Community > Forum > Official Micro-Space Forum > Deep Space Hardware (MARS)

Deep Space Hardware (MARS)

Posted by: rpspeck - Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:57 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 334 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 23  Next
Deep Space Hardware (MARS) 
Author Message
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:43 am
Posts: 69
Location: Sydney
Post Consumables   Posted on: Wed May 31, 2006 11:26 am
G'day,

I have been giving some thought to the life support requirements for a minimalist Mars mission. Firstly you need to know the length of the expedition. The shortest proposal I'm aware of is the sprint mission proposed for the Ride Report. That was a there and back Mars shot done in 12 months with two weeks on Mars. Cave divers operate on the rule of thirds principle and allow for 1/3 more supplies then the minimum for safety. This is a sensible idea so lets do the calculations for 500 days.

Food. A hiker doing an ultralight trek takes 600 – 700 grams of dried food . Thats for a person doing a 30km bush hike so that should be enough for our astronaut.
Total food for 500 days 350kg

Now thats dried food, we can take tasty ready to eat long life food with the water already added if we want and just vary the food/water ratio, the total mass stays the same.

Water. Hiker do OK on 2-3 liters of water a day, depending on how hot it is. But we need water for washing and cleaning too, not just drinking and cooking. From memory NASA requires about 26kg for washing but our astronauts can stick to sponge baths and theres not going to be much too wash on a ultralight trip anyway. Lets allow 6 liters per day.
Total water for 500 days 3000 kg

Oxygen. We use a rebreather type system that removes the CO2 and adds the oxygen, The number I get for daily oxygen requirement is 0. 0576 kg.
Total for 500 days 28.8 kg

Total one person consumables for Mars mission day 3378.8 kgs.

But theres more. We can recycle the water. Even with only modest 60% efficiency we reduce the total consumables to 1578.8 kg.

Also the human body will process some of the food eaten into water. I get 0.39 liters or 195 kgs for the trip.

Depending on how good your recycling is 2-3 tonnes of consumables should do fine.

Check these websites if you are interested.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3g.html

http://www.bushwalking.org.au/FAQ/FAQ_U ... weight.htm


ta

Ralph


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post Less than 1000 Kg supplies for 1000 days.   Posted on: Wed May 31, 2006 9:28 pm
Hi Ralph,

Note: you dropped a decimal point with the Oxygen, which is 550 to 650 gm per day (without electrolytic recapture from metabolic products): close to the food supply.

With any engineering project, after you do your first estimates, you scan the numbers and focus on reducing the biggest items. NASA’s water at 26 kg per day jumps out, of course. Your 6 kg would be enough for a backpacker (even taking 1 gallon showers), but I guess NASA lead engineers don’t do that kind of stuff. Their number, for a minimum energy trip of almost 1000 days, comes out to 26,000 kg of water per person (57,200 pounds) almost twice the Space shuttle payload for wash water! Yet, Reverse Osmosis filters can be plumbed as contamination concentrators to knock the total down by an order of magnitude. And anyone who thinks “Freeze Dryingâ€


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:43 am
Posts: 69
Location: Sydney
Post    Posted on: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:33 am
G'day,

Richard, I think a short 12 month Sprint type mission has several advantages for an ultralight expedition. Not only does it minimize your consumable requirements but it minimizes the time spent in space by the astronaut. There have been people who have spent a year or so in space so thats a reasonable number if you want to do the trip in micro gravity.

Have a look here at the Ride report proposal if interested.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/rideport.htm

Now, I think the first Mars expedition should be a Phobos landing not a Mars surface landing. Especially for a private voyage. Phobos has several advantages.

Less Delta Vee to get there.

There is minimal gravity, so the astronaut is not expected to work in a gravity field after spending 5 months or so in space. (Now if we provide artificial gravity that wouldn't be a issue)

You can operate robots on the surface without much of a time delay. So the surface can still be explored without worrying about biological contamination.

Phobos should be littered with Mars meteorites so you can still return with Martian rocks to sell and study.

And the big one. Phobos is a C type asteroid so should have water ice. With such an oasis your life support and refueling issues become much easier.

Let the first Mars astronaut go the Phobos. You still get in the record books for first person to Mars and lots of science to do to justify the mission. A two week stay on Phobos should do fine.

ta

Ralph

PS

Thanks for correcting me on the oxygen requirements.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:13 am
Hello, ralphbuttigieg,

I am not that sure if Phobos' water ressources shoud be used such a way - they will be very limited and so might be exhausted within very very few trips or missions.

