Elder scientists work to send humans to MarsGerald Voecks (left), Michael Hecht (second from left), and Jeff Hoffman (right) are working on technology to turn carbon dioxide into oxygen on Mars“Look, I’m 80 years old — I might be dead before this project is over. Who knows!” said Donald Rapp, an energetic member of the team who has been retired from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory for more than a decade.
The Mars Oxygen ISRU Experiment (MOXIE) Michael H. Hecht, Donald R. Rapp, and Jeffrey A. Hoffmanhttp://ssed.gsfc.nasa.gov/IPM/PDF/1134.pdf
In a human scale Marsmission, the ISRU system would be operated continuouslyin a steady state without interruption for manymonths, adapting autonomously to atmospheric variability(temperature, pressure, dust). Such a full-scalesystem would produce roughly 25-30 metric tons of O2during the ~17-month period between arrival of theISRU system and ascent vehicle on Mars, and the decisionto launch the human crew at the next launch opportunity.This requires a production rate of approximately2.2 kg/hr.The SOXE architecture is a stack of cells, arrangedvertically like a multi-story building. The two MOXIEstacks each utilize 11 cells. An assembly of 100 stacks,each containing 20 MOXIE-sized cells, would produce>2 kg/hr of O2 with an energy investment of ~12 kW.A full-size CO2 acquisition system requires 8 kg/hrof martian atmosphere, ~0.14 m3/s at 7 mbar.
Because everyone likes ISRUQuoteElder scientists work to send humans to MarsGerald Voecks (left), Michael Hecht (second from left), and Jeff Hoffman (right) are working on technology to turn carbon dioxide into oxygen on Mars“Look, I’m 80 years old — I might be dead before this project is over. Who knows!” said Donald Rapp, an energetic member of the team who has been retired from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory for more than a decade.https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/02/08/elder-statesmen-science-unite-for-mars-mission/N5sZQqOEuhKC56rdtE4uPN/story.htmlThe Mars Oxygen ISRU Experiment (MOXIE) Michael H. Hecht, Donald R. Rapp, and Jeffrey A. Hoffmanhttp://ssed.gsfc.nasa.gov/IPM/PDF/1134.pdfMars ISRU for Production of Mission Critical Consumables – Options, Recent Studies, and Current State of the Art - Jerry Sandershttp://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150016009.pdfhttp://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/file_download/90/29-Sanders.Mars.ISRU.PP_Sanders.V2.pdfTo add, Rapp has written two books heavily focused on Mars and ISRU technologies.http://www.amazon.com/Extraterrestrial-Resources-Missions-Astronautical-Engineering/dp/3642327613http://www.amazon.com/Human-Missions-Mars-Technologies-Exploring/dp/3540729380
With water ISRU, you have fuel, oxidizer, oxygen for the crew, lots of water for the crew and for maintenance (now you can wash off the dusty spacesuits, wash clothes, clean filters, etc...), and feedstocks for simple plastic production (can make polyethylene and polypropylene from methane and some oxygen, given the right catalysts and reaction chambers).
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/17/2016 02:21 amWith water ISRU, you have fuel, oxidizer, oxygen for the crew, lots of water for the crew and for maintenance (now you can wash off the dusty spacesuits, wash clothes, clean filters, etc...), and feedstocks for simple plastic production (can make polyethylene and polypropylene from methane and some oxygen, given the right catalysts and reaction chambers).Can i refer you to a very recent dissertation called Risk-value optimization of performance and cost for propellant production on Mars that factors in all the previous work, including NASA DRM 3 and DRA 5 studies, everything that Dr. Rapp has written and then some, and does actual modelling and design trades ? The conclusions are well worth a read.And then, lets keep this thread on MOXIE or at least on CO2 solid oxide electrolysis ?
I've seen little analysis about actually using that carbon monoxide as fuel. It seems people either are unaware it's possible, or they're aware but only remember "it has low Isp," dismiss it out of hand as such, and aren't actually aware of a serious trade that incorporates carbon dioxide as a fuel
If solid oxide and MOXIE tech has a real future in the long-term beyond a niche use maybe for ECLSS, then it requires building a capability to use carbon monoxide as a fuel.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/17/2016 03:41 amI've seen little analysis about actually using that carbon monoxide as fuel. It seems people either are unaware it's possible, or they're aware but only remember "it has low Isp," dismiss it out of hand as such, and aren't actually aware of a serious trade that incorporates carbon dioxide as a fuelThen i can only conclude you are not actually interested in the subject. Like i mentioned, CO based rockets have been discarded like 10-15 years ago.
