Critical Design Review

February 20th, 2018

1 Overview

“In Project Future Mars we will define the essential needs of a martian society of 10,000 people that will be truly self-sustaining—in other words, a colony that can live on to the distant future without any assistance from the Earth.”

Analyzing the steady state solution to this problem, not how to initially establish the city.

2 Science Support CDR

Presented By: Brandon Smith Science Support Group: JD Bensman, Nick Dwyer, Alaina Glidden, Henry Heim, Logan Kirsch, Annie Ping, Matt Prymek, Michael Rose, Trevor Waldman, Riley Viveros, Megan Harwell, Nick Jancich, Brandon Smith 2/20/2018

1/28/2018 3 Goals/Missions for Science Support 1. Select a lava tube for our colony 2. Identify possible landing/launch sites for the colony 3. Search for signs of past life on Mars 4. Study Martian impact craters to increase our understanding of them 5. Perform Seismography on the Mars 6. Answer longstanding questions about Phobos 7. Create a geologic history of Mars 8. Study the periodic Martian Methane

1/28/2018 4 Lava Tube Selection - Hellas Basin Requirements AG [4] -The current volume needed: 0.003 km3. (Food, City) -Nearby to resources: water glaciers (blue dots in lower image) and metal bearing clays (blue dots in upper image). -Average terrain: < 30o gradient. -Scientific Interest: impact cratering, Noachian aged geology, and 1.5 km biosignatures. - Our tube is located near the northern rim of Hellas Basin at (89.565E, -36.718N) Other Considerations -Olympus Mons (208.983E, 22.012N) [A- 1] -Elysium Planum (Approx. 173.9E, -8.4N) [A-2] 200 km Resource Extraction THEMIS V09784003

1/28/2018 5 Launch/Landing Site (See A-3 - A-4)

Launch/landing site requirements: • 5-10 km away from the city • There should be no craters within the landing ellipse or within 1 km of it. • Landing site needs to be large enough for non-piloted spacecraft (i.e. Phobos sample return) Launch Site • Launch site located 5-10 km Northeast from City (89.565E, -36.718N) • Provides close, but safe distance from city incase of failure at launch site Landing Site • Phobos Mission ellipse is centered at (88.805E, -36.687N) at 36.5 km from the city and is 105.4 km x 8.8 km • Cycler taxi ellipse is 50 m x 50 m and is centered at the same location as for the Phobos mission but is too small to be seen on the map. 6 The Search for Life

Mission Goals: Search areas on Mars Areas to explore: Hellas and Valles that may contain biosignatures and Marineris. These two areas were at once search for past sights of life, as well as time interacting with water. Due to the use these areas to help our significance of water in terms of life, understanding of the past Martian searching these areas for past climates. biosignatures would be advisable. Requirements: Total Area to explore: - Rover will be able to travel along ~ 12,330,000.00 km2 different terrains Distances from city: - Rover will be able to obtain 0 - 1920 km (Hellas) samples (perform spectroscopy on 5880 - 8100 km (Valles Marineris) samples)

7 Studying Impact Craters (See A-5 - A-8)

Mission Goal: Observe and sample different types of Martian craters to achieve a greater understanding of them. [A-8] Requirements: Rover(s) - can be within a 400 km radius of our lava tube - will have to traverse higher gradients - will be able to perform a small borehole operations - will be able to find and collect samples [A-7] [A-6] [A-5] Rover CAD Model Created by Logan Kirsch

Borehole Sample and Drill Bit CAD Model Created by Logan Kirsch 8 Seismology on Mars (See A. - A.)

Mission Goals: Using seismographs, determine if Mars has “Mars” quakes. If so, use this to map the interior of Mars. Use the seismographs to determine if Mars is still somewhat geologically active. Requirements: - Establish a seismograph network Seismograph CAD Model created by Logan Kirsch on Mars - Seismographs will be approx. 10 km away from resource extraction points

9 Studying Phobos (See A-9 - A-14)

Mission Goal: Determine the origin and formation of Phobos and Deimos

Requirements: - A satellite that can land on Phobos - A Hohmann transfer from Mars parking orbit to Phobos orbit - With current Draim communication set up, communication to the surface of Phobos will likely be available by at least Satellite CAD Model created by Logan Kirsch one satellite at a time - Ryan Duong - Attach to Phobos, drill into surface, return to Mars with 100 kg of samples

10 Phobos and Deimos, Cont . (See A-9 - A-14)

• Scaled down raptor engine • Isp = 363.3 s • Thrust = 366.3 kN • Engine Mass = 0.27 Mg • Engine Power = 5 MW • Mission Specifications • ΔV requirement of 3.31 km/s • 1300 kg initial wet mass • 776 kg of Methalox propellant • 3.16 m3 satellite volume • 4.38 hour time of flight Hohmann transfer trajectory to Phobos created in MATLAB

11 The Geologic History of Mars (See A. - A.) Mission Goals: Using a remote controlled rover, travel to areas where we would be able to see stratigraphy of the Martian crust, and establish a detail geologic record of Mars. Rover CAD Model Created by Logan Kirsch Requirements: Areas to explore: Gale crater, - Rover to traverse across Tharsis, Valles Marineris, and different landscapes Hellas. - These areas should allow us to - Rover sample collection view stratigraphy of the Martian - Photography from rover of lithosphere, and thus allow us outcrops, stratigraphic layers to create a detail, stratified geologic time scale for Mars. 12 The Mystery of Martian Methane (See A - 24) Mission Goals: - Use a rover to travel to Gale crater - Detect and analyze the methane leakage MSL detected previously - Attempt to determine the source of Methane ~ 3150 km NE of the lava tube, Coordinates (137.758E, -5.008N) Requirements: - Rover must be able to travel across Gale crater - Rover must be able to detect methane with a spectrometer - Rover must collect photos of areas where Methane was observed

13 Appendix

14 A-1: Olympus Mons Lava Tube

Analysis done by Brandon Smith - Length: 50.54 km - Width: ~ 0.60 km - Height: ~ 56 m - PROS - Near Northern Lowlands - Near Tharsis - Relative Easy to locate, with respect to Olympus Mons - CONS - Far away from minerals - No nitrates - “Young” surface so not as scientifically interesting

15 A-2: Elysium Planum Lava Tube

Analysis done by Megan Harwell - Flat land north of the crater - Difficult to isolate potential lava tubes - Minerals from Gusev - Olivine, pyroxene,plagioclase, FeTi oxides (MH[1]) - High concentrations of Silica nearby - Low concentrations directly around volcanic remains, however (MH[2]) - SiO2 98%(MH[3]) - TiO2 [4] - Mg, Fe, Ca, Al leaching (MH[5]) - Opaline Silica in Colombia Hills - Structurally bonded H2O (MH[6])

16 A-3: Launch/Landing site Assumptions

Launch site • There is a flat location 5-10 km northeast from our city to have a launch site • Cost of inclination change due to specified latitude for escape velocity (taxi) is relatively small Landing site • Cycler Lander can land in a 50x50 meter ellipse with Terrain Contour Matching (TERCOM, credit: Annie Ping) and human piloting (credit: John Cleveland) • Both Cycler Lander and Phobos lander can get in correct inclination before re entry to land in correct location • CD is constant for Phobos lander reentry ellipse analysis • flight path angle = -5o at an altitude of 80 km for Phobos Lander • wind effects are ignored in calculating landing ellipse • Propulsion system on the Phobos Lander, similar to the one used on the Taxi Lander, starts retrograde thrust at around an altitude = 10 km • Span on Phobos Lander does not have a huge impact on landing ellipse (see next slide, A-#)

17 A-4: Landing site Analysis-Phobos

• Basic Ballistic trajectory analysis, with a Monte Carlo Simulation of 2500 trajectories • 3-sigma ellipse (98.9% of trajectories land within the ellipse) [3] • Center of Ellipse is the targeted, optimal trajectory [3]

Span S (m2) semimajor axis a (km) semiminor axis b (km) Figure 1: S = 10 m2

3 52.7 4.4

5 57.7 4.4

10 53.7 4.3

2 Figure 2: S = 3 m 18 A-5: Nearest Crater (complex)

• Eastern rim is ~ 128 km from the lava tube • Coordinates: (86.561E, -36.311N) • Diameter: ~ 30 km • central peak is ~ 1 km from the lowest point on the floor

19 A-6: Second crater (simple)

• Eastern rim is ~ 296 km from the lava tube • Coordinates: (83.035E, -36.629N) • Diameter: ~ 24 km • lowest point is ~ 1.2 km from rim

20 A-7: Third Crater (multi-ring)

• Eastern rim is ~ 365 km from the lava tube • Coordinates: (81.340E, -36.754N) • Diameter: ~ 50 km • has two rings around the center

21 A-8: Crater Study • Observe ejecta blankets for each crater type • 90% of ejecta is within 5 radii of the center of the crater • see if there is a different distribution and/or difference in particle size with distance from the point of impact • collect some ejecta material • Observe impact melts and breccia (in crater and in ejecta blanket) • knowing the volume, distribution, and characteristics of melt can give information on the processes occurring during an impact • A more extensive study of morphological characteristics at these sites could tell of the external influences on the impacts • “These might include density, velocity, and angle of impact; strength, structure, and physical state of the target material; planet’s gravitational acceleration, atmospheric density, thermal history; and postimpact processes such as erosion, sedimentation, isostasy, and magmatism” [1] • The older the crater, the harder it is to make such observations, so age is a factor

22 A-9: Phobos Science

Captured Asteroids -Reflectance spectra are bright in the visible and IR regions of the spectrum. -Similar to carbonaceous meteorites but this is not a direct comparison of composition, just similarities in spectra. (AG [3]) -Discrepancies between Phobos spectra and the spectra of carbonaceous meteorites could be from weathering. (AG [3])

-Spectra of Phobos is missing the 3 µm band compared to low albedo carbonaceous asteroids. (AG [4]) -This could mean that Phobos is either non-hydrated or has become dehydrated. (AG [4]) -When testing current similar meteorites for space weathering, their spectra changed such that the 3 µm band was subdued. Meaning that Phobos could just be a weathered asteroid. (AG [4]) -Due to the lack of direct similarities between carbonaceous meteorites and Phobos, we must conclude that there are currently no analogous materials to Phobos in our current meteorite collection. -The bulk density of Phobos is much lower than other carbonaceous asteroids. This suggests that they are loose aggregates of material (rubble piles) or that they have a higher internal water content. (AG [4])

23 A-10: Phobos Science

In Orbit Formation

For a moon that formed from a disk of debris, we would expect: •Near-circular orbit (low eccentricity) •Near-equatorial orbit (low inclination)

AG [2] *Note: Remember that the tilt of the Earth’s axis changes over time *Note: We currently think that the Moon formed from a disk of debris so the inclination of the Moon around the earth that formed from a giant impactor so it is reasonable to relative to the equator will also assume that the orbital parameters of the Moon would give a good very a lot with time. baseline to compare the orbital parameters of Phobos and Deimos.

24 A-11: Phobos Assumptions & Inputs

• Phobos in circular orbit about Mars • Delta V: 3.31 km/s • Calculated for Hohmann Transfer to and from Phobos • Drill Volume: 1 m3 • Drill Mass: 300 kilograms • Both from Logan Kirsch’s design • Isp: 364 seconds • Christopher Hunnewell’s engine design • Phobos sample density: 2500 kg/m3 [2] • Typical low density asteroids and rocks • Inert Mass Fraction: 0.10 [3] • Typical value for 2nd stage satellites • Initial launch to parking orbit will place spacecraft in correct plane • 1.08 degree inclination wrt Mars • Give a 5% extra fuel mass margin to allow for any extra corrections required

25 A-12: Phobos Matlab Code

26 A-13: Phobos Matlab Code

27 A-14: Phobos Matlab Code

28 A-15: Shelters • 5cm Al “1060 Alloy” - 33.23 Mg • Above dome: cyl. of basalt rock: D = 3 m, H = 7 m • with 3 m tall cone cut out of bottom • Above tunnel: Rect. prism: H = 4 m • Also: Caterpillar D9 (49.0 Mg)

Max

29 A-16: Shelters Hand Calcs

• Dome size: estimate based on NASA’s NHV • 18 m3/person • 3 people (Kubicki, Sci. sppt.) • Radiation req. = 2.4 mSv/yr. (Longuski) (“Natural Background Radiation”) • Amount of rock from Hassler et al • Still haven’t asked about power • Buried aboveground b/c underground require extra machinery • aboveground w/o burying = ~400 tons of shielding

30 A-17: Engine Trade Study

Assumptions: Conclusion: • Delta-V = 2.53 km/s for Phobos • Raptor Engine is chosen • Initial mass of s/c = 10 Mg (arbitrary) • Methane is chosen as the fuel Requirements: • Large thrust with min propellant • •CH4 / LOX or LH2 / LOX volume • Can be used on Cycler

31 A-18: Engine Scaling

• T/W = Thrust to weight ratio • Decreasing the weight to 1/10 = Decreasing thrust to weight ratio by (1/10)-⅓ • Multiply by adjusted weight to find adjusted thrust value

32 A-19: Terraforming

Requirements/Thoughts 1. Create a magnetosphere to help reduce the atmospheric loss rate. a. Placing a 1-2 T dipole at the L1 point. [1] b. Ring system around the latitudes of Mars [2] 2. Continually add atmosphere above the current loss rate so that water is stable on the surface in all three forms. a. Current loss rate is 3155.76 Mg/year. [3] b. Could “bake” the surface to release gases in the rock. c. Could bombard the surface with impactors to release gases in the rock. 3. Add biological processes to the surface. a. Genetically engineered bacteria will add oxygen. Will need to incorporate a way to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere so the life does not suffocate. b. The current estimate for outgassing from our city is 0.1% (City) which is a high estimate. Low compared to atmospheric loss rate. c. Adding self-sustaining GMOs to the surface will greatly reduce the hopes of finding past Martian life.

33 A-20: Rover Navigation

• MPS is no longer available • Rovers must rely on Doppler measurements • Same data processing chip can be used • 1 Satellite in view required • Chip design based on simplified MT3339 • 45 MHz minimum (32 bit) - tested by Nick Dwyer • For this measurement, order of magnitude position accuracy given by:

• Where A is the position accuracy in meters • NS is the number of satellites visible (any satellite broadcasting on a known frequency with a known orbit) • TD is the number of minutes that the rover is stationary and collecting satellite data • Based on the capabilities of the Electra receiver

34 A-21: Rover Power Requirements

Power needs for the rovers were broken down by components: • Engines are estimated to need 50 kW • Estimated by assuming current rovers on Mars have comparable systems, taking away the roughly 14 minute delay, and assuming that 80% of the power is dedicated to those motors • Auger bit requires 400 W • Provides 230 Nm of torque at 1.7 RPM • Communication antenna requires 100 W • Requirement set from Comms group • Computer system requires 200 W • Requirement set by computer systems group • Vacuum system requires 200 W • Assumed to be comparable to auger bit • Spectrometer and Camera systems require 3 W total • Requirements set by the Science group This will be supplied by a 50 kW battery and solar panels that provide 2 kW for recharging the battery.

35 A-22: Rover Power System MPV

36 A-23: Geologic History Locations

Gale crater Tharsis Valles Marineris (21,000 km2) (10,460,000 km2) (9,735,000 km2)

Hellas (2,594,000 km2)

37 A-24: Methane

• Curiosity has measured a background methane abundance of ~ 0.7 ppb in the Martian atmosphere. But it also measured a period in which there was an increased level methane of ~ 7 ppb.

• Methane on Mars is believed only to have a lifespan of ~ 300 years, and that’s why the observed amounts are in question.

• Want to try to find the source of the methane using the spectrometer on the rover. • could try to find surface organics and observe how much methane they can release • try to find areas where there is possible outgassing Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/SAM-GSFC/Univ. of Michigan

38 References: Rover Power System

[1] [NA], “Mars Science Laboratory, Curiosity Rover”, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/rover/ [2] [NA], “Solar Panels 101: Understand Module Size and Weight”, Wind & Solar, http://www.intermtnwindandsolar.com/solar-panels-101-understanding-module- size-and-weight/ [3] [NA}, “Hydraulic Earth Drills”, Little Beaver, http://www.littlebeaver.com/products/hydraulic-earth-drills/

39 References-Lava Tube Selection

Brandon Smith - Olympus Mons Lava Tube [1]Prof Horgan’s Slides from 1/23/18 [2] Carter, J., Loizeau, D., Mangold, N., Poulet, F., and Bibring, J. P., “Widespread surface weathering on early Mars: A case for a warmer and wetter climate,” Icarus, vol. 248, 2014, pp. 373–382. Megan Harwell - Elysium Planum [1] “Spirit discovers new class of igneous rocks,” NASA Report. August, 2006 [2] McSween, HY, et al., “Basaltic rocks analyzed by the Spirit Rover in Gusev Crater,” Science, Vol. 305, No. 5685, 2004, pp. 842-845. doi: 10.1126/science.1099851 [3] Rice, MS., et al., “Silica-rich deposits and hydrated minerals at Gusev Crater, Mars: Vis- NIR spectral characterization and regional mapping,” Icarus. Vol. 205, 2010, pp. 375-395. [4] Squyres, et al., “Detection of Silica-rich deposits on Mars,” Science. Vol. 320, 2008, pp. 1063-1067. doi: 10.1126/science.1155429 [5] Ruff, S. W., Farmer, J.D., “Silica deposits on Mars with features resembling hot spring biosignatures at El Tatio in Chile,”Nature Communications, N. 13554, 2016 doi: 10.1038/ncomms13554 [6] Yen, A., et al. 2005. “An integrated view of the chemistry and mineralogy of martian soils.” Nature. 435. pp. 49-54. [7] Klingelhofer, G. et al. 2004. "Jarosite and Hematite at Meridiani Planum from Opportunity’s Mossbauer Spectrometer". Science. Vol. 306. pp. 1740-1745. [8] Rieder, R., et al. 2004. "Chemistry of Rocks and Soils at Meridiani Planum from the Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer". Science. Vol. 306. pp. 1746-1749 Alaina Glidden - Lava Tube Sizing Analysis [1] Branch, G., “Lunar and Planetary Science XXXIII,” vol. 20771, 2002, pp. 8–9. [2] Cushing, G. E., “Candidate cave entrances on Mars,” Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, vol. 74, 2012, pp. 33–47. [3] Cushing, G. E., Titus, T. N., Wynne, J. J., and Christensen, P. R., “THEMIS observes possible cave skylights on Mars,”

Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 34, 2007, pp. 4–8. [4] Ehlmann, B. L., and Edwards, C. S., “Mineralogy of the Martian Surface,” Annual Review of Earth and Planetary 40 Sciences, vol. 42, 2014, pp. 291–315. [5] Leveille R J and Datta S “Lava tubes and basaltic caves as astrobiological targets on Earth and Mars: A review ” References: Lava Tube Selection Cont’d.

Alaina Glidden - Lava Tube Sizing Analysis Cont’d. [6] Parcheta, C., Bruno, B. C., and Fagents, S. A., “Lava flows in the Tharsis region of Mars: estimates of flow speeds and volume fluxes,” American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting, San Francisco, CA. Abstract P23A-0179, 2005. Nick J - Hellas [5] Prof Horgan’s Lecture Slides [6] Das, I. C., et. al., “SPECTRAL STRATIGRAPHY AND CLAY MINERALS ANALYSIS IN PARTS OF HELLAS PLANITIA, MARS,” ISPRS - International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Vol. XL-8, 2014, pp. 419-422. [7] Bandfield, J. L., “High-silica deposits of an aqueous origin in western Hellas Basin, Mars,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 35, 2008. doi: 10.1029/2008GL033807 [8] “Ore resources on Mars,” Wikipedia Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ore_resources_on_Mars

41 References: Launch/Landing site

[1] Schilling G.F., “Limiting Model Atmospheres of Mars,” The Rand Corporation [online], https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2009/R402.pdf [retrieved 18 Feb. 2018] [2] Saltzman E. J., Wang K. C. and Iliff K. W., “Aerodynamic Assessment of Flight-Determined Subsonic Lift and Drag Characteristics of Seven Lifting-Body and Wing-Body Reentry Vehicle Configurations,” Nasa [online], https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030003696.pdf [retrieved 18 Feb. 2018] [3] Lakdawalla E., “Landing ellipses,” The Planetary Society [online], http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2008/1425.html [retrieved 18 Feb. 2018] [4] Glenn Research Center, “Mars Atmosphere Model,” Nasa [online], https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/atmosmrm.html [retrieved 18 Feb. 2018] [5] Martinez I., “Thermal Characteristics of the Space Environment,” Space Environment [online], http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/tc3/Space%20environment.pdf [retrieved 18 Feb. 2018]

42 References Craters

[1] Pike, R.J., “Control of crater morphology by gravity and target type - Mars, earth, moon,” Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, vol. 3, 1980, pp. 2159-2189

[2] Grieve, R. A. F., Dence, M. R., & Robertson, P. B., “Cratering processes - As interpreted from the occurrence of impact melts,” Impact and Explosion Cratering, 1977, pp. 791-814

43 References: Phobos Mission

Alaina Glidden - Phobos Science [1] Murchie, S. L., Britt, D. T., and Pieters, C. M., “The value of Phobos sample return,” Planetary and Space Science, vol. 102, Apr. 2014, pp. 176–182. [2] NASA Available:https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planet ry/factsheet/moonfact.html. [3] Pieters, C. M., Murchie, S., Thomas, N., and Britt, D., “Composition of Surface Materials on the Moons of

Mars,” Planetary and Space Science, Vol. 102, Nov. 2014, pp 144–151. [4] Rosenblatt, P., “The origin of the Martian moons revisited,” The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, vol. 19,

Aug. 2011, pp. 19–44.

Riley Viveros - Design Requirements [1] Murchie, S. L., Britt, D. T., and Pieters, C. M., “The value of Phobos sample return,” Planetary and Space Science, vol. 102, Nov. 2014, pp. 176–182. [2] Korotev, R. L., “Meteorite of Meteorwrong?,” Density & Specific Gravity of Meteorites Available: http://meteorites.wustl.edu/id/density.htm. [3] Akin, D., “Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design,” Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design Available: http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html.

Annie Ping - Propulsion and Mars Landing • Comparison of orbital rocket engines,” Wikipedia Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_orbital_rocket_engines. • Braeunig, R.A., “Rocket Propellants,” Basic of Space Flight Available: http://www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm • Blackmore, L., Frontiers of Engineering, Washington DC: 2017. • Johnson, A. E., Cheng, Y., Montgomery, J., Trawny, N., Tweddle, B., and Zheng, J., Relevant Environment for Mars Landing, Pasadena: . • London, A., and Kirk, D., Comments on Rocket Scaling. 44 References: Shelters

[1] Hassler, D. M., et al. “Mars’ Surface Radiation Environment Measured with the Mars Science Laboratory’s Curiosity Rover,” Science. [2] “Natural Background Radiation,” Nov. 2014. http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/fact-sheets/natural-backgroun d-radiation.cfm [3] Rask, J., Vercoutere, W., Navarro, B. J., and Krause, A., “Space Faring: The Radiation Challenge.” [4] Williams, M., “How bad is the radiation on Mars?,” Phys.org, Nov. 2016.

45 References: Terraforming

[1] Green, J. L., Hollingsworth, J., Brain, D., Airapetian, V., Glocer, A., Pulkkinen, A., Dong, C., and Bamford, R., “A Future Mars environment for science and exploration,” Planetary Science Vision 2050 Workshop 2017, vol. 2017, 2017, pp. 26–29. [2] Motojima, O., and Yanagi, N., “Feasibility of Artificial Geomagnetic Field Generation by a Superconducting Ring Network,” National Institute for Fusion Science, Japan, 2008. [3] Northon, K., “NASA Mission Reveals Speed of Solar Wind Stripping Martian Atmosphere,” NASA Available: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-mission-reveals-speed-of-solar-wind-stripping-martian-atmospher e.

46 Appendix: Code for Landing ellipse

% This script calculates the landing trajectory of a given spacecraft onto %% The Ideal conditions. From these, we can % the martian surface. It then does a Monte Carlo produce the ideal trajecotry Simulation to calculate % and landing location. This location is used % the smallest 3-sigma (98.8% accuracy) Landing for the center of the ellipse (landing footprint) % landing ellipse % % By Michael Rose, last modified 2017-02-16 g = 3.73; %gravity constatnt [m/s^2] C_D_id = 1.3; clear;close all; clc; M_id = 3066; %% basic inputs gamma_id = -5; %degrees; t0 = 0; %initial start time [sec] incln_id = 45; %degrees; tf = 5000; %final end time [sec] S_id = 3; %m^2 dt = t0:.1:tf; x_0_id = 0; num_MCS = 2500; %number of iterations used for y_0_id = 0; monte carlo simulation z_0_id = 80000; %meters acc = .989; %accuracy for the ellipse (using 3- V_mag_id = 4186; %m/s sigma accuracy = .988) Vz_0_id = V_mag_id*sind(gamma_id); %% variations (errors) in initial conditions. Vx_0_id = V_mag_id*cosd(gamma_id)*cosd(incln_id); density error not included yet Vy_0_id = V_mag_id*cosd(gamma_id)*sind(incln_id); incl_error = .2; %inclination error [deg] u02_id = gamma_error = .2; %flight path angle error[deg] [x_0_id,y_0_id,z_0_id,Vx_0_id,Vy_0_id,Vz_0_id]; V_error = 100; %spacecraft velocity error[m/s] pos_error = 0; %spacecraft position error[m]; warning('off','all') C_D_error = .0528; %drag coeff error Mass_error = 600; %mass of spacecraft error [kg];

47 Appendix: Code for Landing ellipse

xoverFcn = @(t_id,x_id) HitSurfaceFcn(t_id,x_id,R); %stops integration for index = 1:num_MCS when spacecraft reaches altitude of 0 meteres %%% assume coeff could be anywhere options = odeset('Events',xoverFcn,'RelTol',1e- randomly between the ideal case and +- 11,'AbsTol',1e-11); %%% the error [t_id,x_id]=ode45(@(t_id,x_id)landing_location_OD C_D = C_D_id+C_D_error*randn; E(t_id,x_id,C_D_id,S_id,M_id,g),dt,u02_id,options M = M_id+Mass_error*randn; ); gamma = gamma_id+gamma_error*randn; %degrees; end_point = numel(x_id(:,1)); incln = incln_id+incl_error*randn; x_pos_id = x_id(end_point,1); %ideal x position %degrees; [m] S = S_id; y_pos_id = x_id(end_point,1); %ideal y position [m] x_0 = 0; y_0 = 0; %% max amount of g's experienced z_0 = z_0_id; %meters V =sqrt(x_id(:,4).^2+x_id(:,5).^2+x_id(:,6).^2); for i = 2:(size(t_id)) V_mag = V_mag_id+V_error*randn; %m/s g_force(i-1) = ((V(i)-V(i- Vz_0 = V_mag*sind(gamma); 1))/(t_id(i)-t_id(i-1)))/9.81; Vx_0 = V_mag*cosd(gamma)*cosd(incln); end Vy_0 = V_mag*cosd(gamma)*sind(incln); max_g = max(abs(g_force)) u02 = [x_0,y_0,z_0,Vx_0,Vy_0,Vz_0]; %% This section is the same logic as the ideal ww = randn; condition, only we now apply xoverFcn = @(t,x) % A Monte Carlo simulation onto the trajecotry. HitSurfaceFcn(t,x,R); tic options = odeset('Events',xoverFcn,'RelTol',1e- 48 11,'AbsTol',1e-11); Appendix: Code for Landing ellipse

[t,x]=ode45(@(t,x)landing_location_ODE_MCS(t,x,C_ D,S,M,g,ww),dt,u02,options); %%%converts positon from meters to km end_point = numel(x(:,1)); x_pos_ell_id = x_pos_ell_id/1000; y_pos_ell_id = y_pos_ell_id/1000; x_pos(index) = x(end_point,1); %x x_pos_ell = x_pos_ell/1000; position of each of the random trajecotries y_pos_ell = y_pos_ell/1000; y_pos(index) = x(end_point,2); %y position of each of the random trajecotries figure(1) hold on end plot(x_pos_ell,y_pos_ell,'r*'); %% This section converts the x axis to the planar plot(0,0,'b*','MarkerSize',20); down range motion, and axis square % y axis to be the cross-range motion axis equal toc x_pos_ell_id = %% this section determines the minimum value for cosd(incln_id).*x_pos_id+sind(incln_id).*y_pos_id the semimajor/minoraxis ; % (a,b respectively) that meets the accuracy y_pos_ell_id = - requirment. sind(incln_id).*x_pos_id+cosd(incln_id).*y_pos_id index = 1; ; tic

x_pos_ell = (cosd(incln_id).*x_pos+sind(incln_id).*y_pos)- x_pos_ell_id; y_pos_ell = - sind(incln_id).*x_pos+cosd(incln_id).*y_pos- y_pos_ell_id; 49 Appendix: Code for Landing ellipse

for b = 1:.1:1.5*max(abs(y_pos_ell)) for a = 1:.1:1.5*max(abs(x_pos_ell))true_a = a_min(min_loc(1)) num_in_bounds = true_b = b_min(min_loc(1)) (x_pos_ell.^2)/a^2+(y_pos_ell.^2)/b^2 <=1; Min_area = Area_ell(min_loc(1)) if sum(num_in_bounds) >= acc*num_MCS check_num(index) = check_num_min = check_num(min_loc(1)) sum(num_in_bounds); %% This section plots the landing ellipse a_min(index) = a; e = sqrt(1-(true_b/true_a)^2); %eccentricity b_min(index) = b; Theta_star = 0; %true anomaly index = index+1; end P = true_a*(1-e^2); end n = 1; end while Theta_star <=360*(pi/180) R = (P)/(1+e*cos(Theta_star)); %calculates R for for a = 1:.1:1.5*max(abs(x_pos_ell)) ellipse at different angles for b = 1:.1:1.5*max(abs(y_pos_ell)) num_in_bounds = e_dir(n) = R*cos(Theta_star); %calculates e_hat (x_pos_ell.^2)/a^2+(y_pos_ell.^2)/b^2 <=1; dir for ellipse if sum(num_in_bounds) >= acc*num_MCS p_dir(n) = R*sin(Theta_star); %calculates p_hat check_num(index) = dir for ellipse sum(num_in_bounds); a_min(index) = a; b_min(index) = b; Theta_star = Theta_star+.001; index = index+1; n = n+1; end end end figure(1) end hold on toc plot(e_dir+true_a*e,p_dir) Area_ell = pi.*a_min.*b_min; title('Landing Ellipse'); 50 min_loc = (find(min(Area_ell))); xlabel('distance [km]'); ylabel('distance [km]'); Appendix: Code for Landing ODE

% This script integrates the EOM's for the xp(1) = x(4); landing_ellipse_final.m script xp(2) = x(5); % By Michael Rose, last modified 2017-02-16 xp(3) = x(6); function f= %% These are the equations of motion for the landing_location_ODE_MCS(t,x,C_D,S,M,g,ww) spacecraft h = x(3); xp(4) = -((rho*C_D*S)/(2*M))*V*x(4); xp = zeros(6,1); xp(5) = -((rho*C_D*S)/(2*M))*V*x(5); V=sqrt(x(4)^2+x(5)^2+x(6)^2); xp(6) = -((rho*C_D*S)/(2*M))*V*x(6)-g; %% Denisty model for mars based on altitude. Still need to incorporate f=[xp(1);xp(2);xp(3);xp(4);xp(5);xp(6)]; % variations of density for Monte Carlo simulation end if x(3) > 7000 rho = (.699*exp(-.00009*h))/(.1921*(- 23.4-.00222*h+273.1)); rho = rho+.07*rho*ww; else rho = (.699*exp(-.00009*h))/(.1921*(- 23.4-.00222*h+273.1)); rho = rho+.07*rho*ww; end

51 Appendix: Rover Body Specifications

• Frame Mass: 50 kg • Based on Al 6061 sheet • Approximated using CAD software • Frame Internal Volume: 5.0-5.5 m3 • Varying to accompany necessary equipment and battery • Impact crater rover contains holder for 120 borehole samples

Rover CAD Drawing Created by Logan Kirsch 52 Appendix: Spectrometer Specifications

• Volume: 194 cm3 • Mass: 190 g

Spectrometer CAD Drawing Created by Logan Kirsch Based on Ocean Optics Red Tide Spectrometer

53 Appendix: Core Sample Specifications

Borehole Sample and Drill Bit CAD Model Created by Logan Kirsch Borehole Sample and Drill Bit CAD Drawing Created by Logan Kirsch

54 Appendix: Seismograph Structural Specifications

• Frame Mass: 192 kg • Based on AISI 4130 Steel • Approximated using CAD

Seismograph Structure CAD Model Seismograph Structure CAD Drawing Created by Logan Kirsch Created by Logan Kirsch 55 Appendix: Phobos Lander Structural Specifications

• Frame Mass: 50 kg • Based on Al 6061 sheet • Approximated using CAD software • Frame Internal Volume: 0.162 m3 • Room for 100 kg samples Satellite CAD Model Created by Logan Kirsch • Includes space for fuel and engine • Fits drill for collecting samples

Satellite CAD Drawing Created by Logan Kirsch

56 City Infrastructure System

Christopher Johnson

Halen Blair, Connor Foley, Alek Gardner, Mitch Hoffmannn, Dan McGahan, Lucas Moyer, Subhiksha Raman

February 20, 2018

57 Making the City Stable

Problem: The lava tube isn’t stable enough for human habitation

Needs: 1. 10,000 people must be housed inside the lava tube 2. The lava tube must be made a stable, livable structure 3. The manufacturing system must know what is necessary for the city to be made

Assumptions: 1. The lava tube is 1,500 m long, 300 m wide and 100 m tall with a roof thickness of 50 m 2. The lava tube is semi-elliptical 3. The city shall be split into modules of 300 m length 4. Housing spaces shall have 3 m tall stories 5. All buildings shall be 20 m x 20 m in floor area

Requirements: 1. The tube will be split into modules 2. The tube support structure must be able to support the weight of the rock above it 3. The tube support structure must be able to prevent a majority of leakage 4. Airlocks must exist to control traffic into and out of the city 5. Leakage occurs primarily at the airlocks 6. Ground transport must be able to interface with the city for resource distribution

58 Supports

Tube Lining: 1. Sizing: a. Floor: 2.5 m thick b. Wall: 2 m thick c. Number of modules: 7 2. Mass Requirements per module: a. Sulfur Concrete: 950,000 Mg b. Steel: 75,000 Mg c. Polyethylene: 250 Mg 3. Lifetime: a. 100 years

Trusses: 1. Sizing a. Base: 20 m by 20 m b. Height: 95 m c. Number of modules: 7 2. Mass Requirements per module: Concrete Lining and Truss (Subhiksha Raman) a. Steel: 44,000 Mg 3. Lifetime: a. 50 years

59 Housing

Living Buildings: 1. Sizing a. 20 m by 20 m base, 3 m floor height b. Floors: 3, 13, 18, 21, 22 c. Number of modules: 2 2. Mass Requirements per module: a. Steel: 25,000 Mg 3. Power Consumption per module: a. 10 MW

Airlock: 1. Sizing: a. 300 m wide, 2.34 cm thick b. Number of airlocks: 9 City Layout (Subhiksha Raman) 2. Mass Requirements per airlock: a. Steel: 4,300 Mg

Airlock (Anand Iyer) 60 The Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS)

Problem: Human factors representatives for the city infrastructure group need to envision and design the general ECLSS* for the city as well as the physical and mental health of the inhabitants.

