Author Topic: Proposed ITS Cargo Modules to Initiate a Mars Chemical Industry  (Read 3293 times)

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7292
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 4180
  • Likes Given: 2854
might be proprietary or under patent review so he may not be able to give a lot of detail, but yes please
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 601
  • Liked: 201
  • Likes Given: 78
It would also be interesting to see how the different proposed Farings of an ITS Cargo Variant would work for alternative ITS missions and uses other than Mars. Like deploying satellite constellations, Bigelow modules or other spacecraft in earth orbit, outer solar system missions etc.

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1249
  • United States
  • Liked: 1364
  • Likes Given: 1818
PLEASE tell us about PAW.

Edit:  :)

See attached white paper from one of the inventors. The table on page 5 is of particular interest. PAW isn't the only technology, but it's by far the simplest with the least damaging process. The electricity use is higher than Haber-Bosch, but in a martian context, electricity use isn't as big a factor as getting feedstock and not damaging your extremely small enclosed system.
Bring the thunder Elon!

Offline CraigLieb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Dallas Fort Worth
  • Liked: 576
  • Likes Given: 584
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.

The shell of the container creates a barrier to entry which helps protect against environmental issues, but also requires access doors to ingress and bring in/out equipment.

Unknowns are all around you like what does this equipment work like in a different atmosphere, with different gravity?  At least make a head-nod in the plan and diagrams to a pump/equipment room, access issues, etc. This would go a long way towards making the modules look more realistic.

Why have a separate half shell on ITS?  Would you consider making the side wall (top half) of the module the outer skin of ITS and have it be removable/replaceable. This makes access to the module much easier. The residents can use sheeting temporarily, and then material constructed on Mars from these other chemicals to enclose the open modules. The half shell is could then be replaced on the ITS and returned to Earth, saving the weight of double walls.  for that matter, the whole module could be more like a ribbed cage which has sections for securing the wrapped wall material which will be constructed on Mars. This saves a lot of weight.



Applicant for Astronaut Candidate for class of 2017 - Colonize Mars!

Offline Ionmars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
  • North Carolina, USA
    • The Mars Pioneer
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 325
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.
...
...
You are right on target. We addressed the maintenance and acces issue in our Jan draft  Here is an excerpt from the section regarding a Sabatier-Electrolysis module:

"To extrapolate the production rate of a small Sabatier unit to an ITS reactor module, one requires a linear volumetric expansion factor (F). This assumes that a compact plumbing arrangement will be found for the SE Module that is comparable to the plumbing efficiency of the prototype unit. Any near-term advances in design technology are not considered. Of the 1860 m3 volume of the SE module one may allocate 600 m3 for crew access for maintenance and for additional plumbing to tie together multiple reactors (Estimate by the Author). Thus we have
FCH4 = 1260 m3 / 1.571 m3 = 802."

Do you think this is adequate?
I am updating this section III, subsections C and D this week with revised module volumes. Do you have ideas about how to arrange equipment for maintenance access? 
Edit: Does anyone?
« Last Edit: 03/10/2017 02:49 PM by Ionmars »
* Mars is the Malevolent Mistress, not the Good Mother Earth *

Offline CraigLieb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Dallas Fort Worth
  • Liked: 576
  • Likes Given: 584
seems like a good start.
Maybe too early in concept to show it in diagrams too access, ladders, pump platforms.
Applicant for Astronaut Candidate for class of 2017 - Colonize Mars!

Offline Ionmars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
  • North Carolina, USA
    • The Mars Pioneer
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 325
seems like a good start.
Maybe too early in concept to show it in diagrams too access, ladders, pump platforms.
You are right. When one of these types of cargo vessels is adopted by SpaceX there will be 33 module variations to design in detail!  :)
* Mars is the Malevolent Mistress, not the Good Mother Earth *

Tags: