items of high utility
                   or possibly even as an export product raw material (??)

                   OK, that's it. Five yard penalty for too many words, I'm done.


peterweg              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(quark)
03/12/05 04:12
PM                 The MagBeam concept still seems to have massive potential (winglee is giving an
                   update to NIAC on wednesday
                   http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/meetings/fellows/mar05/agenda.pdf). But
                   failing that, the cheapest method of sending cargo to mars independantly of the crew
                   should be used, say, using slow ion drives (a space tug, say like the new ESA cargo
                   delivery system that can automatically dock together to form a orbiting warehouse).
                   The crew should be blasted there as fast as possible. Everything they need for the
                   mission and return journey should be already station in Mars orbit or on the surface
                   itself. Spend a decade sending supplies using SMART-1 type techniques and invest
                   everything to get the crew there as fast as possible.

                   So, what is the fastest method to get the crew (and nothing else except their one way
                   supplies) to Mars and how much would this mass be from LEO?




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 18 of 158



Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(dust)
03/16/05 01:37
PM                 An ION drive only works for stuff that is already in orbit. To get it to orbit we need
                   an HLV or SHLV. But otherwise I agree, cargo can take the slow boat.

                   So lets talk about equiping this adventure. Because we haven't determined the size of
                   the first crew I will try to do it as a "supplies per person".

                   Survival supplies for 960 days:
                   O2: @ 1323/Liters of gasous O2 per day.
                   1,270,080/liters of gasous O2 (Does anyone know how to convert this to LOX?)

                   Water:
                   2 Liters/day drinking
                   2 Liters/day Hygine
                   3840 Liters

                   Food:
                   This is a nice formula - Caloric requirements are determined by the National
                   Research Council formula for basal energy expenditure (BEE). For women, BEE =
                   655 + (9.6 x W) + (1.7 x H) - (4.7 x A), and for men, BEE = 66 + (13.7 x W) + (5 x
                   H) - (6.8 x A), where W = weight in kilograms, H = height in centimeters, and A =
                   age in years.

                   After lots of research the closest I could come was about 7 lbs/day/person based on
                   ISS.


                   Environmentals (heating/cooling):
                   ISS has about 400KW of electrical power. That would drop to about 100KW on the
                   surface of Mars.

                   Other good links:
                   http://advlifesupport.jsc.nasa.gov/FY03Metric-HTML.html (this one looks the best.)
                   http://bioastroroadmap.nasa.gov/index.jsp
                   http://advlifesupport.jsc.nasa.gov/documents/JSC-39502A.pdf (Lots of Mars mission
                   references. Page 47 has a good flowchart.)
                   http://virtualastronaut.jsc.nasa.gov/teacherportal/pdfs/Space.Food.and.Nutrition.pdf
                   (menus for the different programs)
                   http://research.hq.nasa.gov/code_u/nra/current/NRA-02-OBPR-01/HSSWG.pdf
                   (complete mission architecture)
                   http://advtech.jsc.nasa.gov/DOWNLOADS/TM-2003-210785a.pdf (This one must be
                   the final product)
                   http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/readingroom/4.4CrewFood.pdf (ALS - system)
                   http://advlifesupport.jsc.nasa.gov/Food/projects.html
                   http://advlifesupport.jsc.nasa.gov/relatedsites.html
                   http://advlifesupport.jsc.nasa.gov/documents/foodsysdocs/FinalReportVol1.pdf
                   http://advlifesupport.jsc.nasa.gov/documents/foodsysdocs/FinalReportVol2.pdf
                   http://advlifesupport.jsc.nasa.gov/FY03Metric-HTML.html




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 19 of 158



                   http://marsoweb.arc.nasa.gov/News/Techreports/1999/PDF/nas-99-006.pdf
                   (capturing asteroids and returning them to ISS)

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(planet)
03/16/05 02:56
PM                 If you combine the mass of the Oxygen required and the water needed for drinking,
                   hygiene, as a working fluid from environmental control, as shielding outside of LEO
                   and propulsion throughout the system the most economical means of doing it is to
                   take a lot of water.

                   The idea of using LH and LOX only makes sense when you don't have to contain
                   them for a long period of time in a liquid state. This can be done by carrying liquid
                   water and using solar power as needed to break it down into Hydrogen and Oxygen
                   gasses and using solar electric power to liquify it when needed.

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/16/05 05:51
PM                 Ok, so for the first launch opportunity:

                   Two Martian Ships (I'm talking about the complete stack) are sent. That's two booster
                   stages, two lander stages, and I guess no third stages. One booster will propel the ship
                   containing the first generation power plant, and the other will propel the ship
                   containing the first generation ISRU unit. Both boosters will remain in LMO until re-
                   prop operation is underway. For this first launch opportunity, the second stages are
                   lander stages instead of hab stages. The third stage would have been a manned
                   lander/ascender, but we have no men at this point, and our second stage is already our
                   lander/ascender. We can either use this extra space for freight: the probes, robots, and
                   rovers, or we can fit those in with the power plant or the ISRU unit in the lander
                   stage. I would have those, if possible, already packed in the lander stage for the
                   journey.

                   So First Launch Opportunity...

                   *1R (First Round) Martian Ship Numero Uno:
                   -One Booster (Remains in LMO)
                   -One Second Stage containing a lander, one First Generation Power Plant, and one
                   Small Habitat. (Utilize the power plant or bring own fuel cells?)
                   -No third stage?

                   *1R Martian Ship Numero Dos:
                   -One Booster (Remains in LMO)
                   -One Second Stage containing a lander, one ISRU Production Trial Unit (including
                   telepresence-controlled robot attendants), and the Site survey & prep
                   probes/robots/rovers.
                   -No third stage?

                   Now for the second launch cycle. Firstly, is this two and a half or five years later?




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 20 of 158




                   If only two and a half years, then we will only have half of an Earth-Return load of
                   propellant created by ISRU. If this is the case, we should use this propellant to prop
                   up the landers on surface so that they may help transport supplies to the surface. If
                   five years later, then we will have an entire Earth-Return load of propellant and can
                   possibly send a booster back to Earth if we can have orbital reprop operations up and
                   running before our return window closes. If five years, then we should send a booster
                   back to Earth with the propellant instead of using it for landers this cycle.

                   For this launch cycle, it looks like we might need 3 ships. We need one for the
                   second generation power plant & second generation ISRU (can we fit em both?); one
                   for the full size test habitat; and one for the Earth Return habitat. The third stage for
                   two of these can be an ISRU reprop shuttle.

                   So Second Launch Cycle...

                   *2R Martian Ship Numero Uno:
                   -One Booster (remains in HEMO)
                   -One second stage containing a lander, a Second Generation Power Plant, and the
                   Second Generation ISRU.
                   -One third stage containing one ISRU Reprop Shuttle.

                   The lander in the above ship will be the third unmanned lander at Mars, and it's ship
                   is the only ship (I think) that should require a lander this cycle. By the third cycle our
                   ISRU operations hopefully will be creating a earth-return propellant load every four
                   months. We should have enough excess propellant at that time to keep our three
                   landers proped and able to transport supplies from Martian orbit to surface.

                   *2R Martian Ship Numero Dos:
                   -One Booster (remains in HEMO)
                   -One second stage containing one Full Size Test Habitat. (Question: How do we get
                   this to the ground?)
                   -One third stage containing one ISRU Reprop Shuttle.

                   *2R Martian Ship Numero Tres:
                   -One Booster (remains in HEMO)
                   -One Second Stage containing one E-R Hab.
                   -One Third Stage (?) containing one Surface Tractor and one Mars Hopper
                   Propulsion Module (??) (This a good place to put em?)

                   Now for the third launch cycle.

                   It looks like we might need four Martian Ships for this cycle. One for the Third
                   Generation Power Plant and Third Generation ISRU; one for the transit hab and it's
                   crew; one for the second hab (for the surface), food production module, and
                   miscellaneous supplies; and one for the Earth-Return Hab. If we got one booster
                   reproped and back to Earth last cycle, then we only need to make three boosters for
                   this cycle. This cycle we should also send 2 manned surface to orbit shuttles. We
                   could send only one, but it would be nice to have atleast two. We need to be able to
                   get an entire crew surface bound.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 21 of 158



                   So Third Launch Cycle...

                   *3R Martian Ship Numero Uno:
                   -One Booster (Remain in HEMO)
                   -One Second Stage containing a Third Generation Power Plant and a Third
                   Generation ISRU.
                   -Third stage?

                   *3R Martian Ship Numero Dos: (This ship is of course dependant on whether we are
                   ready to send people by this time)
                   -One Booster (parked in LMO)
                   -One Second Stage Transit Habitat including the crew.
                   -One Third Stage Martian Shuttle.

                   *3R Martian Ship Numero Tres:
                   -One Booster (sent to LMO?)
                   -One Second Stage containing one surface habitat, food production module, and
                   miscellaneous supplies.
                   -One Third Stage Martian Shuttle.

                   *3R Martian Ship Numero Cuatro:
                   -One Booster (remains in Hemo)
                   -One Second Stage containing an E-R Hab.
                   -One Third Stage Hopper Vehicle Habitat.

                   Ok so that's a very rough breakdown into ships. This isn't what I intented to post
                   when I began typing. I had meant to comment on the most recent posts, but I ended
                   up trying to figure and break this up into ships so that I can understand and see more
                   clearly what and how much of each harware we will need for the first few cycles. The
                   thing I'm most unsure about in this whole plan is where we park which interplanatery
                   boosters.

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/16/05 08:12
PM                 I think we should keep an eye on Bigelow Aerospace's Inflatable habitats. They could
                   be of use for the settlement plan.

                   They are spacious (and I'm sure he will design even larger), they are attachable, they
                   are durable (stronger than any spacecraft yet), they launch in a compacted state, and
                   they will already be designed for us. We won't have to build them ourselves.

                   They could be used on Mars itself for surface habs, as orbital refuges, or even as
                   transit habs. For transit habs, at ejection burn, we could have one...maby two inflated,
                   then after the burn we could inflate a few more that we had stored and compacted
                   giving the crew plenty of space for a six month journey.

                   In Mars orbit, we can either leave them single and have a many orbital refuges, or we
                   can group them up and have a few larger complexes.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 22 of 158



                   What I have been able to find on them so far (As most private ventures, this one is
                   pretty tight-lipped):

                   Current full-sized
                   45 feet long and 22 feet in diameter
                   330 cubic meter volume (About the size of a three bedroom house)
                   Weighs ~25 tons

                   The Five-Billion-Star Hotel- A (great) recent Popular Science Article on Bigelow's
                   Inflatable Space Habs.
                   Inflatable Space Outposts: Cash Down on High Hopes- A space.com article.

                   Just a thought while sitting bored after finishing a portion of my graduation exit exam
                   waiting for everyone to be done. What do y'all think?

Alpha_Tauri           Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(asteroid)
03/16/05 08:50
PM                 "But more importantly, LH2/LOX would be problematic because to use anything but
                   CH4/O2 engines for surface and surface to orbit operations would require landing the
                   propellant. "

                   Well we know there is plenty of carbon on Phobos. You want methane? I'm sure that
                   we could oblige. A bug factory might work.

                   "Of course the main problem with cryos is lack of storability.Especially for returns
                   from Mars to Earth, we're looking at over six months travel time and those engines
                   better work when you get back. "

                   I wonder what temperature the interior of Phobos would be. It must be pretty close to
                   ideal for liquid oxygen at least. Hydrogen can be compressed or absorbed into metal
                   hydrides.

                   hydrogen peroxide?

                   Would hydrazine be any good to you? I think we could make that too.

                   We just need that Phobos sample return mission to get more data.

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(planet)
03/16/05 10:57
PM                 I think we need three ships from LEO, all three identical but autonomous. Prepared
                   and launched separately from orbit they dock enroute. At Mars the modular ships
                   disassemble, some modules going to the surface and others, carrying water, stay with
                   an orbital hub where Hydrogen and Oxygen would be produced and shipped down to
                   the surface for fuel cells.

                   Two vehicles return to Earth and one stays in Mars orbit to support the surface
                   station. Subsequent missions would bring up primarily cargo but also people, say 8



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 23 of 158



                   per vehicle.



Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(dust)
03/17/05 12:25
PM                 Arobie:
                   I'm sure you have thought this out but I not sure I got it.

                   Equipment for first window:
                   1 - ISRU unit, assumed to be fuel production unit for C2H4/Lox propellent.
                   2 - Landers (Why two?)
                   1 - Power unit, assumed to be for ISRU unit.

                   I would add:
                   1 - ISRU unit to find (drill for) water.
                   1 - Hydrolizer to process some water into additional hydrogen for propellent ISRU
                   unit.
                   1 - Green house unit for growing food
                   1 - Hydroponic unit for growing fish
                   1 - Hab unit for settlers. This should be pressurized after landing so we know it is
                   working when settlers arrive.
                   1 - Additional power for all base processes.
                   Long term storable food/water and medical/scientific/maintenance equipment.
                   Communication equipment.
                   1 - waste recycler unit to turn waste products in to carbon, oils, hydrogen, Oxygen,
                   and minerals.

                   Requirements before the second window:
                   ISRU fuel and water units must be full.
                   Hydrolizer input and storage tanks must be full.
                   Green house and Hab must be at correct temperature/pressure.
                   Communication equipment must be functional.

                   Second window and beyond:
                   Same equipment as first plus additional repair parts for any failures that have occured
                   to existing equpment on Mars.
                   2 - Rovers
                   seeds for greenhouse
                   Fish for Hydroponics
                   Personnel
                   Food for 960 days.

                   LH2 tanks are equipted with refrigeration units to maintain proper temperature for
                   trip.
                   All equipment is shipped as one unit.
                   Habitat is spun to produce 1 G during trip to Mars.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 24 of 158



spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/18/05 12:38
AM                 Great posts everyone! I’m just posting at the bottom of the flat thread . . .
                   commenting on stuff since my last post . . .

                   MagBeam is in the category of FutureTech. I love future tech, but have no use for it
                   in my settlement plan. No use whatsoever. When it becomes AlmostAvailableTech,
                   I’ll include it in my plans. The slow cargo / fast human approach is of course the way
                   to go, but I want to use the same interplanetary booster stages, recycle them between
                   manned and cargo flights. So that means cargo goes by Hohmann and manned flight
                   trip time is flexible according to the required payload, the opportunity’s dV and the
                   residual prop you want after arrival. The benchmark manned flight time is 200 days,
                   but in 2018 for example it would be closer to 170 days.
                   ***
                   Excellent data, Dan, thanks for all the links. I haven’t found time to check them all
                   out, great stuff so far . . .
                   ***
                   Water shielding, water derived propellant, that makes sense to me, that’s the basis for
                   the envisioned transit habitat. We’re coming from the Water Planet, after all; let’s
                   bring the water we need to be healthy and safe.

                   The plan has to assume that LH is not storable unless shown otherwise, and Mars
                   arrival dV for some years is greater than maximum aerobraking dV, so I just don’t
                   see LH2/LOX engines in the interplanetary booster. Kerosene / LOX would seem to
                   make sense, but can we make Kerosene at Mars?

                   So I’ve come to the surprising conclusion that the interplanetary booster has CH4 /
                   O2 engines. I know I know, you’re carrying all that carbon all over the place, but
                   that’s what seems to make sense. Shoot, most everything would have the same
                   propellant, because Mars is supplying all the dV for this enterprise and we want to
                   refill any stage we can with Martian propellant.

                   I like the idea of LEO refueling with solar power-derived LH2 and LOX from water.
                   But I suspect the production rate, especially counting liquefaction power, would have
                   a hard time matching with the occasional need for huge quantities. So I like the idea
                   of storable propellants delivered by the batch size which is found to be most
                   economical.
                   ***
                   Hey Arobie. It gets tricky when you try to write it up doesn’t it? I think we’re
                   getting a little ahead of ourselves and we’re not gonna be able to define things in
                   detail just yet.

                   The basic concepts I’m trying to promote are in your plan, so it was fun to read just
                   for that. Plus, it looks pretty well coordinated. Like I say, that may be about the best
                   we can do right now.

                   There’s an awful lot of things to do to start a settlement, so I’m sure we’ll have to
                   stretch it out over more launch cycles than we’re showing.

                   What do you think should be the very first piece of equipment our group lands on



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 25 of 158



                   Mars?

                   I am totally figuring on inflatables. For a truly viable settlement, IMO we need not
                   only a BFR, but a BFH. Bigelow’s team will develop their Falcon-V sized hab, and
                   then should move on to a Big Effing Habitat to be launched on SpaceX’s Big Effing
                   Rocket. Basketball on the Moon! A huge farm on Mars!

                   I envision Inflatables sitting right next to habs made from converted tanks. For a
                   Space Hab (Transit Hab / Orbital Refuge), nothing seems to compare with an
                   inflatable, they’re the way to go, spin-g or not.
                   ***
                   Hey, as soon as you get that Phobos operation going, I’ll be first in line. Can you
                   offer Kerosene?

                   Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2) is a mono-propellant. If you have a well maintained
                   engine, it’s a foolproof method of easy rocket thrust. The Isp is not great, but good
                   enough, and you can home in on an optimum concentration percent of H2O2 in water
                   – the higher the concentration, the higher the Isp but the higher the energy cost of
                   making it.

                   So I’m thinking there might be a market for peroxide propellant made from Phobos
                   water.
                   ***
                   The fleet of three ships is quite a bit different from my proposed architecture, which
                   is derived from dV considerations.
                   ***
                   I definitely want to advance low gravity hydroponics and aquaculture.

                   Man, it would be great to send all that stuff the first cycle, wouldn’t it? I don’t think
                   we’ll be able to afford that much that fast. But there’s a lot of stuff required, isn’t
                   there?


tfrederick9           Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(proton)
03/18/05 03:59
PM                 I'm a little late here but....... Are we assuming that Mars has been preped for humans?
                   By this I mean, are there comm and MPS (Martian positioning satellites) in orbit? I
                   think this would provide a huge bang for the buck so to speak. It could make landing
                   much easier, not to mention no comm black out during when the settlement is on
                   opposite side from Earth.

                   As a thought to all, repair work. It will have to be done, I think we should accept that.
                   What I'd propose is sending up key components as well as "raw" parts. IN addition
                   send the tools to make those parts into anything need, so send up some circut boards
                   to fix something, and virgin boards for use in whatever is need, or make new
                   hardware. The same goes for a small machine shop.

                   Is there any data on minerials on Mars? By this I mean, could steel be made? This
                   would certainly open up a new way, where the current team builds habs from on site



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 26 of 158



                   materials for the next team, and so on. We could then us that hab space to double the
                   personal, extra cargo, whatever.

Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
03/18/05 04:01
PM                 Spacester,
                   I think we need more information so we can proceed. Do you want to outline your
                   planning steps so we can help fill in the details, or shall we continue with our
                   different tangents?

                   The nine life support systems (as defined by NASA) are:
                   Air Supply
                   Communications
                   Electricity
                   Food production and delivery
                   Recreation
                   Temperature control
                   Transportation
                   Waste management,
                   Water supply

                   I add:
                   Construction
                   Information storage/retrival/processing
                   Mining/refining/fabricating

                   MagBeam as in electromagnetic launch rail. I think this is farther advanced than
                   AlmostAvailableTech, as it is used on some trains in Japan (I believe). I would
                   assume that this would be the prefered launch method from any airless body, until
                   tethers and elevators become reality.

                   I am also a fan of water shielding and on board LH2 refrigeration. If we are making
                   propellent on the "fly", that works for me also. But I have mission safety concerns
                   because if your hydrolizer breaks, you have no engines. So I think that enough to
                   abort the mission needs to always be available.

                   The first piece of equipment should be the piece that determines where the base is
                   going to be. The second should be all the ISRU equipment. Everything else we listed
                   should come third. The Martians are last to arrive.

Alpha_Tauri           Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(asteroid)
03/18/05 06:20
PM                 "Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2) is a mono-propellant. "
                   So is hydrazine. It has been used quite a lot for small scale rocketry.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 27 of 158



03/18/05 06:46     IIRC hydrazine is difficult to store for long periods of time because of its
PM                 corrosiveness. Isn't that the reason for Soyuz' 6-month lifetime?

                   But I'm not at all sure about that, and for all I know H2O2 has the same problem.

                   *sigh* I can't take the time to research things like I used to . . .

slayerA               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(molecule)
03/19/05 05:00
AM                 Well I have a couple of ideas to share, not sure if that is what your looking for or not.

                   1. Power. Ever thought about satellite power? The solar arrays would gather the
                   power and beam it down. Beats nuclear any day, because you would have to keep
                   reshipping the stuff and waste. You could also power up ships to coming and going.
                   Your in orbit so you maximize you solar power as compared the surface. Or how
                   about wind generaters, hear it blows there alot.

                   2. CO2 spliters, carbon and oxygen. With the carbon you can make carbon fiber, with
                   the carbon fiber you could build the all the structures plus many other tools.

                   3. I don't know how this would work out, but I have wondered if you could just
                   launch one ship and just use gravity assist in an never ending loop of the inner solar
                   system dropping off and pick up payloads. Kind like a train on the tracks. Then use
                   satelite to recharge it on the swing bys for power.

                   4. Lauch off Olympus Mons, that puts you half up into the atmosphere already. I have
                   no idea if that is doable.

                   And a question for you, what possible products could you make on Mars, that we
                   could not already have on Earth, the Moon, or a by draggin an asteroid to us?

                   Good post btw, I hope it can be pulled off.


Tap_Sa                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
03/19/05 08:39
AM                 "are there comm and MPS (Martian positioning satellites) in orbit?"

                   Good question, also how much do we rely on governmental comm/tracking
                   infrastructure here on Earth? Are there currently any other options than NASA/DSN?


                   "Is there any data on minerials on Mars?"

                   Mars is loaded with iron, iron oxides give it the distinctive red colour. Early pioneers
                   might be interested in the 'blueberries'. At Oppy's location there seems to be
                   abundance of them and it looks like they contain mostly hematite, which is a good
                   iron ore.



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                           Page 28 of 158




                   After ISRU for producing basic consumables (oxygen, water, propellant, food) is up
                   and running, making steel should be right next on the list. If suitable aluminium ore is
                   easily available then that too. First martian steel beams and sheets need not to be of
                   top notch quality because we are not building spacecrafts (yet) but basic hab
                   structures. I wonder how welding goes in Mars, is the atmosphere inert enough that
                   you could do basic stick welding with plain steel stick without flux cover. MIG
                   welding should be easy since argon can be collected from martian atmosphere.

Tap_Sa                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
03/19/05 08:55
AM                 "IIRC hydrazine is difficult to store for long periods of time because of its
                   corrosiveness."

                   Hydrazine is de facto propellant in deep space probes which require years of storage.
                   It's nasty stuff but manageable using proper materials. Humans and hydrazine don't
                   mix well at all. For instance when satellite builders fill up hydrazine tanks they put on
                   ventilated hazmat suits.

Alpha_Tauri           Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(asteroid)
03/19/05 09:35
AM                 That's true. Actually there is nothing to prevent hydrogen being stored as a
                   pressurised gas instead of liquefied. It can be liquefied at a later date, as long as the
                   equipment is compatible with cryogenics etc.

CrossoverManiac     Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(comet)
03/19/05 02:06
PM              One idea I had was to use electric propulsion for all unmanned cargo vessels. Ten
                NASA-457M Hall thrusters with a combined thrust of 30 Newtons powered by a
                nuclear reactor would take about a year or two building thrust and spiraling out of
                Earth's orbit. Once captured by Mars' gravity, the ship would decelerate using an
                aerobrake shield. Because of the high specific impulse of electric rockets, the fuel
                would only make up a fraction of the weight of the ship. From my caculations, only
                9% of the ship's mass would be fuel. Which means that up to half of the ship's mass
                would be payload. A 100 ton ship could deliver between 30 to 50 tons of useful cargo
                to the surface of Mars. Heavy equipment like catapillar tractors and bulldozers could
                be delivered to Mars.

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/19/05 05:51
PM
                   Dan_Casale,

                   All that I did in my breakdown was take the information that Spacester put out in this
                   post and break it up into ships, just to get another perspective on it. -- added for
                   clarity



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 29 of 158




                   About why I put in two landers the first round...I quess it depends on whether we
                   want to send one with enough propellant in it's tanks to bring down a load and then
                   get back into orbit to pick up the other load and transport it down also, or send two
                   each with each enough propellant to transport one load down to the surface. This is a
                   question of logistics and efficiencies and depends on what we haven't decided yet:
                   masses that need to be transported and what type of lander we use. I quess like
                   Spacester has said, we seem to be getting ahead of ourselves. Sorry...I started it.

                   I agree that there is more that we need to send than we have brought up already, and
                   most of what you've listed I agree we should send, although, I don't know if we need
                   to send a settler hab unit this early, it will be several more cycle's till our settlers
                   show up. For the second cycle and beyond, I think we should send Mars buggies
                   instead of rovers. I would send rovers the first cycle before we land anything else to
                   scout out our planned base location, to get an up close feel for the area before we try
                   to land there. Everything else should stay in orbit until our scouting is over with. I
                   don't know, One, two, or three weeks just to know exactly what we're dealing with on
                   the surface.

                   Also...

                   Thanks for the data on our current launch options and also on food and water needs
                   of people per day. Very useful and gonna be needed data.

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/19/05 06:44
PM                 Spacester,

                   Thanks for the compliments, but that really is your plan. I took what you put out,
                   digested it, then regurgitated it back out broken up not only into the cycles you had,
                   but also the cycles broken up into ships also. It gives us the opportunity to look at it
                   from another perspective.

                   I do agree that we are getting a little ahead of ourselves. It's apparent looking back
                   over the plan. Alot of things depend on assumptions about unmade decisions. The
                   plan is in no way concrete, and I expect our plan at the end to look much different. It
                   can give us a place to start later after we have done much more work and made more
                   decisions about settlement concepts.

                   First piece of equipment we land:

                   Like I've said, I would land a rover or two. From information gained from the big
                   space agencies, we can decide where we want to settle, but it seems unlikely they will
                   do in depth mapping and observing of the exact location we want to put our
                   settlement for us. Our rovers can take aerial pictures while descending to give us
                   maps, and can drive around a bit to analyze scenery, see the sights (pun intended),
                   and determine where the best place would be to place the ISRU, best place for habs,
                   best place for landing/launching, and so on...




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 30 of 158



                   Everything else can wait in orbit until we're ready to land the real equipment. I don't
                   imagine it should take too long...

                   Glad to hear you like inflatables. We'll just have to wait and see if the idea takes off. I
                   wish Bigelow luck.

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/19/05 07:01
PM                 tfrederick,

                   You're right about repair work. I hadn't even thought about it yet. You're right we
                   need to plan it into the settlement. We will need to send up a machine shop along
                   with everything else. It'll need to go up when our settlers are sent.

                   Our list of needed stuff is getting longer and longer...

                   Just a thought to all,

                   We might not be able to spread our settlement out over the cycles as long as we are
                   finding we want to. The longer we wait to send people, the better the chance things
                   could wear out and break. If we wait too long before sending our settlers, our pre-sent
                   equipment such as our ISRU and power plants might fall into disrepair before they
                   get there. That would not be a good thing for the first settlers.

                   Like tfrederick has said, we need to take into account the possibility of equipment
                   breaking.

JonClarke             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(asteroid)
03/19/05 10:27
PM                 Despite this toxicity , hydrazine has been used almost all manned spacecraft (Soyuz,
                   Salyut, Almaz, Mir, ISS, Gemini, Apollo, Shuttle) with very few problems. It has
                   also been been used in a great many boosters - Titan, Proton, Long March, Ariane 1-
                   4.

                   Jon

Tap_Sa                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(comet)
03/20/05 06:18
AM                 Manned spacecrafts usually don't have problems because, well, they are manned so
                   almost everything possible is made to assure mission success. And if manned mission
                   goes fubar a little toxic spill to nature is dwarfed by humane losses. AFAIK worst
                   hydrazine related accident so far was crash of russian Proton in 1999 that spilled tens
                   of tons hydrazine in Kazakhstan.

                   Original issue was propellant manufacturing on Deimos, hydrazine would be a poor
                   candidate for that because despite being quite simple molecule it's manufacture
                   process is rather complicated compared to hydrogen or methane.



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                      Page 31 of 158




JonClarke             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(asteroid)
03/20/05 06:33
AM                 I was merely pointing out that its toxicity, of itself, is not something that has
                   precluded it's widespread usage.
                   I agree that hydrazine would be difficult to make on the Martian moons, although
                   mainly because there isn't a ready nitrogen source on them. However it certainly is
                   much more complex to make than some other propellants.


                   The next most storable propellants, in a Mars context are either CO/O2 or
                   methane/O2, and are readily made from the atmosphere. For the Martian moons
                   methane/O2 is the best.

                   If hydrazine is needed if could be made on the surface of mars using readily available
                   materials. As a start you would need synthesis of ammonia from hydrogen and
                   nitrogen, the first from water electrolysis, the second from the atmosphere (Haber
                   process). The ammonia would then have to undergo partial oxidation by chlorine
                   (from electrolysis of chlorides, derived by solution extraction from the soil) to form
                   chloramine and then further reaction with excess ammonia to form hydrazine
                   (Raschig process). The parallel oxidiser, nitrogen tetroxide, is made by the catalytic
                   oxidation of ammonia and oxygen.

                   Jon

                   Jon

tfrederick9           Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(proton)
03/21/05 12:48
PM                 "Good question, also how much do we rely on governmental comm/tracking
                   infrastructure here on Earth? Are there currently any other options than NASA/DSN?
                   "

                   As far as I know NASA has the only DSN out there that functions. I'm not sure what
                   the Russians used for thier Venus mission, et el. I would suggest that "we" build our
                   own DSN site, as the last number I recall had DSN at several $1000s per minute of
                   coverage.

                   I would also suggest that provided comm and MPS are in orbit around Mars, that we
                   sell the ability to use them to NASA, JAXA, ESA and whom ever else wants it.

                   You could even do Thermite welding if it came to that, all you need it rust and
                   aluminium.

Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
03/21/05 01:29
                   Arobie:



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 32 of 158



PM                 Sorry, I didn't mean to imply anything wrong with your post. I just wanted a more
                   aggressive and detailed post. Thanks for the reasoning behind the two landers. I can't
                   decide if it is better to land all the equipment as one big lander, individual landers or
                   something in between. Having more landers means less payload capacity, but having
                   more landers means less equipment to replace if a lander fails.

                   We aren't getting ahead of ourselves, we are all working on different parts of the
                   same plan.

                   So what do you think we should outline next?

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/21/05 02:53
PM                 I'm sorry guys, I'm just too busy right now with that darn real life stuff. I'll be back
                   later . . . maybe tonight . . . Martian bandwidth might be the first priority, I was
                   waiting for someone to bring that up.

                   I'll try to get this thread back on track ASAP . . . I know what to do but it's not quick .
                   . . sorry . . .

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/21/05 08:54
PM                 Dan_Casale,

                   Oh, you didn't imply anything wrong with my post. I didn't even get that vibe.

                   I appreciated your comments, and agree with you for the most part of what you said
                   we should send. There is alot of stuff, and alot of it we have not put thought to yet.
                   With that breakdown post, I was just trying to put the big basic parts of Spacester's
                   plan into ships. The list of ships needed probably will grow, although we don't want it
                   to grow too much. We need to try to be conservative, but what we need to take...we
                   will need to take.

                   The reason I think we are getting ahead of ourselves is because while typing up and
                   thinking up my breakdown, there were alot of uncertanties, mostly dealing with mass.
                   We have not designed the interplanetary booster yet and as so have not given
                   ourselves definitive mass ranges, nor do we know how big our equipment will have
                   to be, nor do we know how big of a crew we have to support on transit time and in
                   the beginning of the settlement. It is hard to get too detailed not knowing our mass
                   constraints...not knowing just how much we can fit on top of our booster and just
                   how much we have to send altogether. As a result, my breakdowns will most likely
                   change as we find out that we cannot fit everything allocated or as we find that we
                   can add more.

                   It is too hard to get too detailed without knowing how much we can send at a time,
                   but what you listed is important. I may not know if they could fit on the ships already
                   listed or if we need another, but it's nice to already have listed what we will need to
                   add when we conclusively breakdown our payloads into ships after we have worked



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 33 of 158



                   through a few other things first.

                   As to what I think we should outline next, I believe we need to work on our
                   interplanatery booster. We should flesh that out. It will decide how much we can sent
                   to Mars on one ship and will so decide how many ships we need to send. But I'm
                   waiting for Spacesters next post, and what he guides us toward I will work on. He's
                   our Head Mission Engineer.

JonClarke             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(asteroid)
03/21/05 09:41
PM                 There are lots of deep space tracking stations out there. NASA has three, ESA two,
                   the Russians two (plus several mothballed ships that could be reactivated if need be),
                   the Chinese four, plus several ships. I suspect that the Japanese and Indians would
                   have at least one each as well.

                   Jon

Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
03/22/05 05:49
PM                 Arobie,
                   I thought that ground had been covered, but I am happy to summarize/expand:

                   Currently existing launch technology:
                   Delta IV heavy - 10,843Kg to GTO - 5 meter faring - no info on length of payload.
                   Atlas-V-551 - 8,200Kg to GTO - 5 meter faring - no info on length limitations.
                   Shuttle - 28,800Kg to LEO - cargo bay 15x60 feet - Unknown amount (20,000?) to
                   GTO.
                   Ariane 5 - 8,000Kg to GTO - 5 meter faring (assumed) - no length info.
                   No info on Russian launch systems.

                   Near future:
                   (This requires modifications to an existing launch system)
                   STS - Shuttle-C - 79,256Kg to 400Km - 8.4 meter - No length info - 34,380Kg cargo
                   container/w reuseable engine pod
                   STS - ET - propellent only launch - approx 113,000Kg of propellents and equipment
                   to maintain LH2.
                   STS - Shuttle - passenger bus - Cargo bay is modified to carry Mars crew.
                   STS - ET wet launch. ET is modified to hold equipment or prefab as cargo container.
                   Opened in GTO and stuffed full of equipment for the trip to Mars.

                   Future:
                   Super heavy launch vehicle
                   Crew transport vehicle
                   Large ION engine powered by solar or Nuclear


                   Crew information:
                   If we calculate the consumables on a per person basis then we can make progress



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                      Page 34 of 158



                   without knowing how large the final crew will be or how long the mission will be.
                   For example:

                   O2 requirements - 1323/Liters of gasous O2 per day.

                   Water:
                   2 Liters/day drinking
                   2 liters/day food prep/rehydration
                   2 Liters/day Hygine
                   20 liters/week laundry
                   20 liters/week showers

                   Food:
                   This is a nice formula - Caloric requirements are determined by the National
                   Research Council formula for basal energy expenditure (BEE). For women, BEE =
                   655 + (9.6 x W) + (1.7 x H) - (4.7 x A), and for men, BEE = 66 + (13.7 x W) + (5 x
                   H) - (6.8 x A), where W = weight in kilograms, H = height in centimeters, and A =
                   age in years.

                   After lots of research the closest I could come was about 7 lbs/day/person based on
                   ISS.

                   So how far have we gotten:
                   The nine life support systems (as defined by NASA) are:
                   Air Supply - check
                   Communications
                   Electricity
                   Food production and delivery - check
                   Recreation
                   Temperature control
                   Transportation
                   Waste management,
                   Water supply - check

                   I add:
                   Construction
                   Information storage/retrival/processing
                   Mining/refining/fabricating

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/23/05 02:18
AM                 To begin getting a handle on this vast undertaking, I organize my thoughts in terms of
                   several different groups of three.

                   There are three categories of expenses (capital expenditures):
                   Transportation
                   Hardware
                   Operations




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 35 of 158




                   Transportation is broken into these modes:
                   Launch to LEO
                   Interplanetary (orbital)
                   Surface operations

                   There are three classes of Hardware:
                   Vehicles
                   Habitats
                   Factories

                   Operations are very much undetermined.

