NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Orion and Exploration Vehicles => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 11/13/2015 06:41 pm

Title: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/13/2015 06:41 pm
Awesome article by Chris Gebhardt on the status of BEO Habs:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/nasa-progress-habitat-development-deep-space-exploration/

With some sexy renders from Nathan added into the mix. :)

(Hosting in the Orion section, but leaving a placeholder in Commercial Crew - which may seem strange, but "commercial" partners and they are going to host "crew")
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Chris Bergin on 11/13/2015 07:05 pm
We can use this thread as the latest main thread for the NASA BEO Habs - following on from this thread that was started in 2012:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28481.0
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Eric Hedman on 11/13/2015 08:12 pm
Another outstanding article Chris.  I am looking forward to how these possible habitats evolve and the plans that will follow.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: redliox on 11/13/2015 09:17 pm
Out of the companies listed in the recent article, I hope the best for Boeing AND Bigleow. Their ideas offer the most volume. Cygnus from OrbitalATK is great experience, but even for a single astronaut a module based from that is a little small. Still I'm sure any of those 3 companies will generate a good idea. I favor the larger, single module, Skylab 2 plans to minimize launch needs.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Raj2014 on 11/13/2015 11:03 pm
Awesome article by Chris Gebhardt on the status of BEO Habs:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/nasa-progress-habitat-development-deep-space-exploration/

With some sexy renders from Nathan added into the mix. :)

(Hosting in the Orion section, but leaving a placeholder in Commercial Crew - which may seem strange, but "commercial" partners and they are going to host "crew")

Hello Chris, do you have a full image of the first picture that non-L2 people can see? Thank you for the article Chris Gebhardt.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: atomic on 11/14/2015 07:56 am
Great article Mr. Gebhardt!
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/14/2015 09:06 pm
It would be interesting to see a rough breakdown of the budget for the various projects mentioned in this article. Some things are clearly not negligible, such as the BEAM to ISS next year but after that I get a bit hazy. What level of NASA commitment right now is there to build a DSH? If so, on what timeline?

Great article and great to be reminded that stuff is actually happening.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Jim on 11/14/2015 11:47 pm
NASA has no commitment on DSH.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 11/15/2015 12:18 am
It would be interesting to see a rough breakdown of the budget for the various projects mentioned in this article. Some things are clearly not negligible, such as the BEAM to ISS next year but after that I get a bit hazy. What level of NASA commitment right now is there to build a DSH? If so, on what timeline?

Great article and great to be reminded that stuff is actually happening.

The NextStep funding is not a lot of money. See this post for Bigelow:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30850.msg1415400#msg1415400
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: pospa on 11/15/2015 01:48 pm
Btw, here is the HOEMD AES presentation from 11/4/15

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/3-Status_of_AES.pdf
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/15/2015 02:18 pm


NASA has no commitment on DSH.

They are publically saying in front of congress that their goal is to put a man on Mars. How are they going to do that without eventually building some sort of DSH? I'm pretty sure lying in front of Congress is illegal. NASA has made a commitment to attempt to land a person on Mars in the 2030s to justify their funding. Not actually taking steps to do that would be like the DoD not attempting to defend the U.S. if it was under attack.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 11/15/2015 03:24 pm


NASA has no commitment on DSH.

They are publically saying in front of congress that their goal is to put a man on Mars. How are they going to do that without eventually building some sort of DSH? I'm pretty sure lying in front of Congress is illegal. NASA has made a commitment to attempt to land a person on Mars in the 2030s to justify their funding. Not actually taking steps to do that would be like the DoD not attempting to defend the U.S. if it was under attack.
The Short Answer: Your wrong!!  :o

The Long Answer: If Mike what's his name could lie to Congress and not go to jail, then lying to Congress isn't illegal...

What NASA can do is propose ideas, and hope to God that Congress will approve them based on what benefits the Congressional Members constituents... end of story...

NASA has little room to maneuver when it comes to appropriations... that's why we see so many power point presentations, and studies coming out of the depths of NASA... looking for ways forward that Congress may or may not fund...

