Use of lunar produced propellants for manned Mars missions

Manned Mars Mission departures from low lunar orbit (LLO), L2, and low Earth orbit (LEO), using oxygen or oxygen and hydrogen produced on the Lunar surface; or Phobos produced propellants; are compared to departures from LEO using Earth produced propellants. The economy of a given scheme is a function of the ratio of Earth launch to lunar launch costs per unit mass. To achieve savings on the order of 40% of total Earth launch costs for steady state operations requires the availability of both oxygen and hydrogen on the Moon and launch per unit mass costs of lunar surface to LLO in the range of 25% of Earth to LEO costs

The effect of Mars surface and Phobos propellant production on Earth launch mass

Fuel and oxidizer produced on the surface of Mars and on the Martian Moon Phobos can reduce the cumulative mass of fuel and oxidizer which must be launched to low Earth orbit for Mars exploration missions. A scenario in which ten conjunction class trajectory missions over a twenty year period land a surface base and propellant production facilities on the Martian surface and on Phobos was examined. Production of oxygen on Phobos provides the greatest benefit. If all the propellant for Mars operations and Earth return is produced at Phobos and on Mars, a 30% reduction in cumulative low Earth orbit mass can be achieved at the end of the 20 year period

Comparison of mission design options for manned Mars missions

A number of manned Mars mission types, propulsion systems, and operational techniques are compared. Conjunction and opposition class missions for cryogenic, hybrid (cryo/storable), and NERVA propulsion concepts are addressed. In addition, both Earth and Mars orbit aerobraking, direct entry of landers, hyperbolic rendezvous, and electric propulsion cases are examined. A common payload to Mars was used for all cases. The basic figure of merit used was weight in low Earth orbit (LEO) at mission initiation. This is roughly proportional to launch costs

Architecture, physical activity and a capability evaluative framework: satisfaction is not enough

Despite recognition that building design can contribute to human health by facilitating increased incidental physical activity, knowledge of how building design can enable this is underdeveloped. Further, there is evidence that design features introduced to support routine physical activity and improve occupant satisfaction may not necessarily lead to increases in actual physical activity. Evaluative frameworks encompassing a range of individual, organisational and built environment factors that contribute to shaping occupant behaviour may provide insight into how buildings can support greater levels of routine physical activity. This paper argues that capability theory can inform our understandings of the dynamic interrelationship between building design and building use. In this paper we describe our approach to developing a framework for capabilities-based evaluation of buildings and building occupant physical activity. Based on a capability perspective we consider the intersection of building ‘domains’ and ‘functionings’ that influence occupant physical activity; and question how such evaluations could account for a range of occupants. The research is of relevance to those engaged in the production of architectural environments and evaluation tools that support physical activity—inclusive of building designers, procurers, managers and occupants