So they should be used so, that they aren't consumed - for cleaning, washing etc. for example. Then the ressources can be recycled.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:43 am
Posts: 69
Location: Sydney
Post    Posted on: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:54 am
G'day,

I think you completely underestimate the amount of water available on the Martian moons. Their low density indicate a substantial water fraction.
Theres even a serious proposal to mine Deimos water for Earth LEO use. The delta vee is easier then bringing the stuff from Earth. Have a look here.:

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_ ... pany.shtml


ta

Ralph

Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
Hello, ralphbuttigieg,

I am not that sure if Phobos' water ressources shoud be used such a way - they will be very limited and so might be exhausted within very very few trips or missions.

So they should be used so, that they aren't consumed - for cleaning, washing etc. for example. Then the ressources can be recycled.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post The Road to Space is OPEN!   Posted on: Fri Jun 09, 2006 7:38 pm
I agree that Phobos would be an excellent target and Demos also of interest. Both avoid the serious problem of ascent to Mars orbit. However the additional Delta V (and mass ratio) at both ends of a fast trip is a big issue compared to a few hundred kilos of extra food.

The time, risk and low gravity exposure are all issues, but PERSONAL issues. The question becomes: Who wants to go, how much money can they raise and what are their personal priorities? I am willing to design a more expensive system for a faster (and safer?) flight. But if money remains the limiting factor, then the 2.7 yr trip wins.

I expect to see manned spaceflight milestones achieved for costs comparable to fielding a car at the Indianapolis 500. Thirty three teams did that this year (plus those who spent comparable money without qualifying for the race), and those efforts cost about $ 20 million each! (About the cost of developing both SpaceShipOne and the White Knight, with their multiman capacity.) LEO launch can be purchased. For less than this price, a solo trip around the Moon will be achieved: probably also prolonged lunar orbit. A solo Lunar Landing might be possible at twice that price. I am still serious about a solo Mars landing for less than $100 Million (with sample return and documentary video), but that is the biggest stretch. A low energy visit to Phobos for that price would be easier.

We have been conditioned to thinking that NASA cost figures are applicable for spaceflight, while the same industry’s $40 Million, single seat airplane (F-16) is not accepted as a standard for recreational flying! Scaled Composites exceeded the primary goals of the X-33 program for $25 Million, while the NASA program spent $1.2 Billion before they junked their hardware. A factor of 100 in cost is significant. Add in the benefit of scaling down the concept (a smaller crew) and using existing launch vehicles, and costs reductions can reach a factor of 1000 to 10,000! Big things become affordable!

As I have suggested, the “zero gâ€


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:43 am
Posts: 69
Location: Sydney
Post    Posted on: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:11 pm
G'day Richard,

(reply posted in two parts because of length)

Successful explorers take risks but they are calculated risks. The dangers involved are studied, and countermeasures taken until they are reduced to a level the adventurer believes acceptable. The dangers of micro gravity have been studied for decades. Suits as you describe have been used by Russian cosmonauts for years, “Penguin Suitsâ€


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:43 am
Posts: 69
Location: Sydney
Post    Posted on: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:15 pm
G'day

So what to do?

Explore to our limits now and push the boundary incrementally as we develop solutions. The Moon is the obvious target for space adventures. Regular Usenet poster worked out a minimal manned moon shot years ago. One person in a spacesuit and rocket belt. I have copied his post below. Theres plenty to keep explorers busy there.

Then theres the Near Earth Asteroids. Return trips of only a few months are possible minimizing radiation exposure. But have a look at this.
http://www.geocities.com/zlipanov/selec ... 8ky26.html

As can be seen some asteroids are in Earth Mars Hoffman orbits so it should be possible to hitch a ride to Mars and be protected by several meters of regolith. I realize you have to find a time when the planets line up but there are several asteroids with similar orbits and more are likely to be discovered.

In my view don't worry about designing craft for any specific target. Design space yachts instead. Small light craft that can be moored at a space station and flown into deep space. The explorers will do the rest.

Ralph

**************************************
William Mook's Minimal Manned Moon Mission

((He has kindly e-mailed me a more detailed pdf which I'll send to anyone interested)

William H. Mook, Jr.
Nov 21 1995, 7:00 pm show options

Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
From: "William H. Mook, Jr." <w...@mail.GANet.NET> - Find messages by this author
Date: 1995/11/21
Subject: Mimimum Manned Moon Vehicle (MMMV or 3MV)
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

I recall a study done by NASA back in April 1961 regarding a minimum
manned moon vehicle. At that time it wasn't clear that NASA could
produce a Saturn or Nova rocket in a timely fashion. Or if the funds
would even be available. So, some folks at Goddard I believe, sat down
and figured out what the minimum manned moon vehicle would be.