                   By way of beginning to lay a foundation for explaining my financing plan, to
                   simplify discussion, I will keep everything in those groups of three. For Hardware,
                   I’m hoping we can break them into sub-classes and develop an overall list. The
                   transportation modes call for vehicles quite different from each other.

                   There are three sources of financing:
                   Not
                   Telling
                   Yet


                   The starting point for devising the finance strategy was to adopt the old saw: “How
                   do you eat an elephant?” (Now I love pachyderms, don’t get me wrong. It’s just an
                   old joke, OK?) Answer: one bite at a time!

                   It’s just a metaphor. Now if a tribe comes across a freshly dead, healthy elephant, it
                   represents an opportunity for feasting, But to get the job done in the time allotted, it’s
                   wise to spread the meat out to fellow tribes. If there’re several elephants, maybe you
                   can feed more than one clan.

                   Financing this settlement plan is like dealing with a lot of dead elephants. The cost
                   needs to be spread out over a wide support base.

                   In fact, these elephants are so huge we might as well treat them as Oliphants (“Big as
                   a house, grey as a mouse”). I want to talk about getting enough support to deal with
                   three Middle-Earth sized hunks of elephant flesh. It will take three clans to deal with
                   it.

                   The three clans are going to finance the three capital expenditures: Transportation,
                   Hardware and Operations.

                   The clans are:
                   Elves
                   Dwarfs
                   Humans

                   J/K, I was seeing if you’re still reading. The three clans are going to be the three-
                   legged stool to build our financing on.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                              Page 36 of 158




spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/23/05 02:19
AM                 I want to talk about all the great points made since my last post, but that will have to
                   wait. I feel a special need to respond to Dan’s excellent summary, that’s a big help. I
                   need to be careful in saying I 100% agree with something, so I’m forced to quibble,
                   and that’s all the following is, quibbling. (What a cool word.)

                   The near future could very well include a HLV (defined as much bigger than the
                   biggest current EELV) that is not a shuttle derivative. SpaceX, for one, could do it
                   and I predict they will have a competitor within five years.

                   The water and food numbers are great to have, I look forward to putting them to use.

                   The nine life support systems are a great, an excellent, starting point. But I want to
                   reorganize it a bit to fit our way of operating. I see five utilities (1, 2, 3, 8, 9), three
                   operation activities (4, 5, 6) and Transportation. The utilities will be provided by
                   hardware, and there we have it sorted into three expense categories.

                   Categories, classes and modes. Categories of Expenses. Classes of Hardware. Modes
                   of Transportation.

                   So that’s some organizational structure to work with.


spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/23/05 02:21
AM                 But what should we talk about, you may be asking. Well, I’ve hinted at the financing
                   plan. I’m going to introduce it slowly, but it’s time to actually begin the process of
                   doing so. To this end, we need to flesh out the list of hardware, but we’ve seen that
                   we’re not ready. So what’s missing?

                   Two things, I think; a timeline of some sort that relates to the availability of
                   financing. I don’t plan on coming up with the whole wad of cash up front. :-)

                   The second thing is an agreement on mass, just as Arobie pointed out. The way out of
                   this dilemma is to choose a crew size. So I’ll just make an executive decision and
                   pick a number. 28. There will be four teams of seven, each team capable of
                   performing any operational task in the settlement. Over time they will tend to
                   specialize a bit, but the idea is to have a diverse array of talent attending to any given
                   problem.

                   The timeline problem is a natural outgrowth of the fact that our aim is to settle, and
                   that means we need maximum flexibility so that we can react to our environment and
                   get better at living there. More on that later, for now, we can lay out which items go
                   on which cycle as a benchmark, but what we’re really laying out is the progression of
                   technology and how they need to coordinate. What we really need to do is lay out



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 37 of 158



                   best case worst case and most likely case.


spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/23/05 02:26
AM                 So there we have it. We will settle Mars in groups of 28. (At least, that’s the number
                   to use pending arguments to the contrary)

                   That’s a very big habitat. Can we launch our second stage habitat on Falcon V in five
                   launches? One launch each for two large inflatable habitats, one launch each for two
                   service modules and another for the hub and truss. That doesn’t count the launches to
                   provision it, which would be shipped by the most economic method for that
                   commodity.

                   Do we need four habitats to house 28 people? It could be done, probably 10 launches
                   at least. The key to an economic design will be to minimize manned orbital assembly
                   operations; EVAs to hook stuff up will be too expensive to do often. I’ve got a design
                   concept in mind to address that, but two habitats would be much better than four.

                   The pair of inflatables would be at opposite ends of a long triangular cross-braced
                   truss. Two trusses actually, with a hub in the middle. The hub is the thrust point for
                   the Interplanetary Booster, which pushes the assembly to Mars via the hub. The truss
                   is stabilized against bending by compressive struts attached to the aft end of the
                   Booster. Also, on the other side of the hub would be a large canister serving as
                   provisions storehouse, which would have tension struts to the truss for additional
                   stiffness, needed mostly for deltaV events, but also making the structure very solid.

                   So the configuration is a long truss with a hub in the middle and big habitats at each
                   end, like a baton twirler’s baton. There would be two big cans attached to the hub
                   (cargo and booster), and the whole thing would rotate around the centers of the big
                   cans and the hub.

                   The booster would inject to Mars transfer orbit from LEO with the assembly not
                   spinning. Spin-up and spin-down energy is surprisingly small, I’ve done the math
                   before. Shortly after departure, the ship is slowly spun up to the chosen rpms, and the
                   assembly spins like a top all the way till a couple weeks before Mars. Then you spin
                   down, get ready for Mars insertion (low dV) and enter HEMO.

                   We would like to leave the booster stage in HEMO so it’s easier to get it back to Cis-
                   Lunar space. So the second stage will need some deltaV capability. The service
                   module mounted “under” the habitats – the outermost part of the baton, provides this
                   impulse. The engines will use CH4 as fuel burned with Oxygen, possibly stored as
                   high pressure gas. The thrust would be along the length of the truss, so precise
                   control of thrust level and vector will be critical.

                   The cargo canister and the booster could separate from the truss for new roles,
                   leaving the two habitats and hub, which would give you an orbital spin-g refuge at
                   Mars. Spinning it down, docking a new cargo canister, and spinning back up again
                   could do resupply. The booster would not be needed if, as planned, the return-to-



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                           Page 38 of 158



                   Earth hab is unused and waiting in Mars orbit. But if instead you exercised the option
                   of using the same hab to go back to Earth, you would either leave the booster
                   attached all the way to LMO or attach a different, re-propped booster to go home.
                   Note that the return habitat will be stocked with the right amount based on the
                   number of folks returning, so the more that stay, the better.

                   So that’s my interplanetary hardware concept. That’s the part I’ve conceived in some
                   detail – the rest of the hardware in my development so far is more open ended.

                   I’m not going to have time to post at length the rest of this week, but I’ll be reading
                   every new post at least daily. Maybe a few quick words, but that’s likely it.


spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/23/05 02:58
AM                 One last post before bed after re-reading the latest posts, just hitting the high points . .
                   .

                   Repair is very important. I'm hoping that the whole settlement philosophy will lead to
                   higher reliability and easier maintainability through a design process that keeps those
                   goals in mind at all times.

                   I agree with tfrederick that we should set up our own communications infrastructure
                   and sell the bandwidth to everyone else with activities at Mars. The DSN network
                   almost certainly does not have excess capacity for the likes of us.

                   Thanks for the clarification on hydrazine and especially for the processes needed to
                   make it. So it looks like the propellant system of choice is CH4 / O2 Do we need to
                   bother with the monopropellant? What about hydrazine-powered internal combustion
                   engines for electricity generation?

                   Iron and steel making is very attractive, but we can’t pretend that we’ll have the
                   capability to make complex equipment (not that anyone suggested such). Maybe
                   welded frames for the installation of high-tech equipment, habitat reinforcement,
                   railroad iron, etc. I would say steel making is low priority for critical path
                   development, but high priority in technologies to develop during the first cycles.

                   I’ll get back to the first piece of equipment question later . . .

                   Signing out . . .


JonClarke             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(asteroid)
03/23/05 04:11
PM                 Elecrity generation

                   CO-02 and XCH4-O2 can both run fuel cells. Or bruned in an APU.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 39 of 158



                   For cold gas micropropellant I suggest use either compressed gas, either nictrogen or
                   CO2, for hot gas micropropellant, decomposition of hydrogen peroxide.

                   Incidently argon is relatively common (2%) in the Martian atmosphere and is a
                   reasonable propellant for ion drives. Because the masses needed are relatively small
                   it could be extracted by simple fractional distillation from the atmosphere and lifted
                   into orbit quite efficiently, if needed.

                   Jon

jhoblik               Fuel for Marsion mission
(quark)
03/23/05 04:47
PM                 We have to think about all equipment to support us during a mission as easy as could
                   be. Easy means also easy to fix it.
                   Looks like that Mars have accessible resources of ice.
                   If this is a case, I suggest to build all our engine design around LH2 and LOX
                   propellant architecture.
                   Electrolysis is easy method, that even in classroom with limited tools could be
                   demonstrated.
                   In both environment on Mars and interplanetary space we face problem how to store
                   LOX and LH2 in form of liquid. My suggestion is not to store fuel in that form, but in
                   a form of ice.
                   Mars ISRU unit will heat up ice and collect in easy storage in a form of ice. LOX and
                   LOH will be generated just before departure from Mars and people will be able to fix
                   any problem with fuel production. If we know that we have enough ice, collected
                   before landing, we will have very low risk that we will be not able to produce LOX
                   and LOH, because unit will be very easy to repair.

                   For interplanetary mission we face also problem to store H2 and O in liquid form for
                   a long time. If we save our fuel in a form of ice It will drastically reduce requirement
                   for storage tank, it has to just prevent ice to sublimate to space. In this form could be
                   store for years without special device.
                   At the moment of departure from Earth/Mars, easy device like heater heat up ice and
                   through electrolysis create liquid LH2 and LOX . Fuel could be use immediately to
                   propel ship. Rocket engine will be smaller, trust will lower(depends on capacity
                   electrolysis and liquidation unit), instead of trust for minutes, we will turn on engine
                   for days. It will delay our travel between Earth and Mars by couple days, but related
                   to the whole trip it will be insignificantly.
                   Fuel for our interplanetary mission could be also deliver to rockets that will be launch
                   to orbit. Almost every launch capacity of rocket launch exceeded weight of payload.
                   We could ask to bring to space water in form of ice. On Earth orbit we could have
                   unit very similar to that we will use in on our interplanetary ship, this unit will collect
                   package of ice a bring them to our interplanetary ship, as fuel it will use portion of ice
                   that is collected packed.

                   Advantage:
                   -no problem with storage, it will drastically reduce size and weight of our
                   interplanetary ship
                   -ice could be delivered to LEO by any rocket launch as additional payload using



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 40 of 158



                   spare rocket launch capacity
                   -ISRU will be use in multiple places and tested before use on Mars
                   -It lower risky situation when LH2, LOX has to be store for long time, danger of
                   explosion or leaking
                   -during LH2, LOX liquidation people will be present and ready fix problems


Arobie                Oxygen, Water, and Food Requirements
(star)
03/23/05 08:42
PM                 Dan_Casale,

                   Thank you and excellent post.

                   I agree with Spacester in that I also think we will see a HLV in the near future. The
                   commercialization of space is rolling along now and SpaceX has shown interest in
                   and hinted at the development of a HLV after the Falcon I and Falcon V. The Big
                   eff'in Rocket...or BFR if you prefer the acronym.

                   Wouldn't the STS derivatives be hugely expensive?

                   The crew information is excellent. After some research and thanks to an Online
                   Conversion Program, I was able to play with the numbers and convert the data to
                   mass measurments instead of just volume measurments. I also converted your
                   gaseous oxygen into LOX.

                   Before we get to the numbers, I showed my work so that if anyone would like to see
                   what I did, they may. The important figures are in italics or under the bold sections.

                   First the oxygen:

                   1323 gaseous liters per person per day

                   According to this website:

                   1 liter LOX = 30.4 cubic feet gaseous oxygen = 860.83214 liters gaseous oxygen

                   1323 gaseous liters / 860.8 = 1.536 liters LOX

                   1.536 liters of LOX is required for one person for one day.

                   And according to this website:

                   100 lb of LOX = 33,756 liters gaseous O2

                   100 lb = 45.359 kilograms
                   33756 liters gaseous O2 / 860.8 = 39.213 liters LOX
                   39.213 liters LOX = 45.359 kilograms LOX
                   45.359 kilograms LOX / 39.213 liters LOX = 1.156 kilograms of LOX for ever liter
                   of LOX



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 41 of 158




                   1 liter LOX = 1.156 kilograms
                   Dan_Casale's number for LOX kg/liter = 1.138 kg/liter

                   1.536 * 1.156 = 1.778 kilograms per person per day

                   1.778 kilograms of LOX is required for one person for one day

                   So LOX for 28 people:

                   For 1 day:

                   43.033 liters of LOX is required.
                   That's 49.777 kilograms using my calculated number of 1.156
                   48.989 kilograms using the Dan_Casale figured from Nasa data (more accurate)

                   For 200 days:

                   8606.556 liters of LOX is required
                   That's 9955.49 kilograms - my number
                   9797.794 kilograms - Dan's number

                   For 960 days:

                   41311.469 liters of LOX is required.
                   That's 47786.352 kilograms - my number
                   47029.413 kilograms - Dan's number

                   (Note that the numbers calculated using Dan_Casale's number are the accurate
                   numbers.)
                   --------
                   Now for the water:

                   2 Liters/day drinking
                   2 liters/day food prep/rehydration
                   2 Liters/day Hygine
                   20 liters/week laundry
                   20 liters/week showers

                   From a google search, I found that 1 gallon of water weighs approximately 8.345 lbs.

                   According to your data on water consumption, 82 liters of water are used due to
                   various needs over a one week period by one person.

                   Using the conversion website:

                   82 liters = 21.662 gallons
                   21.662 gallons * 8.345 lbs = 180.776 lbs
                   180.776 lbs = 81.999 kilograms
                   (I'll leave this above calculation here. Thats the long way around. Learned the short
                   way from Dan.)




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 42 of 158




                   Water for one person, one week:

                   82 liters or 82 kilograms of H2O per week.

                   Water for 28 people one week:

                   2296 liters or 2296 kilograms of H2O per week.

                   For a best case scenario, our waste management and water cycling facilities would be
                   100 percent efficient. If that is the case, then we would only need to provide enough
                   water for the hygine, laundry, and showers to last a week since the water will be
                   recycled and reused. For the drinking and food prep water, I'm not sure how much
                   more we will have to provide. The machines might be perfectly efficient, but we are
                   not. We will have to provide extra to account for our inefficiency. How much of the
                   water that we consume would we be able to retrieve from out sweat and other
                   wastes?

                   Oh yeah, and I'm gonna add food:

                   Food for 1 person/day:
                   3.175 kilograms of food.

                   Food for 28 people/day:
                   88.904 kilograms of food.

                   Food for 28 people 200 days:
                   17780.821 kilograms of food.

                   Food for 28 people 960 days:
                   85347.94 kilograms of fodd.

                   Some Good Sites:
                   Use of Liquid Oxygen
                   Liquid Oxygen
                   Online Conversions

                   Spacester,

                   Great posts. I'll reply to them as soon as I get a chance. For now I've got to go.

tfrederick9           Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(nucleus)
03/23/05 09:23
PM                 I think the hub that spacestar is using for the interplanetary transfer is something we
                   might want to consider reusing. It would take a few mission, but after say 5 trips to
                   Mars, you wouldn't have to launch anymore of them. Its a minor cost saving.
                   Also, I think reaction wheels would do just fine to spin the hub up, they'd be there for
                   ACS control anyway, we should use them.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 43 of 158




Scottb50              Re: Fuel for Marsion mission
(planet)
03/23/05 09:35
PM                 I've been saying the same thing on this thread and on the original Mars mission
                   thread. Except without the ice part, I think liquid water would be a lot simpler and
                   useful.

                   Hydrogen/Oxygen yields the highest ISP of any chemical fuel and as such would
                   require the least overall volume of propellant. A considerable amount would have to
                   be carried anyway. Consistant propullsion technology will simplify operation
                   considerably and there are a number of cases where high pressure gas could be used,
                   thrusters and other low power application. When needed LH and LOX can be
                   provided without long term storage consideration, further simplifying operation.

                   Until we actually find water on Mars or the Moon we could easily provide gasses or
                   LH and LOX from orbit for surface use. Once found water separation equipment
                   could be used on the surface and water sent into orbit to power return vehicles,
                   greatly increasing the efficiency of supply missions.

Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
03/24/05 02:21
PM                 Arobie: Good research!
                   Your LOX weight is a little bit higher than what I get from the shuttle ET page.
                   http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/basics/et/index.html =
                   1.1384105727913491314600371901666 Kg/Liter
                   So Lets use your figure, then if our mission ends up a little light we will be in great
                   shape.

                   >I agree with Spacester in that I also think we will see a HLV in the near future. <
                   (A BFR is better than an Little FR.) While this may be true, we don't have any specs
                   about its capabilities. With out specs, all our plans are just pie-in-the-sky guesses. I'm
                   trying not to take that route.

                   >Wouldn't the STS derivatives be hugely expensive?<
                   I saw a figure once that the Shuttle-C deriviative was $1 billion. I would suspect that
                   in reality it could be done for much less.

                   An propellent only launch would require modifications to the ET to provide xyz-axis
                   control. Additionally the LOX/LH2 Engine's need to be moved to the bottom of the
                   tank. I'm going to also assume this will be about $1 billion to design. I would propose
                   we replace the SSME's with less expensive expendable, multiple restart capabile
                   (RL10?) engines.

                   The Wet launch ET's will also be a custom project and therefor be expensive. I think
                   we could use a figure that is twice the cost of a current ET.

                   The shuttle as a passenger bus, converts the cargo bay to a passenger area by using an



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                             Page 44 of 158




                   inflatable habitat with seats. The limit is cargo capacity of the shuttle at 28,000Kg
                   (1000Kg/person). If I had to guess, I would say this could be done for about $500
                   million.

                   One last thing.
                   >82 liters or 81.999 kilograms of H2O per week.<
                   *laughing* If I remember correctly, water is the basis of liters to Kg therefor 1 liter =
                   1 Kg, so your calculation is off by .1 grams. :>


                   Spacester: (No elephants or Oliphants were harmed by the crafting of this post.)
                   Quibles back at ya! > I see five utilities (1, 2, 3, 8, 9), three operation activities (4, 5,
                   6) and Transportation.<
                   That works for me, but you have forgotten the science parts of... Construction,
                   Information storage/retrival/processing, and Mining/refining/fabricating.

                   28 is a small number but it is doable. I think on the Lunar settlement we were looking
                   at 50+ people. Why 4 teams?
                   > It could be done, probably 10 launches at least.<
                   10 launches for each mission/window, I believe this settlement may have slipped
                   over the cost event horizion. I like the LEO -> Mars crew ship design, sounds quite
                   practical. I still think we need more/better information on your thoughts for this
                   settlement.


                   jhoblik:
                   Welcome to the discussion. My thoughts on your idea are below.

                   JonClarke:
                   On the surface I like the "water (or ice) as shielding" concept. Here are the drawbacks
                   as I see them.
                   1) Water is a very low energy state compound. It takes lots of energy to split it back
                   into its components.
                   2) While a hydrolizer is a very simple device, a failure at the wrong time means that
                   you impact Mars or miss Mars altogether.
                   3) LH2 is even a better neutron blocker than water.
                   4) Ice requires even more energy than water to be really useful.

                   I am proposing that the LH2 and the waste water be used as shielding. Here are my
                   reasons.
                   1) It takes less energy to keep hydrogen liquid than to seperate it from water.
                   2) LOX & LH2 is in a "high" energy state, so it will have a number of uses.
                   Propellent, electrical power, water, heating, cooling, and shielding.
                   3) Heating, cooling, and electrical power, all produce water as a byproduct. This can
                   be used to supply all the water needs of the crew. I am not excluding an alternate
                   energy source such as solar or nuclear, it just doesn't have to be the only power
                   source.


                   tfrederick9:




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 45 of 158



                   I wonder if spacesters concept could be morphed into the Mars Cycler type craft?

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/24/05 04:58
PM                 Dan_Casale,

                   I'de prefer we use the number calculated using Nasa data. It's bound to be much more
                   accurate than my number. I was looking for something just like that, but didn't find
                   anything that easy. The numbers I based my calcs off of were probably not the most
                   accurate, and I had to convert them to other measurments a few time before I got
                   what we needed. The Nasa numbers are cut and dry and definitely more accurate than
                   mine.

                   The space shuttle sounds expensive, but I agree that we want to base our settlement
                   on reality instead of quesses.

                   About the water and it's weight....LMAO! I didn't know that kilograms were based
                   off of the weight of a liter of water, nor did I notice how close those numbers where.
                   My real number for the weight of 82 liters of water was 81.99999999315676. I wasn't
                   off by much.

                   Now my second number for water was way off. I don't know what I did to figure that
                   weight so far off. I'm going to edit the above post to fix those numbers. I'm also going
                   to add calculations for LOX weight using your number to the above post.

                   Thank you for the comments and your own research.

tfrederick9           Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(nucleus)
03/24/05 09:57
PM                 Dan_Castle,
                   That was what I was thinking I just had a brain freeze and couldn't remember the
                   name. In this case the cycler seems like the ideal long term transport system.

                   The shielding on Mars I think should be kept as simple as possible. The idea of
                   having LH2 so close to the hab bothers me, mainly because othe temps involved. I
                   imagine the habs will need heating rather than cooling. I would say we just use the
                   Mars regolith and just cover the habs with it. From what I can find on it, regolith isn't
                   the best material from a shielding stand point. But from our stand point it may be the
                   best because all we have to do is something half bury the habs and cover with
                   regolith. Just an idea, the LH2 is better at shielding. I'm just trying to think of the
                   easiest thing for the first people to arrive there to get up and running ASAP.

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/24/05 11:17
PM
                   Hi Spacester,




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 46 of 158




                   For Hardware, I’m hoping we can break them into sub-classes and develop an overall
                   list.

                   Well then, here's a proposal of just that for you.

                   *One thing before you get there: Classes are broken down into orders and orders are
                   broken down into into families. Classes - Orders - Families

                   The Three classes of Hardware:

                   ----A)Vehicles Class
                   -----------1)Interplanetary Spaceship Order
                   -------------------a)Manned Family
                   -------------------b)Unmanned Family
                   -----------2)Orbital Spacecraft Order
                   -------------------a)Reprop Family
                   -------------------b)Crew/Supplies Orbit to Surface Family
                   -------------------c)Unmanned Supplies Orbit to Surface Family
                   -----------3)Surface Craft Order
                   -------------------a)Rovers Family
                   -------------------b)Hoppers Family
                   -------------------c)Surface Automobiles Family

                   ----B)Habitats Class
                   -----------1)Test Habitat Order
                   -------------------a)Undecided Families
                   -----------2)Space Habitat Order
                   -------------------a)Transit habitat Family
                   -------------------b)Orbital habitat Family
                   -----------3)Surface Habitat Order
                   -------------------a)Converted Propellant Tank Family
                   -------------------b)Inflatable Family

                   ----C)Factories Class
                   -----------1)ISRU Order
                   -------------------a)Propellant Production Family
                   -------------------b)Iron Production Family
                   -----------2)Food Production Order
                   -------------------a)Hydroponics Family
                   -----------3)Machine Shop Order
                   -------------------a)Repairs Shop family

                   So there's a hardware breakup into subclasses. It's open for discussion and
                   modification. As I said, I broke the three classes of hardware up into orders and those
                   orders into families. Now the families can be broken up into genera (plural for
                   genus), which is a next step toward fleshing out a hardware list. If we need to, the
                   genera can even be broken down into species.

                   Remember the animal taxonomy system?




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 47 of 158



                   Something about our hardware system reminded me of a living thing, the way the
                   system all works to keep the settlement alive. It seemed fitting, plus it was already
                   started with classes.

                   I like your plan for the second stage habitat, but there is a problem dealing with how
                   we get the entire thing up to LEO. The inflatable habitat is too big to be launched by
                   a Falcon V. According to the space.com article I posted earlier when talking about
                   Bigelow, the hab weighs 25 tons or about 25,000 kilograms. The Falcon V can lift a
                   max of 6,020 kilograms and that's to a 200km orbit. The Falcon V is (was?) planned
                   to launch the small scale inflatable hab, but looking at the numbers it doesn't look
                   like it could launch a full sized one.

                   Hope you get time to drop by for a post sometime soon.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/24/05 11:38
PM                 My strategy is not the same thing as Dr. Aldrin’s (et al) cyclers. His cyclers do not
                   get captured in planetary orbit, they do a swing-by maneuver. The problem I have
                   with that is: you’re on your own as far as the dV to actually arrive at your destination.
                   The big fancy cycler got me to Mars, but I have the entire burden of orbital insertion
                   to deal with on the separated stage I’m taking to LMO.

                   My plan has the propulsion stage do its job at both ends of the trajectory, and then
                   cycle around for the next job. It gets you into a high orbit where you can take your
                   time dropping the second stage down to low orbit. The booster stays as high in the
                   gravity well as we can, considering other factors. It is true that we will be spending
                   more dV that way, but only if you are looking at it from a specific energy standpoint.
                   IOW, IMO when you do the actual mass budget for my plan vs. Cyclers, this strategy
                   spends less total propellant.

                   Cyclers are a technology for a more mature space faring society IMO, they are not
                   the way to go about getting established.

                   The problem with liquid Hydrogen is storage. Or lack thereof. :-) It simply leaks
                   away, no matter what you try to do to stop it. Solving this problem is an unnecessary
                   distraction, let somebody else do it and we’ll shift to LH2 when that tech is ready.

                   Generating LH2 on the way to Mars is no way to run a spaceline. You’ve got to have
                   assured dV capability to be able to do everything you need to do to get back, before
                   you ever leave in the first place. I also question if LH2 can be generated at a fast
                   enough rate with solar power to enable “gas and go” operations.

                   Propellant: Kerosene/LOX if Earth derived, CH4/LOX if Martian derived. This is the
                   baseline propulsion I’ll be working with until such time as I see some solid numbers
                   refuting the above logic. It is noted that LH2 tanks will be very large, which is
                   attractive from a habitat conversion standpoint, so if the storage problem is well and
                   truly solved, we would go with the higher Isp, you bet.

                   Every piece of hardware should be designed for re-use if at all practical. This



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                            Page 48 of 158



                   definitely includes the hub and trusses. It’s the chassis of the vehicle; attach two habs,
                   an Interplanetary Booster and a cargo canister and make a new vehicle out of an old
                   chassis. The canister becomes a habitat, the Booster un-docks to run a cargo route,
                   and the habs would make their way from LMO to the surface. Propellant tanks on the
                   Booster would stay attached, we had talked about using them as habitat shells. But
                   since the Booster itself is re-used, the tanks are where they need to be, don’t mess
                   with them. Tanks on the second stage (in the hub) would also be built-in for re-use.

                   On the “pie-in-the-sky guesses”, yup, that’s the point we’re at right now. But the
                   basic assumption is that you cannot settle Mars with current EELVs, so a larger
                   launcher needs to be developed, so when we figure out our ideal payload size, we’ll
                   start talking launchers to do the job. For now, BFR is all I need to know to go ahead
                   with this preliminary design step. :-) We’re looking at a 28-person crew, so it’s time
                   to start figuring out what size payload we need to hire a ride for.

                   Why four teams? Well, it’s a big crew and they’re going to be in two separate
                   habitats. If you leave it at two teams, you would have two leaders in opposition,
                   better would be to have a team of 4 leaders make decisions. Tie votes among the 4
                   leaders would be broken by a 28-person vote. I’m looking for a system that’s simple,
                   fair and designed to reach consensus.

                   But mainly, I like seven-person teams assembled to provide a complete skill set, so
                   we can do almost any job at the settlement with just that squad. The idea behind
                   going with as many as 28 was to get a lot more done; we can have 4 different
                   activities at once with teams of seven.

                   Construction and mining/refining/fabricating are operation activities. Info storage etc
                   are utilities and so in the Hardware category, sorted out among the three classes of
                   hardware.

                   I'm just trying to think of the easiest thing for the first people to arrive there to get up
                   and running ASAP

                   That’s one of the keys to our settlement design. Of course, another key is long-term
                   reliability, but the first manned cycle will be critical to overall success. The idea is
                   that the correct solution is the one that answers both needs without making apologies,
                   and that this idea is the one most compatible with Settlement being the key goal.

                   I don’t have all the answers on the settlement design, many people have thought
                   about it a lot more than I. But what I’m trying to do is find a new way to make it
                   actually happen. There are three major innovations I bring to the table, the rest is very
                   hazy for me.

                   I insist on Settlement being the raison d‘etre for the whole enterprise, I have an
                   audacious financing strategy and a deltaV-driven interplanetary infrastructure vision,
                   but most of the rest is up to the folks on this thread.

                   Keep up the great posts!




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 49 of 158



Tap_Sa                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(comet)
03/25/05 06:23
AM                 " I didn't know that kilograms were based off of the weight of a liter of water"

                   Because it's not. Well, it was before 1889 but then it was realized that the litre-of-
                   water mass depends on density which depends on pressure which depends on mass,
                   circular d'oh.

                   The idea of 'electrolysis-rocket' is interesting. Hydrogen releases about 140MJ/kg of
                   energy when burned, efficiency of ordinary electrolysis is about 70% so you need
                   ~200MJ of energy to get that kilogram of hydrogen (and eight kilograms of oxygen)
                   from nine kilograms of water. To get one kg of hydrogen per second 200MW of
                   electricy is needed, either a small nuclear reactor or large solar panel. Both are
                   difficult options but maybe we don't need the hydrogen that quick.

                   2MW, 10 grams of H2 and 80 grams of O2 per second, that should be doable even
                   with solar cells. Assuming stoichiometric burn and 4400m/s exhaust speed (~450
                   second Isp) we get 396N thrust. Not much, but constant burn would consume 7.8 tons
                   of propellant per day. Two week burn and whopping 109 tons are gone.

                   Only moving part would be a little pump delivering 90cc of room temperature water
                   to the electrolizer, at the pressure required for the rocket to work. Electrolizer would
                   deliver high pressure gaseous H2 and O2 to the combustion chamber. It may be
                   necessary to precool H2 using a heat exchanger aimed at cold outer space, so that it
                   can used to cool the rocket engine.

                   The big question is can such rocket engine be made that would withstand weeks of
                   operation. I don't know but there are couple of points that at least make it easier.

                   1) It's only the injector/combustion chamber/nozzle that we are talking about, not the
                   turbopump which almost certainly is the first thing to fail in normal rocket engine.

                   2) Because this engine would operate entirely in space, vacuum, there's no need for
                   stellar 200+ bar chamber pressures like in SSME. Rocket engine's efficiency is
                   heavily related to ratio of combustion chamber pressure (Pc) to the pressure of
                   exhaust gases at nozzle exit (Pe). We want Pc/Pe to be high, but Pe has to be same or
                   higher than ambient pressure, Pa. Since Pa in space is pretty much zero even
                   mediocre Pc delivers good efficiency, you need a big nozzle though. Small Pc means
                   lighter plumbings and may ease the durability of chamber walls against weeks of
                   operation.

                   Oh almost forgot, high temperature hydrolysis might help, then you'd need less
                   electricity because part of energy required comes directly from heat. It's a lot easier to
                   produce heat using concentrating mirrors than electricity with solar cells.


tfrederick9           Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(nucleus)
03/25/05 08:56




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 50 of 158



AM                 Spacestar, not to get too hung up on the cyclers. However, I just want to make sure I
                   understand what you are saying. You are proposing that the cycler drop you off in a
                   high orbit while the cycler stays in orbit capture, and you get do you Mars entry on
                   you own? I curious about instead of staying high in the gravity well, if you put the
                   cycler in a high elipitical orbit and drop the Mars protion off for an aerobraking
                   manouver. The cycler can then escape Mars orbit and contiune, or stay. I DO NOT
                   know the DV numbers, and if this will gain you anything, I imagine the cyclers DV
                   requirements would go up slightly and the insertion crafts numbers will go down.

                   Its going to be very interesting to see the compromises we're going to see during this
                   little endevour. The balance between reliablity, mass, cost, speed, fixablity, and
                   complexity is going to be a difficult line to walk. I'm curious, should the systems be
                   design with components that we know will fail and need replaced becuase of high
                   wear, or take the approach and develop components that will survive the high wear,
                   but have high cost and complexity.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/25/05 10:28
AM                 "Hydrolizer Rocket" - an interesting curiousity, but not part of our Settlement plan.
                   Very interesting though, great out of the box thinking.

                   tfrederick, hmmm . . . I don't see the difference between your two descriptions . . . we
                   seem to be describing the same thing.

                   I'm not going to use the word cycler ever again :-)

                   What I'm talking about is an Interplanetary Booster, a re-useable first stage of a true
                   spaceship. Instead of a Boost from surface to space, it boosts you from Earth orbit to
                   the rest of the solar system, then comes back for another mission.

                   Our manned Mars Cruiser splits the dV mission into three stages.

                   On getting to Mars, the craft targets the point where it falls into the gravity well to a
                   specified minimmum altitude. You burn your engines as this happens, and the
                   minimum altitude becomes the periapse of your HEMO. We burn just enough to
                   achieve this orbit, that's as high in the gravity well as we can go without danger of
                   not getting captured. This capture maneuver can be modified to include aerobraking
                   if we so choose.

                   Once capture is achieved, the second stage (for manned ships, the assembly of
                   hab/truss/hub/truss/hab with canister) undocks and powers down to LMO.

                   The hub would incorporate tanks and engines, I don't think I mentioned that before.

                   The second stage has quite a bit of dV capability. The savings in my plan aren't from
                   minimizing dV, but from splitting the dV up into managable chunks. Each stage has
                   significant dV capability, but not so much that it's basically just a huge tank with
                   other stuff attached.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 51 of 158




tfrederick9           Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(nucleus)
03/25/05 01:46
PM                 Spacestar, I had a feeling we where talking about the same thing. So we're banning
                   "cycler" for good long while? Sounds good to me!

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(planet)
03/25/05 10:51
PM                 That's ridiculous, the only way it works is with a cycler.

                   First Mission: Takes surface facilities, orbital facilities, landers and initial crew from
                   LEO to LMO. Main vehicle returns with samples and crew who are not staying after
                   Second Mission arrives.

                   Second Mission: Supplies, people and spare parts for the surface facility, vehicles as
                   well as Modules, used to carry supplies and water enroute, to expand surface
                   facilities or establish others.

                   Susequent Missions, see Second Mission. I don't see a better way to build a colony,
                   or even a research center.

                   Beyond that. Who knows? Maybe Mars is a good place to visit, or off the beaten
                   path, we don't know until we get there. Thats why I can't get that excited about a
                   colony, until it evolves from a research facility into a colony, which Antarctic
                   facilities haven't done in the last 50 years by the way.

                   The only way to go to Mars, or the moon is with cyclers. The biggest problem is
                   getting from the Earths surface to orbit. The rest is easy, or at least simpler.



spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/25/05 11:09
PM                 Scott, what's your definition of 'cyclers'?

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(planet)
03/26/05 12:27
AM                 A core vehicle that goes from LEO to a destination orbit, or location in Space, and
                   back. Modules are attached as needed for cargo or propulsion.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/26/05 09:51
AM                 Whew! That's a relief, I had to make sure we're off the Aldrin Cycler strategy. You
                   and I are both just saying that in principle, everything should be reusable, especially



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 52 of 158



                   the large hardware. Every major part of my Mars Fleet is reusable.

                   Arobie, I almost missed your post! Excellent work, I see no problems with that after a
                   quick look . . . I like the taxonomy system a lot, it fits nicely with other stuff we
                   haven't talked about . . . gotta run . . .

JonClarke             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(asteroid)
03/27/05 03:37
AM                 Dan

                   I am not sure why you think I argued for water as shielding, because I did not.
                   However, since you mentioned it....

                   Keep in mind that whatever you do on Mars in orbit or in transit you are going to
                   keep large amounts of water, of the order of 25 kg per person per day. So it makes
                   sense to use it for shielding where practical and neccessary. It is also very attractive
                   to recycle it. As I recall the ISS operates at 90% efficiency in this regard. This cuts
                   the net daily usage to 2.5 kg PP.

                   Jon



JonClarke             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(asteroid)
03/27/05 03:51
AM                 probably bets to call these spacecraft shuttles or ferrys rather than cyclers, because
                   cycler means a very specific type of spacecraft that uses a very specific class of
                   orbits. Just to avoid confusion.....

                   Jon

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/27/05 09:55
AM                 Thanks for that, Jon, but we've got Martian "Shuttles", a more powerful variant of a
                   Hopper. I don't like "Ferrys" because the propulsion stage doesn't have passengers or
                   cargo, it just pushes stuff around.

                   I've chosen to call it an Interplanetary Booster Stage. It's taking the terminology from
                   launch operations and applying it to interplanetary voyages. So it's a Booster, but of
                   the interplanetary type. The name is meant to imply a multi-staged vehicle where the
                   first stage does as much of the work as practical.

                   The second stage is a spin-g craft with dV for Mars orbital operations, if manned.
                   The cargo variant of the second stage either goes all the way to the surface or hands
                   off to a sister ship, a second stage from an earlier cycle converted into a Martian
                   Cargo Shuttle Propulsion Stage.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 53 of 158



spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/27/05 10:13
AM                 Jon, I'm glad we're on the same page on taking lots of water.

                   On the basis of 25 kg / day / person, does anyone want to calc the volume and mass
                   of water we need for 28 people for 250 days? (200 days transit, 10 days transfer, 40
                   days contingency)

                   Martian surface shielding (not already incorporated in the habitats) should be from
                   ISRU - regolith and ice. There will be plenty of time to get the first, trial hab covered,
                   because it's supposed to be ready and running when the first people get there. The
                   settlers would then assist the robots in covering the habitat delivered for the current
                   cycle.

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/27/05 11:49
AM
                   Spacester,

                   For 28 people / day:

                   700 kg / liters water

                   Calculating for 250 days is a bit tougher. That depends on the efficiency of our water
                   recycling unit(s).

                   Without water recycling, we would have to lug 175000 kg / liters of water.

                   I'm going to give our water recycling unit a 90 percent efficiency. (Based off of the
                   ISS)

                   That means that we need to supply enough to make up 10 percent lost every day.

                   10 percent of 700 is 70 so:

                   y = 70x + 700

                   y = amount of water

                   x = days

                   y = 70 (250) + 700

                   y = 18200 kg/liters

                   Note: 1 kg of water = 1 liter of water

                   Kilograms were orginally based of off 1 liter of water. Since water varies due to temp
                   and pressure, it's not exact, but really, really close. 1 kg H2O = 1 liter H2O is close



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 54 of 158



                   enough for our purposes. Thank you Dan_Casale and Tap_Sa for teaching me that.


spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/27/05 12:27
PM                 Nice work. Now, if we determine the diameter and height of a 14-person habitat, we
                   can figure out how thick a layer of water we could have around the entire cylinder,
                   plus flat end caps,using the entire 175 tonnes of water. I'm thinking the inflatable
                   habitat could have a water blanket layer.

                   Or maybe, even if we bring the entire 175 tonnes (just as a benchmark - for the sake
                   of discussion), it's enough only for a "fallout shelter" - a refuge everybody gathers
                   into during a CME from the sun.

                   How big of a cube could we build using 175 tonnes of water filling walls 0.50 meters
                   (19.7 inches) thick?

                   In what way do we utilize the water we bring? In storage as shielding? Strictly as a
                   CME refuge? Aquariums / Aquaculture? Hot tubs? Hot showers?


Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/27/05 12:34
PM                 Spacester,

                   Before we get too far, we have a decision to make.

                   With the 25 kg/person/day we now have two different figures for water consumption,
                   this one from Jon_Clarke, and Dan_Casales figure of 6 liters a day for drinking, food
                   prep, and hygine and 40 liters a week for laundry and showers. Dan's works out to
                   about 12 kg/person/day while Jon's is 25 kg/person/day. That's a big difference.

Tap_Sa                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(comet)
03/27/05 12:45
PM                 A question: Does the 90% water recycling efficiency based on ISS include or exclude
                   the O2 generation? 2.5L water loss per day per person sounds quite alot, where does
                   it go. It's a closed tin can after all so it cannot just evaporate away If water is not
                   used to O2 generation by electrolysis then recycling efficiency might be much higher.
                   But then we would need true O2 recycling where CO2 is cracked, doable but AFAIK
                   not applied in space before.

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/27/05 12:53
PM
                   Tap_Sa,




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 55 of 158



                   All good questions, and honestly, I don't know the answers.

                   I just took Jon's figure for water per day and figure for ISS efficiency and ran the
                   numbers.

                   He would probably know the answers to your questions.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/27/05 12:59
PM                 Hi Arobie, good point.

                   IIRC, Jon's numbers are a water-rich scenario, Dan's are based on a conservation
                   strategy. My design habits tell me to provision for the former, but operate for the
                   latter.

                   My idea is to bring enough water that if the recycling fails the first day out from
                   Earth, it's not a problem - you just use up all the freshwater you brought at a modest
                   rate. But in fact you strive for a high recycling rate - in the extreme case, you would
                   arrive at Mars with as much pure water as you left with. But you would not design for
                   a cutting-edge recycling rate.

                   This is one way to keep costs down. You would be in a position to design your
                   recycling unit without the mission-critical aspect dominating the design. It would still
                   be robust, but not have to achieve a very difficult performance standard.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/27/05 01:06
PM                 Excellent question, Tap_Sa . . .

                   We need the answer to oxygen generation for a closed system. That's the unit that's
                   been having lots of trouble on ISS right?

                   Is there any chance photosythesis could do the job of daily oxygen generation?

                   Design concept: duckweed in shallow racks under strong lighting.
                   Question: How many square meters would be needed to support 14 people?

JonClarke             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(asteroid)
03/27/05 06:37
PM                 There is no "right" answer for water consumption. In a survival situation you could
                   probably get away with 3 L per day PPP. That is basically drinking and food
                   hydration and nothing else. How we calculate the everything else is where the
                   different numbers come in. It is fun to actually measure your own daily water
                   consumption in various areas and see how little you can get away with. Some uses of
                   water in a closed environment (and I am using the numbers from memory, I can get a
                   reference from my work computer tomorrow):




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 56 of 158




                   Drinking - 2 L PPD
                   Food hydration - 2 L
                   Food prep - 2 L
                   Teeth cleaning - 0.5 L
                   Daily sponge wash (essentials only) 2L
                   Toilet cleaning - 1.5L

                   The heavy users of water are everything else. These include:

                   showers
                   humidification
                   environmental cleaning
                   clothes washing
                   cooling

                   Even showers are variable. Is it a full domestic shower or a navy shower? In a clean
                   environment (in transit) you can get away with a shower once a week. In a dirty
                   environment, like Mars I suspect you will need them several times a week. Also keep
                   in mind that in zero G you can do a lot of cleaning with good air filters. On earth (or
                   mars) the airborne materials settle to the surface and need to be removed by clean
                   materials and elbow grease.

                   Having just crunched through consumable numbers for a paper I would be happy
                   with Dan's 12 kg for transit and 25 for Mars. However, if you add in food production
                   and biological recycling these numbers go through the roof.

                   Some other points raised by others:

                   The 10% daily loss goes in various ways. All spacecraft hulls leak, as do radiators.
                   Some is lost in EVAs, via the airlock, suits, and suit cooling. No recycling system is
                   100% efficient. for example if you recycle wash water you are left with a sludge of
                   skin cells, oils, hair, etc. Recovering water from this sludge, as it is from faecal
                   matter is difficult. Flash evaporation is one way, but costly in terms of energy. So
                   90% is realistic, 95% is probably achievable in the future. But basically the more
                   efficient the recycling the more power you need.

                   Splitting O2 off water, as with Elektron which, despite bad press is a good system
                   (simple, robust, generally reliable, and easily repaired) does recycle O2. Metabolism
                   produces water as a waste product as well as CO2 and a third of the O2 uptake is
                   consumed by the production of metabolic water.

                   I have not looked extensively at biological recycling systems as they are further down
                   the technological track than the areas I am familiar with. Biological recycling
                   systems are volume expensive, poorly understood, use lots of water, are high
                   maintainance, often metastable. Mechanical systems in contrast are low volume, well
                   understood, low maintainance, and easily repaired.

                   In the end your settlement will have to have biological recycling, especially when
                   you go to local food production, but not at first. The volumes required are quite large.
                   It takes 60 m2 of high intensity horticulture to sustain one person with respect for




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 57 of 158



                   food. Oxygen requires 20 m2. You need to double these areas to provide a hedge
                   against both failure and fluctuations that result from crop harvesting. So say 120 m2
                   PP. I suggest a transition period from purely mechanical to mixed mechancial
                   biological and finally biological that goes along with increasing settlement size.

                   Jon

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/27/05 06:58
PM                 How big of a cube could we build using 175 tonnes of water filling walls 0.50 meters
                   (19.7 inches) thick?

                   A cube with an inside volume of 362.77 cubic meters. Length, width, and height are
                   7.132 meters. The layer of water sheilding is outside of that.

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(planet)
03/28/05 01:12
AM                 Where I see a problem is when you talk of using Kerosene and Methane. I see no
                   need for either, not only are they more difficult to store than water, they both
                   breakdown chemically, over time and reduce, or lose, their efficiency. Hydrazine is
                   even worse, heavy and at least as hard to contain as Hydrogen.

                   First, the problem with storing Liquid Hydrogen is solved by not producing it until
                   near the time you need it, loses could be kept low and any boil-off occurring could be
                   recycled back into the main power supply for re-use until needed. Hydrogen
                   containment would still cause loses, but, the key is to keep the water until you need
                   it. Once the outbound and return requirements are actually established, payload,
                   water, etc. it would be much easier to put numbers to ideas.

                   For power generation LH is not even a requirement, Hydrogen can easily be
                   contained under low pressure, even now, and used to power fuel cells and thrusters.
                   The real determinator is the Oxygen anyway, rather than the Hydrogen. 8+1 or
                   8+6+1, figure in the efficiency difference and hydrocarbons start looking worse and
                   worse.

                   Water does present a problem in Space though; if it freezes it expands, which would
                   be a very hard system to design, so it needs to be kept liquid. Heat generated within a
                   vehicle would probably handle most of the problem, with solar power it would be
                   pretty easy to keep a stable environment.

                   The bottom line is water is easily contained and transferred with minimal
                   environmental problems.

                   Having more than one propellant just adds complexity. Hydrozine thrusters, LH/LOX
                   engines to orbit, Kerosene enroute, Methane back. Lots of luck!




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 58 of 158



grooble               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/28/05 04:06
AM                 About the water, wouldn't it be simpler and better to design some kind of self
                   cleaning clothing? Or clothing that does not get dirty easily, and that removes bad
                   smells? You could remove the need for brushing teeth by the type of foods on offer,
                   and just bring a load of good chewing gum, or stick to mouthwash. Washing hair etc -
                   no, everyone should have their heads waxed, including the females, in fact have all
                   bodily hair removed.

                   This would cut down water usage, and improve hygiene at the same time.




JonClarke             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(asteroid)
03/28/05 04:35
AM                 Invent self cleaning clothing and the world will beat a path to your door. Until then
                   we wash them. Cleaning your teeth needs maybe 0.5 L of water, hardly a big issue.
                   Depilation is a bit drastic, I suspect, and not neccessary.

                   Of course we might we decide to go dark ages and never wash......

                   Jon



grooble               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/28/05 05:15
AM                 There are people who WOULD put up with those conditions though, tougher,
                   rougher people, not your squeeky clean *where is my hairspray?* type. You need
                   those hardened people to make your settlement a success, people who can handle the
                   hardship, normal folks may break. Look at folks in some of the hardest areas of the
                   world, you want those toughened, strong people to be your settlers, afghans and the
                   like. They can make hard treks that even our special forces cant make.



grooble               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/28/05 05:47
AM                 Also a quick tip about breeding, you'll need to send a sperm bank from earth in order
                   to reduce inbreeding. That's just how it is. The women could have surrogate children,
                   so the genetic pool is kept diverse. So there would be no real brothers or sisters.

                   Perhaps that could be part of your mars lottery prize, have your genes saved and used



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 59 of 158



                   on mars.

Tap_Sa                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(comet)
03/28/05 06:32
AM                 "You need those hardened people to make your settlement a success, people who can
                   handle the hardship, normal folks may break."

                   Good point. Pragmatic and adaptive people.

                   One factor that affects the water issue is what the settlers are supposed to do while
                   enroute. How much do they have to perform physical work (in addition to exercise to
                   keep themselves fit) ? This affects greatly how much the crew consumes food, water,
                   oxygen etc.

                   How's this for water baseline; we start the trek with as much clean water as is
                   minimum requirement for the crew to survive, assuming all water recycling
                   equipment fails. Daily provision is the amount person has to consume to prevent
                   dehydration, and just that. No shower, washing clothes/teeth, nothing but surviving.
                   Quick googling tells the required amount is about 3 litres for average adult male and
                   2 litres for female. Assuming average 2.5L for 28 passengers we need 70L per day
                   total, neatly the amount 90% recycling efficiency was loosing per day. So, if the
                   recycling works, people can do a lot of nice things to add their comfort. If it fails,
                   well then you have to be a little more spartan for a while.

                   Btw since the voyage lasts months, quite a lot of people in rather small craft, they all
                   perspire, doesn't this all mean that air humidity control has to work or things get so
                   damp inside the craft that it poses a serious risk.

grooble               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/28/05 01:30
PM                 I know this may sound funny but...Arobie said on another thread something about
                   dwarfs, and i was thinking, what if the crew was made of dwarf & midgets? Surely
                   that would bring down launch costs and they'd eat, drink less?

                   Or you could put up more dwarf people for the same cost as a lower number of
                   ordinary people. You'd have that extra brain / skillset for the same price.

                   This isn't a joke, i'm serious..

Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
03/28/05 01:43
PM                 Arobie:
                   I like your summary, lets see if I can expand it to include everything.
                   A) Vehicles Class
                   -----1) Earth to GTO - Cargo
                   ----------a) Delta IV heavy - 10,843Kg to GTO - 5 meter faring - no info on length of
                   payload.



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 60 of 158




                   ----------b) Atlas-V-551 - 8,200Kg to GTO - 5 meter faring - no info on length
                   limitations.
                   ----------c) Shuttle - 28,800Kg to LEO - cargo bay 15x60 feet - Unknown amount
                   (20,000?) to GTO.
                   ----------d) Ariane 5 - 8,000Kg to GTO - 5 meter faring (assumed) - no length info.
                   ----------e) No info on Russian launch systems.
                   ----------f) Failure mode: Loss of craft results in relaunch of equipment and possible
                   loss of Earth-Mars launch window.

                   -----2) Earth to GTO - Manned - 7 day orbital capability for 28 people plus crew (30
                   total?).
                   ----------a) Shuttle - 28,800Kg to LEO - cargo bay 15x60 feet - Unknown amount
                   (20,000?) to GTO.
                   ---------------I) 28 passengers - no gravity.
                   ---------------II) water - 25L/P/D - Volume: 5,250 Liters. Mass 5,250Kg
                   ---------------III) O2 - volume:322.56 liters Calculation:(7 * 28 * 1323 gaseous liters
                   O2 / 860.8 = 1.536 liters LOX) Mass:238.98 kilograms (7 * 28 * 1.138 kg/liter)
                   ---------------IV) Waste management - none
                   ---------------V) food - 3.175Kg/P/D - Volume: ? Mass: 666.75Kg
                   ---------------VI) personal items 100Kg/P - Volume: ? Mass:28,000Kg - Launch this
                   item as cargo until GTO
                   ---------------VII) Misc consumables - Volume: ? Mass: ?
                   ---------------VIII) Communications: 2-way voice/video, telemetery
                   ---------------IX) Electricity - APU or fuel cell.
                   ---------------X) Recreation - none
                   ---------------XI) Temperature control
                   ---------------XII) Falure mode: Loss of any of the above items may result in an abort
                   to Earth. Loss of craft causes miss of Earth-Mars Launch window.

                   ----------b) No info on Russian launch systems.

                   -----3) Moon to GTO - Cargo - No info

                   -----4) Interplanetary Spaceship Order
                   ----------a) Manned Family - (360 day transit + 600 day surface stay = 960 day total
                   capacity)
                   ---------------I) 28 passenger - spin gravity - divided into 2 - 14 passenger cabins or 4 -
                   7 passenger cabins.
                   ---------------II) water - 25L/P/D - Volume: 672,000 Liters. Mass 672,000Kg
                   ---------------III) O2 - volume:41,311.469 liters Calculation:(960 * 28 * 1323 gaseous
                   liters O2 / 860.8 = 1.536 liters LOX) Mass:47,029.413 kilograms (960 * 28 * 1.138
                   kg/liter)
                   ---------------IV) Waste management - Recycling efficiency target 90%.
                   ---------------V) food - 3.175Kg/P/D - Volume: ? Mass: 85,344Kg
                   ---------------VI) personal items 100Kg/P - Volume: ? Mass:28,000Kg
                   ---------------VII) Misc consumables - Volume: ? Mass: ?
                   ---------------VIII) Communications: 2-way voice/video, telemetery
                   ---------------IX) Electricity - Solar, nuclear, or fuel cell.
                   ---------------X) Recreation
                   ---------------XI) Temperature control




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 61 of 158




                   ---------------XII) Attachment method to interplanetary booster.
                   ---------------XIII) Failure Mode: systems failure may result in return to Earth or loop
                   around Mars and return.
                   ---------------XIV) Settlement supports Science - What happens on this ship to support
                   this goal?

                   ----------b) Unmanned Family
                   ---------------I) interplanetary booster - Multiple mission design
                   --------------------I) ION propulsion
                   --------------------II) Nuclear thermal propulsion
                   --------------------III) chemical propulsion - CH4/LOX seems to be the best fuel
                   because we can get it at both ends of the trip.
                   ---------------II) Cargo module
                   --------------------I) Length - TBD
                   --------------------II) Diameter - TBD
                   --------------------III) Method of loading - TBD (is it launched loaded or packed on
                   orbit?)
                   --------------------IV) Attachment method to interplanetary booster

                   -----5) Orbital Spacecraft Order
                   ----------a) Obital facility Family
                   ---------------I) Earth orbital propellent depot
                   ---------------II) Earth orbital assembly facility.

                   ----------b) Crew/Supplies Orbit to Surface Family
                   ----------c) Unmanned Supplies Orbit to Surface Family

                   -----6) Surface Craft Order
                   ----------a) Rovers Family
                   ----------b) Hoppers Family
                   ----------c) Surface Automobiles Family

                   B) Habitats Class
                   -----1) Test Habitat Order
                   ----------a) Undecided Families

                   -----2) Space Habitat Order
                   ----------a) Transit habitat Family
                   ----------b) Orbital habitat Family

                   -----3) Surface Habitat Order
                   ----------a) Converted Propellant Tank Family
                   ----------b) Inflatable Family - 600 day stay (subset of interplanetary craft)
                   ---------------I) 28 passenger - divided into 2 - 14 passenger cabins or 4 - 7 passenger
                   cabins.
                   ---------------II) water - 25L/P/D - Volume: 420,000 Liters. Mass 420,000Kg
                   ---------------III) O2 - volume:25,804.8 liters Calculation:(600 * 28 * 1323 gaseous
                   liters O2 / 860.8 = 1.536 liters LOX) Mass:19,118.4 kilograms (600 * 28 * 1.138
                   kg/liter)
                   ---------------IV) Waste management - Recycling efficiency target 90%.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                           Page 62 of 158




                   ---------------V) food - 3.175Kg/P/D - Volume: ? Mass: 53,340Kg
                   ---------------VI) personal items 100Kg/P - Volume: ? Mass: 28,000Kg
                   ---------------VII) Misc consumables - Volume: ? Mass: ?
                   ---------------VIII) Communications: 2-way voice/video, telemetery
                   ---------------IX) Electricity - Solar, nuclear, or fuel cell.
                   ---------------X) Recreation
                   ---------------XI) Temperature control
                   ---------------XII) failure modes: Consume existing supplies until repaired or Mars-
                   Earth window opens for return or repair parts.

                   C) Factories Class
                   -----1) ISRU Order
                   ----------a) ISRU Production Family
                   ---------------I) Earth Lunar ISRU Facility
                   --------------------I) LH2/LOX facility
                   --------------------II) CH4/LOX facility
                   --------------------III) SI facility
                   --------------------IV) Al facility
                   --------------------V) Misc minerals/metals facility
                   --------------------VI) Failure mode: Loss of this facility until repaired/replaced.

                   ---------------II) Mars Lunar ISRU Facility
                   --------------------I) CH4/LOX facility
                   --------------------II) SI facility
                   --------------------III) Al facility
                   --------------------IV) Misc minerals/metals facility
                   --------------------V) Failure mode: Loss of this facility until repaired/replaced.

                   ---------------III) Mars Surface ISRU facility
                   --------------------I) CH4/LOX facility
                   --------------------II) SI facility
                   --------------------III) Al facility
                   --------------------IV) Misc minerals/metals facility
                   --------------------V) H2O facility
                   --------------------VI) Failure mode: Loss of this facility until repaired/replaced.

                   -----2) Food Production Order
                   ----------a) Hydroponics Family
                   ---------------I) Vegetable crops.
                   ---------------II) livestock feed crops.
                   ---------------III) Energy crops.
                   ---------------IV) Waste recycling.
                   ---------------V) Failure mode: Loss of this facility until repaired/replaced.

                   ----------b) Aquaculture Family
                   ---------------I) Fish.
                   ---------------II) Waste recycling.
                   ---------------III) Waste heat energy storage.
                   ---------------IV) Failure mode: Loss of this facility until repaired/replaced.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                           Page 63 of 158



                   -----3) Machine Shop Order
                   ----------a) Repairs Shop family
                   ---------------I) Failure mode: Loss of this facility until repaired/replaced.

                   -----4) Industry
                   ----------a) Settlement supports science
                   ---------------I) Exploration
                   ---------------II) Survival knowledge
                   ---------------III) Energy technologies
                   ---------------IV) ISRU technologies
                   ---------------V) Astronomy
                   ---------------VI) Survival of the species knowledge.
                   ---------------VII) Genetic Drift knowledge
                   ---------------VIII) Closed Loop Life Support technologies

                   ----------b) Export goods
                   ---------------I) Jewerly. fad, & fashion.
                   ---------------II) Earth addaptable technology
                   ---------------III) General science information

jhoblik               H20 as on three major resource for MissionToMars
(proton)
03/28/05 02:58
PM                 I would like to again bring attention to design our mission as simple from resource
                   point of view and increase hardware complexity only if duplicate or triplicate our
                   redundancy for survival purpose.
                   If we talk about required resources we could list them as:
                   -energy
                   -food(major part could be provided from water, food will be dehydrated )
                   -water
                   -oxygen(could be provided from water)
                   -fuel(could be provided from water)
                   -shielding(could be provided by water)

                   We have 6 basic resources, 4 of them could be directly derived from water and fifth
                   of them will contain as major part water, I will strongly suggest to think again about
                   water as major resource.
                   Major part of water will be use for fuel purpose and shielding. We could compromise
                   our shielding(shield just part ship) to use saved water in emergency situation for
                   purpose to create oxygen for breathing(if it is necessary), or use as drinking water or
                   generate fuel.
                   Our interplanetary ship will be not design around fuel tank. If think that water could
                   be store in multiple tanks, something like rubber bag and easy tight to ship where
                   space will be available. I am not sure if water will change to ice at the earth orbit, if
                   so by changing color of bag from high reflexive it heat up ice and changed to water.
                   Water could be through electrolysis separate to H2 and O, Oxygen could be use for
                   breathing purpose or liquidation unit will generate LH2 and LOX , fuel for rocket
                   engine.
                   It is true, that we need powerfully resource of energy. But we need develop this
                   resource any way for Mars station, where we will use same concept to create fuel



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 64 of 158



                   from ice/water for our ascent rocket.
                   My idea:
                   - decrease complexity of resources
                   - decrease development(what will be use on Mars will be use in interplanetary ship),
                   - increase resource and hardware redundancy for survival
                   - major parts of our system are were simple device(nuclear rector, electrolysis
                   reactor), it means low probability to failed, in case of electrolysis easy to repair, with
                   limited resources and tools.
                   Resource of energy will be probably nuclear rector and as backup system solar
                   panels. Major energy requirement will be during departure from Earth and, if
                   something failed, crew could be saved from earth.
                   On Mars I am expecting as method to go orbit use aero-capture. For redundancy, fuel
                   could be created before departure to Mars, if it will be needed to support to capture
                   ship on Mars orbit.
                   This concept required no additional development tasks except “rubber” tanks, other
                   devices has to developed for mars mission anyway.
                   We need powerfully resource of energy probably nuclear reactor. We need develop
                   ISRU to generate fuel on Mars. For next generation of spaceship we will need
                   powerfully source of energy on board any way(for example VASMIR).
                   Why do not use same device for our ship and test in space for years before we will go
                   to Mars.

                   If we stick with water as one of basic resources, we will decrease our basic resources
                   from 6 to three. It will increase our flexibly in case of emergency.
                   We don’t need to design any big storage location for our fuel, with special cooling
                   system, which in case of malfunction could put our mission in dangers situation.
                   Our interplanetary ship will consist just inflatable transfer module, and engine and
                   electrolysis-liquid unit. This unit could be duplicate because will play multiple role
                   creation of fuel and creation oxygen for breathing. Same unit will be used also at
                   Mars for fuel and oxygen for breathing creation .
                   Our development effort for consumable deliver could concentrate just to develop
                   ISRU unit and nuclear reactor.


JonClarke             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(asteroid)
03/28/05 05:00
PM                 We are not in a survival situation, not are in having people rough it for a short period
                   of time. We are settling up a long term settlement where people can live productive
                   lives, which means healthy ones.

                   The fact is poor hygiene kills. Not washing at all will lay
                   your crew open to a wide range of dieases both unpleasant and lethal. Ulcers,
                   allergenic reactions, gastro-enteritis, fungal infestations, scepticemia, respiratory
                   infections, and poisoning from environmental toxin accumulation are inevitable if
                   you neglect hygiene. Small groups isolated groups living in close quarters are
                   especially vulnerable, especially when medical facilities are limited. Prevention is
                   better than cure, and the prevention of a great many diseases is a matter of simple
                   cleanliness of both the person, their food air, and water, and the environment. It is not
                   for nothing that people say cleanliness is next to godliness.



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 65 of 158




                   Jon



JonClarke             Re: H20 as on three major resource for MissionToMars
(asteroid)
03/28/05 05:50
PM                 There is no point taking water to Mars. You take they water you need for the trip, that
                   is all. Mars is a water rich planet. You can extract water from the atmosphere
                   anywhere (although the equipment is bulk and uses a fair bit of power) or the ground
                   in many places (although that might need some treatment to remove salts). Water to
                   Mars is coal to Newcastle.

                   Jon

Tap_Sa                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(comet)
03/28/05 06:19
PM                 I meant the water baseline for 'liner' doing the trip to Mars. Taking 175 tonnes of
                   water aboard for 250 day trip so that each 28 crew member can spend 25 litres per
                   day is more pipedream, less real option. Especially if it's not used as propellant
                   afterwards, which would require working machinery to recollect,clean and
                   electrolyse anyway.Once in Mars there's plenty of ISRU water to splash around.

                   And to clarify the baseline, I meant the liner has all the equipment to recycle water,
                   from excrements, washing water, air conditioning, all possible sources. Even with
                   considerable redundancy it would weigh a lot less than 175 tons, SWAG 30 tons
                   including the water.

Dan_Casale            Re: H20 as on three major resource for MissionToM
(rock)
03/28/05 06:29
PM                 jhoblik:
                   Your points about water as a primary resource is valid.

                   I have problems with a some of your ideas, so please provide solutions.

                   Energy - Carrying only water, instead of LOX/LH2 or LOX/CH4, eliminates fuel
                   cells and combustion technology as an energy source. This leaves only Solar and
                   Nuclear.

                   Oxygen - If the hydrolizer breaks, how much spare O2 do you carry?

                   Propellent - Are you using water as the propellent? ie. Nuclear/steam rocket. Or is
                   this a chemical rocket LOX/LH2?
                   If the hydrolizer breaks, do you have enough propellent stored to keep you from
                   crashing into Mars or missing Mars completely?

                   >>On Mars I am expecting as method to go orbit use aero-capture. For redundancy,



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 66 of 158



                   fuel could be created before departure to Mars, if it will be needed to support to
                   capture ship on Mars orbit.<<
                   Then you have not eliminated the storage tanks for the propellent. therefore the
                   rocket is both more massive and more complex.

                   >>It will increase our flexibly in case of emergency.<< Not really, water is in a much
                   lower energy state than LOX/LH2, thus an important emergency energy source has
                   been eliminated.

                   >>I am not sure if water will change to ice at the earth orbit, if so by changing color
                   of bag from high reflexive it heat up ice and changed to water. <<
                   Interesting idea. How can leaks be detected and fixed?

                   Keep the ideas comming.....

jhoblik               Re: H20 as on three major resource for MissionToM
(proton)
03/28/05 08:41
PM                 You are right, what I mean, water from Earth will be used as resource just for trip
                   between Earth and Mars and back. On Mars we will use local resources, but
                   technology of ISRU and liquid unit will be same.
                   If Mars moons will have resource of water, we could even re-supply our space ship
                   there. If there is major resource of water, it could be major resource of water(fuel,
                   oxygen for breathing, drinking water) needed during transportation between Mars
                   and Earth and back.


jhoblik               Re: H20 as on three major resource for MissionToM
(nucleus)
03/28/05 09:01
PM                 1/ Fuel cells or combustion technology needs fuel(hydrogen, methane). This fuel has
                   to be produce, couldn't be carry from Earth. Our only option as resource of energy is
                   now nuclear. We couldn't compromise our mission on basic as not have enough
                   energy. Nuclear reactor from weight point of view in the life time of reactor is best
                   option.
                   2/ Water is use as basic resource for breathing oxygen, drinking water, but major as
                   material from which we create through electrolysis H2 and O, to produce LH2 and
                   LOX, as fuel for rocket engine.
                   Fuel for braking at Mars will be just for emergency purpose and it will be use only
                   support aero-capture, it will be small amount, it means small tanks for LOX, LH2 has
                   to be available, but it will filled only in case we needed.


Scottb50              Re: H20 as on three major resource for MissionToM
(planet)
03/29/05 12:41
AM                 Energy - Carrying only water, instead of LOX/LH2 or LOX/CH4, eliminates fuel
                   cells and combustion technology as an energy source. This leaves only Solar and
                   Nuclear.....




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 67 of 158




                   I don't see any reason to carry LOX/LH2 for an extended period. Where does it
                   eliminate fuel cells and combustion technology? You lose me there.

                   Solar is constantly available in transit and available at least half the time in orbit. I
                   would think it just as easy, and as safe, to have multiple sources for Solar Power and
                   multiple storage facilities for Hydrogen and Oxygen. The only time they would have
                   to be liquid would be when we use big engines and then it would be easier to just
                   hasve to contain that amount for a relatively short time.

                   Oxygen - If the hydrolizer breaks, how much spare O2 do you carry?

                   If you have multiple, redundant sources, multiple Solar generators and multiple
                   hydrolizers it would be equally as safe as having more cryogenic storage capability,
                   assuming you on carrying LOX/LH2, or another type of fuel. Rather than benign
                   water.

                   Propellent - Are you using water as the propellent? ie. Nuclear/steam rocket. Or is
                   this a chemical rocket LOX/LH2?

                   There is no reason for Nuclear power. The mass of Solar collectors, compared to
                   reactors, plus the dangers of just putting a reactor into orbit, pretty much eliminate
                   them.


                   If the hydrolizer breaks, do you have enough propellent stored to keep you from
                   crashing into Mars or missing Mars completely?

                   This goes back to redundancy. What if the cryogenic storage breaks? Too much
                   Hydrogen leaks out, which it is notorious for doing? I think the odds are better taking
                   liquid water and hydrolizing it as needed.

                   >>It will increase our flexibly in case of emergency.<< Not really, water is in a much
                   lower energy state than LOX/LH2, thus an important emergency energy source has
                   been eliminated.

                   Yes, we have gone over this energy state thing repeatedly and it still makes no sense
                   to me. True, you can't burn water and true it takes more energy to split water into
                   Hydrogen and Oxygen. Thats why I would use Solar power to provide the needed
                   energy. You can't burn crude oil in your car either, until it is distilled and the gasoline
                   separated.

                   You want to take LOX and a propellant, or, it seems, multiple propellants, from Earth
                   to Mars and back fine. I think it is much simpler to take water. Enroute it would be
                   recycled, with minimal loss, to power cycler systems, provide for crew needs and
                   shield the vehicle from harmful radiation. The only water lost is that used to leave
                   LEO, brake into LMO, descend to the surface, return to LMO and then to LEO.

                   If we use the same vehicle used to land on Mars and return to LMO as a
                   transportation vehicle on the surface that water would be expended also.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 68 of 158



                   Hopefully early missions will tell use just how much water is available on Mars, but
                   to count on it from the beginning is short sighted. At least for the first few missions I
                   see no possibility of counting on Mars resources, hopefully they will prove them and
                   change future missions, but water on Mars has not been seen, just like on the Moon.
                   Sure a lot of signs point that way, but until it is actually seen and quantified I
                   wouldn't want to risk people.

quasar2               Re: H20 as on three major resource for MissionToM
(asteroid)
03/29/05 08:37
AM                 i wonder if it would be easier to just be immersed in water. how detrimental is this
                   over extended peiods?

Scottb50              Re: H20 as on three major resource for MissionToM
(planet)
03/29/05 11:07
AM                 I would think you would get pretty pruney in a few days. I was thinking more along
                   the lines of two Modules, one inside the other with the larger Module filled with
                   water.

grooble               Re: H20 as on three major resource for MissionToM
(star)
03/29/05 11:20
AM                 Would radiation contaminate the water?

Dan_Casale            Re: H20 as on three major resource for MissionToM
(rock)
03/29/05 11:28
AM
                   I'll do my best to explain:

                   >>I don't see any reason to carry LOX/LH2 for an extended period. Where does it
                   eliminate fuel cells and combustion technology? You lose me there.<<
                   From LOX/LH2 and a fuel cell I can get electricity, heat and water.
                   From LOX/CH4 and a reformer/fuel cell combo, I get electricity, heat, water, and
                   CO2. CO2 is only good if you are growing plants on the trip to Mars.
                   From LOX/LH2 or LOX/CH4 and an ignition source, I get light, heat, water, and for
                   CH4, I also get CO2.
                   LOX/LH2 each require seperate tanks, so that is more tank mass.

                   I can still use LOX/LH2 or LOX/CH4 as shielding.
                   I have one less piece of equipment to worry about during the trip.

