ESA Document - Emits - ESA

s
HMM
Assessment Study
Report: CDF-20(A)
February 2004
page 308 of 422
Nevertheless, mass, volume and efficiency of this subsystem is computed and taken into account
in the design with an interpolation based on existing space PCDUs.
4.3.5.5.4 Budgets and trade-offs
The list of the selected architecture is Figure 4-56 shows the possible power options for
architecture for surface operations:
Figure 4-56: List of power architecture options for surface operations
The comparison between the architectures are presented for:
• The total mass (Figure 4-57)
• The total deployed solar array area required (Figure 4-58)
• The volume of the power subsystem prior to the landing (Figure 4-59).
8000.000
7000.000
6000.000
5000.000
kg 4000.000
3000.000
2000.000
1000.000
0.000
Option1: Fuel Option2: Fuel
Cells for 37 days Cells for 37 days
w ith Liquid H2 + w ith gazeous
LOX
forms
Option3: Solar
Panels + Li-Ion
Batteries
Mass Computation
Option4: Solar
Cells Blanket +
Li-Ion Batteries
Option5: Solar
Panels + Fuel
Cells gazeous
form
Option6: Solar
Cells Blanket +
Fuel Cells
gazeous form
PV
PCDU
Storage
Option7: Solar
Panels + Fuel
Cells Liquid
Figure 4-57: Mass comparison for the eight architecture options
c
Option 8: Solar
Cells Blanket +
Fuel Cells Liquid