NASA is like a boy who goes up to his mother and says, "Can I start a baseball team in our 2 acre back field!" and gets a thick ear when the costs come up... so what's a boy with a dream goin' to do... well, our boy NASA, goes to his friends and says, "hey, I've got this 2 acre field that we could turn into a great baseball field, anyone interested?"
    Well, turns out there are a lot of kids in the neighbourhood who are... James' father can build the club house, Bill's is willing to put up the stands, Cathy's mom is great at making uniforms, while her dad has a construction firm that can level and turf the field... and soon it all comes together! There's even Jonathan's family who have contacts with a team in Wallonga, that will join with them to create the start of a league... so our boy NASA now goes back to his Mom, and what's her reaction goin' to be...

    That's what NASA has been doing these past 5 years, since the end of Constellation, and the beginning of SLS... consolidating a team around them, that will build on NASA's abilities... it hasn't been lying to Congress... just quietly going about it's own business while making contacts and moving forward... what will be the reaction when it goes to Congress within the next 5-10 years... well, stay tuned for the next incredible installment of "NASA Goes To Mars". It's guaranteed to knock you off your sofa and perhaps injure your knee on the coffee table...


edit, ooops I forgot The President, "Big Daddy" ... my bad... Thanks Coastal Ron ;-)
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/15/2015 03:25 pm
NASA has no commitment on DSH.

They are publically saying in front of congress that their goal is to put a man on Mars.

Mars has been a goal, if not the goal for humans, for decades.  Nothing has changed recently.

Quote
How are they going to do that without eventually building some sort of DSH?

Depending on how we eventually go, a Deep Space Hab may not be required.

Quote
I'm pretty sure lying in front of Congress is illegal.

NASA is not lying by saying it wants to go to Mars.  But NASA doesn't have the authorization to go to Mars yet - that comes from Congress and the President.  All NASA is doing today is studies and preliminary development that would be useful for more than just sending humans to Mars.

Quote
NASA has made a commitment to attempt to land a person on Mars in the 2030s to justify their funding. Not actually taking steps to do that would be like the DoD not attempting to defend the U.S. if it was under attack.

NASA is a small agency within the U.S. Government, and reports to the President.  The President, not NASA, determines what NASA will ask for from Congress, and Congress, not NASA, decides what NASA will get funded to work on (I'm simplifying, since the President has to sign or veto legislation).

The point is that NASA does what our elected officials tell it to do, or allow it to do.  NASA does not operate independently, and cannot make commitments on it's own.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: the_other_Doug on 11/15/2015 04:07 pm
I think Jim's point was that, since NASA has no approved or funded program to actually mount a manned Mars expedition (despite the rhetoric), none of the elements of such a mission have a NASA commitment to being developed, built or flown.  Without a funded program, you can't have a commitment.

Again, though, as I have pointed out many times, unless you want to mount an Apollo-type program wherein you must develop all elements of your mission concurrently, such that all are ready to go exactly at the same time and by a specific date, in our real flat-budget environment you have to develop things one element at a time.  NASA and Congress have decided they can get behind developing the needful HLV first, and will begin to design and fund most of the spacecraft it will loft later.  This is really no different from the original plan to develop Shuttle first, get it flying, and then fund and develop a LEO station for the Shuttle to build, visit and provision.

And as with that original Shuttle/Station vision, some money was spent in preliminary designs and study contracts on an American-only station (Freedom), much of which carried over into the ISS that actually got funded and developed.  As of right now, we're in the exact same stage with a Mars expedition -- the workhorse booster is being developed (in a flawed fashion, not allowing for possibly needful flight rates), and a lot of study contracts and concurrent JSC/MSFC in-house studies going on around the eventual development of the mission modules.  Tell me that's not exactly where we were in re Shuttle/Station 35 to 40 years ago...
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/15/2015 04:11 pm
NASA has no commitment on DSH.

They are publically saying in front of congress that their goal is to put a man on Mars.

Mars has been a goal, if not the goal for humans, for decades.  Nothing has changed recently.

Quote
How are they going to do that without eventually building some sort of DSH?

Depending on how we eventually go, a Deep Space Hab may not be required.

Quote
I'm pretty sure lying in front of Congress is illegal.