                   >>If you have multiple, redundant sources, multiple Solar generators and multiple
                   hydrolizers it would be equally as safe as having more cryogenic storage
                   capability,....<<

                   Lets assume we are traveling to Mars and our craft is hit by a CME and the
                   accompanying solar storm is expected to last several days. This causes a sudden rise
                   in voltage in our solar panels which in turn trips the breakers. What is your alternate



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                           Page 69 of 158



                   power source? (nuclear, apu, fuelcell,...) How much battery back-up are you
                   carrying? What if this happens at a time when a corrective engine manuver or OMS
                   burn is required?

                   >>...You can't burn crude oil in your car either, until it is distilled and the gasoline
                   separated. <<
                   Exactly. Distilling uses energy to "skim off" the highest energy parts of crude oil.
                   Just like Hydrolizing water.

                   >>Hopefully early missions will tell use just how much water is available on Mars,
                   but to count on it from the beginning is short sighted.<<
                   I agree. However, the base will need to be sited in a place that needs water. So by the
                   time people are sent, the water supply should already be in place.

smradoch              Re: H20 as on three major resource for MissionToM
(atom)
03/29/05 11:39
AM                 to Scottb50

                   You opposed using of nuclear energy and using solar energy instead for electrolysis. I
                   think it's not feasible. How many kW can you obtain with solar panels? Several
                   houndreds? It's not enough. You will need several MW of electrical power.

Scottb50              Re: H20 as on three major resource for MissionToM
(planet)
03/29/05 12:02
PM                 http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/energy/spacepower.html

                   ISS will eventually have about an acre of Solar Panel surface. If this power is used
                   for production of Hydrogen and Oxygen and fuel cells are used to provide electrical
                   power on demand, there would be no need for massive power output.

Scottb50              Re: H20 as on three major resource for MissionToM
(planet)
03/29/05 12:49
PM                 From LOX/LH2 and a fuel cell I can get electricity, heat and water.....

                   From low pressure Hydrogen and Oxygen gas you can still power a fuel cell, or
                   multiple indepenant fuel cells for that matter. There is no need for LOX/LH2 unless
                   you are using it for major propullsion events. Thrusters and such could easily use
                   gaseous Hydrogen and Oxygen.

                   From LOX/CH4 and a reformer/fuel cell combo, I get electricity, heat, water, and
                   CO2. CO2 is only good if you are growing plants on the trip to Mars.....

                   Our crew will generate plenty of CO2, why introduce more? It would be a good
                   experiment in global warming though. I still don't understand why you need both
                   LH2 and CH4?

                   I can still use LOX/LH2 or LOX/CH4 as shielding.....



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                           Page 70 of 158




                   I would question the effectiveness of a gas for shielding and the containment
                   requirements to use LOX/LH2 as shielding. You have a lot more equipment to worry
                   about than if you just use liquid water. How are you going to keep LOX and LH2
                   liquid for extended periods?

                   <<Lets assume we are traveling to Mars and our craft is hit by a CME and the
                   accompanying solar storm is expected to last several days. This causes a sudden rise
                   in voltage in our solar panels which in turn trips the breakers. What is your alternate
                   power source?>>

                   I would think with stored gasses and fuel cells located in the shielded areas a Solar
                   event would cause very little problem. You might temporarily lose generating
                   capability, but I wouldn't think it would be long term.

                   <<What is your alternate power source?>>

                   With multiple fuel cells in each independant Module, multiple independant Solar
                   arrays and the ability to produce and distribute gas throughout the ship any sort of
                   problem could be localized and dealt with. Solar power and batteries could also be
                   used for emergency backup if more redundancy is needed.




grooble               Re: H20 as on three major resource for MissionToM
(star)
03/29/05 12:50
PM                 So is there a consensus on the makeup of the mission ?

tfrederick9           Re: H20 as on three major resource for MissionToM
(atom)
03/29/05 02:29
PM                 Spacestar, guys, gals and those watching at home; since Spacestart just sitting around
                   doing nothing , do you think its time for a website that can sum up and provide
                   info on things.

Arobie                Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
03/29/05 02:52
PM                 tfrederick,

                   I agree, I think it's time to put together a website for this settlement plan.

                   The old website:

                   http://users.wpi.edu/~rcaron/mars/index.shtml

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 71 of 158



(star)
03/29/05 03:07     Dan_Casale,
PM
                   Excellent job!

                   The outline covers everything we've laid out so far and includes what we need to
                   discuss. It's a summary and checklist for our hardware. Thank you for the expansion.

                   Everything looks good except for one thing that caught my eye. Under the inflatable
                   surface habitat, you have spin-gee. Other than that everything is great.

Tap_Sa                Re: H20 as on three major resource for MissionToM
(comet)
03/29/05 03:12
PM                 "do you think its time for a website that can sum up and provide info on things."

                   Definitely. I'd suggest some wiki-system. We use Confluence at work but it is
                   commercial. Don't know anything about OSS wikis but I suppose there are many and
                   some even usable?

Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
03/29/05 07:03
PM                 >>...you have spin-gee.<<
                   I have stopped the Gee's from spinning. Bummer of a cut-paste error.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
03/30/05 12:15
AM
                   Here's how the energy picture breaks down for me vis-à-vis the current debate:
                   1. You want to be energy rich. You want to bring as much stored energy as you can.
                   2. IMO we cannot settle Mars without Nuclear energy. This means something like
                   Boeing's 5 MWe plant (thanks, Scott) needs to be landed on the surface. (How much
                   does that bad boy mass?)
                   3. The overall settler strategy dictates that we reject any FutureTech that has other
                   than high confidence of delivering the goods.
                   4. Nuclear is politically problematical, but not impossible.

                   Now how does this translate to the current debate?

                   Stored energy seems to exclude solar, which is unfair so solar is in the list of options.
                   A reliable, affordable, proven solar energy system for the transit hab is under
                   consideration. BUT, we need to see numbers, calculations, and evidence that this
                   system meets all those criteria. Even if that is shown, the system takes a performance
                   hit going out to Mars orbit, and that fact must be fully accounted for.

                   My political instincts say that if we need a nuclear power plant for the settlement
                   itself, we should try for one on the manned flights. This is the one area when we don't
                   get to set our own policies – we're running the show, not NASA, but we'll need broad



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                           Page 72 of 158




                   public approval to launch nuclear material, and that's a tough thing to count on from a
                   planning standpoint.

                   So we might be forced to choose to plan two different plans in their entirety: with or
                   without nukes?

                   Or do we say that if we can't get nukes, we can't settle Mars, so there it is, game over,
                   therefore we have to plan on having at least one nuke on the surface? Do we then
                   insist on nuclear power for the transit?

                   Or do we supplement the transit's solar energy with chemical energy of some form?
                   (What is the energy density of compressed H2 and what are the leakage rates thru
                   stainless steel or aluminum?) IOW, do we bring a bunch of our water already
                   separated, and make water on the way? I don't think the numbers work out, but I'm
                   not sure. Somebody somewhere must have studied this already.

                   Do we really think that solar alone is the way to provide an energy-rich flight? How
                   big would those panels be to support 28 people and all the systems we need for safe
                   journeys? What about the mass of all the associated electrical equipment?

                   I like your vision, Scott, it's not exactly what I was thinking, but I'm open to it. I need
                   to see some numbers if we're going with that energy system concept for
                   interplanetary flights.

                   The CH4/LOX isn't for consumption by the crew, it's for dV at Mars arrival. The
                   reason we're using that propellant combo is because we can then turn those engines
                   into Mars-propellant tugs. My settlement concept has a central premise that the
                   Settlers need at least one solid industry to justify their existence. The settlers would
                   provide all their own dV after stuff arrives from Earth, and maybe even be in a
                   position to export dV.

                   If I switch propellants to LH2/LOX, that commits us to producing that combo at
                   Mars, and as you said, quantities of H2O have not been proven, nor have ways of
                   extracting it for our use on a massive scale. IMO Liquid hydrogen at Mars is a mature
                   technology, not a founding technology. IOW, it would be great, but we'll have to wait
                   til later to quit carrying round that extra carbon. It's a lot easier than trying to contain
                   all those little tiny hydrogen buggers.

                   tfrederick, can I make a petty request? My user ID is 'spacester', not 'spacestar'. The
                   second one really irritates me. Thank you and sorry for the interruption.

                   My understanding is that water would not become contaminated by the radiation dose
                   it would receive when deployed as a shield.

                   I'm a big proponent of having lots of water on the transit craft, and in fact as a
                   benchmark design, I plan on designing for the full 12 l/CM/day (liters per
                   crewmember per day). We can talk about recycling rates to reduce overall mass later.

                   The benchmark trip time is 200 days; 12 liters for 28 folks works out to 67.2 tonnes
                   of water. 1000 liters of water is a cubic meter and masses a tonne. Shielding of 0.5




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 73 of 158



                   meter inches thick around a cylinder diameter of 12 meters would shield a 7 meter
                   long cylinder, not counting the end caps. IIRC 0.5 m of water is excessive by most
                   standards, but we want to protect our settlers very well, so that's my benchmark
                   shielding level. (The diameter and length cited are just as an example, but it seems to
                   indicate the volume of water is not excessive compared to the needs of the crew if
                   water is the primary radiation shielding.)

                   OK, I'm almost caught up, I haven't commented on Dan's excellent outline. There are
                   some things I would like to change, but it's not important. Nice work!

                   thoblik, I'm not ignoring you, we're not very far apart in our approach, so I don't want
                   to quibble unless I have to. So there's not much to say in direct response to your
                   posts.


jhoblik               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(nucleus)
03/30/05 12:57
AM                 What about to bring to orbit just nuclear reactor and ask government lunch plutonium
                   for us. It will be a little bit expensive, but it could be done, there were mission that
                   already had plutonium on board Pioneer 10,11, Voyager 1,2,…

JonClarke             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(asteroid)
03/30/05 06:15
AM                 Let's not get too carried away with nuclear. Yes, it is compact and provides high
                   power density. However, it has many disadvantages

                   1. It is an imported energy source with relatively short operating life, probably a few
                   years.

                   2. There is no realistic likelihood of local resources providing fuel. If there were the
                   infrastruccture, technology base, and human resources needed to process ore into fuel
                   would be prohibitive until you had a very large population.

                   3. Large units will require prohibitive infrastructure support, especially in the form of
                   cooling, safety management, handling, and containment systems.

                   4. Operating reactors will pose a significant radiation hazard

                   5. Decomissioned reactors will pose a major hazard and waste disposal and
                   decomissioning infrastructure, as we have on earth would be prohibitive.

                   6. As pointed out, there are major political concerns associted with launching
                   radioactive material into orbit.

                   I am not saying we exclude nuclear, but confine it to applications where we really
                   need it. this is probably early in the settlment building program We need to develop
                   indigenous energy sources as soon as possible, realistically this is means solar,
                   supplemented by wind. Experience with the MERS has shown that dust accumulation



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 74 of 158



                   is not as big a problem as feared, at least in windy locations. In additional cleaning of
                   panels could be easily automated. Areas of high winds would be slected from orbit,
                   using absence of dust as a guide. Furthermore LIDAR tracking from orbit of dust
                   motion will help model area of high local winds, combined with DEM data area
                   suitable for wind farms should be easily selected.

                   Jon



Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
03/30/05 10:19
AM                 Spacester:
                   Good levelset. I think we are on the same page, but I have some questions (of
                   course).

                   >>Or do we say that if we can't get nukes, we can't settle Mars,...<<
                   No, I think that the two rovers are proving that solar on Mars is a viable option.
                   However, we still don't know the effects of a dust storm on solar.

                   >>Or do we supplement the transit's solar energy with chemical energy of some
                   form? (What is the energy density of compressed H2 and what are the leakage rates
                   thru stainless steel or aluminum?) IOW, do we bring a bunch of our water already
                   separated, and make water on the way? I don't think the numbers work out, but I'm
                   not sure. Somebody somewhere must have studied this already. <<

                   I'll see what I can find on the subject.

                   >>Do we really think that solar alone is the way to provide an energy-rich flight?
                   How big would those panels be to support 28 people and all the systems we need for
                   safe journeys? What about the mass of all the associated electrical equipment? <<

                   No, solar alone isn't enough. I believe we need at least a 30 day supply of energy
                   from another source for both the transit to Mars and on the surface. I have a lot of
                   information on solar already. I'll put it together and give a per KW figure until we can
                   come up with better figure for the amount of energy we will need. Do you think it is
                   valid to extrapolate from ISS as the power required for 3 people?

                   >>The benchmark trip time is 200 days;....<<
                   I have a problem using this figure. This is a one-way, no mistakes, everything goes
                   perfect figure. I think we must use a round-trip, nothing works right figure of 960
                   days. If we can skip the landing, then a figure of 700 days would work. But it doesn't
                   leave time for a resupply mission if the lander can't take-off.

Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
03/31/05 06:10
PM                 This table is for 1 - 187watt Kyocera panel. (990mm x 1425mm, 15% efficiency,
                   18.5Kg earth weight)



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 75 of 158




                   temp . voltage . amps . . watts . . .amps . .watts
                   . . . . . . Earth . . Earth . . . . . . . . . Mars . . Mars

                   25 . . 26.10 . 7.1700 . 187.1370 . . 3.0000 . 78.3000 Earth surface
                   15 . . 27.33 . 7.1382 . 195.0870 . . 2.9682 . 81.1209
                   5 . . . 28.56 . 7.1064 . 202.9588 . . 2.9364 . 83.8636
                   -5. . . 29.79 . 7.0746 . 210.7523 . . 2.9046 . 86.5280
                   -15 . . 31.02 . 7.0428 . 218.4677 . . 2.8728 . 89.1143
                   -25 . . 32.25 . 7.0110 . 226.1048 . . 2.8410 . 91.6223
                   -35 . . 33.48 . 6.9792 . 233.6636 . . 2.8092 . 94.0520
                   -45 . . 34.71 . 6.9474 . 241.1443 . . 2.7774 . 96.4036
                   -55 . . 35.94 . 6.9156 . 248.5467 . . 2.7456 . 98.6769 Mars surface
                   -65 . . 37.17 . 6.8838 . 255.8708 . . 2.7138 . 100.8719
                   -75 . . 38.40 . 6.8520 . 263.1168 . . 2.6820 . 102.9888
                   -85 . . 39.63 . 6.8202 . 270.2845 . . 2.6502 . 105.0274
                   -95 . . 40.86 . 6.7884 . 277.3740 . . 2.6184 . 106.9878
                   -105 . .42.09 . 6.7566 . 284.3853 . . 2.5866 . 108.8700 Earth/Mars Orbit
                   -115 . .43.32 . 6.7248 . 291.3183 . . 2.5548 . 110.6739
                   -125 . .44.55 . 6.6930 . 298.1732 . . 2.5230 . 112.3997
                   -135 . .45.78 . 6.6612 . 304.9497 . . 2.4912 . 114.0471
                   -145 . .47.01 . 6.6294 . 311.6481 . . 2.4594 . 115.6164
                   -155 . .48.24 . 6.5976 . 318.2682 . . 2.4276 . 117.1074
                   -165 . .49.47 . 6.5658 . 324.8101 . . 2.3958 . 118.5202
                   -175 . .50.70 . 6.5340 . 331.2738 . . 2.3640 . 119.8548
                   -185 . .51.93 . 6.5022 . 337.6592 . . 2.3322 . 121.1111
                   -195 . .53.16 . 6.4704 . 343.9665 . . 2.3004 . 122.2893
                   -205 . .54.39 . 6.4386 . 350.1955 . . 2.2686 . 123.3892
                   -215 . .55.62 . 6.4068 . 356.3462 . . 2.2368 . 124.4108 Inroute to Mars

                   As you can see the voltage varies greatly with temperature. Amperage varies with the
                   intensity of light.
                   Temperatures for different places are guesses on my part.
                   In this example a 1KW array (6 panels) on Earth's surface would weigh about 121Kg
                   (with mounting hardware). Thermal radiators might be required, and are not included
                   here.

                   In Earth orbit the same array would produce about 1.789KW's, and on Mars would
                   produce about 605 watts.

                   NiMih batteries are used on satellites, so they might be the best option for electrical
                   storage. NiMih batteries can be cycled about 10,000 times. A better storage idea
                   might be Super Capacitors, which can be cycled 100,000 times.

Scottb50               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(planet)
04/01/05 01:04
AM                 NiMih batteries are used on satellites, so they might be the best option for electrical
                   storage. NiMih batteries can be cycled about 10,000 times. A better storage idea
                   might be Super Capacitors, which can be cycled 100,000 times.....



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 76 of 158




                   Or water, it can be cycled indefinitly.

                   Use Solar to break-down water as it is needed. Storage of low pressure Hydrogen is
                   not a great problem, the Germans did a pretty good job when they couldn't get
                   Helium, and not that much would have to be stored anyway for normal use. Backup
                   high pressure storage would be very good though, for emergencies. Keeping the
                   majority of it as water only makes sense.

                   Again multiple units. Every engine or fuel cell has access to at least two propellant
                   sources and multiple access as more Modules are added. Every Manned Module has
                   three electrical and life-support sources each with its own power source.

                   For the most part all of the water used would be recycled continuously. A fairly small
                   amount of water would be required for electrical and life-support, most taken would
                   be used for propulsion enroute and at Mars or the Moon.

                   The same system could run a station on Mars the Moon or a suburban house for that
                   matter.

                   That's why independent Modules are the key. Each manned Module having three
                   independent hydrolizer/fuel cell systems. As the number of Modules increases
                   redundancy increases. As the demand in a specific Module increases more power
                   units could be installed.

                   Lets say a transit ship to the Moon or Mars uses four core Modules for crew and
                   passengers, another four for supplies and at least another four or six for water, until
                   Extraterrestial sources are found and exploited. and hopefully one or two to grow the
                   base. Thats 12 independant electrical systems, figuring one hydrolizer/fuel cell in a
                   cargo Module the redundancy increases to 16. Having any Module capable of adding
                   systems in a plug-and-play manner allows concentration of power sources as well as
                   increased safety. A Module used to carry water in transit could be converted to a
                   Station component by adding power systems as an example. A module used for
                   research or crew and passengers could have multiple power sources.



grooble               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
04/01/05 04:47
AM                 Yeah, PC style!

Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
04/01/05 11:02
AM                 >>Or water, it can be cycled indefinitly. <<
                   But the hydrolizer and the fuel cell both require maintenance. Fuel cells have a very
                   short life span ~1 year, that is why they haven't been used in cars yet.

                   NiMih batteries have very little maintenance, check/replace and recycle. Super



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 77 of 158



                   Capacitors have almost no maintenance, dust them off.

                   >>That's why independent Modules are the key.<<
                   I agree independent/redundent/diverse systems are the key to success.

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
04/06/05 05:37
PM                 To all,

                   I don't know much about the lastest area of discussion, so I have left it to you
                   qualified enough to discuss. I just sat back, kept up and read the conversation, and
                   learned what I could from it. Now it seems that the discussion has died down.

                   So from these last few pages, what conclusions can be drawn? Is there anything that
                   has been decided?

                   So concludes my bump post.

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
04/07/05 01:19
AM                 That the only realistic means of beginning a human presence in Space is using water.
                   It offers the safest, cheapest, lightest and easiest means of exploring the Solar
                   System.

                   No new science or technology advances are needed to do it, we could start tomorrow.
                   Life cycles of fuel cells/hydrolizers will undoubtedly improve well before initial
                   launches, and if not, ample parts could be made available for overhauls enroute. I
                   would thing alternating them between fuel cell and hydrolizer would help.

                   Compared to the complexity and weight, of carrying hydrocarbon based fuels, as well
                   as the complexity of different engine types for different uses, using water would be a
                   whole lot simpler, easier and do-able.

                   First stage: four SSME's, two extended Shuttle SRM's and four turbofan engines.
                   Releases the second stage at 80 miles and mach 20, then returns for the next flight.

                   Second stage: two RL-10 derivitive engines and propellant tanks. Payloads, attached
                   to the tanks are delivered to a LEO Station, removed and distributed. Second stages
                   are used as Tugs and for vehicle propulsion and surface landers as needed. Payloads
                   are distributed to different orbits by Tugs and destinations by Vehicles. Second stage
                   tanks can also be converted and used indefinitely, in Space, for any number of
                   purposes. Engines are sent back as cargo for overhaul and re-use.

                   Sending water to Space is a whole lot easier than sending any other known source of
                   power. How are you going to keep LOX LOX for four years, even in Space? The
                   volume of CH4 needed would be far greater than that needed by water and you would
                   still need LOX, the heaviest part of the equation, actually.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 78 of 158



                   Basically it boils down to Hydrogen and Oxygen, at the end of everything. Do you
                   want to carry Hydrogen and Oxygen into Space or carry Oxygen, Hydrogen and
                   Carbon Just a hint, look at their atomic weights.

                   Nuclear is even more of a problem, fuel cells don't last that long? Look at reactor
                   problems and how often they need refueling and that the Elements involved are some
                   of the heaviest we have. Works great on Earth, where we need it, but in Space?

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
04/08/05 07:34
PM                 Scott,

                   A cornerstone of this plan is using ISRU to make propellants. If I am as up to date as
                   I would like to think I am, we have not seen one drop of water on Mars yet. There is
                   evidence of past seas, and we believe there is water there now, but we have no way of
                   knowing how much there is, if water is even there. There could be underground
                   oceans or there could be barely enough to survive off of as drinking water. We just
                   don't know, and as of now it looks to be like the latter is a more likely scenario.

                   If there is enough water to drink and to supply for propellant...I still would not like to
                   use it as a propellant. Water is too valuable out there, and as a nessessity to live, I
                   would rather not break it apart and throw it out of the back of our rockets if there is
                   something else I could use, such as carbon. That makes in site resource utilization of
                   water as a propellant an uncertainty about whether possible or not, and unlikley even
                   if so.

                   This all makes ISRU of carbon the likely choice of propellant manufactured at Mars.
                   That in turn makes CH4/O2 the propellant we would have to use for our
                   interplanetary boosters, since that is what we will be repropping them with at Mars.

                   If we want to use the Hydrogen/Oxygen propellant as proposed, we would need to
                   use not only the amount of propellant to get everthing to Mars, but we would have to
                   send the propellant there to use in Mars orbit and to use to reprop the interplanetary
                   boosters. We would have to supply all or much of the propellant for the entire
                   settlement from Earth...which has already been determined to be a settlement plan
                   that could not work. Remember, water is too valuable. It is not a Martian resource we
                   would want to break up and burn.

                   Using CH4/02 as our propellant of choice, we would only have to supply enough of it
                   to get the first few cycles of payloads to Mars. After that the settlement itself will
                   begin to make it's own propellant. It will not need to import propellant from Earth,
                   and could even export Martian made propellant to LEO to be used to send more stuff
                   to Mars.

                   Which will be cheaper; providing and exporting water from Earth for all of our
                   settlements propellant needs, not just at the beginning, but the entire time; or
                   providing enough CH4 to only get the first few cycles of equipment to Mars, then not
                   having to provide CH4 anymore since the settlement will make the propellant itself?




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 79 of 158



                   We need to remember to look big. We need to keep in sight the entire settlement
                   plan, not just the advantages or disadvantages of one propellant type over the other,
                   but the effects it will have on the entire settlement.

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
04/09/05 02:38
AM                 If we want to use the Hydrogen/Oxygen propellant as proposed, we would need to
                   use not only the amount of propellant to get everthing to Mars, but we would have to
                   send the propellant there to use in Mars orbit and to use to reprop the interplanetary
                   boosters.......

                   Exactly my point. Don't forget getting down to the surface and powering a station, or
                   colony, is going to take a lot of energy also. There is no way we will be able to
                   produce energy, using extraterrestial resources, for a long time, ala Zubrin, until we
                   see if we can, to begin with, and that we can do it and depend on it.

                   Just the bulk and mass of the equipment needed, to produce CH4/LOX from the
                   Martian atmosphere would take three, four or probably more, dedicated hardware
                   missions to position. Then there is the time setting it up, in not very good working
                   conditions, as well as putting it into operation and day to day maintenance. Sounds to
                   me like starting out with two strikes against you.

                   Additionally, you have to be concerned with carrying CH4 and LOX, which would
                   both have to be liquid, to get acceptable volumes, until you are absolutely certain you
                   can produce them in situ.

                   Keeping them happy for a rather extended period, in conditions they don't normally
                   exist in, is another problem. Hydrazine and Nitrogen Teroxide present even more
                   problems, they are pretty reactive and don't store well.

                   If everything is based on water it becomes a lot simpler. Water has a lot of other uses
                   besides propulsion and has to be carried anyway for a manned mission. Water ends
                   up being less mass, less storage and handling concerns, as well as simpler structure,
                   it's a whole lot easier.

                   On top of it, the mass and volume required to carry water is less than required of any
                   other chemical propellant or power source and it can be carried in the same
                   conditions people are carried in.

                   After that the settlement itself will begin to make it's own propellant. It will not need
                   to import propellant from Earth, and could even export Martian made propellant to
                   LEO to be used to send more stuff to Mars. .....

                   A Mars or Moon colony will need to import water, no matter what, especially if you
                   assume it isn't available on Mars. Why is it different to expect to find water, or expect
                   to produce CH4 and LOX from a very thin atmosphere? I'm t saying we can't expect,
                   or rely on, anything.

                   Why import Mars, CH4 to Earth? I think we can find more than enough of that here,



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                           Page 80 of 158




                   as long as their is life, and getting rid of it would be a good thing, actually. I don't
                   want to import more. Using oil, sequestered for milleniums, is not be such a good
                   thing, it adds Carbon to the environment. Now you want to import even more?

                   The fact CH4 has a lot less energy and more mass than Hydrogen is also a factor.
                   You need a single Carbon atom to carry four Hydrogen atoms, Carbons atonic weight
                   is 14 and Hydrogens is 1. Doesn't 4 add up to a lot less mass than 18?

                   No matter what fuel you use it boils down to Hydrogen and Oxygen. Either we carry
                   Hydrogen, or something that carries Hydrogen, Carbon. We don't need the Carbon,
                   other than to add mass.

                   It is not a Martian resource we would want to break up and burn.......

                   Why not? Water isn't doing much good on Mars. Better than sucking out what little
                   atmosphere there is.

                   Which will be cheaper; providing and exporting water from Earth for all of our
                   settlements propellant needs, not just at the beginning, but the entire time; or
                   providing enough CH4 to only get the first few cycles of equipment to Mars, then not
                   having to provide CH4 anymore since the settlement will make the propellant itself?
                   >>>

                   You're only talking propellant and I'm talking about running everything on water. I'm
                   saying water from the ground up and a little kerosene on the way back to Earth.

                   Just to recap; SSME's and solid boosters similar to Shuttle as a first stage, RL-10
                   derivitives as a second stage.

                   In orbit and in transit power is supplied using Solar arrays to break-down water and
                   power fuel cells that provide energy. Fuel cells exhaust water, which is recycled, so a
                   finite amount of water would be needed.

                   For entering orbit and reaching the surface, enough LH2/LOX would be produced as
                   needed, using Solar power. Just enough for the specific mission, plus reserves, to
                   reduce storage and cryogenic requirements.

                   If you look at some Modules just carrying water and others having 2 to 4
                   hydrolizer/fuel cell units each you have a pretty diverse system that allows any one
                   Module to provide the whole complex, if it ever came to that.

                   A typical mission would bring passengers and cargo to a LEO Station where they
                   would be loaded into a transfer vehicle. The transfer vehicles size would depend on
                   the mission. The more Modules added the more power needed, Power Modules,
                   refueled second stages, would be added as needed.

                   Once in orbit at a destination landers would move between orbit and the surface,
                   wherever that would be.

                   Water would be taken from Earth, and from there, to orbit around another body. If




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                           Page 81 of 158



                   water is found on the surface so much the better, but if it is not it is sent to the surface
                   as LOX and LH2, produced in orbit.



spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
04/09/05 11:38
AM                 Excellent post, Arobie! You understand the plan, you understand the big picture, you
                   see why we have to make storable propellant.

                   IMO the evidence to date is sufficient to make the assumption that we can extract at
                   least enough water to produce enough H2 to serve as feedstock for the production of
                   CH4. If we're going to settle Mars, we will also need to make drinking water.
                   Shipping it all from Earth is not sustainable over the long run. IMO the prospects are
                   good that we can extract that much water.


spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
04/09/05 11:40
AM                 Scott, way back in the thread I wrote:

                   The problem with liquid Hydrogen is storage. Or lack thereof. :-) It simply leaks
                   away, no matter what you try to do to stop it. Solving this problem is an unnecessary
                   distraction, let somebody else do it and we’ll shift to LH2 when that tech is ready.

                   Generating LH2 on the way to Mars is no way to run a spaceline. You’ve got to have
                   assured dV capability to be able to do everything you need to do to get back, before
                   you ever leave in the first place. I also question if LH2 can be generated at a fast
                   enough rate with solar power to enable “gas and go” operations.

                   Propellant: Kerosene/LOX if Earth derived, CH4/LOX if Martian derived. This is the
                   baseline propulsion I’ll be working with until such time as I see some solid numbers
                   refuting the above logic. It is noted that LH2 tanks will be very large, which is
                   attractive from a habitat conversion standpoint, so if the storage problem is well and
                   truly solved, we would go with the higher Isp, you bet.

                   You keep insisting that we make our propellant as we go, and that solar will get the
                   job done. My engineering instincts tell me that the solar array surface area and the
                   power handling equipment will be prohibitively large and massive. Plus if you can't
                   get the job done, you go flying past Mars and have mission failure. Manufacturing
                   your braking system as you go is no way to run a spaceline. We need storable
                   propellant.

                   You make a completely unsupported statement that the mass requirement for CH4 /
                   O2 production on the surface will be more than that for LH2/LOX. I hate to break it
                   to you, but electrolysis and cryogenic equipment is not mass-free.

                   As Arobie states very well, ISRU, specifically ISPP, is a cornerstone of the



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 82 of 158



                   settlement plan. Mars needs to produce its own dV. Your wonderful little Hydrogen
                   molecules leak through any storage vessel we can make. Bind it to Carbon and we
                   can store it.

                   Show me some numbers, man! Don't just keep telling me the same thing over and
                   over. I want the high Isp, I want the universal applicability of water. I see your points,
                   I thought the same thing once upon a time.

                   Do the math, it's not that hard!


CrossoverManiac     Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(comet)
04/09/05 12:00
PM              Colonization of Mars will be rather expensive. If there's going to be a large enough
                exodus to the Red Planet, then it would be a good idea to set up a manufacturing
                facility on the Moon to manufacture fuel and maybe even the structure of the
                spacecraft.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
04/09/05 01:25
PM                 Experience gained while settling Mars will provide ample guidance as to
                   colonization strategies. First things first. Note that IMO lunar settlement should
                   happen concurrently with Mars settlement.

Tap_Sa                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(asteroid)
04/09/05 05:46
PM
                   I think the propellant issue should be settled now by a 'management decision'
                   There has been a good discussion, many good points raised. Couple moot points
                   IMO: First, availability of water on Mars. AFAIK it's beyond reasonable doubt that
                   there is abundance of water in the polar caps. Even with CH4 you are going to need
                   water for the hydrogen. Second, storability. While back I tried to dig up boil-off rates
                   of hydrogen tanks and found this description of a study made for NASA in the 80s. I
                   was amazed how low the boiling rate was, less than 4% per month for LH2. Note that
                   this is LEO, tank unprotected from sunlight and no regenerative cooling. I calculated
                   that even with abysmal 10% cooling efficiency the power required to reliquify boiled
                   hydrogen is less than one kilowatt.

                   The presented options with some pluses and minuses:

                   Electrolysis rocket
                   + transporting propellant from Earth/Mars easiest
                   + dense and easy propellant storability
                   - requires at least several megawatts of continuous electric power while firing,
                   feasible but unproven. What source? solar panel, solar dynamic, nuclear?
                   - electrolysis of this large scale in space is unproven technology




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 83 of 158




                   LH2/LOX
                   - LH2 requires huge tank and possibly active cooling
                   + said big tank might be perfect radiation shield
                   - transporting propellants (LH2) most difficult (unless transport batches of water and
                   electrolyse it into main tanks, while orbiting Earth/Mars)
                   + fuel cells might provide easy energy and water while enroute

                   LCH4/LOX
                   - LCH4 more complex to manufacture, needs electrolysis of water plus Sabatier
                   process.
                   - performance ~3/4 of LH2, more mass required
                   + relatively easy storability, LCH4 is six times denser than LH2 and boiling point
                   even higher than LOX
                   + probably best fuel for Mars shuttles anyway

                   I would, a little unwillingly, lean toward the LCH4/LOX option. It's not the most
                   efficient, elegant but it might very well be the fastest way to get the settlement going,
                   meaning it requires least designing and testing anything new and difficult. Once we
                   have a settlement running on Mars and maybe a base or two on Moon too, then we
                   can have much higher pace in trying out all new space travel ideas.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
04/09/05 06:37
PM                 Thanks for the excellent summary, Tap_Sa

                   That pretty much is exactly my thinking. I have already made the executive decision
                   in favor of CH4/LOX, reluctantly, but remain open to LH2 if someone can make a
                   solid case for it.

                   The most important criteria in any tech selection for this settlement plan is the ease of
                   development. We should not be selecting any technology that has a difficult
                   development path.

                   Perhaps the biggest problem IMO with CH4 is that AFAIK at this point in time there
                   is no such thing as a rocket engine designed to use it. But considering that AFAIK we
                   need to do some engine development anyway, it's a clear winner because we lose
                   almost no mass over a storage period of months and years. Waste not want not.

JonClarke             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(planet)
04/09/05 06:54
PM                 I agree, water on Mars is abudant, taking it to Mars is coal to Newcastle. Just to
                   remind everyone again of the range of water resources on Mars

                   1) Atmsopheric water - low levels but near saturation and ubiquitous, very easily
                   extracted. CONFIRMED RESOURCE

                   2) Hydrated minerals - large areas of layered sediments contain 5-10% water at the



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 84 of 158



                   surface. Can be extracted by simple heating in solar or microwave furnace.
                   CONFIRMED RESOURCE

                   3) Polar caps - predominantly water ice or water-CO2 clathrates (which are 5/6
                   water). CONFIRMED RESOURCE

                   4) High latitude shallow ground ice - latitudes above 60 north and south contain at
                   least 40% water by mass within the top metre. CONFIRMED RESOURCE

                   5) Low latitude shallow ground ice - although shallow ice is not stable at low
                   latitudes at present, Mars goes through climatic cycles like earth. During some of
                   these ice is stable and can form at low latitudes. A number of features at low latitudes
                   point to the presence of shallow ground ice in localised areas INFERRED
                   RESOURCE

                   6) Deep ice. Deep ice is (several 100 m) is inferred to present at patchily even at the
                   equator on the basis of rampart craters. INFERRED RESOURCE

                   7) Snow and glaciers - there is abundant geomorphic evidence for present and recent
                   low and mid latitude glaciers on Mars in scattered localities - Dao Vallis, the large
                   volcanoes. INFERRED RESOURCE

                   8) Shallow aquifers - the recent gullies in many craters point to at least localised
                   relatively shallow (10-100's of m) aquifers. INFERRED RESOURCE

                   8) Deep aquifers - there is abudnant evidence for widespread very large deep
                   aquifers. INFERRED RESOURCE.

                   Obviously water supplies must be located and their quantity and quality determined,
                   but I suggest when we committ to a Mars settlement we will know this from earlier
                   missions or they will be located early on.

                   Jon

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
04/10/05 01:48
AM                 Maybe I didn't make it overly clear. I would use LH2/LOX for major propulsion
                   only, all other uses would use low pressure gasses. By the time LH2 or LOX gets to a
                   fuel cell or thruster combustion chamber it is a gas anyway, nothing says it has to be
                   liquid, just supply the right amount.

