Author Topic: Mars To Go  (Read 82901 times)

Offline guru

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 33
Mars To Go
« on: 10/29/2010 05:18 pm »
I made a presentation at a conference earlier this year for a very near term, theoretically low cost manned Mars mission.  It's little more than flags and footprints and it only carries one astronaut, but we have the the technology (and even many of the spacecraft components) available for it today.  Later missions would obviously need to be larger, but this idea is a stop gap for the time between the end of the shuttle program and the start of whatever large exploration program is supposed to eventually follow it.

When I made this plan, President Obama had just barely "canceled" the Constellation program, so the rockets used are of the 25-30 tonne to LEO type, but an SLS type vehicle with an appropriate upper stage could do this mission in one launch.  The astronaut would in that case still just spend the first year or so waiting in orbit for the ascent propellant to be produced, but he/she would probably do this anyway just because the surface stay is only 3-5 days while the orbital stay is a total of 18 months.  As it is, the presented concept follows more of a Mars Direct style plan, where the propellant is produced on Mars prior to the actual lift-off from Earth.

I specified a basic Dragon capsule for the crew transfer vehicle.  While using a 4-5 tonne Bigelow style habitat with a Project Mercury/Gemini sized capsule for Earth re-entry would probably be a better approach, there is currently no Mercury capsule available.

All things considered, though, the most important part of this plan isn't the rockets or the in space transfer vehicles (you can use anything available for those), it is the Mars lander and ascent systems, which are limited to 900 kg payloads available with the MSL skycrane, because MSL represents the state of the art for Mars entry, descent, and landing technology. The ability to land larger payloads will eventually require expensive research and development programs - we've been living off of the technology developed for the Viking landers for 35 years now just because such a research program is so expensive.

All of the three vehicles that do need to be developed for the prensented plan (the manned lander/rover, the in space propulsion methane/oxygen stage, and the ascent stage systems) have a dry mass betweeen 400 and 750 kg, so the cost should be comparatively low.

Please forgive the crudity of some of the 3-D images, especially the water/spotlight looking rocket exhaust plumes.  I was working with a low end animation software program that doesn't have a built-in particle system - I traded off that capability with other programs for simplified texturing - and I'm not a professional computer modeler besides.

Finally, understand that I do not expect a real mission to follow this outline.  (Improvements in safety would definitely need to be considered, for one thing). My goal was simply to see what we could do without having to develop technologies like nuclear space systems or 100 tonne landers.  Hopefully, this will spark some thoughts about how to do simplified Mars missions and particularly about how to get back from Mars.  The pdf of the conference presentation is attached. Enjoy!

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Mars To Go
« Reply #1 on: 10/29/2010 06:11 pm »
As it is, the presented concept follows more of a Mars Direct style plan, where the propellant is produced on Mars prior to the actual lift-off from Earth.
There have been no demos of ISRU ever, in the history of spaceflight.
The TRL of martian propellant production is what, 3 or 4?

That kills your proposal right there.

Before ISRU propellant production is demoed on an unmanned mission, its just not a sane approach.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2010 06:11 pm by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Mars To Go
« Reply #2 on: 10/29/2010 07:13 pm »
Hey, solar power and gravity assists have been demonstrated! ;)

Also, isn't it the case that Mars "Direct" et al.--that is practically all conventional Mars architectures--also rely on ISRU propellant production as a critical path element of the very first proposed mission?
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Mars To Go
« Reply #3 on: 10/29/2010 07:18 pm »
Yeah, but this was supposed to be something we could do now, without any significant development.  Mars ISRU fails that criterion.

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Mars To Go
« Reply #4 on: 10/29/2010 07:23 pm »
Yeah, but this was supposed to be something we could do now, without any significant development.  Mars ISRU fails that criterion.

I actually agree, but Mars Direct is also supposed to be something that can be done "now".
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Mars To Go
« Reply #5 on: 10/29/2010 07:25 pm »
Yeah, but this was supposed to be something we could do now, without any significant development.  Mars ISRU fails that criterion.

