Concept 6 - Mars Transfer Vehicle

Concept 6 - Mars Transfer Vehicle
Inspired by Publication:
"Concept 6: An Artificial Gravity Mars Spaceship"
by Clark, B.C. (Martin Marietta Astronautics Group, CO, USA)
Space Technology, vol. 11, no. 4, 1991
(no online source available at time of writing)
Also cited in publication NASA/TM-2016-219393 - AIAA-2014-3623
"Conventional and Bimodal Nuclear Thermal
Rocket (NTR) Artificial Gravity Mars
Transfer Vehicle Concepts"
by Stanley K. Borowski
Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio
David R. McCurdy and Thomas W. Packard
Vantage Partners, LLC, Brook Park, Ohio
December 2016
ntrs.nasa.gov/...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Credits:
3D Models and animation © fragomatik 2018 All Rights Reserved
/ fragomatik
Music
"Into the Depths" & "Warrior Strife" by Jingle Punks
(courtesy youtube audio library)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Thanks to my fellow Imagine-junkie, Karsten (3D-Marabu on KZbin) for sharing his techniques for groovy volumetric effects, which I used during the "re-entry" sequence at 2m41s!
/ @3d-marabu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Images
"Mars Odyssey THEMIS Mosaic - Valles Marineris"
NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter.
...and...
"Daybreak on Mars (at the Gale Crater)"
Photo by Mars Global Surveyor Orbiter
Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech
JPL Image Use Policy
Unless otherwise noted, images and video on JPL public web sites (public sites ending with a jpl.nasa.gov address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below (in the policy):
www.jpl.nasa.g...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helmet clipart
pixabay.com/en...
CC0 Creative Commons
Free for commercial use
No attribution required
pixabay.com/en...

[@dlawson688]

Wow. I have been looking for this design for about 20 years! I saw the NASA video on NASA TV when I was a child and spent years trying to find the information about the design. Awesome.

[@fragomatik]

Glad you enjoyed! I'd love to find the original article from 𝙎𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙚 𝙏𝙚𝙘𝙝𝙣𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙮 (𝙫𝙤𝙡. 11, 𝙣𝙤. 4, 1991) but so far no luck 😞

[@PaddyPatrone]

wow, this is amazing!

[@macsenplays]

I've been looking for the original promotional videos from Martin Marietta on this concept. I'm familiar with the Space Exploration Initiative, and remember some videos from Martin Marietta that played in the early 1990s on NASA (Select) TV.

[@fragomatik]

So there was a video made by MM of this concept? I'd love to find that, too! Please let me know if you ever find it! I've had no luck finding a copy of the cited publication (Space Tech Vol 11 No. 4 1991) let alone any video.

[@macsenplays]

@@fragomatik There were at least two videos that aired on NASA Select TV in the early 90s. Both were branded to Martin Marietta. And they both had this concept.

[@smokeless7774]

Nice work again Frag. ( I still think we're going to have to bite the bullet and buy decent reactionless thrusters from the Outsiders!)

[@fragomatik]

Hey Smoky! Ahhh if only......I got a hankerin' to go exploring, and Ima gettin' tired of waitin' lol

[@spaceshipmania5476]

Cool video! Came here via Mic of Orion

[@DrayseSchneider]

Now that is a spaceship!

[@DonCDXX]

Beautiful design and animation. I'd love to see your take on the Mars cycler concept and attached support craft.

[@fragomatik]

Cheers! The Mars cycler is an interesting concept...yes, it might be worth doing a video about it at some stage...no promises lol 😀

[@williampaulbeaugruendler7901]

Beautifully-realized. Somebody please remake "Rocketship XM"?

[@stainlesssteelfox1]

This is an amazing render, well up to your usual high standards. I always felt the 'tumbling pigeon' design works better for artifical gravity (Habitat at one end, engines and fuel at the other, turning end over end), though that's less of an advantage on a non-nuclear spacecraft where there is no need for a long spine to keep the crew quarters as far away from the engines as possible.

[@fragomatik]

Thanks mate! Couldn't agree more about tumbling pigeon. It's a simple and elegant solution IMO - my favourite artificial gravity strategy! With the advent of super-strong, lightweight materials (graphene?) and clever design (tensegrity?) I can't help but think that it's probably worth the additional mass of a long spine (even if you don't need the separation between hab and engines) just to gain the advantage of AG.

[@stainlesssteelfox1]

@@fragomatik A shorter body length does make aerocapture easier, a significant saving even if you have a nuclear engine. I love the Ares hoplite heat shield BTW. That's a nice touch.

[@ufoengines]

So Cool ! Thanks for this post .

[@gamereditor59ner22]

Nice!! May I ask what software do you use to make and edit videos?

[@fragomatik]

Hi again...I answered your question when u commented on my Nautilus-X video a few days ago, but I reckon youtube's lame messaging system is playing up again, so here is my answer again: To create models and scenes, I use an old-school modeller & renderer called IMAGINE: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine_(3D_modeling_software) For simple editing I use Virtualdub: www.virtualdub.org/ For "fancy" editing, titling and effects I use Cyberlink Powerdirector: www.cyberlink.com/

[@gamereditor59ner22]

@@fragomatik Oh Thanks. Sorry for asking again.

[@fragomatik]

np 👍

[@mahatmarandy5977]

Very, very cool. Thank you! It appears to use a lot more fuel on the trip out than it does on the trip back, though. Is this due to decreased weight on the return?

[@fragomatik]

Thank you! In part, yes. On the outward leg the vehicle is fully laden and is also climbing out of the sun's gravity-well (trying to reach Earth orbit escape-velocity). On the way home, the vehicle is less massive and the velocity required to escape from Mars orbit is less as well...basically "falling" towards the inner solar system.

[@stainlesssteelfox1]

The other part Is the Rocket Equation. On the way out, you're carrying the weight of the fuel you need to fly back. It's the reason first stages of rocket boosters are so much bigger. Their payload is the combined mass of the actual payload and the fully fuelled second stage, plus the dry mass of the first stage. Here's a calculation I did for a Methane NTR rocket with hexes of tanks wrapped around it's spine. It also uses a heat shield for aero-capture to extend the delta v. Total dry mass: 160 tons. A modular tankage system would provide liquid methane. Each tank would contain 90 tons of Liquid Methane (215m^3), be 15m long and 4.5m diameter, and have a dry mass of 1.5 tons. They would be mounted in clusters of 6 around the keel (matching fuel transfer and cooling attachments on each keel segment), with a hexagonal metal foil shield around each cluster for thermal protection (possibly external radiators extending between segments). Each shield is another 3 tons. Each requires a dedicated BFR Cargo/New Armstrong/SLS launch. Why methane? It’s easier to store than liquid hydrogen, and free oxygen is less likely to eat the nuclear core, as with free oxygen from water reaction mass. We assume a starting point of three rings of tanks, dropping each ring after it has been used up. The Methane NTR has a specific impluse of 644 and thrust of 784 kN. Using the rocket equation: First Ring: 18 tanks weigh 1656 tons. Wet Mass: 1816 tons. Dry Mass: 1276 tons. Delta V: 2.27 kps Second Ring: 12 tanks weigh 1104 tons. Wet Mass: 1264 tons. Dry Mass: 724 tons. Delta V: 3.51 kps. Third Ring: 6 tanks weigh 552 tons. Wet Mass: 712 tons. Dry Mass: 160 tons. Delta V: 9.42 kps. Total Delta V: 15.2 kps. Howerver, assuming: 1% loss on first ring due to storage: 2.20 kps. 5% fuel loss on second ring due to storage and aero-capture active cooling: 3.40 kps. 20% fuel loss on third ring due to storage and aero-capture active cooling: 8.38 kps. However, spacecraft will be 20 tons lighter on return journey, bringing the third ring delta v up to 9.01 kps. Total Delta V: 14.45 kps. As you can see, the same fuel weight on the first and second drop rings produces far less delta v (change in velocity)

[@Jason-gt2kx]

Sweet!

[@lawwong3508]

Can you do a nuclear pulse vehicle?

[@rodrigojuniordasilvasa8803]

sweet

[@pricelessppp]

Does the shield protects against van Allen & outer space radiation?