                   The same system could power cars today:

                   Nuclear produced electricity supplied to your house where a hydrolizer produces
                   Hydrogen and exhausts Oxygen. Hydrogen gas is stored and transferred to vehicles
                   for local driving needs in your garage. Commercial outlets could provide LH2 for
                   extended trips. The best part is you can convert current vehicles as supplies increase.
                   There's a lot of room in the trunk of a 59 Caddy.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 85 of 158



                   What I propose is using solar power to hydrolize water and produce gasses that are
                   stored and transfered under relatively low pressure.

                   Fuel cell and hydrolizer layers, inside a sealed structure, could be built in any number
                   of layers.

                   Water and power in, electricity and water out, everybodies happy, chemically. As
                   long as we have a Sun, water and are around and able to repair and replace
                   components, it works, but that's a given in Space.

                   The need to store huge amounts of cryogenic propellant would not be needed, for
                   extended periods, like they would be if you used Methane. In Mars orbit water would
                   be broken down and sent to the surface, if usable water is found, it can be sent into
                   orbit to allow larger payloads from Earth.

                   Any liquid, except water, needs cryogenics to keep loses down. It would take pretty
                   huge tanks to carry Methane gas, Zeppelin size at least.

                   As I understand it, to produce CH4, on the Martian surface, we have to bring along
                   our own Hydrogen.

                   CO2+4H2=CH4+2H2O.

                   To get Oxygen, according to Zubrin:

                   "The water produced is condensed and then transeferred to a holding tank, after
                   which it is pumped into an electrolysis cell and subjected to the familiar electrolysis
                   reaction:

                   2H2O=2H2+O2

                   The Oxygen so produced is refrigerated and stored, while the hydrogen can be
                   recycled back to the Sabatier reaction."

                   How is this simpler than taking water and using Solar power to produce Hydrogen
                   and Oxygen that is used to provie energy in various forms?


                   Your wonderful little Hydrogen molecules leak through any storage vessel we can
                   make. Bind it to Carbon and we can store it.....

                   Zeppelin did pretty good almost a hundred years ago, if you don't get crazy it's not all
                   that hard to contain. Bind Hydrogen to Oxygen and it's a lot more stable than
                   Hydrogen to Carbons as a storage and life support medium.

kdavis007             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
04/16/05 04:01
PM                 Well count me in..




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                            Page 86 of 158



Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
04/18/05 03:56
PM                 I'll work on another summary post. Maybe from that we can figure out what step is
                   next.

smradoch              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(molecule)
04/19/05 05:58
AM                 How would you collect this water? Give me some clue how to do that? I somehow
                   cann't imagine that you can easily collect several tons of clean water at Mars.
                   I don't now if you want to mine water from the first Mars mission, but if so just name
                   few equipment which would be neccesary for that mining.

nacnud                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
04/19/05 06:27
AM                 Ever heard of a solar still? If the ice is close enough to the surface that might be all
                   you need.

smradoch              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(molecule)
04/19/05 08:08
AM                 Ok if you would have soil containing water ice you have to collect soil somehow,
                   warm that (in closed tank - otherwise vapour will flow away to space) and condense
                   steam. So there will be lot of soil moving - lot of equipment.
                   It can be done. You need closed tank, lot of sunshine and heaters, some cooling loop
                   or cooldown during a night and some heavy machinery and lot of time. What is the
                   content of water ice in the soil and how easily can you get it into your apparature is
                   unknown.
                   How much of water has to be produced and in what time?

grooble               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
04/19/05 08:23
AM                 Is it possible to send some kind of robotic lab, so that the time the humans arive,
                   there is tons of water ready made?

ldyaidan              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(proton)
04/19/05 01:58
PM
                   You're talking about assembling the ship in orbit. What about all the space junk that's
                   already up there? How much of that can be picked up, and packed away, to be reused
                   once on Mars, or the Moon? It's already there, and even if it's just used as scrap
                   metal, it's stuff we don't have to launch, and will clean up some of the debris that they
                   are starting to worry about. Also, if you go with a 28 person crew, will any of these
                   people be staying on the ship in orbit, or will all of them be planetside? A crew in
                   orbit will be able to stage rescue missions/etc, in case of any problems. Due to the
                   low gravity, if the orbital ship has spin gravity, then by rotating crews, at least at first,



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 87 of 158



                   then it might help reduce the problems caused by the low gravity. Would a "gravity
                   chamber" planetside be possible? Not necessarily for the entire colony, but just in
                   specific areas, that can be spun. Perhaps the workout area, or recreation area? I'm not
                   a rocket scientist by any means. These ideas may not even be possible, but just
                   adding my 2 cents

ldyaidan              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(proton)
04/19/05 02:05
PM                 Also, it seems it would be more practical to send a small machine shop, and raw
                   materials for what you want/need to make, and make it once you are there. Would
                   save on cargo space, and wouldn't have a bunch of stuff laying around that you don't
                   need yet. Then you can take the raw materials, and make what you need, when you
                   need it.

quasar2               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(asteroid)
04/19/05 02:22
PM                 www.mobilepartshospital.com this or a version like it needs to be in OuterSpace right
                   now. probably even more than one. put one @ L1. another on the Lunar surface, i
                   don`t even have to stress the need for one on the Martian surface, that`s a given.

smradoch              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(dust)
04/20/05 06:23
AM                 Thanx Tap_sa for link

                   http://www.dunnspace.com/cryogen_space_storage.htm

                   but there are several notes. Actually the Hydrogen tank is very well insulated. Heat
                   losses are 0.056 kW only. I think that they omit any source of heat in the structure.
                   The only losses are from space radiation. It's clear that smaler tank than those 125 m3
                   and 8.5t LH2 or real one with equipment would have higher % boil off. Also
                   regenerative cooling is quite big source of heat and big consument of electricity. I
                   don't know how much kW of electricity or how much of heat you need to reject
                   regenerating 0.5 kg/h (0.056 kW heat) of hydrogen. But when you account for real
                   conditions I wouldn't be surprised to need few tens kW of electricity and some
                   cooling loops (producers of heat) with radiators (heat sink). Actually I think that
                   allowing boil off would be better possibility.

Tap_Sa                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(asteroid)
04/20/05 08:20
AM
                   "I think that they omit any source of heat in the structure. The only losses are from
                   space radiation."

                   From the article:

                   "Heat leakage includes that through the insulation, as well as through tank/shell



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 88 of 158



                   struts and fill, feed and vent lines. "

                   And another important thing:

                   "Boiloff rates in the Boeing study were estimated for tank sets in low earth orbit.
                   Lower boiloff rates would be expected for tanks at a further distance from the sun.
                   Lower boiloff rates can also be expected if tanks can be maintained at an angle
                   which minimizes their cross-sectional area exposed to the sun, or tanks protected by
                   a sunshade. The boiloff rates in low earth orbit thus most probably represent a worst
                   case scenario, with better results to be expected for spacecraft on Mars trajectories
                   etc."

                   "I don't know how much kW of electricity or how much of heat you need to reject
                   regenerating 0.5 kg/h (0.056 kW heat) of hydrogen. But when you account for real
                   conditions I wouldn't be surprised to need few tens kW of electricity and some
                   cooling loops (producers of heat) with radiators (heat sink)."

                   Well, you already calculated yourself the first part, 56 watts That's the heat we
                   have to remove from the boil-off to turn it back to liquid. What's the efficiency of
                   cooling equipment, I don't know but tens of kilowatts sounds awful lot, 56kW would
                   mean abysmal 0,1% efficiency. I'd say one kilowatt tops. Naturally we have to radiate
                   that kilowatt to somewhere else than the tank or the whole process is moot.

                   But I agree with you that allowing the boil-off would be no problem, because we'd
                   probably use the hydrogen at least that rate in a fuelcell or something like VASIMR
                   anyway.

smradoch              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(dust)
04/20/05 08:43
AM                 All losees through insulation, struts and vent lines are through radiation from space,
                   but I meant other heat sources like batteries, struts to orbital module, electric
                   equipment etc.
                   You need to reject 0.056 kW of heat, but as we talk about that elsewhere, it's not easy
                   to reject heat when the temperature is few kelvins.
                   The problem at LEO is probably with radiation from Earth.

smradoch              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(dust)
04/20/05 11:34
AM                 radiating 56W @ 20.3 K you would need 5700 m2 of radiators (according to S-B eq.)
                   with black body and without back radiation from space. Using some cryo plant things
                   get pretty complicated and heat losses will be higher.

grooble               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
04/20/05 11:48
AM
                   Can someone write up a summary for this mission? The discussion is 6 weeks old,
                   has anything been decided on how the mission would be made up?



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 89 of 158




                   Thanks

Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
04/20/05 04:21
PM                 I'll start working on the summary. Give me a couple of days. In the mean time here is
                   an interesting link on an advancement in space solar power.

                   http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=25166

grooble               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
04/20/05 04:24
PM                 27% efficient. That's good. I'm so excited right now at the prospects, these new solar
                   panels could power my space taxis.

Tap_Sa                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(asteroid)
04/20/05 05:49
PM                 I bet multijunction cells will be production ready for your taxi.

grooble               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
04/20/05 06:12
PM                 Excellent.

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
04/20/05 11:34
PM                 Again, another post on the water as propellant (and energy) issue.

                   First of all, I'de like to thank those of you who set me straight on the availability of
                   water. I stand corrected.

                   Ok, now to the post:

                   I'de like to bring up some long term points. These are future considerations, not just
                   the future of how our settlement will work, not short term considerations, but the
                   long-term future of human settlement of Mars and activities in the asteroids. I feel it
                   is important to take these considerations in when planning how the start of it will pan
                   out.

                   First, since we are settling Mars for the long-term, we don't want to settle it on
                   policies of wasteful use of water.

                   How long would Mars' planetary water supply last if we used it as propellant?

                   How long would it take before we squander Mars' water resources until there is none



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 90 of 158



                   left for future generations?

                   We need to make this water last as long as we possibly can, centuries, millenia if
                   possible. We should not use it up over a few decades for a settlement's propulsion
                   (and electricity) needs. I just don't want us to fall into our our own trap again and
                   squander priceless resources like we have on Earth. I think it is our duty to our
                   progeny to keep Mars' water on Mars.

                   Another consideration in planning our Mars settlement is whether or not we
                   eventually want to utilize asteroids as resources. A major resource we can get (I
                   think) is water. If that is so, and we plan on (after the settlement is established)
                   sending missions to the asteroids to utilize some of these resources, then we might
                   want to use LH2/LOX as our planned propellant, as long as we replace the water we
                   use from Mars. I just don't like the idea of using needed resources and having no plan
                   to restore them. I don't like squandering resources and then dropping the problem on
                   other people's laps.

                   We should preserve water an Mars for uses that it is needed for, for survival uses. If
                   we can and plan to replace what we use, then we can go ahead and use the water as
                   propellant and as an electricity source. We are in it this for the long-run. We need to
                   plan for the long-run.

                   These are my thoughts on the matter, looking long-term. I wish I could express
                   myself better, but atleast I've gotten the jist of the matter across.

quasar2               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(asteroid)
04/21/05 11:00
AM                 i wonder if equatorial launches on mars make much difference. probably not as much
                   as Earth, but if one is wishing to be fuel-wise. also by that time, one would think
                   maglev launcher or equivalent would be built too. isn`t olympus mons somewhere
                   near the equator?

grooble               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
04/21/05 11:30
AM                 Where is spacester these days?

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
04/21/05 05:14
PM                 If everything that we are looking for that makes a great settlement location is found at
                   the equator, then we should go there. Although I don't know how likely that is.

                   Olympus Mons looks to be a little ways north of the equator. Here is a map.

                   Cool Mars Site

quasar2               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 91 of 158



(asteroid)
04/21/05 11:42     i`m certain there will be nomads constantly wandering the martian surface. i know
PM                 that`s what i`d do. so i don`t think we`d hafta worry bout it all in one place. actually,
                   having things spreadout encourages exploration.

Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
04/22/05 02:19
PM                 Here is a first pass at the pre-launch activities.

                   Assumptions:
                   6 week launch window every two years.
                   200 day one-way journey.
                   960 day minimum mission time.
                   ?are lunar resources available?

                   On Earth - Preparation Steps:
                   1) Mars Site Selection process
                   -----A) Best site for water.
                   -----B) Best site for minerals/resources.
                   -----C) Best site for exploration.
                   -----D) Best site for agriculture.
                   -----E) Best site for return launches.
                   -----F) Best overall site.

                   2) Subsystem design & Earth testing
                   -----A) Air handling/management system
                   ----------a) Air Circulation
                   ----------b) Air pressure
                   ----------c) Gas mix
                   ---------------I) gas mix sensing
                   ---------------II) gas mix adjustments
                   ---------------III) storage of excess gases
                   ----------d) Particulate/odor removal

                   -----B) Communication
                   ----------a) directional/omni-directional
                   ----------b) high/low gain
                   ----------c) command encryption methods
                   ----------d) interface type/style
                   ----------e) what telemetry, from what systems is returned?
                   ----------f) blackout windows

                   -----C) Electrical
                   ----------a) primary system
                   ----------b) backup system
                   ----------c) battery capacity

                   -----D) Food
                   ----------a) menu diversity



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 92 of 158




                   ----------b) storage issues
                   ---------------I) How long can each storage method keep food safe?
                   ---------------II) How to supply “fresh” food?

                   -----E) Temperature control
                   ----------a) What methods of heating/cooling are available?

                   -----F) Waste management/recycling
                   ----------a) What different types of waste will be produced?
                   ---------------I) Paper
                   ---------------II) Plastic
                   ---------------III) Metal
                   ---------------IV) CO2
                   ---------------V) H2O (sweating/respiration/cleaning)
                   ---------------VI) Urine
                   ---------------VII) Fecal
                   ---------------VIII) Methane
                   ---------------IX) Other out gassing from equipment and materials
                   ----------b) How can the different wastes be handled?
                   ---------------I) compacted and stored. (metals, carbon)
                   ---------------II) separated into component elements and stored for reuse. (gases,
                   plastic, urine, fecal, methane)
                   ---------------III) separated from other waste and stored for later use. (methane)
                   ---------------IV) separated, sterilized, and reused. (H2O)
                   ---------------V) converted into something useful (CO2 -> O2 + C)

                   -----G) Water management and supply
                   ----------a) How to keep the fresh water supply safe?
                   ---------------I) UV sterilization
                   ---------------II) chemical sterilization
                   ---------------III) O3 (ozone) sterilization
                   ---------------IV) Heat sterilization
                   ---------------V) Create as needed?
                   ----------b) How to handle too little fresh water?
                   ----------c) How to handle too much fresh water?

                   -----H) Recreation
                   ----------a) On Earth
                   ---------------I) none – unless during Mars simulation, then use recreation suggested
                   for that event.
                   ----------b) GTO - none
                   ----------c) Enroute to Mars
                   ---------------I) Mental stimulation ideas
                   ---------------II) Physical stimulation ideas
                   ----------d) In Mars orbit
                   ---------------I) Mental stimulation ideas
                   ---------------II) Physical stimulation ideas
                   ----------e) On Mars
                   ---------------I) Mental stimulation ideas
                   ---------------II) Physical stimulation ideas




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                             Page 93 of 158




                   ----------f) For the return trip
                   ---------------I) Mental stimulation ideas
                   ---------------II) Physical stimulation ideas

                   -----I) Transportation
                   ----------a) On Earth
                   ----------b) GTO
                   ----------c) Enroute to Mars
                   ----------d) In Mars orbit
                   ----------e) On Mars
                   ----------f) For the return trip

                   -----J) Information storage/retrieval/processing
                   ----------a) On Earth
                   ----------b) GTO
                   ----------c) Enroute to Mars
                   ----------d) In Mars orbit
                   ----------e) On Mars
                   ----------f) For the return trip

                   -----K) Mining/refining
                   ----------a) In Mars orbit
                   ----------b) On Mars

                   -----L) Equipment/Spare Part fabrication
                   ----------a) On Earth
                   ----------b) GTO
                   ----------c) Enroute to Mars
                   ----------d) In Mars orbit
                   ----------e) On Mars
                   ----------f) For the return trip

                   -----M) Mars/GTO construction techniques

                   3) Launch system acquisition
                   -----A) Competitive bid
                   ----------a) Who drives:
                   ---------------I) launch mass
                   ---------------II) payload size
                   ---------------III) launch frequency (rate)
                   -----B) In-house development.

                   4) Determine crew size

                   5) Fund raising
                   -----A)
                   -----B)
                   -----C)
                   -----D)
                   -----E)




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 94 of 158




                   -----F)

                   6) GTO subsystem design
                   -----A)
                   -----B)
                   -----C)
                   -----D)
                   -----E)
                   -----F)

                   7) MHO subsystem design (Mars High Orbit)
                   -----A)
                   -----B)
                   -----C)
                   -----D)
                   -----E)
                   -----F)

                   8) Mars Lunar subsystems (is this option in or out?)
                   -----A)
                   -----B)
                   -----C)
                   -----D)
                   -----E)
                   -----F)


                   Earth to GTO
                   1) Earth Launch systems
                   -----A) Earth to GTO - Cargo
                   ----------a) Delta IV heavy - 10,843Kg to GTO - 5 meter faring - no info on length of
                   payload.
                   ----------b) Atlas-V-551 - 8,200Kg to GTO - 5 meter faring - no info on length
                   limitations.
                   ----------c) Shuttle - 28,800Kg to LEO - cargo bay 15x60 feet - Unknown amount
                   (20,000?) to GTO.
                   ----------d) Ariane 5 - 8,000Kg to GTO - 5 meter faring (assumed) - no length info.
                   ----------e) No info on Russian launch systems.
                   ----------f) Failure mode: Loss of craft results in relaunch of equipment and possible
                   loss of Earth-Mars launch window.

                   -----B) Earth to GTO - Manned - 7 day orbital capability for 28 people plus crew (30
                   total?).
                   ----------a) Shuttle - 28,800Kg to LEO - cargo bay 15x60 feet - Unknown amount
                   (20,000?) to GTO.
                   ---------------I) 28 passengers - no gravity.
                   ---------------II) water - 25L/P/D - Volume: 5,250 Liters. Mass 5,250Kg
                   ---------------III) O2 - volume:322.56 liters Calculation:(7 * 28 * 1323 gaseous liters
                   O2 / 860.8 = 1.536 liters LOX) Mass:238.98 kilograms (7 * 28 * 1.138 kg/liter)
                   ---------------IV) Waste management - none




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 95 of 158




                   ---------------V) food - 3.175Kg/P/D - Volume: ? Mass: 666.75Kg
                   ---------------VI) personal items 1000Kg/P - Volume: ? Mass:28,000Kg - Launch this
                   item as cargo until GTO
                   ---------------VII) Misc consumables - Volume: ? Mass: ?
                   ---------------VIII) Communications: 2-way voice/video, telemetery
                   ---------------IX) Electricity - APU or fuel cell.
                   ---------------X) Recreation - none
                   ---------------XI) Temperature control
                   ---------------XII) Falure mode: Loss of any of the above items may result in an abort
                   to Earth. Loss of craft causes miss of Earth-Mars Launch window.
                   ---------b) No info on Russian launch systems.

                   2) On-orbit station for deep space assembly.
                   3) On-orbit Earth/Lunar Propellant depot.
                   4) On-orbit Habitat (with gravity simulation?)
                   5) Communication issues

                   Moon to GTO
                   -----1) Moon to GTO - Cargo - No info



                   GTO to MHO.
                   -----1) Interplanetary Spaceship
                   ----------a) Manned Family - (360 day transit + 600 day surface stay = 960 day total
                   capacity)
                   ---------------I) 28 passenger - spin gravity - divided into 2 - 14 passenger cabins or 4 -
                   7 passenger cabins.
                   ---------------II) water - 25L/P/D - Volume: 672,000 Liters. Mass 672,000Kg
                   ---------------III) O2 - volume:41,311.469 liters Calculation:(960 * 28 * 1323 gaseous
                   liters O2 / 860.8 = 1.536 liters LOX) Mass:47,029.413 kilograms (960 * 28 * 1.138
                   kg/liter)
                   ---------------IV) Waste management - Recycling efficiency target 90%.
                   ---------------V) food - 3.175Kg/P/D - Volume: ? Mass: 85,344Kg
                   ---------------VI) personal items 1000Kg/P - Volume: ? Mass:28,000Kg
                   ---------------VII) Misc consumables - Volume: ? Mass: ?
                   ---------------VIII) Communications: 2-way voice/video, telemetery
                   ---------------IX) Electricity - Solar, nuclear, or fuel cell.
                   ---------------X) Recreation
                   ---------------XI) Temperature control
                   ---------------XII) Attachment method to interplanetary booster.
                   ---------------XIII) Failure Mode: systems failure may result in return to Earth or loop
                   around Mars and return.
                   ---------------XIV) Settlement supports Science - What happens on this ship to support
                   this goal?

                   ----------b) Unmanned Family
                   ---------------I) interplanetary booster - Multiple mission design
                   --------------------I) ION propulsion
                   --------------------II) Nuclear thermal propulsion




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 96 of 158




                   --------------------III) chemical propulsion - CH4/LOX seems to be the best fuel
                   because we can get it at both ends of the trip.
                   ---------------II) Cargo module
                   --------------------I) Length - TBD
                   --------------------II) Diameter - TBD
                   --------------------III) Method of loading - TBD (is it launched loaded or packed on
                   orbit?)
                   --------------------IV) Attachment method to interplanetary booster

                   Mars Orbital Facility
                   -----1) Orbital Spacecraft Order
                   ----------a) Orbital facility Family
                   ---------------I) Earth orbital propellant depot
                   ---------------II) Earth orbital assembly facility.

                   MHO to Mars
                   ----------b) Crew/Supplies Orbit to Surface Family
                   ----------c) Unmanned Supplies Orbit to Surface Family

                   -----6) Surface Craft Order
                   ----------a) Rovers Family
                   ----------b) Hoppers Family
                   ----------c) Surface Automobiles Family

                   B) Habitats Class
                   -----1) Test Habitat Order
                   ----------a) Undecided Families

                   -----2) Space Habitat Order
                   ----------a) Transit habitat Family
                   ----------b) Orbital habitat Family

                   -----3) Surface Habitat Order
                   ----------a) Converted Propellant Tank Family
                   ----------b) Inflatable Family - 600 day stay (subset of interplanetary craft)
                   ---------------I) 28 passenger - divided into 2 - 14 passenger cabins or 4 - 7 passenger
                   cabins.
                   ---------------II) water - 25L/P/D - Volume: 420,000 Liters. Mass 420,000Kg
                   ---------------III) O2 - volume:25,804.8 liters Calculation:(600 * 28 * 1323 gaseous
                   liters O2 / 860.8 = 1.536 liters LOX) Mass:19,118.4 kilograms (600 * 28 * 1.138
                   kg/liter)
                   ---------------IV) Waste management - Recycling efficiency target 90%.
                   ---------------V) food - 3.175Kg/P/D - Volume: ? Mass: 53,340Kg
                   ---------------VI) personal items 1000Kg/P - Volume: ? Mass: 28,000Kg
                   ---------------VII) Misc consumables - Volume: ? Mass: ?
                   ---------------VIII) Communications: 2-way voice/video, telemetery
                   ---------------IX) Electricity - Solar, nuclear, or fuel cell.
                   ---------------X) Recreation
                   ---------------XI) Temperature control
                   ---------------XII) failure modes: Consume existing supplies until repaired or Mars-




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                           Page 97 of 158




                   Earth window opens for return or repair parts.

                   C) Factories Class
                   -----1) ISRU Order
                   ----------a) ISRU Production Family
                   ---------------I) Earth Lunar ISRU Facility
                   --------------------I) LH2/LOX facility
                   --------------------II) CH4/LOX facility
                   --------------------III) SI facility
                   --------------------IV) Al facility
                   --------------------V) Misc minerals/metals facility
                   --------------------VI) Failure mode: Loss of this facility until repaired/replaced.

                   ---------------II) Mars Lunar ISRU Facility
                   --------------------I) CH4/LOX facility
                   --------------------II) SI facility
                   --------------------III) Al facility
                   --------------------IV) Misc minerals/metals facility
                   --------------------V) Failure mode: Loss of this facility until repaired/replaced.

                   ---------------III) Mars Surface ISRU facility
                   --------------------I) CH4/LOX facility
                   --------------------II) SI facility
                   --------------------III) Al facility
                   --------------------IV) Misc minerals/metals facility
                   --------------------V) H2O facility
                   --------------------VI) Failure mode: Loss of this facility until repaired/replaced.

                   -----2) Food Production Order
                   ----------a) Hydroponics Family
                   ---------------I) Vegetable crops.
                   ---------------II) livestock feed crops.
                   ---------------III) Energy crops.
                   ---------------IV) Waste recycling.
                   ---------------V) Failure mode: Loss of this facility until repaired/replaced.

                   ----------b) Aquaculture Family
                   ---------------I) Fish.
                   ---------------II) Waste recycling.
                   ---------------III) Waste heat energy storage.
                   ---------------IV) Failure mode: Loss of this facility until repaired/replaced.

                   -----3) Machine Shop Order
                   ----------a) Repairs Shop family
                   ---------------I) Failure mode: Loss of this facility until repaired/replaced.

                   -----4) Industry
                   ----------a) Settlement supports science
                   ---------------I) Exploration
                   ---------------II) Survival knowledge




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 98 of 158



                   ---------------III) Energy technologies
                   ---------------IV) ISRU technologies
                   ---------------V) Astronomy
                   ---------------VI) Survival of the species knowledge.
                   ---------------VII) Genetic Drift knowledge
                   ---------------VIII) Closed Loop Life Support technologies

                   ----------b) Export goods
                   ---------------I) Jewerly. fad, & fashion.
                   ---------------II) Earth addaptable technology
                   ---------------III) General science information


Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
04/23/05 10:47
PM                 Ok Wow! Thanks Dan!

                   Looks great and shows what we have and have not decided. We have much to fill in.

                   The best way to use this "checklist/ongoing summary" is to try to systematically fill it
                   out, but first we have an issue to resolve. As said before, it's time for a management
                   decision on our propellant and electricity source. There has been alot put out on this
                   topic over the past few pages, and I think it's time for a definitive decision...so I hope
                   Spacester will drop by some time soon to help us out.

                   We need to finish working out our Interplanetary Spaceship, both the manned and the
                   unmanned. It's the workhorse of our plan. We need to have it fleshed out. We have
                   decided and calculated much about it, but we're not done. Along that line, there are
                   two things I would like to comment on about what you have for it.

                   The first this has to do with the amount of water needed for drinking, hygine, etc. In
                   your calculations, you don't account for water recycling. We should figure that. What
                   did we give it, a 90% efficiency in recycling water?

                   With 90% efficiency, we would have to bring 67,900 kg of water instead of 672,000
                   kg of water.

                   The other thing, I'm sorry to point out, is a simple mistake. For personal items, the
                   total mass is 2,800 kg instead of 28,000 kg.

                   About the habitats in the manned version, Bigelow's Space Habitats look very
                   promising. For some numbers to play with, one of their habitats weighs 25 tonnes and
                   has an area of 330 cubic meters. How many people could live in that area? Can seven
                   people live comfortably in that space?

                   That would be four habitats attached to the trusses coming out from the hub attached
                   to the booster.

                   On top of the hub, there is a storage/cargo compartment. Do we want to store our



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 99 of 158



                   water, food, and oxygen there?

Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
04/24/05 11:10
AM                 >>The other thing, I'm sorry to point out, is a simple mistake. For personal items, the
                   total mass is 2,800 kg instead of 28,000 kg.<<
                   Actually the error is that the amount per person should be 1000Kg. (after all we are
                   asking them to leave home for at least three years.) I'll make the correction.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
04/24/05 06:41
PM                 Well done, my friends! I'm back.

                   Golly, Dan, I had to go pretty deep into your outline just to find the first thing to
                   quibble with! What a fun read for me. I have a few edits for the outline but that
                   will have to wait. Nothing mission critical, so no prob with waiting on that. I invite
                   others to look over the outline and offer proposed corrections. But that latest outline
                   post is the de facto standard, I can sign off on it it a general sense. Agains, edits to
                   follow, hopefully soon. For now, to address Arobie's questions . . .

                   Great work, Dan!


spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
04/24/05 07:27
PM
                   As said before, it's time for a management decision on our propellant and electricity
                   source.

                   The decision has been made, but we have a vociferous dissenter. He makes a valid
                   point. But it comes down to, in this qualitative judgment, the fact that we need to
                   bind something to the Hydrogen to store it efficiently, and the fact that Mars’
                   atmosphere is mostly CO2. There’s a reason Zubrin picked CO2/CH4 – it’s doable
                   and shouldn’t be all that challenging.

                   As I’ve said twice before, until someone shows me some numbers – a quantitative
                   analysis - we’re going with the same choice as Mars Direct.

                   A major question in my mind is the ease, or lack thereof, of constructing a rocket
                   engine for our propellants of choice. AFAIK no one has ever built such an engine.
                   Can someone start a thread on this question?

                   So it’s CO2/CH4 until I see numbers demonstrating the superiority of LH2/LOX,
                   assuming we can build such an engine.

                   Now that doesn’t mean I’m against the use of lots and lots of water as the foundation
                   of our ‘survival robustness’. It just means that we’re going to have separate fluids for



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 100 of 158




                   the propulsion system versus the power system.

                   I’m not going to take for granted any more than 10% water recycling efficiency. Yes,
                   I know that it is easily achievable, much higher than ten percent, but that’s not the
                   point. The point is that a single system failure of the main recycling system isn’t
                   going to ruin your whole year. I say, bring all that water, use it as shielding, be wet
                   and cozy and shielded and take hot showers and spas and saunas and be in the picture
                   of health when you arrive with the rest of your small army of 28. Turn all that fresh
                   water into greywater, process the black water as much as possible, and after you
                   depart the orbital craft for the surface, the systems can begin turning that grey water
                   into freshwater for a return journey.

                   Which means I want a lot of energy, which means we pretty much have to have
                   nuclear power. That’s an awful lot of solar panels to be attached to your spin-g craft,
                   subjected to the dynamic loading of orbital maneuvers.

                   But nuclear power does not have to mean nuclear propulsion. The Interplanetary
                   Booster is CO2/CH4, so that means all we’re asking for from the anti-nuke types is a
                   waiver for a really nice electric power plant. Can you say Nuclear Navy – derived
                   nuclear power?

                   But if we don’t get to have our nuclear power plant, if they make us prove we can get
                   to Mars without it, fine, we’ll do that. We’ll go with a variant of the Solar-powered
                   propellant production, but use the propellant in fuel cells instead of spitting it out the
                   back. Yes, it means two separate systems instead of water for everything, but there’s
                   an upside to that: you don’t have to design the interlink systems between your
                   propulsion cryos and your fuel cell cryos. There will be a mass hit for structure to
                   support all that acreage of solar panels, but we’re counting on a BDB / BFR anyway.

                   Now if the water recycling system fails, that doesn’t mean you’re going to keep using
                   it at the high rate of the nominal plan. We want to be water rich, with abundant
                   power, taking daily showers and saunas. If things go badly with the recycling, you
                   cut way back on consumption. This is the strategy for enabling a water-rich mission
                   without throwing unnecessary tons of water to LEO and on to Mars.

                   So the question is, on a low consumption basis, how much water do we need if we
                   have only 10% recycling efficiency? Corollary question: if you achieve state of the
                   art recycling efficiency, what rate of consumption can you have.

                   IOW, if you budget for low consumption but low recycling, how does that match up
                   with the consumption rate assuming water-rich and efficient recycling?

                   How much room do seven people need? How much room do 28 people need? How
                   about 14?

                   On top of the hub, there is a storage/cargo compartment. Do we want to store our
                   water, food, and oxygen there?

                   Yes. That would be primary storage, I envision a robot on a rail to access food stores.
                   Additional storage would be provided in selected areas here and there in the habitat




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 101 of 158



                   layout.

                   BYW, I want to remind us that 2 habitats in the spin-g ship is a lot easier than 4 habs
                   IMO.


Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
04/24/05 10:33
PM                 Good to see ya Spacester! Welcome back out of the real world.

                   IOW, if you budget for low consumption but low recycling, how does that match up
                   with the consumption rate assuming water-rich and efficient recycling?

                   Ok.

                   Assumptions:
                   12 kg of water per person per day is bare minimum.
                   50kg of water per person per day is luxurious.

                   For our bare minimum water consumption at the low (10%) recycling efficiency rate
                   for a 200 day trip, we would need 2172 kg of water for one person. 60816 kg for 28
                   people.

                   For luxurious consumption with a high (90%) recycling efficiency rate for a 200 day
                   trip, we would need 1050 kg of water for one person. 29400 kg for 28 people.

                   Now in an emergency, we would go by the bare minimum/low efficiency amount of
                   water. As you said, we plan on bringing that amount of water as a safe quard. Since
                   we are bringing that, the amount of water one person could consume with a 90%
                   water recycling efficiency is 103.4 kg per day.

                   How much room do seven people need? How much room do 28 people need? How
                   about 14?

                   I don't know. I'll pass this question along. Does anyone know?

                   On top of the hub, there is a storage/cargo compartment. Do we want to store our
                   water, food, and oxygen there?

                   Yes. That would be primary storage, I envision a robot on a rail to access food stores.


                   I imagine access would be fairly easy. If the habitat is in anyway connected to the
                   hub, we could just let the food, water, or whatever 'fall' to the habitats. Let our spin-
                   gee gravity do the work for us. We would just have to disconnect the food containers
                   from whatever is securing it down there and let them fall up to us.

                   Everything else in your post, I have no quibbles with or can't add anything to. It
                   sounds good to me.



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 102 of 158




Arobie                 Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
04/25/05 07:15
PM                 Everything else in your post, I have no quibbles with or can't add anything to.

                   Oh, wait. Nevermind. I've got a question.

                   You said that spin-gee is easier with only 2 habitats instead of 4.

                   How much easier?

spacester              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
04/25/05 07:38
PM                 It's a qualitative judgment, just an engineer's best guess at this point. To decide how
                   much more trouble 4 habs are than 2, we'll have to get into more detailed design
                   descriptions. Basically, we need to know how big the volumes need to be for 14 crew
                   and for 7 crew, and then we can start to evaluate the difference between 4 and 2 habs.


                   Two habs means we're spinning a baton with 3 big cans in the middle, 4 habs means
                   we're spinning a cross with 3 big cans in the middle. Four trusses, not just two. More
                   complicated hub design, double a lot of other stuff.

                   It's perhaps more than twice as expensive to do 4 habs than 2 habs, all else being
                   equal. Just a guess.

Dan_Casale             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
04/27/05 10:00
AM                 here's an article about NASA having high schools design some hardware. This looks
                   like an easy way to get lots of cheep hardware.

                   ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 11:43:31 -0500
                   From: info@JSC.NASA.GOV
                   Subject: HOUSTON HIGH SCHOOLERS CREATE ASTRONAUT TRAINING
                   TOOLS

                   April 26, 2005

                   Debbie V. Nguyen
                   Johnson Space Center, Houston
                   281/483-5111



                   Report #J05-019



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                      Page 103 of 158




                   HOUSTON HIGH SCHOOLERS CREATE ASTRONAUT TRAINING TOOLS

                   Houston area high school students will present to NASA training equipment they
                   built for International Space Station astronauts in a 10 a.m. Monday, May 2,
                   ceremony at Clear Creek High School.

                   Media are invited. The ceremony will be in the high school's auditorium, 2305 East
                   Main St. in League City. Media planning to attend should contact the Clear Creek
                   Independent School District Office of Public Information, 281/338-5803, no later
                   than 9 a.m. May 2.

                   The student-built equipment has been constructed under a unique program offered by
                   NASA to high school students across the nation called High school students United
                   with NASA to Create Hardware (HUNCH). The partnership gives students hands-on
                   experience designing and constructing training hardware for Station and provides
                   NASA a significant reduction in the cost of the training gear.

                   The students' products include replicas of Station audio terminal units, panels aboard
                   the Station that control communications among parts of the spacecraft and with
                   Earth. Other hardware fashioned by the students includes Station stowage lockers,
                   medicine cabinets and caution and warning panels that alert the crew of abnormal
                   conditions.

                   Last year, the program began with one Texas school and two Alabama schools. This
                   year, it has grown to include a school in Montana, two schools in Alabama and seven
                   schools from the Houston area in four districts: Clear Creek, Cypress-Fairbanks,
                   Houston and Pasadena.

                   Guest speakers include HUNCH Project Manager Stacy Hale, NASA’s Chief
                   Education Officer Dr. Adena Williams Loston and Texas Commissioner of Education
                   Dr. Shirley Neeley. Following the ceremony, students will be available to talk about
                   their work on display at a reception.

                   For more information about NASA on the Internet, visit:
                   http://www.nasa.gov


                   ###

                   NASA Johnson Space Center Mission Status Reports and other information are
                   available automatically by sending an Internet electronic mail message to
                   listserv@listserver.jsc.nasa.gov. In the body of the message (not the subject line)
                   users should type "subscribe hsfnews" (no quotes). This will add the e-mail address
                   that sent the subscribe message to the news release distribution list. The system will
                   reply with a confirmation via e-mail of each subscription. Once you have subscribed
                   you will receive future news releases via e-mail.

                   ------------------------------




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 104 of 158



                   End of HSFNEWS Digest - 25 Apr 2005 to 27 Apr 2005 (#2005-35)
                   *************************************************************


spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
04/29/05 12:24
AM                 Well,, I'll be hornswoggled! Looks like NASA stole my idea!

                   Just Kidding, I can't be sure but I think I remember reading about that before, so
                   maybe I stole the idea from them. We might of came up with it independently, I'm
                   really not sure. Whatever, who cares, just for the record.

                   Great program, NASA! Very encouraging. Of course, they'll never be able to grow
                   the thing into the vast network needed for a PSA to work, if for no other reason than
                   that they only have so many people available for public outreach.

                   Which would be an issue for PSA as well actually. You need a lot of coordination
                   and communication (and if we can provide the personal touch, even better) and that
                   takes a lot of people. It's an organizational challenge to say the least, but we'll figure
                   it out together. Affiliates will help (see the finance thread, my most recent post before
                   this).

                   But it's a great gimmick - you have the students make all your mock-ups and a lot of
                   the test specimens. It's not like we're going to run out of projects for the vast network
                   to work on.


Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/01/05 12:08
PM                 Right now, I'm working out our Interplanetary Spaceship. I'm finding a rough
                   estimate of it's mass so that we can then calculate about how much propellant we will
                   need for a trip to Mars which we can then refine as our designs become more exact.

                   We are going to plan for two scenarios, one where we are allowed a Nuclear Power
                   Generator, and one where we have to use Solar Panels to create fuel cell fuel to make
                   electricity.

                   So...what we need to find out:

                   How big would our Nuclear Power Generator be?

                   How much power will we need for the trip?

                   With that amount of power needed, how many square meters of Solar Panels will we
                   need?

                   And...




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 105 of 158



                   How big would the fuel cells be?

                   Now Dan_Casale, I have a question for you, dealing with the crew's breathable
                   atmosphere. You provided the number for the oxygen needed per person per day. I
                   assume that oxygen is not meant to be the only gas in the air. What percent of all the
                   gasses is the oxygen supposed to make up? What other gasses will we have in the air?
                   According to Earth's atmospheric makeup, nitrogen. Do we want to add any other gas
                   for any reason?

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/01/05 10:04
PM                 At the bottom of this post is an insight into how I imagine the Interplanetary
                   Spaceship, a rough sketch, a visual if you will. It is not accuate in relative sizes. I
                   imagine the Booster will have to be much larger to get the hub, trusses, habitats,
                   storage, and orbit to surface vehicle to Mars. It's current size in relation to the rest is
                   surely too small. The storage will also have to be larger than it is. The trusses might
                   also have to be longer than they are. I'm not sure what length is good for spin-gee.

                   Speaking of spin-gee, Spacester, somewhere you said you had studied the dV
                   requirements for spin gee. I can't remember where or when, but what did you find?
                   What range of dV are we looking at to spin up the ship?

                   As to why I drew this up, I did so to give my brother a visual since he was wondering
                   what I was discussing on here all this time. I thought I would post it for you all too
                   just because. It doesn't really contribute much, but hey enjoy it. Also, I'm not sure if
                   you will be able to read what I wrote on it. My handwritting is a bit messy, and I had
                   to minimize the file to make it fit on here.

                   This did get me thinking more about design. Dan, I was thinking about how much
                   food, water and oxygen we want to take along on a manned trip. You plan to take
                   enough consumables for 960 days. I went though and added all the masses that we
                   know so far, the mass of the people, the oxygen, personal items, food, and water.
                   Taking enough for 960 days, it adds up to 452.9 tonnes. (I used a 10% efficiency with
                   minimum usesage to find the water mass, just like I did a few posts up.) To get that
                   mass to Mars it takes 737 tonnes of propellant (CH4/O2).

                   Taking what we need of the same things as above for a 200 day trip, it adds up to a
                   mass of 118 tonnes. To get this mass to Mars, it takes 192 tonnes of propellant.

                   I didn't even include the mass of the tanks, engines, or any of the 'hardware' of the
                   ship in figuring these masses.

                   We have to get the consumables to Mars for the stay on Mars, the trip back to Earth
                   for those who return, and for the settlers who stay on Mars instead of returning home
                   to Mars anyways, but we might not want to pile it all on to one ship. We could bring
                   some of it on supply missions and the trips beforehand, the unmanned trips. We don't
                   want to make the interpanetary booster for the manned missions too large.

                   I don't think the unmanned missions need to be able to carry a payload in excess of



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                           Page 106 of 158



                   500 tonnes. Since we are using the booster for both manned and unmanned missions,
                   all the mass capability used on manned missions for the humans will instead be used
                   on unmanned missions for payload...base components, Mars craft, supplies, etc. Will
                   we routinely need a payload capability of 500 tonnes for preparation and supply
                   missions?

                   If we will need and can use that capability, then we can plan in and bring the
                   consumbles for a complete 960 days with the manned trips, but if we will not use that
                   capability, then we want to make a compromise on how much consumables we want
                   to split between taking with the manned mission and with the unmanned missions.

                   I'm sorry, I can't get the drawing up right now. I'll see what I can do.

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars! *DELETED*
(star)
05/01/05 10:27
PM                 Sorry, I screwed up for this post.

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/01/05 10:29
PM                 The Drawing:
Attachment
Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
05/02/05 05:55
PM
                   Arobie,
                   The drawing is a very good start. Thanks.

                   >>...You provided the number for the oxygen needed per person per day. I assume
                   that oxygen is not meant to be the only gas in the air. What percent of all the gasses is
                   the oxygen supposed to make up? What other gasses will we have in the air?
                   According to Earth's atmospheric makeup, nitrogen. Do we want to add any other gas
                   for any reason?<<

                   Very good question, however I don't have a good answer for you. *speculation* I
                   suspect we want something like the major gases on Earth. (Nitrogen, Oxygen, and
                   CO2) However, I don't know all the gases that plants require to grow. I wonder at
                   what kind of atmosphere we could generate from Mars resources. At least in the
                   greenhouse areas we should have this kind of an atmosphere to help get the plants
                   adjusted to Mars normal. *end speculation*

                   >>I went though and added all the masses that we know so far, the mass of the
                   people, the oxygen, personal items, food, and water. Taking enough for 960 days, it
                   adds up to 452.9 tonnes.<<

                   I was using the 960 day figure for safety. I think we need to answer the question
                   about what is the minimum return trip time for an aborted mission?




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 107 of 158



                   *Ugly What If Tree* If we use the Zubrin Mars Direct model, and launch when we
                   know that we have lifesupport and return fuel on Mars. While enroute the supplies on
                   Mars has a catastrophic failure (splendid explosion). Do we then have enough on-
                   board supplies to:
                   1) Stay on Mars and use the backup hab that flew with us?
                   OR
                   2) Use the onboard supplies and return to Earth? *end Ugly What If Tree*

                   Would it be possible to park supplies in Mars orbit that could be used for an
                   emergency return trip? What if the problem was a Delta-V failure?
                   I think Mental or Spacester has done some of these calculations about how long the
                   total trip was, if we are throwing "rocks" at Mars.

                   >>If we can use that capability, then we can plan in and bring the consumbles for a
                   complete 960 days, but if we will not use that capability, then we want to make a
                   compromise on how much consumables we want to split between taking with the
                   manned mission and with the unmanned missions.<<

                   Agreed. In reality, only the first mission would need to have the 960 day supply. All
                   followon missions would "rotate" the stock of this 960-day supply depot. That would
                   allow for a lot of other supplies on successive missions.



Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/02/05 09:32
PM                 Very good question, however I don't have a good answer for you. *speculation* I
                   suspect we want something like the major gases on Earth. (Nitrogen, Oxygen, and
                   CO2) However, I don't know all the gases that plants require to grow. I wonder at
                   what kind of atmosphere we could generate from Mars resources. At least in the
                   greenhouse areas we should have this kind of an atmosphere to help get the plants
                   adjusted to Mars normal. *end speculation*

                   Well, the basic building blocks to life are Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Hydrogen.
                   As you know, humans breathe in oxygen, but get the rest of those elements from
                   what we consume. Plants "breathe" in Carbon Dioxide and get the other elements
                   from the soil. The only element humans need in the atmosphere in order to live is
                   oxygen. The only compound plants need from the atmosphere is carbon dioxide,
                   which they take with water and sunlight to make C6H1206 (glucose) and give off
                   oxygen...a process which we know as photosynthesis.

                   An interesting note is that plants are doing better right now on Earth because of the
                   increase in the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. With our plants in our settlement
                   and ships, we might want to increase the carbon dioxide for them because of this. So
                   because of plants needs, from Mars' atmosphere we could make a great atmosphere
                   for them.

                   Another interesting fact is that with nitrogen being 78% of our atmosphere, neither
                   plants nor animals pull it out of the air. Nitrogen-fixing bacteria on plant roots make



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 108 of 158



                   it useable by plants, and then we consume it from the plants or animals whom eat
                   plants and so on.

                   I say our man-made ship and habitat atmosphere should be what you said: N, O,
                   CO2. Quantity in that order...although we might not want to have the same high
                   proportion of nitrogen as we have on Earth since it is pretty much useless in the air. If
                   we reduce the percent of nitrogen though, we also have to be careful of our
                   flamability level.

                   Another question we should probably figure out is how much of the burden would be
                   lifted off of our carbon dioxide filters with our plants taking the stuff out of the air for
                   us.

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/02/05 10:30
PM                 Dan_Casale,

                   To adress the mission safety issues brought up,

                   Digging back way in the beginning of the thread when we were discussing the first
                   few cycles of the settlement and what goes when...back on the first and second
                   pages...We decided that we plan on getting ISRU up and running before the first
                   manned cycles, and that we plan on having an orbital refuge in LMO. In the time for
                   the first crew to arrive, we will have the ISRU repropping operations up and running
                   at Mars. We also plan on having an Orbital Refuge in LMO.

                   Those are, I would say, some of the main things that we need to have on our just now
                   established Before We Send a Crew to Mars Checklist (BWSCMC). We also need to
                   have atmosphere, food, and water for atleast, I would say, 960 days at Mars before
                   we send a crew. We could have it all up in orbit for the crew to bring down to the
                   surface when they arrive, or we could split it up between having some supplies
                   surface bound and some at the orbital refuge.

                   I'm not sure of the minimal return trip time for an aborted mission, but I would think
                   that once you set out and go, you could not return until the next window...2.5 years
                   from then. Not sure though...

                   Also, one other thing. I didn't mean to bury my first May 1st post. Do you know
                   about any of the questions I posed about our power generation methods an the
                   relative masses of each?

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/02/05 10:50
PM                 Nitrogen offer a very good alternative to pure Oxygen, I think Apollo 1 made that
                   pretty clear. As far as CO2 it is a matter of keeping the level down, that's why they
                   use Lithium Hydroxide to absorb the CO2 on the Shuttle and ISS. The problem is you
                   have to bring it into orbit and dispose of it after it is used.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 109 of 158



                   Nitrogen provides pressurization and Oxygen is added as needed for the crew. The
                   other concern you haven't mentioned is water vapor, or humidity. People expel a lot
                   of water just breathing, so you have to control that.

                   To carry enough Lithium Hydroxide canisters to get to Mars and back, as well as
                   exist there also presents a problem, so another solution has to be found, and plants
                   don't offer the best solution, by themselves.

                   What is needed is a means of removing water vapor from the atmosphere as well as
                   Carbon Dioxide that is sustainable and cost effective. Water would be recycled and
                   whether CO2 could be processed to release the Oxygen economically or simply
                   dumped overboard would be the next question.

                   Luckily it is a fairly simple problem, water freezes at 0C and CO2 at -78.5C, so either
                   liquid Nitrogen or liquid Oxygen could be used to remove them.

CrossoverManiac     Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(comet)
05/02/05 11:42
PM              Reusable multipurpose shuttles have proven to be expensive and highly inefficient
                here on Earth. They also requires a great deal of maintenance and refitting. I suggest
                that the same would be true for Mars. If significant savings can be obtained from
                parachutes/parasails, unmanned cargo vessels should be able to make the trip from
                Earth to Mars orbit AND land the cargo on the surface.

                   I thought the same thing. I was wondering if pressure-fed rockets could be used
                   instead of the rockets with turbopumps. Pressure-fed rockets are much simplier and
                   could be maintained if the colony had a machine shop.

arkady                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(atom)
05/03/05 04:53
AM                 Concerning the ISRU.

                   Im sure this it not news to the majority of people here, but I remember reading about
                   air miners in KS Robinsons Mars trilogy, and have been wondering about the merit
                   of the idea. Is this along the lines you were thinking in respect to the initial gathering
                   of resources for the settlement ?

                   Not gonna try explain with my own words, might aswell go ahead and quote the
                   damn thing.

                   "The air miners were big metal cylinders, somewhat resembling 737 fuselages except
                   that they had eight massive sets of landing gear, and rocket engines attached
                   vertically to their sides, and two jet engines mounted above the fuselage fore and aft.
                   Five of these miners had been dropped in the area some two years before. In the time
                   since, their jet engines had been sucking in the thin air and ramming it through a
                   sequence of separating mechanisms, to divide it into its component gases. The gases
                   had been compressed and stored in big tanks, and were now available for use. So the
                   Boeings each now held 5.000 liters of water ice, 3.000 liters of liquid oxygen, 3.000



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 110 of 158



                   liters of liquid nitrogen, 500 liters of argon, and 400 liters of carbon dioxide."

                   KS Robinson - Red Mars


                   Another quote from the cover in case there should be any thats not familiar with the
                   books.

                   "Staggering - Required reading for the colonists of the next century" - Arthur C.
                   Clarke

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/03/05 07:11
PM                 Thank you Scottb50, I had forgotten about water vapor. It's funny because yesterday
                   in biology class when we were talking about the Carbon and Nitrogen cycles, I was
                   thinking about about exactly what we are discussing now, Carbon and Nitrogen in
                   our ship atmosphere. I had my head down on the cool metallic science tables. When I
                   picked my head up, I particularly noticed the pool of water where I had been
                   breathing and wiped it up. It didn't click in my mind though that it was another thing
                   we would have to control in our atmosphere. Strange.

                   Ok, so we can pass the air through 'cold filters' to filter out the water and CO2. I like
                   it, simple enough.

                   Now, I don't know if this will be a problem, but we will want to watch to make sure
                   that not too much CO2 is filtered out of the atmosphere where the plants are. In fact,
                   we could actually keep a slightly higher level of CO2 in there for the plants, they
                   would grow better.

                   Water would be recycled and whether CO2 could be processed to release the Oxygen
                   economically or simply dumped overboard would be the next question.

                   Yes CO2 could be processed economically. The most economical way we know of is
                   photosynthesis by plants. Thay take it in(to be exact, they take in 6H2O and 6CO2),
                   and produce Glucose (C6H12O6) and give off 6O2. They take in water and our
                   waste gas, and produce food for them and us and oxygen for us.

                   They seem to be the most economical and efficient method for this. I'm not sure of
                   other methods to break up CO2.

                   I figure that we will have to have a dual system. We will need mechanical means of
                   filtering the CO2, but we will also utilize plants, since we are going to bring them as
                   a food source, and they do an excellent job at exactly what we need.

                   Now my question is: How much of the burden of scrubbing the CO2 out of the air
                   would plants relieve? In a closed-loop system, how many plants of...lets say wheat (I
                   heard on some program that they would be a great choice of plant to bring on a long
                   space trip.) would it take along with one human to keep the atmosphere breathable
                   for each. What is the optimal mix between wheat plants and humans?



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                     Page 111 of 158




                   A google turned up this. Very informative about plant-human systems, and the
                   experiments were done with wheat, as I thought.

                   "I think we can keep a crew of four to eight alive and produce food and oxygen for
                   these people," he said. "It takes more to grow food. If I can grow enough crop to feed
                   one person, I can grow enough to produce oxygen for four."

                   Basically, so if we have enough plants to provide enough food for our people, then
                   we will have plenty of oxygen. Even if we don't produce all of our food with
                   hydroponic plants, then we should still have plenty of carbon scrubbing and oxygen
                   recycling.

                   If the plants are producing more oxygen than we humans can use and convert to CO2,
                   will we actually have to inject more CO2 into the atmosphere and pull out some
                   oxygen?

                   Also, I thought the following was just interesting:

                   "When he was exercising on the bike, and required more oxygen, the plants would
                   respond to that," Henderson said. "We could get the system to `speed up' during that
                   time. The system could also be `slowed down' during times of low activity."

                   NASA site on Human-Plant Closed loop systems
                   Utah State University Crop Research Laboratory

                   Bringing our hydroponics unit as planned looks like it will have many benefits as the
                   plants can provide us with food, scrub the air of CO2, recycle our O2, and even clean
                   our water for us. They are also a psychological benefit for the crew. I'm not saying
                   we should depend entirely on them for all of these things, but we should let them do
                   their part since we are bringing them. We should accept any of the help that they give
                   us in any of these areas of sustaining our ship or habitat's atmosphere. Or is it an
                   ecosystem now?

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/04/05 12:55
AM                 I wouldn't want to depend on plants and hydroponics without a backup method. Any
                   transit vehicle design has to be mass efficient, we can't take the equivalent of the
                   Biodome, which didn't work very well by the way.

                   We also haven't done a lot of testing growing crops in Space, could we use solar
                   energy for the plants without providing a harmful environment for humans, or the
                   plants themselves, or would we need the mass and energy consumption of artificial
                   lighting? If we grow wheat we have to grind it into flour, more equipment needed.
                   Perhaps premade flour could be taken easier.

                   Though it sounds like an elegant solution what happens if the crops die for some
                   reason? It may be more economical to carry dehydrated or even frozen foods than the
                   equipment to grow it, less altruistic but more rational.



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 112 of 158




                   One thing to look at is the work load required. Do we spend all of our mission
                   tending crops, or doing exploration and science? Look at ISS, most of the crews time
                   is spent keeping the station operable, they have little time for other duties let alone
                   growing their own food.


Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/04/05 06:33
PM                 Scottb50,

                   I envision a dual system, using both biological and traditional or mechanical means
                   of filtering our air and providing food. On the transit ship and orbital station(s), I can
                   see plants supplementing our filters and our food supply, while at the settlement on
                   Mars, I can see it the other way around.

                   On transit or in orbit, at the very most, the plants could provide a portion of food and
                   recycle much oxygen while doing so. I, like you, can't see a full blown biodome in
                   transit, to much power (with artificial lighting) and mass requirements to haul around
                   every trip. But there has to be a compromise where plants save us more mass than
                   they take. For a 200 day trip there, we would have to take 9.798 tonnes of oxygen
                   with us. Plants, recycling our CO2 and releasing back our oxygen, could greatly
                   reduce that.

                   We need to know how many of a species of plant recycles how much CO2 giving off
                   how much O2 in how much time. Then we could figure out with how many plants
                   can we save how much mass.

                   They save mass because as I understand it, when we filter out CO2 by a mechanical
                   means, we just pull it out of the air and store it or release it to space. Plants on the
                   other hand break it up and recycle our oxygen for us, saving us mass because we
                   won't have to replace all of the oxygen that we bind to carbon then throw away.

                   At the settlement on the surface, plants would then become well worth the while.
                   Their recycling efficiency and food production are more than enough incentive at a
                   permanent settlement. It would have to be supplemented by a mechanical means and
                   food supply to serve as backup just in case something did happen.

                   Wheat was just an example and the plant used in experiments to test the viability of a
                   closed plant-human system. Just about any plant could be grown, many easily fixed
                   up to serve as food. Pluck a tomatoe. Pull up a potatoe. Pluck strawberries, or carrots,
                   or peanuts, rice, lettuce, or broccoli. Just about anything.

                   About the work load, this problem has been thought of before and it is possible to
                   have an automated crop tending system. Even if that were not so, we are taking 28
                   people. If the automated system fails, we still have plenty of people power. It won't
                   bog us down. It might even be good for the settlers to have to spend some time
                   tending the gardens. It would be relaxing and good for the soul.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                      Page 113 of 158



ldyaidan              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(atom)
05/05/05 01:44
PM                 I would think that plants producing fruit or veggies, would be a better choice than
                   wheat. It does take a lot of room to grow enough wheat to make flour, as well as a lot
                   of work to grind it down. Plants that give fruit or veggies would a) give more variety
                   to suppliment packaged food, and b) have a more positive psychological effect,
                   simply adding color to the environment. Long space journeys are going to be very
                   taxing, as the explorers will be trapped in limited space for an extended period.
                   Having a "taste of home" as it were will help this journey. I do, however, think that
                   taking seeds for crops like wheat is an excellent idea, to use when they arrive.

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/06/05 10:42
PM                 north_star_rising,

                   Thanks.

                   ldyaidan,

                   I completely agree on everything.

                   To all,

                   Any disagreements, comments, or anything to add to anything I've said about using
                   plant-human systems?

                   How do you envision it? How much should we...or could we use plants en transit on
                   the interplanetary ship?

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/07/05 12:18
AM                 On a Mars trip I doubt there would be much time, if we consider each trip as a one
                   off project. I know of few fruits that mature in two months. If we use a cycling
                   transport, leaving LEO for LMO and returning it would be possible to have an
                   ongoing program, as it would at a surface facility on Mars, but as part of a one shot
                   mission it wouldn't make a lot of sense to me.

grooble               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/07/05 09:49
AM                 Talking of plants, has anyone considered genetically modified ones?

eburacum45            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(planet)
05/07/05 08:25
PM
                   Eventually there will probably be plants genetically modified to provide easily



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 114 of 158



                   digested protein and to grow in Martian soil; but the first missions to Mars will
                   probably have to make do with basic, unmodified strains.

                   Assuming advances in biological science in the next hundred years might make it
                   more feasible to attempt this mission later, rather than sooner; biological recycling
                   might become much more efficient and less prone to failure.
                   But that would fall into the category of FutureTech, which I believe we are not
                   considering for this mission.

                   One idea mentioned in the early days of this thread I did not agree with, was the
                   small test habitat with guinea-pigs or whatever. I don't think this will teach us very
                   much about survivability in a Martian environment; if it is only an experiment to
                   determine the effects of low gravity on humans it would probably not give any useful
                   results. Humans are two-legs; lab rats are four-legs. There probably would be no
                   relationship between the effects of Mars gravity on a quadruped and on a human
                   biped.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
05/08/05 05:26
AM                 OK here’s my thinking on plants.

                   A robust Settlement is successful at Agriculture and Aquaculture. Success implies a
                   high level of recycling. Recycling implies that you have an ecosystem in balance. So
                   we need to establish an ecosystem, in fact we need it to have multiple nutrient paths
                   to prevent overall failure due to isolated species failures.

                   Working towards a robust Settlement “someday” implies (IMO) that we should get
                   started right away on food production. Also, I want a small bio facility as soon as
                   possible to keep the life science folks equally involved in the PSA / Schools
                   partnership. Settlement is about lots of different societal functions, we’re very
                   inclusive, so we need to build life science equipment sooner than later.

                   On energy: Let’s put that 5 MW Nuclear generator from Boeing down on the surface
                   right away. How much does that thing mass? Maybe that’s our HLLV payload size
                   calculation right there.

                   Let’s also have fuel cells. Let’s make water LH2 and LOX with the excess electricity
                   in the early days and store up a bunch of emergency energy. The fuel cells could be
                   run just enough for proper maintenance in the early days (pre-settlers) then cranked
                   up later as required, possibly for artificial lighting for flora and fauna production.
                   Maybe the fuel cells are distributed amongst the various hardware that lands on Mars
                   – everything has on-board power via emergency fuel cells, and you network them to
                   provide highly reliable backup power. Maybe a sandstorm shuts down the nuke for
                   some reason – you survive on stores and emergency generators.

                   So I’m thinking the early ISPP (CH4 / O2) equipment also has fuel cells, even if
                   relatively small. We need fuel cell technology to be space-reliable for our Mars Moon
                   Asteroids vision to bear fruit, so we develop that technology on the earliest program
                   schedule.



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 115 of 158




                   So back to plants. Salad greens galore. Your carbs (starches) come from surface
                   stores and your protein is supplemented by fresh fish, rabbit, possibly shrimp,
                   possibly goat meat. That collection of critters will eat a lot of different stuff between
                   them. The goats give milk for cheese. Most of your protein is from ship stores unless
                   things go spectacularly well. You don’t count on much meat in the early days, but
                   you can plan for success by learning lessons early on about how animals react to
                   reduced gravity.

                   Your orbital transit habitat would have enough plants for a good supply of salad
                   greens, and the animals would be husbanded for health, not slaughtered until later on
                   Mars. Except for the Tilapia (fish), as long as they’re still breeding, they can be
                   harvested.

                   The freshwater tilapia could be in tanks connected to planted tanks – the aquatic
                   plants can filter the water and fix the nitrogen to create rabbit food, the principal
                   terrestrial meat source. Feed the Tilapia fish food pellets as a staple and whatever else
                   you can make work to do the ecosystem thing. If we have to import fish food pellets
                   for a while to make the whole thing work, so be it.

                   If we do the ugly what-if tree and somehow lose the surface stores of food, we’re
                   really motivated to get our food production systems in high gear and / or we limit
                   caloric intake by lowering the crew’s work level. IOW, everyone’s a gardener until
                   further notice. We have all the early prototype units still sitting around, crank them
                   up if they’re not already, that kind of thing. We’ve got 28 people working on making
                   food.

                   There would be emergency rations in Mars orbit as well.

                   I don’t quite see an emergency return scenario. If you end up doing a fly-by instead
                   of a capture as planned, it’s because the engines didn’t work. And you prolly don’t
                   find that out until after you’ve tried for capture. See what I mean? You want to get
                   captured. If something non-deltaV related comes up that keeps you from the surface,
                   you just stay in the same darn habitat for the full, appx 900 day round trip. You might
                   do a conjunction class return, maybe cutting inside Venus’ orbital radius even. I’m
                   not sure of that. But you want to get captured in any case IMO.

                   So I just don’t see the set of circumstances that lead to an “emergency return”. If
                   you’ve got bad mojo going on, maybe you abort the Martian surface mission. A
                   failed orbital injection burn is recoverable by plotting a new course for Earth ( slow
                   arc, i.e. long trip time prolly). But the baseline trajectory type allows us to arrive at
                   Mars with low dV, remember? So we have redundant engines and excess propellant
                   and presto, we get in Mars orbit every time. High in the well at first, the booster stays
                   high if a manned mission, and goes low in the well, even to the surface, to land the
                   heavy cargo loads.

                   In fact, maybe LMO repropping isn’t even needed – maybe the cargo landers (second
                   stages of the 2-stage interplanetary cargo hauler) get their ISPP refill right where they
                   landed. That refill gets them to HEMO for re-mating with one of the Interplanetary
                   Boosters.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 116 of 158




                   Our atmosphere would be similar to that of ISS. We also should see if we know what
                   Bigelow plans to do.

                   On parachutes / parasails, my understanding is that you might get up to 1.0 km/s dV
                   with a really, really, good ballute system. Since that is FutureTech and it still doesn’t
                   get you into Mars orbit in the worst years of the 18 year cycle, it’s not the primary
                   means of surface delivery. Certainly not for the Nuke power plant or Big Al. I
                   decided early on that this plan has rocket power placing payloads gently on the
                   surface. To make this work, Mars has to manufacture deltaV.

                   I settled on a cargo lander architecture just now. Utitlize Carmack’s expertise to
                   design a propulsion unit with a big cylindrical open area in the middle to accept the
                   cargo module. The lander powers down remotely from the settlement (a bit), a mobile
                   service platform rolls over to it and scoots under the payload module. Then the
                   payload is lowered by the lander onto the platform and taken to its new home for
                   installation. The platform leaves behind the refilling facility, we top off the tanks
                   while the platform is gone. The platform returns from delivering the cargo, re-docks
                   with the refill facility, readies the lander for launch and it pops straight up to HEMO
                   to its big brother for return to Earth.

                   Oh BTW, long post warning, lol.


eburacum45            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(planet)
05/08/05 09:22
AM                 Fish I agree with, even for a first mission.
                   The water filled shielding which has been proposed could double as a fish-pond. In
                   some ways the diet of early Martian explorers/colonists might resemble that of
                   Carthusian monks, who were expected to be at least partly self sufficient.

grooble               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/08/05 10:25
AM                 GM Fish:

                   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3565041.stm

                   More meat in less time.

cosmictraveler        Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
05/10/05 09:27
AM                 Why not just genetically modify humans to be able to adapt to any type of
                   environment that exploration craft find? That way there's no need for any fancy types
                   of living quarters for we can just live off the land.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                      Page 117 of 158



(solar system)
05/10/05 10:38     Why not just genetically modify humans
AM
                   Well, if that ain't FutureTech, nothing is.

                   One of the first rules is: No FutureTech allowed in the Settlement plan.

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/10/05 12:04
PM                 Let’s also have fuel cells. Let’s make water LH2 and LOX with the excess electricity
                   in the early days and store up a bunch of emergency energy. The fuel cells could be
                   run just enough for proper maintenance in the early days (pre-settlers) then cranked
                   up later as required, possibly for artificial lighting for flora and fauna production.
                   Maybe the fuel cells are distributed amongst the various hardware that lands on Mars
                   – everything has on-board power via emergency fuel cells, and you network them to
                   provide highly reliable backup power. Maybe a sandstorm shuts down the nuke for
                   some reason – you survive on stores and emergency generators.....

                   Just what I have been saying, except why bother with a reactor? Multiple, small, fuel
                   cells and hydrolizers would provide more than enough backup. I don't think it would
                   be feasible to take multiple reactors, so you have to have adequate backup no matter
                   what. Why not just eliminate the reactor completely?

                   It also follows that if we intend to use H2, O2 fuel cells we can use H2 and O2 just as
                   well for propullsion, it's just a matter of how much you produce and store. This
                   would eliminate the equipment needed to produce CH4 as well as the need to
                   transport a large amount of LH2 to make it and the need to move it out of the Martian
                   gravity well for use on a return trip.

                   I don’t quite see an emergency return scenario. If you end up doing a fly-by instead
                   of a capture as planned, it’s because the engines didn’t work......

                   If you use multiple engines, like I have proposed in using the upper stage engines for
                   Tugs and vehicles, the firing time would be extended for those engines that still work,
                   since they are independent a common failure would be eliminated. The Shuttle uses
                   the same scenerio, one OMS engine fails the other one fires for a longer period. If the
                   mass of your transit vehicle requires six or eight engines that would be quite a bit of
                   redundancy.

                   If you do a flyby of Mars you would simply stay in the same orbit of the Sun you are
                   in to begin with, without some sort of control the time of intercepting an Earth orbit
                   would be pretty variable and since you couldn't enter Mars orbit how would you enter
                   Earth orbit anyway?



ldyaidan              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(atom)
05/10/05 02:37



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 118 of 158



PM                 As far as getting the schools involved, I'm still planning to start a thread on that
                   subject. If anyone has any ideas, let me know.

                   Also, we're going to be starting an aquaponics project, as well as a solar energy
                   project fairly soon, and try to involve some of the local schools. These should prove
                   to be interesting, and may be a project for school involvement in other areas.

                   Would it be possible to have the "greenhouse" as part of the ship, to be used on the
                   trip, but also have it as a detachable part, that is dropped, in full onto the surface to be
                   integrated into the overall settlement? That way it is already set up and producing
                   when it gets there.

                   Rae

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
05/10/05 11:50
PM                 . . . why bother with a reactor?

                   Uh, cuz we need a lot of power and solar is not feasible on Mars. Are you thinking
                   about some other source of energy that I'm not remembering?

                   multiple engines . . . a common failure would be eliminated.

                   Yeah, we're planning on multiple engines and propellant margins, so the likelihood is
                   very very small, but you still have to consider the failure scenario. That's all I was
                   trying to do, for manned missions mostly, but if a cargo mission with hard to replace
                   equipment does a partial burn, we would want enough extra dV to come around again
                   to Mars.

                   The failure mode would likely be a premature engine shutdown coupled with the
                   inability to start another engine in time to make the correction. This would alter the
                   heliocentric orbit so you would be looking at getting those engines going as soon as
                   possible to make another burn to embark on a new transfer path to rendezvous with
                   Mars or Earth. A prime reason to have dV margins for manned missions.

                   [Scott, would you mind using quotes or something so we can more easily tell who is
                   saying what?]


spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
05/11/05 12:10
AM                 Would it be possible to have the "greenhouse" as part of the ship, to be used on the
                   trip, but also have it as a detachable part, that is dropped, in full onto the surface to be
                   integrated into the overall settlement? That way it is already set up and producing
                   when it gets there.

                   Not impossible but not easy. We're planning on having big cargo landers to set stuff
                   down gently, so it's an option.



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 119 of 158




                   The chief difficulty I see is that the greenhouse would have been operating at spin-g
                   for months, just getting well established, then spun-down for arrival at Mars. Then
                   you'd have the g-forces of landing, then you'd have to get it all going good again.

                   Plus you have to detach that habitat from the rest of the ship and still make all the
                   utilities work. An engineering nightmare.

                   So I envision that the transfer habitat becomes the orbital habitat. The greenhouse
                   could continue operations after spinning up in LMO and supply food. Maybe you
                   harvest before arrival and re-plant before you send everyone down.

                   ISPP should easily be able to support multiple trips to the orbital refuge to tend the
                   plants, or we could try robotic gardeners, or simply leave crew in the refuge as
                   gardeners.

                   The surface greenhouse(s) should be up and running before settler arrival. Maybe a
                   crop of potatos are harvested, then the crew plants a variety of stuff.

                   The projects sound like fun. Does 'aquaponics' mean plants and fish together, or just
                   plants?

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/11/05 12:58
AM                 . . . why bother with a reactor?

                   "Uh, cuz we need a lot of power and solar is not feasible on Mars. Are you thinking
                   about some other source of energy that I'm not remembering?"

                   Sorry, I don't want to take the time to change colors and such, and I have tried a
                   number of different ways to get around it. I basically respond while reading the post
                   and I thought quoting the post, or part of a post I was refering to, would convey the
                   idea. Basically I'm just lazy.

                   Solar is very feasible in Mars orbit, just as it is in LEO, lunar orbit, between either
                   and most anywhere out to Uranus or so.