NASA is not lying by saying it wants to go to Mars.  But NASA doesn't have the authorization to go to Mars yet - that comes from Congress and the President.  All NASA is doing today is studies and preliminary development that would be useful for more than just sending humans to Mars.

Quote
NASA has made a commitment to attempt to land a person on Mars in the 2030s to justify their funding. Not actually taking steps to do that would be like the DoD not attempting to defend the U.S. if it was under attack.

NASA is a small agency within the U.S. Government, and reports to the President.  The President, not NASA, determines what NASA will ask for from Congress, and Congress, not NASA, decides what NASA will get funded to work on (I'm simplifying, since the President has to sign or veto legislation).

The point is that NASA does what our elected officials tell it to do, or allow it to do.  NASA does not operate independently, and cannot make commitments on it's own.

The president has said that the goal is Mars. As you say, NASA is obligated to abide by both the law and the executive head. They are obligated to attempt to accomplish what they have been assigned to do. Whether that is financially, legally or technically possible is another matter. If they are saying this is what they will do, but aren't actually committed to accomplishing that goal within the constraints placed upon them, then there is at least an ethical problem. I think that NASA has been doing a disservice by not actually explaining to Congress what is required to get to Mars. And yes, having a place for astronauts to live while in transit between Earth and Mars is required in every architecture. They've been assigned a task and if there are any legal constraints that are preventing them from accomplishing their task, they should at least be pointing this out to the people that can fix it. Don't think they showed up at the last house hearing.

Anyways. NASA has made a commitment to the extent that they are able to commit to anything. Obviously, they don't have complete free agency to do whatever they want.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: redliox on 11/15/2015 04:41 pm
Regarding the roles a DSH could play, assuming the next U.S. President and NASA administrator get it planned in more detailed writing, I see 3 of them:

1) Prototype testbed for long term life support and radiation shielding.
2) Waypoint space station for international Lunar expeditions.
3) Become the Mars Transit Vehicle itself through upgrades and longevity.

Current administrator Bolden said, echoing Obama's "we've been there before" speech, that a Lunar vehicle is just too expensive to build.  However a Lunar space station, so long as managed more properly than the ISS' nearly 30-year birthing process (space station Freedom et al), might be in a better price range while offering some usefulness.  Assuming the DSH is modular and as long-lasting as the ISS has been, I wager it may have the option of being retrofitted for Mars duty - an upgrade the ISS by comparison was never meant for.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 11/15/2015 04:45 pm
Regarding the roles a DSH could play, assuming the next U.S. President and NASA administrator get it planned in more detailed writing, I see 3 of them:

1) Prototype testbed for long term life support and radiation shielding.
2) Waypoint space station for international Lunar expeditions.
3) Become the Mars Transit Vehicle itself through upgrades and longevity.

Current administrator Bolden said, echoing Obama's "we've been there before" speech, that a Lunar vehicle is just too expensive to build.  However a Lunar space station, so long as managed more properly than the ISS' nearly 30-year birthing process (space station Freedom et al), might be in a better price range while offering some usefulness.  Assuming the DSH is modular and as long-lasting as the ISS has been, I wager it may have the option of being retrofitted for Mars duty - an upgrade the ISS by comparison was never meant for.

If a working spacestation exists and is doing things for the Moon it will be easier to build a second one with a similar design for Mars.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: redliox on 11/15/2015 05:24 pm
Regarding the roles a DSH could play, assuming the next U.S. President and NASA administrator get it planned in more detailed writing, I see 3 of them:

1) Prototype testbed for long term life support and radiation shielding.
2) Waypoint space station for international Lunar expeditions.
3) Become the Mars Transit Vehicle itself through upgrades and longevity.

Current administrator Bolden said, echoing Obama's "we've been there before" speech, that a Lunar vehicle is just too expensive to build.  However a Lunar space station, so long as managed more properly than the ISS' nearly 30-year birthing process (space station Freedom et al), might be in a better price range while offering some usefulness.  Assuming the DSH is modular and as long-lasting as the ISS has been, I wager it may have the option of being retrofitted for Mars duty - an upgrade the ISS by comparison was never meant for.

If a working spacestation exists and is doing things for the Moon it will be easier to build a second one with a similar design for Mars.

