Author Topic: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3  (Read 348165 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #180 on: 04/06/2015 02:58 am »
Yeah, Argon is better than Xenon due to the high flight rate (Xenon is better technically but is much rarer). And really, with thousands of flights per yer, Xenon isn't an option (it'd require a thousand times the current Xenon production rate to keep up)
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

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #181 on: 04/06/2015 04:33 pm »
That's what I thought, so it seems more research and development should be done using argon.  I know MCT might not be electric, but using what is currently available upsized, how big an area would the solar panels be to move a 100-200 ton MCT to Mars and back? 

Seems like flight adjustment thrusters would be great using electric-argon since hypergols are dangerous with a lot of human interaction and a lot of transfers to Mars. 
« Last Edit: 04/06/2015 04:35 pm by spacenut »

Offline Vultur

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 184
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #182 on: 04/10/2015 05:23 am »
Regarding 'what is and is not necessary' for the complete MCT spacecraft: I've been hearing figures for VASMIR-powered flight to Mars of around 5 or 6 weeks one-way. With this sort of flight duration, is any kind of gravity simulation of the spacecraft strictly necessary, especially assuming that, in between transfer orbits, the crew would be spending most or all of their time on Mars's surface?

I don't think it's necessary even at 8 months. Maybe even a negative - you can get more use out of limited space in zero-g.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #183 on: 04/10/2015 11:53 am »
FWIW, I'm still thinking of two distinct crewed flight modes:

The first would use a Raptor cluster for TMI and the MCT's own engines for ROI and would sacrifice payload weight for fuel bunkerage.

The second would have a separate electric propulsion module that would stage from EML-2 and remain in the same orbital altitude as Phobos at Mars. The advantage of the second option would be more of the internal volume could be used for crew, consumables and cargo. Electric propulsion is high-reliability so eliminating large enough propellent tanks for a chemical ROI would be low risk.

The main uncrewed flight mode would resemble the first crewed flight mode and would be used for one-way cargo delivery. The inside of the MCT would be almost entirely stripped out in favour of cargo racks, pressurised cargo pods or a composite-hulled habitat module.

The MCT itself would be an aerodynamic configuration not dissimilar to the X-37 in shape but with folding fins and wings. Its primary propulsion system would be eight Merlin-M in four dual clusters at the four corners. The aft two clusters can be vectored aft or down. The TPS will be designed for Earth EDL; the design would allow a certain degree of gliding performance but would still require either ditching at sea or a propulsive landing on Earth. Due to Mars's thin atmosphere, Martian EDL would be all-propulsive.

All launches would be identical with a BFR. The only significant differences would be in the tasking of the Raptor VAC upper stage. If there is the mission has an electric propulsion module, then the U/S will only need to send the MCT to EML-2, meaning that it can lift more payload into the LEO parking orbit.

I just love the thought of watching a 10m-diameter stub-winged spacecraft setting down on the shuttle landing strip. Shades of Thunderbirds!

[Edit]
Forgot to mention: The Flight Deck and passenger launch cabin would be in the nose of the MCT. Underneath the aerodynamic shell this element would be a scaled-up Dragon that can be ejected from the MCT in the event of an emergency during ascent from Earth and would allow for the crew to return to Mars's surface (and the colony) in the event of a serious failure in Mars orbit.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2015 12:18 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #184 on: 04/10/2015 12:34 pm »
FWIW, I'm still thinking of two distinct crewed flight modes:

Its primary propulsion system would be eight Merlin-M in four dual clusters at the four corners.

I don't agree with the lifting body idea - I really don't think it adds much in the way of functionality and might create a lot more structural trouble than it is worth. Yeah, lifting bodies are cool and I'd also love to see a Thunderbird in real life. However, Thunderbirds didn't really exhibit the world's best understanding of physics when it came to spacecraft. Or aircraft. Or minisubs. However, I'm interested by the "Merlin-M" concept.