Needs: 1. Structures representatives for the city need to know at what pressure to maintain the city for materials selection 2. Resource extraction group needs to know the required quantity of steady-state air flow to the city 3. Resource extraction group needs to know the required quantity of steady-state water flow to the city 4. Project managers need a clearly defined ECLSS for the 10,000 inhabitants of the city 5. Resource extraction group needs to know the amount of air leaked into the Martian atmosphere daily

Assumptions: 1. Air shall be maintained at room temperature, 21°C 2. Ratio of partial gasses of Oxygen and Nitrogen shall be maintained at 21% and 78%, respectively 3. The city will be divided seven subsections of 300m x 300m (width and length). Each will have its own ECLSS 4. At most 17.1 Mg air leakage per day (0.1% leakage)

Requirements: 1. The air pressure in the city will be maintained at 81.1 kPa 2. The pressure fluctuation in the city will be no more than +/- 1.5% [2] 3. Heat fluctuation will remain within +/- 2°C for human comfortability 4. City structure will be designed such that no more than 0.1% of the total air leaks per day

61 ECLSS

System Inputs O2 and N2 from UMAWPS* (Diego Martinez)

System Outputs CO2 to UMAWPS (Diego Martinez)

Water Processing Assembly Mass: 264 Mg water/day Power: 10 MW (Nicole Futch)

Temp/Humidity/Pressure Control Mass: 41.6 Mg/day Power: 5 MW

Carbon Dioxide Scrubber Mass: 10.4 Mg/day Power: included in Air Control

Waste Management Mass: 4.5 Mg waste/day Power: 10 MW

Fire Detection/Control Mass: 20 Mg water reserve (Diego Martinez) Power: included in electricity

*UMAWPS: Universal Martian Atmospheric and Water Processing System 62 Communicating within the City

Needs/Requirements: 1. Provide communication and data to end users within the city 2. 1 access point shall be provided for every 10 users 3. System shall interface with remote communication systems and satellite communication systems 4. System shall be capable of voice, video, and data transmission

The system: 1. Network hub (Central Office) located as close as possible to centroid of access points 2. City divided into 4 sections or “routes” ensuring direct routing of cables 3. Fiber optics routed to each individual structure

Benefits: 1. Lower power and longer transmission distance than metal lined alternatives 2. No issues with frequency congestion or line of site requirements 3. Ties remote sites into city communication system, reducing latency 4. Single system eliminates redundancy 5. Necessary material is abundantly available Network Plan Diagram Bottom Line: • Power draw: 24 kW Route 1 Route 2 • SiO2 mass: 30 kg 0.75 kg/yr • GeO2 mass: 15 g Central 0.38 g/yr Office • Cable length: 940 km 3 • Central Office Size: 20 m Route 4

Route 3 63 Powering the City

Problem: Many systems need electricity in order to operate.

Requirements: 1. The reactor must fit inside a module 2. Electricity must be moved efficiently from the reactor 3. Cables are underground

Assumptions: 1. The total combined power of all systems is 3.0 GW 2. Internal losses of transformers are negligible 3. Lengths of wire less than 2 m are negligible

CAD Model by Subhiksha Raman 64 Reactor Design

Reactor

1. Areal Footprint a. 60,000 m2 b. Equivalent to a module 2. Mass Requirements a. Concrete: 16,000 Mg b. Hastelloy-N type metal: 3,000 Mg c. BeF and LiF: 1,100 Mg d. Water: 9,000 Mg e. Thorium and Uranium: 0.769 Mg 3. Volume Requirements a. Concrete: 6600 m3 b. Hastelloy-N: 350 m3 c. BeF and LiF: 550 m3 4. Efficiency a. 98% of the mass is turned into energy 5. Power Production a. 1.0 GW

65 Moving Power Around

Mini power grid on Mars: 1. Have Large transformer outside of the power plant to step up voltage to around 150 kV 2. Power lines will transfer the power from the plant, these power lines will be buried underground and run alongside the railway

3. Another Large transformer will step down Conclusion: the voltage to around 15 kV within areas it • Would require a large initial mass will be used to install and set up 4. Voltage will be stepped down one last • Lifespan for power lines and time to a usable voltage transformers would be well over 75 years, would replace about 1 km of

Cu Mass [Mg] Cu Volume [m3] line per year[7] • Power lines are underground, Power Lines 969,480 91,800 limiting their exposure • Transformers are working in Transformers [2] 2579 8,294.3 a cooler environment which lengthens their life span

66 Interfaces

Ground Transport: 1. Transports people and loads into and out of the city 2. Provides vehicles for transportation of goods within the city

Food Production: 1. Housing is atop the aeroponics 2. Food is produced for consumption by the city

Resource Extraction and Manufacturing: 1. Provides resources for humans to be able to live in the lava tube and expand

Every System: 1. City acts as the nerve center for data transmission 2. Provided electricity

67 APPENDIX

CAD Model by Subhiksha Raman

68 Appendix - Human Factors

Pressurization Trade Study Scale: 1 (least preferred) → 5 (most preferred): non-dimensional numbers representing a factor Factors: 1. Survivability: human ability to survive without extra oxygen 2. Productivity: human ability to perform routine daily tasks 3. Required Power: power necessary to maintain air pressure 4. Required Mass: mass of air needed in the city to maintain pressure

Solution: 81.1 kPa (80% Earth sea-level pressure)

•17.0 kPa partial pressure of O2

•4000 Mg O2 for whole tube

•13,000 Mg N2 for whole tube

69 - Foley Appendix - Human Factors

Lighting the City: Trade Study Method Visibility Ease of Safety Amount Reliability Total Installation/ of Repair Material

Overhead 5 2 2 3 4 16

Streetlights 3 5 5 4 5 22 Requirements: ● The ground level of the city is illuminated to 300 lux (J/m2) at all times ● Fixtures are 105 W LED floodlights giving off 15,000 lumens (J) ● 100,000 hour lifetime

Needs: ● 11,250 fixtures needed, with 6.3 m between each fixture ● Floodlights must be replaced every 11.42 years ● Power: 1,181 kW

70 - Moyer Appendix - Human Factors

ECLSS Components/Manufacturing/Life Cycle 1. Urine Processing Assembly: filters urine into water, sent to water processing, and waste, sent to waste management Materials: Aluminum 1. Water Processing Assembly: filters water from condensate, urine, and human use to re-supply potable water and water for food production at an efficiency rate of 90% (Futch) Materials: Aluminum 1. Air Temp/Humidity/Pressure Control: collects and sends CO2 to UMAWPS, receives O2 and N2 from UMAWPS regulates temperature and pressure, circulates air in module Materials: Aluminum, zeolite (Si, Al, O, Tn, Sn, Zn) 1. Waste Management: collects human waste, filters usable mass for fertilization from waste that will be completely disposed from city Materials: Aluminum All components have a 10-year estimated life cycle

71 - Foley Appendix – HF Risk Analysis

Risk Analysis 1. Depressurization in lava tube 2. Large fluctuation of oxygen level in lava tube 3. ECLSS component breaks 4. Cutoff of resource supply from UMAWPS 5. Fire in lava tube

72 - Foley Appendix - Human Factors

clc

clear all

% Oxygen and Nitrogen Requirements for Atmosphere Within City

p = 101352.9*0.8; % atmospheric pressure at sea level in pascals

h = 100; % height of tunnel in middle

w = 300; % w idth of tunnel

l = 1500; % length of tunnel in meters

a_tunnel = h*w /2*pi/2; % cross section of tunnel if assumed half an ellipse

vol_city = a_tunnel*l; % volume of tunnel

v_oxy = .21*vol_city; % volume of oxygen

v_nit = .78*vol_city; % volume of nitrogen

v_city = .0236442; % volume of a gas w ith conditions inside city

temp_tube = 294.15; % room temperature of 21 degrees C

r = p*v_city/temp_tube; % gas constant in k/mol-k

molar_oxy = 15.99; % molar mass of oxygen

molar_nit = 14.00; % molar mass of nitrogen

n_oxy = p*v_oxy/(r*temp_tube); % moles of oxygen

n_nit = p*v_nit/(r*temp_tube); % moles of nitrogen

73 Appendix - Human Factors

mass_oxy = n_oxy*molar_oxy/1000; % mass of oxygen in kg

mass_nit = n_nit*molar_nit/1000; % mass of nitrogen in kg

mass_Mg_oxy = mass_oxy/1000; % mass of oxygen in Mg

mass_Mg_nit = mass_nit/1000; % mass of nitrogen in Mg

mass_total = mass_oxy + mass_nit; % total mass of atmosphere in kg

% Rate of CO2 produced by human respiration

co2_person = 0.9; % average amount of CO2 produced per human per day

co2_mass_total = co2_person*10000; % total amount of CO2 produced by population in kg

oxy_comp = (15.99*2)/(15.99*2+12.01); % mass percent of oxygen in carbon dioxide

oxy_mass = co2_mass_total*oxy_comp; % mass of O2 being converted into CO2 per day

oxy_percent = oxy_mass/mass_oxy*100; % percent of oxygen in atmosphere being converted to CO2 per day

oxy_loss_year = oxy_percent*365; % percent of oxygen lost to CO2 per year

% Initial Heat Needed to Get Temp to 21 C

cp_oxy = 0.918; % specific heat of oxygen at ~300 K in kJ/kg-K

cp_nit = 1.04; % specific heat of nitrogen at ~300 K in kJ/kg-K

temp_mars = 218; % average surface area temperature on Mars in K

74 Appendix - Human Factors

References: •[1] O’Neil, D., “Adapting to High Altitude,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health,15 March 2011,https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/adapt/adapt_3.htm#atmosphere. •[2] “Weather History for KLAF,” The Weather Channel, https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KLAF/2017/6/5/DailyHistory.html?req_city=West+Laf ayette&req_state=IN&req_statename=Indiana&reqdb.zip=47906&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=9999 9 •[3] Dean, J. and D’Agostino, D., “Pressure Effects on Human Physiology,” Physiology and Medicine of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy, (n.d.), http://www.academia.edu/1516334/PRESSURE_EFFECTS_ON_HUMAN_PHYSIOLOGY. •[4] Low, G, “Apollo Expeditions to the Moon”, NASA, Ch. 4.4, https://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-4- 4.html. •[5] Goyanes, C. “How High Altitude Affects Your Performance.” Map My Run [online], 22 May 2017, http://blog.mapmyrun.com/high-altitude-affects-performance/. •[6] “Space Settlements: A Design Study,” Ch. 3, August 1975, https://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/75SummerStudy/Chapt3.html

75 - Foley/Moyer Appendix – HF References

References: [1] O’Neil, D., “Adapting to High Altitude,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health,15 March 2011,https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/adapt/adapt_3.htm#atmosphere. [2] “Weather History for KLAF,” The Weather Channel, https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KLAF/2017/6/5/DailyHistory.html?req_city=West+Laf ayette&req_state=IN&req_statename=Indiana&reqdb.zip=47906&reqdb.magic=1&reqdb.wmo=9999 9 [3] Dean, J. and D’Agostino, D., “Pressure Effects on Human Physiology,” Physiology and Medicine of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy, (n.d.), http://www.academia.edu/1516334/PRESSURE_EFFECTS_ON_HUMAN_PHYSIOLOGY. [4] Low, G, “Apollo Expeditions to the Moon”, NASA, Ch. 4.4, https://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-4- 4.html. [5] Goyanes, C. “How High Altitude Affects Your Performance.” Map My Run [online], 22 May 2017, http://blog.mapmyrun.com/high-altitude-affects-performance/. [6] “Space Settlements: A Design Study,” Ch. 3, August 1975, https://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/75SummerStudy/Chapt3.html

2/20/2018 76 - Foley/Moyer Appendix – HF References

[7] GLOBE Scientists’ Blog, “Release of carbon dioxide by individual humans,” The Globe Program, Retrieved from https://www.globe.gov/explore-science/scientists-blog/archived- posts/sciblog/index.html_p=183.html on January 29, 2018

[8] U.S. Department of Energy Energy Information Administration, “Method for Calculating Carbon Sequestration by Trees in Urban and Suburban Settings,” Retrieved from https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/method-calculating-carbon-sequestration-trees- urban-and-suburban-settings.pdf on January 29, 2018

[9] Chung, Chieh, “The Ideal Gas Law,” Retrieved from http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c120/idealgas.html on January 29, 2018

[10] Khan Academy, “Heat and Temperature,” Retrieved from https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/thermodynamics-chemistry/internal-energy- sal/a/heat on February 8, 2018

[11] (n.a.), “Rates of Heat Transfer,” Retrieved from http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-1/Rates-of-Heat-Transfer on February 8, 2017

2/20/2018 77 - Foley/Moyer Appendix – HF References

[12] Schaezler, R., Cook, A., Leonard, D, and Ghariani, A., “Trending the Overboard Leakage of ISS Cabin Atmosphere,” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, [online], https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110012997.pdf [13] “International Space Station: Environmental Control and Life Support System,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, [online], FS-2008-05-83-MSFC, https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/104840main_eclss.pdf [14] “Crisp, Clean Clothes without the Waste,” Alliance for Water Efficiency, [online], https://www.home-water-works.org/indoor-use/clothes-washer [15] Ming, D. and Gooding, J., “Zeolites on Mars: Possible Environmental Indicators in Soils and Sediments,” NASA Johnson Space Center, [online], https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890008967.pdf

78 Appendix - Comms Decisions

City Communications options

Speed Power Mas s Volume Constructability Reliability Total Weights 3 5 5 3 4 4 Fiber 5 4 3 4 4 4 94 Copper 3 2 1 2 3 3 54 Cellular 3 3 4 4 2 2 72 Wireless 3 3 4 4 2 2 72 • Fiber provides all the advantages of copper with none of the drawbacks • Hard lines eliminate the risk of congestion and interference • Minimal attenuation means a fiber network will not require relays • Lower power for much longer transmission distances • Cellular requires towers which are hard-wired together, requiring a copper or fiber system in place anyway • Both cellular and wireless rely on radio signals which will attenuate quickly • Cannot build towers above the city (the ground is in the way) • City will be dense so signals will have to penetrate many walls

79 Appendix - Comms Math

Assumptions • Fiber lines must be laid out in a perpendicular grid (i.e. along rule lines of paper shown below) • Access points are evenly distributed across the area of the town

Current expected city dimensions taken from lava tube discovered by science group:

80 Appendix - Comms Math

Mean distance from Central Office to Access Point: 470 m

81 Appendix - Comms MPV

• Power Consumption: ~24 Kw • 24 W laser transceiver per access point • Based on Gebrit Electronics 2-output laser transmitter • 1000 access points • Length of Fiber: 940km • 1000 access points • Average of 470m of fiber from CO to access point • 2 strands per access point (1 transmit, 1 receive) • Core Fiber Mass: 30 kg • Mass per length: .0032kg/km • SIO2 density: 2.6e3 kg/km • Cross sectional area: .012mm • Required length of cable: 940km

82 APPENDIX: COMMUNICATION MANUFACTURING FIBER

• Process begins with a glass (SiO2) substrate tube • Tube is heated and core suit coating is applied • Gaseous SiCl4 and trace amounts of GeCl4 are injected along with pure oxygen. • The reaction leaves a suit of glass with slightly higher index of refraction than the substrate • The substrate is then rotated slowly while intense heat is applied until the tube collapses into a solid rod. • This rod is then hung vertically and extruded • A weight is placed on the end of the rod • Heat is applied to melt the glass • The weight pulls the fiber until it is the correct width (slightly greater than that of a human hair). • The fiber is then flexible and can be rolled onto a spool

83 APPENDIX: COMMUNICATION MATERIAL AVAILABILITY • Silicon dioxide (abundant in Martian soil) can be melted down into glass substrate. (Islam Nazmy)

• SiCl4 and GeCl4 • Chlorine gas is piped over heated silicon to make SiCl4 • A similar process is used to create GeCl4 • Chlorine gas is available in suitable quantities (Islam Nazmy) • Silicon is abundantly available • Germanium can be extracted in the small quantities necessary (Megan Harwell)

84 APPENDIX: COMMUNICATION LASER DIODE MANUFACTURING

• Blanks of AlGaAs are created by combining the three elements at high pressure • All three are available in small but adequate quantities (Megan harwell)

• GaAs is doped with Si using SiCl4 which was discussed earlier[1] • Polishing and combining the two in layers creates an LED which allows photons to reflect back and forth and stimulate further emission. • See [2] for more information on the production process

85 APPENDIX: COMMUNICATION METAL VS. OPTICAL FIBER

• Both Aluminum and Copper have similar properties so numbers for copper are used here

Copper wire:

• Easy to manufacture by extruding copper

• Copper may be difficult to procure

• Mass required for system: 590Mg

• Attenuation: 13db/km [4][5]

Fibe r :

• Complicated but possible manufacturing process

• Abundant raw material (SiO2 averages over 40% of Martian soil – Is lam Nazm y)

• Mass required for system: 8.5Mg

• Attenuation: 0.2db/km [6]

Comparison:

• Attenuation ratings mean that a copper system requires 65 times as many relays as a fiber system of the same power transmission • Transmitted power would need to be much higher on the copper system to avoid an infeasible number of relays • Even with higher transmission power, transmission distances are much lower for copper than fiber

• Copper lines are well known to be less durable than fiber and therefore would require more maintenance

• Silica is abundant in Martian soil while the only sources of copper may be thousands of kilometers away. (Megan Harwell)

Conclusion:

The only real advantage to metal transmission lines is the ease of manufacturing. This analysis lead to the selection of fiber due to the savings in mass, power, maintenance requirements, and material.

86 Appendix - Power Selection

Need 1 GW Power for city

Option Mass (Mg) Power Output Potential Problems (MW)

Solar (in space) 3,220,000 1000 Rockets to get them in place

Solar (on ground) 6,600,000 1000 60 Day dust storms

Geothermal 160,000 1000 45 km drill depth

Nuclear 40,000 1000 Scarce materials

87 Appendix - Power Materials

• Nickel and other trace metals, for Alloy thats in contact with salt • LiF: Part of molten salts • BeF: other part of molten salts • Helium (small amounts): extracting Xenon and other neutron Absorbers • Thorium: Fuel • Steel: Structural • Graphite: Fuel rods and controlling the reaction • Concrete: Gamma Ray neutralization • Fluorine: Salts and Uranium extraction from Salt for processing

88 Appendix - Power Cables

Cable Info: • AWG 250 (1.5cm diameter) [6] • 7 coils (Spreads out current to reduce losses) • Copper wire • Polyethylene Insulation • Can be produced using a method presented earlier by Kyle Tincup • 1.6 mm thick layer to provide physical protection • Steel outer casing for grounding

Calculation: 10 [cm] Weight/meter = nρCu ACu + ρPoly Apoly + ρSteelASteel

n = number of coils

89 Appendix - Power Voltage Decisions

90 Appendix - Power MPV

Statistics: Mass and Volume: • Total Length: 12,000 km (11,500 • Wires : 26.93 kg/m | 0.00255 m2 km from Ground Transport and • Large Transformers : 154 Mg/unit | 401.3 m3/unit 500 km estimate for City) • Medium Transformers : 27.8 Mg/unit | 92 m3/unit • 2 large transformers to step up • Small Transformers : 0.437 Mg/unit | 1.4 m3/unit voltage to 150kV and to step it back down to 10kV Totals: • 81 medium transformers to step • Wires : 323,160 Mg | 30,600 m3 down the 150kV to 34kV for • Large Transformers : 308 Mg | 802.6 m3 railway use and resource • Medium Transformers : 2257.6 Mg | 7452 m3 extraction equipment • Small Transformers : 13.1 Mg | 42 m3 • 30 small transformers to step down 10kV to 240V for City use

91 Appendix - Power References

[1] Hwang, Fu, “Why do we need High Voltage Transmission Lines”, http://www.phy.ntnu.edu.tw/ntnujava/index.php?topic=941.0 [2] [NA],”Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration”, Large Power Transformers and the U.S. Electric Grid, https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/Large%20Power%20Transformer%20Study%20-%20June%202012_0.pdf [3] [NA], “How Power is Delivered to Your Home”, Central Alabama Electric Cooperative, http://caec.coop/electric- service/how-power-is-delivered-to-yo ur-home/ [4] [NA], “High Voltage Power Transmission Line Insulators and Their Types”, Electrical Power Energy, http://www.electricalpowerenergy.com/2014/05/24/high-voltage-power-transmission-li ne-insulators-and-their-types/ [5] [NA], “Resistance and Resistivity”, Copper and Electricity, http://resources.schoolscience.co.uk/cda/16plus/copelech2pg1.html [6] [NA], “Bare Copper”, American Wire Group, pg 101, http://www.buyawg.com/pdf/AWG-Catalog.pdf [7] [NA], “Transformer Replacement Program”, National Grid, https://www.nationalgridus.com/media/pronet/transformer-replacement-program-implementation-manual.pdf

92 Appendix - Power References

Kasten, P. R., Bettis, E. S., and Robertson, R. C., “Design Studies of 1000-Mw(e) Molten-Salt Breeder Reactors,” Central Research Library. IADC Drilling Manual(1.1th ed.). (n.d.). Houston, TX: Technical Toolboxes, Inc. Sam Noynaert, Professor at Texas A&M in Petroleum Engineering U.S. Nuclear Propulsion (n.d.). In Forecast International. Nieminen, A. J., “Molten Salt Reactors The new frontier of nuclear reactors,” thesis, 2017.

93 Buildings for housing

• Two modules of food/housing with living space and buildings for housing on top of space allocated for food production • Buildings have standard size of 20x20m for housing but vary in height due to ceiling shape

94 20*20m base, 3 m floor height, 22 floors, factor of safety 5, A36 Steel

• Mass of structure: 516.2 Mg • Volume of Building: 26,400 m^3 • Usable building volume: 24,134 m^3 • Square beam side length: 14.07 cm • Total volume of structural elements: 66.18 m^3

FOR 20 OF THESE BUILDINGS: • Total mass: 10,324 Mg • Total usable volume: 482,680 m^3

2/20/2018 95 20*20m base, 3 m floor height, 21 floors, factor of safety 5, A36 Steel

• Mass of structure: 480.9 Mg • Volume of Building: 25,200 m^3 • Usable building volume: 23,038 m^3 • Square beam side length: 13.90 cm • Total volume of structural elements: 61.65 m^3

FOR 4 OF THESE BUILDINGS: • Total mass: 1,924 Mg • Total usable volume: 92,152 m^3

96 20*20m base, 3 m floor height, 18 floors, factor of safety 5, A36 Steel

• Mass of structure: 380.3 Mg • Volume of Building: 21,600 m^3 • Usable building volume: 19,751 m^3 • Square beam side length: 13.35 cm • Total volume of structural elements: 48.76 m^3

FOR 20 OF THESE BUILDINGS: • Total mass: 7,606 Mg • Total usable volume: 395,020 m^3

97 20*20m base, 3 m floor height, 13 floors, factor of safety 5, A36 Steel

• Mass of structure: 231.9 Mg • Volume of Building: 15,600 m^3 • Usable building volume: 14,270 m^3 • Square beam side length: 12.27 cm • Total volume of structural elements: 29.73 m^3

FOR 20 OF THESE BUILDINGS: • Total mass: 4,638 Mg • Total usable volume: 312,000 m^3

98 20*20m base, 3 m floor height, 3 floors, factor of safety 5, A36 Steel

• Mass of structure: 25.18 Mg • Volume of Building: 3,600 m^3 • Usable building volume: 3,297 m^3 • Square beam side length: 8.41 cm • Total volume of structural elements: 3.23 m^3

FOR 20 OF THESE BUILDINGS: • Total mass: 503.6 Mg • Total usable volume: 65,940 m^3

99 Totals for one module of buildings

• Total Mass: 24,996 Mg • Total Usable volume: 1,348,000 m^3

100 Pressure bulkheads

• City separated into five 300m*300m sections requiring a total of 6 pressure bulkheads • Bulkheads made of A36 structural steel plates • Using thin wall pressure vessel theory, and assume a atmospheric pressure of 0.8 atm • Bulkhead thickness of 2.34 cm, mass of 4301 Mg each assuming a factor of safety of 5 over failure pressure

2/20/2018 101 FOOD PRODUCTION

Kelsey Delehanty

Alek Gardner, Swapneel Kulkarni, Matt Prymek, Subhiksha Raman, Jonathan Rohwer

February 20, 2018

2/20/18 102 Requirements

1. Crop yield a. Shall be sufficient to provide 10,000 people with food (Project Statement) b. Shall produce a surplus to allow for a factor of safety (Amy Comeau) c. Shall produce food for 310 day missions to Earth (Space Transportation) d. Shall produce food for 5 day Mars surface missions (Ground Transportation) 2. Nutrients and minerals a. Shall be sufficient to sustain healthy plant growth, dependant upon plant type (Jonathan Rohwer) b. Shall be sufficient to provide humans with necessary amounts to live healthily (Kelsey Delehanty) 3. Farming structure a. Shall enclose, at minimum, 809,000 m2 of crop space (Kelsey Delehanty) b. Shall support the masses on and above it i. Shall support the city above it: 25,000 Mg (Halen Blair) ii. Shall support the internal weight of the crops: 716 Mg (Kelsey Delehanty) iii. Shall support the weight of the water and tanks: 4,710 Mg (Swapneel Kulkarni) 4. Provide 83 MW of power for the food production. (Kelsey Delehanty, Matt Prymek, Jonathan Rohwer)

2/20/18 103 Essential Minerals Kelsey Delehanty, Jonathan Rohwer

Nutrient Requirements ● Aeroponics: Crops (kg/day) Humans (kg/day) ○ Strawberries [53] [70] ○ Blueberries Nitrogen 92 ~ ○ Kale Potassium 65.7 47 ○ Spinach Calcium 32.8 10 ○ Broccoli Magnesium 13.1 3.2 ○ Sweet Potato Phosphorous 13.1 7 ○ Russet Potato Sulfur 6.57 ~ ○ Whole Grain Wheat Chlorine 0.657 ~ ○ Oats Boron 0.131 NE ○ Brown Rice Iron 0.657 0.13 ○ Soybeans - make milk, tofu Manganese 0.328 0.018 ● Non-aeroponic methods: Zinc 0.131 0.11 ○ Crickets - make protein powder/bar Molybdenum 6.57E-4 4.5E-04 ■ Put them in a box with refuse from fruits and veggies Sodium NE 1.47 Copper 0.0394 0.009 Iodine NE 0.0015 Based on human nutrient requirements including calories, vitamins, macro and microminerals Selenium NE 5.5E-04 NE = non-essential 2/20/18 104 Aeroponics Buildings Swapneel Kulkarni, Subhiksha Raman

• Located underneath the city • Nine levels • Minimum: 809,000 m2 of usable farmland • Based on foods that fulfill nutrient requirements • Minimum: 1.62 million m2 of total agricultural space • 2 m-wide crop rows, 1 m-wide walking paths • Pillars used for food storage • 79,200 m3 total storage across both sections • Additional support structures (Halen Blair) • 500 structural steel columns per unit (base 0.56 m square) • Total volume: 6.889 x 104 m3 • 0.02% of floorspace

Subhiksha Raman 2/20/18 105 Farmland Kelsey Delehanty

One Floor of Crops (Lower Level 1) • 1620 modules per section (Kelsey Delehanty) • 400 m2 each • 22.8 Mg total to be harvested a day • 20.2 Mg to be eaten that day • 46 workers workers needed to Four City harvest 45,000 m2 daily [78] Structural • Extra food per Earth year: 943 Mg Supports • Will accumulate more than 46 extra days of food every Earth year (1724 m3 extra food a year) • Will fill storage pillars in 46 Earth years (2.9 years worth of food) • 1.9% of food collected during cycler trip will go to next cycler trip Elevator Bank

2/20/18 106 Supporting Systems Swapneel Kulkarni, Jonathan Rohwer

• Cement water tanks holding crop One Crop Module water (Kelsey Delehanty) • Varying number per crop (1-7, depending on need) • Holds varying amounts of plant nutrients • Stirred by motors • Tanks replenished at varying rates (1-38 days, depending on need) • Pipe and nozzle system • Polyethylene nozzles and aluminum pipes • 45,220 total nozzles • One row of 14 nozzles covers a module in 3.25 mins • Replace one nozzle per module per year

2/20/18 107 Lighting and Water Matt Prymek, Jonathan Rohwer

Lighting ○ Provided by 80,900 Sulphur Plasma Lamps ○ Provide 100 W/m2 of illumination over entire crop area with sun-like spectra ○ 6 year life span ○ Volume = 671.5 m3 total ○ Power = 82.5 MW Water ○ Tanks on top floor will allow gravity to help ○ Pump water to every floor and to 20 modules at a time ○ Pumps - 10 year life span, pipes - 50 year lifespan ■ Doesn’t include cleaning ○ Irrigation system moves piping in each module ○ Two buildings ○ Power = 14.15 kW