Most likely, but we may be talking about an agency that cuts corners on a budget.  Also think about it: if it can sit outside of the Earth's magnetic field with a fully enclosed life support and support four to six for as long as they have food supplies...well you're already talking about 95% of what a MTH is doing right there.  That last 5% would amount to a Mars-specific propulsion module that's tacked on next.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/15/2015 06:01 pm
The president has said that the goal is Mars.

So did Bush 43, and many Presidents to come will probably say the same thing.  However a goal is not legally binding.

Quote
As you say, NASA is obligated to abide by both the law and the executive head. They are obligated to attempt to accomplish what they have been assigned to do.

What assignment?  Can you point to a bill that was introduced into Congress that authorizes a NASA program to land humans on Mars?

No.

Congress has refused to fund the proposed ARM program so far, so no BEO missions are authorized.  So far NASA has only been authorized to work on pieces and parts of what will eventually be needed to place humans on Mars and return them safely.  This effort on the Deep Space Hab is one of those pieces and parts, but even so it's only funded for study, not development and operational deployment.

Quote
Anyways. NASA has made a commitment to the extent that they are able to commit to anything.

I think you should look at NASA's budget in detail so that you can understand how little discretionary spending ability they have.  From what I can tell this effort is being funded in the budget as part:

NASA Budget > Exploration > Exploration Research and Development > Advanced Exploration Systems

For the FY2016 budget, the President requested $231.4M for the Advanced Exploration Systems portion, although that was requested to increase significantly in future years.

Keep in mind though that there are other activities within that part of the budget that have to be funded too besides the DSH work, so overall it's not a very big pot of money.  And anything human related in space will be very expensive to develop and field when that time comes.

Quote
Obviously, they don't have complete free agency to do whatever they want.

They work for the President and they get funded by Congress.  So no, they don't have complete free agency to do anything.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: KelvinZero on 11/17/2015 12:20 am
NASA has no commitment on DSH.
I suspect you mean something along the lines of "there is no item in the budget to build a DSH".

I meant "What level of NASA commitment right now is there to build a DSH" in as general way as possible. Just the fact that there was some sort of review of milestones means to me there is more than zero commitment. I would also include factions or politicians applying any pressure in this direction as some level of commitment. I would even accept entirely indirect arguments, such as that existing lobbies must eventually support it.

I was also intending to ask what form of commitment/motivation/etc exists for it. For example what is the process and who are the parties involved in this review? What lobbying power do they have? Do they have a chance?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 11/26/2015 01:04 am
Space news article on DSH and EAM.

http://spacenews.com/nasa-considers-uses-for-cislunar-habitat/
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/16/2015 07:37 am
From latest NASA funding approvals.

Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) tweeted at 8:48pm - 16 Dec 15:
The Exploration account also includes “no less than” $55M for a “habitation augmentation module”, with a prototype developed by 2018. (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/677032511726292992?s=17)

Not a DSH but EAM is a step in right direction and it will allow for 60 day Orion missions. 


Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: notsorandom on 12/16/2015 03:49 pm
From latest NASA funding approvals.

Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) tweeted at 8:48pm - 16 Dec 15:
The Exploration account also includes “no less than” $55M for a “habitation augmentation module”, with a prototype developed by 2018. (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/677032511726292992?s=17)

Not a DSH but EAM is a step in right direction and it will allow for 60 day Orion missions.
The first crewed Orion/SLS mission could be a bit more interesting because of this bill. Not only is the EAM called for but it starts funding on the EUS and prohibits the ICPS from being crew rated. The first mission will likely then have both the EUS and EAM. The EUS will allow the inclusion of the EAM on the initial flight. Both Orion and the EAM could be tested out BEO. I wouldn't expect the mission to last 60 days. If it were able to be independent the EAM could be left there for the next crew. That next crew could even bring another module and build up a small station.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 12/16/2015 05:43 pm
Getting information on the EAM concept is not always so easy but from recent publications I have abstracted what I think is going on.  Apparently the 55 Million is for the habitation module study (or prototype build?) of a proposed stack that can be used in Cis-lunar orbit, ARM and/or for Mars.  The concept is to exploit the universal stage adapters to provide a 10 m long payload bay and an assumed 10 mt payload capability on an SLS 1b launch vehicle configuration
There are four basic modules of which three are shown in the schematic.
1. The service module, the docking module and the habitation module. The Service Module provides pressurized volume to augment the Orion capabilities and a propulsion module to provide control
of the final vehicle configuration in LDRO.
2. The Docking Module provides EVA and robotic capabilities with both NDS and CBM ports.
3a. There are two 4.5 m diameter habitat modules and a logistics module designed to provide the volume required for four crew members to live and work on a 1000-day mission to Mars.
3b. There are two 5.5 m diameter habitat modules designed to provide the volume required for four crewmembers to live and work on a 1000-day mission to Mars.