You basically strap a dude into a comfy long life spacesuit (3 weeks
minimum) and figure out how to feed and diaper him for the duration. You
give him an inflatable heat shield with foam padding inside. And he
basically flies a motocycle to the moon all by his lonsome. On the moon
you have a little bit of extra delta vee to use your lander as a rocket
belt. So you can cruise over the lunar plains.


I haven't located detailed references yet. But I know I have them
somewhere. The whole thing could be launched by a single Titan rocket.


You could do it with a Proton or Long March today. Heck, the Russians or
Chinese would probably GIVE you the rocket if you let one of their
countrymen go along! Three folks could go to the moon in three separate
launchings for about $600 million. Maybe as little as $300 million if
you used Chinese rockets.


What you do is start with the payload and work backward.


(1) Human being: 100 kg.
(2) Food/Water/Air 22 kg.
(3) Suit 125 kg.
(4) Infl. TPS 30 kg.
(5) Rocket belt 300 kg
-------
577 kg.


Starting in LEO you've got to add about 5.8 km/sec to this payload. To
achieve this you need 3,373 kg of propellant along with 560 kg of
structure to contain it. A total of 4,510 kg. to LEO. A Long March or
Proton could launch several.


The rocket belt pushes the whole apparatus and can be used on the lunar
surface to fly around to some degree (300 km range)


Payload 577 kg.
Structure 560 kg.
LH2 562 kg.
LOX 2,811 kg.
Isp 431 sec.


A single LOX/LH2 engine (derated RL10) whose exhaust is directed through
two nozzles (rocket belt fashion) to produce 25kN thrust. The bulk of
the LOX/LH2 is contained in jettisonable tanks hung off the astronauts.


The landing on the lunar surface is achieved hang glider style... the
astronauts legs are the landing gear!


TYPICAL JOURNEY:


Launch in a disposable couch and nosecone on top of a Proton rocket.
Separate from Proton upper stage. (3 separate vehicles)
Use laptop computer and GPS to navigate to Lunar Injection point.
Burn off 2,194 kg of propellant to enter transit to moon.
Wait four days. Jettison propellant tanks.
Burn another 258 kg of propellant to enter lunar orbit.
You now carry 1758 kg of propellant and gear.
Leave about 150 kg of propellant and gear in orbit with transponder.
Burn another 400 kg of propellant to land on the moon.
Land with about 1000 kg of propellant and gear strapped to your back.
Remove propellant carriers, etc., to walk or fly around lunar surface.
Don carriers, etc., in preparation to leave lunar surface.
Leave lunar surface.
Rendezvous with supplies in lunar orbit.
Burn engines to return to earth.
Wait four days.
Inflate TPS and enter after removing rocket pack.
Reenter earth's atmosphere.
Jump out of TPS ball with parachute at 60,000 ft.
Parachute to a landing with video/memory disk of journey and rock bag.


A major advantage since 1961... lightweight low powered electronics.


Instead of LithiumHydroxide to scrub the air, use LH2 to scrub the air.
LOX to breathe. LOX/LH2 to generate power and water. Water evaporation
to cool. Its much lighter than existing systems. Stay in the suit for
the duration of the journey. This is adapted from Mars expedition
studies. .....


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:00 pm
What about using a system of small dampers straped to the astronauts joints on the outside of their clothes like an exo-skeleton to reduce bone loss.

I was thinking of something like a hydraulich system that pumps fluid between compartments through a restricting valve. The valve could be adjusted to allow different flow rates dependant on which way a joint was flexed. This would supply a constant force every time the astronaut moved.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post    Posted on: Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:06 pm
Please note that there is no “Unique Radiationâ€


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:43 am
Posts: 69
Location: Sydney
Post    Posted on: Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:31 am
G'day Richard,

Fear is wired into our genes so the species is just as cautious as it ever was. But its another matter for NASA. Current work safety regulations do not permit them or any other American employer sending employees on long deep space missions because of radiation. NASA estimates the risk of cancer on the ISS is 5% the legal limit is 15% . A 1000 day deep space mission, above the magnetosphere , would take them over the limit. The fact that smoking is 10 times more dangerous then being an astronaut is beside the point. So forget about "sending" anyone. The EPA would be after you.

Also the retinal flashes are properbly caused by cosmic rays streaking through the brain and killing an optic nueron. Some of those zingers are so big and powerful that their liner energy transfer trails can be seen in a cell as they go through. Just what damage they are doing to the rest of the brain are unknown.