2/20/18 108 Long-term Food Storage [71-73] Kelsey Delehanty

• Food will be freeze-dried to preserve it for space transport and city reserves • Industrial Freeze-Dryer • 4.8 m3 capacity (we produce 4.7 m3 daily) • Need 1 per section (2 total) • Run the freeze-dryers on alternate days • Mass: 20.4 Mg each • Volume: 50 m3 each • Power: 0.23 MW each • Materials: Stainless Steel, Liquid Methane • 0.02-0.026 m3 coolant per unit (Liquid methane) • Should lose essentially no coolant • Assuming a leak every Earth year (warranty), need 0.034 kg liquid methane yearly to replace it

2/20/18 109 Resource Recycling Matt Prymek, Jonathan Rohwer Oxygen: ● City of 10,000 will require ~ 8.4 Mg O2 replenished daily without considering leaks of up to 17.1 Mg per day [69], (City). ● From farmed area for each crop (Kelsey Delehanty), calculate net O2 production: ○ Daily O2 Production: ~ 21.2 +/- 20% Mg / day ○ Daily Net O2 Surplus: ~12.8 +/- 4.24 Mg / day

Minerals: ● Continuous stirred-tank reactor (CSTR) ○ 50 to 60 percent nutrient recovery ● Requires water and biomass ○ Refuse per day (Kelsey Delehanty) ■ 6.37 Mg ○ Water per day ■ 21.24 Mg

2/20/18 110 Risk

Hazard Matrix of Failure Modes: Consequences Negligible Minor Moderate Severe Likely - Light - Nozzles clog malfunction

Possible - Coolant leak

Unlikely - Elevator -Pump break - Dead crop break-down down sections - Insufficient nutrient resources Rare - Structural collapse

Low Priority Medium Priority High Priority 2/20/18 111 Appendices

2/20/18 112 Appendix A: Crops and Farmland

2/20/18 113 Food for Trips Outside the City Kelsey Delehanty

Ground Transportation: Protein Bars[20]. • Protein bars contain oats, soy milk, protein powder from crickets, dried strawberries and blueberries • A batch of bars is ~750 calories • Each person would need 3.5 a day • 3.5 batches = 0.00828 m3 • A four person rover for 5 days = 0.1656 m3 • ~(0.54 m)3 • Can be unrefrigerated for several weeks Cycler: Freeze-dried food • 50 people for 310 days • 31.31 Mg of food which is 58 m3 • Adding 25% for safety: 39.14 Mg at 72.5 m3

2/20/18 114 Full Farmland Layout, per Section Kelsey Delehanty

L1 L4 L7

L2 L5 L8

L3 L6 L9

2/20/18 115 Crop Area Kelsey Delehanty

# Whole Total area Area per 300m # Modules per Modules per w/paths (m2 ) section (m2 ) Add 6% (m2 ) 300 m section 300 m section Total area (m2 ) Extra area (m2 )

Strawberries 9689 4844.4 5135.1 12.8 13 10400 711

Blueberries 93473 46736.4 49540.6 123.9 124 99200 5727

Kale 1581 790.3 837.7 2.1 3 2400 819

Spinach 2344 1172.1 1242.4 3.1 4 3200 856

Broccoli 12908 6454.2 6841.4 17.1 18 14400 1492

Sweet Potato 102339 51169.4 54239.5 135.6 136 108800 6461

White Potato 44052 22026.0 23347.6 58.4 59 47200 3148

Whole grain wheat flour 154459 77229.7 81863.5 204.7 205 164000 9541

Oats 432825 216412.5 229397.3 573.5 574 459200 26375

Brown Rice 195000 97500.0 103350.0 258.4 259 207200 12200

Soybeans 164854 82426.9 87372.5 218.4 219 175200 10346

Mushrooms 116 57.8 61.3 0.2 1 800 684

2/20/18 TOTAL 1213639 1735 116174361 Elevators for Food Transport Kelsey Delehanty

• We need to transport 22.8 Mg a day (Kelsey Delehanty) • This has a volume of 41.7 m3 . • Each harvesting cart is 0.5 m3 (0.5m x 1m x 1m) • We would need 84 cart loads a day • 10-11 carts/hr • We can do 6 elevator loads/hr with 2 carts on each load • Each elevator load contains 0.55 Mg of food • Total of 3 elevators spaced along one wall • Freight elevators on earth travel about 1.016 m/s [80] • Distance between floors is 3 m (Subhiksha Raman) • Travel time between floors 2.95 s • At that time and rate, and carrying a mass of 0.55 tons (Kelsey Delehanty) • One elevator would need 2.075 kW • Six elevators all at once would need 12.45 kW

2/20/18 117 Packaging Freeze-Dried Food Kelsey Delehanty

• A stack of 10 gallon bags has dimensions of 1mm x 26cm x 27cm. • The density of polyethylene is about 1000 kg/m3 (Eric Thurston) • We will harvest an extra 1734 m3 of food a year that needs to be stored. • This amounts to 3.18 Mg a year.

Freeze dried food is good in its package for 2-25 years. (Fruit is at the lower end.) It can survive out of its packaging for only about 6 months. [79]

2/20/18 118 Sustaining Crickets [76-77] Kelsey Delehanty

• We need to eat 15 kg a day. • Their lifespan is 90 days, so we need to be growing 1.35 Mg at a time • One cricket has a mass of 0.26 g • One cricket eats ~0.034 g food/day • The crickets will consume 0.176 Mg of food refuse a day

2/20/18 119 Appendix B: Crop Light, Water Requirements, and Storage

2/20/18 120 Grow Light Background Matt Prymek

Light Manufacturing - Fluorescents: Each lamp requires milligrams of mercury, individually comparable to annual production. - High-Pressure Sodium: See fluorescents. - Metal-Halide: No mining to meet Iodide, Bromide, Xenon, Tungsten requirements. - LED: Estimated Gallium Arsenide requirements two orders of magnitude greater than current production (~0.356 g / year). - Cathode-Ray Phosphors: Require an abundance of rare-earth metals to produce white light, including Yttrium. - Sulfur / Plasma: Only requires a few milligrams of sulfur and argon per lamp; produces light through excitation of sulfur and argon via microwaves. Magnetrons only need iron, copper, and a calcium silicate, all of which are in high abundance. > 70% energy conversion efficiency and sun-like spectrum.

121 Aeroponics Background Swapneel Kulkarni, Matt Prymek, Jonathan Rohwer

● Aeroponics[51] is the process of growing plants in air or a misty environment without the use of soil or an aggregate medium ● Can use up to 98% less water and grow 45% time faster (Matt Prymek) ● Nutrients are mixed into the water as salts and are ionized to become part of the water. Certain pH values must be maintained. Image modified from Garden Ambition Website Based on specific crop. (Jonathan Rohwer)

2/20/18 122 Tank Layout per Section Kelsey Delehanty

2/20/18 123 Water Tank Refilling Matt Prymek, Jonathan Rohwer

Crop # of Modules/Section # of Tanks/Section Days of Water

Strawberries 13 2 17.3

Blueberries 124 3 2.72

Kale 3 1 37.5

Spinach 4 1 28.13

Broccoli 18 2 12.5

Sweet Potatoes 136 3 2.48

White Potatoes 59 2 3.81

Wheat 205 3 1.65

Oats 574 7 1.37

Brown Rice 259 4 1.74

Soybeans 219 4 2.06

2/20/18 124 Minerals Needed for Crops [55] Jonathan Rohwer

Element Principle Form of Uptake Mass [Mg/yr]

+ - N NH4 /NO3 33.57 K K+ 23.98 Ca Ca2+ 11.99 Mg Mg2+ 4.796

- 2- P H2PO4 /HPO4 4.796

2- S SO4 2.398

Cl Cl- 0.298

B H3BO3 4.796E-2

Fe Fe2+/Fe3+ 0.2398

Mn Mn2+ 0.1199

Zn Zn2+ 4.796E-2

Cu Cu2+ 1.439E-2

2- Mo MoO4 2.398E-4 ● Based on an refuse mass of 6.372 Mg and water percentage in plants of 90% (Kelsey Delehanty, Matt Prymek) 2/20/18 125 Abundance of Nutrients [53] Jonathan Rohwer

Element Molecule ppm Element Molecule ppm

- H H2O 60,000 Cl Cl 100 C CO 420,000 2 B H3BO3 20

O H2O 480,000 Fe Fe2+/Fe3+ 100 N NH +/NO - 14,000 4 3 Mn Mn2+ 50 K K+ 10,000 Zn Zn2+ 20 Ca Ca2+ 5,000 Cu Cu2+ 6 Mg Mg2+ 2,000 2- Mo MoO4 0.1 - P H2PO4 2,000 2- /HPO4

2- S SO4 1,000

2/20/18 126 Water and Aeroponics Jonathan Rohwer

• Given: -2 -1 • Water: 2 Lm d for traditional • AgriHouse (plastic) [57] farming methods (Matt • Pressure: 0.552 MPa to 0.689 Prymek) 2 MPa • Growth Area: 809,000 m • Outlet: 0.635 mm (Kelsey Delehanty) • Volumetric Flow Rate: • Average Water Savings: 90% 2.366e-6 m3s-1 [55] • 1.25 Million Nozzles • Spray Session: 3 seconds • Nozzles: 0.68 nozzles*m2 every 30 minutes [55] • Fogco (Brass or Stainless Steel) • 5-50 micron droplet size [56] [59] • Found • Pressure: 6.895 MPa • Total Water: 161.8 Mg/day • Outlet: 0.508 mm • Volumetric Flow Rate: 2.951 3 -1 • Volumetric Flow Rate: m s 3 -1 -1 2.839e-6 m s • Mass Flow Rate: 2951 kgs • 1.04 Million Nozzles • Flow rates are only during those 3 • Weight 0.02 lb seconds • 9.5 to 49.9 micron droplets • Both examples are cleanable • Plastic/nonmagnetic metal better than magnetic metals [56]

2/20/18 127 Water Power Jonathan Rohwer

%% Conversions p(5) = p(4) + rho_water*g*dH; % Pressure at B5 floor [Pa] atm_pa = 101325; % Conversion from atm to Pa 1atm = 101325Pa p(6) = p(5) + rho_water*g*dH; % Pressure at B6 floor [Pa] %% Known p(7) = p(6) + rho_water*g*dH; % Pressure at B7 floor [Pa] water_day = 170000/2; % Water needed per day [kg] p(8) = p(7) + rho_water*g*dH; % Pressure at B8 floor [Pa] A_total = 850000; % Total plant area [m^2] p(9) = p(8) + rho_water*g*dH; % Pressure at B9 floor [Pa] A_mod = 266.6; % Module growth area [m^2] %% Flow Properties mod_floor = 180; % Modules per floor r_2 = 0.365e-3/2; % outlet radius [m] nozzle_mod = 14; % Nozzles per module A_2 = r_2^2 * pi; % outlet area [m^2] mod_time = 180/(30/3.25); % Modules on at any given time p_2 = 0.689e6; % outlet pressure [Pa] nozzle_time = mod_time*nozzle_mod; % Nozzles on at any given time Q = 2.366e-6; % Volumetric flow rate of one nozzle [m^3/s] floors = 9; % Number of floors Q_f = Q * nozzle_time; % Volumetric flow rate per floor [m^3/s] L_floor = 300; % Length of floor [m] dh = rho_inv * (p - p_2); % change in enthalpy [J/kg] [58] W_floor = 280; % Width of floor [m] m_dot_2 = Q_f / rho_inv; % Mass flow rate at exits [kg/s] rho_water = 1000; % Density of water [kg/m^3] m_dot_1 = m_dot_2; % Mass flow rate at inlet g = 3.711; % Acceleration due to gravity on Mars V_1 = m_dot_1 * rho_inv ./ A_pipe; % inlet velocity p_atm = 81060; % Atmospheric pressure [Pa] V_2 = m_dot_2 * rho_inv / (A_2*nozzle_time); % outlet velocity dH = 3; % Height change from floor to floor W = m_dot_1 * (dh + (V_1.^2 - V_2^2)/2); % Power per floor [W] rho_inv = 1.0020 / 1000; % specific volume at at 21 C [m^3/kg] [58] W_water_total = sum(W) * 2; % Total Power usage for both buildings [W] %% Assumptions %% Irrigation D_pipe = 0.05; % Diameter of main line rho_PVC = 1450; % Density of PVC pipe [kg/m^3] A_pipe = pi*D_pipe^2/4; % Area of main line t_PVC = 0.01; % Thickness of PVC pipe D_tank = 4; % Diameter of tank D_PVC = D_pipe + 2 * t_PVC; % Outer diameter of pipe H_tank = 4; % Height of tank A_PVC = pi * D_PVC^2/4 - A_pipe; % Cross sectional area of pipe [m^2] %% General Calculations L_PVC = 20; % Length of each pipe in the module [m] water_pp = water_day / A_total; % Water per area per day [kg/m^2] V_PVC = A_PVC * L_PVC; % Volume of each pipe in the module [m^3] water_mod = water_pp * A_mod; % Water per modules per day [kg] m_PVC = V_PVC * rho_PVC; % Mass of each pipe in the module [kg] water_dot = water_mod / (60*60*24); % Water flow into the module [kg/s] V_water = A_pipe * L_PVC; % Volume of water in each pipe [m^3] %% Inlet pressures m_water = V_water * rho_water; % Mass of water in each pipe [kg] p(2) = 0.8 * atm_pa + rho_water*g*H_tank/2; % Pressure at base of tank (B2 m_total = m_water + m_PVC; % Total mass moving in each module floor) [Pa] f = 0.2; % friction coefficient of polyethylene on steel p(1) = p(2) - rho_water*g*dH; % Pressure at B1 floor [Pa] F_total = m_total * g; % Weight of pipe with water p(3) = p(2) + rho_water*g*dH; % Pressure at B3 floor [Pa] F_friction = F_total * f; % Force required to move pipe p(4) = p(3) + rho_water*g*dH; % Pressure at B4 floor [Pa] W_pipe = F_friction * L_PVC * 2; % Work done to move pipe W_pipe_total = W_pipe * mod_time*floors*2; % Work done by system 2/20/18 W_total = W_pipe_total - W_water_total; % Total work needed 128 Appendix C: Recycling

2/20/18 129 Oxygen Production Detail Matt Prymek

Oxygen needs: ● Average human requires ~ 0.84 kg O2 / day [69]

● City of 10,000 will require ~ 8.4 Mg O2 replenished daily Oxygen replenishment:

● Photosynthesis - > 1:1 molar ratio between consumed CO2 , expired O2 [61] 2 2 ● CO2 consumption (g/m /s) of each crop -> O2 production (g/m /s) for each crop ○ Depends on CO2 conc., intensity of light exposure, temperature, and varies over the life of each plant [60-69,75] • Continuous harvest + maintaining optimal conditions ● From farmed area for each crop (Kelsey Delehanty), calculate net O2 production: ○ Daily O2 Production: ~ 21.2 +/- 20% Mg / day ○ Daily Net O2 Surplus: ~12.8 +/- 4.24 Mg / day

Analysis indicates that food production will be sufficient to meet the needs of civilian oxygen supply.

2/20/18 130 Oxygen/Co2 Rates [60 - 68] Matt Prymek

CO2 O2 O2 Area Farmed O2 (umol/m2/s) (mg/m2/s) (g/m2/day) (m2) (Kg/day)

Wheat 20 0.32 64.0 10,933.3 251.9

Rice 30.0 0.48 83.7 138,133.0 4,773.9

Oats 30.2 0.483 88.9 306,133.3 10,650.5

Soybeans 30.0 0.48 16.7 116,800.0 4,036.6

Sweet Potato 9.3 0.148 11.0 72,533.3 777.1

Russet Potato 13.3 0.213 73.4 31,466.7 482.2

Yellow Corn 42.1 0.64 151.6 ~ ~

Spinach 20.0 0.32 23.04 2,133.3 49.15

Broccoli 14.82 0.237 17.07 9,600.0 163.9

Red Tomatoes 16.1 0.258 18.55 ~ 1.38

Iceberg Lettuce 5.0 0.079 5.75 ~ ~

Kale 20.0 0.32 23.04 1600.0 8.77

Grapes 23.0 0.368 26.50 ~ ~ 2/20/18 131 TOTAL: 21,193 Oxygen Production Analysis Matt Prymek

Calculation Of O2 from Photosynthetic Rate: 2 2 An = photosynthetic rate (umol CO2 / m / s) ; important to note that the area, m is the leaf area, not the farmed area Leaf Area Index (LAI) is the ratio of the leaf area to the ground area We assume that LAI = 1 for our crops - a good assumption for leafy greens, grasses such as wheat, rice, or oats, but poor for vines, such as grapes

1:1 molar ratio between CO2 and O2 during photosynthesis 2 2 Then An = (umol CO2 / m / s) consumption = (umol O2 / m / s) production O2 has a molecular weight of 16.0 g / mole

-6 O2 g / day (for each crop) = An * (10 mol / umol) * (16.0 g / mole) * (24 hours / day) * (3600 seconds / hour) * LAI * (square meters farmed)

O2 g / day (total) = sum of O2 g / day for each crop

However, for Red Tomatoes, Iceberg Lettuce, and Russet Potatoes, oxygen production was estimated through the results of NASA’s Biomass Production Chamber (BPC) [2], in which produce was grown in indoor 20 m2

hydroponic plots with elevated CO2 and continuous air supply monitoring. Results were provided in the form of total oxygen production in kilograms over the course of a given number of days over multiple studies. Then, O2 g / 2 2 m / day for Red Tomatoes, Iceberg Lettuce, and Russet Potatoes was provided by O2 g / m / day = (total O2 produced, kg) * (1000 g / kg) * (20 m2)-1 * (# of days crops grown)-1 .

2/20/18 Nutrient Recycling

● Refuse per day = 6.372 Mg (Kelsey Delehanty) ○ Plant makeup of 90% water (Matt Prymek) ○ Dried refuse per day = 0.6372 Mg ○ Reclaim 60% from the dry mass [81]

Nutrient Reclaim Amount per Nutrient Reclaim Amount per Day [kg] Day [kg]

Nitrogen 8.92 Chlorine 0.637

Potassium 6.37 Boron 1.27E-2

Calcium 3.19 Iron 6.37E-2

Magnesium 1.27 Manganese 3.19E-2

Phosphorus 1.27 Zinc 1.27E-2

Sulfus 0.637 Copper 3.82E-3

Molybdenum 6.37E-5 133 Appendix D: Human Nutrition

2/20/18 134 Calories Based on Demographics[45] Kelsey Delehanty

Men Women

Weighted Weighted Age Average Caloric Average Caloric Pop % Range Caloric Intake Average Caloric Intake Average Total Weighted 0.05 11-13 2400 120 2130 106.5 Caloric Averages: 0.1 14-18 3080 308 2400 240 Men: 0.2 19-31 3000 600 2400 480 2800 cals 0.2 32-44 2870 574 2200 440 Women: 0.15 45-54 2800 420 2200 330 2200 cals 0.15 55-64 2600 390 2100 315

0.15 65+ 2600 390 2000 300

2/20/18 135 Soy Milk and [2-4,7,15,18-22,25,37,42,43]

and Protein Bars Kelsey Delehanty

Energy (kcal/kg) Carbs (g/kg) Protein (g/kg) Fat (g/kg) Water (g/kg) Fiber (g/kg) Sugar (g/kg)

Soybeans (w/ pods) 1470 111 130 68 675 42 0

Water 0 0 0 0 1000 0 0

Combine in proportions to make 1 kg soy milk

Soybean Component 55.86 4.218 4.94 2.584 25.65 1.596 0

Water Component 0 0 0 960 0 0

TOTAL 55.86 4.218 4.94 2.584 985 1.596 0

Following same procedure to produce 1 batch of protein bars:

Energy Protein Water Fiber (kcal/batch) Carbs (g/batch) (g/batch) Fat (g/batch) (g/batch) (g/batch) Sugar (g/batch) 1 batch = 10 cups = Soy Milk 4.7 0.35 0.412 0.215 82.138 0.133 0.000 0.00236 m3 Oats 641.8 109.39 27.885 11.385 13.53 17.49 0 3 Crickets 36.3 1.53 3.87 1.65 0 0 0 3.5 batches = 0.00828 m

Strawberries 28.0 6.74 0.59 0.26 79.63 1.75 4.29 A 4 person rover for 5 Blueberries 44.5 11.31 0.58 0.26 65.68 1.87 7.80 days = 0.1656 m3 need in 3 TOTAL 755.3 129.32 33.330 13.770 240.969 21.245 12.088 the rover (.54 m) 3.5 batches per person per day 2643 453 117 48 843 74 42

2/20/18 136 [1-4,7,10-16,18-22,25,26,37,39,40,43] Calories and Macronutrients Kelsey Delehanty

Daily Amount Daily Amount (cups) (kg) Energy (kcal) Carbs (g) Protein (g) Fat (g) Water (g) Fiber (g) Sugar (g) Omega3 (g)

115.2 27.7 2.41 1.08 327.6 7.20 17.64 Strawberries 2.25 0.200 0.225

133.4 33.9 1.73 0.77 197.0 5.62 23.40 Blueberries 1.5 0.156 0.143

Kale 2 0.034 16.7 3.0 1.46 0.32 28.6 1.22 0.77 0.034

Spinach 1.5 0.048 11.0 1.7 1.37 0.19 43.9 1.06 0.20 0.045

Broccoli 2.25 0.216 73.4 14.3 6.09 0.80 192.9 5.62 3.67 0.264

Sweet Potato 1.25 0.176 151.6 35.4 2.82 0.09 136.2 5.29 7.40 0.009

Russet Potato 2.5 0.395 272.6 62.0 6.72 0.40 322.3 9.48 4.54 0.040 Whole grain wheat flour 0.5 0.064 215.9 45.7 8.38 1.59 6.8 6.79 0.26 0.003

Oats 0.75 0.124 481.4 82.0 20.91 8.54 10.1 13.12 0 0.126

Brown Rice 0.5 0.098 353.0 74.3 7.31 2.63 12.1 3.32 0 0.031

Soybeans 0.5 0.037 54.4 4.1 4.81 2.52 25.0 1.55 0 0.218 0.75 Protein Bars batches ~ 566.4 97.0 25.00 10.33 180.7 15.93 9.07 0

Shiitake Mushrooms 0.125 0.013 2.8 0.0 0.39 0.04 11.7 0.13 0.25 0

Soy Milk 4 1.076 60.1 4.5 5.32 2.78 1060.6 1.72 0 0

2508 486 95 32 2555 78 TOTAL 2.945 2.757 67 1.138

Recommended ~ ~ 2500 281-406 63-219 55-97 ~ 35 ~ 0.25 2/20/18 137 [1-4,7,10-16,18-20,25,26,37,39,40,42,43] Vitamins: Water-Soluble Kelsey Delehanty

B1 - B2 - B5 - B9 - Daily Daily Amount Amount Thiamin Riboflavin B3 - Niacin Pantothenic B6 – Pyridoxal B7 - Biotin Folate Choline (cups) (kg) (mg) (mg) (mg) Acid (mg) (mg) (mg) (mg) B12 (mg) (mg) Vit C (mg)

0.086 0.079 1.390 0.450 0.180 0.004 0.0864 20.52 211.68 Strawberries 2.25 0.200 0

0.087 0.096 0.978 0.290 0.117 0 0.0140 14.04 22.70 Blueberries 1.5 0.156 0

Kale 2 0.034 0.037 0.044 0.340 0.031 0.092 0 0.0476 0 0.27 40.80

Spinach 1.5 0.048 0.037 0.091 0.348 0.031 0.091 0 0.0912 0 9.26 13.49

Broccoli 2.25 0.216 0.153 0.253 1.380 1.238 0.367 0 0.1296 0 40.39 192.67

Sweet Potato 1.25 0.176 0.137 0.108 0.982 1.410 0.370 0.008 0.0194 0 21.68 4.23

Russet Potato 2.5 0.395 0.280 0.134 4.211 1.110 0.790 0 0.0711 0 43.45 35.95 Whole grain wheat flour 0.5 0.064 0.189 0.119 3.395 0.642 0.260 0 0.0279 0 19.81 0.00

Oats 0.75 0.124 0.944 0.172 1.189 1.669 0.149 0.025 0.0693 0 21.04 0.00

Brown Rice 0.5 0.098 0.527 0.093 6.332 1.038 0.497 0.001 0.0195 0 20.96 0.00

Soybeans 0.5 0.037 0.161 0.065 0.611 0.054 0.026 0 0.0592 0 17.58 10.73

Protein Bars 0.75 batches ~ 2.700 8.250 23.250 0 0.212 0 0.0923 0.0180 0.00 44.95 Shiitake Mushrooms 0.125 0.013 0.010 0.051 0.455 0.189 0.021 0 0.0021 5.05E-06 0.00 0.27

Soy Milk 4 1.076 0 0 0 0 0.029 0 0.0654 0 0.00 11.86 TOTAL 5.351 9.554 44.860 8.153 2.945 2.757 3.20 0.037 0.7951 0.0180 229 589 Recommended ~ ~ 1.1 1.2 15 5 1.3 0.030 0.4 0.0024 490 80 2/20/18 138 [1-4,7,10-16,18-20,25,29-32,37,39,40,41,43] Vitamins: Fat-Soluble Kelsey Delehanty

Daily Amount (cups) Daily Amount (kg) Vit A (mg) Vit D (mg) Vit E (mg) Vit K (mg) 0.0036 1.044 0.0079 Strawberries 2.25 0.200 0

0.0070 1.334 0.0445 Blueberries 1.5 0.156 0

Kale 2 0.034 0.1700 0 0.510 0.2380

Spinach 1.5 0.048 0.2256 0 0.960 0.2304

Broccoli 2.25 0.216 0.0648 0 1.685 0.2160

Sweet Potato 1.25 0.176 1.2514 0 0.458 0.0035

Russet Potato 2.5 0.395 0 0 0.040 0.0079

Whole grain wheat flour 0.5 0.064 0 0 0.451 0.0013

Oats 0.75 0.124 0 0 0 0

Brown Rice 0.5 0.098 0 0 0 0

Soybeans 0.5 0.037 0.0033 0 0.129 0.0069

Protein Bars 0.75 batches ~ 0.0030 0 0.524 0.0128

Shiitake Mushrooms 0.125 0.013 0 0.145 0.001 0

Soy Milk 4 1.076 0.0037 0 0 0 TOTAL 2.945 2.757 1.73 0.145 7.135 0.7691 Recommended ~ ~ 0.8 0.015 15 0.1 Upper Limit ~ ~ 0.5 for healthy people 3.0 Very rare toxicity from sun/food 1000 ~ 2/20/18 139 [1-4,7,10-16,18-20,23,25,27,28,35,37,39,40,43] Minerals: Part 1 Kelsey Delehanty

Daily Amount Daily Amount Magnesium (cups) (kg) Calcium (mg) Chromium (mg) Copper (mg) Fluoride (mg) Iodine (mg) Iron (mg) (mg) 57.60 0.173 0.0158 0.0266 1.48 46.8 Strawberries 2.25 0.200 0

14.04 0.133 0 0 0.66 14.0 Blueberries 1.5 0.156 0

Kale 2 0.034 51.00 0 0.510 0 0 0.50 16.0

Spinach 1.5 0.048 47.52 0 0.062 0.0187 0.0010 1.30 37.9

Broccoli 2.25 0.216 101.52 0.0495 0.106 0.0138 0.0043 1.58 45.4

Sweet Potato 1.25 0.176 52.88 0 0.266 0 0.0053 1.08 44.1

Russet Potato 2.5 0.395 35.55 0.0075 0.458 0 0 2.05 83.0 Whole grain wheat flour 0.5 0.064 21.59 0.0045 0.302 0 0 2.29 87.0

Oats 0.75 0.124 66.83 0.0170 0.775 0 0.0078 5.82 219.0

Brown Rice 0.5 0.098 32.18 0.0004 0.294 0 0 1.76 139.4

Soybeans 0.5 0.037 72.89 0 0.047 0 0 1.31 24.1

Protein Bars 0.75 batches ~ 102.57 0 0 0 0 8.47 232.6

Shiitake Mushrooms 0.125 0.013 0.38 0 0.040 0 0 0.06 1.1

Soy Milk 4 1.076 80.55 0 0 0 0 1.45 26.6 TOTAL 2.945 2.757 737 0.0788 3.2 0.0483 0.0450 29.79 1016.9 Recommended ~ ~ 1000 0.03 0.9 3.5 0.15 13 335 Upper Limit ~ ~ 2500 ~ 10 ~ 1.1 ~ ~ 2/20/18 140 [1-4,7,10-16,18-20,21,25,33,34,37-40,43] Minerals: Part 2 Kelsey Delehanty

Daily Amount Daily Amount Molybdenum Phosphorus (cups) (kg) Manganese (mg) (mg) (mg) Potassium (mg) Selenium (mg) Sodium (mg) Zinc (mg) 1.390 86.4 550.8 0.0014 3.60 0.50 Strawberries 2.25 0.200 0

0.786 28.1 180.2 0.0002 2.34 0.37 Blueberries 1.5 0.156 0

Kale 2 0.034 0.224 0 31.3 166.6 0.0003 12.92 0.19

Spinach 1.5 0.048 0.431 0 23.5 267.8 0.0005 37.92 0.25

Broccoli 2.25 0.216 0.454 0 142.6 682.6 0.0054 71.28 0.89

Sweet Potato 1.25 0.176 0.455 0 82.8 594.0 0.0011 96.94 0.53

Russet Potato 2.5 0.395 0.573 0 244.9 1607.7 0.0012 63.20 1.15 Whole grain wheat flour 0.5 0.064 2.158 0 226.7 230.5 0.0081 1.27 1.65

Oats 0.75 0.124 6.084 0.0887 647.2 530.9 0 2.48 4.95

Brown Rice 0.5 0.098 2.782 0 257.4 261.3 0.0167 3.90 1.95

Soybeans 0.5 0.037 0.202 0.0236 71.8 229.4 0.0006 5.55 0.37

Protein Bars 0.75 batches ~ 0 0 716.3 691.1 0 4.07 5.16

Shiitake Mushrooms 0.125 0.013 0.006 0 10.9 40.1 0.0012 0.63 0.07

Soy Milk 4 1.076 0 0 79.3 253.5 0 6.13 0.40 TOTAL 2.945 2.757 15.5 0.112 2649 6286 0.036 312 18.2 Recommended ~ ~ 2 0.045 700 4700 0.055 150 18 Upper Limit ~ ~ ~11, toxicity from supplements 2 4000 ~ 0.4 1500 40 2/20/18 141 Appendix E: Structures

2/20/18 142 Required Materials[52] Swapneel Kulkarni

Young’s Modulus Tensile Strength Material Density (g/cm3) (GPa) (MPa) Poisson’s Ratio Silicon 2.329 150 7000 0.17 Aluminium (7075-T6) 2.81 71.7 503 0.33 Iron 7.874 210 897 0.26 Concrete 2.4 65 4.2 0.1 Copper 8.96 117 40 0.33 Glass 8 70 50 0.27

2/20/18 143 Extra Structural Supports Swapneel Kulkarni

2/20/18 144 Structures Code 1: Halen Blair Swapneel Kulkarni

2/20/18 145 Structures Code 2: Halen Blair Swapneel Kulkarni

2/20/18 146 Appendix F: Power

2/20/18 147 Total Power

Systems Breakdown 1. Lights = 82.5 MW 2. Water pumps/tanks = 14.33 kW 3. Freeze-dryers = 0.46 MW 4. Refuse recycle = 188.1 W 5. Elevators = 12.45 kW • Transporting 0.55 Mg at 1.016 m/s

TOTAL = 83 MW

148 Sources

2/20/18 149 SOURCES

[1] “Square Foot Veg Growing: Plant Spacing, Cropping Time & Yield,” GardenForumHorticultureAvailable: https://www.gardenforumhorticulture.co.uk/gyo/Square-Foot-Gardening.pdf. [2] Dorn, T., “Harvest Soybeans At 13% Moisture,” CropWatch Available: https://cropwatch.unl.edu/harvest-soybeans-13-moisture. [3] “Highbush Blueberry Production,” Penn State Extension Available: https://extension.psu.edu/highbush-blueberry-production. [4] “Food Weight to Volume Conversions,” Online Food Calculator Available: https://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/food-weight-to-volume/. [5] Hursh, K., “Ranking crops by profitability yields surprises,” The Western Producer Available: https://www.producer.com/2012/10/ranking- crops-by-profitability-yields-surprises/. [6] Krueger, W. H., et al., “Sample Costs to Establish a Walnut Orchard and Produce Walnuts” Available: https://coststudyfiles.ucdavis.edu/uploads/cs_public/de/5b/de5b047e-efb5-4145-b618-1c643240abe9/walnuts v2012.pdf. [7] Trabish, H. K., “The Farm of the Future Will Grow Plants Vertically and Hydroponically,” Greentech Media Available: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-farm-of-the-future-will-grow-plants-vertically-and-hydroponically#gs.WEoLX_0. [8] “Before You Start an Apple Orchard,” Fruit Research Available: http://fruit.cfans.umn.edu/apples/beforeyoustart/. [9] Morton, J. F., “Banana,” Horticulture and Landscape Architecture Available: https://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/morton/banana.html. [10] Boyhan, G. E., and Coolong, T., “Commercial Tomato Production Handbook,” UGA Cooperative Extension Available: http://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.html?number=B1312. [11] “Missouri Wheat Facts,” Missouri Crop Resource Guide Available: http://crops.missouri.edu/audit/wheat.htm. [12] “All About Wheat,” Wheat Life Available: http://wheatlife.org/aboutwheat.html. [13] Joint Committee on Administrative Rules Available: http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/008/00800600ZZ9998bR.html. [14] Coblentz, B., “Sweet potato yields above average,” Delta Farm Press Available: http://www.deltafarmpress.com/sweet-potato-yields - above-average. [15] “Oats by the Numbers,” Prairie Oat Growers Association Available: http://poga.ca/about-oats/oats-by-the- numbers#!OatsByTheNumbers5.