The information here comes from:
"Space Launch System Co-Manifested Payload Options For Habitation" by David Smitherman, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, 35812
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/16/2015 06:42 pm
Getting information on the EAM concept is not always so easy but from recent publications I have abstracted what I think is going on.  Apparently the 55 Million is for the habitation module study (or prototype build?) of a proposed stack that can be used in Cis-lunar orbit, ARM and/or for Mars.  The concept is to exploit the universal stage adapters to provide a 10 m long payload bay and an assumed 10 mt payload capability on an SLS 1b launch vehicle configuration
There are four basic modules of which three are shown in the schematic.
1. The service module, the docking module and the habitation module. The Service Module provides pressurized volume to augment the Orion capabilities and a propulsion module to provide control
of the final vehicle configuration in LDRO.
2. The Docking Module provides EVA and robotic capabilities with both NDS and CBM ports.
3a. There are two 4.5 m diameter habitat modules and a logistics module designed to provide the volume required for four crew members to live and work on a 1000-day mission to Mars.
3b. There are two 5.5 m diameter habitat modules designed to provide the volume required for four crewmembers to live and work on a 1000-day mission to Mars.

The information here comes from:
"Space Launch System Co-Manifested Payload Options For Habitation" by David Smitherman, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, 35812

Thanks for the update Brightlight.

They could start by flying service module on first flight and use it as EAM. Next flight bring Docking module, use its robotic arm to capture free flying service module and bolt the two modules together.

Do you know what plans they have for service modules propulsion. SEP, chemical or combination of both and could it be refueled.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 12/16/2015 07:41 pm
Getting information on the EAM concept is not always so easy but from recent publications I have abstracted what I think is going on.  Apparently the 55 Million is for the habitation module study (or prototype build?) of a proposed stack that can be used in Cis-lunar orbit, ARM and/or for Mars.  The concept is to exploit the universal stage adapters to provide a 10 m long payload bay and an assumed 10 mt payload capability on an SLS 1b launch vehicle configuration
There are four basic modules of which three are shown in the schematic.
1. The service module, the docking module and the habitation module. The Service Module provides pressurized volume to augment the Orion capabilities and a propulsion module to provide control
of the final vehicle configuration in LDRO.
2. The Docking Module provides EVA and robotic capabilities with both NDS and CBM ports.
3a. There are two 4.5 m diameter habitat modules and a logistics module designed to provide the volume required for four crew members to live and work on a 1000-day mission to Mars.
3b. There are two 5.5 m diameter habitat modules designed to provide the volume required for four crewmembers to live and work on a 1000-day mission to Mars.

The information here comes from:
"Space Launch System Co-Manifested Payload Options For Habitation" by David Smitherman, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, 35812

Thanks for the update Brightlight.

They could start by flying service module on first flight and use it as EAM. Next flight bring Docking module, use its robotic arm to capture free flying service module and bolt the two modules together.

Do you know what plans they have for service modules propulsion. SEP, chemical or combination of both and could it be refueled.
The three 60 day missions in Cis-lunar orbit are still under consideration and this approach to a facility is a alternative to other DSH concepts.  I don't know if the MSFC group is studying alternate TLI and/or TMI propulsion approaches for this type of proposal but chemical is used here for TMI (see attachment). This stack requires 5 SLS-Orion-payloads to complete. Also note that the Service Module and Docking Module stay in lunar orbit after the stack is complete for further missions (?) suggesting an infrastructure development. Basically the Orion is being used as a tugboat/payload delivery system for in-space assembly whether in LEO or Lunar, much like the Shuttle was used to assemble the ISS. The Service Module propulsion system uses a storable, bi-propellant combination of nitrogen tetroxide (NTO) oxidizer and monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) fuel for stack maneuvering and station keeping. I have some questions out to NASA folks and if i get responses I will post in L2
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 12/16/2015 09:18 pm
A LV and payload analysis was performed on three options: 1. using a 4.5m MPLM-based Hab module, 2. Using the 5.5m "new" Hab module and 3. Using a SLS core "Skylab II" style module.