Easily the most referenced comprehensive study:http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/340Rice.pdf
Quote from: savuporo on 10/17/2016 03:59 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 10/17/2016 03:41 amI've seen little analysis about actually using that carbon monoxide as fuel. It seems people either are unaware it's possible, or they're aware but only remember "it has low Isp," dismiss it out of hand as such, and aren't actually aware of a serious trade that incorporates carbon dioxide as a fuelThen i can only conclude you are not actually interested in the subject. Like i mentioned, CO based rockets have been discarded like 10-15 years ago.Without good reason.
I recently saw correspondence with the lead of that effort at Glenn Research Center (as it's now called), and she certainly thought it was still very promising. And the fact that a non-optimized low pressure version has difficulty igniting in one iteration doesn't mean it's inherently a bad propellant to use, I've had problems getting perfectly good propellant combinations to reliably ignite in some combinations. You're grasping at straws trying to find an authoritative rationale for CO's rejection.It wasn't "abandoned" for any good reason. The same excuse pops up almost every time it's rejected: "low Isp."
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/17/2016 05:20 amI recently saw correspondence with the lead of that effort at Glenn Research Center (as it's now called), and she certainly thought it was still very promising. And the fact that a non-optimized low pressure version has difficulty igniting in one iteration doesn't mean it's inherently a bad propellant to use, I've had problems getting perfectly good propellant combinations to reliably ignite in some combinations. You're grasping at straws trying to find an authoritative rationale for CO's rejection.It wasn't "abandoned" for any good reason. The same excuse pops up almost every time it's rejected: "low Isp."It has been evaluated plenty of times, and every time the answer is : engineering complexity of building an actual working rocket engine that would reliably work in any conditions, is very high. That's just in lab on Earth, nevermind Mars. High combustion temperature combined with materials compatibility issues of high temperature CO make it simply unattractive option. Similar reasons why nobody is flying around LF2/LH2 SSTOs.Handwaving.
High combustion temperature? Not according to these calculations (refer to the column labeled "Ctemp").
Can i refer you to a very recent dissertation called Risk-value optimization of performance and cost for propellant production on Mars that factors in all the previous work, including NASA DRM 3 and DRA 5 studies, everything that Dr. Rapp has written and then some, and does actual modelling and design trades ? The conclusions are well worth a read.
One of the risks to MOXIE is the dust in the Martian atmosphere. To protect MOXIEfrom dust, a High Efficiency Particulate Arrestance (HEPA) filter is fitted at the inlet(Fig. 2). However, as the filter accumulates dust, the pressure drop across the filterwill increase. If the pressure drop becomes large enough, there is a risk that the CO2compressor (a scroll pump) will not be able to deliver the required 1 atm outletpressure for electrolysis [2]Although HEPA filters have been widely studied on Earth (e.g. [3]), their performanceunder Martian conditions is less well known. We investigated the effect of dustloading, filtration velocity, and ambient pressure on the filter’s pressure drop.
CONCLUSIONSuspended dust at typical background levels is unlikely to produce a problematicfilter pressure drop during the operational lifetime of MOXIE (30 hours), with marginto 300 hours. However, 30 hours is a small fraction of the total mission, during whichthe filter will be continuously exposed to the environment. Therefore, long-durationtesting is needed to study dust ingestion from landing, winds, dust devils and storms.
High combustion temperature? Not according to these calculations (refer to the column labeled "Ctemp").Attached are two older papers on oxygen-CO, the second of which maps out the conditions under which the combination ignites. There are some tricks to ignition, but it does not seem an insurmountable problem.
I think even Zubrin has abandoned the idea of bringing H2. It was used because at the time they did not know there is so much water on Mars.
TRL is really not applicable here. When we send pepople water from Mars will be used. So the required technology will have to be developed. It is not rocket science.
Are you trying to draw parallels between Cassini and a mining robot that digs through regolith?
Edit: A mining robot designed and built by SpaceX.