2/20/18 150 SOURCES, CONT.

[16] Grover, S., “How small-scale farmers are growing more rice with less water and fewer chemicals,” MNN - Mother Nature Network Available: https://www.mnn.com/leaderboard/stories/how-small-scale-farmers-are-growing-more-rice-with-less-water-and-fewer. [17] “On Growing Amaranth and Quinoa Organically,” Salt Spring Seeds Available: https://www.saltspringseeds.com/pages/growing- amaranth-and-quinoa-dans-scoop. [18] “Homemade Soy Milk,” Cultures for Health Available: https://www.culturesforhealth.com/learn/recipe/yogurt-recipes/homemade-soy- milk/. [19] “Frequently Asked Questions,” Insects are Food Available: http://insectsarefood.com/faq.html. [20] “3 Ingredient No Bake Protein Bars,” The Big Man's World Available: https://thebigmansworld.com/2015/03/08/3-ingredient-no-bake- protein-bars/. [21] “Daily Amounts of Carbs, Fat, Fiber, Sodium & Protein,” SF Gate Available: http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/daily-amounts-carbs-fat-fiber- sodium-protein-4230.html. [22] Gilhuly, K., “How Much Natural Sugar Should You Consume Daily?,” LIVESTRONG.COM Available: https://www.livestrong.com/article/511457-how-much-natural-sugar-should-you-take-in-a-day/. [23] “Calcium and calcium supplements: Achieving the right balance,” Mayo Clinic Available: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy- lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/calcium-supplements/art-20047097. [24] Goldin, S., “Deficient in B12: Are You the 40%?,” Entomo Farms Available: http://entomofarms.com/deficient-in-b12/. [25] Milam, E., “The Ultimate Guide to Vitamins and Minerals,” Greatist Available: https://greatist.com/health/ultimate-guide-vitamins-and- minerals. [26] Hjalmarsdottir, F., “How Much Omega-3 Should You Take Per Day?,” Healthline Available: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/how- much-omega-3. [27] Group, E., “7 Foods Rich in Iodine,” Dr. Group's Healthy Living Articles Available: https://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural- health/iodine-foods/. [28] Jill Corleone, “What Is the Best Source of Chromium in Food?,” LIVESTRONG.COM Available: https://www.livestrong.com/article/199306-what-is-the-best-source-of-chromium-in-food/.

2/20/18 151 SOURCES, CONT.

[29] “How Much Vitamin D Should You Take For Optimal Health?,” Healthline Available: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/how-much- vitamin-d-to-take#section8. [30] “Vitamin D,” Linus Pauling Institute Available: http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-D#. [31] Tripkovic, L., Lambert, H., Hart, K., Smith, C., Bucca, G., Penson, S., Chope, G., Hypponen, E., Berry, J., Vieth, R., and Lanham-New, S., “Comparison of vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 supplementation in raising serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D status: a systematic review and meta- analysis,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 95, May 2012, pp. 1357–1364. [32] “What is the Difference Between Vitamin D2 and D3?,” BioNatures Available: https://bionatures.com/blogs/news/what-is-the-difference- bewteen-vitamin-d2-and-d3. [33] “Manganese,” VeganHealth Available: http://www.veganhealth.org/articles/manganese. [34] Bruso, J., “Is it Possible to Overdose on Manganese & Zinc Just From Food Sources?,” LIVESTRONG.COM Available: https://www.livestrong.com/article/462268-is-it-possible-to-overdose-on-manganese-zinc-just-from-food-sources/. [35] “Magnesium Overdose: What's the Likelihood?,” Healthline Available: https://www.healthline.com/health/food-nutrition/magnesium- overdose-whats-the-likelihood#risk-factors. [36] Anne, M., “Vitamin B1 Benefits,” LIVESTRONG.COM Available: https://www.livestrong.com/article/373790-vit ami n-b1-benefits/. [37] Mateljan, G., The World's Healthiest Foods Available: http://www.whfoods.com/index.php. [38] “Water and Electrolytes - Recommended Dietary Allowances,” NCBI Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234935/. [39] Svane-Knudsen, D., “UV light turns mushrooms into vitamin D bombs,” sciencenordic Available: http://sciencenordic.com/uv-light-turns- mushrooms-vitamin-d-bombs. [40] “GOURMET MUSHROOMS,” Profitable Plants Digest Available: https://www.profitableplantsdigest.com/mushrooms/. [41] Stamets, P., “Place Mushrooms in Sunlight to Get Your Vitamin D,” Fungi Perfecti Available: http://www.fungi.com/blog/items/place- mushrooms-in-sunlight-to-get-your-vit ami n-d.html.

2/20/18 152 SOURCES, CONT.

[42] “Vitamin B12 and the vegan conundrum,” Crick start Food Co. Available: https://crickstart.com/blogs/crickstart-blog/vitamin-b12-and-the- vegan-conundrum. [43]“USDA Food Composition Databases,” US Department of Agriculture Available: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/.

[44] Aubrey, A., “The Average American Ate (Literally) A Ton This Year,” NPR Available: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2011/12/31/144478009/the-average-american-ate-literally-a-ton-this-year.

[45] “Appendix 2. Estimated Calorie Needs per Day, by Age, Sex, and Physical Activity Level,” Dietary Guidelines Available: https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-2/#footnote-3.

[46] Kennard, W., “Bugs & Insects: The Future For High-Protein Diets?,” Gymtalk Available: https://www.gym-talk.com/bugs-insects-the- future-for-high-protein-diets/.

[47] “Environmental opportunities for insect rearing for food and feed.” Available: http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e05.pdf.

[48] “Calorie Breakdown Recommendations,” Healthy Eating Available: http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/calorie-breakdown-recommendations- 1092.html.

[49] Elliott, P., ed., “How to Raise Your Own Crickets,” wikiHow Available: https://www.wikihow.com/Raise-Your-Own-Crickets.

50] “Basic Report: 18375, Leavening agents, yeast, baker's, active dry,” Food Composition Databases Available: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/5861i.

[51] NASA SBIR Success, “Aeroponic Systems”, retrieved from: https://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/successes/ss/10-026text.html

[52] Pillai, S. U., and Menon, D., Reinforced concrete design, New Delhi: Tata Mcgraw Hill, 2011.

[53] Jones, J. B. Jr., “Plant Nutrition Principles,” Plant Nutrition and Soil Fertility Manual, 2nd ed., CRC Press, New York, 2012, pp 15-31.

[54] Huang, H., Faulkner, D. B., Berger, L. L., Eckhoff, S. R., “Harvest Date Influence on Dry Matter Yield and Moisture of Corn and Stover,” American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, Vol. 55, No. 2, 2012, pp. 593-598.

[55] Buckseth, T., Sharma, A. K., Pandey, K. K., Singh, B. P., Muthuraj, R., “Methods of pre-basic seed potato production with special reference to areoponics – A review,” Scientia Horticulturae, Vol. 204, Jun. 2016, pp. 79-87.

2/20/18 153 SOURCES, CONT.

[56] Higgins, K. T., “Space station greens,” Food Engineering, Vol. 80, No. 6, Jun. 2008, pp. 151.

[57] AgriHouse, “Spray Jet with 0.025” Orifice,” http://www.agrihouse.com/secure/shop/item.aspx?itemid=88 [Retrieved 5 Feb. 2018]. [58] Moran, M. J., Shapiro, H. N., Boettner, D. D., and Bailey, M. B., “Tables in SI Units,” Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics, 8th ed., Wiley, New Jersey, 2014, pp. 927.

[59] FogCo, “Brass and Stainless Steel Misting Nozzles and Adaptors,” https://fogco.com/product-category/nozzles-2/ [Retrieved 9 Feb. 2018]. [60] Araus, José L., and Luis Tapia. “Photosynthetic Gas Exchange Characteristics of Wheat Flag Leaf Blades and Sheaths during Grain Filling: The Case of a Spring Crop Grown under Mediterranean Climate Conditions.” Plant Physiology, Vol. 85, No. 3, 1987, pp. 667–673. [61] R.M. Wheeler, C.L. Mackowiak, G.W. Stutte, N.C. Yorio, L.M. Ruffe, J.C. Sager, R.P. Prince, W.M. Knott. “Crop productivities and radiation use efficiencies for bioregenerative life support”,Advances in Space Research,Volume 41, No. 5, 2008, pp. 706-713. [62] Yamori, W., Noguchi, K. and Terashima, I, “Temperature acclimation of photosynthesis in spinach leaves: analyses of photosynthetic components and temperature dependencies of photosynthetic partial reactions”, Plant, Cell & Environment, Vol. 28, 2005, pp. 536–547. [63] Maroco J.P., Edwards G. E., Ku M. S, “Photosynthetic acclimation of maize to growth under elevated levels of carbon dioxide”, Planta, Vol. 210, No. 1, 1999, pp. 115-225. [64] Mark R. Schmitt, Gerald E. Edwards, “Photosynthetic Capacity and Nitrogen Use Efficiency of Maize, Wheat, and Rice: A Comparison Between C3 and C4 Photosynthesis”, Journal of Experimental Botany, Volume 32, No. 3, 1981, pp. 459–466. [65] H. Nakano, A. Makino, T. Mae, “The Effect of Elevated Partial Pressures of CO2 on the Relationship between Photosynthetic Capacity and N Content in Rice Leaves”, Plant Physiology, Vol. 115, No. 1, 1997, pp. 191-198. [66] Vu, J. C. V., Allen, L. H., Boote, K. J., Bowes, G., “Effects of elevated CO2 and temperature on photosynthesis and Rubisco in rice and soybean”, Plant, Cell & Environment, Vol. 20, January, 1997, pp. 68–76. [67] Mortley, D.G., Bonsi, C.K., Loretan, P.A., Hill, W.A., Morris, C.E., “Relative Humidity Influences Yield, Edible Biomass, and Linear Growth Rate of Sweetpotato”, HortScience, Vol. 29, June, 1994, pp. 609-610.

2/20/18 154 SOURCES, CONT.

[68] Jensen, C.R., Jacobsen, S.-E., Andersen, M.N., Núñez, N., Andersen, S.D., Rasmussen, L., Mogensen, V.O., “Leaf gas exchange and water relation characteristics of field quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) during soil drying”, European Journal of Agronomy, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2000, pp. 11-25.

[69] Jones, H., “Design Rules for Life Support Systems”, NASA Ames Research Center, SAE-2003-01-2356, Moffett Field, CA, January, 2002. [70] Berdanier, C. D., Dwyer, J. T., and Heber, D., eds., Handbook of Nutrition and Food, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2014. [71] “Cryogenic liquid containers,” Air Products Available: http://www.airproducts.com/~/media/files/pdf/company/safetygram-27.pdf. [72] “FD1500 Freeze Dryer,” Cuddon Freeze Dry Available: https://www.cuddonfreezedry.com/products/fd1500-freeze-dryer/. [73] Sanders, A., “FREON(tm) refrigerant Capacity for a Refrigerator,” HomeSteady Available: https://homesteady.com/info-12170824-freon- capacity-refrigerator.html.

[74] Higgins, S.S., Larsen, F.E., Bendel, R.B., Radamaker, G.K., Bassman, J.H., Bidlake, W.R., Wir, A.Al., “Comparative gas exchange characteristics of potted, glasshouse-grown almond, apple, fig, grape, olive, peach and Asian pear”, Scientia Horticulturae,Vol. 52, No. 4, 1992, pp. 313-329.

[75] Kläring, H.P., Schonhof, I. and Krumbein, A., “Modelling Yield And Product Quality Of Broccoli As Affected By Temperature And Irradiance”, Acta Horticulturae, Vol. 566, 2001, pp. 85-90.

[76] “Get Rid Of Crickets,” Do-It-Yourself Pest Control Available: https://www.doyourownpestcontrol.com/crickets.htm.

[77] “How much do crickets eat?,” Open Bug Farm Available: http://www.openbugfarm.com/forum.html#/discussion/1111/how-much-do- crickets-eat.

[78] “Hand-picking vs. Machine-picking-Harvest 2015 Update,” Silver Thread Vineyard Available: https://silverthreadwine.com/hand-picking- vs -machine-picking-harvest-2015-update/.

[79] Veronese, K., “Could you really survive the apocalypse by eating freeze-dried food?,” io9Available: https://io9.gizmodo.com/5895582/could-you-really-survive-the-apocalypse-by-eating-freeze-dried-food.

2/20/18 155 SOURCES, CONT.

[80] Stanlley Elevator Company, Inc., “Freight Elevator”, https://www.stanleyelevator.com/freight-elevators/, [Retrieved 19 February 2018] [81] Zeitlin, N., Wheeler, R., Lunn, G., “Plant Biomass Leaching for Nutrient Recovery in Closed Loop Systems Project’, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160006646.pdf, [Retrieved 19 Febuary 2018]

2/20/18 156 Space transportation

Group Lead: John Cleveland Space Transportation Group: Andrew Blaskovich, Tyler Duncan, Faiz Feroz, Noah Gordon, Christopher Hunnewell, Anand Iyer, Andrew Pharazyn, Jacob Roe, Eliot Toumey 2/20/2018

157 System requirements

1. Cycler a) Must maintain artificial gravity of 0.1 g throughout trip (Customer) b) Must reduce crew and passenger radiation exposure to 500 mSv over entire trip (Human Factors) c) Must provide food, water, and oxygen for crew and passengers throughout trip (Human Factors) d) Must transport 50 people per trip between Earth and Mars (Management) e) Must maintain constant video communication with Earth and Mars (Customer) 2. Taxi a) Must transport 50 people from the surface of Mars to the Cycler (Management) b) Must not exceed 5 g during takeoff (Human Factors) 3. Lander a) Must transport 50 people from the Cycler to the surface of Mars (Management) b) Must not exceed 5 g during landing (Human Factors) c) Must protect crew and passengers from re-entry heating (Human Factors)

John Cleveland 158 Cycler structure and design

Cycler Mass Purpose Mass (Mg) MMOD Shielding 150 Radiation Shielding 75

Reactors and Radiators 29 Engines 25.7

Misc. Structural 50 Image by Anand Iyer Life Support 5.3 • Ring 36 m in radius with 6000 m3 of volume (9 m wide by 3 m high cross-section) Total 335 • Spinning ring simulates gravity • Hull provides radiation and micrometeorite shielding

Jacob Roe 159 Cycler Power

Power Production: Power Required: • Life Support and Other: 10 7 SAFE-400 using a Heat kW Pipe System with Uranium- Ion Propulsion: 500 kW Nitride fuel pins coupled • with a Brayton cycle gas • Communication: 5 kW turbine Factor of Safety: 1.25 Total: 643.75 kW Produces: 400 kW (thermal) A radiator of 0.78 Mg and 489.5 m2 area needed for thermal Usable: 100 kW (electrical) regulation of the reactor SAFE-400 Reactors Each Total (7)

Mass (Mg) 1.2 8.4

Power (kW) 100 700

Volume (m3) 0.0353 0.2471 Image by Anand Iyer

Faiz Feroz 160 Cycler Propulsion

Cycler requires .05 N/Mg of thrust for powered trajectory • Use the X3 hall effect thruster1 • ISP of 2655 s • 5 engines needed • Requires 19.57 Mg of xenon occupying 6.57 m3 • Thrusters require a maximum power of 500 kW • Total system mass is 25.7 Image by Anand Iyer Mg • Xenon supplied by Earth

Tyler Duncan and Christopher Hunnewell 161 Cycler life support

Oxygen • Recycled where possible and regenerated through water electrolysis (Based off ISS O2 system), resupply with 15 Mg of water per trip • System: 2.68 Mg, 1.2 kW Water • Water recycled with 90% efficiency, resupply with 5 Mg of water per trip • System: 2.6 Mg, 8.67 kW Food • 31.31 Mg minimum, 39.14 Mg with 25% factor of safety • 58-72.5 m^3 of storage space Gravity • Ring spins at 0.169 rad/s (1.61 rev/min) to simulate 0.1 g at waist level

Nicole Futch, Christopher Hunnewell, and Andrew Pharazyn 162 Cycler Communication Links

Design: Massive antennae attached to the cycler • One ground station on Mars near the city, communicating with three areostationary satellites (Mars Terminal) • Relay satellite in heliocentric orbit of Mars’ size but out of phase from Mars by ≥ 8° to allow communication during solar conjunction2 • One leading, one lagging for redundancy • Use 60 GHz (V-Band)3 to facilitate high data rate—7.5 Mbps allocated for cycler communications out of 42 Mbps total for Mars-Earth High Data Link system

Max Total Power Antennae Solar Panel Estimated Satellite (kW) Diameters (m) Area (m2) Mass (Mg) Mars Terminal 14.5 0.5, 3, 10 196.48 4.85 Relay 16.3 2, 3, 10 220.87 5.44 Cycler 3.5 25 - -

Noah Gordon, John Cleveland 163 EMMEE Cycler Trajectory

• Powered Cycler trajectory 2 minimizes the flyby velocity and distance at Mars • Hyperbolic Rendezvous risk reduced by lower flyby 1 velocity • Hyperbolic excess velocity 4 ranges from 2.5 to 4 km/s 3 • 1 km/s ∆ V required over 310 time of flight • Flyby altitude varies 300 to 1000 km 1.) Depart Earth and dock with the cycler. 2.) Arrive at Mars after 310 day journey

3.) Depart Mars for 310 day journey to Earth

4.) Arrive at Earth Eliot Toumey 164 Launch and rendezvous

Launch Procedure • Launch from Hellas Basin launch site every 1 synodic period (2 /7 years) • Circularize into 150 km parking orbit to wait for phasing Rendezvous Procedure • Initiate transfer ellipse optimized for the specific flyby that is occurring • Burn to match speed with cycler and dock or abort at periapsis of hyperbolic trajectory Abort Option • If rendezvous fails, perform landing procedure • Reduces failure rate of rendezvous to 1%

Andrew Blaskovich and Eliot Toumey 165 Launch vehicle, taxi, and lander

First Second Rendezvo Deorbit Image by Anand Iyer Stage Stage us Inert Mass (Mg) 45.51 31.29 15.59 64.84

LOX Mass (Mg) 478.7 470.7 234.5 72.8 Total Mass: 1804.64 Mg Methane Mass (Mg) 126.0 123.9 61.7 19.2

Total Propellant (Mg) 604.63 594.51 296.27 92.00

Burn Time (min) 4.69 19.31 7.59 2.92

Andrew Blaskovich, and Eliot Toumey 166 Risk assessment

Failure Mode Chance of Note: This is not the risk of everybody Failure dying and/or exploding! This is the risk that something goes somewhat wrong and the crew will need to fix it. Cycler Structural Failure 12%

Taxi/Landing Failure 20%

Cycler Loss of Power .5%

Cycler Loss of Life Support 1%

Cycler Loss of Communications 1%

Cycler Loss of Propulsion 2%

Excess Radiation Exposure 10%

Total Chance of any Failure: 39.45%

Andrew Blaskovich, John Cleveland, Jacob Roe, and Eliot Toumey 167 Appendix

168 Materials needed

Material Total (Mg) Per Day (kg/day) LOX 1256.7 1607

Methane 330.7 423.0

Al 6061-T6 82.65 105.7

Titanium 14.59 18.65

Food 40 51.10

Water 20 25.55

Argon .7 .890

Kevlar .9 1.15

Total 1804.637 Mg (Worst Case Rendezvous Capable)

John Cleveland, Andrew Blaskovich, and Christopher Hunnewell 169 Orbit of Relay Satellite

Out of phase with Mars by 8 °

Noah Gordon, John Cleveland, Ryan Duong 170 Appendix–Cycler Antenna Trade

The large antenna size on the cycler is not to reduce power used to transmit from the cycler, rather to reduce power used to transmit from a satellite to the cycler. Consultation with Comms & Control and Space Transportation indicated prioritizing satellite power over cycler antenna size. Solar Panel Requirements for Mars Relay Satellite based on Cycler Antenna Size Cycler Antenna Cycler Antenna Transmitting Power Total Relay Solar Panel Solar Panel Diameter (m) Mass (kg) (Relay<->Cycler) (kW) Power (kW) Area (m2) Mass (Mg) 25 262.18 3.5 16.3 220.87 4.42 20 205.47 5.4 18.2 246.61 4.93 15 148.76 9.7 22.5 304.88 6.10 12 114.73 15 27.8 376.69 7.53 10 92.05 21.5 34.3 464.77 9.30

Solar Panel Requirements for Mars Terminal Satellite based on Cycler Antenna Size Total Cycler Antenna Cycler Antenna Transmitting Power Terminal Solar Panel Solar Panel Diameter (m) Mass (kg) (Terminal<->Cycler) (kW) Power (kW) Area (m2) Mass (Mg) 25 262.177 3.5 14.5 196.48 3.93 20 205.467 5.4 16.4 222.22 4.44 15 148.757 9.7 20.7 280.49 5.61 12 114.731 15 26 352.30 7.05 10 92.047 21.5 32.5 440.38 8.81 Noah Gordon 171 Appendix – Data Rate Trade

Solar Panel Area Solar Panel Mass Data Rate Total (Mbps) Total Relay Power (kW) (m2) (Mg) 16 7.05 95.53 1.91 42 16.3 220.87 4.42 100 35.2 476.96 9.54 230 73 989.16 19.78

16, 42, and 230 Mbps came from asking systems for their minimum, nominal, and ideal data requirements 100 Mbps was the previous estimate

Noah Gordon 172 Appenix – Mass Estimation

Mass estimates of antennae based off linear approximations from NASA paper3 Solar panel estimates from formula given by Faiz Feroz Total mass estimated by adding antennae and solar panel masses, then adding a 20% contingency

Antenna Diameter (m) Mass (kg) 0.5 2.872 2 9.546 3 16.22 10 92.047 25 262.177

Antenna Mass Estimate (Mg) Relay 5.44 Mars Terminal 4.85

Noah Gordon 173 Mission Profile

Andrew Blaskovich and Eliot Toumey 174 Launch

Launch Procedure • Launch from Hellas Basin launch site every synodic period (2 1/7 years) • Circularize into 150 km parking orbit to wait for phasing

Launch Vehicle Sizing • Total Launch Mass: 1804.6 Mg • Total Propellant Mass: 1587.4 Mg • First stage: 4 engines, 4.8 min burn • Second stage: 1 engine, 18.9 min burn

Andrew Blaskovich and Eliot Toumey 175 Rendezvous + Abort

Rendezvous Procedure • Initiate transfer ellipse optimized for the specific flyby that is occurring • Burn to match speed with cycler and dock or abort at periapsis of hyperbolic trajectory

Rendezvous Sizing • Propellant Mass: 296.3 Mg • 1 Engine, 7.59 min burn

Abort Option • If rendezvous fails, perform landing procedure • Reduces failure rate of rendezvous to 1%

Abort Window: 5.25 minutes

Andrew Blaskovich and Eliot Toumey 176 Landing

Landing Procedure • De-orbit burn at hyperbolic periapsis • Inflatable heatshield for thermal protection

Landing sizing • 8m radius inflatable heatshield • Propellant mass: 92.00 Mg • Deorbit: 1 engine, 5.75 min burn • Landing: 1 engine, 2.7 min burn

Andrew Blaskovich and Eliot Toumey 177 Taxi and lander Risk Assessment

Operation Success Rate Launch 95% Including abort possibility reduces probability of failure from 35% to 20% Hyperbolic 80% Rendezvous Abort 95%

Deorbit 95%

Landing 90%

TOTAL 80%

Andrew Blaskovich and Eliot Toumey 178 Appendix: Hyperbolic Rendezvous

• Varied eccentricity of transfer orbit • Optimal cost with abort listed in table EMMEE • Refueling taxi will be necessary Powered • EMMEE greatly reduces TOF and cost ΔV rendezvous 2.49 (km/s) ΔV abort 1.61

TOF 6.03 (hrs)

Andrew Blaskovich and Eliot Toumey 179 Variations in Trajectory

Out of phase, expensive flyby

In phase, cheap flyby

Andrew Blaskovich and Eliot Toumey 180 Cycler Trade Study

• Results of cycler architecture trade study Values Scores Quality Weight (1-5) Direct Hohmann S1L1 EMMEE Direct Hohmann S1L1 EMMEE # of cyclers 2 1 4 2 5 1 3 Reusability 5 0 5 4 TOF 3 255 Days 160 Days 310 Days 3 4 2 Average Excess Velocity 5 3.4 km/s 5.5 km/s 3.2 km/s 4 2 4 Variance in Excess Velocity 5 3.2 km/s 5.1 km/s 1.5 km/s 2 1 5 Power Required 3 0 kW 0 kW 300 kW 5 5 3 Totals 64 69 86 • Best option: Powered Cycler (EMMEE) • Lowest and variance • reduce launch mass exponentially • Longer timeΔ𝑉𝑉 of flightΔ𝑉𝑉 • Need better radiation shielding • Requires a low-thrust propulsive system • Cycler needs enough power from solar and nuclear

Andrew Blaskovich and Eliot Toumey 181 Orbital rendezvous To Scale

Andrew Blaskovich and Eliot Toumey 182 Appendix 1: EMMEE Analysis

• Code written by John Cleveland was used to determine shuttle mass required using these values for and TOF Data of interest 𝑣𝑣∞ Results:

Data provided by Rob Potter

Andrew Blaskovich and Eliot Toumey 183 Appendix 2: Split

• split dependsΔ𝑉𝑉 only on , I ,and

• For single stage: = 0.12 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 Δ𝑉𝑉 Δ𝑉𝑉Stage Split Optimisation 𝑓𝑓 1.87 • For two stage: 𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 1.86 • , = .03 , = .05 1.85 • 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖,𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑓𝑓 1.84 • Optimal𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 Split:𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑓𝑓 1.83

64.9% on Launch Mass (Mg) 1.82 Upper Stage 1.81

1.8 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage V for Upper Stage

Andrew Blaskovich and Eliot Toumey 184 Appendix 3: Thrust Analysis • Engine used: Raptor engine optimized for Mars atmosphere

Engine Thrust Isp 1,792 kN 363.3 s

Cycler 1L1 6S8 EMMEE Max Taxi Mass (Mg) 1160 670.2 219.1 Two Stage Launch Mass 4,798 2,772 906.2 (Mg) Launch Thrust[3] (kN) 26,710 15,430 5,045 # of engines[3] 15 9 3 Launch acceleration 5.602 5.818 5.932 (m/s2) Acceleration at stage 8.734 9.070 9.248 separation (m/s2)

Andrew Blaskovich, Christopher Hunnewell, and Eliot Toumey 185 Appendix 4: Launch Analysis

• 150 km Circular orbit:Δ𝑉𝑉 3.4752 km/s • Loss Assumptions • Gravity Losses: 1 km/s • Steering Losses: 0.15 km/s • Launch site: • 36.8°S, 89.6°E • Launch Azimuth: Due East • gain due to rotation: 0.1925 km/s

• TotalΔ𝑉𝑉 : 4.4327 km/s Δ𝑉𝑉 Andrew Blaskovich and Eliot Toumey 186 Re-entry

Heating values over time 4000

• Inflatable heat shield 3500

3000

Lander Structure Temperature • Radius of 7.98 m 2500 Leading Surface Temperature • Kevlar skin 2000 1500 Temperature (k)

• Argon used to inflate 1000 • Total mass of 1.6 Mg 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Time (s) • Expanded volume of 207.45 m3 • Compressed volume of .70 m3

Christopher Hunnewell 187 Production of kevlar

• Kevlar can be produced of ammonia and carbon based acids • Carbonic acid can be made from water and CO2 • Ammonia is available in human urine and producible with nitrogen hydrogen and iron • Only .9 Mg per 2 years needed

Christopher Hunnewell 188 Adapted RAPTOR Engine

• Full flow staged combustion design • Expansion ratio of 175 • Thrust of 1875 kN

Christopher Hunnewell 189 CYCLER STRUCTURE RISK ASSESSMENT

Cycler Structural Failure Assessment

Failure Success Rate Failure Definition Rationale Method (per 310 day trip) System designed for MMOD Debris pierces shielding 99.5% 99.5% success rate Minimal interior pressure, Pressure Rupture of Aluminum Shell 99% ~1 atm Large temperature Thermal Thermal stress exceeds 95% difference based on Cycling yield stress of material orientation of cycler Stress exceeds yield stress Large structure carries Yielding 95% of material large forces Compressive loads cause Spokes mainly under Buckling 99% spokes to buckle tension

Total All parts of system succeed 88%

Jacob Roe 190 RADIATION SHIELDING

Requirements: • Match astronaut annual limit of 500 mSv for 310 day trip [1] Assumptions: • Only need to shield parts of habitable ring (Pharazyn) • Unshield dose equivalent rate of 1.84 mSv/day [2] Effectiveness of radiation shielding proportional to number of nuclear interactions Light materials with smaller nuclei, such as hydrogen, provide the best shielding Liquid hydrogen best shielding material, but hard to store To reduce radiation to desired levels, need 24.68 kg/m2 of polyethylene Total mass of ~75 Mg

Jacob Roe 191 WHIPPLE SHIELD

Shielding Design: Whipple Shield Failure Rate: • Must shield against debris with diameter ≤ 1.5 cm Possible Mass Savings • Don’t cover entire area • More frequent repairs • Allow for greater risk Materials: Shielding Properties • All available on Mars in some Part Material Mass (Mg) quantity Bumper Kevlar/Nextel 59.2 • Versions of Nextel with and without Boron Wall Aluminum 91.1 7075 T6

Jacob Roe 192 Sources

1 Florenz, R. E., “THE X3 100-KW CLASS NESTED-CHANNE L HALL THRUSTER: MOTIVATION, IMPLEMENTATION AND INITIAL PERFORMANCE,” thesis, 2014. 2 GANGALE, T., “MarsSat: Assured Communication with Mars,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1065, Dec. 2005, pp. 296–310. 3 Wertz, J. R., Everett, D. F., and Puschell, J. J., eds., Space Mission Engineering: The New SMAD, Hawthorne, CA: Microcosm Press, 2011. 4 “Youngs Modulus for Common Materials,” 16.4 Thermal Resistance Circuits Available: http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node118.html. 5 16.4 Thermal Resistance CircuitsAvailable: http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node118.html. 6 Admin, “DuPont™ Kevlar® Properties | DuPont USA,” DuPontAvailable: http://www.dupont.com/products-and-services/fabrics-fibers- nonwovens/fibers/articles/kevlar-properties.html. 7 “Linear Thermal Expansion Coefficients of Common Materials,” Coefficients of Linear Thermal ExpansionAvailable: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-expansion-coefficients-d_95.html. 8 “The Manufacturing Process of Kevlar,” k evlarAvailable: https://kevlarweb.wordpress.com/the-manufacturing-process-of-kevlar/. 9 “Synthesis of Ammonia:Process and Reaction,” Study.comAvailable: https://study.com/academy/lesson/synthesis-of-ammonia-process- reaction.html. 10 Anderson, J. D., Hypersonic and high-temperature gas dynamics, Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006. 11 “SpaceX Raptor – SpaceX | Spaceflight101,” SpaceX Spaceflight101 Available: http://spaceflight101.com/spx/spacex-raptor/. Acheraïou, A., “Joseph Conrad (review),” Conradiana, vol. 40, 2007, pp. 89–91. 12 “Figure 2f from: Irimia R, Gottschling M (2016) Taxonomic revision of Rochefortia Sw. (Ehretiaceae, Boraginales). Biodiversity Data Journal 4: e7720. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.4.e7720.” 13 “NASA names GRC deputy director,” Materials Today, vol. 6, 2003, p. 63. 14 Patterson, M., Foster, J., Haag, T., Rawlin, V., Soulas, G., and Roman, R., “NEXT: NASAs Evolutionary Xenon Thruster,” 38th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Jul. 2002.