Note that the SLS-Skylab module uses 4 SLS LV's and 1 Delta IV LV for logistics, while the small Hab module use 6SLS LV's and 7 Delta IV class LV's for logistics, and the medium sized Hab module approach uses one less SLS LV.  The SLS derived single Hab module saves a whopping 1 SLS LV and 6 Delta IV LV's - in my mind, a substantial savings.

If a SLS LV is $500 million and a Delta IV is 250 Million (I'm selling these things cheap), the savings is at least 2.25 Billion dollars using the SLS-Skylab concept.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 12/17/2015 11:08 pm
If a SLS LV is $500 million and a Delta IV is 250 Million (I'm selling these things cheap), the savings is at least 2.25 Billion dollars using the SLS-Skylab concept.

I have always been a huge fan of the Skylab II concept. Its big, but not too big. Less in orbit assembly required, fewer launches, commonality with SLS tooling.

Any of these DSH architectures would be great to see don't get me wrong but I do have a favorite.

In terms of the EAM mentioned in the omnibus spending bill:

I think it is an excellent idea to develop a smaller module quickly that can be used on EM-2 and hopefully left in DRO as a destination for future Orion/SLS missions. This makes EM-2 more than just a test flight and a spin around the moon. It can be used as the core (or preliminary) module for a lunar space station. If it is planned right it could be useful for all the architectures mentioned above.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/18/2015 10:17 am
{snip}[
In terms of the EAM mentioned in the omnibus spending bill:

I think it is an excellent idea to develop a smaller module quickly that can be used on EM-2 and hopefully left in DRO as a destination for future Orion/SLS missions. This makes EM-2 more than just a test flight and a spin around the moon. It can be used as the core (or preliminary) module for a lunar space station. If it is planned right it could be useful for all the architectures mentioned above.

Anything we send out to DRO (or EML-1/2) for human use needs its design thoroughly tested in LEO first. We can just about modify things in LEO but at DRO only minor repairs are possible.

If the modules mass about 20,000 kg then we can launch them to LEO for about $100m-$150m per module. Since making a second copy of space hardware is considerably cheaper than developing it; a mission cost increase of about 1/3 to 1/2 significantly increases the probability of the DRO spacestation working. NASA will then have the dilemma of deciding whether to use or deorbit the LEO spacestation.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 12/18/2015 04:59 pm
The Habitation module is one of the critical links in the BEO exploration that has limited technical readiness.  The issues with habitation appear to fall under two primary issues for BEO human spaceflight: radiation and micro-gravity effects on humans, other issues of course are problems such as life support etc (see attached table).  While substantial work is expected to be done on the LEO ISS, the NRC suggests that a cis-lunar "lab" for evaluating technology and human physiology should be done outside the Earth's protective radiation belts -
"...there is a rising concern for understanding the interrelated effects of micro-gravity and the deep space environment. For this a laboratory Cis-Lunar space is ideal"

I believe that the Hab module development philosophy will be to develop first a laboratory for addressing these issues (following the MSFC three 60-day DRO) and then either discarded or retrofitted for more operational work such as assembling the Mars transport stack.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 12/18/2015 06:02 pm

Anything we send out to DRO (or EML-1/2) for human use needs its design thoroughly tested in LEO first. We can just about modify things in LEO but at DRO only minor repairs are possible.

I see your point but isn't ISS supposed to be the LEO test bed for hab module tech and design? Also we need to learn how to deal with situations where only minor repairs are possible. The best place to test that is in cis-lunar space.

Quote
If the modules mass about 20,000 kg then we can launch them to LEO for about $100m-$150m per module.