I actually agree, but Mars Direct is also supposed to be something that can be done "now".
Martian ISRU is rather easy, actually, since you can grab the oxygen (and fuel, actually) right from the air anywhere on the planet. This technique has been demonstrated, but not on the surface of Mars.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Mars To Go
« Reply #6 on: 10/29/2010 07:28 pm »
Yeah, but this was supposed to be something we could do now, without any significant development.  Mars ISRU fails that criterion.

I actually agree, but Mars Direct is also supposed to be something that can be done "now".
Martian ISRU is rather easy, actually, since you can grab the oxygen (and fuel, actually) right from the air anywhere on the planet. This technique has been demonstrated, but not on the surface of Mars.

TRL < 5 . Period.

Which, to me means only one thing : stop campaigning for manned martian sorties. Start campaigning for ISRU tech shakeout missions.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Mars To Go
« Reply #7 on: 10/29/2010 08:48 pm »
Yeah, but this was supposed to be something we could do now, without any significant development.  Mars ISRU fails that criterion.

I actually agree, but Mars Direct is also supposed to be something that can be done "now".
Martian ISRU is rather easy, actually, since you can grab the oxygen (and fuel, actually) right from the air anywhere on the planet. This technique has been demonstrated, but not on the surface of Mars.

TRL < 5 . Period.

Which, to me means only one thing : stop campaigning for manned martian sorties. Start campaigning for ISRU tech shakeout missions.
I don't disagree.

Of course, we must cancel those sorts of missions to feed short-term political interests. Am I still allowed to say that?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Mars To Go
« Reply #8 on: 10/29/2010 08:52 pm »
Yeah, but this was supposed to be something we could do now, without any significant development.  Mars ISRU fails that criterion.

I actually agree, but Mars Direct is also supposed to be something that can be done "now".
Martian ISRU is rather easy, actually, since you can grab the oxygen (and fuel, actually) right from the air anywhere on the planet. This technique has been demonstrated, but not on the surface of Mars.

What do you mean by "demonstrated"? A lab tabletop demonstration on Earth's atmosphere doesn't prove much more than the theoretical enthalpy of formation of CO2...
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Mars To Go
« Reply #9 on: 10/29/2010 09:52 pm »
What do you mean by "demonstrated"? A lab tabletop demonstration on Earth's atmosphere doesn't prove much more than the theoretical enthalpy of formation of CO2...
The very definition of TRL 4

EDIT: to be more constructive :

http://www.isruinfo.com/docs/srr8/muscatello_et_al_nov_1.zip
http://www.isruinfo.com/docs/srr8/diaz_et_al_oct_31.zip

The newest reports i could find on the topic.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2010 09:57 pm by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Mars To Go
« Reply #10 on: 10/29/2010 10:07 pm »
What do you mean by "demonstrated"? A lab tabletop demonstration on Earth's atmosphere doesn't prove much more than the theoretical enthalpy of formation of CO2...
The very definition of TRL 4
Luckily, though, we won't have to dig up any Martian ice.

Although with an efficient ECLSS with lots of margin, it may be possible to just bring in dirty (Martian) ice into the pressurized section, let the water evaporate, then shovel the dirt out of the airlock... if you have an efficient airlock and an efficient ECLSS that's able to recycle water vapor and also split it into oxygen, this would allow you to take advantage of martian (or maybe even lunar) ice without having a dedicated ISRU system. Just a thought... (Of course, there are risks to doing it this way, but it might be an interesting backup option, once we find and land near large off-world deposits of ice.)

EDIT:Actually, can't the ISS ECLSS already do this, supposing there was a bunch of ice stored outside ISS (neglecting loss of nitrogen)?
« Last Edit: 10/29/2010 10:16 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Mars To Go
« Reply #11 on: 10/29/2010 10:13 pm »
All the speculation doesn't change the fact that _any_ ISRU hasnt ever gone beyond TRL4.
Which effectively kills the concept.

And if anyone wants to help the cause along, the most productive way would be to put together a cheap, reasonably priced proposal ( say, less than $200M lander ) that would actually fly an ISRU demo, and optionally light a rocket on Mars using the produced propellant.

Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Mars To Go
« Reply #12 on: 10/29/2010 10:22 pm »
All the speculation doesn't change the fact that _any_ ISRU hasnt ever gone beyond TRL4.
Which effectively kills the concept.