                   If you use it to break down water to H2 and O2 you provide all the energy needed.
                   Take the gasses down to the the surface and use fuel cells to provide electrical power.
                   To expect to extract energy from lunar or Martian atmospheres or surface deposits is
                   rediculous. To transport huge quantities of Hydrogen, ala Zubrin, to exploit Methane,
                   the least efficient hydrocarbon available also makes little sense. Humans, or any
                   living thing, will always need water, so why not combine that need with everything
                   else? Maybe exploitable watewr will be found on Mars or even the Moon. But that
                   would only make this idea easier, if not we have to take it from Earth and luckily we
                   have a lot of water

                   "The failure mode would likely be a premature engine shutdown coupled with the
                   inability to start another engine in time to make the correction.."



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 120 of 158




                   I would thing multiple engines would be running, it would be a matter of keeping
                   enough running beyond their normal shutdown time to compensate for failures rather
                   than having to restart them. this redundancy would also allow corrections, as you say.
                   My idea is to vary the number of engines depending on the mass of the vehicle. The
                   more Modules you add to the existing core the more engines you add. Making the
                   engine Modular and easily attachable to the vehicle allows a lot of flexibility.

                   Lets say you have X amount of payload to ship to Mars, or the Moon for this specific
                   transit. Add the outbound Modules to the core vehicle and the number of engines
                   needed to provide the ISP needed. That seems to be pretty simple. It stands to reason
                   you would be shipping a lot outbound, so you would need numerous engines
                   outbound. It also would stand to reason your return load would be much less, so
                   engines could be left to use on landers, and on surface vehicles.



Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/11/05 07:59
AM                 When we say "Greenhouse", are we thinking an actual greenhouse where we use the
                   sun's energy? Is that possible, do we know ways to block or lessen the radiation
                   recieved?

                   Check out this thread on ISRU if you haven't seen it yet. Qzzq posted an excellent
                   article about a new micro technology for ISRU.

                   Also see today's headline SDC article about the same thing, with pictures.

ldyaidan              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(molecule)
05/11/05 02:04
PM                 Aquaponics is fish and plants. The plants feed the fish, the fish feed the plants.

                   http://www.aquaponics.com/InfoAquaponics.htm

                   Here's some good basic info. How this will work in lower, 0, or spin G, I have no
                   idea.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
05/11/05 10:17
PM                 Scott, I understand the concepts.

                   I like the concepts.

                   I'd like to use nothing but solar. Besides all the benefits you list, it would let us get
                   the settlement going much sooner.

                   But in my engineering judgment, it is not feasible. It just isn't. I have asked you



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 121 of 158



                   several times in as many ways as I know how to SHOW ME THE NUMBERS.

                   I'm pretty sure you have been told the watts per square meter on the Martian
                   surface,and people have patiently explained about obvious things like night-time and
                   sandstorms.

                   In your scheme, solar is the primary source of energy. In mine, solar / fuel cells are
                   the back-up system, where the fuel cells are powered by stored energy from the nuke
                   plant. We want a robust settlement where people are not a single failure away from
                   going into survival mode. Can solar do that? I don't think so. Show me the numbers.

                   Heck, even the ramp-launch folks are starting to provide numbers to back up their
                   schemes, so it's not too much to ask of you, is it?


spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
05/11/05 10:37
PM                 An actual greenhouse?

                   I dunno. I'm assuming as a baseline that it would have no windows and use artificial
                   lighting. But I would love to see solid research or just ideas on how to use sunlight
                   more directly.

                   My pet idea on the "greenhouse" is to have plants everywhere throughout the
                   habitable volume - make the whole thing a greenhouse, almost all of it anyway. It
                   would be easier than worrying about segregating the high-CO2 and low-CO2
                   atmospheres for plants and humans, and you could find an optimum CO2 level for
                   both together as a system. Plants don't have to be in hydroponics to be useful, so you
                   could have plant pots all over the place.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
05/11/05 10:43
PM                 Aquaponics



                   I don't even know where to begin. Let's just say that I'm all over this concept of plants
                   and fish. Give me a few more months and you'll see why I get all smiley about plants
                   and fish. Hint: in my profile, I list "inventing" . . . .

                   I want to be the first guy to maintain an aquarium off-planet.

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/12/05 01:31
AM
                   "I'm pretty sure you have been told the watts per square meter on the Martian
                   surface,and people have patiently explained about obvious things like night-time and



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 122 of 158



                   sandstorms."

                   I thought I had been clearer also. I have no intention of using solar power on the
                   surface, it would be used in orbit and gasses would be transported down to the
                   surface for use.

                   "We want a robust settlement where people are not a single failure away from going
                   into survival mode."

                   What if your reactor fails? Are you going to have multiple reactors?

                   As for numbers that would depend on the size of the facilities and the overall
                   electrical requirements. It should be fairly simple to work up numbers using existing
                   equipment for reference.

                   http://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/fuelweb/view=Item/cat=11/product=555

                   http://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/fuelweb/view=Item/cat=9/product=808



spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
05/12/05 10:50
AM                 It's the transport of gases I have a problem with. Sorry, I definitely was not clear on
                   that.

                   Mars' gravity well is not small. We'd be wasting too much energy to transport our
                   energy. The native resource is CO2, it is accessible only from the surface, we need
                   power to process the CO2 into stuff we can use (of whatever efficiency), surface
                   based solar doesn't perform, we need a surface based power station as primary power.
                   It allows us to store vast quantities of energies integrated throughout the settlement.

                   If our reactor fails, we tap those reserves until we get it running again. If your
                   transportation system fails, we are relying strictly on what we have on hand. The cost
                   of building those same energy reserves with orbital solar is prohibitive.

                   Mars orbit solar should definitely be used on the orbital refuge. That would allow us
                   to take the small nuke we brought with us to the surface and have redundant nuclear
                   power at the settlement.

                   It should be fairly simple to work up numbers using existing equipment for reference.


                   Ayup. 6 MW Nuclear plant. Wasn't it you that posted it in the first place?

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/12/05 08:44
PM                 ldyaidan,



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 123 of 158




                   I'm looking forward to your thread on getting schools involved.

                   Cool site on aguaponics, thanks!

                   spacester,

                   Ok, I'm glad to see that we are on the same footing with greenhousing. I also assume
                   it would have to be closed off with artificial lighting, and like you, it's because I have
                   not seen anything solid using direct sunlight.

                   I also saw plants being everywhere, just the way I visualised it. Although I didn't
                   particularly think about the CO2 distribution, I more saw it that way because I just
                   liked it better. I saw it to where we would still have our main hydroponics, but we
                   would also have plants spread throughout the ship, making the entire ship more
                   roomy, more like home. I figured it would not be the most economical way of doing
                   it, separating those from the hydroponics...aguaponics, but I thought it would be great
                   for the psychological benefit it provided.

                   Now Mr. Inventor, you will have to let us in on what you are doing with aguaponics!
                   A few months is a while, but hey, the first thing a space enthusiast learns in patience.
                   I guess I can wait that long.

                   Now, on to that nuclear reactor, just a rough approximation: How much will it mass?

                   I want to be the first guy to maintain an aquarium off-planet.


                   Absolutely awesome! With your enthusiasm, your adept plan, and the hard work and
                   time you are putting into this and will continue to put into this; you just might
                   accomplish your goal! You have very high goals with this whole thing, but you have
                   to aim high to go high. I wish you the best of luck, and am giving my own help and
                   support!

                   Shoot for the Moon...er Mars, even if you miss you will land among the stars.

Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
05/13/05 01:48
PM                 Here is some of the latest tech for sterling cycle technology.
                   Uses RTG heat sources
                   http://stirlingtech.com/products/rg55.shtml

                   Supplies cryo temperature cooling for keeping that Hydrogen liquid.
                   http://stirlingtech.com/products/coolers.shtml

                   This one has been operated on solar power at NREL
                   http://stirlingtech.com/products/rg1000.shtml

                   UPS type system that has no batteries:



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 124 of 158



                   http://www.activepower.com/index.asp?pg=technology_tacas_basics

                   A turbine engine system
                   http://www.phoenixnavigation.com/phoenix.htm

                   A communication encryption system:
                   http://www.phoenixnavigation.com/asksecurity.htm

                   A navigation system:
                   http://www.phoenixnavigation.com/coretech/navsystems.htm

j_crockett            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(molecule)
05/13/05 04:15
PM                 Great thread ... I finally read the whole thing.

j_crockett            Construction materials
(molecule)
05/13/05 04:53
PM                 It seems to me that a lot of thought has been put into the insitu resource utilization in
                   order to make fuel for transportation which I think is great. I think that the long term
                   success of the settlement will require other materials as well such as iron, aggregates,
                   glass, concrete. These materials are lying around on the surface. We would require
                   some foundry equipment to start but this equipment is low tech and easily
                   reproduced. This could be a starting point for building large, strong and well
                   protected habitats, laboratories and factories.

                   The process of transforming Hematite blueberries into re-bar is not particularly
                   foreign to us. Glass is made of melted silica. Concrete can be made from regolith
                   material once the first two are removed. These processes may be a bit energy
                   intensive. And , I am making some assumption about the availability of water ice that
                   we can exploit for industrial purposes.

                   I just though when they anounced that the blueberries are made of Hematite that it
                   looked to me like an invitation.

grooble               Re: Construction materials
(star)
05/14/05 12:27
PM                 http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?
                   Cat=&Board=tech&Number=217200&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=

                   Any use for these nuclear batteries in the plan?

John1R                Re: Construction materials
(dust)
05/15/05 02:43
PM
                   I would like to point out if I may that we should try to use today's Nasa's design
                   currently used for the space station modules, in other words to simply design space



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                      Page 125 of 158



                   station type of modules, make them fit for martian orbit, and to get them to LEO first
                   and then to martian orbit.
                   there's no need to try to do what the United Space Alliance is already doing, as far as
                   propulsion modules, cxv,s etc.
                   theres a simple reason, build your modules with the same launch parameters/
                   requirements, dimensions, etc, and they can go up with existing technology, include
                   standard docking, and and you become more compatible with NASA
                   and Russia.

                   Today's space station modules are still scheduled to go up one way or another, we
                   just don't know yet if
                   they will all go up in the shuttle or go up in expendable unmanned rockets, but
                   I think NASA will have the expendable launches do at least some of the modules
                   in the near future, which means the technolology is here and now either way, as far as
                   being able to send space station modules to LEO.

                   Basically just obtain the launch parameters, the skeleton dimensions, etc.
                   and design them for martian orbit, and get them built.
                   At first this means you would have only created the ISS cousin in martian orbit,
                   but thats the best way,a nd eventually you may have one so big to be called a
                   settlement habitat anyway. The technology is here, but it's just that no-one is drawing
                   pictures an blueprints of modules with launch design to be able to go up in a shuttle
                   launch , they could have already been there by now, or at least parked at the ISS,
                   awaiting a propulsion module for shipment to mars.

                   I realize you said to keep NASA out because of something like they don't get
                   things done, but we are running a little late, NASA will get the lunar-martian
                   mandate done.
                   All anyone can do now is just help, rather than trying so hard to duplicate NASA.
                   It's just harder for different organizations to collect enough resources over
                   3 years, it barely compares to what they appropriate to NASA on a yearly basis.


Arobie                Re: Construction materials
(star)
05/15/05 06:28
PM                 North_Star_Rising,

                   Will you please not advertise the I.S.A. on this thread?

                   This thread is about us designing a plan for settling Mars.

                   Thanks.

grooble               Re: Construction materials
(star)
05/19/05 10:51
AM                 Will anything come of this plan? Is there a next step?

                   Maybe it could be converted into a business and technical plan, with all your names



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 126 of 158



                   on.

                   So you'll have a plan, and every now and then it could be revised as new discoveries
                   are made and new technology made available.

                   It just seems a shame that the mars settlement threads would come to an end, i really
                   enjoy reading them.

                   If you had a solid plan, you could share it with experts in the various feilds that the
                   plan covers, get them to offer advice and refinements.

                   Maybe some day in the future you guys might get together and follow through on it?

Arobie                   Re: Construction materials
(star)
05/19/05 05:41
PM                 Grooble,

                   I don't think these threads are dead. I'm not finished with them!

                   I've been busy this past week as it is the last few weeks of school right now. I know
                   spacester is also busy right now. He announced it on one of these threads somewhere.


                   We are merely at a lapse in posts right now, but thank you for the bump. I'm going to
                   have to make time right now for this. Who needs to study for tomorrow's biology
                   exam? I'll study tomorrow morning...it's not too hard.

                   I think we are still far from being able to write a bussiness and technical plan. We
                   still have alot to work on.

                   Maybe some day in the future you guys might get together and follow through on it?

                   I think that's somewhere in the plan. I would love to follow through on it someday.
                   (to spacester:How soon is that 'someday' that we follow through on the plan?)

                   Above you posted about the nuclear batteries. I'm sure we will have uses for those.
                   They sound awesome.

                   Dan_Casale,

                   Thanks for the links.

                   John1R,

                   I really (sadly) don't know enough about the ISS modules, but my first impression is
                   that they would not fit our needs. They were built for Earth Orbit with constant
                   resupply. They were not built with oxygen and food efficiency in mind. We need to
                   be as efficient as possible.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 127 of 158



                   The ISS modules were designed with different requirements for different conditions
                   than what we need.

                   The last paragraph of your post would best be discussed on the Mars Settlement
                   Precursor Thread, if you wouldn't mind starting up conversation on that thread again
                   for us.

Arobie                Re: Construction materials
(star)
05/19/05 06:09
PM                 j_crockett,

                   Welcome to the thread. I'm glad you have gotten time to read the entire thing.
                   Continue with us and make sure to share what you think.

                   I think that the long term success of the settlement will require other materials as well
                   such as iron, aggregates, glass, concrete.

                   I agree with you, and I agree with you that we should make steel from Hematite and
                   glass and concrete from regolith.

                   The settlement would then have to capability to grow and expand as it wants to and
                   not just when we can send habitats to it and so forth.

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/19/05 07:22
PM                 Spacester,

                   In fact, maybe LMO repropping isn’t even needed – maybe the cargo landers (second
                   stages of the 2-stage interplanetary cargo hauler) get their ISPP refill right where they
                   landed. That refill gets them to HEMO for re-mating with one of the Interplanetary
                   Boosters.

                   Ok uhh...that's a change in the settlement plan and along with it comes problems, but
                   I would be scared if they didn't appear so here we go...

                   So the cargo lander basically just became our repropping vehicle. A couple of
                   problems crop their heads up at that proposition.

                   The first is fitting the cargo lander to transport propellant. We would have to provide
                   tanks that we could attach to the lander to transport the propellant. If we plan on
                   topping off the Interplanetary Booster (IB), then those tanks would have to be huge.
                   In fact, they would end up being prohibitively huge. To top off the IB, the Cargo
                   Lander's propellant transfer tanks would have to be as big as the IB's tanks. We
                   would not have to top off the IB, although we do want to. The minimum propellant
                   we could provide the IB with would be just enough to get it home empty, carrying no
                   cargo. Of course if we are sending a payload back to Earth...such as people, we
                   would have to provide more propellant or even top it off.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 128 of 158



                   The second challenge is providing the Cargo Lander the capability to transfer all the
                   propellant to HEMO. It's own propellant tanks used for the burns to slow down for
                   deorbit & landing and to launch into orbit would have to be pretty big in order to
                   carry all the propellant needed to transfer enough propellant to fill up an IB.

                   A thought: Most of the mass of a booster are the tanks and propellant in them. If we
                   are to transfer all the propellant to top off an IB in one go of a cargo lander, it would
                   almost be like launching a filled IB into HEMO to reprop the real IB. Because of that,
                   we would have to use more than one launch of a cargo lander to refill the IB. If we
                   don't, then when we launch the ship from Earth Orbit, we will be launching a filled
                   IB to get to Mars and an empty one to refill the real IB once at Mars.

                   Our cargo lander would have to be what we...well probably I had in mind of a
                   repropping shuttle in that it will have to do many launches to top off the IB in order
                   to make it, the cargo lander, a reasonable size. We will just have to determine how
                   much propellant a cargo lander could transport in one run based on the dV
                   capabilities it will have for it's main purpose...landing cargo. I wonder if those
                   capabilites will be enough to allow us to transport a reasonable amount of propellant
                   to the IB.(??)

                   The impression I got from that quote of yours (from your lastest long post) is that we
                   could do away with orbital repropping; that we could refill the Interplanetary Booster
                   by filling up the Cargo Lander with propellant before sending it up to meet with the
                   booster. We could use the one launch of the Cargo Lander to re-mate with the IB to
                   also refill the IB. That idea does not seem possible to me. We would still have to use
                   many launches to get all the propellant up the HEMO. It might even still be more
                   efficient to gather all the propellant in LMO and then boost it up to HEMO to meet
                   with the booster.

                   We are back to LMO repropping, although we did manage to drop a ship. We no
                   longer need a ISRU repropping shuttle. Our Cargo Lander would just serve both the
                   shuttle's purpose and it's own.

Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
05/20/05 01:35
PM                 Here is an interesting link to some NASA opensource software.
                   http://opensource.arc.nasa.gov/

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
05/20/05 07:25
PM                 Hey Arobie, just a quick post, I hope to spend some real time on this over the
                   weekend . . .

                   I wasn't suggesting we use the cargo lander as the re-prop vehicle. That leads to the
                   problems you describe, basically, I think of it as "mission creep". You want a vehicle
                   to do lots of things, but wisdom dictates that if you try to do too many things with
                   one space vehicle, you end up doing everything poorly.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 129 of 158



                   Notice the "maybe" in that paragraph . . . :-)

                   Let's look at the cargo lander (CL). The essential mission is to land large masses on
                   the surface of Mars. The Settlement strategy dictates that it is re-used as much as
                   possible and that it be powered by propellant made at Mars. It is the second stage of
                   our interplanetary cargo ship. We want the first stage (the IB) to stay in HEMO
                   because we want to send it back to Earth for another mission. But does the CL go
                   back to Earth with it?

                   We have a lot of options on the logistics of using the cargo lander. If I had the time
                   right now, I'd outline the choices and my conclusions. But I don't, I gotta go, more
                   later. I just wanted to clarify that in my mind the Cargo Lander is NOT the re-prop
                   vehicle.


Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
05/23/05 06:19
PM                 Danger: long post.
                   I tried to summarize everything to date.

                   Mars Settlement Supports Mars Science; the more secure the people are in their
                   ability to sustain the settlement, the more Science they can afford to do.

                   OBJECTIVES:
                   The ultimate objective is to Settle Mars.
                   The initial objective is to encamp as many people as possible on Mars.
                   Their primary job will be to stay alive.
                   Their secondary job will be to maximize the productivity of the chosen industries.
                   Their tertiary job will be to enable return trips for those who want to go back to Earth
                   or the Moon.
                   Once those needs are reasonably secure, their job will be to do Science.

                   The primary objective for Spaceships, especially manned craft, is to keep people
                   alive.

                   The two other major categories of equipment are Habitats and Factories.
                   Habitats should be amply sized and built to last for decades.
                   Factories must see continuous improvement, whether by on-site enhancements by the
                   settlers, or by the delivery of new and larger equipment.

                   Utilization of local resources should be maximized, but realistic goals for the
                   extraction and application of local resources must be set as well.
                   =============================================================

                   VISION
                   The purpose is to settle Mars, to begin a colony if practical. This means a good
                   number of people need to stay for multiple cycles. Certain people would intend to
                   never go back, of those some would and some wouldn’t; others might commit to a
                   five-year hitch (twice the “typical” 2-1/2 year round trip). If enough long-timers



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                      Page 130 of 158




                   develop, so does the viability of the settlement.

                   It is readily apparent that the outlined approach will require the delivery of large
                   payloads to the Martian surface. Parachutes will not do the job. The only readily
                   available technology to do the job is rocket engines burning some kind of storable
                   propellant.

                   The mission design is heavily influenced by the study of the deltaV required for Earth
                   to Mars and back over a wide range of flight times and over the span of the next
                   several decades. There are opportunities for low deltaV Martian orbital capture
                   trajectories which call for the use of a particular stage strategy for the manned
                   spaceships.

                   The stages, from Low Earth Orbit, would be:
                   1) An Interplanetary Booster Stage,
                   2) Interplanetary Habitat and Orbital Refuge,
                   3) Martian Lander/ Ascender
                   =============================================================

                   ASSUMPTIONS and ACCRONIMS

                   1 cycle – the time between Earth/Mars conjunctions. About 2.5 years or 960 days.
                   All equipment must be soft-landed on the surface.
                   6 week launch window every two years.
                   200 day one-way journey.
                   960 day minimum mission time.
                   ?are lunar resources available?
                   ?are Phobos resources available?
                   LEO – Low Earth Orbit
                   GTO – Geo-Transfer Orbit
                   HEMO – Highly Elliptical Mars Orbit
                   HMO – High Mars Orbit
                   LMO – Low Martian Orbit
                   ISRU – In-Situ Resource Utilization
                   Habitat ships will use spin gravity to maintain maximum health.

                   Precursor missions would establish a well-surveyed and mostly prepared settlement
                   site. We would put trial versions of the key technologies on the surface and attend to
                   them with robots controlled from desktops across the world.

                   Available solar energy is ¼ that of earth or 250watts/sq meter.
                   Mars gravity is 1/3 that of earth.
                   Mars habitat atmosphere will be composed of the major gases in Earth’s atmosphere.

                   The benchmark trip time is 200 days; 12 liters for 28 folks works out to 67.2 tonnes
                   of water. 1000 liters of water is a cubic meter and masses a tonne. Shielding of 0.5
                   meter inches thick around a cylinder diameter of 12 meters would shield a 7 meter
                   long cylinder, not counting the end caps. IIRC 0.5 m of water is excessive by most
                   standards, but we want to protect our settlers very well, so that's my benchmark
                   shielding level. (The diameter and length cited are just as an example, but it seems to




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                     Page 131 of 158




                   indicate the volume of water is not excessive compared to the needs of the crew if
                   water is the primary radiation shielding.)

                   =============================================================

                   AVAILABLE RESOURCES
                   Solar – 250 watts/sq meter
                   Atmosphere – 1% the density of Earth normal (14.2 psi)
                   =============================================================


                   HARDWARE OUTLINE

                   On Earth - Preparation Steps:
                   1) Mars Site Selection process
                   -----A) Best site for water.
                   -----B) Best site for minerals/resources.
                   -----C) Best site for exploration.
                   -----D) Best site for agriculture.
                   -----E) Best site for return launches.
                   -----F) Best overall site.

                   2) Subsystem design & Earth testing
                   -----A) Air handling/management system
                   ----------a) Air Circulation
                   ---------------I) requirements per module
                   ---------------II) inter-module circulation
                   ----------b) Air pressure
                   ---------------I) release of excess gases
                   ---------------II) storage of excess gases
                   ----------c) Gas mix
                   ---------------I) gas mix sensing
                   ---------------II) gas mix adjustments
                   ---------------III) storage of excess gases
                   ----------d) Particulate/odor removal
                   ---------------I) Can a non-filter solutions be used?
                   ---------------II) Can water be used as a filter?
                   ---------------III) Carbon filter.

                   -----B) Communication
                   ----------a) directional/omni-directional
                   ----------b) high/low gain
                   ----------c) command encryption methods
                   ----------d) interface type/style
                   ----------e) what telemetry, from what systems is returned?
                   ----------f) blackout windows
                   ---------------I) How many and how long?

                   -----C) Electrical
                   ----------a) primary system




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 132 of 158




                   ---------------I) Solar (PV or thermal)
                   ---------------II) Fusion
                   ---------------III) RGT/Thermal
                   ---------------IV) Fuel cell (what is the hydrogen source?)
                   ----------b) backup system
                   ---------------I) One of the other two systems.
                   ----------c) battery capacity
                   ---------------I) Technology/Chemistry type
                   ---------------II) Weight vs. energy density vs. cycle life
                   ---------------III) Size in KW?

                   -----D) Food
                   ----------a) menu diversity
                   ----------b) storage issues
                   ---------------I) How long can each storage method keep food safe?
                   ---------------II) How to supply “fresh” food?

                   -----E) Temperature control
                   ----------a) What methods of heating/cooling are available?
                   ---------------I) Chemical
                   ---------------II) Waste heat from electrical power generation
                   ---------------III) Heat exchanger for cooling?
                   ----------b) Can energy be recaptured during heating/cooling cycles?
                   ---------------I) What form will it be? (Heat or electricity)

                   -----F) Waste management/recycling
                   ----------a) What different types of waste will be produced?
                   ---------------I) Paper
                   ---------------II) Plastic
                   ---------------III) Metal
                   ---------------IV) CO2
                   ---------------V) H2O (sweating/respiration/cleaning)
                   ---------------VI) Urine
                   ---------------VII) Fecal
                   ---------------VIII) Methane
                   ---------------IX) Other out gassing from equipment and materials
                   ----------b) How can the different wastes be handled?
                   ---------------I) compacted and stored. (metals, carbon)
                   ---------------II) separated into component elements and stored for reuse. (gases,
                   plastic, urine, fecal, methane)
                   ---------------III) separated from other waste and stored for later use. (methane)
                   ---------------IV) separated, sterilized, and reused. (H2O)
                   ---------------V) converted into something useful (CO2 -> O2 + C)

                   -----G) Water management and supply
                   ----------a) How to keep the fresh water supply safe?
                   ---------------I) UV sterilization
                   --------------------1) Power requirements
                   --------------------2) Replacement parts
                   ---------------II) chemical sterilization




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                      Page 133 of 158




                   --------------------1) chemical source
                   ---------------III) O3 (ozone) sterilization
                   --------------------1) ozone source
                   --------------------2) replacement parts for ozone generator
                   ---------------IV) Heat sterilization (212 Deg F for 5 Min.)
                   --------------------1) Fuel for heat source
                   -------------------------A) Solar
                   -------------------------B) Waste heat from electrical power generation or consumption.
                   ---------------V) Create as needed?
                   ----------b) How to handle too little fresh water?
                   ---------------I) Manufacture or mine
                   ----------c) How to handle too much fresh water?
                   ---------------I) Split and store as LH2 and LOX.
                   ---------------II) Dump into dry well

                   -----H) Recreation
                   ----------a) On Earth
                   ---------------I) none – unless during Mars simulation, then use recreation suggested
                   for that event.
                   ----------b) GTO - none
                   ----------c) Enroute to Mars
                   ---------------I) Mental stimulation ideas
                   ---------------II) Physical stimulation ideas
                   ----------d) In Mars orbit
                   ---------------I) Mental stimulation ideas
                   ---------------II) Physical stimulation ideas
                   ----------e) On Mars
                   ---------------I) Mental stimulation ideas
                   ---------------II) Physical stimulation ideas
                   ----------f) For the return trip
                   ---------------I) Mental stimulation ideas
                   ---------------II) Physical stimulation ideas

                   -----I) Transportation
                   ----------a) On Earth
                   ----------b) to GTO
                   ----------c) Enroute to Mars
                   ----------d) In Mars orbit
                   ----------e) On Mars
                   ----------f) For the return trip

                   -----J) Information storage/retrieval/processing
                   ----------a) On Earth
                   ----------b) to GTO
                   ----------c) Enroute to Mars
                   ----------d) In Mars orbit
                   ----------e) On Mars
                   ----------f) For the return trip

                   -----K) Mining/refining




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                            Page 134 of 158




                   ----------a) In Mars orbit
                   ---------------I) Phobos
                   ---------------II) Asteroids
                   ----------b) On Mars
                   ---------------I) ISRU for required gases

                   -----L) Equipment/Spare Part fabrication
                   ----------a) On Earth
                   ----------b) to GTO
                   ----------c) Enroute to Mars
                   ----------d) In Mars orbit
                   ----------e) On Mars
                   ----------f) For the return trip

                   -----M) Mars/GTO construction techniques

                   3) Launch system acquisition
                   -----A) Competitive bid
                   ----------a) Who drives:
                   ---------------I) launch mass
                   ---------------II) payload size
                   ---------------III) launch frequency (rate)
                   -----B) In-house development.

                   4) Determine crew size and skills.

                   5) Fund raising
                   -----A)
                   -----B)
                   -----C)
                   -----D)
                   -----E)
                   -----F)

                   6) GTO subsystem design
                   -----A)
                   -----B)
                   -----C)
                   -----D)
                   -----E)
                   -----F)

                   7) HMO subsystem design
                   -----A)
                   -----B)
                   -----C)
                   -----D)
                   -----E)
                   -----F)




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                      Page 135 of 158




                   8) Mars - Lunar subsystems (is this option in or out?)
                   -----A)
                   ----------a)
                   ---------------I)
                   -----B)
                   -----C)
                   -----D)
                   -----E)
                   -----F)

                   9) Mars/Moon subsystem testing missions
                   -----A)
                   ----------a)
                   ---------------I)

                   Earth to GTO
                   1) Earth Launch systems
                   -----A) Earth to GTO - Cargo
                   ----------a) Delta IV heavy - 10,843Kg to GTO - 5 meter faring - no info on length of
                   payload.
                   ----------b) Atlas-V-551 - 8,200Kg to GTO - 5 meter faring - no info on length
                   limitations.
                   ----------c) Shuttle - 28,800Kg to LEO - cargo bay 15x60 feet - Unknown amount
                   (20,000?) to GTO.
                   ----------d) Ariane 5 - 8,000Kg to GTO - 5 meter faring (assumed) - no length info.
                   ----------e) No info on Russian launch systems.
                   ----------f) Failure mode: Loss of craft results in relaunch of equipment and possible
                   loss of Earth-Mars launch window.

                   -----B) Earth to GTO - Manned - 7 day orbital capability for 28 people plus crew (30
                   total?).
                   ----------a) Shuttle - 28,800Kg to LEO - cargo bay 15x60 feet - Unknown amount
                   (20,000?) to GTO.
                   ---------------I) 28 passengers - no gravity.
                   ---------------II) water - 25L/P/D - Volume: 5,250 Liters. Mass 5,250Kg
                   ---------------III) O2 - volume:322.56 liters Calculation:(7 * 28 * 1323 gaseous liters
                   O2 / 860.8 = 1.536 liters LOX) Mass:238.98 kilograms (7 * 28 * 1.138 kg/liter)
                   ---------------IV) Waste management - none
                   ---------------V) food - 3.175Kg/P/D - Volume: ? Mass: 666.75Kg
                   ---------------VI) personal items 1000Kg/P - Volume: ? Mass:28,000Kg - Launch this
                   item as cargo until GTO
                   ---------------VII) Misc consumables - Volume: ? Mass: ?
                   ---------------VIII) Communications: 2-way voice/video, telemetery
                   ---------------IX) Electricity - APU or fuel cell.
                   ---------------X) Recreation - none
                   ---------------XI) Temperature control
                   ---------------XII) Falure mode: Loss of any of the above items may result in an abort
                   to Earth. Loss of craft causes miss of Earth-Mars Launch window.
                   ---------b) No info on Russian launch systems.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 136 of 158




                   2) On-orbit station for deep space assembly.
                   3) On-orbit Earth/Lunar Propellant depot.
                   4) On-orbit Habitat (with gravity simulation?)
                   5) Communication issues

                   Moon to GTO
                   -----1) Moon to GTO - Cargo - No info

                   GTO to HMO.
                   -----1) Interplanetary Spaceship
                   ----------a) Manned Family - (360 day transit + 600 day surface stay = 960 day total
                   capacity)
                   ---------------I) 28 passenger - spin gravity - divided into 2 - 14 passenger cabins or 4 -
                   7 passenger cabins.
                   ---------------II) water - 25L/P/D - Volume: 290,640 Liters. Mass 290,640Kg
                   ---------------III) O2 - volume:41,311.469 liters Calculation:(960 * 28 * 1323 gaseous
                   liters O2 / 860.8 = 1.536 liters LOX) Mass:47,029.413 kilograms (960 * 28 * 1.138
                   kg/liter)
                   ---------------IV) Waste management - Recycling efficiency target 90%.
                   ---------------V) food - 3.175Kg/P/D - Volume: ? Mass: 85,344Kg
                   ---------------VI) personal items 1000Kg/P - Volume: ? Mass:28,000Kg
                   ---------------VII) Misc. consumables - Volume: ? Mass: ?
                   ---------------VIII) Communications: 2-way voice/video, telemetery
                   ---------------IX) Electricity - Solar, nuclear, or fuel cell.
                   ---------------X) Recreation
                   ---------------XI) Temperature control
                   ---------------XII) Attachment method to interplanetary booster.
                   ---------------XIII) Failure Mode: systems failure may result in return to Earth or loop
                   around Mars and return.
                   ---------------XIV) Settlement supports Science - What happens on this ship to support
                   this goal?

                   ----------b) Unmanned Family
                   ---------------I) interplanetary booster - Multiple mission design
                   --------------------I) ION propulsion
                   --------------------II) Nuclear thermal propulsion
                   --------------------III) chemical propulsion - CH4/LOX seems to be the best fuel
                   because we can get it at both ends of the trip.
                   ---------------II) Cargo module
                   --------------------I) Length - TBD
                   --------------------II) Diameter - TBD
                   --------------------III) Method of loading - TBD (is it launched loaded or packed on
                   orbit?)
                   --------------------IV) Attachment method to interplanetary booster

                   Mars Orbital Facility
                   -----1) Orbital Spacecraft Order
                   ----------a) Orbital facility Family
                   ---------------I) Earth orbital propellant depot
                   ---------------II) Earth orbital assembly facility.




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 137 of 158




                   ----------b) Crew/Supplies Orbit to Surface Family
                   ----------c) Unmanned Supplies Orbit to Surface Family

                   HMO to Mars
                   A) Landers
                   -----1) Surface to orbit
                   ----------a) light payloads to HMO
                   ----------b) Adjusts to payload charactistics
                   ----------c) Soft lands payload
                   ----------d) What is used as a landing beacon?
                   ----------e) Is some surface movement possible for final equipment positioning?
                   -----2) refuels on the surface, from ISRU propellants.

                   B) Manned Craft
                   -----1) Designed to soft land independent of Lander.
                   ----------a) Lander can be used as backup system.

                   Mars Surface
                   A) Surface transportation
                   -----1) Surface Craft Order
                   ----------a) Rovers Family
                   ----------b) Hoppers Family
                   ----------c) Surface Automobiles Family
                   ----------d) Lighter than air Family

                   B) Habitats Class
                   -----1) Test Habitat Order
                   ----------a) Undecided Families

                   -----2) Space Habitat Order
                   ----------a) Transit habitat Family
                   ----------b) Orbital habitat Family

                   -----3) Surface Habitat Order
                   ----------a) Converted Propellant Tank Family
                   ----------b) Inflatable Family - 600 day stay (subset of interplanetary craft)
                   ---------------I) 28 passenger - divided into 2 - 14 passenger cabins or 4 - 7 passenger
                   cabins.
                   ---------------II) water - 25L/P/D - Volume: 420,000 Liters. Mass 420,000Kg
                   ---------------III) O2 - volume:25,804.8 liters Calculation:(600 * 28 * 1323 gaseous
                   liters O2 / 860.8 = 1.536 liters LOX) Mass:19,118.4 kilograms (600 * 28 * 1.138
                   kg/liter)
                   ---------------IV) Waste management - Recycling efficiency target 90%.
                   ---------------V) food - 3.175Kg/P/D - Volume: ? Mass: 53,340Kg
                   ---------------VI) personal items 1000Kg/P - Volume: ? Mass: 28,000Kg
                   ---------------VII) Misc consumables - Volume: ? Mass: ?
                   ---------------VIII) Communications: 2-way voice/video, telemetery
                   ---------------IX) Electricity - Solar, nuclear, or fuel cell.
                   ---------------X) Recreation
                   ---------------XI) Temperature control




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                          Page 138 of 158




                   ---------------XII) failure modes: Consume existing supplies until repaired or Mars-
                   Earth window opens for return or repair parts.

