Abstract
In order to use oxygen that is produced on the surface of Mars from In-Situ production processes in a chemical propulsion system, the oxygen must first be converted from vapor phase to liquid phase and then stored within the propellant tanks of the propulsions system. There are multiple ways that this can be accomplished, from simply attaching a liquefaction system onto the propellant tanks to carrying separate tanks for liquefaction and storage of the propellant and loading just prior to launch (the way that traditional rocket launches occur on Earth). A study was done into these various methods by which the oxygen (and methane) could be liquefied and stored on the Martian surface. Five different architectures or cycles were considered: Tube-on-Tank (also known as Broad Area Cooling or Distributed Refrigeration), Tube-in-Tank (also known as Integrated Refrigeration and Storage), a modified Linde open liquefaction/refrigeration cycle, the direct mounting of a pulse tube cryocooler onto the tank, and an in-line liquefier at ambient pressure. Models of each architecture were developed to give insight into the performance and losses of each of the options. The results were then compared across eight categories: Mass, Power (both input and heat rejection), Operability, Cost, Manufacturability, Reliability, Volume-ility, and Scalability. The result was that Tube-on-Tank and Tube-in-Tank architectures were the most attractive solutions, with NASA’s engineering management choosing to pursue tube on tank development rather than further differentiate the two. As a result NASA is focusing its Martian surface liquefaction activities and technology development on Tube-on-Tank liquefaction cycles.
Highlights
The total mass of the system being considered The input power and the heat rejection power that a system requires general ROM cost it may take to build this How easy the system will be to manufacture and integrate onto spacecraft
Overall system efficiency - The ease with which included technologies/techniques can be matured to TRL 6 - Per unit flight cost
- How many interfaces are there? - How reasonable is the manufacturing of this system in the time frame given - The ease of producing and integrating all aspects of the flight solution (e.g. - hardware & software) - The extents of infrastructure alterations necessary to support the solution - The ease with which performance models can be developed and validated - low importance - Concept of Operations flexibility - Response to daily temperature cycles - Response to seasonal temperature cycles - Operable in wide range of landing locations - Automation complexity - Ease of control
Summary
The total mass of the system being considered The input power and the heat rejection power that a system requires general ROM cost it may take to build this How easy the system will be to manufacture and integrate onto spacecraft. 4. SMALL STORAGE LOX TANK, ZERO BOILOFF HEAT LEAK LOAD – Use current MAV first stage tank size – Steady State Heat Load: ~110 W/tank (includes 25% margin)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have