Comparison of oxygen liquefaction methods for use on the Martian surface

• Published in: Cryogenics (Guildford) Vol. 90; pp. 60 - 69
• Main Authors: Johnson, W.L., Hauser, D.M., Plachta, D.W., Wang, X-Y.J., Banker, B.F., Desai, P.S., Stephens, J.R., Swanger, A.M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Amsterdam Elsevier Ltd 01.03.2018; Elsevier BV
• Subjects: Chemical propulsion; Engineering management; Liquefaction; Manufacturability; Mars; Mars surface; Organic chemistry; Oxygen; Pressure; Propellant storage; Propellant tanks; Propulsion systems; Refrigeration; Space exploration; Storage tanks; Vapor phases
• ISSN: 0011-2275; 1879-2235
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cryogenics.2017.12.008

•Oxygen liquefaction systems are reviewed for operations during Martian exploration.•Oxygen systems are traded with mass and power as well as non-quantitative analysis.•Tube-in-tank and tube-on-tank are best solutions for Martian oxygen liquefaction. 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.