on that note O2, CH4, H2O, H2 are all fine but where is all the bio aviable N2 (in the form of NH3 or NO3-salts) coming from? the atmosphere barely contains CO2 if anything, usually you can't find it rock formations..so where to get it from? (and you would need lots for chemistry and especially agroculture)
I think the availability of N2 in the Martian atmosphere is one of the greatest selling point of the planet.Does anyone know anything about small local fertilizer plants? I'm hoping there is a market for local production of NH3 for fertilizer, possibly using some other technology than the Haber process that could serve as a precursor for a Martian production system of NH3.Bioreactors fixing nitrogen directly into 'soil' in large volumes would be nice, perhaps, if the bug don't need overly exotic foods...Otherwise a mini Haber process plant would have to do.
Plasma activated water nitrate synthesis is possible though.
Awesome thread.Under Calcium Carbonate, I was expecting to see "Cement" as a product.-------I think Si should be on the short list.......
Quote from: meekGee on 03/05/2017 05:24 amAwesome thread.Under Calcium Carbonate, I was expecting to see "Cement" as a product.-------I think Si should be on the short list.......I also think silicon will be a valuable material. I probably would put it on a priority list of (solid) minerals to develop, rather than here, just because the paper addresses pressure vessels to be employed in industry, which generally means liquids and gases.I will see if cement was mentioned by CICE, which is the source of the priority list. Remember, though, that regular water-based cementitious products won't work on Mars because the water will sublimate faster than the cement can cure, according to industrial sources.Edited: grammar
Quote from: Ionmars on 03/05/2017 09:49 pmQuote from: meekGee on 03/05/2017 05:24 amUnder Calcium Carbonate, I was expecting to see "Cement" as a product.I will see if cement was mentioned by CICE, which is the source of the priority list. Remember, though, that regular water-based cementitious products won't work on Mars because the water will sublimate faster than the cement can cure, according to industrial sources.Yes, that makes sense. A lot of construction might occur under pressure though, plus I am not sure you can solve the sublimation problem.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/05/2017 05:24 amUnder Calcium Carbonate, I was expecting to see "Cement" as a product.I will see if cement was mentioned by CICE, which is the source of the priority list. Remember, though, that regular water-based cementitious products won't work on Mars because the water will sublimate faster than the cement can cure, according to industrial sources.
Under Calcium Carbonate, I was expecting to see "Cement" as a product.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/05/2017 10:07 pmQuote from: Ionmars on 03/05/2017 09:49 pmQuote from: meekGee on 03/05/2017 05:24 amUnder Calcium Carbonate, I was expecting to see "Cement" as a product.I will see if cement was mentioned by CICE, which is the source of the priority list. Remember, though, that regular water-based cementitious products won't work on Mars because the water will sublimate faster than the cement can cure, according to industrial sources.Yes, that makes sense. A lot of construction might occur under pressure though, plus I am not sure you can solve the sublimation problem.Water evaporates, ice sublimates! In order for the cement to cure, liquid water needs to react with the calcium oxide in the cement, and the whole process takes well over a day. So, apart from the water evaporating (boiling?) in the low atmospheric pressure, it also rapidly freezes in the low temperatures, stopping the curing process. You could no doubt overcome both problems with temporary pressure and heating, but it adds to the effort required. Plus, water has a lot of other valuable uses on Mars.There have been experiments with using liquid sulfur as the binding agent to make concrete (arXiv paper) with promising results. The main problem is that it's flammable, though this doesn't matter for most purposes on Mars. Presumably, a module for the production of sulfur would come in handy!
We had the concrete discussion on Mars threads and on the Amazing Martian Habitats threads. There is Marscrete, that solves all these problems, with materials easier sourced than our cement based concrete and less energy to produce.
I would love to see a draft of this, happy to sign NDA, realise it's probably way too late for any suggestions, but just wanted to post that.......AND that I think it's amazingly awesome that a web based resource like this (originally a bunch of shuttle huggers) is actually facilitating submission of meaningful scientific papers.