Now polar explorers faced health issues too, like scurvy and frostbite but succesfull explorers like the great Amundsen understood them well enough to take countermeasures. He knew that eating undercooked freash meat for instance , would prevent scurvy.

Now, I'm not saying deep space missions are out , to the contary, I have proposed several possible missions. But I am advocating caution. I am advocating work arounds like fast short missions and asteroid shielding.

Just give the tools to allow adventurers, not employees, to go. They can calculate the risk and if they are willing to accept them they will go. But I'll bet the succesfull ones will do it incrementally as I'm suggesting.

ta

Ralph


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:55 am
Hello, ralphbuttigieg

the rays and particles don't destroy no neurons according to the informations I remeber having used in the Technology section-thread about that. What is caused are catarcts and those can be healed easyly today. I am personally known to two persons where the catarcts have been removed by replacing the eye lense by an artificial one which also reduced the number of diotries the glasses had to have these persons needed.

Next I don't think that there would be any danger that rpspeck would get problems with EPA etc. Burt Rutan and others and may be rpspeck also are pressing on congress and FAA that strong that the rules are modified already. The government has begun to learn that personal space flight is a future source of taxes that they shouldn't prevent from emerging.

And rpsepcks considerations, approaches, concepts etc. allow for excellent insights into economic requirements, possibilities, feasability as well as into ways to keep a Mars trip and the required vehicle as simple as possible.

Remember also that hibernation is subject to analysis, investigation and considerations by ESA and NASA - rpspeck's ideas and concepts fit into that from my point of view. A hibernating person doesn't require that much space and deosn't consume that much oxygen etc. and doesn't produce that much CO2.

So rpspeck's approaches etc. are the ones of the best I can think of.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post    Posted on: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:21 pm
Ralph, I agree with much of what you say:

ralphbuttigieg wrote:
Fear is wired into our genes so the species is just as cautious as it ever was. But its another matter for NASA. Current work safety regulations do not permit them or any other American employer sending employees on long deep space missions because of radiation. NASA estimates the risk of cancer on the ISS is 5% the legal limit is 15% . A 1000 day deep space mission, above the magnetosphere , would take them over the limit. The fact that smoking is 10 times more dangerous then being an astronaut is beside the point. So forget about "sending" anyone. The EPA would be after you.

Just give the tools to allow adventurers, not employees, to go. They can calculate the risk and if they are willing to accept them they will go. But I'll bet the succesfull ones will do it incrementally as I'm suggesting.


I have already concluded that NASA will never go to Mars, because they will always be able to generate "Risk Appraisals" that are unacceptable.

I am in complete agreement with incremental development, and will do so as I prepare to go into space myself.

However, that is not often the way to win a race, and there are people who want to be THE FIRST on Mars, Demos, Phobos, etc. I expect that people who care a great deal about being first will also be able to raise just enough money to get there with marginal craft, and leave better planned efforts in the dust. I will applaud those efforts, just as I will applaud more cautious (and more scientifically productive) efforts to follow. History, and my own experience, has proven that risks are often exaggerated and that surprisingly simple attempts can succeed. And some will be content to go where no one has gone before (like Mallory on Everest) even if they don’t return.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:43 am
Posts: 69
Location: Sydney
Post    Posted on: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:05 pm
G'day,

I know Richard is interested in adapting off the shelf equipment into space hardware. So you might be interested in this:

http://www.thesuperjump.org/site_en/projet.htm

The fellow will attempt to skydive from 40 km next month.

At that altitude you might as well be in space and he is using a modifed military pressure suit.

Image
ta

Ralph


Back to top
Profile
Space Station Member
Space Station Member
avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:34 am
Posts: 450
Post Centrifuge Spins On   Posted on: Sun Aug 06, 2006 5:26 pm
My zero G Centrifuge spins on (one full year of operation at the end of this month). It would have completed the outbound trip to Mars some time ago, and would now be with its human user in Mars orbit. At least one replacement would of course be in storage if needed.

This unit is actually spinning at more than ten times the required rate, and has completed more revolutions (with greater bearing load) than the deepspace model will in the complete trip, but elapsed time itself is the relevant parameter for some failure modes.

This tiny unit would be the last step in saving at least 20 pounds a day by recycling water (20,000 pounds total, well over ten times the food mass for the entire trip) compared to NASA estimates.

If you need to pay for the trip yourself, don't use NASA plans!


Back to top
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 334 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 23  Next
Moderator: rpspeck
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use