[@fragomatik]

No, it's just the aerobrake for the lander. Note that this is quite an early design by Marietta Corp, from the late 80's / early 90's... But just like vintage cars, or olde-time sailing ships, these early concepts can be beautiful and interesting in their own way.

[@pricelessppp]

@@fragomatik OK cool looks like a Greek infantry shield. Thought they could use it for radiation shielding. How many launches would this puppy take? And does the fuel tanks have RCS thrusters to dock in place? Could a dozen falcon heavy rockets launch this?

[@fragomatik]

Yeah the aerobrake is really a boring greyish disc-shape, so I though I'd tart it up by giving it that "classical Greek" feel lol! It probably would not need as many as a dozen launches - more like 6 or 7 I believe, depending on launcher fairing diameter. A launch system with 8-10m diameter fairing would be needed, but the design is simple enough that it could be modified to suit any available heavy launcher. Honestly, I don't really know too much about launch systems, but the concepts that came after this one (the early DRAs) were looking at about 7 launches I think, and used a "split-mission" architecture. The split-mission idea is that all the unmanned components (lander/surface habitat, propellant tanks, in situ resource utilisation equipment, etc) would be sent to Mars orbit first, to await the crewed vehicle to arrive, about 18 months later. This Concept-6 design though is an "all-up" type, where all the components are assembled in orbit and then head off to Mars as a single mission. It's pretty much a conventional chemical rocket system - a "brute-force/no-frills" approach to a manned Mars mission. None of the components were re-usable, so a somewhat inefficient and expensive design TBH. The later DRA mission designs included automated rendezvous systems to dock all the components in Earth orbit, and also assumed an operational ISS to serve as a base while preparing the mission hardware. This excellent video made for NASA by John Frassanito and Associates shows the basic DRA "Constellation" split-mission concept. It may be of interest to you :) kzbin.info/www/bejne/q4almaFplLVmnrc

[@johnstewart5137]

why do you always jettison tanks ? aren't they useful in the future ? it took lots of fuel to get a tank there i would think it could be recyclable into something useful

[@fragomatik]

Jettisoning tanks is done to save fuel. Why waste fuel transporting an empty tank? The empty tanks aren't really "lost" when they're jettisoned. Since their speed, location, and course at the time of jettisoning is known, they can be tracked pretty much forever. Tracking such things as depleted tanks and other "junk" is a good idea because it allows you to avoid colliding with it in future, or to pick it up again at some later stage. Classic Sci-Fi literature often has "rock-jock" characters that make a living by collecting discarded hardware, and salvaging it for re-use. If it's really old stuff, it may even have increased value as a museum piece.

[@vyacheslavpochitenko4414]

A spaceship with a one-way ticket. Drops tanks-it's just "wonderful", is not it better to use recyclable, use them as additional fuel?

[@fragomatik]

Sorry to say, but you are incorrect: it's not a "one way ticket". It has a MDAV (Mars Descent/Ascent Vehicle) and it has an Earth-return stage (TEI stage), so it is clearly designed to return the crew to Earth. Furthermore, the drop-tanks, and the Trans-Mars-Injection stages are released when their fuel is expended *in order to save mass.* This is a vintage, and relatively simple conventional spacecraft designed by Martin-Marietta in the 90's. Certainly it is a brute-force, all-up design with little re-usability, but what makes it noteworthy is that it is one of the earliest designs to feature an artificial-gravity habitat. Such a craft is designed to do one thing and one thing only: get a crew of six to Mars and back, using conventional technology (1990's) and chemical rockets. For more information, please read the linked publication: ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160014801.pdf CORRECTION EDIT: designed in the 90's not the 60's

[@vyacheslavpochitenko4414]

Well, for the ' 60s, then, forgivable.

[@fragomatik]

That's fine, I forgive you 😛 I meant to write "90's" not "60's" - apologies for the confusion!

[@robertsweet5212]

All those empty tanks floating about in solar orbit, what a mess!

[@Negative_Clover]

It would take us orders of magnitude more time to clutter any solar orbit line enough to be a problem. Even so the earth and mars would preterb the orbits of any debris out of the flight path of any missions.