                   C) Factories Class
                   -----1) ISRU Order
                   ----------a) ISRU Production Family
                   ---------------I) Earth Lunar ISRU Facility
                   --------------------I) LH2/LOX facility
                   --------------------II) CH4/LOX facility
                   --------------------III) SI facility
                   --------------------IV) Al facility
                   --------------------V) Misc minerals/metals facility
                   --------------------VI) Failure mode: Loss of this facility until repaired/replaced.

                   ---------------II) Mars Lunar ISRU Facility
                   --------------------I) CH4/LOX facility
                   --------------------II) SI facility
                   --------------------III) Al facility
                   --------------------IV) Misc minerals/metals facility
                   --------------------V) Failure mode: Loss of this facility until repaired/replaced.

                   ---------------III) Mars Surface ISRU facility
                   --------------------I) CH4/LOX facility
                   --------------------II) SI facility
                   --------------------III) Al facility
                   --------------------IV) Misc minerals/metals facility
                   --------------------V) H2O facility
                   --------------------VI) Failure mode: Loss of this facility until repaired/replaced.

                   -----2) Food Production Order
                   ----------a) Hydroponics Family
                   ---------------I) Vegetable crops.
                   ---------------II) livestock feed crops.
                   ---------------III) Energy crops.
                   ---------------IV) Waste recycling.
                   ---------------V) Failure mode: Loss of this facility until repaired/replaced.

                   ----------b) Aquaculture Family
                   ---------------I) Fish.
                   ---------------II) Waste recycling.
                   ---------------III) Waste heat energy storage.
                   ---------------IV) Failure mode: Loss of this facility until repaired/replaced.

                   -----3) Machine Shop Order
                   ----------a) Repairs Shop family
                   ---------------I) Failure mode: Loss of this facility until repaired/replaced.

                   -----4) Industry
                   ----------a) Settlement supports science
                   ---------------I) Exploration




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                      Page 139 of 158




                   ---------------II) Survival knowledge
                   ---------------III) Energy technologies
                   ---------------IV) ISRU technologies
                   ---------------V) Astronomy
                   ---------------VI) Survival of the species knowledge.
                   ---------------VII) Genetic Drift knowledge
                   ---------------VIII) Closed Loop Life Support technologies

                   ----------b) Export goods
                   ---------------I) Jewerly. fad, & fashion.
                   ---------------II) Earth adaptable technology
                   ---------------III) General science information

                   =============================================================


                   Links:

                   Environmentals (heating/cooling):
                   ISS has about 400KW of electrical power. That would drop to about 100KW on the
                   surface of Mars.

                   Other good links:
                   http://advlifesupport.jsc.nasa.gov/FY03Metric-HTML.html (this one looks the best.)
                   http://bioastroroadmap.nasa.gov/index.jsp
                   http://advlifesupport.jsc.nasa.gov/documents/JSC-39502A.pdf (Lots of Mars mission
                   references. Page 47 has a good flowchart.)
                   http://virtualastronaut.jsc.nasa.gov/teacherportal/pdfs/Space.Food.and.Nutrition.pdf
                   (menus for the different programs)
                   http://research.hq.nasa.gov/code_u/nra/current/NRA-02-OBPR-01/HSSWG.pdf
                   (complete mission architecture)
                   http://advtech.jsc.nasa.gov/DOWNLOADS/TM-2003-210785a.pdf (This one must be
                   the final product)
                   http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/readingroom/4.4CrewFood.pdf (ALS - system)
                   http://advlifesupport.jsc.nasa.gov/Food/projects.html
                   http://advlifesupport.jsc.nasa.gov/relatedsites.html
                   http://advlifesupport.jsc.nasa.gov/documents/foodsysdocs/FinalReportVol1.pdf
                   http://advlifesupport.jsc.nasa.gov/documents/foodsysdocs/FinalReportVol2.pdf
                   http://advlifesupport.jsc.nasa.gov/FY03Metric-HTML.html

                   http://marsoweb.arc.nasa.gov/News/Techreports/1999/PDF/nas-99-006.pdf
                   (capturing asteroids and returning them to ISS)

                   Here is some of the latest tech for sterling cycle technology.
                   Uses RTG heat sources
                   http://stirlingtech.com/products/rg55.shtml

                   Supplies cryo temperature cooling for keeping that Hydrogen liquid.
                   http://stirlingtech.com/products/coolers.shtml




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                     Page 140 of 158



                   This one has been operated on solar power at NREL
                   http://stirlingtech.com/products/rg1000.shtml

                   UPS type system that has no batteries:
                   http://www.activepower.com/index.asp?pg=technology_tacas_basics

                   A turbine engine system
                   http://www.phoenixnavigation.com/phoenix.htm

                   A communication encryption system:
                   http://www.phoenixnavigation.com/asksecurity.htm

                   A navigation system:
                   http://www.phoenixnavigation.com/coretech/navsystems.htm

                   Here is an interesting link to some NASA opensource software.
                   http://opensource.arc.nasa.gov/



Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/23/05 09:52
PM                 Spacester,

                   Thank you for clearing that up, preparing the way to complicate it with discussion.


                   Hmmm....Should the cargo lander stay at Mars, or return to Earth?

                   Option One, Stay at Mars:

                   The cargo lander would remain at Mars once it arrives. When new supplies and
                   equipment arrive, it goes up, loads the supplies, and lands them. The supplies would
                   have to be stored in modules (or whatever) during the jouney.

                   -Pros-

                   Propellant is saved by not forcing the IB to lug around the Cargo Lander every
                   supply trip.

                   The cargo lander will always be around for any heavy lifting that needs to be done.
                   (??)

                   -Cons-

                   To transport cargo to Mars' surface, the cargo has to loaded onto the CL en orbit from
                   the Transfer ship.

                   Option Two, Return to Earth:



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                      Page 141 of 158




                   The Cargo Lander would return to Earth with the IB after fulfilling it's duty to
                   transporting the supplies to the surface.

                   -Pros-

                   The supplies and equipment can be loaded directly onto the cargo lander for the
                   journey.

                   When the IB and CL arrive at Mars, the CL can descend to Mars without the hassle
                   of removing and loading cargo unto itself.

                   -Cons-

                   The IB has to use more propellant to transport the CL to and from Mars every cargo
                   trip.

                   I like option one with the CL staying at Mars. If we load the cargo into modules for
                   the journey, then when they arrive at Mars, it is only a matter of unplugging supply
                   modules from the transfer ship and plugging them into our CL. Seems to me the most
                   efficient way to run that operation.

                   What are your thoughts? I'm looking out for your outline and conclusions on this.
                   Apparently you had a busy weekend like I?

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/23/05 10:17
PM                 Dan_Casale,

                   Excellent!

                   Down under the Interplanetary Spaceship, you have that we would need 672,000 kg
                   of water.

                   Going by the spartan life style in case of an emergency with minimum water with
                   minimum recycling, we would need 290,640 kg of water for 28 people for 960 days
                   if they used 12 kg per person per day with a 10% recycling efficiency.

                   Bringing that much water, with no emergency occuring, the crew could consume 107
                   kg of water per person per day with their optimal 90% efficiency. We would be
                   swimming in water!

                   We can can reduce the amount of water we plan on bringing by almost 400 tonnes.
                   We should go with the 290,640 kg of water figure.

                   Under the surface habitats for 600 days, we need 181,776 kg of water instead of 420
                   tonnes of water

                   Everything else looks great. We are slowly filling it in although everytime a new



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 142 of 158



                   summary is posted, the requirements seem to get longer. *Scratches Head*

                   The very beginning, before the outline is very good.

                   Thanks Dan!

Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
05/23/05 11:59
PM                 Good catch Arobie. I have updated the post.

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/24/05 01:42
AM                 I see a lot of questions marks. Which is good.

                   "?are lunar resources available?
                   ?are Phobos resources available?"

                   I would say no. Maybe, years down the road they might be, but why complicate a
                   complicated situation by requiring unreasonable compromises? Why do we Have to
                   go back to thre Moon to go to Mars?

                   d) Particulate/odor removal
                   ---------------I) Can a non-filter solutions be used?
                   ---------------II) Can water be used as a filter?

                   One use of Carbon is in filtration, once isolated it could be used for removing
                   particulates and odors. Heating it could allow separtation of the components and re-
                   use. The loss of a certain amount of Carbon, dumped overboard would not be that
                   bad of a thing. The one excess that will develop, in the long haul, is Carbon, if it can't
                   be used for building material, which it could be, it would have to be disposed of.

                   "e) what telemetry, from what systems is returned?"

                   "I) How many and how long?"

                   I would think every bit of data available on board a vehicle or station should be
                   available both there and at a control facility on Earth. There might be times it can't be
                   real time, due to orbital positions, but I doubt that is a huge problem.

                   "III) Size in KW?"

                   How much power do we need? Solar power is available continuously enroute. The
                   availability in orbit is reduced true, but still available. Solar can provide all the
                   capacity needed, the only consideration is how we provide it when Solar is not
                   available. This leaves two options: batteries or fuel cells.

                   "I) How long can each storage method keep food safe?
                   II) How to supply “fresh” food?"



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                      Page 143 of 158




                   If we are looking at 2.5 year cycles then it's not a huge problem, canned, freeze dried
                   or frozen foods would work. The weight and complexity required to produce fresh
                   foods is another question. Is it worth the expense to get to orbit to begin with?

                   Got to go, from a higher source.


                   .


Dan_Casale             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
05/24/05 10:45
AM                 >>"?are lunar resources available?
                   >>?are Phobos resources available?"
                   >
                   >I would say no. Maybe, years down the road they might be, but why complicate a
                   complicated situation by requiring unreasonable compromises? >Why do we Have to
                   go back to thre Moon to go to Mars?

                   Try this crazy idea: A race between the moon supporters and the Mars supporters to
                   see who can set up the first settlement. Also our plan should be adptable enough to
                   take advantage of alternate sources of propellants. We don't have to develop them,
                   just be able to take advantage of them.

                   >>d) Particulate/odor removal
                   >>---------------I) Can a non-filter solutions be used?
                   >>---------------II) Can water be used as a filter?
                   >
                   >One use of Carbon is in filtration, once isolated it could be used for removing
                   particulates and odors. Heating it could allow separtation of the >components and re-
                   use. The loss of a certain amount of Carbon, dumped overboard would not be that
                   bad of a thing. The one excess that will >develop, in the long haul, is Carbon, if it
                   can't be used for building material, which it could be, it would have to be disposed of.


                   Carbon, good idea. I suggested water because it could be dumped into the waste
                   water stream. No additional system is necessary, but carbon is a more effective
                   filtering agent. I'll update the other post.

                   I'll start to spec. the green house next.


Dan_Casale             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
05/24/05 02:43
PM                 Can someone wade through this and let me know what I missed?

                   Assumptions:



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                    Page 144 of 158




                   green house will be used to reclaim/recycle all grey water.
                   There should be at least two degrees of separation between the grey water and a food
                   source.
                   The green house will consume CO2 and produce O2.
                   There is too much radiation on the surface of Mars to grow plants. Thus all lighting
                   will be artificial.
                   The atmosphere of Mars is too thin to grow plants. Thus the green houses will be
                   pressurized and artificial air circulation will be provided.
                   CO2 will be filtered out of other compartments to enrich the atmosphere of the green
                   house.

                   Overview of processes:
                   Grey-water: to swamp, to fish pond until evaporated.
                   Human waste: to human waste compost pile, to swamp soil, to non-edible plants soil,
                   to non-human compost pile, to edible plants.
                   Non-human waste: to non-human compost pile, to edible plants.
                   Animal wastes: to non-human compost pile, to edible plants
                   Animal parts: same as human waste.
                   Humidity: recovered from air, sterilized, treated and stored as potable water.

                   to do's:
                   figure power consumption
                   figure water requirements
                   figure space requirements
                   determine testing equipment
                   determine process checkpoint locations (telemetry)

                   Plants:
                   --edible:
                   ----Wheat
                   ----carrots
                   ----broccoli
                   ----beans
                   ----peas
                   ----cauliflower
                   --input:
                   ----Watered from potable water supplies.
                   ----Light from green house lamps
                   ----Air circulation by fans
                   ----CO2 from humans and animals
                   ----worms
                   ----soil
                   ----seeds
                   --Output:
                   ----food
                   ----used soil to compost pile non-human
                   --processes:
                   ----till soil
                   ----plant crops
                   ----water plants




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                         Page 145 of 158




                   ----harvest crops
                   ----after 2 crops, recycle soil to compost pile non-human
                   ----separate tools for edible and non-edible green houses, to prevent cross
                   contamination.
                   ----O2 removal
                   ----CO2 injection
                   ----IMPORTANT: a portion of each crop must be allowed to produce seeds
                   --failure mode:
                   ----plants become diseased, sterilize, sterilize. All soil and water go to compost pile
                   human.
                   ----mechanical failure, plants die due to lack of heat, O2, CO2, light, and/or air
                   circulation. Replant or recycle to non-human compost pile.
                   ----loss of pressure. Fix problem. Replant or recycle to non-human compost pile.
                   ----food output is too low. Improve air circulation, watering, and lighting, refresh
                   soil, test soil for proper nutrients, test air for proper gases. Build another green house.

                   ----no seeds are produced. Import more seeds from Earth.

                   --non-edible:
                   ----clover - fixes nitrogen, feeds rabbits, goats
                   ----alfalfa - fixes nitrogen, feeds rabbits, chickens, goats
                   ----grasses - removes carbon, feeds rabbits, goats
                   ----non-human-edible plant parts are feed for rabbits, chickens, and goats.
                   ----watered by treated grey-water
                   --input:
                   ----Watered from grey-water supplies.
                   ----Light from green house lamps
                   ----Air circulation by fans
                   ----CO2 from humans and animals
                   ----soil from human compost pile
                   ----seed
                   --Output:
                   ----food for animals
                   ----used soil to compost pile non-human
                   ----seeds
                   --processes:
                   ----same as edible plants
                   --failure modes:
                   ----same as edible plants

                   compost pile non-human (batch process):
                   --input:
                   ----animal wastes
                   ----inedible plant mass.
                   ----treated grey-water for moisture
                   ----O2
                   ----Worms
                   ----aerobic bacteria
                   --output:
                   ----Soil to edible plants




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 146 of 158




                   ----Heat to heat sink or by air to other modules
                   ----Methane, captured for other processes
                   ----Humidity
                   --processes:
                   ----aerate
                   ----remove excess worms, feed to fish
                   ----completed batch goes to edible plant green house
                   --failure modes:
                   ----batch becomes diseased, sterilize, sterilize. All soil and water go to compost pile
                   human.
                   ----mechanical failure, batch dies due to lack of heat, O2, light, and/or air circulation.
                   recycle to human compost pile.


                   Compost pile human (batch process):
                   --input
                   ----Animal parts.
                   ----human wastes
                   ----water as needed
                   ----anaerobic bacteria
                   --output:
                   ----swamp soil
                   ----methane
                   ----heat
                   --processes:
                   ----assemble batch process
                   ----monitor until completion
                   --failure mode:
                   ----batch failure. Sterilize. Send through process to break in to element components.
                   ----mechanical failure, batch dies due to lack of heat. Recycle to human compost pile.

                   ----loss of pressure. Fix problem. Restart batch.

                   swamp:
                   --input:
                   ----grey-water
                   ----Light
                   ----Heat
                   ----grasses (looks like someone will have to mow the lawn)
                   ----Fish do NOT live in the swamp
                   ----snails
                   ----soil from human compost pile
                   ----O2
                   --output:
                   ----Treated grey-water
                   ----inedible plant mass
                   ----humidity
                   ----snails to fish or non-human compost pile.
                   --process:
                   ----water flows through swamp. Air is pumped through water to provide O2. Water




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 147 of 158




                   may be recycled until acceptable quality is met, then water is allow to flow to fish
                   pond.
                   ----Swamp consists of at least three areas.
                   Here is a narrative of the process: Soil from human compost pile is added to area 1,
                   area 2 and 3 contain dirt from non-human compost pile. Grey-water flows from area
                   1, into area 2 then into area 3. Soil is cleaned by growing grasses, alfalfa and clovers
                   (as needed to control nitrogen). After a suitable amount of time, the soil in area 2 is
                   sent to the non-human compost pile and is replace with dirt from the human compost
                   pile. Grey-water now flows from area 2, thru area 1, to area 3. After a suitable
                   amount of time, the soil in area3 is replaced, and the grey water flows from 3, thru
                   area 2, into area 1. The total swamp area should be long to clean the water in a single
                   pass. Snails are added to process to control moss.
                   --failure modes:
                   ----plants become diseased, sterilize, sterilize. All soil and water go to compost pile
                   human.
                   ----mechanical failure, plants die due to lack of heat, O2, CO2, light, and/or air
                   circulation. Replant or recycle to human compost pile.
                   ----loss of pressure. Fix problem. Replant or recycle to non-human compost pile.
                   ----Grey water is directed to wrong area. Correct problem and recycle water until
                   water quality standards are met.
                   ----snail die. Wait until water quality improves and reintroduce snails.

                   Pond (continuous process):
                   --input:
                   ----treated grey-water
                   ----light
                   ----heat
                   ----fish
                   ----crayfish
                   ----freshwater lobster
                   ----O2
                   --output:
                   ----food
                   ----humidity
                   ----CO2
                   ----water for non-edible plants.
                   --process:
                   ----pond water is aerated and circulated to produce healthy fish.
                   ----Food is caught by fishing or netting.
                   ----water quality is checked.
                   --failure modes:
                   ----fish become diseased or water becomes contaminated, sterilize, sterilize. All water
                   goes to swamp as grey-water.
                   ----mechanical failure, fish die due to lack of heat, O2, light, and/or air/water
                   circulation. Recycle to non-human compost pile.
                   ----loss of pressure. Fix problem. Recycle to non-human compost pile.

                   Animals:
                   --Rabbits
                   --chickens




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                     Page 148 of 158



                   --goats
                   --fish
                   --crayfish
                   --fresh water lobsters

                   Insects:
                   --leaf cutter bees for pollination
                   --worms
                   --snails

                   Bacteria:
                   --Aerobic
                   --Anaerobic

                   Links:
                   http://www.waterrecycling.com/index.htm
                   http://www.greenhousegarden.com/Material%20properties.htm
                   https://www.sundancesupply.com/index2.html
                   http://www.cropking.com/greenhouse.shtml
                   http://www.farmwholesale.com/panels.php3
                   http://www.igcusa.com/btu/kirkcalc.html
                   http://www.quickgrow.com/gardening_articles/index.html
                   http://www.hammacher.com/publish/67403.asp?promo=xsells#
                   http://www.aquaponics.com/

                   automatic chicken plucker
                   http://www.schaferfarmsnaturalmeats.com/html/featherman.html

                   livestock water requirements
                   http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/bse/442-755/442-755.html#L3]
                   http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/bse/442-755/442-755.html#L3

grooble               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/24/05 03:04
PM                 Maybe you guys could get a grant from NASA to do further research?

stevehw33             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
05/24/05 03:49
PM                 Your concerns about energy source reliability for a surface habitat on Mars are good
                   ones. The energy denisty alone of solar power on the earth is totally inadequate for
                   manufacturing & transportation. On Mars, it would be even less so because of the
                   lower intensity of sunlight. And the dust storms will also cover the panels eventualy
                   and have to be cleaned, as well as decrease power from those when the storm is
                   going.

                   So far, only a nuke will provide the necessary power to create enough energy to run a
                   small habitat on/ or just under the Martian surface. And your large storage battery
                   back ups, storing the power as well, is yet another system to increase that safety



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                     Page 149 of 158



                   margin.

                   No settlement could be credibly settled if they lived under the threat of freezing due
                   to power problems. Mars has seasons. It can get gawd-awful cold there.
                   A nuke(small, almost portable, which have been in existence for years), good storage
                   batteries and solar power back up to jump start the nuke and keep things going,
                   would be ideal to run a habitat.

Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
05/24/05 04:11
PM                 Grooble:
                   that would be nice, but I think they have done a bunch of this research already. That
                   post has some roots in their research and also in CELESS architecture. Unfortunately,
                   I have no practical knowledge, only threory. But I hope to be putting up a green
                   house within the next 6 - 12 months. I want to do some aquaculture and hydroponics,
                   so in a couple of years I will be able to design a better system.

                   Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find enough data to indicate how big a green
                   house would need to be to feed 28 people plus animals.

                   Here are a few links to go with my last post.

                   http://www.waterrecycling.com/index.htm
                   http://www.greenhousegarden.com/Material%20properties.htm
                   https://www.sundancesupply.com/index2.html
                   http://www.cropking.com/greenhouse.shtml
                   http://www.farmwholesale.com/panels.php3
                   http://www.igcusa.com/btu/kirkcalc.html
                   http://www.quickgrow.com/gardening_articles/index.html
                   http://www.hammacher.com/publish/67403.asp?promo=xsells#


                   automatic chicken plucker
                   http://www.schaferfarmsnaturalmeats.com/html/featherman.html

                   livestock water requirements
                   [url=ht
                   tp://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/bse/442-755/442-755.html#L3]
                   http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/bse/442-755/442-755.html#L3[/url]

grooble               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/24/05 04:21
PM                 Did you hear of www.aquaponics.com ? I think someone posted the link earlier on
                   this thread or another.

                   How about Camels?




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                     Page 150 of 158



Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
05/24/05 06:14
PM                 Grooble:
                   Thanks for the link.

                   Why camels?

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/24/05 06:17
PM                 <<Try this crazy idea: A race between the moon supporters and the Mars supporters
                   to see who can set up the first settlement.>>

                   I see little difference between the basic components of establishing a base on the
                   Moon or a base on Mars. It would definitely be an advantage to test concepts and
                   improvements on the Moon, but to pit one against the other for funding?

                   <<I suggested water because it could be dumped into the waste water stream>>

                   Anything you dump into the waste water will have to be filtered out at some point
                   anyway if you intend to recycle it.

                   That's why I still think hydrolysis and water is the way to go in so many ways,
                   including propellant and electrical power.



Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
05/24/05 06:36
PM                 ><<Try this crazy idea: A race between the moon supporters and the Mars supporters
                   to see who can set up the first settlement.>>
                   >
                   >I see little difference between the basic components of establishing a base on the
                   Moon or a base on Mars. It would definitely be an advantage >to test concepts and
                   improvements on the Moon, but to pit one against the other for funding?
                   >
                   If the general public is providing the funding, something must grab and hold their
                   attention. A good race always attracts a lot of attention. With attention comes money,
                   with money comes progress, with progress comes hope for a better future.

                   >
                   ><<I suggested water because it could be dumped into the waste water stream>>
                   >
                   >Anything you dump into the waste water will have to be filtered out at some point
                   anyway if you intend to recycle it.
                   >
                   >That's why I still think hydrolysis and water is the way to go in so many ways,
                   including propellant and electrical power.



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                      Page 151 of 158




                   It is simplier to dump the filtering water into the grey-water stream for processing
                   than it would be to develop and maintain a process for creating and recycling an
                   activated carbon filter.

                   The hydrolysis/fuel cell cycle isn't lost on me. Hopefully I can find some good
                   numbers by the time we get around to the power systems. I still have to guess at the
                   power requirements for the green house mess I proposed.

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/24/05 08:30
PM                 <<The hydrolysis/fuel cell cycle isn't lost on me. Hopefully I can find some good
                   numbers by the time we get around to the power systems.>>

                   Where the amount of water makes a difference is in propullsion, not in electrical
                   power generation. The same water could be used over and over indefinitely to power
                   fuel cells. As long as you don't dump water overboard, where is it going?

                   A fuel cell/hydrolizer system would be a sealed unit. The purity of the water could be
                   ensured and fuel cell life would improve. What I have in mind is individual units, the
                   power needs in a particular Module, or a section of a Module would be provided by
                   self contained units that could be added to as needed. Simply mount them and plug
                   them into a Solar power source. You get constant and consistant power output. Need
                   more power in a certain area? Add more units. Obviously a Module used as crew
                   living space wouldn't need as much power as one used for research. Why not provide
                   the power needed on the spot?

                   With no physical connections a failure in a system would not cascade throughout the
                   entire system, if a unit fails it is simply replaced.



Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/24/05 08:52
PM                 Scottb50,

                   How much power will one hydrolizer/fuel cell unit provide us with lets say for a day?


                   How much mass is a single unit (estimate?)?

                   How much power will they need from solar power to continue to run?

                   Dan_Casale,

                   I'm wading through your system, but it might take me some time to respond
                   educatedly. I'm err...picking up life support ecosystems as we go along. From a
                   glance, it looks good.



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                      Page 152 of 158




                   Being from Louisiana, I like the crayfish. Good old fashioned crayfish boil on Mars.
                   I'll cook!

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/25/05 12:06
AM                 http://www.asi.org/adb/04/03/03/h2power.html

                   This gives some idea of what I have been talking about and some numbers to work
                   with. I have found it hard to find accurate consumption figures for existing systems to
                   quote from, but these sound pretty close.

Scottb50              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/25/05 12:10
AM                 Also from this same site:

                   http://www.asi.org/adb/04/03/03/rfc-data.html

grooble               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/25/05 08:57
AM                 a camel is the perfect creature for mars exploration, its body is adapted to such rocky,
                   desert like conditions, just slap a suit on it and some oxygen tank.

                   So you have a transportation method, as well as a scientific objective of studying the
                   effects of the martian gravity on quadrapedal mammals.

                   You could take a full grown camel on the journey, some don't need to drink water for
                   6 months! So it could load up before the journey and then go without for the entire
                   trip. Worst case scenario, you could kill and eat the camel!



Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
05/25/05 10:08
AM
                   >Being from Louisiana, I like the crayfish. Good old fashioned crayfish boil on Mars.
                   I'll cook!
                   Arobie: If the water boils at 32 Deg. F. on Mars, how long will they take to cook?

                   Scottb50: Nice links. That group has done some nice work. I wish they were making
                   more noise.

                   grooble:
                   >a camel is the perfect creature for mars exploration, its body is adapted to such
                   rocky, desert like conditions, just slap a suit on it and some >oxygen tank.
                   >



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                      Page 153 of 158



                   >So you have a transportation method, as well as a scientific objective of studying
                   the effects of the martian gravity on quadrapedal mammals.
                   >
                   >You could take a full grown camel on the journey, some don't need to drink water
                   for 6 months! So it could load up before the journey and then >go without for the
                   entire trip. Worst case scenario, you could kill and eat the camel!

                   See you have the perfect fund raiser, I think a lot of people would pay good money to
                   watch someone try to put an environmental suit on a camel. The problem with larger
                   animals is their physical strength. It might make them too dangerous to even take on
                   the journey. I thought about bringing cows but I thing the bull in the china shop
                   analgy applies.

adzel_3000            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
05/25/05 12:34
PM                 Spacester,

                   I think that this is a very well thought out thread. Good arguments all around.

                   One concern I have about Mars settlement studies is the inherent assumption that
                   humans can reproduce in a 1/3 gee field. Have there been any studies that look at
                   human gestation in anything less than one gee?

                   My concern is that a colony or settlement implies a growing community. The ability
                   to reproduce is a big question mark for any colony. I do not find it personally
                   acceptable to ask women or children to serve as guinea pigs.

                   I think Gerard K. O'Neill was on the mark with his space habitat designs (some of
                   which supplied one gee). This seems like a better way to "settle" space than to try to
                   establish cities on Mars.

                   Perhaps if humans cannot have children in anything other than a one gee field the
                   planets will be used for science and resource retrieval and the O'Neill concept will
                   flourish.

                   Again, nice post.

                   --A3K

grooble               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/25/05 12:44
PM                 Well hopefully the moon landings will have a mission such as breeding mice.

                   Also, isn't the ISS supposed to do science like this?

adzel_3000            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                     Page 154 of 158



05/25/05 12:51     I'm not sure if the ISS is geared to support much beyond mice reproduction. Most of
PM                 the medical/biology experiments are geared toward long duration exposure to micro-
                   gravity.

                   Safe reproduction seems very much like an open question and not one that is readily
                   answerable via a study. No one knows for sure whether people can safely have
                   healthy kids on Mars.

                   I would also be wary of those who would forge ahead with colonization schemes
                   without having a certain answer. A "yes" to the question would allow such plans to
                   move forward. But a "no" would require a major re-think as to what form space
                   settlement should actually take.

                   --A3K

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/25/05 01:12
PM                 Being from Louisiana, I like the crayfish. Good old fashioned crayfish boil on Mars.
                   I'll cook!

                   Arobie: If the water boils at 32 Deg. F. on Mars, how long will they take to cook?

                   Hmm...I quess we're eating raw crayfish!

                   Of course we could always cook inside our pressurized habitats. Hmm...

                   Adzel,

                   I agree that a major question is whether reproduction in low-gee is possible. We will
                   eventually find out.

                   My personal hunch is that low-gee will not be too much touble for it, although I think
                   zero-gee would pose a problem. But I cannot back that by any science. It is merely a
                   hunch.

                   I do hope it turns out that there are no major problems with reproduction in 1/3rd gee
                   because a settlement is a growing community like you said.

grooble               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/25/05 01:22
PM                 Can 1g be re-created on the martian surface, a spinning base ?

henryhallam           Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
05/25/05 01:25
PM
                   Agreed - My WAG is that conception and gestation probably wouldn't be a problem,
                   but during childhood muscle and bone development might be an issue even at Mars-



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 155 of 158



                   level gravity, unless they made sure to have plenty of exercise.
                   TBH I think it will be a long time, at least 75 years if we're lucky, before there is a
                   lunar or martian *colony* well-equipped enough for permanent settlers and raising
                   children. You have to have a hospital, a school, etc etc. which a burgeoning outpost
                   or colony probably couldn't afford to support. Perhaps by that time we will have anti-
                   bone-loss drugs.

adzel_3000            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
05/25/05 01:52
PM                 You could set up some type of centrifuge.

                   But would the expectant settler ride in it continuously or only a few hours per day?

                   Is the gee field the only consideration for full term development? Is there something
                   unique about the gee field that is required for brain development, muscle (and heart)
                   growth, proper endocrine development, etc? Remember, the child is not isolated in
                   the womb. It is in many ways symbiotic in the sense that it responds to the mother's
                   ability to cope and adapt to her environment (ie, is her system stressed in any way by
                   the <1 gee field?)

                   We gestate the way we do based on millions of years of evolution. The gee field may
                   be a huge factor in how all the other developmental factors come together.

                   -A3K


spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
05/25/05 06:59
PM                 Another quickie - it's nice to see this thread still has momentum despite my neglect . .
                   .

                   By definition (mine), for purposes of this thread, a Settlement does not produce
                   babies but a Colony does. Certainly a Settlement needs to grow, but that growth is by
                   adding adult Earthlings.

                   My personal hunch is that gestation in less than 1 gee is going to be very very
                   difficult. Given the lack of science on the question it seems totally irresponsible to
                   me to plan on making babies on Mars until such time as we are well established
                   there.

                   We can shed some light on the subject with experiments in spin-g habitats, but if it
                   proves problematical, we won't know if the gravity gradient or coreolis effects are
                   contributing factors. OTOH, if it works in spin-g, it should be fine on Mars.

                   Even so, while the purpose of the Settlement is to determine the feasibility of a
                   Colony, IMO the Settlement should be well along before anybody gets preggers. I
                   would worry that taking care of the pregnancy could somehow endanger the rest of
                   the Settlement.



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                        Page 156 of 158




Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/28/05 07:38
PM                 Dan_Casale,

                   Your food and water comsumption and recycling plan is very in depth and looks to
                   be very efficient. You've designed a complete ecosystem!

                   I think you should start a new thread to work out 'to do's' on the "To Do list".

                   Something as complex as this deserves it's own thread, and there might be some
                   expertise out there that could help us and hasn't read these threads.

                   Sorry, not much of an educated response like I promised, but I don't know enough
                   about the subject to sound halfway intelligent yet. That of course assumes that I
                   sound halfway intelligent most of the time...atleast I hope I do.

                   Well more importantly, I hope there are others on these forums who might be able to
                   help with your ecosystematic life support system.

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
05/29/05 01:04
PM                 Just a quick note again, I'm working on a Summary, thanks to Arobie who has sent
                   me a first draft. I'll be posting that later today.

                   But I felt the need to extend kudos to Dan_Casale, something I've neglected. That's
                   great stuff, and I salute you, sir. I'm with Arobie - we should start a separate thread on
                   the technology of a closed ecosystem in reduced gravity. If I don't get to it today, you
                   should of course feel free to do so yourself.

                   "ecosystematic" - what a great word!

grooble               Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/29/05 01:36
PM                 Life support discussion:

                   http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?
                   s=3eff2c37d4a0a64c284f4ec0911c1ab0;act=SF;f=8



Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
05/30/05 02:55
PM
                   Scottb50,




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 157 of 158



                   Thanks for those links. Sorry for the late reply.

                   I'm going to take a look at them.

                   spacester,

                   Thinking back on the Cargo Lander, I've come to the conclusion that we should leave
                   the CL at Mars.

                   On it's trip to Mars, we can send it fully loaded...maybe with the first generation
                   ISRU factory or power plant. Then after that, we send the cargo packed into a module
                   (or modules) that the CL will dock with and transport to the surface. We won't have
                   to transport the engines or tanks that go with the CL to and from Mars every trip,
                   only a module container that holds cargo.

                   BTW: I had not known that "ecosystematic" was actually a word.

                   grooble,

                   Cool forums. Thanks.

                   You asked earlier about having spin gee on the surface. I don't think we will have
                   that, but we could have the necessary spin gee in orbit if there is no other way for
                   pregnancy in the future when the settlement becomes a colony.

                   Speaking of the spin-gee, how much of one gee will we have in orbit? Will it be at
                   1/3 gee like Mars or will it be higher?

spacester             Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(solar system)
05/30/05 03:09
PM                 Yeah, Arobie, I was thinking the same thing about the Cargo Lander. Kind of
                   obvious in hindsight actually. We want to re-use everything as much as possible, why
                   would we send the lander all the way back to Earth? Simply use it at Mars as long as
                   possible. Maybe we send a second one at some point for redundancy.

                   I was going to tease you about 'ecosystematic' but thought I'd run it past
                   dictionary.com first and was surprised as well.

                   We'll know a lot more about exactly how to configure Mars orbital spin-g after we
                   get some experience in LEO. One reason I want to use the habitat - truss - hub - truss
                   - habitat design concept is that additional trusses could be "spliced in" to create a
                   longer spin radius, so you could get 1.0 g with the same RPM and thus the same
                   Coreolis effects.

Dan_Casale            Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(rock)
06/01/05 12:24
PM                 Spacester:
                   Thanks, I'm glad you like the work. However, I disagree about starting a separate



http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005
Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!                                                       Page 158 of 158



                   thread. I think that if we start too many threads we will loose track of things. I am
                   also serious about making presentations on this plan at space conferences. At this rate
                   we could have something presentable in about one year.

                   Grooble: Thanks for the link. I will review and incorporate what I can into the green
                   house stuff. I am also going to post it on some other forums to get additional feed
                   back. I'm sure there are major wholes in it.

Arobie                Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(star)
06/02/05 02:31
PM                 We've outlined the Manned Mars Transfer Ship as having a:

                   First Stage Interplanetary Booster

                   Second Stage Habitat Setup
                   &
                   Third Stage Storage Module and possibly Mars vehicle

                   The habitat setup is two habitats on the ends of trusses connected to a hub.

                   Could we engineer storage for supplies for the journey into the hub?

ldyaidan              Re: Let's Design a Settlement for Mars!
(molecule)
06/02/05 04:59
PM                 They are holding that contest right now for extracting oxygen etc from lunar regolith.
                   If this proves out, we should see about using that technology, and sending robotic
                   equipment to start extracting ISRU prior to the manned mission.

                   Rae


   Contact Us | Privacy statement | Terms of Service                                 www.space.com


                                              UBBThreads™ 5.5.1




http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=missions&main=164949&type=thr... 03/06/2005

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:37
posted:9/20/2011
language:English
pages:158