Quote from: lamontagne on 03/05/2017 12:26 amI think the availability of N2 in the Martian atmosphere is one of the greatest selling point of the planet.Does anyone know anything about small local fertilizer plants? I'm hoping there is a market for local production of NH3 for fertilizer, possibly using some other technology than the Haber process that could serve as a precursor for a Martian production system of NH3.Bioreactors fixing nitrogen directly into 'soil' in large volumes would be nice, perhaps, if the bug don't need overly exotic foods...Otherwise a mini Haber process plant would have to do.NSF member sghill is running a company that develops such a system. Suitable for farmers to produce their own nitrogen fertilizer instead of buying it from industry using the Haber Bosch process.QuotePlasma activated water [PAW] nitrate synthesis is possible though.
Plasma activated water [PAW] nitrate synthesis is possible though.
PLEASE tell us about PAW.Edit:
Coming from a facilities maintenance perspective, pay attention to maintainability. Filters have to be changed, pumps and such have to be replace, repaired and serviced. Belt drives wear out, gears get fouled (especially in a dusty environment), etc. Consider space for access ladders, platforms, hoists to lift up equipment and lower down equipment. ......
seems like a good start. Maybe too early in concept to show it in diagrams too access, ladders, pump platforms.
What about making polyurethane? It's a liquid, and requires only C, O, N.I tried mixing polyurethane lacquer with sand - the result is a sort of "plastic concrete". Sand on Mars is readily available, even sorted by size in dunes...
Quote from: gospacex on 05/06/2017 12:07 amWhat about making polyurethane? It's a liquid, and requires only C, O, N.I tried mixing polyurethane lacquer with sand - the result is a sort of "plastic concrete". Sand on Mars is readily available, even sorted by size in dunes...I really like your idea. Following tdperk, we should test it in a vacuum chamber.If this works, the process would readily fit into the modular chemical industry described in the paper I mentioned above . The carbon and oxygen could be derived from an oxygen generator module and the nitrogen would be a byproduct of the 4-step CO2 cleaning process. The production of perc and plastic concrete could be a module unto itself. Would you like to pursue your idea? I could help.
As of this week, the final technical paper was uploaded to AIAA and accepted.
......Congrats to your team for the acceptance, well done. (and a thanks to the NSF reviewers that helped... )That's two years in a row now right? What are you going to do next year?
Will be interesting to see what sort of scale your chem processing might be able to do in the much smaller cargo spaceships that Musk outlined last week at IAC2017.Can your processes scale down and fit in the smaller modules, just at a lessened chem ops capability? Or would some of your processes require the larger process line, say distillation towers, etc.?
Quote from: gospacex on 05/06/2017 12:07 amWhat about making polyurethane? It's a liquid, and requires only C, O, N.I tried mixing polyurethane lacquer with sand - the result is a sort of "plastic concrete". Sand on Mars is readily available, even sorted by size in dunes...Polyurethane is aromatic, so you're going to have to make Benzene or similar at some point.Polyurethane or epoxies are probably essential for industry. Much harder to make than polypropylene, etc, though.
Is polyurethane photo-stable under sunlight? I mean, would it be damaged by sunlight? Couldn't find any info on that so far.. .
Semiconductors are more than Silicon. <snip>I can not think of any reason these elements would NOT be present on Mars, especially in volcanic regions. But they have to be found and extracted.
Big complex chips, maybe, but here is a YouTube video of engineer Jeri Ellsworthorth
If there's some kind of crane assembled to remove / move the chemical processing units, then the satellite deploying version of BFS as cargo to Mars would work pretty well for landing large containerized units like described in the paper/slides. ......It seems the jaw would have to open up more than 90 degrees, and the containerized unit removed somewhat horizontally initially, to clear the top of the BFS, before it can be lifted. Or perhaps only partially as depicted, but the crane would have to unload it both horizontally and vertically at the same time? I'm going to assume the hinge working in Martian gravity will be fine as it would need to work in Earth gravity to load it in the first place before launching things in Earth orbit from it (though possibly assisted externally with support, that could be arranged by assembling similar mechanisms at Mars).