193 Sources

15 Rask, J., Vercoutere, W., Navarro, B.J., and Krause, A., “Space Faring The Radiation Challenge,” NASA EP–2008–08– 116–MSFC

17 Narici, L., Casolino, M., Fino, L. D., Larosa, M., Picozza, P., Rizzo, A., and Zaconte, V., “Performances of Kevlar and Polyethylene as radiation shielding on-board the International Space Station in high latitude radiation environment,” Nature News Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01707-2 18 Cucinotta, F.A., Kim, M.Y., Chappell, L.J., “Evaluating Shielding Approaches to Reduce Space Radiation Cancer Risks,” NASA TM-2012-217361 19 Christiansen, E.L., “Meteoroid/Debris Shielding,” NASA TP-2003-210788, August 2003. 20 Christiansen, E.L., Lear, D.M., “Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Environment & Hypervelocity Shields,” NASA JSC-CN- 25810, February 2012 21 Piekutowski, A.J., Poormon, K.L., Christiansen, E.L., Davis, B.A., “Performance of Whipple Shields at Impact Velocities above 9 km/s,” NASA JSC-CN-18485

194 Communications Infrastructure System Design

Ryan Duong Sam Albert | Alex Blankenberger | Duncan Harris Connor Lynch | Stuart McCrorie | Sam Zemlicka-Retzlaff 2/20/2018

195 Requirements

To establish a comprehensive communications infrastructure, the system shall be comprised of two unique systems.

The Martian Communication Network shall: • Maintain constant global coverage to Martian ground-based operations. • Operate throughout a 15 year mission lifespan. [1] • Be easy to manufacture on Mars. • Launch from Mars. The Mars-Earth High Data Link shall: • Maintain interplanetary two-way continuous HD video communication. • Provide constant communications with the Martian Cyclers. • Accommodate all types of data for the city residents. • Maintain uninterrupted coverage during the Solar Conjunction. [2] • Operate throughout a 15 year mission lifespan. • Be easy to manufacture on Mars.

196 The Martian Communication Network

The global Martian communications network: • Includes 4 elliptical satellites in a Draim constellation [3]. • Provides constant global coverage with the minimum satellite quantity. • Utilizes one central ground station by employing continuous satellite crosslinking capabilities.

Link Type Frequency Band Mars Crosslink V Band (56 GHz) Mars Uplink X Band (8.4 GHz) Draim Constellation trajectories and ground tracks created Mars Downlink X Band (7.4 GHz) in STK by Ryan Duong and Sam Zemlicka-Retzlaff Data Rate Per Channel 5 [Mbps] Channel Quantity 15 Total Capacity 75 [Mbps]

197 The Martian Communication Network

The Martian Communication Network requires continuous crosslink communications between all 4 satellites. Downlink/uplink occurs when one satellite is above the ground station.

Relay Hardware Summary

Total Solar Panel Area [m2] 17.0

Uplink/Downlink Antenna [m] Ø0.3

Crosslink Antenna [cm] Ø6

Standard Computer Mass [kg] 25

Reaction wheels [kg] 24

Argon Hall Thruster Propellant 119 mass [kg] Batteries [kg] 11.8

Structural Support [kg] 200 Martian Communication Network Satellite for the Draim Constellation created by Sam Zemlicka-Retzlaff in Inventor 198 The Mars-Earth High Data Link

The interplanetary communications system includes: • 2 Heliocentric relay orbits to link Mars and Earth during obstructions. [4] • 3 Areostationary orbits to transmit/receive the HD transmission. • 3 Geostationary orbits to transmit/receive HD transmission. Establishing the stationary satellites provides the opportunity to provide 360° access without establishing multiple large ground stations throughout Mars.

Interplanetary relay model created in STK by Ryan Duong and Sam Zemlicka-Retzlaff. Link Type Frequency Band Interplanetary V Band (60 GHz) Crosslink Earth Downlink C Band (5.5 GHz)

Mars Downlink X Band (10 GHz)

Data Rate Per 42 [Mbps] Channel

199 The Mars-Earth High Data Link

Geostationary Relay Satellite Areostationary Satellite Satellite

Geostationary Hardware Summary Relay Hardware Summary Areostationary Hardware Summary

Total Solar Panel Area [m2] 245 Total Solar Panel 232 Total Solar Panel Area 67.3 Area [m2] [m2] Relay-Cycler Antenna [m] Ø3 Mars-Cycler Ø3 Earth-Mars Antenna [m] Ø10 Antenna [m] Relay-Earth Antenna [m] Ø10 Mars-Earth Ø10 Earth-Earth Downlink Ø0.5 Relay-Mars Antenna [m] Ø2 Antenna [m] Antenna [m] Argon Hall Thruster 799 Mars-Ground Ø0.5 Argon Hall Thruster 322 Propellant mass [kg] Cross/Downlink Propellant Mass [kg] Antenna [m] Argon Hall Thruster 588 Prop mass [kg]

All satellites created by Sam Zemlicka-Retzlaff in Inventor 200 Ground Station Capabilities

To avoid the associated manufacturing complexities in building and maintaining multiple ground station throughout Mars, a central ground station will be established in the city.

Satellites will crosslink to the current orbiter in contact with the ground station. Then, the orbiter will downlink to the ground station.

Downlinks to the central ground station for both communications system. Created by Ryan Duong in STK 201 Ground Station Capabilities

The Martian Communication Network requires a gimbaling antenna to continuously track the on-coming Draim satellite from varying large distances.

The Mars-Earth High Data Link uplink/downlinks to/from a primary Areostationary satellite constantly above the city. There are no gimbaling requirements. Ground Station Hardware Summary

Ø3 m Total Solar Panel Area [m2] 22

Uplink/Downlink Antenna for Ø0.5 Earth-Mars relay [m] Ø0.5 m Uplink/Downlink Antenna for Ø3 Draim Constellation Antenna System Volume [m3] 1.22

202 System Summary

3 System Type Satellite Type Mass [Mg] Power [kW] Volume [m ] Central Body Martian Draim1 0.531 1.14 1.17 Areocentric Communication Draim2 0.531 1.14 1.17 Network Heliocentric Draim3 0.531 1.14 1.17 Geocentric Draim4 0.531 1.14 1.17 Mars-Earth High Areostationary1 3.38 15.6 3.19 Data Link Areostationary2 3.38 15.6 3.19

Areostationary3 3.38 15.6 3.19 Relay1 3.55 17.4 3.19 Relay2 3.55 17.4 3.19 Geostationary1 1.43 12.1 1.77 Geostationary2 1.43 12.1 1.77 Geostationary3 1.43 12.1 1.77 Ground Network Ground Station Antenna 1.73 2.22 1.22 Communications Infrastructure Total 25.4 125 27.2

203 Resources and Manufacturing

Key Components and Resources: 1. Solar Panels (Entire satellite System for 15 years operation) • Silicon –1.10 Mg • Plastic – 3.33 Mg • Steel 4130 – 515 kg 2. Standard Computers • 5 per satellite (60 per entire system for 15 years operation) 3. Communications Hardware (Entire satellite System for 15 years operations) • Aluminum 6061-T6 – 2.4 Mg • Copper Wiring – 0.259 Mg 4. Ground Station Initialization (Yearly maintenance) • Aluminum 6061-T6 – 200 kg (50 kg) 5. Propulsion System (Entire satellite system for 15 years operation) • Methalox (Main Thrusters) – 21.1 Mg • Argon (Hall Thrusters) – 228 kg 204 Mission Assurance

Life Cycle International Telecommunication Union (ITU) global satellite communications standard specify 15 years operation times for most satellites. • Radiation damage communications hardware and solar panels • Propellant tank empties – prevents additional corrective maneuvers • Provides opportunity for new technology Replacement Cycle Satellites will either deorbit for Mars reentry or enter a graveyard orbit upon expiration. • New launches will occur a year before current satellite expirations to ensure continued functionality during replacement process. Potential Failure & Consequences Failure o Manufacturing/Structural component failures o ❑ o Computer/Electronics malfunction Consequence o Deployment malfunction o Pointing Error o Launch vehicle failure ❑ Loss of regional/total coverage ❑ Loss of Earth transmission 205 Appendix – Reference

1Mehrotra, R., “Regulation of Global Broadband Satellite Communications” Available: . 2Morabito, D., and Hastrup, R., “Communications with Mars During Periods of Solar ...” Available: . 3Draim, J. E., “A common period four-satellite continuous global coverage constellation,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 10, 1986, pp. 492– 499. 4Gangale, T., “MarsSat: Assured Communication with Mars,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 10.1196/annals.1370.007

206 Appendix – CAD

Mars Communications Network

207 Appendix – CAD

Mars-Earth High Data Link – Geostationary Satellite

208 Appendix – CAD

Mars-Earth High Data Link – Mars-Earth Relay Satellite

209 Appendix – CAD

Mars-Earth High Data Link – Areostationary Satellite

210 Appendix – CAD

Ø3 m Ground Station Antenna Ø0.5 m Ground Station Antenna

211 Appendix – Analysis

This section includes the analysis from the Communications Infrastructure Vehicles and System Team.

212 Appendix – Martian Comm. Trade Study Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

AreoPolar Constellation

Satellite Type Semi-Major Eccentricity Inclination wrt RAAN wrt J2000 Argument of True Anomaly Axis [km] J2000 [deg] [deg] Periapsis [deg] [deg] Areostationary1 20427.7 0 37.1135 47.6814 0 0 Areostationary2 20427.7 0 37.1135 47.6814 0 120 Areostationary3 20427.7 0 37.1135 47.6814 0 240 Polar1 18500 0 130.1135 47.6814 0 0 Polar2 18500 0 130.1135 47.6814 0 120 Polar3 18500 0 130.1135 47.6814 0 240

Satellite Orbit Crosslink Coverage 2D Coverage Appendix – Martian Comm. Trade Study Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

Draim Constellation

Satellite Type Semi-Major Axis Eccentricity Inclination wrt RAAN wrt Argument of True Anomaly [km] J2000 [deg] J2000 [deg] Periapsis [deg] [deg] Elliptical 1 32500 0.263 68.4135 47.6814 270 0 Elliptical 2 32500 0.263 68.4135 137.6814 90 241.131 Elliptical 3 32500 0.263 68.4135 227.6814 270 180 Elliptical 4 32500 0.263 68.4135 317.6814 90 118.869

Satellite Orbit Crosslink Coverage 2D Coverage Appendix – Martian Comm. Trade Study Ryan Duong (Mission Design) Rosette Constellation Satellite Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle Circle Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Semi-Major 20427. 20427. 20427. 20427. 20427. 20427. 20427. 20427. 20427. 20427.7 20427.7 20427.7 20427.7 20427. 20427. Axis [km ] 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Eccentricity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Inclination wrt 82.113 82.113 82.113 82.113 82.113 82.113 82.113 82.113 82.113 82.1135 82.1135 82.1135 82.1135 82.113 82.113 J2000 [deg] 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 RAAN wrt 47.681 47.681 47.681 119.681 119.681 119.681 191.681 191.681 191.681 263.681 263.681 263.6814 335.681 335.681 335.681 J2000 [deg] 4 4 4 Argument of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Periapsis [deg] True Anomaly 0 120 240 0 120 240 0 120 240 0 120 240 0 120 240 [deg]

Satellite Orbit Crosslink Coverage 2D Coverage Appendix – Martian Comm. Trade Study Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

Walker Constellation * 6 Orbital Planes spaced 30° apart to total 66 satellites. Satellite Type Circle 1 Circle 2 Circle 3 Circle 4 Circle 5 Circle 6 Circle 7 Circle 8 Circle 9 Circle Circle 10 11 Semi-Major Axis 4196.19 4196.19 4196.19 4196.19 4196.19 4196.19 4196.19 4196.19 4196.19 4196.19 4196.19 [km] Eccentricity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Inclination wrt 125.1135 125.1135 125.1135 125.1135 125.1135 125.1135 125.1135 125.1135 125.1135 125.1135 125.113 J2000 [deg] 5 RAAN wrt J2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [deg] Argument of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Periapsis [deg] True Anomaly 0 32.7273 65.4546 98.1818 130.909 163.636 196.364 229.091 261.818 294.545 327.27 [deg] 3

Satellite Orbit Crosslink Coverage 2D Coverage Appendix – Martian Comm. Trade Study Ryan Duong (Mission Design) Polar Perturbation Appendix – Martian Comm. Trade Study Ryan Duong (Mission Design) Areostationary Perturbation

ΔW ΔE

ΔΩ

ΔSMA Appendix – Martian Comm. Trade Study Ryan Duong (Mission Design) Draim Elliptical Orbits Appendix – Martian Comm. Trade Study Ryan Duong (Mission Design) Rosette Constellation Appendix – Martian Comm. Trade Study Ryan Duong (Mission Design) Walker Constellation Appendix – Martian Comm. Trade Study Ryan Duong (Mission Design) Eclipse Times Comparisons Appendix – Martian Comm. Trade Study Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

Constellation Eclipse Times Comparisons AreoPolar Draim Satellite Constellation Eclipse Season Maximum Eclipse Duration Rosette [hr:min:sec] Walker Areostationary 1 October 1st – December 22nd 1:20:10 Areostationary 2 October 1st – December 22nd 1:20:10 Areostationary 3 September 30th – December 23rd 1:20:10 Draim1 September 6th – October 11th 1:29:12 Draim2 February 9th – March 12th 1:30:21 Draim3 August 12th – September 8th 1:30:37 Draim4 January 2nd – February 10th 1:28:53 Rosette1 August 23rd – October 3rd 1:20:00 Walker1 April 13th – December 3rd 00:42:00 Appendix – ∆V Analysis Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

∆V Analysis

Goals: • Minimize Complexity • Minimize ∆V (if possible)

Assumptions: • Direct insertions whenever possible • Individual launches will not require phasing maneuver • 2nd Stage of LV provides transfer before deployment • If satellite quantity is too large, there will be multiple launches • Launching from Hellas Basin’s Latitude: 26.8˚S • 15 Year Operation

224 Appendix – ∆V Analysis Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

∆V Analysis Summary

Constellation Type Satellite Quantity Total ∆V [km/s] for Establishment

AreoPolar 6 13.2599

Draim 4 14.3635

Rosette 15 34.1748

Walker 66 82.2643

Desirability ∆V considers: 90 – 100% • Transfers 80 – 89% • Phasing Maneuvers • Plane Changes 70 – 79% • Periapsis Shift 60 – 69% • Perturbation Corrective ≤ 60% Maneuvers 225 Appendix – ∆V Analysis Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

AreoPolar Constellation ∆V Analysis

Constellation is comprised of 6 total satellites, evenly split in two different orbital plane at different altitudes. • 3 Areostationary Orbits • 3 Polar Orbits • 2 separate launches

*Approximation due to general orbital elements and perturbation analysis Total ΔV Breakdown for each Polar Satellite [km/s] Transfer ∆θ* = ∆θ* = Perturbation Total ΔV Per Satellite 120˚ 240˚ Correction For 15 Lifetime Years (Per Year m/s)* Second 1.6681 1.6681 Stage Polar1 1.5 (100) 1.5

Polar2 0.516 1.5 (100) 2.016

Polar3 0.2549 1.5 (100) 1.7549

System Total 6.9390 226 System Total Without Perturbations 2.4390 Appendix – ∆V Analysis Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

AreoPolar Constellation ∆V Analysis *Approximation due to general orbital elements and perturbation analysis

Total ΔV Breakdown for each Areostationary Satellite [km/s] Transfer ∆θ* = ∆θ* = Perturbation Correction For 15 Total ΔV Per Satellite 120˚ 240˚ Years (Per Year m/s)* Lifetime

Second Stage 1.9874 1.9874

Areostationary1 1.2 (80) 1.2

Areostationary2 0.491 1.2 (80) 1.691

Areostationary3 0.2425 1.2 (80) 1.4425

System Total 6.3209

System Total Without Perturbations 2.7209

Establishing the AreoPolar Constellation (2 launches and 15 years life) requires a total of ΔV ≈ 13.2599 km/s 227 Appendix – ∆V Analysis Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

Draim Constellation ∆V Analysis

Constellation is comprised of 6 total satellites, symmetrically distributed in four different orbital plane. • 4 Elliptical Orbits • 2 separate launches

*Approximation due to general orbital elements and perturbation analysis

Total ΔV Breakdown for each Draim Satellite [km/s] Transfer ∆Ω = 180˚ ∆ω =270˚ Perturbation Correction For 15 Total ΔV Per Years (Per Year m/s)* Satellite Lifetime Second 1.9848 1.9848 Stage Draim3 1.0613 0.6259 3 (200) 4.6872

System Total 6.6720 System Total Without Perturbations 3.6720

228 Appendix – ∆V Analysis Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

Draim Constellation ∆V Analysis

Total ΔV Breakdown for each Draim Satellite [km/s] Transfer ∆Ω = ±90˚ ∆ ω = ±90˚ Perturbation Correction For Total ΔV 15 Years (Per Year m/s)* Per Satellite Lifetime

Second Stage 1.9848 1.9848

Draim1 0.6259 3 (200) 3.6259 Draim2 0.7505 0.6259 3 (200) 4.3764 Draim3 0.7505 0.6259 3 (200) 4.3764

System Total 14.3635 System Total Without Perturbations 5.3635

Establishing the Draim Constellation (2 launches and 15 years life) requires a total of ΔV ≈ 14.3635 km/s 229 Appendix – ∆V Analysis Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

Rosette Constellation Analysis

Constellation is comprised of 15 total satellites (potentially Small Sats), symmetrically distributed in 5 different orbital plane. • 15 Circular orbits • 1 launch (if Small Sats.; more launches ideal, but expensive)

Total ΔV Breakdown for each Rosette Satellite [km/s] Transfer ∆Ω = ∆Ω = Perturbation Correction Total ΔV Per Satellite ±72˚ ±144˚ For 15 Years (Per Year Lifetime m/s)* Second Stage 1.7051 1.7051 Plane1 0 Plane2 1.2036 1.2036 Plane3 1.9475 1.9475 Plane4 1.9475 1.9475 Plane5 1.2036 1.2036 Plane Change + Transfer Total 8.0073 System Total Without Perturbations 8.0073

230 Appendix – ∆V Analysis Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

Rosette Constellation ∆V Analysis

Total ΔV Breakdown for each Rosette Satellite [km/s] Transfer ∆θ* = ∆θ* = Perturbation Correction Total ΔV 120˚ 240˚ For 15 Years (Per Year Per m/s)* Satellite Lifetime Rosette1 1.5 (100) 1.5 Rosette2 0.491 1.5 (100) 1.991 Rosette3 0.2425 1.5 (100) 1.7425 5 Different Orbital Planes –> 5 Different Phasing Maneuvers 3.6675 Perturbation (15 x 1.5) Total 22.5 Plane Change + Transfer Total 8.0073 System Total 34.1748 System Total Without Perturbations 11.6748 Establishing the Rosette Constellation (2 launches and 15 years life) requires a total of ΔV ≈ 34.1748 km/s 231 Appendix – ∆V Analysis Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

Walker Constellation Analysis

Constellation is comprised of 66 total satellites (potentially Small Sats), symmetrically distributed in 6 different polar orbital plane. • 66 Circular orbits • Direct Launch – No need to have additional 2nd stage transfer Total ΔV Breakdown for each Walker Satellite [km/s]

Sat. 1 2 3 4 5 6

ΔΩ [deg] 0 32.7273 65.4546 98.1819 130.909 163.636

2 ΔVcirc.ΔΩ [km/s ] 0 1.6527 3.1928 4.5153 5.5301 6.1680

Total ΔV Per 0.45 0.6631 0.8762 1.0893 1.3024 1.5155 Satellite Lifetime

Plane Change 14.2063

System Total 14.2063

232 Appendix – ∆V Analysis Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

Walker Constellation Analysis Total ΔV Breakdown for each Walker Satellite [km/s] Sat. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Δϴ* [deg] 0 32.7273 65.4546 98.1819 130.909 163.636 196.363 229.091 261.818 294.545 327.273

ΔVphase 0 0.2131 0.4262 0.6393 0.8524 1.0655 1.0655 0.8524 0.6393 0.4262 0.2131 [km/s 2]

Perturbation 0.45(30) 0.45(30) 0.45(30) 0.45(30) 0.45(30) 0.45(30) 0.45(30) 0.45(30) 0.45(30) 0.45(30) 0.45(30) Correction For 15 Years (Per Year m/s)*

Total ΔV Per 0.45 0.6631 0.8762 1.0893 1.3024 1.5155 1.5155 1.3024 1.0893 0.8762 0.6631 Satellite Lifetime

6 Different Orbital Planes –> 6 Different Phasing Maneuvers 38.3580 Plane Change 14.2063 Perturbation (66 x 0.45) Total 29.7 System Total 82.2643 System Total Without Perturbations 66.7706

Establishing the Walker Constellation (direct launches and 15 years life) requires a total of ΔV ≈ 82.2643 km/s 233 Appendix – ∆V Analysis Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

Constellation AreoPolar Draim Rosette Walker

Satellite Quantity 6 4 15 66

Ground Stations Quantity

Coverage

∆V Requirements

Perturbations Correction

Redundancies

Hardware Complexity

Desirability 90 – 100% 80 – 89% 70 – 79% 60 – 69%

≤ 60% 234 Appendix – Crosslink Distances Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

Max Dist [km] Satellite 1 Satellite 2 Satellite 3 Satellite 4 Satellite 1 ----- 77149.8 36776.4 778124 Satellite 2 77149.8 ---- 77080.7 36788.3 Satellite 3 36776.4 77080.7 ---- 77047.9 Satellite 4 778124 36788.3 77047.9 -----

235 Appendix – Crosslink Distances Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

Satellite 1 – Satellite 2

236 Appendix – Crosslink Distances Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

Satellite 1 – Satellite 3

237 Appendix – Crosslink Distances Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

Satellite 1 – Satellite 4

238 Appendix – Crosslink Distances Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

Satellite 2 – Satellite 3

239 Appendix – Crosslink Distances Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

Satellite 2 – Satellite 4

240 Appendix – Crosslink Distances Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

Satellite 3 – Satellite 4

241 Appendix – Mars-Earth High Data Link Ryan Duong (Mission Design)

242 Appendix – Propellant Analysis Connor Lynch (Propulsion)

2/10/2018 Connor Lynch 243 Appendix – ∆V Analysis Connor Lynch (Propulsion)

2/10/2018 Connor Lynch 244 Appendix – ∆V Analysis Connor Lynch (Propulsion)

• Early trade study results:

• Cubesats have lower MPV than traditional commsats • Later decision to use for GPS, not comms • Link Budget Analysis • Performed initial link budget analysis for MNET system – see Appendix A • Will refine as requirements become more clear • Need to conduct analysis for every link, including crosslinks

2/19/2018 245 Appendix – Mars Comm. Network LBA Sam Albert (Communications)

Further Link Budget Analysis results: MNet Forward Case User: Rovers Notes

Frequency 8.4 GHz Chosen for high data rate Rover antenna gain 25.83 dBi

Rover transmit power 1000 W Checked value with Ground Transport team MNet antenna gain 24.8 dBi Mars Pathfinder antenna Ground station dish 3 m Could be larger if diameter needed

2/19/2018 246 Appendix – Mars Comm. Network LBA Sam Albert (Communications)

Analog vs. Digital • Analog systems use older technology and could be used without computer chips, in some ways simplifying manufacturing • Analog systems are also more resistant to noise, and could thus be favorable in some ways to the link budget • However… • Analog systems only support a small range of data types (audio, video, etc.) and would not support other types of scientific data (text files, raw data files, software patches) • Digital systems are far more flexible in their ability to adapt to changing data requirements • Digital transmission is also more efficient2 • Although newer technology, digital systems are ubiquitous and can now be produced with relative ease • Lastly, if any system on Mars will require computer chips (which is highly likely), then other systems may as well take advantage of this. The newly formed Manufacturing team is working on thoroughly justifying the assumption that computer chips can be manufactured on Mars

2/19/2018 247 Appendix – Mars Comm. Network LBA Sam Albert (Communications)

Complete Link Budget Analysis Part 1/3

2/19/2018 248 Appendix – Mars Comm. Network LBA Sam Albert (Communications)

Complete Link Budget Analysis Part 2/3

2/19/2018 249 Appendix – Mars Comm. Network LBA Sam Albert (Communications)

Complete Link Budget Analysis Part 3/3

2/19/2018 250 Appendix – Mars Comm. Network LBA Sam Albert (Communications)

Crosslink Analysis for Mars Communications Network (MNet) • Crosslinks between each MNet satellite are necessary in order to provide global coverage with only one ground station • Requirements: • Same data rate as uplink/downlink: 5 Mbps • Two identical systems for constant connectivity with minimal satellite reorientation • Add minimal power and mass to satellite design • Do not interfere with uplink/downlink transmissions • Design (for each of the two crosslink antennas): • 6 cm diameter parabolic antenna • 5 W transmitting power • 56 GHz transmitting frequency (EHF band) • 2 kg added mass, including pointing system

2/19/2018 251 Appendix – Mars Comm. Network LBA Sam Albert (Communications)

Tradeoff Between Radio Frequency (RF) and Optical Communication Systems for Mars-Earth High Data Link (MEHDL)

• Motivation: MEHDL requires high data rate transmission over long distances. How can we effectively communicate back to Earth? • Background: Optical communication is a growing technology which uses lasers to transmit at very high data rates with 50% mass reduction, 65% power reduction3. Deep Space Optical Communications will soon have a TRL of 6 after use on the Psyche mission in 20224. • Requirement: Primary requirement is to transmit 42 Mbps to Earth continuously – lower than initially thought. • Analysis: While it is true that optical communications offers high performance, the manufacturability and complexity of the system is problematic. Key concerns include: • Extremely high-precision pointing required, on the order of one micro-radian or better5 • Lifetime of active laser components may be limited to 6 years5 • Surface finish within 1 nanometer requirement6 • Conclusion: Since we are optimizing for complexity and manufacturability, instead of for mass and power, RF is a better choice in this case.

2/19/2018 252 Appendix – Mars Comm. Network LBA Sam Albert (Communications)

Crosslink Link Budget Analysis for Mars Communications Network (MNet) Crosslinks

2/19/2018 253 Appendix – Mars Comm. Network LBA Sam Albert (Communications) Data rate for mars-earth link Determining Data Rate Requirement for Mars-Earth High Data Link (MEHDL) • Several subsystems need to transmit data between Mars and Earth • For each of these subsystems, estimate values for minimal, nominal, and ideal scenarios:

Mars Subsystem Minimal (Mbps) Nominal (Mbps) Ideal (Mbps) Science (Alaina) 0.1 1.51 30 Cycler (Noah) 5 7.5 10 City - news, personal, etc. (Mitch) 5.87 23.2 140 City - Logistics, ENGR info, etc. 5 10 50 Total Data Rate 16 42 230 Resultant MEHDL Sat mass (kg) 1910.57 4417.34 19738.2 Resultant Solar Panel Area on Relay (m2) 95.53 220.87 989.16 Resultant MEHDL Sat transmit power (kW) 7.05 16.3 73 Acceptability

• Acceptability: • Minimal would only provide 5 minutes of video per person per month each way – would not be “a joy to live in” for most people • Nominal case provides good balance between data available and size of the resultant MEHDL satellites • Ideal case could be considered for expansion, but provides unnecessary (i.e. daily video chat) capabilities

• Conclusion: data rate between Mars and Earth should be 42 Mbps → requirement for MEHDL

2/19/2018 254 Appendix – Mars Comm. Network LBA Sam Albert (Communications)

Rf vs optical communications Tradeoff Between Radio Frequency (RF) and Optical Communication Systems for Mars-Earth High Data Link (MEHDL)

• Motivation: MEHDL requires high data rate transmission over long distances. How can we effectively communicate back to Earth? • Background: Optical communication is a growing technology which uses lasers to transmit at very high data rates with 50% mass reduction, 65% power reduction. Deep Space Optical Communications will soon have a TRL of 6 after use on the Psyche mission in 2022. • Requirement: Primary requirement is to transmit 42 Mbps to Earth continuously – lower than initially thought. • Analysis: While it is true that optical communications offers high performance, the manufacturability and complexity of the system is problematic. Key concerns include: • Extremely high-precision pointing required, on the order of one micro-radian or better • Lifetime of active laser components may be limited to 6 years • Surface finish within 1 nanometer requirement • Conclusion: Since we are optimizing for complexity and manufacturability, instead of for mass and power, RF is a better choice in this case.