What kind of specs are you thinking for this, Ben? I'm assuming the "M" stands for "Methane" here.
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #185 on: 04/10/2015 12:42 pm »
What kind of specs are you thinking for this, Ben? I'm assuming the "M" stands for "Methane" here.

Yeah, basically a Merlin-VAC but using LCH4 as its propellent.

The objective specifications of Merlin-M would be about the same thrust with about 360s-380s vacuum impulse. It's possible that eight engines for landing and early ascent is excessive but, if so, it at least provides a degree of redundancy.

Raptor is probably going to be a very big engine at least in terms of volume and it might not be practical to fit it to MCT itself. If that is the case, then Merlin-M steps in as a 'baby Raptor'.

FWIW, it is important not to overstate my MCT concept's lift-generating capability. It is never more than 'controlled fall' and is meant to allow for steering in the event of having to navigate through weather on approach and give the flight crew a few options in the event they need to find an alternate LZ. As it is VL, that could potentially be anywhere suitably size, such as a large enough (empty) parking lot. Most of the aerodynamics are intended to allow for the maximum volume utilisation from a 10m-barrel LV without having to squeeze the mission vehicle inside a PLF.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2015 12:46 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #186 on: 04/10/2015 12:48 pm »

Yeah, basically a Merlin-VAC but using LCH4 as its propellent.

The objective specifications of Merlin-M would be about the same thrust with about 360s-380s vacuum impulse. It's possible that eight engines for landing and early ascent is excessive but, if so, it at least provides a degree of redundancy.

Raptor is probably going to be a very big engine at least in terms of volume and it might not be practical to fit it to MCT itself. If that is the case, then Merlin-M steps in as a 'baby Raptor'.

Oh wow! Kudos for the zippy response time.  :D

That makes a lot of sense - it seems reasonable to apply the "Lots of engines = redundancy" principle for the MTC if you're going do do the same for the LV. Besides, SpaceX already has experience with getting 9+ engines to work coherently without much in the way of mishap, so that's a sound idea there. I wouldn't be too shocked if that is what comes to fruition.

A dual engine landing would be an interesting thing to witness, to be sure (with possibly/probably more for Earth landing, I'm not sure how it scales).

Edit: Aaah, I've got you. Apologies, I misread your first statement.

Giving the MTC more aero control whilst returning through the Earth's atmosphere would certainly be intriguing - I can imagine the footage of it reorienting for the terminal burn - would certainly be majestic.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2015 12:54 pm by The Amazing Catstronaut »
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 983
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #187 on: 04/15/2015 12:41 am »
I'll speculate that the 1st stage of the BFR or MCT or whatever it's called will look thick & squat compared to the Falcon 9 pencil.  More stable as a vertical landing vehicle.  I'm in for >10meters diameter as well.  If you're gonna put up a craft capable of carrying 50-100 people for months to Mars, a tiny tube is not a good design starting point.  Yes, I'm aware of Bigelow.
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #188 on: 04/15/2015 10:52 am »
@philw1776,

Maybe this is me but I see the BFR (the Raptor-powered launch vehicle) and the MCT as two distinct projects and two distinct vehicles. The BFR (which I think of as 'Condor') is basically just a 120-ish t IMLEO launcher. MCT is the payload.

Look at pictures of the hypothetical 'Falcon-XX' and add Falcon-style landing legs and you've got a good idea of what BFR looks like. What MCT will look like is anyone's guess. It could be quite an elaborate design, straight out of Space: 1999 if it launches in a PLF.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2641
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 949
  • Likes Given: 2056
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #189 on: 04/15/2015 11:09 am »
Look at pictures of the hypothetical 'Falcon-XX' and add Falcon-style landing legs and you've got a good idea of what BFR looks like. What MCT will look like is anyone's guess. It could be quite an elaborate design, straight out of Space: 1999 if it launches in a PLF.

That would be awesome. Elrond Musk, make it so!