Seems like if the large containers have high usefulness on Mars, the 50 tonne return payload to Earth might be contained in ISS/Shuttle/Drago-type cargo bags and safely secured using some type of military-type strap-down system. All of that gear could be carried to Mars collapsed and compressed. Example:......
See also this thread entitled "Water, Methane, and Oxygen ISRU on Mars" https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40308
The purpose of the unhinged lower panel is to allow the entire heatshield side of the spaceship to be produced as one piece. When we proposed this as an option in the paper, we didn't know that SpaceX would want to develop this capability. Apparently they do.The release of the vessel may be easier on Mars surface. We proposed a "vessel grappler" that could remove the vessel from the side. Also the half-fairing is a removable panel rather than hinged, so it is removed and set aside.Edit: spelling
The purpose of the unhinged lower panel is to allow the entire heatshield side of the spaceship to be produced as one piece. When we proposed this as an option in the paper, we didn't know that SpaceX would want to develop this capability. Apparently they do.
The diagram you show is at a relatively late stage, and there is useful propellant produced well before that many loads are required.
Quote from: Lar on 02/12/2018 12:59 pmThe diagram you show is at a relatively late stage, and there is useful propellant produced well before that many loads are required.So I'm talking about this. It seems to me that it would be justifiable to sacrifice two or three ITS at the first stage to build a complex for the production of fuel at the first stage. And there is no point in bringing to Mars 24 huge storage tanks for fuel storage while expanding this complex. The complex for the production of fuel simultaneously produces raw materials, from which it is possible to make fiberglass and carbon plastics. Using this material it becomes possible to build a building such as a huge hangar for an airship. And in this hangar, it will be possible to build both fuel storage tanks and other large modules necessary for the construction and maintenance of the colony. Large reservoirs with effective thermal insulation will be a mass product for the Martian industry. Therefore it is necessary to learn as soon as possible how to do them locally, from local materials, and not to bring them from Earth.
Quote from: Valerij on 02/13/2018 07:37 amQuote from: Lar on 02/12/2018 12:59 pmThe diagram you show is at a relatively late stage, and there is useful propellant produced well before that many loads are required.So I'm talking about this. It seems to me that it would be justifiable to sacrifice two or three ITS at the first stage to build a complex for the production of fuel at the first stage. And there is no point in bringing to Mars 24 huge storage tanks for fuel storage while expanding this complex. The complex for the production of fuel simultaneously produces raw materials, from which it is possible to make fiberglass and carbon plastics. Using this material it becomes possible to build a building such as a huge hangar for an airship. And in this hangar, it will be possible to build both fuel storage tanks and other large modules necessary for the construction and maintenance of the colony. Large reservoirs with effective thermal insulation will be a mass product for the Martian industry. Therefore it is necessary to learn as soon as possible how to do them locally, from local materials, and not to bring them from Earth. I think the very first plant has to be a single load. That means power, any mining or drilling equipment, any preconditioning, reactors, and in process storage, as well as pumps, plumbing, etc. all have to fit in the cargo hold of a single BFS. The BFS itself can be the tankage, yes.This proposal is for later. Even 2 or 3 loads is later than what you send first. IMHO.
However I think that inflatable tanks without some kind of Bigelow style protective layers might be a bad idea since it would be pretty high risk to chance not having any micrometeorites puncture them. Though even just having a fold out roof above the inflated tank would probably work fine, chances of damage from sideways seem pretty low.
IIRC a NASA survey found there were 395 new craters over 5m (resolution limit of orbiter) on Mars over the course of a year. It's true that could be atypically high, and Mars low pressure means a rock to make a 5m hole would be much smaller than one coming through Earth's atmosphere, but that's a significant number. The question then becomes "How many more were too small to show up on orbiter imagery?" Maybe looking at the "limb" of the atmosphere would show them as they hit the entry interface, but I'm not sure how many orbiters look in that direction.