2/19/2018 255 Appendix – Mars-Earth Link LBA Alex Blankenberger(Communications)

Feature Value

Earth Terminal Sat Link Type Frequency Band Total Transmitting Power 26.6 kW Space to Space V Band (60 GHz) Long Distance Antenna Size 10 m Earth Downlink C Band (5.5 GHz) Downlink Antenna Size 0.5 m Mars Downlink X Band (10 GHz) Mars Terminal Sat Total Transmitting Power 31.5 kW Long Distance Antenna Size 10 m

Crosslink/Downlink Antenna 0.5 m Size Cycler Communication 3 m Antenna Relay Sat Transmitting Power 31.5 kW Acknowledgements: Long Distance Antenna Size 10 m Noah Gordon – Collaboration with entire MEHDL LBA Sam Albert – Collaboration with LBA research and high Relay to Mars Terminal 2 m level system design Antenna Cycler Communication 3 m Antenna 2/19/2018 256 Appendix – Mars-Earth Link LBA Alex Blankenberger(Communications)

2/19/2018 257 Appendix – Mars-Earth Link LBA Alex Blankenberger(Communications)

Mars Terminal Cross Link LBA

FSS Forward Link Cases* Small User Units Initial Notes Uplink Frequency 60.00 GHz [1] Gateway Terminal Type Tracking Diameter 0.50 m [1] Beamwidth 0.7 deg Antenna Efficiency 55.0% % Assumed typical value Gain 47.35 dBi Transmit Power 35.0 W [1] Backoff and Line Loss -1.5 dB [1] EIRP, Gateway 61.29 dBW EIRP per user 61.29 dBW Propagation Range 35,500.0 km Crosslink Path Distance Space Loss -219.02 dB Atmospheric Losses 0.0 dB [1] Net Path Loss -219.02 dB Satellite Antenna, Type Diameter 0.5 m Antenna Efficiency 55.0% % Assumed typical value Gain 47.35 dBi Line Loss on Satellite -1.5 dB [1] Received Carrier Power Per User, C -111.88 dBW System Noise Temperature 27.4 dB-K Typical value selected for this scenario G/T 19.95 dB/K

Receiver C/No 89.32 dB-Hz Data rate per user 80.00 dB-Hz

Available Eb/No, Uplink 9.32 dB 2/19/2018 258 Appendix – Mars-Earth Link LBA Alex Blankenberger(Communications)

Mars Terminal Cross Link LBA

Modem Implementation Loss -1.20 dB Representative for this scenario

Required Eb/No 4.76 dB Link Margin Up 3.4 dB Channel Bandwidth 36 MHz Number of Channels 1 Number of Users/Channel 1 Single User Data Rate 100 Mbps Code Rate, ρ 2/3 Single User Bandwidth 100.500 MHz Bandwidth Used/Channel 100.50 MHz Total Capacity 100 Mbps

2/19/2018 259 Appendix – Mars-Earth Link LBA Alex Blankenberger(Communications)

Earth Terminal ↔ Ground LBA

FSS Forward Link Cases* Small User Units Initial Notes Uplink Frequency 5.50 GHz [1] Gateway Terminal Type Tracking Diameter 0.50 m [1] Beamwidth 7.636363636 deg Antenna Efficiency 55.0% % Assumed typical value Gain 26.59 dBi Transmit Power 100.0 W [1] Backoff and Line Loss -1.5 dB [1] EIRP, Gateway 45.09 dBW EIRP per user 45.09 dBW Propagation Range 42000 km Geostationary orbit Space Loss -204.52 dB Atmospheric Losses -5.0 dB [2] Net Path Loss -209.52 dB Satellite Antenna, Type Diameter 20.0 m Antenna Efficiency 55.0% % Assumed typical value Gain 58.63 dBi Line Loss on Satellite -1.5 dB [1] Received Carrier Power Per User, C -107.30 dBW System Noise Temperature 27.4 dB-K Typical value selected for this scenario G/T 31.23 dB/K

Receiver C/No 93.90 dB-Hz Data rate per user 80.00 dB-Hz

Available Eb/No, Uplink 13.90 dB

2/19/2018 260 Appendix – Mars-Earth Link LBA Alex Blankenberger(Communications)

Earth Terminal ↔ Ground LBA

Modem Implementation Loss -1.20 dB Representative for this scenario

Required Eb/No 4.76 dB Link Margin Up 7.9 dB Channel Bandwidth 36 MHz Number of Channels 1 Number of Users/Channel 1 Single User Data Rate 100 Mbps Code Rate, ρ 2/3 Single User Bandwidth 100.500 MHz Bandwidth Used/Channel 100.50 MHz Total Capacity 100 Mbps

2/19/2018 261 Appendix – Mars-Earth Link LBA Alex Blankenberger(Communications)

Mars Terminal ↔ Ground LBA

FSS Forward Link Cases* Small User Units Initial Notes Uplink Frequency 10.00 GHz [1] Gateway Terminal Type Tracking Diameter 0.50 m [1] Beamwidth 4.2 deg Antenna Efficiency 55.0% % Assumed typical value Gain 31.78 dBi Transmit Power 10.0 W [1] Backoff and Line Loss -1.5 dB [1] EIRP, Gateway 40.28 dBW EIRP per user 40.28 dBW Propagation Range 17,032.0 km Areostationary orbit Space Loss -197.08 dB Atmospheric Losses -1.2 dB [1] Net Path Loss -198.28 dB Satellite Antenna, Type Diameter 10.0 m Antenna Efficiency 55.0% % Assumed typical value Gain 57.80 dBi Line Loss on Satellite -1.5 dB [1] Received Carrier Power Per User, C -101.69 dBW System Noise Temperature 27.4 dB-K Typical value selected for this scenario G/T 30.40 dB/K

Receiver C/No 99.51 dB-Hz Data rate per user 80.00 dB-Hz

Available Eb/No, Uplink 19.51 dB

2/19/2018 262 Appendix – Mars-Earth Link LBA Alex Blankenberger(Communications)

Mars Terminal ↔ Ground LBA

Modem Implementation Loss -1.20 dB Representative for this scenario

Required Eb/No 4.76 dB Link Margin Up 13.6 dB Channel Bandwidth 36 MHz Number of Channels 1 Number of Users/Channel 1 Single User Data Rate 100 Mbps Code Rate, ρ 2/3 Single User Bandwidth 100.500 MHz Bandwidth Used/Channel 100.50 MHz Total Capacity 100 Mbps

2/19/2018 263 Appendix – Mars-Earth Link LBA Alex Blankenberger(Communications)

Mars Terminal/Relay ↔ Cycler LBA

FSS Forward Link Cases* Small User Units Initial Notes Uplink Frequency 60.00 GHz [1] Gateway Terminal Type Tracking Diameter 3.00 m [1] Beamwidth 0.116666667 deg Antenna Efficiency 55.0% % Assumed typical value Gain 62.91 dBi Transmit Power 5000.0 W [1] Backoff and Line Loss -1.5 dB [1] EIRP, Gateway 98.40 dBW EIRP per user 98.40 dBW Worst Case: Cycler to Mars Terminal or Propagation Range 402,500,000.0 km Relay Space Loss -300.11 dB Atmospheric Losses 0.0 dB [1] Net Path Loss -300.11 dB Satellite Antenna, Type Diameter 25.0 m Antenna Efficiency 55.0% % Assumed typical value Gain 81.33 dBi Line Loss on Satellite -1.5 dB [1] Received Carrier Power Per User, C -121.88 dBW System Noise Temperature 27.4 dB-K Typical value selected for this scenario G/T 53.93 dB/K

Receiver C/No 79.32 dB-Hz Data rate per user 70.00 dB-Hz

Available Eb/No, Uplink 9.32 dB

2/19/2018 264 Appendix – Mars-Earth Link LBA Alex Blankenberger(Communications)

Mars Terminal/Relay ↔ Cycler LBA

Modem Implementation Loss -1.20 dB Representative for this scenario

Required Eb/No 4.76 dB Link Margin Up 3.4 dB Channel Bandwidth 36 MHz Number of Channels 1 Number of Users/Channel 1 Single User Data Rate 10 Mbps Code Rate, ρ 2/3 Single User Bandwidth 10.050 MHz Bandwidth Used/Channel 10.05 MHz Total Capacity 10 Mbps

2/19/2018 265 Appendix – Mars-Earth Link LBA Alex Blankenberger(Communications)

Mars Terminal ↔ Relay LBA

FSS Forward Link Cases* Small User Units Initial Notes Uplink Frequency 60.00 GHz [1] Gateway Terminal Type Tracking Diameter 10.00 m [1] Beamwidth 0.035 deg Antenna Efficiency 55.0% % Assumed typical value Gain 73.37 dBi Transmit Power 4100.0 W [1] Backoff and Line Loss -1.5 dB [1] EIRP, Gateway 107.99 dBW EIRP per user 107.99 dBW Propagation Range 32,000,000.0 km Relay to Mars Terminal distance Space Loss -278.12 dB Atmospheric Losses 0.0 dB [1] Net Path Loss -278.12 dB Satellite Antenna, Type Diameter 2.0 m Antenna Efficiency 55.0% % Assumed typical value Gain 59.39 dBi Line Loss on Satellite -1.5 dB [1] Received Carrier Power Per User, C -112.23 dBW System Noise Temperature 27.4 dB-K Typical value selected for this scenario G/T 31.99 dB/K

Receiver C/No 88.97 dB-Hz Data rate per user 80.00 dB-Hz

2/19/2018 266 Appendix – Mars-Earth Link LBA Alex Blankenberger(Communications)

Mars Terminal ↔ Relay LBA

Modem Implementation Loss -1.20 dB Representative for this scenario

Required Eb/No 4.76 dB Link Margin Up 3.0 dB Channel Bandwidth 36 MHz Number of Channels 1 Number of Users/Channel 1 Single User Data Rate 100 Mbps Code Rate, ρ 2/3 Single User Bandwidth 100.500 MHz Bandwidth Used/Channel 100.50 MHz Total Capacity 100 Mbps

2/19/2018 267 Appendix – Mars-Earth Link LBA Alex Blankenberger(Communications)

Mars Terminal/Relay ↔ Earth Terminal LBA

FSS Forward Link Cases* Small User Units Initial Notes Uplink Frequency 60.00 GHz [1] Gateway Terminal Type Tracking Diameter 10.00 m [1] Beamwidth 0.035 deg Antenna Efficiency 55.0% % Assumed typical value Gain 73.37 dBi Transmit Power 26500.0 W [1] Backoff and Line Loss -1.5 dB [1] EIRP, Gateway 116.10 dBW EIRP per user 116.10 dBW Propagation Range 402,500,000.0 km Worst Case: Mars Terminal/Relay to Earth Space Loss -300.11 dB Atmospheric Losses 0.0 dB [1] Net Path Loss -300.11 dB Satellite Antenna, Type Diameter 10.0 m Antenna Efficiency 55.0% % Assumed typical value Gain 73.37 dBi Line Loss on Satellite -1.5 dB [1] Received Carrier Power Per User, C -112.14 dBW System Noise Temperature 27.4 dB-K Typical value selected for this scenario G/T 45.97 dB/K

Receiver C/No 89.06 dB-Hz Data rate per user 80.00 dB-Hz

Available Eb/No, Uplink 9.06 dB

2/19/2018 268 Appendix – Mars-Earth Link LBA Alex Blankenberger(Communications)

Mars Terminal/Relay ↔ Earth Terminal LBA

Modem Implementation Loss -1.20 dB Representative for this scenario

Required Eb/No 4.76 dB Link Margin Up 3.1 dB Channel Bandwidth 36 MHz Number of Channels 1 Number of Users/Channel 1 Single User Data Rate 100 Mbps Code Rate, ρ 2/3 Single User Bandwidth 100.500 MHz Bandwidth Used/Channel 100.50 MHz Total Capacity 100 Mbps

2/19/2018 269 Appendix – Power Analysis Duncan Harris (Power & Thermal)

• Assumptions • 2 computers used, specifications follow analysis by Ricardo Gomez (55 W each, 45 kg) • Solar Considerations: • Find Solar flux at specified distance from Sun (provided by R. Duong) • Add together all power needs (computations, transmission strength) • Determine solar power efficiency based on current literature [2] • Calculate solar panel area from efficiency and solar flux • Given cell thickness and material density find mass of solar panels • Input maximum eclipse time to determine energy storage required • Given specific energy of specified battery, (wH/kg) find mass of battery [1] • If applicable, find volume due to energy density of the battery [1] • Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators • Find specific power (We/kg) for multiple systems in literature [4] • End of mission mass found by dividing power requirements by specific power • Taking into account the half-life of Pu-238, find required initial mass using a final time of 15 years

2/19/2018 270 Appendix – Power Analysis Duncan Harris (Power & Thermal)

• RTG’s • Very high mass for large systems, most usages are on the scale of 100 W • Would be doable for MPS and Mnet current power draws • Synthetic material, is the product of nuclear fission • Solar Cells • Silicon has about a 20% by mass presence in regolith [5] • Technology is historically prevalent [6] • Manufacturing process required precision machining and lots of heat to smelt into ore • Upper limit of 26% solar conversion efficiency [2] • Lead-Acid Batteries • Any lead on Mars would be used for radiation shielding, as it is not easily accessible [5] • High Mass/power ratio [7] • Manufacturing involves refining of lead, as well as synthesizing sulfuric acid [7]

2/19/2018 271 Appendix – Power Analysis Duncan Harris (Power & Thermal)

• Nickel Cadmium • Ni(OH)2, Cd(OH)2, (KOH). Have not found values for cadmium presence on Mars. Assuming no presence. • Nickel Metal-Hydride • H2O, an “intermetallic”, Ni(OH)2, (KOH) • Similar to NiCad batteries but will not depend on the presence of cadmium. • Lithium Ion • Lithium, Cobalt are key ingredients • Strongest candidate is NiMH or Lithium Ion

2/19/2018 272 Appendix – Structural Analysis Stuart McCrorie (Structures)

• Ground stations are needed to improve the accuracy of GPS systems, especially around resource collection area

• These secondary ground stations need to be able to adjust to track satellites across the sky • The main ground station doesn’t have to worry about this since the satellite it communicates with is in geostationary orbit

• Requirements: • Small delay for repositioning (less than 60 sec) • Adjust altitude from 20o to 160o • Adjust azimuth full rotation (0o to 360o)

2/13/2018 273 Appendix – Structural Analysis Stuart McCrorie (Structures)

• Power required to track would be 447.15 W + the power of the onboard computer (under investigation) • Would need to be powered by 4.438 m2 of solar panels with an efficiency of 0.2 (Harris) • Battery weight would be between 10.5 kg to 16.1 kg (Harris)

Mass, kg Volume, cm3

15.23 229.35 motor+gearbox

Power, W Gear Ratio

447.15 2976:1

Delay for Shaft diameter, cm repositioning, s

20 1.76

2/13/2018 274 Appendix – Structural Analysis Stuart McCrorie (Structures)

• Gauge rough structure weights by looking at weights of modern communications satellites, and their outputs/masses (~50 confidence)

Satellite Mass (kg) Power Drawn by Thruster / Fuel Mass (kg) Communications Propulsion (kW) power (kW)

TDRS-111 (K)6,7 3454 3.2 5.6 1678

Galaxy 258,9 3668 2.4 3.8 1456

AMC - 2110,11 2845 2.8 4.4 1312

Astra 4A12 4979 4.4 5.2 1892

• Our power draw will likely be ~2.8 kW (Duong) Main criteria for structure is torque of thrusters - drag (low orbits), temperature effects, and corrosive effects completely nonexistent in comparison (100% confidence). • drag pressure from geostationary low orbit in Mars less than existing at sea level on Earth 275 Appendix – Structural Analysis Stuart McCrorie (Structures)

• Need to shape pure metals into sheets, bar stock, building elements • Most of this needs to be brought from Earth - need manufacturing elements to make anything on Mars • Two main types of metal materials need to be made (70% confidence) • Sheet metal creation13,14 • Done via rolling and extrusion • Tubing and structural beams • Done via extrusion and pulling • Extrusion: ~3500 Mg per press, operating at around 350,000 tons processed per annum15 (90% confidence) (the mass total will be worrying) • requires immense heats, material to be heated • aluminum typically heat-treated twice before extrusion

Step Step Step Step Step 1 2 3 4 5

Initial Heating of Second Heat Material16 Extrusion Press14,16 Shaping of material16 Pulling13,16 Treatment16

Heat treatment, cooling, then Pushed through dye, creates Cutting, determining profile, Increase total length, Cooling, acid bath to remove heating for exruding desired cross sections sizing decrease size imperfections, then second heat treatment 276 Appendix – Structural Analysis Stuart McCrorie (Structures)

Assumptions

• Efficiency of 0.2 for silicon-based solar panels (Harris) • Density of steel of 8030 kg/m3 • Max Tensile stress of steel of 250 MPa (before yielding) • Factor of safety of 1.125 used • Used a pressure angle of 20 degrees for gears • sets it that largest gear size is 80 tooth and smallest 16 tooth for reasonable size4 • Electric Motor efficiency of 75%1 • Previously found mass of the satellite dish of 820kg2,3

277 Appendix – Structural Analysis Stuart McCrorie (Structures)

Results

• Gearbox of [80:56,80:16,80:16,80:16,80:24] • Power required of 447.15 W • Via that power, an angular velocity of 28.3 deg/s • Found via w = P*n/T • T= torque • n = motor efficiency • P = power

278 Ground Transportation System Design

Stephen Kubicki Nicole Futch, Mitchell Hoffmann, Ana Paula Pineda Bosque, Kyle Tincup, Sean Thompson, Eric Thurston February 20th, 2018

2/20/2018 279 Requirements

Train Systems: 1. All Railcars shall: a. Be capable of completing a round trip to the launch site and each resource extraction site. 2. Resource Railcars shall: a. Transport and unload at least 165 Mg of resources at the appropriate destinations. (Manufacturing/City Infrastructure) 3. Personnel Railcars shall: a. Transport four maintenance workers to/from resource sites and ten passengers to/from the launch site. i. Provide necessary ECLSS for all crew members for the duration of the mission. (Resources/Space Transport) ii. Limit crew radiation exposure to 50% of average Earth radiation. (Customer) 4. Flatbed Railcars shall: a. Transport processed material from manufacturing plants to the city and carry rovers to resource sites. (Manufacturing/Resources) 5. Rail Laying Cars shall: a. Be capable of replacing approximately 300 km of track per year. Rover System shall: 1. Carry a minimum of two maintenance crew members, with the capacity for four crew members in the event of an emergency. (Resources) 2. Carry all necessary maintenance tools. (Resources) Indoor Transport (Tube Utility Vehicle) shall: 1. Transport 2 Mg of processed resources from the factories, or food from the food production buildings, to the necessary destinations. (City Infrastructure) Communication System shall: 1. Provide two-way communication between vehicles, city, and communications satellites. (City Infrastructure) 2. Provide five continuous HD video and control feeds from the city to each resource site. (Resources)

2/20/2018 280 System Overview

Martian Freight Express: • Frequent travel to outside resources. Automation-driven. • Four configurations: rail placement, resource cart, flatbed, personnel. Rover Fleet: • Designed for maintenance. Infrequent use, personnel-driven. • Usage mainly consists of short-range missions. Long-Distance Communication: • Short range Very High Frequency (VHF) tied into long range fiber network. Full System Tube Utility Vehicle: • General transportation within city. Personnel-driven. Mass [Mg] 20,260,000 • Can move resources or supplies between buildings or modules. Power [MW] 42.4 Surface Access Ramp: • Allows rail vehicles to interface with lava tube. • Provides access to airlocks to the city/factories.

2/20/2018 281 Train System Overview

Resource Car Slab Rail

Flatbed Railcar Personnel Railcar

2/20/2018 282 Train Systems

Personnel Railcar Resource Railcar Flatbed Railcar Rail Laying Car

Quantity 10 301 30 2

10 people to launch 2 Crewed Rovers Lay 5 km of track Capacity 165 Mg site, 4 to resource sites (6.48 Mg) per day

ECLSS, Space Suits, Mined resource Processed resource Replacement Features Inner Polyethylene transport, hopper transport, removable capabilities Layer unloading rover ramps

Aluminum, steel, Aluminum, steel, Aluminum, steel, Aluminum, steel, Materials polyethylene, copper copper copper copper

9.92 (Launch) 13.13 (Manufacturing) Mass [Mg] 16.76 8.42 9.54 (Maintenance) 20.56 (w/ rovers)

Motor Power 140 140 140 140 [kW]

Maximum Travel 6.25 (Manufacturing) 5.5 87.5 N/A Time [days] 6.7 (w/ rovers)

Volume / 45.0 m3 105 m3 30 m2 N/A Surface Area 283 Rail Network

Round Trip Travel Time [days]

Personnel Resource Total Rail System Data # Location Car * Car Track Length [km] 13,810 1 Launch Site 0.02 0.06 Rail Mass (Steel) [Mg] 2,460,000 2 Water 1.27 5.65 Substrate Mass (Concrete) [Mg] 17,800,000 3 Iron Oxide 1.20 4.16 Concrete Replacement Rate [Mg/yr] 8,900 4 Plagioclase 1.04 0.88

5 Nitrates 1.77 16.0

6 Germanium 1.92 19.1

7 Clays 1.44 9.07

8 Sulfate 4.00 62.3

9 Copper 5.24 88.3

10 Thorium 5.54 94.5

* = Including 1 day for maintenance 284 2/20/2018 Rover Systems

Features: • Quantity: 20 • Crew Capacity: 2 - 4 people • Nitinol Spring Tires • Extendable Airlock Gate • ECLSS System • Air and water storage tanks • Food storage container • Space suits (in case of emergency) • Radiation Shielding • 50% Shielding • No windows; camera-based driving • Max Operation Duration: 4 hours Rover System Specifications • Robotic maintenance arm • Motor Specifications: Mass [Mg] 3.26 • 44 kg / 100 kW Power [kW] 70.3 • Battery Specifications: • Nickel-Metal Hydride Volume [m3] 10.5 • 333 kg / 0.2 m3 2/20/2018 285 Tube Utility Vehicle (TUV)

Features: • Quantity: 20 • Personnel driven • Nitinol Spring Tires • Flatbed surface for resource transportation within the lava tube • Carrying Capacity: 2 Mg • Transportation capabilities: • Raw and processed food • Raw and processed materials • City construction supplies TUV System Specifications • Motor Specifications: Mass [Mg] 0.36 (unloaded) • 10 kg / 22 kW Power [kW] 15.67 • Battery Specifications • Nickel-Metal Hydride Surface [m2] 7.5 • 131 kg / 0.08 m3

2/20/2018 286 Communication Setup

Features: • Simultaneous remote operation of five mining vehicles per site • Very High Frequency (VHF) contact with all railcars • Remote Communications Outlets (RCO’s) • Positioned on 1.5 m poles to maintain line of sight • 13 km intervals provide VHF comms • Maintains two-way VHF contact with rovers within 2 km of tracks Remote Communications Diagram • Relays and VHF transmitters powered by rail power source Resource Requirements: • Silica: 5 Mg 126 kg/yr • GeO2: 2.5 kg 63 g/yr • Power: 288 kW (peak) 18.5 kW (nominal)

2/20/2018 287 Interactions With Other Systems

City Infrastructure • Lava tube ramp and airlock entrance to city • Interfacing TUV with city layout, factory locations, and material distribution Communications Infrastructure • Tapping into ground stations Food Production • Location of food production • Distribution of food throughout the city Resources Extraction/Manufacturing • Resource extraction site locations and output levels • Processing plant locations and output levels Space Transportation • Cycler transporter launch site and landing ellipse • Launch site transportation needs

2/20/2018 288 Life Cycle & Risk Assessment

Hazard Matrix of Failure Modes:

Consequences Vehicle Lifecycles [yr] Negligible Minor Moderate Severe Personnel Car 10 Likely - Rover stuck in - Computer sand incompetence Resource Car 20

Flatbed Car 20 Possible -Path destruction - Electrical (rover) Failure Rail Laying Car 20 - Path obstruction Rails 100

Unlikely - Short due to - Crew Stranded - Loss of Rover 10

Likelihood grounding -Path functionality destruction - Derailment TUV 10 (train) Comms 40 Rare

Low Priority Medium Priority High Priority

2/20/2018 289 Appendices

2/20/2018 290 Appendix A: Requirements

2/20/2018 291 Train Requirements

Train Systems: 1. All Railcars shall: a. Be capable of completing a round trip to the launch site and each resource extraction site. 2. Resource Railcars shall: a. Transport and unload at least 165 Mg of resources at the appropriate destinations. (Manufacturing/City Infrastructure) 3. Personnel Railcars shall: a. Transport four maintenance workers to/from resource sites and ten passengers to/from the launch site. i. Provide necessary ECLSS for all crew members for the duration of the mission. (Resources/Space Transport) ii. Limit crew radiation exposure to 50% of average Earth radiation. (Customer) 4. Flatbed Railcars shall: a. Transport processed material from manufacturing plants to the city and carry rovers to resource sites. (Manufacturing/Resources) b. Be capable of carrying a ramp to load/unload the rovers. 5. Rail Laying Cars shall: a. Be capable of replacing approximately 300 km of track per year. b. Be capable of lifting and placing concrete substrate with embedded steel rails.

2/20/2018 292 Rail, TUV, and Communication Requirements

Rover: 1. Shall carry a minimum of two crew members. (Resources) 2. Shall provide necessary life support for all crew members for at least 8 hours. (Resources) a. Shall protect crew from at least 50% of radiation. b. Shall carry enough food and water for maximum duration mission. c. Shall recycle 100% of the oxygen within the vehicle. 3. Shall have carrying capacity for all necessary maintenance tools. (Resources) Indoor Transport: 1. Tube Utility Vehicle (TUV) a. Shall transport 2 Mg of processed resources from the factories, or food from the food production buildings, to the necessary destinations. (City Infrastructure) Communication System: 1. System shall provide continuous 2-way voice communication with trains. 2. System should provide 2-way voice communication with rovers located within 2 km of tracks. 3. System shall provide 5 continuous HD video feeds from each resource site to the city. (Resources) 4. System shall provide 5 continuous control feeds from the city to each resource site. (Resources) 293 2/20/2018 Appendix B: Long-Distance Transport Trade Study

2/20/2018 294 Requirements

1. Shall have a range to arrive to the furthest point of resource collection and return. 2. Shall have a high enough weight carrying capacity for large scale resource transportation. 3. Shall carry a variety of objects of different shapes and sizes (rovers, launch vehicles, materials, personnel). 4. Shall endure frequent travel. 5. Shall be easily maintainable and repairable. 6. Shall safely transport personnel. 7. Shall be producible on Mars. 8. Shall make efficient use of Mars resources. 9. Shall carry personnel to destination within time limits set by radiation and health factors. 10. Shall consume power efficiently. 11. Shall have achieved a technology readiness level of at least 4.

2/20/2018 295 Categories and Weights

Required Luxury 1 2 3 4 5 for system success Category Weight Reasoning Req # Range- What affects how far Many necessary resources will be best accessible at a long distance 1 4 similar systems travel? from the city. Speed - How quickly can Due to radiation hazards, any personnel traveling should minimize their 9 2 similar systems travel? time on the train. Power Efficiency - Are similar Power is not one of our scarcest resources. A system producing 10 systems power intensive for 3 resources will be worth high power draws. the mass they carry? Maintenance - In what ways Long duration downtime is not feasible for effective transport. Shorter 4,5 3 do similar systems fail? downtime can be solved by allocating vehicles to important resource. Safety - What are the dangers Any personnel traveling for maintenance should be safe on the system. 6 4 to personnel on board? Carrying Capacity and Resources will be the main purpose for the long distance transport. 2,8 Resource Efficiency - 5 Efficiency with resource use is important for an effective system. compared to the load carried Modularity - Can the system The system will have to transport everything from resources, vehicles, 3 carry the different objects 2 rockets, and people. It must be flexible to changes in shape and we’d transport? volume. Constructability - Do we have Many systems only need to be constructed once, and then maintained. 7 construction capabilities for 3 Difficulties are temporary. this 2/17/2018system’s complexity? 296 Completed Trade Study

Permanent Power Resource Surface Range Speed Maintenance Safety Modularity Constructability Total Efficiency Efficiency Transport Weight 3 2 3 2 2 5 2 3

Train 4 4 1 4 4 5 5 3 83

Rover 1 2 1 5 2 1 5 4 51

Hopper 5 5 5 2 2 3 2 4 79

2/20/2018 297 Research

Range in One Trip

System Rank Reasoning

Train 4 Can reach all parts of planet as long as rail exists.

Rover 1 17 km range; limited.

Hopper 5 Can reach other side of planet without significant changes to design

Speed for Personnel Travel

System Rank Reasoning

Train 4 Max Speed 43 km/hr

Rover 2 Max speed 30 km/hr

Hopper 5 140 min round trip to furthest point on globe = 4564 km/hr (Ryan Duong)

2/20/2018 298 Research

Constructability - Design and Development

System Rank Reasoning

Train 3 Low complexity; significant precedent, difficult development

Rover 4 High complexity; Will already be manufacturing slightly similar systems

Hopper 4 High complexity; Will already be manufacturing many similar systems

Power Efficiency

System Rank Reasoning

Train 1 15260 kWh per trip to furthest resource site

Rover 1 15375 kWh per trip to furthest resource site

Hopper 5 12 kWh per trip

2/20/2018 299 Research

Maintenance

System Rank Reasoning

Train 4 Easily Accessible. Simple system

Rover 5 Easily Accessible. Simple system.

Hopper 2 Inaccessible. Complex system

Safety

System Rank Reasoning

Train 4 Accessible- Constrained to travel on established track

Rover 2 Possibilities for getting stuck or breached by sharp rocks

Hopper 2 Travels sub-orbitally, contains rocket propellant

2/20/2018 300 Research

Carrying Capacity and Resource Efficiency

System Rank Reasoning

Train 5 54 mass produced/ mass needed to support system

Rover 1 0.014 mass produced/ mass needed to support system

Hopper 2 0.4 mass produced/ mass needed to support system

Modularity

System Rank Reasoning

Train 5 Easily customizable car shape (flatbed rail)

Rover 5 Easily customizable payload shape (tow)

Hopper 2 Constrained by shape for aerodynamics

2/20/2018 301 Appendix C: Hopper Analysis

2/20/2018 302 Hopper Analysis

Hopper Design Requirements

Requirement Solution Launch and land twice without refueling Same amount of fuel estimated for launch/land for each flight Fueled by Martian propellant Methane + LOX Must have a soft landing Included retropropulsion to bring v=0 at landing

Critical Assumptions

# Assumption 1 Same fuel is burned in launch and retro-propulsion for landing 2 Heat effects from atmosphere not included 3 No maneuvering after exiting atmosphere 4 No gravity loss or drag

2/20/2018 303 TRIAL TRAJECTORY

Degrees Isp [s] - DeltaV [km/s] Mass Trajectory around Earth (One launch) Ratio planet values

180 311 3.5469 2.9454

90 311 3.2283 7.23e4

Highest Isp - Aerojet Rocketdyne RL10 - 470s Likely Isp achievable – Merlin – 311s, uses LOX/methane Highest MR - Falcon 9 at 16

2/20/2018 304 RESEARCH ON PRECEDENT

• Research for the requirements:

• Carry load • Launch and land twice • Curiosity Rover • F9 first stage • Mass: 899 kg • Inert Mass: 23,100kg • Volume: 17.64 m^3 • Propellant mass: 395700 kg • Blue Origin Capsule (6 people) • Thrust ~700kN • Mass: • New Shepard • Volume: 15.0079 • Thrust: 500kN • Dragon Capsule • Burn time: 150s • Mass: 6,000 kg • Fuel types on Mars • Volume: 11 m^3 • LOX, Methane (resources team – • Crew: 6 Diego Martinez)

2/20/2018 305 Appendix D: Electric vs Cold Gas Thruster Trade Study

2/20/2018 306 Slope Power Computation Code

2/20/2018 307 Slope Power Computation Code (cont.)