This module will be around 10-11mt max, not 20mt, if they want to co-manifest it with Orion. What we could see is a "pathfinder" module co-manifested with Orion on EM-2. It could serve as backup life support for Orion and be left in DRO to see how it functions (a lot like the Genesis modules or BEAM from Bigelow). The data we get from it could go into optimizing the DSH.

As you say it is much easier to make a second copy of space hardware which is why I favor Skylab II for both the lunar station and the Mars hab.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/19/2015 12:01 am

Anything we send out to DRO (or EML-1/2) for human use needs its design thoroughly tested in LEO first. We can just about modify things in LEO but at DRO only minor repairs are possible.

I see your point but isn't ISS supposed to be the LEO test bed for hab module tech and design? Also we need to learn how to deal with situations where only minor repairs are possible. The best place to test that is in cis-lunar space.

Where only minor repairs are possible the equipment needs to have a high Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF).  In LEO we can do major repairs/modification whilst testing the effects of micro-gravity, vacuum and wide temperature swings.

When the MTBF of the module exceeds 3 * 60 = 180 days we are ready to go from LEO to a cis-lunar orbit such as DRO.

Quote

Quote
If the modules mass about 20,000 kg then we can launch them to LEO for about $100m-$150m per module.

This module will be around 10-11mt max, not 20mt, if they want to co-manifest it with Orion. What we could see is a "pathfinder" module co-manifested with Orion on EM-2. It could serve as backup life support for Orion and be left in DRO to see how it functions (a lot like the Genesis modules or BEAM from Bigelow). The data we get from it could go into optimizing the DSH.

As you say it is much easier to make a second copy of space hardware which is why I favor Skylab II for both the lunar station and the Mars hab.


A lighter module can be lifted to LEO and the ISS by a smaller and cheaper launch vehicle.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Patchouli on 12/19/2015 03:39 pm
Out of the companies listed in the recent article, I hope the best for Boeing AND Bigleow. Their ideas offer the most volume. Cygnus from OrbitalATK is great experience, but even for a single astronaut a module based from that is a little small. Still I'm sure any of those 3 companies will generate a good idea. I favor the larger, single module, Skylab 2 plans to minimize launch needs.


I favor a Skylab 2 based solution as it provides the needed volume with a minimum of assembly and mass.

It should be more dynamically stable too as there are less joints to flex so you can use a large chemical or nuclear thermal based EDS and not worry about ripping it apart.

Though the ISS derived does have one big advantage you can test the parts piece meal and farm out lifting them to commercial entities.

Of course a combination of module sizes can be used as well.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/19/2015 04:40 pm
Out of the companies listed in the recent article, I hope the best for Boeing AND Bigleow. Their ideas offer the most volume. Cygnus from OrbitalATK is great experience, but even for a single astronaut a module based from that is a little small. Still I'm sure any of those 3 companies will generate a good idea. I favor the larger, single module, Skylab 2 plans to minimize launch needs.


I favor a Skylab 2 based solution as it provides the needed volume with a minimum of assembly and mass.

It should be more dynamically stable too as there are less joints to flex so you can use a large chemical or nuclear thermal based EDS and not worry about ripping it apart.

Though the ISS derived does have one big advantage you can test the parts piece meal and farm out lifting them to commercial entities.

Of course a combination of module sizes can be used as well.
The modular approach is not as affected so much by budget overruns and build delays. Each module can be built and flown as NASA can afford it. Use EAM to start with and slowly add to it gaining extra capabilities each mission.

A single large module can easily exceed schedule and budget, leaving Orion with no destination.
JWST is classic example.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/19/2015 07:36 pm
This module will be around 10-11mt max, not 20mt, if they want to co-manifest it with Orion.

Basing the hab architecture on whether it can be co-manifested with the Orion seems rather limiting.  The least expensive plan for NASA would be to contract with the private sector to not only build the hab, but to outfit it and deliver it where NASA wants it placed in space.  Then all NASA has to worry about is getting the Orion to it and carrying out whatever work they want to do there.

Quote
What we could see is a "pathfinder" module co-manifested with Orion on EM-2. It could serve as backup life support for Orion and be left in DRO to see how it functions (a lot like the Genesis modules or BEAM from Bigelow). The data we get from it could go into optimizing the DSH.