To a first order, mars atmosphere is 1% as dense as earth.It's 100kg/m^2 or so.This means that asteroids smaller than about 100kg/m^2 or so don't hit the surface at speed, and are mostly or totally burned up or slowed to the point they are falling rocks.For stuff with a density of 4kg/l, this is about 2.5cm.This is sufficiently rare that it's not much of an issue, if you're considering punctures of balloon tanks. in the short term.
Has anyone considered or have there been orbital searches for crude oil on Mars?...... If oil were discovered deep under the Mars surface, it would give Mars bases chemical industry a real shot in the arm! Not to mention being a source of methane.
Quote from: Ionmars on 10/06/2017 12:10 pm......The release of the vessel may be easier on Mars surface. We proposed a "vessel grappler" that could remove the vessel from the side. Also the half-fairing is a removable panel rather than hinged, so it is removed and set aside.......Sorry if this was answered elsewhere, but how would these grapplers or the crane in your paper be delivered to the surface?
......The release of the vessel may be easier on Mars surface. We proposed a "vessel grappler" that could remove the vessel from the side. Also the half-fairing is a removable panel rather than hinged, so it is removed and set aside.......
Quote from: Ionmars on 10/06/2017 12:10 pmThe purpose of the unhinged lower panel is to allow the entire heatshield side of the spaceship to be produced as one piece. When we proposed this as an option in the paper, we didn't know that SpaceX would want to develop this capability. Apparently they do.What are you basing this on?Just the pictures of the hinged 'fairing' of the cargo vehicle?
From my point of view, the concept of the proposed cargo module has two very serious problems. The first is that the production of fuel on Mars must be deployed as quickly as possible, since it is necessary to return the ITS to Earth for the next flight. To allocate a large number of ITS ships exclusively for the delivery of modules of the fuel complex will be difficult. The second problem is that to start working with such a large cargo module it is necessary to have heavy and bulky equipment on Mars. At the initial stage of development of Mars, the availability of such equipment there is unrealistic.......
,,,... It seems to me that most of the elements of the fuel complex are better mounted on the Earth, under the fairing 2-3 copies of the ITS, leaving a passage in the middle. In the central pass, load a nuclear reactor on a cart, a universal transport and construction rover and materials for assembling a fuel complex. For their unloading a small crane, located above the entrance hatch, is necessary. As technological capacities of a fuel complex to use fuel and oxidizer tanks of these ITS, their other capacities. Produced fuel can be directly loaded into the ITS, standing on the launch pad. To this end, next to each of them will need to place a small heat exchanger and supply them with a coolant. As a result, it will be possible to create a fuel complex on Mars in just 2-3 flights of ITS, while ensuring further development of the colony by the energy of the reactor and a small construction and transport infrastructure.
I don't see this "build a chemical industry" proposal as being how the first ISRU fuel is produced, but rather how to ramp up an industry once your (single load?) ISRU plant is producing fuel and oxidizer. The diagram you show is at a relatively late stage, and there is useful propellant produced well before that many loads are required.Your organization certainly makes sense as a possible configuration for the first load pilot plant, though. Whether it's exactly right would be a matter of working the trades and trying to engineer it, but it struck me as not that far off.
Quote from: fortynineundefeated on 02/08/2018 01:30 pmQuote from: Ionmars on 10/06/2017 12:10 pm......The release of the vessel may be easier on Mars surface. We proposed a "vessel grappler" that could remove the vessel from the side. Also the half-fairing is a removable panel rather than hinged, so it is removed and set aside.......Sorry if this was answered elsewhere, but how would these grapplers or the crane in your paper be delivered to the surface? One approach would have us design "kits" of component parts to assemble a large crane or a vessel-grappler. The parts would have to be small enough to fit inside the cargo bay of a BFS/spaceship and must fit through a cargo bay door. (A good reason for doors to be as large as feasible) A small crane would unload parts, as pictured by E. Musk. Components of a large crane pr a VG may require multiple spaceship landings. If cargo modules are employed for early flights, parts would be packed into cargo modules and the modules unloaded by crane or VG. In either case, humans would assemble any large and complicated machine (not self-deployed).
