4.6 Article

Four-month Moon and Mars crew water utilization study conducted at the Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station, Devon Island, Nunavut

Journal

ADVANCES IN SPACE RESEARCH
Volume 43, Issue 8, Pages 1256-1274

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.asr.2009.01.009

Keywords

Space analogue studies; Space life support; Water utilization; Moon/Mars exploration

Funding

  1. Polar Continental Shelf Project

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A categorized water usage study was undertaken at the Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station on Devon Island, Nunavut in the High Canadian Arctic. This study was conducted as part of a long duration four-month Mars mission simulation during the summer of 2007. The study determined that the crew of seven averaged 82.07 L/day over the expedition (standard deviation 22.58 L/day). The study also incorporated a Mars Time Study phase which determined that an average of 12.12 L/sol of water was required for each crewmember. Drinking, food preparation, hand/face, oral, dish wash, clothes wash, shower, shaving, cleaning, engineering, science, plant growth and medical water were each individually monitored throughout the detailed study phases. It was determined that implementing the monitoring program itself resulted in an approximate water savings of 1.5 L/day per crewmember. The seven person crew averaged 202 distinct water draws a day (standard deviation 34) with high water use periods focusing around meal times. No statistically significant correlation was established between total water use and EVA or exercise duration. Study results suggest that current crew water utilization estimates for long duration planetary surface stays are more than two times greater than that required. Crown copyright (C) 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of COSPAR. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available