2/20/2018 308 APPENDIX B: RAIL_COLD_GAS_THRUSTERS.M

2/20/2018 309 Rail Energy Computation Code

2/20/2018 310 Cold Gas Thruster Data

2/20/2018 311 Electrical Locomotion Data

2/20/2018 312 Trade Study Results

2/20/2018 313 SOURCES

2/20/2018 314 Appendix E: City Ramp and Airlock

2/20/2018 315 Lava Tube Entrance Ramp

• The train ramp allows the trains to interface with the lava tube • Ramp will be created with resource extraction machines • Length: 3 km • Height: 150 m • Slope: ~ 3°

2/20/2018 316 Appendix F: Oxygen and Water Supply Trade Study

2/20/2018 317 OXYGEN SUPPLY AND CO2 SCRUBBING SYSTEMS - ROVER

Rover: Maximum of four people for eight hours

Rover Oxygen Recycling and Carbon Oxygen Supply and Carbon Monoxide Reduction [1] Dioxide Scrubbing

Mass 0.130 Mg 0.0349 Mg

Power 0.95 kW 1.554 kW

Volume 0.120 m3 0.0197 m3

Advantages Lower power requirements, no Lower mass and volume need to refill oxygen tanks requirements, less complexity, proven technology

Disadvantages Complex, little research, difficult to Have to replenish oxygen supply manufacture after every mission

Chosen system

2/20/2018 318 OXYGEN SUPPLY AND CO2 SCRUBBING SYSTEMS - RAIL

Personnel Rail: Maximum of four people for 133 hours or ten people for five hours

Personnel Rail Oxygen Recycling and Carbon Oxygen Supply and Carbon Monoxide Reduction [1] Dioxide Scrubbing

Mass 0.2200 Mg 0.2106 Mg

Power 1.66 kW 3.90 kW

Volume 1.250 m3 0.1810 m3

Advantages Lower power requirements, no Lower mass and volume need to refill oxygen tanks requirements, less complexity, proven technology

Disadvantages Complex, little research, difficult to Have to replenish oxygen supply manufacture after every mission

Chosen system

2/20/2018 319 APPENDIX: OXYGEN SUPPLY/ CO2 SCRUBBER SYSTEM SIZING CODE

Matlab Code - Kyle Tincup %Calculations Mass_of_O2 = Individual_hourly_oxygen_requirement * Utilizing references 3 and 4 Number_of_people * Hours_of_travel * Factor_of_safety; %kg n = Mass_of_O2 / O2_molar_mass; %moles clear all Volume_of_O2 = n*R*Temp/O2_tank_pressure; %m^3 clc %Oxygen Calculations %Railcar Tank Volume syms x; %Inputs eqn = Scalar * pi * (x/2)^2 + 4/3 * pi * (x/2)^3 == Number_of_people = 4; Volume_of_O2; Hours_of_travel = 8; soln = solve(eqn,x); %Rover = 1, Rail = 2 TD_cm = double(soln(1))*100; Vehicle = 2; TD_round = ceil(TD_cm); Oxygen_Diameter = TD_round/100; %Constants Tank_Diameter = Oxygen_Diameter + 0.02; O2_molar_mass = 0.032; %kg/mol Oxygen_Volume = R = 8.314; %J/mol*K Scalar*pi*(Oxygen_Diameter/2)^2+4/3*pi*(Oxygen_Diameter/2)^ Temp = 293.25; %Degrees Kelvin 3; Cabin_pressure = 81100; %pascals New_Tank_Pressure = n*R*Temp/Oxygen_Volume; O2_tank_pressure = 1.5168E7; %pascals Outer_Volume = Individual_hourly_oxygen_requirement = Scalar*pi*(Tank_Diameter/2)^2+4/3*pi*(Tank_Diameter/2)^3; 0.840/24; %kg %NASA spec Tank_Height = Scalar + Tank_Diameter; Factor_of_safety = 1.5; Tank_Thickness = 0.01; if Vehicle == 1 Tank_Volume = Outer_Volume - Oxygen_Volume; Scalar = 0.46; Tank_Mass = Tank_Volume * 8000; CO2_Scalar = 1; Regulator_Mass = 1.4; else Regulator_Power = 4.32; Scalar = 1.4; Regulator_Volume = 0.0005; CO2_Scalar = 2; Oxygen_System_Mass = Mass_of_O2 + Tank_Mass + end Regulator_Mass; 320 2/20/2018 Oxygen_System_Volume = Outer_Volume + Regulator_Volume; APPENDIX: OXYGEN SUPPLY SYSTEM SIZING CODE

%Output fprintf('Total Oxygen System Values: \n Mass: %.4f kg \n Power: %.4f W \n Volume: %.4f m^3 \n',Oxygen_System_Mass,Regulator_Power,Oxygen_System_Volume)

%----Carbon Dioxide Scrubber----

%Inputs Individual_hourly_CO2_exhale_rate = 1.155/24; %kg %NASA spec: 1 mol O2 → 1 mol CO2 Zeolite_CO2_absorption_rate = 310; %kg/m^3 %Reference #4

%Calculations CO2_amount_per_7hr = Individual_hourly_CO2_exhale_rate * Number_of_people * Factor_of_safety * 8;

%Zeolite sizing Zeolite_Volume = CO2_Scalar*CO2_amount_per_7hr / Zeolite_CO2_absorption_rate; %Double because heating process takes 8 hours Zeolite_Mass = Zeolite_Volume * 1120; %Reference #3 Zeolite_Side_Length = Zeolite_Volume^(1/3); %CO2 Scrubber Heater Heater_Power = Zeolite_Side_Length/0.00064516 * 5; % Watts Heater_Mass = 0.05 * Zeolite_Mass; Heater_Volume = 0.05 * Zeolite_Volume; CO2_System_Mass = Zeolite_Mass + Heater_Mass; CO2_System_Volume = Zeolite_Volume + Heater_Volume; CO2_System_Power = Heater_Power;

%Outputs fprintf('Total CO2 Scrubber System Values: \n Mass: %.4f kg \n Power: %.4f W \n Volume: %.4f m^3 \n',CO2_System_Mass,CO2_System_Power,CO2_System_Volume) 2/20/2018 321 OXYGEN/CO2 SYSTEM DESIGN REFERENCES

1. Burke, K. A., and Jiao, F., “Game Changing Development Program Next Generation Life Support Project Oxygen Recovery From Carbon Dioxide Using Ion Exchange Membrane Electrolysis Technology— Final Report,” Dec. 2016. 2. Jackson, S., “Life Support Systems,” NASA Available: https://www.nasa.gov/content/life-support- systems. 3. “Natural Zeolites & Synthetic Zeolites,” reade.com Available: http://www.reade.com/products/natural-zeolites-synthetic-zeolites. 4. “Researchers Study Zeolite for Filtering Out Carbon Dioxide,” SciTechDaily Available: https://scitechdaily.com/researchers-study- zeolite-for-filtering-out-carbon-dioxide/.

2/20/2018 322 Water/ Air Trade Study

Original trade study for rovers:

2/20/2018 323 Water/ Air Trade Study

Original trade study for trains:

2/20/2018 324 Water Carrying Code

This code computes how much water will need to be carried by a vehicle for its missions.

Inputs: • Number of days • Number of people • Preferred height of tank

2/20/2018 325 Water Carrying Code (cont.)

2/20/2018 326 Water Carrying Code (cont.)

Sample output for 4 person train traveling for 5 days with tank height of 0.61 m:

2/20/2018 327 Initial Water Calculation Code

This code computes the initial/ongoing water need for the recyclers that will be used in the city and on the cycler.

A sample output for the cycler is shown below.

2/20/2018 328 Water Recycler Sizing Code

This code sizes the water recycling system.

2/20/2018 329 Water Recycler Decision

Sample output of water recycler for the train: Sample water + tank MPV values for train:

Note: the final mass of this output does Note: no power required above ambient power for not include initial water needed. water tanks.

Comparing the outputs above, carrying water was decided to be more efficient for the given number of people and mission length.

An important note: at and after 23 days of trip length, the water recycler becomes more efficient.

2/20/2018 330 Water Recycling Manufacture

2/20/2018 331 Water Recycling Sources

[1] Bagdigian, R.M, Cloud, D. “Status of the International Space Station Regenerative ECLSS Water Recovery and Oxygen Generation Systems”. 2005-01 -2779 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050207456.pdf [2] Carter, D. L. “Status of the Regenerative ECLSS Water Recovery System” NASA Technical Reports Server. 23 Jan 2009.R Rept. 2009-01-2352. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090033097.pdf [3] “Closing the Loop: Recycling Water and Air in Space”. Nasa.gov. n.d.https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090033097.pdf [4] Curie, M. and Morcone, J. “New Water Reclamation System Headed for Duty on Space Station”, NASA.gov, Release 08-119, 12 May 2008, https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/may/HQ_08119_ISS_Water_System.html [5] “Environmental Control and Life Support System”, NASA G-281237, 23 Aug 2017. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/g-281237_eclss_0.pdf [6] Perez, E. “How long does it take for corrosion to be evident on metal and what can I do to stop it progressing?”, 29 Dec 2015, https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-for-corrosion-to-be- evident-on-metal-and-what-can-I-do-to-stop-it-progressing

2/20/2018 332 Appendix G: Radiation Standards

2/20/2018 333 EARTH AVERAGE RADIATION LIMIT

Requirement: Protection from radiation is supplied whenever a martian leaves the safety of the lava tube.

Earth Background Radiation Levels Equivalent: Typical average dose for a person is about 3.6 mSv [#] Measurements from Odyssey’s Mars Radiation Environment Experiment (MARIE) taken over a six month span revealed an average dose-equivalent of approximately 1.30 mSv per day [#]

Martian Exposure Limit (10cm Polyethylene Shielding) [#]

2/20/2018 334 NASA RADIATION LIMIT

NASA Career Lifetime Radiation Levels Equivalent:

Career Exposure Limits for NASA Astronauts Age 25 35 45 55

Male 1.50 Sv 2.50 Sv 3.25 Sv 4.00 Svf Female 1.00 Sv 1.75 Sv 2.50 Sv 3.00 Sv

Assumptions: Figure based of Rask, Reference #2 Career● ExposurePrevious Limitfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffs radiation exposure negligent for NASA Astronauts ● Average arrival age of thirty years old ● Average lifespan of seventy years (forty years on Mars) ● Limit taken for male Martian subject

Martian Exposure Limit (10cm Polyethylene Shielding) [#]

2/20/2018 335 RADIATION LIMITS REFERENCES

1. Narici, L., Casolino, M., Fino, L. D., Larosa, M., Picozza, P., Rizzo, A., and Zaconte, V., “Performances of Kevlar and Polyethylene as radiation shielding on-board the International Space Station in high latitude radiation environment,” Nature News Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01707-2#Tab3. 2. Rask, J., Vercoutere, W., Navarro, B., Krause, A., “Space Faring: The Radiation Challenge,” 2008

2/20/2018 336 Appendix H: Train Analysis for Radiation Standards

2/20/2018 337 Route Slope Data and Motor Power Calculations

Elevation data obtained using Motor Power Calculations: Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter ● Maximum time of one-way travel for personnel car driven by radiation standards (MOLA) data via JMars software and 1 day for maintenance at resource sites ● Average travel velocity computed using time limits and distance to farthest resource site (Thorium = 8503 km) ● Motor mass and power guessed, then code iterates to find updated personnel car mass. Updated total mass used to find new motor power and mass, iterate until error is <1 kg ● Motor mass and power scaled based on Zytek Electric Traction Motor 1

2/20/2018 338 Vehicle Mass Tabulation

Total Vehicle Masses for Radiation Standards

Mass - Earth Average Mass - NASA Standard [Mg] Standard [Mg]

Flatbed Railcar - Maintenance 13.13 13.07

Flatbed Railcar - Rovers 20.56 20.50

Personnel Railcar - Launch Site 9.92 9.86

Personnel Railcar - Maintenance 9.54 11.40

Resource Railcar - Empty 16.76 16.71

Resource Railcar - Full 181.8 181.8

Personnel Car Motor Specifications

Earth Average NASA Standard Standard

Mass [kg] 61.80 4.42

Power [kW] 140.1 10.11 2/20/2018 339 Travel Durations for Different Radiation Exposure Limits

2/20/2018 340 References

1. “Zytek 170kW 460Nm,” Zytek Automotive.

2/20/2018 341 Appendix I: Track Substrate

2/20/2018 342 RAIL LIFETIME CALCULATIONS

Steel Rail Lifetime Calculations:

“A recent railroad survey conducted by TTCI indicates that the typical rail life varies from about 1,300 MGT in tangent track to about 380 MGT in a 10‐degree curved track.” [2]

Converting to metric, the lowest life estimate gives us a lifetime of 386.098 Mg.

Railway Track Life Expectations: [1]

● Ballasted tracks have a lifetime of approximately 15-20 years ● Non-ballasted tracks have a lifetime of approximately 50-60 years

2/20/2018 343 RAIL LIFETIME REFERENCES

1. “Comparison of Ballasted Track and Non-Ballasted Track,” Ballasted Track And Non-Ballasted Track | Railway Track ComparisonAvailable: http://www.railway-fasteners.com/news/ballasted-track-non-ballasted- track-comparison.html.

2. “Part I: The Importance of Wheel/Rail Interface Management on Energy Savings and Sustainability.”

2/20/2018 344 Appendix J: Communication System

2/20/2018 345 COMMUNICATION

• Number of relays: 1012 • Max transmission distance over fiber: 13km (Mike Poole AT&T) • Fiber lines run along train routes • Total length of train routes: 13100km • # of relays = length of rail / transmission distance • Number of RCOs: 1012 • Co-locate RCOs with signal relays to minimize complexity and splicing • Calculate required tower height based on LOS requirement (theory on next slide) • 1 RCO every 13km: Tower height = 1.5m • 1 RCO every 26km: Tower height = 13.2m • Choose 1 RCO every 13km to avoid unreasonable construction requirements in remote areas • Doubles the number of required RCOs and peak power • Does not affect nominal power which is where the system will operate approximately 99.9% of the time

2/20/2018 346 COMMUNICATION RCO TOWER HEIGHT

2/20/2018 347 COMMUNICATION

• RCO Power • Peak: 167kW • Transmitting from every RCO simultaneously • 1012 RCOs • Transmitting power: 165W (Bendix KX165A Transceiver) • Nominal: 11.6kW • Transmitting on half of the train lines and 1 RCO per route • Number of lines: 14 • Relay Power: 26kW • 15W per relay (AFL-8500 Analog Fiber Link) • 1012relays

2/20/2018 348 COMMUNICATION MANUFACTURING FIBER

• Process begins with a glass (SiO2) substrate tube • Tube is heated and core suit coating is applied • Gaseous SiCl4 and trace amounts of GeCl4 are injected along with pure oxygen. • The reaction leaves a suit of glass with slightly higher index of refraction than the substrate • The substrate is then rotated slowly while intense heat is applied until the tube collapses into a solid rod. • This rod is then hung vertically and extruded • A weight is placed on the end of the rod • Heat is applied to melt the glass • The weight pulls the fiber until it is the correct width (slightly greater than that of a human hair). • The fiber is then flexible and can be rolled onto a spool

2/20/2018 349 COMMUNICATION MATERIAL AVAILABILITY

• Silicon dioxide (abundant in Martian soil) can be melted down into glass substrate. (Islam Nazmy)

• SiCl4 and GeCl4 • Chlorine gas is piped over heated silicon to make SiCl4 • A similar process is used to create GeCl4 • Chlorine gas is available in suitable quantities (Islam Nazmy) • Silicon is abundantly available • Germanium can be extracted in the small quantities necessary (Megan Harwell)

2/20/2018 350 COMMUNICATION LASER DIODE MANUFACTURING

• Blanks of AlGaAs are created by combining the three elements at high pressure • All three are available in small but adequate quantities (Megan harwell)

• GaAs is doped with Si using SiCl4 which was discussed earlier[1] • Polishing and combining the two in layers creates an LED which allows photons to reflect back and forth and stimulate further emission. • See [2] for more information on the production process

2/20/2018 351 COMMUNICATION: METAL VS. OPTICAL FIBER

• Both Aluminum and Copper have similar properties so numbers for copper are used here

Copper wire:

• Easy to manufacture by extruding copper

• Copper may be difficult to procure

• Mass required for system: 590Mg

• Attenuation: 13db/km [4][5]

Fibe r :

• Complicated but possible manufacturing process

• Abundant raw material (SiO2 averages over 40% of Martian soil – Is lam Nazm y)

• Mass required for system: 8.5Mg

• Attenuation: 0.2db/km [6]

Comparison:

• Attenuation ratings mean that a copper system requires 65 times as many relays as a fiber system of the same power transmission • Transmitted power would need to be much higher on the copper system to avoid an infeasible number of relays • Even with higher transmission power, transmission distances are much lower for copper than fiber

• Copper lines are well known to be less durable than fiber and therefore would require more maintenance

• Silica is abundant in Martian soil while the only sources of copper may be thousands of kilometers away. (Megan Harwell)

Conclusion:

The only real advantage to metal transmission lines is the ease of manufacturing. This analysis lead to the selection of fiber due to the savings in mass, power, maintenance requirements, and material.

2/20/2018 352 COMMUNICATION MANUFACTURING FIBER

• Process begins with a glass (SiO2) substrate tube • Tube is heated and core suit coating is applied • Gaseous SiCl4 and trace amounts of GeCl4 are injected along with pure oxygen. • The reaction leaves a suit of glass with slightly higher index of refraction than the substrate • The substrate is then rotated slowly while intense heat is applied until the tube collapses into a solid rod. • This rod is then hung vertically and extruded • A weight is placed on the end of the rod • Heat is applied to melt the glass • The weight pulls the fiber until it is the correct width (slightly greater than that of a human hair). • The fiber is then flexible and can be rolled onto a spool

2/20/2018 353 COMMUNICATION CITATIONS

[1] Bruno, G., P. Capezzuto, G. Cicala, and F. Cramarossa. "Mechanism of silicon film deposition in the RF plasma reduction of silicon tetrachloride." Plasma chemistry and plasma processing6, no. 2 1986: 109-125. [2] Song, Junyeob. "Fabrication and Characterization of Edge-Emitting Semiconductor Lasers." 2014. [3] Agrawal, Govind P. Fiber-optic communication systems. Vol. 222. John Wiley & Sons, 2012. [4]“Cable Attenuation,” multicomincAvailable: https://www.multicominc.com/wp- content/uploads/Attenuation.pdf. [5] Davis, L., “Electrical Engineering Dictionary Terms,” Computer Interface Bus Standards and Bus component manufacturersAvailable: http://www.interfacebus.com/24AWG_Attenuation-vs- Frequency.html. [6] Paschotta, D. R. C. B. C., “Passive Fiber Optics,” Tutorial "Passive Fiber Optics": propagation losses in optical fibers, attenuationAvailable: https://www.rp- photonics.com/passive_fiber_optics7.html.

2/20/2018 354 Appendix K: Heat Loss Analysis

2/20/2018 355 Rover and Personnel Railcar Heat Loss Analysis Code clear all clc Code utilize thermal conductivity of High %Thermal Heat Loss 1 Internal_temp = 20; %Celsius Density Polyethylene (HDPE) External_temp = -55; %Celsius Delta_T = Internal_temp - External_temp; k_poly = 0.3; k_alum = 205; Surface_area_rover_top_side = 23.5327;%m^2 Surface_area_rail_top_side = 63;%m^2 Surface_area_rail_bottom = 18; Surface_area_rover_bottom = 8.3; Thickness_poly = 0.1; Thickness_alum_side_top = 0.005; Thickness_bottom_rail = 0.01; Thickness_bottom_rover = 0.0075; Q_rover = Delta_T / (Thickness_poly/(k_poly*Surface_area_rover_top_side)+Thickness_alum_side_top/(k_alum*Surface_area _rover_top_side)+Thickness_bottom_rover/(k_alum*Surface_area_rover_bottom)) Q_rail = Delta_T / (Thickness_poly/(k_poly*Surface_area_rail_top_side)+Thickness_alum_side_top/(k_alum*Surface_area_ rail_top_side)+Thickness_bottom_rail/(k_alum*Surface_area_rail_bottom))

% Q_rover = % % 5.2928e+03 % Q_rail = % 356 % 1.4167e+04 Source

2/20/2018 357 Appendix L: Structural Analyses

2/20/2018 358 Rail Lines Structural Analysis

2/20/2018 359 Robot Arm Structural Analysis

2/20/2018 360 Rail Resource Car Structural Analysis

2/20/2018 361 RESOURCE EXTRACTION

Islam Nazmy, William Adams, Megan Harwell, Will Chlopan, Diego Martinez, Adit Khajuria 2/20/2018

2/20/2018 362 RESOURCE LOCATIONS

ShalbatanaVallis

Meridiani Planum Gale Crater

Majuro

Glaciers

Reull Vallis

Map created in JMARS by Stephen Kubicki

363 MINERAL EXTRACTION REQUIREMENTS

Mineral Compound Group Requirement (Mg/day)

(+) (-) NH4 /NHO3 Food Production 0.2688

K(+) Food Production 0.1920

Ca(+2) Food Production 0.0960

Mg(+2) Food Production 0.0384

(2-) SO4 Food Production 0.0192

Cu City Infrastructure 0.3600

FeO City Infrastructure 0.1100

2/20/2018 364 MINERAL EXTRACTION

Dumping Drive Up Ramp Haul Road Time To Truck Loading Pile 15.00 s 8.280 s 108.0 s 18.00 s 200.0 s

Start

Drive Down Ramp Haul Road Return Idle Time Drive to Pile 15.00 s 108.0 s 116.2s 18.00 s`

System Specifications per Site

Power 3.0 MW

Mass 93 Mg

Volume 110 m3

365 Mineral Extraction Rates

Mineral Compound Yield (Mg/day) Mineral Compound Yield (Mg/day)

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) 501.86 Chlorine (Cl) 4.90

Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 79.83 Thorium (Th) 6.34

Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) 8.86 Copper Oxide (CuO) 22.8

Ferric Oxide (FeO) 202.0 Fluorine (F) 16.72

Calcium Oxide (CaO) 60.48 Nitrates(NO3, NO4) 0.334

Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 78.79 Ferrihydrite ((Fe)2O3*H2O) 15.2

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) 19.37 Augite (Ca(MG, Fe)(Si,Al)2O6) 51.68

Phosphorus Pentoxide (P2O5) 5.95 Olivine ((Mg,Fe)SiO2) 25.84

Silicate (SO3) 61.89 Sulfates (SO4) 21.30

366 ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSING

Purpose: To provide necessary gases to maintain city ECLSS system, manufacturing processes, and propellant needs.

Gas Group Requirement (Mg/day)

Nitrogen City & Life Support 13

Methane Propulsion 0.43

Oxygen Propulsion & Life Support 15.86

Carbon Monoxide Steel Production >1

Argon Propulsion & Manufacturing 1.06

Hydrogen Propellant Production & >0.5 Manufacturing

367 ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSING

368 ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSING

Resource Yield Rate (Mg/day) Requirement Met?

Nitrogen 19.5 ✔

Methane 0.65 ✔

Oxygen 15.9 ✔

Carbon Monoxide 2.25 ✔

Argon 19.5 ✔

Hydrogen 2 ✔

System Specifications

Power 31.85 MW

Mass 1150 Mg

Volume 4730 m3

369 WATER COLLECTION NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS

1. Delivers 160 Mg/day to the city (Human Factors). 2. Provides a sustainable long-term water supply. 3. Satisfies human consumption requirements, with a factor of safety 1.5. 4. Provides water for manufacturing processes (Manufacturing). 5. Provides water to make up for power plant leakage (City Infrastructure). 6. Fills a reservoir to sustain at least 30 days without flow (City Infrastructure).

370 WATER COLLECTION

Water Collection pipeline Total Flow: 3.27 kg s-1

CAD images made by Adit Khajuria371 Water Collection

• Three wells to supply the City’s water. • Each well has 78.3 m diameter and 156.7 m depth. • Meets the City’s water needs with room for expansion.

System Specifications

Mass 51 Mg

Power 23.024 MW

Volume 845 m3

Mass Flow Rate 3.27 kg/s

372 APPENDICES

373 Rodriguez Well

• Superheated vapor flows into the well to melt and expand the size. • Vapor temperature at 288oC • 0.12 kg/s is directed from extracted water to feed the boiler • Depending on the amount of sitting water, you can “steer” the direction of growth. • Temperature of the liquid water at 5oC • 0.12 kg/s is directed from extracted water to feed the boiler

374 Water Ice Glaciers

Made on JMARS by Megan Harwell Iron Deposits

Made on JMARS by Megan Harwell Nitrate Concentrations

O + N O O

Made on JMARS by Megan Harwell Copper Concentrations

Cu

Made on JMARS by Megan Harwell Copper Concentrations

Th

Made on JMARS by Megan Harwell “Blueberries”

Made on JMARS by Megan Harwell MARS VERSUS SPACE MINING

Resource Planetary Delta V Time of Initial Mass Other issues for Space mining: Body Flight to Gather 10 • Actual mining process upon Mg reaching planet • Values represent minimum, Potassium Mercury 33.78 km/s 0.934 years 367.7 Mg best case scenarios. Will be much higher in reality Nitrogen Titan 14.00 km/s 13.09 years 163.5 Mg • Other bodies researched are even worse Calcium Vesta 8.167 km/s 2.708 years 85.4 Mg • Rare resources are still rare and won’t be found in • Spacecraft gets absurdly large to gather reasonable amount of material abundance at other • Nitrogen requires 20 tons per day, cannot reasonably be replaced by Titan mission • For max output, soil only needs to be 0.04% potassium and 0.02% Calcium to meet annual needs • Earth’s crust is approximately 2.6% potassium and 3.6% calcium [52] • Mars will have enough within crust for our purposes • Planetary mining for required resources will be infeasible and everything needed can be found in necessary quantity on Mars

Analysis by: Riley Viveros 381 OTHER BODIES LOOKED AT & RESULTS

Body Available Resources Planetary Delta V Time of Flight Initial Mass to Mercury Potassium, Thorium, Body Gather 10 Mg Sodium, Chlorine, Sulfur [53] [54] Mercury 33.78 km/s 0.934 years 367.7 Mg

Venus Unknown, most likely Jupiter 41.4 km/s 6.17 years 459.2 Mg similar to Earth and volcanic basalts Saturn 31.5 km/s 13.086 years 341.9 Mg

Jupiter & Saturn Hydrogen, Helium, trace Uranus 25.83 km/s 33.38 years 272.9 Mg amounts of other gases Neptune 27.41 km/s 62.67 years 301.5 Mg Pluto & other Kuiper Belt Nitrogen & Ice objects Pluto 19.81 km/s 92.84 years 208.5 Mg Io, Europa, Ganymede, & Silicates (Rocks) & Ice Calisto Io 25.1 km/s 6.17 years 264.6 Mg

Titan & Enceladus Nitrogen, Ice, & Water Titan 14.00 km/s 13.09 years 163.5 Mg Uranus, Neptune, Triton, Nitrogen, Ice, Ammonia, & Titania Methane Ceres 9.87 km/s 3.14 years 92.81 Mg Asteroids Carbonate Rocks, Vesta 8.167 km/s 2.708 years 85.4 Mg Silicates, Iron, Nickel, Water

Analysis by: Riley Viveros 382 Mineral Extraction Rates

Material Required by Amount needed Expected Yield Met? Source whom (Mg/day) (Mg/day) Location

Silicon Dioxide (SiO2) CI, ST, GT, 0.0565 1.147+ ✔ 1,2,3,4,5,6 SC, Food

CI, ST, City, GT, Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3) 46.97 79.83 ✔ 2,3,4,5,6 SC, Food

Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) GT, ST 0.168 8.86 ✔ 2,3,4,5,6

Ferric Oxide (FeO) City, GT, SC, Food 19.125 202.0 ✔ 2,3,4,5,6

Manganese Oxide (MnO) City, GT, Food 0.166 2.53 ✔ 2,3,4,5,6

Calcium Oxide (CaO) Food 0.096 60.48 ✔ 2,3,4,5,6

Magnesium Oxide (MgO) City, GT, Food 0.039 78.79 ✔ 2,3,4,5,6

Potassium Oxide (K2O) Food 0.192 3.89 ✔ 2,3,4,5,6

Sodium Oxide (Na2O) Food ? 19.37 2,3,4,5,6

Phosphorus Pentoxide (P2O5) Food 0.03356 5.95 ✔ 2,3,4,5,6

= Reull Vallis 2= Shalbatana Vallis 3= Miridiani Planum 4= SW of Majuro 5=NE of Shalbatana 6=Gale 17, 28, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 17, 20, 39, 49 17, 20, 29 17, 27, 28, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47 17, 49, JMARS 17,383 39, 48, 50 Crater47 Mineral Extraction Rates

Material Required by Amount Expected Yield Met? Source Location whom needed (Mg/day)

Chlorine (Cl) City/Comms 6.19E-4 4.90 ✔ 1,2,3,4,5,6

Thorium (Th) City 0.03845 6.34 ✔ 2,3,4,5,6

Copper Oxide (CuO) City/Comms 0.36 22.8 ✔ 2,3,4,5,6

Fluorine (F) City 0.1103 16.72 ✔ 2,3,4,5,6

Zinc (Zn) Food, Manu. 0.00028 0.28 ✔ 2,3,4,5,6

Nitrates(NO3, NO4) Food, City, ST ? 0.334 2,3,4,5,6

Sulfates (SO4) Food ? 21.30 2,3,4,5,6

Germanium (Ge) City/Comms 0.000495 0.02 ✔ 2,3,4,5,6

CI, ST, GT, SC, Food Sulfer Trioxide (SO3) 23.93 56.08 ✔ 2,3,4,5,6

384 Average Martian Regolith Composition

Compound Concentration (% by mass) [39]

SiO2 45.41

AlO3 9.71

TiO2 0.90

FeO 16.73

MnO 0.33

CaO 6.37

MgO 8.35

K2O 0.44

Na2O 2.73

PO5 0.83

SO3 6.16

Cl 0.68

Note: There is 1.38% of unaccounted for mass 385 Composition of Elements in Universe

Element Concentration (% by mass) [48]

C 40.2

Fe 8.03

Si 5.62

Mg 4.74

S 4.02

Ca 0.56

Ni 0.48

Al 0.40

Na 0.16

Cr 0.12

Mn 6.4E-2

P 5.6E-2

Co 2.4E-2

386 Composition of Elements in the Universe

Element Concentration (% by mass) [48]

Ti 2.4E-2

K 2.4E-2

V 8.0E-3

Zn 2.4E-3

Ge 1.6E-3

Cu 4.8E-4

Zr 4.0E-4

Sr 3.2E-4

Se 2.4E-4

Sc 2.4E-4

Pb 8.0E-5

Nd 8.0E-5

Ce 8.0E-5

387 Composition of Elements in the Universe

Element Concentration (% by mass) [48]

Ba 8.0E-5

Rb 8.0E-5

Ga 8.0E-5

Te 7.2E-5

As 7.2E-5

Y 5.6E-5

Br 5.6E-5

Li 4.8E-5

Pt 4.0E-5

Sm 4.0E-5

Mo 4.0E-5

Sn 3.2E-5

Ru 3.2E-5

388 Composition of Elements in the Universe

Element Concentration (% by mass) [48]

Os 2.4E-5

Ir 1.6E-5

Yb 1.6E-5

Er 1.6E-5

Dy 1.6E-5

Gd 1.6E-5

Pr 1.6E-5

La 1.6E-5

Cd 1.6E-5

Pd 1.6E-5

Nb 1.6E-5

Hg 8.0E-6

Ir 8.0E-6

389 Composition of Elements in the Universe

Element Concentration (% by mass) [48]

B 8.0E-6

Be 8.0E-6

Cs 6.4E-6

Bi 5.6E-6

Hf 5.6E-6

Au 4.8E-6

Ag 4.8E-6

Rh 4.8E-6

Tl 4.0E-6

W 4.0E-6

Ho 4.0E-6

Tb 4.0E-6

Eu 4.0E-6

390 Composition of Elements in the Universe

Element Concentration (% by mass) [48]

Th 3.2E-6

Sb 3.2E-6

In 2.4E-6

U 1.6E-6

Re 1.6E-6

Lu 8.0E-7

Tm 8.0E-7

Ta 6.4E-7

391 Reull Vallis Regolith Composition

Compound Concentration (% by mass) [48]

SiO2 45.41

AlO3 9.71

TiO2 0.90

FeO 19.1

MnO 0.33

CaO 6.37

MgO 8.35

K2O 0.44

Na2O 2.73

PO5 0.83

SO3 6.16

Cl 0.68

Th 0.44 392 Shalbatana Vallis Regolith Composition

Compound Concentration (% by mass) [48]

SiO2 37.9

AlO3 4.845

TiO2 0.680

FeO 15.47

MnO 0.02772

CaO 4.76

MgO 7.055

K2O 0.2550

Na2O 0.22932

PO5 0.6972

SO3 6.545

Cl 0.05712

Th 0.61 393 CuO 15 Miridiani Planum Regolith Composition

Compound Concentration (% by mass) [48] SiO2 45

AlO3 9.56

TiO2 0.89

FeO 16.5

MnO 0.31

CaO 6.17

MgO 8.25

K2O 0.49

Na2O 2.9

PO5 0.91

SO3 7.61

Cl 0.88

Th 0.61 394 SW of Majuro Regolith Composition

Compound Concentration (% by mass) [48]

SiO2 45.41

AlO3 9.71

TiO2 0.90

FeO 16.73

MnO 0.33

CaO 6.37

MgO 8.35

K2O 0.44

Na2O 2.73

PO5 0.83

SO3 6.16

Cl 0.68

Th 0.39 395 SW of Shalbatana Vallis Regolith Composition

Compound Concentration (% by mass) [48]

SiO2 44.7

AlO3 5.7

TiO2 0.8

FeO 18.2

MnO 0.02772

CaO 5.6

MgO 8.3

K2O 0.3

Na2O 0.229

PO5 0.0697

SO3 7.7

Cl 0.05712 396 Th 0.76 Gale Crater Regolith Composition

Compound Concentration (% by mass) [48]

SiO2 43

AlO3 9.41

TiO2 1.1

FeO 20.1

MnO 0.42

CaO 7.17

MgO 8.27

K2O 0.45

Na2O 2.78

PO5 0.85

SO3 5.12

Cl 0.64 397 Th 0.68 Food Production Requirements

Compound Required Amount (Mg/day)

CO2 8.065

(+) (-) NH4 /NHO3 0.2688

K(+) 0.1920

Ca(+2) 0.0960

Mg(+2) 0.0384

(2-) SO4 0.0192

Cl(-) 0.00192

Fe(2+)/Fe(3+) 0.00192

H3BO3 0.000384

Mn(2+) 0.00096

Zn(2+) 0.000384

Provided by food production

398 Food Production Requirements

Compound Required Amount (Mg/day)

Cu(2+) 0.000115

(2-) MoO4 1.92E-6

H2O 160

Provided by food production

399 Power Transmission Requirements

Compound Required Amount (Mg/day)

Cu 0.1204

Fe 0.01688

Provided by city infrastructure

400 Mineral Extraction Assumptions

• Main hauling road 800m • Working time varies from 6 to 10 hours per day • Martian regolith density ~1520 kg m-3 • Mars Gravity: 3.711 m s-2 • 30o incline will not tumble regolith

401 Truck Loading

• Problem: Directly loading from dragline excavator into haul truck is inaccurate and dangerous. • Solution: Intermediate Excavator • Total cycle time variables: • Intermediate Excavator cycle time. • Intermediate Excavator bucket size. • Dragline Excavator cycle time. • Dragline Excavator cycle time. • Simplification: design Dragline Excavator to stockpile so that it is not a limiting factor.