Quote from: guckyfan on 04/03/2017 05:57 pmEdit: A mining robot designed and built by SpaceX.Link please! A quick Google reveals only the usual arm waving and hot air.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 04/03/2017 10:14 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 04/03/2017 05:57 pmEdit: A mining robot designed and built by SpaceX.Link please! A quick Google reveals only the usual arm waving and hot air.Try formulating it less rude and I will consider an answer.
Or you could try just answering their very simple request; either way.
Quote from: Rei on 04/04/2017 08:13 amOr you could try just answering their very simple request; either way.Since it is you asking, I will. Mission statements on Red Mars in the IAC presentation. Mission Objectives........Identify and characterize potential resources such as water.........Demonstrate key surface capabilities on Mars.That quite clearly indicates capability to get to water and find out what is mixed into it. Not a stretch from there to a small digging robot. Certainly much less of a stretch than the comparison of Cassini to a basic mining robot.As to the experience of SpaceX. They did the Roomba, they can do a lot of things if they set their mind to it.
So I show a document by SpaceX that says they are planning to do it and you just brush it aside as speculation?
Quote from: guckyfan on 04/04/2017 12:28 pmSo I show a document by SpaceX that says they are planning to do it and you just brush it aside as speculation?You're confusing "planning to do it" with "the technology is mature and / or trivial to mature"
Quote from: Rei on 04/04/2017 03:49 pmQuote from: guckyfan on 04/04/2017 12:28 pmSo I show a document by SpaceX that says they are planning to do it and you just brush it aside as speculation?You're confusing "planning to do it" with "the technology is mature and / or trivial to mature"This is moving beyond ridiculous now. Nobody has landed a mining robot on Mars yet. We all know this. I was talking about plans, I provided the proof for those plans existing. Get over it.
Secondly, the statement that both Dalhousie and myself are contesting from you is " So the required technology will have to be developed. It is not rocket science."It is rocket science. It is not trivial like you make it out to be. Nobody is contesting what SpaceX's plans are. You brought that up on your own and nobody but you has talked about it.
Mining is a very difficult activity on Earth (particularly hard rock mining, aka if you're dealing with permafrost (ice + regolith). Even on Earth, mining and ore processing equipment are very prone to wear and breakdowns. This in environments we have well quantified. What we don't have quantified well is Martian permafrost. What dissolved compounds are in it and in what ratios? How much particulate / debris, and in what size ratios, and how does that vary as you progress through a play with respect to depth and location? How does the play thickness vary? How does sublimation affect things as you work through a play? We know very, very little about what we'd be mining through. Just making a little rock abrasion tool or sampler arm for loose material is challenging enough. And when you're talking about enough ice to make propellant for whole fleets of ITS-sized vehicles, you're talking about large scale mining. Meaning equipment with heavy parts that are hard to replace, and where if you mess up you can knock down a wall or bend important pieces of equipment. Equipment that can kill people.Right now, the TRL for ice mining on Mars is 2-3, according to NASA analyses of the different approaches. There's lots of different approaches proposed. None are remotely mature.
Attached is what i got. Methane burns hotter at stoichiometric mixture, but thats not the only difficulty. Can we maybe move this off to another CO rocketry thread ?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/17/2016 03:41 amI've seen little analysis about actually using that carbon monoxide as fuel. It seems people either are unaware it's possible, or they're aware but only remember "it has low Isp," dismiss it out of hand as such, and aren't actually aware of a serious trade that incorporates carbon dioxide as a fuelThen i can only conclude you are not actually interested in the subject. Like i mentioned, CO based rockets have been discarded like 10-15 years ago. Easily the most referenced comprehensive study:http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/340Rice.pdf
CO is probably a lot more common industrial fuel than people realize (it's the ultimate oxidizer in steel making) but it's not noticed because it doesn't cause trouble and that's because the technology and procedures to handle it (in an industrial environment) are well developed.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 04/07/2017 09:07 amCO is probably a lot more common industrial fuel than people realize (it's the ultimate oxidizer in steel making) but it's not noticed because it doesn't cause trouble and that's because the technology and procedures to handle it (in an industrial environment) are well developed.CO is really neat stuff in general, not just a waste product. It's quite stable at ambient temperatures and pressures, but at elevated temperatures and pressures becomes unstable, even to the point of decomposing to carbon and CO2. Which makes it a natural precursor to the generation of hydrocarbons, since the carbon generated would rather join to almost anything else (hence CO + H2 forming syngas for the production of synfuels). If you want a petrochemical industry on Mars, you want CO.