And if anyone wants to help the cause along, the most productive way would be to put together a cheap, reasonably priced proposal ( say, less than $200M lander ) that would actually fly an ISRU demo, and optionally light a rocket on Mars using the produced propellant.
Again, I agree. I think people have thought of doing ISRU on Mars Sample Return, correct?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Mars To Go
« Reply #13 on: 10/29/2010 10:27 pm »
Yes, thought yes.
But take a look at this
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/Aurora/iMARS_Report_July2008.pdf

MSR is a science mission. There is NO WAY the scientific community is going to risk their $5-7billion once-in a lifetime mission ( thats the ticket price of the above ) on something as unproven as Martian ISRU propellant.

Hence, its not in the concept.

EDIT: Its also not in the latest NASA reference MSR design
« Last Edit: 10/29/2010 10:30 pm by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Mars To Go
« Reply #14 on: 10/29/2010 10:42 pm »
For a Mars mission You could always try copying the Project M proposals.
http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/future

Replace Robonaut with an ISRU unit and upgrade the lander for Mars.  Actually having a budget would help as well.  It is time some of the RATS hardware flew.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Mars To Go
« Reply #15 on: 10/29/2010 10:49 pm »
Actually having a budget would help as well.  It is time some of the RATS hardware flew.
Which gets back to : SMD wont fund it, ESMD wont fund it, both have other priorities. ( and budget holes )

Wanna bet how many actual missions from the responses of this RFI actually will get funding ?
« Last Edit: 10/29/2010 10:53 pm by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline guru

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Mars To Go
« Reply #16 on: 10/30/2010 05:11 am »
Yeah, but this was supposed to be something we could do now, without any significant development.  Mars ISRU fails that criterion.

Well, not so much now as in the near term.  The first asteroid mission is supposed to be in 2025 according to current draft plans.  I designed this to go with the 2016 and 2018 launch windows, being fully aware that ISRU was not at TRL 5 or better.  However, something needs to be developed for a manned Mars mission or we would have already gone there at least once.  The cheapest and fastest technology out of the possible list to develop is atmospheric ISRU, that being far cheaper than 30 tonne (or even 3 tonne) landers, which is the only alternative if you don't use ISRU.

Offline guru

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: Mars To Go
« Reply #17 on: 10/30/2010 05:23 am »
[quote author=guru link=topic=23169.msg653268#msg653268
There have been no demos of ISRU ever, in the history of spaceflight.
The TRL of martian propellant production is what, 3 or 4?

That kills your proposal right there.

Before ISRU propellant production is demoed on an unmanned mission, its just not a sane approach.

It will be tested on an unmanned mission; the ascent systems go to Mars unmanned two years early, and the ISRU propellant production would be tested and proven before anyone ever left Earth.

These are also small systems in comparison to those considered for Mars Direct or NASA DRMs, being based on the Hireus study done at the Univeristy of Washington.  The propellant production requirement is only 3-4 kg/day per propellant unit (two total).

The thing is, without a mission to support, the drive to fund a development program to completion is reduced.  I don't like putting technology development programs on the critical path to a mission, but atmospheric ISRU, in spite of it low TRL, is still comparatively simple and will be required for any sane Mars mission anyway.  The biggest challenge would be the compressor, and it turns out that roots vacuum pumps are quite compact and nearly ideal for working between Mars atmospheric pressure and the working pressure of a propellant factory.
« Last Edit: 10/30/2010 02:50 pm by guru »

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Mars To Go
« Reply #18 on: 10/30/2010 11:11 pm »
  I don't like putting technology development programs on the critical path to a mission, but atmospheric ISRU, in spite of it low TRL, is still comparatively simple and will be required for any sane Mars mission anyway.

There is no need to have the initial missions rely on ISRU as part of their critical path.

Also, why sniff for methane when there is water in the soil practically everywhere that could be converted to high Isp LH2/LO2?
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Mars To Go
« Reply #19 on: 10/30/2010 11:56 pm »

Also, why sniff for methane when there is water in the soil practically everywhere that could be converted to high Isp LH2/LO2?

Better thrust and easier storage could be two very good reasons to choose methane over hydrogen.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0