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #190 on: 04/15/2015 02:37 pm »
I too think a short wide BFR and MCT would be able to land better without toppling over.  Also I like the idea of say electric tugs going from ELM 2 to high Mars orbit and back.  A Falcon Heavy could bring argon propellant to resupply the tug and either another one, or a BFR would take cargo to the tug.  The MCT would be for human transport only along with some food/water supplies.  The tug to take a 100 tons of cargo or cargo MCT to Mars slowly even during a long trips when humans are not in the 6 month window.  Colonization cargo could be carried on a continuous bases with ISRU equipment, soil moving equipment, mining equipment, smelting equipment, solar arrays, etc.  Even high Mars orbit solar panels parallel with the Mars sun orbit for continuous electricity that could be beamed to a colony at night using microwaves or lasers.  So I think the MCT could do far more than just go to Mars and come back during a 6 month window, but during off months the tug infrastructure could be put in place with non perishable cargo transported once this infrastructure is in place.  NASA could pay to use it also. 
« Last Edit: 04/15/2015 03:05 pm by spacenut »

Offline sheltonjr

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #191 on: 04/15/2015 02:58 pm »
 ;D It drives me crazy! Seems like half the posts about the MCT cannot get the acronym right. How hard is it to spell MTC???  ;D

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #192 on: 04/15/2015 03:05 pm »
Fixed it. 

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #193 on: 04/16/2015 12:35 am »
@philw1776,

Maybe this is me but I see the BFR (the Raptor-powered launch vehicle) and the MCT as two distinct projects and two distinct vehicles. The BFR (which I think of as 'Condor') is basically just a 120-ish t IMLEO launcher. MCT is the payload.

Look at pictures of the hypothetical 'Falcon-XX' and add Falcon-style landing legs and you've got a good idea of what BFR looks like. What MCT will look like is anyone's guess. It could be quite an elaborate design, straight out of Space: 1999 if it launches in a PLF.

As I've posted over on the Raptor thread, I think you are on the right track for it's overall size. 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34197.msg1357465#msg1357465

120mt-ish, Saturn V-class.  But I disagree that BFR and MCT will be two different things.  I think they'll be an integrated system, not unlike STS.  STS wasn't an LV and a spacecraft, it was a whole system that flew together.  That's why we've never heard any seperate name for the booster.  It's always just been referred to as by SpaceX and Elon as "MCT".  And in fact, in Elon's Reddit interview, he basically said that here:

Quote
Question:
Mars. Could you please clarify what the Mars Colonial Transporter actually is? Is it a crew module like Dragon, a launch vehicle like Falcon, or a mix of both? Does it have inflatable components? Is MCT just a codename?
  Elon's Answer:
 
The Mars transport system will be a completely new architecture. Am hoping to present that towards the end of this year. Good thing we didn't do it sooner, as we have learned a huge amount from Falcon and Dragon.

He also makes reference to there being just a booster using the sea level version of Raptor, and the spaceship using the vacuum version of Raptor.  While I suppose he could mean a two-stage stack when he says "booster", typical reference to booster just meanst he 1st stage, so I take this to mean MCT is a two stage integrated system, with the spacecraft integrated onto the upper stage, and BLEO missions are staged in LEO where that spacecraft is fueled up.
Think of a Saturn INT-21, where a spacecraft and TPS system (and landing legs) were integrated into the S-II stage. 
If the spacecraft is part of the stage and not a payload, the dry mass of the stage is included in the LEO capability.  The Saturn INT-21 could have put nearly 120mt payload into LEO.  The drymass of the S-II was about 45mt.  That means if Saturn INT-21 was an MCT, it could place 165mt in LEO. 
So what sort of capability could such an S-II sized spacecraft/stage fueled all the way up in LEO have?

Someone could model that accurately, but to do just a quick and dirty comparative analysis.
 
The S-IVB could get 45mt plus it's own dry mass of 16mt, plus whatever residuals were left in it at separation, through TLI, obviously.   That's 61mt+ (depending on the mass of residuals).
And that would be more if the S-IVB didn't need to do the final part of the ascent burn that it needed to do while flying on the while Saturn V stack.  So it wasn't fully fueled while in LEO, prior to the TLI burn.  If it way, maybe it's total TLI would be closer to 70mt?  Let's assume 70mt if fully fueled in LEO for an example.