CO is really neat stuff in general, not just a waste product. It's quite stable at ambient temperatures and pressures, but at elevated temperatures and pressures becomes unstable, even to the point of decomposing to carbon and CO2. Which makes it a natural precursor to the generation of hydrocarbons, since the carbon generated would rather join to almost anything else (hence CO + H2 forming syngas for the production of synfuels). If you want a petrochemical industry on Mars, you want CO.
CO can also be used in a fuel cell and internal combustion engines, both turbines and diesels.
The papers linked above have been presented.http://www.ice2017.net/conference/presentations#thursday
As a fun little side note, Altius got to do the vacuum bakeout on some of the MOXIE hardware a few weeks ago. The company building the motors for the scroll compressors is the same company we selected to do the actuators for the RCS thruster gimbal we're doing for ULA, and they didn't yet have the facilities to do vacuum bakeout in-house, so they paid us to do that for them. Kind of cool to say we had Mars hardware in our facility. ~Jon
Quote from: jongoff on 06/21/2017 03:52 amAs a fun little side note, Altius got to do the vacuum bakeout on some of the MOXIE hardware a few weeks ago. The company building the motors for the scroll compressors is the same company we selected to do the actuators for the RCS thruster gimbal we're doing for ULA, and they didn't yet have the facilities to do vacuum bakeout in-house, so they paid us to do that for them. Kind of cool to say we had Mars hardware in our facility. ~JonA nice demonstration of how companies clustering together around a share resource form an ecosystem. Perhaps the first of many collaborations?
Quote from: john smith 19 on 08/16/2017 07:15 amQuote from: jongoff on 06/21/2017 03:52 amAs a fun little side note, Altius got to do the vacuum bakeout on some of the MOXIE hardware a few weeks ago. The company building the motors for the scroll compressors is the same company we selected to do the actuators for the RCS thruster gimbal we're doing for ULA, and they didn't yet have the facilities to do vacuum bakeout in-house, so they paid us to do that for them. Kind of cool to say we had Mars hardware in our facility. ~JonA nice demonstration of how companies clustering together around a share resource form an ecosystem. Perhaps the first of many collaborations?Nothing new. Ball sends their spacecraft to Lockheed Martin for environmental testing. The same thing happens in SoCal. And there is also the bay area collaboration
Nothing new. Ball sends their spacecraft to Lockheed Martin for environmental testing. The same thing happens in SoCal. And there is also the bay area collaboration
A MOXIE-like system, scaled up several hundred times (2 to 3 kg/hour of oxygen production versus MOXIE’s 6 to 8 g/hour), could produce sufficient oxygen to launch a MAV for a crew arriving one 26-month cycle later.
An important goal of MOXIE is to demonstrate successful operation during day and night throughout all martian seasons, showing robustness to variations in atmospheric pressure and temperature.
At the observed rate of increase, MOXIE is expected to meet nominal requirements (6 g/hour with 55 g/hour of CO2 intake) for more than 60 cycles.
Has anyone heard of any recent updates ??
Since Perseverance landed on Mars in 2021, MOXIE has generated a total of 122 grams of oxygen – about what a small dog breathes in 10 hours. At its most efficient, MOXIE was able to produce 12 grams of oxygen an hour – twice as much as NASA’s original goals for the instrument – at 98% purity or better. On its 16th run, on Aug. 7, the instrument made 9.8 grams of oxygen. MOXIE successfully completed all of its technical requirements and was operated at a variety of conditions throughout a full Mars year, allowing the instrument’s developers to learn a great deal about the technology.
The regenerative carbon dioxide removal system (RCRS) on the Space Shuttle orbiter used a two-bed system that provided continuous removal of carbon dioxide without expendable products.
MOXIE weighed 17.1 kg, used 300 watts of power, and produced enough oxygen for a mouse, maybe. The basic tech might be useful one day, but I question if it's feasible for portable use barring some now-magical way to produce power.https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/spacecraft/instruments/moxie/ talks about a "big MOXIE" for ISRU that would weigh 1000 kg and use 25 kW.
OK. Now we know that the technology works, can it be used in a suit backpack ? Should I start a new thread ??