[Mars] production plant - was - Re: Post conference

[Mars related topics]

Hello,

I'm afraid my efforts on this will also be slow-moving.  I'm involved 
volunteering as well.  I'm working on organizing a rocky mountian semi-final
for the ISSDC - www.spaceset.org...

Couple of small comments inline -

-----Original Message-----
>From: Mars related topics <mars at mackintoshweb.com>
>Sent: Sep 30, 2006 11:27 PM
>To: Mars related topics <mars at mackintoshweb.com>
>Subject: Re: [Mars] production plant - was - Re:  Post conference
>
>Hi everyone
>
>With work and volunteer stuff it seems that I now only check my email
>about once a month :(
>
>But on the up side, I was talking with a friend of mine who is retired
>and has a lot of time.  He likes to make things and makes all sorts of
>things.  We spoke about this project and he is interested in participating.
>
>I'm also back on track with my CNC mill conversion project, so should in
>the next decade or two have a working milling machine and can make part.
>  I can also make parts at school or at work.

Cool!

>But first we need a design...
>
>Mars related topics wrote:
>> Hi Roy/Terry
>> 
>> Sorry it has taken me so long to respond.
>
>It seems apparent that this may be at times a slow moving project.
>Is this overly discouraging to anyone? or can we move ahead at a slow 
>pace and be OK with it?

Sounds most reasonable for the time being.

>> To start I will list all the papers I have found that talk about
>> Zubrin's plans for going to Mars and in situ resource utilization. 
>> Scientific America, March 2000, 4 articles. Scientific America, June
>> 2001. Acta Astronautica, Vol 26 No 12, pg 899-912, 1992. Acta
>> Astronautica, Vol 32 No 9, pg 617-628, 1994. Aerospace America
>> (AIAA), Vol 28 No 18, pg 30-32, 1990. MIT Technology Review, Vol 99
>> No 8, Nov/Dec 1996. Chemical Engineering Progress, pg 45-54, Feb
>> 1999. (has the most info for our discussion)
>
>While I've not read all of this, what I have seen lacks details.
>Though some of this sounds promising for details, have you reviewed most 
>of this? any details?
>
>> His book, The Case for Mars has some details.
>
>Yes, in terms of reactions, ... I forget, is one of you a chemist?
>
>BTW, I plan to take chemistry probably a year from now.
>
>> All the published work I have seen is 5-15 years old, the next step
>> should be to find the latest info, so we don't re-invent the wheel.
>> Zubrin may help with this.  I will take the action to contact him to
>> discuss our interest in building a prototype to test at MDRS.
>
>Great, what was his response?
>
>> I guess the next step is to define what our initial project will be,
>> which broadly is Martian In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU).  This
>> can be broken into 2 categories, 1) pull CO2 from the atmosphere and
>> break it down into O2 and C, if there is a source of H2, the C can be
>> converted to H2O and CH4 or 2) break the Martian soil to the atomic
>> level and recombine into O2, CH4 and H2O.  There are many other
>> elements in the soil, but it is probably better to keep a narrow
>> focus initially.  The technology to do the first idea is probably
>> available, it just needs to be packaged for Mars and the main task is
>> providing an energy source, also a source of H2 is needed, Zubrin
>> suggests bringing the H2 from Earth since it is so light.  The second
>> idea is not as developed, but since there is some H2 based compounds
>> in the soil, it is attractive.  I propose we try the second idea,
>> what do you think?

Bringing H2 from earth might have some technical challenges.. yes it's 
light, however from what I understand, containment of H2 is difficult from
alternative fuel/hydrogen based vehicles.

For the most part it's a use it or loose it arrangement I believe.

>Interesting idea, the second one.
>
>In order to increase chances for success it seems good to start small 
>and basic and when that part works build on it.  The soil idea sounds 
>like a later stage process.  That is, it would use much the same 
>equipment as the first option, but would be more complicated due to the 
>need to handle solids, gather dirt, get rid of wast.

Agreed..

>So my first choice would be the first option, here's way:
>
>- All materials are either a gas or a liquid, easy to move with pumps 
>and simple plumbing.

Maybe a bit of research first as to the containment/containment of 
gasses - especially hydrogen?

again - much can be gleaned from R&D already done for hydrogen based
alternative fuel vehicles on how to transport and contain the hydrogen.

>- The raw material can be pumped in from the air, it is air. So no need 
>  for any robotic dirt gathering machine.

Right.

>- Project can be built in sections, with as yet unbuilt sections being 
>simulated, such as bottled CO2 for the input, and AC power instead of 
>solar power or nuke.  These sections can later be replaced with 
>something more appropriate.

Yes - so the important parts/sectons to start with are:
  - separation
  - transport (from sepapration to storage)
  - storage

>- Once this is working it would be a great learning experience to start 
>  from to take on a soil based project.

Yes.

>> Is our goal to design and build a small prototype that we can test at
>> MDRS.  If this is successful, I think the Mars Society will help find
>> sponsorship to pursue the concept and ultimately send it to Mars.
>
>Again, if we start with a gas based unit and are successful it is very 
>likely that funding may be forthcoming for the more complicated soil 
>based unit.

Also important - when developing "phase 1" or even "phase 2" type 
projects, often the case is that processes, products, etc (I'll call it "fallout")
is developed that can also make money.

We should keep that in mind.  Even if the "fallout" is an earth-only money 
making effort, it can make us money to seriously pursue development of 
our primary objectives - devices to be used on mars.

What do you think?

-Roy