The S-II carried about 4.2X more propellant than the S-IVB, and had a little better mass fraction.  So 4.2X the TLI capacty of the S-IVB (including it's own dry mass) would be about 294mt (assuming close to 70mt through TLI for a fully fueled S-IVB in LEO).  The S-IVB and S-II used the same engine with the same impulse, so I think that's a reasonable comparison.
And I think TMI capacity of a stage is around 80-82% of TLI?  So assuming 80%, that's 235mt through TMI.   That'd allow for a 135mt MCT and 100mt of useful payload.
Raptor will be about 40s less impulse than the S-II's J2 engines, so that 235mt would need to be derated for that, but for example if you derate say 20% (guess) for that lower impulse, that's still 188mt total.  An 88mt Spacecraft and 100mt of payload.  That's still very plausible.  The spacecraft could be lighter than that even.  The lighter the spacecraft and smaller MCT's booster needs to be to get it up into LEO with stowed cargo.

Again, that's just a rough example, but now we are talking about a stack more in the class Saturn INT-21, with maybe 15 Raptors (7.5Mlbs of thrust total), rather than something double that size or more with 30 Raptors or more as some of speculated.
15 Raptors would also make a fairly good MPS.  15 around with a central engine that should be able to handle the dry mass of the stage by itself.  500,000lbs of thrust can just barely hover a 226mt dy mass core core.  And I doubt the MCT booster will be that or more if it were to only have 15 engines for 7.5Mlbs of thrust.    The dry mass of the heavy S-1C was only 137mt dry.  So one Raptor should be able to handle it, and be more at the top of it's throttle range, rather than down at the bottom of it.

As MCT will be designed primarily for crews and for going to Mars (not unmanned payloads to GTO), that is a pretty good and neat and simple configuration.  It's reusable, so as long as it can get the minimal dry mass spacecraft into LEO, there's benefit to fly a smaller stack more often, instead of a larger stack less often, to get the economics of reusabilty to work better.

But what if someone has an umanned payload they want to send to escape or GTO?  Well, FH will handle most of that.  If there's an unmanned payload larger than that, MCT could launch with an expendable in-space stage mounted with the payload in a PLF on the nose of MCT.  Fortunately, SpaceX already has such a stage in the Falcon Upper stage.  I imagine it could throw quite a bit of uncrewed mass to GTO or escape if it was delivered fully fueled or mostly fulled fuled to LEO.
So there'd be options there as well. 

That's my current guestimate for MCT anyway, from reading Elon's recently clues.  :-)

Offline dglow

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2067
  • Liked: 2295
  • Likes Given: 4433
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #194 on: 04/16/2015 07:02 am »
In every case, he seems to be saying nuclear is not a particularly amazing option and generally solar is better (safer) or less heavy.

I agree with him (although I don't think nuclear is quite as dangerous as he's implying), for the record. But especially in space, solar is much, much better.

Nowhere does he give a hint that it's a likely fit for MCT, certainly not nuclear-thermal.

One important detail that's often missed: if you need heat, especially on an industrial scale, nuclear is far more efficient than solar. It will be an important power source on Mars.

But agree re: MCT; in space that same heat generation is a liability.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #195 on: 04/16/2015 12:17 pm »
@philw1776,

Maybe this is me but I see the BFR (the Raptor-powered launch vehicle) and the MCT as two distinct projects and two distinct vehicles. The BFR (which I think of as 'Condor') is basically just a 120-ish t IMLEO launcher. MCT is the payload.

Look at pictures of the hypothetical 'Falcon-XX' and add Falcon-style landing legs and you've got a good idea of what BFR looks like. What MCT will look like is anyone's guess. It could be quite an elaborate design, straight out of Space: 1999 if it launches in a PLF.