402 Dragline Excavator

Bucket Size (m3) Boom Length (m) Track Width (m) Cycle Period (s)

Dimension 2.260 100 2 80s

CAD image provided by Sean Thompson 403 Dragline Excavator Path

Image created by Will Chlopan

Image created by Will Chlopan 404 Intermediate Excavator

Bucket Size (m3) Boom Length (m) Track Width (m) Cycle Period (s)

Dimension 0.300 3.0 0.5 20

CAD provided by Anand Iyer

405 Haul Truck

Bed Width (m) Bed Height (m) Bed Length (m) Bed Volume (m3)

Dimension 2 1.8 4 6

CAD provided by Anand Iyer 406 Haul Truck Performance

• Three haul trucks required • 10Mg carrying capacity • Maximum speed: 20km/hr (Islam Nazmy) • Time to top speed: 10s • Maximum acceleration: 0.5556 ms-2 • Friction coefficient: 0.57 [7] • Nitinol wheels can be taken as titanium • Sulfur concrete roads can be taken as concrete • Lead Acid Batteries • 9.6357 kWh

407 Haul Truck Battery Trade Study

Type Mass (kg) Volume (m3) Cells Capacity (kWh)

Li-Ion 43.18 0.07739 94 11.44

NiCd 181.5 0.9076 250 10.89

NiMH 88.16 0.4408 250 10.58

NiFe 428.7 4.465 250 10.72

Lead Acid 229.4 0.6257 143 9.635

Lead acid batteries are the best for our application • Mass: 229.4 kg • Power: 9.635 kWh (300 W) • Volume: 0.6257 m3

408 Hauling Road

• Hauling route provides charging to haul truck battery, and power for most of the path. • Hauling road ~800 m • Draws 6kV voltage • Power rails - live line on left, grounded on right • More than half the cycle time on rails CAD Created by Adit Khajuria (56%) • Maximum time off-grid: 236s per cycle

Schematic created by Islam Nazmy

409 Ramp Design

• 10o grade incline and decline

CAD Created by Anand Iyer 410 Crushing Facility Performance

• 6 m3 haul truck load processed in 1 min 28s • 100 m3 cart loaded in 3 hrs 11 min

Mass Power Range

Crusher 39.7 Mg 300 - 450 kW

Conveyor Belt ~350 kg 4 kW

411 Material Reduction

• 6 m3 haul truck load processed in 1 min 28 s • 100 m3 cart loaded in 3 hrs 11 min

Mass Power Range

Crusher 39.7 Mg 300 - 450 kW

Conveyor Belt ~350 kg 4 kW

CAD created by Anand Iyer 412 MINERAL EXTRACTION MPV

Dragline Excavator Power to Operate (MW) 1.4

Empty Mass (Mg) 15

Volume (m3) 50

Intermediate Excavator Power to Operate (MW) 0.05

Empty Mass (Mg) 2

Volume (m3) 5

Haul Truck Power to Operate (MW) 0.2

Empty Mass (Mg) 8

Volume (m3) 10

Crusher Power (MW) 0.5

TOTAL Required Power (MW) 2.15

Vehicle Empty Mass (Mg) 43

Vehicle Volume (m3) 90 413 Atmospheric Processing Lifespan

• Highest replacement rates of system are as follows: • Air compressor: 1 every 30 years [59] • Piping replacement: 488 Mg every 50 years [58] • Distillation Column rate is indefinite • Valve replacement rate negligible • Electrolyzer rate negligible

414 Pipeline Cross-Section

Mass Flow (3.27 kgs-1)

2/20/2018 415 Rodriguez Well

Pow = 1.01 MW Press = 700 Pa Pow = 3.33 MW

416 Rodriguez Well Assumptions

• Boiler and pump are 100% efficient • Water is not lost to seepage in ice • Well is operating at steady state • Water out = water in • Well does not grow rapidly • No heat is lost in pipes to and from well • Ice is pure (0°C melting point)

417 Sources

[1] 5. Simple Crater, MarsAvailable: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/craters/slide_5.html. [2] “Cat® 8000 Dragline Range (Imperial Weights/Measurements) - 2 Pages,” Cat® 8000 Dragline Range (Imperial Weights/Measurements) - Caterpillar Global Mining - PDF Catalogue | Technical Documentation | BrochureAvailable: http://pdf.directindustry.com/pdf/caterpillar-global-mining/cat-8000-dragline-range- imperial-weights-measurements/55229-273023.html#search-en-cat-8000-dragline. [3] Rai, P., Trivedi, R., and Nath, R., “Cycle Time and Idle Time Analysis of Draglines for Increased Productivity - A Case Study,” Indian Journal of Engineering & Materials Sciences, vol. 7, Apr. 2000, pp. 77– 81. [4] “Q140 Four-Shaft Shredder,” SSI Quad Q140 - Four Shaft Industrial ShredderAvailable: https://www.ssiworld.com/en/products/four_shaft_shredders/quad_q140. [5] Allison, M., “Simulating Martian Weather with the GISS GCM,” NASA - Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Available: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/allison_x1/. [6] Allen, C. C., “Martian Regolith Simulant,” NASA Johnson Space Center. Available: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/LPSC98/pdf/1690.pdf [7] Rabbat, B. G., and Russell, H. G., “Friction Coefficient of Steel on Concrete or Grout,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 111, Mar. 1985. Available: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9445%281985%29111%3A3%28505%29 [8] “Heavy Duty Capacity Buckets - Mini Excavator Heavy Duty Capacity Buckets - Mini Excavator,” Cat | Heavy Duty Capacity Buckets - Mini Excavator | Caterpillar Available: https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/attachments/buckets-excavator/heavy-duty-capacity-buckets-mini- excavator.html.

418 Sources

[9] Boyle, M., “Bucket Fill or Cycle Time? Which is More Important?,” John Deere Available: https://www.deere.com/en_US/campaigns/construction/construction_articles/articles/2015jan15-bucket-fill- cycle.page. [10] Mills, C., “NASA's new titanium tires can never get a flat,” BGR Available: http://bgr.com/2017/11/26/nasa-airless-tire-no-flat/. [11] Ivanova, S., “Producing Nitrogen via Pressure Swing Adsorption,” American Institute of Chemical Engineers Available: http://www.airproducts.com/~/media/Files/PDF/products/producing-nitrogen-via-psa- CEP-Article_20120638.pdf [12] “Spirit discovers new class of igneous rocks,” NASA Report. August, 2006​ [13] McSween, HY, et al., “Basaltic rocks analyzed by the Spirit Rover in Gusev Crater,” Science, Vol. 305, No. 5685, 2004, pp. 842-845. ​ doi: 10.1126/science.1099851​ [14] Rice, MS., et al., “Silica-rich deposits and hydrated minerals at Gusev Crater, Mars: Vis- NIR spectral characterization and regional mapping,” Icarus. Vol. 205, 2010, pp. 375-395. ​ [15] Squyres, et al., “Detection of Silica-rich deposits on Mars,” Science. Vol. 320, 2008, pp. 1063-1067. ​ doi: 10.1126/science.1155429​ [16] Ruff, S. W., Farmer, J.D., “Silica deposits on Mars with features resembling hot spring biosignatures at El Tatio in Chile,” Nature Communications, N. 13554, 2016​ doi: 10.1038/ncomms13554 ​ [17] Yen, A., et al. 2005. “An integrated view of the chemistry and mineralogy of martian soils.” Nature. 435. pp. 49-54.​

419 Sources

[18] Klingelhofer, G. et al. 2004. "Jarosite and Hematite at Meridiani Planum from Opportunity’s Mossbauer Spectrometer". Science. Vol. 306. pp. 1740-1745.​ [19] Rieder, R., et al. 2004. "Chemistry of Rocks and Soils at Meridiani Planum from the Alpha Particle X- ray Spectrometer". Science. Vol. 306. pp. 1746-1749​ [20] Popa, C., et al. "Evidences for Copper bearing minerals in Shalbatana Valley, Mars," 45th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference. 2014. Abstract #2340. [21] Hamilton, V. E., Mcsween, H. Y., and Hapke, B., “Mineralogy of Martian atmospheric dust inferred from thermal infrared spectra of aerosols,” Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 110, Dec. 2005. [22] Thompson, A., “Buried Glaciers Found on Mars,” Space.comAvailable: https://www.space.com/6137- buried-glaciers-mars.htm. [23] Milliken, R. E., Mustard, J. F. “Quantifying absolute water content of minerals using near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy.” Journal of Geophysical Research 110.E12, 2005. [24] Bishop, J.L. “Harnessing water and resources from clay minerals on Mars and planetary bodies.” Planetary Science Vision 2050 Workshop 2017 (# 8131) [25] Yen, A. S., Murray, B. C., Rossman, G. R. “Water content of the Martian soil: Laboratory simulations of reflectance spectra” Journal of Geophysical Research 103.E5, 1998. [26] Milliken, R. E, Mustard, J. F. “Estimating water content of hydrated minerals using reflectance spectroscopy: I. Effects of darkening agents and low-albedo materials” Icarus 189.2, 2007

420 Sources

[27] Jouglet, D., Poulet, F., Milliken, R.E., Mustard, J.F., Bibring, J.P., Langevin, Y., Gondet, B., Gomez, C. “Hydration state of the Martian surface as seen by Mars Express OMEGA: 1. Analysis of the 3 micro-m hydration feature” Journal of Geophysical Research 112.E8, 2007. [28] Milliken, R. E., Mustard, J. F., Poulet F., Jouglet, D., Bibring, J.P., Gondet, D., Langevin, Y. “Hydration state of the Martian surface as seen by MARS Express OMEGA: 2. H2O content of the surface” Journal of Geophysical Research 112.E8, 2007. [29] Rieder, R., et al. 2004. "Chemistry of Rocks and Soils at Meridiani Planum from the Alpha Particle X- ray Spectrometer". Science. Vol. 306. pp. 1746-1749​ [30] Wetherill, G.W., “Isotopic Composition and concentration of Molybdenum in iron meterorites,” Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 69, 20, 1964, pp. 4403-4408 [31]“Mars Facts | Mars Exploration Program,” NASAAvailable: https://mars.nasa.gov/allaboutmars/facts/#?c=inspace&s=distance. [32]Voit, C. H., “INVESTIGAT16N OF A HIGH-PRESSURE-RATIO EIGHT-STAGE AXIAL-FLOW RESEARCH COMPRESSOR WITH TWO TRANSONIC INLET STAGES I - AERODYNAMIC DESIGN,” NACA Research Memorandum, Dec. 1953. [33]“Ratios of Specific Heat of Gases,” Engineering ToolboxAvailable: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-ratio-d_608.html. [34]“Compressor Thermodynamics,” NASAAvailable: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k- 12/airplane/compth.html.

421 Sources

[35]“Overview of Cryogenic Air Separation and Liquefier Systems,” Universal Industrial Gases, Inc...Cryogenic Air Separation and Liquefier SystemsAvailable: http://www.uigi.com/cryodist.html. [36]“«Coca-Cola-oppskrift» kan gjøre hydrogen til nytt norsk industrieventyr,” Tu.noAvailable: https://www.tu.no/artikler/coca-cola-oppskrift-kan-gjore-hydrogen-til-nytt-norsk-industrieventyr/276348. [37]Palmer, B., “Are you heating the planet when you breathe?,” Slate MagazineAvailable: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/08/7_billion_carbon_sinks.html. [38]“How much oxygen does a person consume in a day?,” HowStuffWorksAvailable: https://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/respiratory/question98.htm. [39]Berger, J. A., Schmidt, M. E., Gellert, R., Campbell, J. L., King, P. L., Flemming, R. L., Ming, D. W., Clark, B. C., Pradler, I., Vanbommel, S. J. V., Minitti, M. E., Fairén, A. G., Boyd, N. I., Thompson, L. M., Perrett, G. M., Elliott, B. E., and Desouza, E., “A global Mars dust composition refined by the Alpha- Particle X-ray Spectrometer in Gale Crater,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 43, Sep. 2016, pp. 67–75. [40]“A-Range Tailored Solutions,” Nel HydrogenAvailable: http://nelhydrogen.com/product/electrolysers/#a-range-title. [41]Bandfield, J. L., “High-silica deposits of an aqueous origin in western Hellas Basin, Mars,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 35, 2008. [42]Das, I.C., Joseph, J., Subramanian, S.K., Dadhwal, V.K., “Spectral stratigraphy and clay minerals analysis in parts of Hellas Planitia, Mars,” Internat. Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing, and Spatial Info. Sciences, Vol. XL-8, 2014, pp. 419-422.

422 Sources

[43]”Poulet, F., Bibring, J.P., Mustard, J.F., Gendrin, A., Mangold, N., Langevin, Y., Arvidson, R.E., Gondet, B., The OMEGA Team. “Phyllosilicates on Mars and implications for early martian climate,” Nature, vol. 438, 2006, pp. 623-627. [44]Poulet, F., Mangold, N., Loizeau, D., Bibring, J.P., Langevin, Y, Michalski, J., Gondet, B., “Abundances of minerals in the phyllosilicate-rich units on Mars,” Astronomy & Astrophysics, Vol. 487, 2008, L41-L44 [45]Carter, J., Poulet, F., Bibring, J.-P., Mangold, N., and Murchie, S., “Hydrous minerals on Mars as seen by the CRISM and OMEGA imaging spectrometers: Updated global view,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, vol. 118, Apr. 2013, pp. 831–858. [46] “Abundance in the Universe of the Elements,” Mathematica Available: http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/UniverseAbundance.html [47]Viviano, C.C., MOersch, J.E., “A technique for mapping Fe/Mg-rich Phyllosilicates on Mars using THEMIS multispectral thermal infrared images,” Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 117, 2012, E7 [48]Forni, O., Gaft, M., Toplis, M.J., Clegg, S.M., Maurice, S., Wiens, R.C., Mangold, N., Gasnault, O., Sautter, V., Le Mouelic, S., Meslin, P., Nachon, M., McInroy, R.E., Ollila, A.M., Cousin, A., Bridges, J.C., Lanza, N.L., Dyar, M.D., “First detection of fluorine on Mars: Implications for Gale Crater’s geochemistry,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 42, 3, 2015, pp. 1020-1028. [49]Sidorov, Y.I., Zolotov, M.Y., “Chemistry and Physics of Terrestrial Planets,” Weathering of Martian Surface Rocks. 1st ed., vol. 6, Springer-Verlag, 1964, pp. 194.

423 Sources

[50]Berger, J. A., Schmidt, M. E., Gellert, R, Boyd, N.I., Desouza, E.D., Flemming, R.L., Izawa, M.R.M., Ming, D.W., Perrett, G.M., Rampe, E.B., Thompson, L.M., VanBommel, S.J.V., Yen, A.S., “Zinc and germanium in the sedimentary rocks of Gale Crater on Mars indicate hydrothermal enrichment followed by diagenetic fractionation,”Journal of Geophysical Research” Planets, vol. 122,8, 2017. [51] Charles Q. Choi, Space.com Contributor, “Asteroids: Fun Facts and Information About Asteroids,” Space.com Available: www.space.com/51-asteroids-formation-discovery-and- exploration.html

[52] Editor, T. S. R., “What Is Earth Made Of?,” Space.com Available: www.space.com/17777-what-is-earth-made-of.html.

[53] Dunbar, B., “Mercury's High-Potassium Diet,” NASA Available:

www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/multimedia/messenger_orbit_image20110929_9.html

[54] Talbert, T., “Mapping Potassium,” NASA Available: www.nasa.gov/image-feature/mapping- potassium.

[58] “What is the Life Expectancy of Your Pipes?,” Essentra Pipe Protection Technologies Available https://essentrapipeprotection.com/what-is-the-life-expectancy-of-your-pipes/

[59] “Jet Engine Life Span / GEnx & GE90,” GE Aviation Available 424 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSdfhAnNCLE Dragline Excavator Sizing

● 2 x 1230 kw winch motors ● 1 x 477 kw pivot motor

Our 8000 8200 8750 Design

Bucket Capacity 15 34 61 116 (m^3)

Boom Length (m) 100 101 100 132.5

Power Draw (Mw) 1.4 5.814 13.568 29

Weight (kg) 875500 1751000 3836030 5955668

Mass 89245.66 178491.3 391032.6 607101.7 35 2 33

425 MATLAB - Shredder/Conveyor

426 MATLAB - Haul Truck Sizing

427 MATLAB - Haul Truck Sizing

428 MATLAB - Haul Truck Power

429 MATLAB - Mining Cycle Time

430 Jupyter/iPython script and values

431 Jupyter/iPython script and values

432 MATLAB - Battery Sizing

433 MATLAB - Battery Sizing

434 MATLAB - Rodriguez Well

435 MATLAB - Rodriguez Well

436 MATLAB - Atm Proccesing

437 MATLAB - Atm Proccesing

438 MATLAB - Atm Proccesing

439 MATLAB - Atm Proccesing

440 MATLAB - Atm Proccesing

441 MATLAB - Mining Other Bodies

Analysis by: Riley Viveros

442 MATLAB - Mining Other Bodies

Analysis by: Riley Viveros

443 MATLAB - Mining Other Bodies

Analysis by: Riley Viveros

444 MATLAB - Mining Other Bodies

Analysis by: Riley Viveros

445 MATLAB - Mining Other Bodies

Analysis by: Riley Viveros

446 Critical Design for Manufacturing on Mars

Manufacturing Group Eric Thurston, Stuart McCrorie, Will Adams, Islam Nazmy, JD Bensman, Mitch Hoffmann, Riley Viveros 2/20/18

2/20/2018 447 NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS

1) Implement processes and machines for reproducing materials and components on Mars a) Process regolith into usable minerals b) Turn raw materials into beams, sheets, and plates c) Manufacture usable components d) Create computers out of materials found on Mars 2) Ensure that resource extraction rates and manufacturing rates allow all vehicle and system groups to maintain their designs across life cycles

2/20/2018 448 REQUIREMENTS

Desired Material Required flow rate ● Combines all materials needed by (Mg/year) vehicle and systems groups based on yearly maintenance and life AISI 4130 Steel 108.800 cycle rates ● Long-term life cycles broken down Stainless Steel 316L 4.210 into yearly need A36 Structural Steel 3966.670

Aluminum 6061-T6 40.566

Sulfur Concrete 9373.333

Polyethylene (HDPE) 203.848

Ti-6Al-4V 68.255

Inconel 718 1.420

449 RESOURCE FLOW RATES (Mg/year)

Current extraction Needed for V&S ● Methane production Base material rate (Mg/year) groups (Mg/year) adjusted to meet need (230 Mg/year) Iron oxide 70015.760 5615.897 ● Chromium and Manganese oxide 851.862 48.398 Molybdenum provided via meteorites Phosphorus 1985.862 1.627 pentoxide Sulfur trioxide 21223.874 4686.712 Silicate 165890.748 16.609 Aluminum oxide 26982.698 64.198 Copper oxide 8322.000 0.167 Magnesium oxide 26905.026 0.487 Titanium dioxide 3034.756 75.312 Zinc 100.974 0.101 Nickel 12.848 1.370 Adjusted to meet Methane 229.533 need 450 RESOURCE PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS

Desired Material Inputs to the Process Power Required to Process Used to Create Create the Material

Steel Iron, Calcium Carbonate, 715.10 to 791.55 kW-h Arc furnace, methane Methane, Alloy metals per Mg [14,15,16] oxidation reaction, extrusion, pulling/rolling

Aluminum Aluminum, Alloy metals 718.14 kW-h per Mg Arc furnace, extruding, [14,15,16] pulling/rolling

Concrete Sulfur, Martian Regolith, 0.845 kW-h per Mg [17] Molten sulfur/aggregate Slag waste mixing

Polyethylene Methane, Chemical Catalyst, 7,000 kW-h per Mg [3] Chemical and thermal Heat reaction of methane and molding

Silicon Quartz sand 64,000 kWh per Mg [1] Arc furnace, purified with oxygen and air, and molding [2]

2/20/2018 451 STEEL PRODUCTION

● Iron Oxide is reduced to a metallic oxide and sent to an Electric Arc Furnace

Mass 1.68 tons of Iron Oxide conversion produces 1 ton of steel

Power 400 kWh per Mg of Iron Oxide melted

Production 1 ton of steel every 2 hours Rate

CAD by Adit Khajuria

2/20/2018 452 STEEL, ALUMINUM, AND METAL ALLOYS

• Methane process for creating steel, due to needing methane for other systems - methane gathering and storing devices already exist • Steel more expensive to create, but structurally more sound • Use cases: structural support in buildings • Aluminum lighter weight but less strong than steel • Used in situations where weight is important • Use cases: launch vehicles, satellites

All Values Arc Furnace Extruding Pulling cost Rolling cost Total Cost are per Mg cost [14] cost [15] [16] [16]

A36 Steel 625 kW-h 61.43 kW-h 28.67 kW-h N/A 715.10 kW-h Tube

A36 Steel 625 kW-h 61.43 kW-h N/A 105.12 kW-h 791.55 kW-h Plate

AISI 4130 670 kW-h 61.43 kW-h 40.13 kW-h N/A 771.56 kW-h Steel

Aluminum 540 kW-h 79.24 kW-h N/A 98.90 kW-h 718.14 kW-h 6061 Plates 453 CONCRETE and POLYETHYLENE

Sulfur Concrete • 50% Sulfur content, 50% Regolith mixture • Sulfur and regolith mixture are hot-mixed, cast, and cooled • Use combination of martian regolith and slag waste from arc furnaces to create regolith mixture, ground to 1 mm size • Cooling and set time of less than 24 hours

Polyethylene (HDPE) • Chemical and thermal reaction of methane gas • Main form of plastics available on Mars • Lightweight but strong and impact resistant • Able to create thermoplastics from it • Extrusions, 3D printing filaments, sheets, and resins

2/20/2018 454 COMPUTER SPECIFICATIONS

One “Standard Computer” (SC): • 32-bit • 233 MHz • 200 W at full draw • ~5 kg • Includes processor, RAM, motherboard, hard drive, IO devices • 350 nm manufacturing process • 35x less precise than modern 10 nm process (easier to produce) • Based on Intel Pentium II Klamath design from 1997 • Estimate 5-year lifespan Assumptions: • Perfect parallelization • So complex tasks can be completed by many SCs working together • A single SC can do multiple simple tasks at once

455 COMPUTER MANUFACTURING

• Total requirement of 4235 Standard Computers for City • The computer has a 5 year lifespan - need to manufacture 2.35 Standard Computers per day • <20 kg of total raw material per day • Required Inputs: • Copper, Silicon, & trace amounts of Boron, Phosphorus, Gold, and Silver Bromide • Silicon melted and cut into thin wafers and doped with trace amounts of Boron and Phosphorus • Silver Bromide solution and Hydrochloric acid create etched chip and copper wires planted into silicon wafer

2/20/2018 456 LAYOUT IN LAVA TUBE

• Factory will be located in unused, 300 m by 1,600 m lava tube • Primary sections: • Steel production • Aluminum, titanium, nickel alloy production • Metal forming • Concrete production • Polyethylene production • Additive Manufacturing • Machining • Computer Manufacturing

2/20/2018 457 Sources

[1] [NA], “Embodied Energy of Materials”, Low-Tech Magazine, http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/what-is-the- embodied-energy-of-materials.html [2] [NA], “Silicon”, How Products Are Made, http://www.madehow.com/Volume-6/Silicon.html [3] [NA], “Plastics”, Energy Monitor, https://learn.openenergymonitor.org/sustainable-energy/energy/industry- plastic [4] Yoshikazu, S., Shinichiro, S., Mizuki, S., Ryouta, S., Noboru, T., and Masahiro, Y., “Phenomena in GTA and GHTA welding in Mars-like atmosphere,” Welding International, vol. 30, 2016, pp. 688–698. [5] [NA], “Steel properties at low and high temperatures,” Steel properties at low and high temperatures :: Total Materia ArticleAvailable: http://www.totalmateria.com/page.aspx?ID=CheckArticle&site=kts&NM=48. [6] [NA], “AISI 4130 Steel, normalized at 870°C (1600°F),” ASM Material Data SheetAvailable: http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=m4130r. [7] [NA], “Aluminum 6061-T6; 6061-T651,” ASM Material Data SheetAvailable: http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=ma6061t6. [8] Baguley, R., “3D Printing Materials: The Pros and Cons of Each Type,” tom's guide Available: https://www.tomsguide.com/us/3d-printing-materials,news-24392.html. [9] [NA], “3D-printed permanent magnets outperform conventional versions, conserve rare materials,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory Available: https://www.ornl.gov/news/3d-printed-permanent-magnets-outperform- conventional-versions-conserve-rare-materials.

458 Sources

[10] [NA], “Gas atomization,” Erasteel Available: http://www.erasteel.com/content/gas-atomization-0. [11] Kvande, Halvor, “The Aluminum Smelting Process and Innovative Alternative Technologies”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4131935/ [12] Email, Idrisa; Sani, Nasiru; Abdulsalam, Abba; Abdullahi, Umaru, “Extraction and Quantification of Silicon from Silica Sand”, European Scientific Journal. [13] Gambogi, Joseph; Gerdemann, S., “Titanium Metal: Extraction to Application”, U.S. Department of Energy, https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/900531 [14] [NA], “Time Required to Melt 1000kg of Cast Iron Using A Induction Furnace”, Electronic Induction, http://www.electroheatinduction.com/time-required-to-melt-1000kg-of-cast-iron-using-a-induction-furnace/ [15] [NA], “Extrusion Press”, WTM Machine Extrusion Press ABE-1000 Data Sheet, http://www.china-extrusion- press.com/extrusion-press/extrusion-press-abe-1000.htm [16] [NA], “Rolling Aluminum: From the Mine to the Mill”, The Aluminum Association Third Edition, 2007, http://www.aluminum.org/sites/default/files/Rolling_Aluminum_From_The_Mine_Through_The_Mill.pdf [17] Wan, Li; Wendner, Roman; Cusatis, Gianluca, “A Novel Material For In Situ Construction on Mars: Experiments and Numerical Simulations”, Construction and Building Materials, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.05461v1.pdf

459 APPENDIX - Material Composition

Ingredient quantity (% of Percent loss of mass Material Ingredient material) throughout manufacturing AISI 4130 steel Iron 98.00% 40.50% Carbon 0.33%

Chromium 1.10%

Manganese 0.60%

Molybdenum 0.25%

Phosphorus 0.035%

Sulfur 0.04%

Silicon 0.35% Aluminum 6061-T6 Aluminum 98.60% 48.70% Chromium 0.35%

Copper 0.40%

Iron 0.70%

Magnesium 1.20%

Manganese 0.15%

Silicon 0.80%

Titanium 0.15%

Zinc 0.25% HDPE (polyethylene) Methane 100.00% 12.60% Raw silicon Quartz sand 33.00%

460 APPENDIX - Material Composition

Percent loss of mass Ingredient quantity Material Ingredient throughout (% of material) manufacturing Structural steel Iron 98.00% 40.50% (A36)

Manganese 1.20%

Silicon 0.40%

Phosphorus 0.04%

Carbon 0.29%

Sulfur Concrete (low Sulfur 50.00% 0.00% melting point)

Regolith 50.00% 0.00%

Ti-6Al-4V Titanium 90.00% 22.50%

Aluminum 6.00% 15.00%

Vanadium 4.00% 15.00%

Carbon 0.10%

Oxygen 0.20%

Hydrogen 0.01%

Iron 0.30% 461 APPENDIX - Material Composition

Percent loss of mass Ingredient quantity Material Ingredient throughout (% of material) manufacturing Stainless Steel 316L Carbon 0.08% Manganese 2% Phosphorus 0.05% Sulfur 0.03% Silicon 0.75% Chromium 18% Nickel 14% Molybdenum 3% Nitrogen 0.10% Iron 62% 40.50%

462 APPENDIX - Steel Production

Steel Flowchart

463 APPENDIX - Steel Production

Direct Reduction Flowchart

464 APPENDIX: MANUFACTURING OPTICAL FIBER

• Process begins with a glass (SiO2) substrate tube • Tube is heated and core suit coating is applied • Gaseous SiCl4 and trace amounts of GeCl4 are injected along with pure oxygen. • The reaction leaves a suit of glass with slightly higher index of refraction than the substrate • The substrate is then rotated slowly while intense heat is applied until the tube collapses into a solid rod. • This rod is then hung vertically and extruded • A weight is placed on the end of the rod • Heat is applied to melt the glass • The weight pulls the fiber until it is the correct width 125 um (slightly greater than that of a human hair). • The fiber is then flexible and can be rolled onto a spool

2/20/2018 465 APPENDIX - Computer Needs

Vehicle & System # of SCs needed

Space Transport 25

Ground Transport 840

Resources 670

Manufacturing 30

Science 100

Communications Infrastructure 60

Food 10

City 2500

Total 4235

466 APPENDIX - Computer Needs

Space Transport Manufacturing Taxi rendezvous (complicated and precise): 16 CNC (3 SC * 10 mills): 30 SC SC Launch vehicle: 3 SC Science Landing: 6 SC Rover (10 SC * 10 rovers): 100 SC Ground Transport Resource trains (4 SC * 150 trains): 600 SC People trains (8 SC * 10 trains): 80 SC Communications Infrastructure Rovers: (8 SC * 20 rovers): 160 SC MEHDL (5 SC * 8 satellites): 40 SC BNET (5 SC * 4 satellites): 20 Resources Trucks (10 SC * 3 trucks/site * 16 sites): 480 SC SC Dragline (5 SC * 15 excavators): 75 SC Food Crusher (1 SC * 15 crushers): 15 SC Timing/control: 10 SC Processing (10 SC * 10 processors): 100 SC City 0.25 SC per person: 2500 SC

2/20/2018 467 APPENDIX: How to Make Computers

• Manufacturing Process: • Pure Silicon is melted and sliced into thin wafers for the circuit • Silicon crystals are doped with Boron and Phosphorus to created transistors • Wafer is layered with a photosensitive material (Silver Bromide) and certain parts harden and are etched away by a strong acid • Copper wires are added and layer is sealed with silicon glass • Process can be repeated to add multiple layers of circuits to the chip • Small gold layering (~3 atoms thick) added to connections for protection

2/20/2018 468