Quote from: Ionmars on 02/28/2018 04:40 am......One approach would have us design "kits" of component parts to assemble a large crane or a vessel-grappler. The parts would have to be small enough to fit inside the cargo bay of a BFS/spaceship and must fit through a cargo bay door. (A good reason for doors to be as large as feasible) A small crane would unload parts, as pictured by E. Musk. Components of a large crane pr a VG may require multiple spaceship landings. If cargo modules are employed for early flights, parts would be packed into cargo modules and the modules unloaded by crane or VG. In either case, humans would assemble any large and complicated machine (not self-deployed). ... ...On earth, very large crawler cranes are put together from road transportable pieces using smaller cranes that are themselves road transportable. So talking to crane manufacturers (rather than say, LockMart, who will want 1.5M USD to tell you that yes, you want your crane to be modular) might bear a lot of fruit. The operating environment might be different but they are already used to the notion of making equipment easy to assemble in the field without a lot of tools or complex support equipment. So the shipboard crane unloads a rover mounted crane (which had lots of supplies packed around it in transit) which then is used to assemble a larger crane, etc. as well as other port equipment.
......One approach would have us design "kits" of component parts to assemble a large crane or a vessel-grappler. The parts would have to be small enough to fit inside the cargo bay of a BFS/spaceship and must fit through a cargo bay door. (A good reason for doors to be as large as feasible) A small crane would unload parts, as pictured by E. Musk. Components of a large crane pr a VG may require multiple spaceship landings. If cargo modules are employed for early flights, parts would be packed into cargo modules and the modules unloaded by crane or VG. In either case, humans would assemble any large and complicated machine (not self-deployed). ... ...
Maybe John Alan knows someone that knows someone? (He works at CAT)
Wouldn't a large tele-handler make more sense as a machine to load and unload BFS?... Obviously one made for OP in a no air environment... electric drive, etc...Here is a generic one in action to get the basic concept across...
Amazing development. Maybe their process could surpass the Sabatier process for producing CH4 from CO2 and H2?Who in NASA should the new startup company contact? Added: Sabatier reaction has the advantage of being exothermic. Excess heat can be used to drive the electrolysis process that splits H2O to produce H2 used in Sabatier process. That's why we suggested placing the two processes together in the same reactor-module. May be difficult for any new process to beat this combination, energy-wise.
Added: Sabatier reaction has the advantage of being exothermic.
https://phys.org/news/2018-03-startup-scales-carbon-nanotube-membranes.htmlAn interesting possibility for a Mars Chemical Industry/ ISRU.
So talking to crane manufacturers (rather than say, LockMart, who will want 1.5M USD to tell you that yes, you want your crane to be modular) might bear a lot of fruit.
Quote from: Ludus on 03/12/2018 11:14 pmhttps://phys.org/news/2018-03-startup-scales-carbon-nanotube-membranes.htmlAn interesting possibility for a Mars Chemical Industry/ ISRU.It may be a useful development. But something is off. You can not just send CO2 and water through a membrane and get a hydrocarbon as a result. You need energy to drive the process. As much or really more energy than can be gained by burning that hydrocarbon. Otherwise it would be a perpetual motion machine.Maybe it is just bad reporting by phys.org but it makes it suspect.
"This technology gives us a level of control over the material world that we've never had before," said Mattershift Founder and CEO, Dr. Rob McGinnis. "We can choose which molecules can pass through our membranes and what happens to them when they do. For example, right now we're working to remove CO2 from the air and turn it into fuels. This has already been done using conventional technology, but it's been too expensive to be practical. Using our tech, I think we'll be able to produce carbon-zero gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels that are cheaper than fossil fuels."
Quote from: Ionmars on 03/14/2018 07:37 pmAdded: Sabatier reaction has the advantage of being exothermic. .....Exothermic means inherently lossy. If the heat can be used elsewhere it mitigates the initial loss. But the process itself is still lossy.