As I've posted over on the Raptor thread, I think you are on the right track for it's overall size. 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34197.msg1357465#msg1357465

120mt-ish, Saturn V-class.  But I disagree that BFR and MCT will be two different things.  I think they'll be an integrated system, not unlike STS.  STS wasn't an LV and a spacecraft, it was a whole system that flew together.  That's why we've never heard any seperate name for the booster.  It's always just been referred to as by SpaceX and Elon as "MCT".  And in fact, in Elon's Reddit interview, he basically said that here:

I have thought about the 'integrated U/S and payload' option. I'll tell you why I think that a separate upper stage is required: If the BFR core booster is anything like the one on Falcon-9, it will only burn for the first two or so minutes of the flight before RTLS. That will mean that the U/S will need to run for a very long time, around six minutes, just to reach LEO parking orbit. It will require a huge amount of propellent to shift a 100t payload that far. Combine that with the TMI fuel load and you suddenly have only a tiny mass budget left for the mission payload and the MCT will have to be towing around huge and mostly-empty fuel tanks for most of the mission.

A separate upper stage means that you can use Tsilokovsky's cheat to best effect. Dump the second set of ETO (and, for some flight profiles, TMI) tanks and engine so more of the MCT's mass and volume budget can be used for mission payload and in-mission propellent rather than redundant Earth ascent and departure mass and volume. A separate upper stage also allows the BFR to be used as a cargo hauler to launch the SEP propulsion module and other cargo like carrying racks for smaller (5m-diameter or smaller) one-way cargo landers.

[Edit]
Just an additional point about MCT's return to Earth. I've done some admittedly minimal research. Apparently, the largest ever mass returned by parachute is 86,000lbs or about 40t (A Minuteman missile). Depending on how much of that 100t IMLEO mass is used up before re-entry, it is not an engineering impossibility to use a parachute descent with propulsive velocity cancellation at zero feet for MCT!
« Last Edit: 04/16/2015 12:25 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 520
  • Likes Given: 2574
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #196 on: 04/16/2015 12:28 pm »
But you do need those big tanks on the MCT for the fuel for the Mars to Earth trip. Not so different from the second stage functionality.
Also most likely it will be refuelled on it's way to mars anyway, so not THAT big tanks.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #197 on: 04/16/2015 03:35 pm »
Does anyone know how long it takes to liquefy a certain volume of oxygen and methane with existing equipment?

The natural gas company I worked for liquefied gas during the summer when gas was abundant and cheap, but took 3-4 months to liquefy enough for 2 months winter use.  These tanks were very large, around 50-75 meters in diameter, two walls, 3' between the walls where a vacuum was pulled, like a giant thermos bottle.  I wasn't with that group, so I know very little about how much volume they could liquefy in a given time.
Large volume of LNG
See the LNG tankers.
The Grand Aniva carries 36,671 tons of LNG.
Gotta luv a ton of gas. 8)

If they plan on using an LNG carrier for the Methane, I hope that they set up an off shore station for offloading the LNG to the BFR Tank Farm. 
My God!  It's full of universes!

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #198 on: 04/16/2015 04:16 pm »
But you do need those big tanks on the MCT for the fuel for the Mars to Earth trip. Not so different from the second stage functionality.

Not necessarily. Depending on the exact mission plan, MCT may only need enough fuel for MTO (Mars to Orbit).
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2443
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: MCT Speculation and Discussion Thread 3
« Reply #199 on: 04/16/2015 04:20 pm »
But you do need those big tanks on the MCT for the fuel for the Mars to Earth trip. Not so different from the second stage functionality.
Also most likely it will be refuelled on it's way to mars anyway, so not THAT big tanks.

Might be able to drill holes big enough for the tankage in the regolith, and bury them.  Should act as a good insulator.  (Remember, depending upon where you are on Mars, it can get to 77 degrees Fahrenheit in the martian summer).
« Last Edit: 04/16/2015 05:06 pm by JasonAW3 »
My God!  It's full of universes!

Tags:
 

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