Co-manifesting a small hab module with the Orion is still a good idea, and it could even be a version of NASA's proposed Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV).  The Orion is really just meant for transportation to/from destinations in space, but the SEV is meant for doing work in space.  So hauling up new SEV's on each Orion would help to build up a nice capability at a BEO station.

Quote
As you say it is much easier to make a second copy of space hardware which is why I favor Skylab II for both the lunar station and the Mars hab.

1st stage rocket fuel tanks are not designed to be hab modules.  Hab modules are designed to be hab modules.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Patchouli on 12/20/2015 02:07 am
10mt seems too small for station modules unless you want to use inflatables.
You can use a small module like that to extend the duration of Orion and carry a few experiments but you're not going to be able to put a lot in there.
Really though seems to make SLS seem like a waste of money as a Delta IV heavy could easily put a 10mt module in the lunar vicinity.

BTW Sky lab was a converted S-IVB upper stage.

Skylab II on the other hand is only using the same tooling as the SLS EDS H2 tank so technically is not a converted rocket stage.

The closest thing to using a first stage as a station module I've seen was reusing the Shuttle ET.
The elephant in the room problem was the foam shedding making a mess though they probably knew that issue and had solutions.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: JasonAW3 on 12/20/2015 03:13 am
I have gotten the impression that Orbital Sciences is trying to push their extended Cygnus module as a potentile deep space module.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: the_other_Doug on 12/20/2015 03:55 am
I have gotten the impression that Orbital Sciences is trying to push their extended Cygnus module as a potentile deep space module.

I'm sure they are.  I know that I, for one, just don't feel like a Cygnus-sized module is large enough.  When packed with the stuff it would need to have to serve any serious support role, a Cygnus-sized vehicle doesn't provide very much free space.

I do think that a real requirement for extended BLEO trips will be sufficient personal space for each member of the crew.  My impression is that a packed Cygnus would barely give enough personal space to maintain sanity in a single crew member, much less help serve the needs of a crew of four or more.

Think of it this way -- four people start out in a large SUV.  They can't get out to stretch their legs, go to the bathroom, or -- maybe most importantly -- get away from the other three people for a little while, when you just need to that.  And then, after a while, you get to go, one or two at a time, into a large-ish walk-in closet and spend some time there.

And you do this for up to a year and a half, straight.

I just think this is not going to work.  I know it would not be tolerable for me, and I don't think my personal space requirements are all that unusual.  And no matter how motivated you might be to be going on something like a mission to Mars, bright-eyed motivation just isn't going to keep you going through 18 months or more with insufficient personal space.

That's one reason I'm in the Skylab II camp.  I think a DSH will need to provide elbow room, and a Skylab II based on the SLS tooling would provide that.  Inflatable modules, aka Bigelow products, might also be able to provide the needed personal space, so that's my backup position.  Either way, it will pay in the long run not to "cheap out" on the internal volume of the basic DSH design.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: sdsds on 12/20/2015 04:02 am
I have gotten the impression that Orbital Sciences is trying to push their extended Cygnus module as a potentile deep space module.

Yes, and it goes further than that. OA received a NASA NEXTStep award to develop the concept. See the November 13, 2015 article by Chris Gebhardt: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/nasa-progress-habitat-development-deep-space-exploration/

An image from the article of how they might go about it (several modules together) is attached.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/20/2015 04:16 am
Really though seems to make SLS seem like a waste of money as a Delta IV heavy could easily put a 10mt module in the lunar vicinity.

Yep.  Unless the SLS was hauling a bunch of them and pushing well beyond LEO.

Also, Delta IV Heavy will be EOL by that point (End Of Life).  Why wasn't Falcon Heavy assumed instead of Delta IV Heavy (or Vulcan)?  Falcon Heavy is a lot less expensive ($/kg), and it can push more than 50% more mass to GTO than Delta IV Heavy.

Just wondering...

Quote
BTW Sky lab was a converted S-IVB upper stage.

Yep.  A leftover asset that essentially was "free", so the compromises could be ignored.

Quote
Skylab II on the other hand is only using the same tooling as the SLS EDS H2 tank so technically is not a converted rocket stage.

So, you're not talking about this for the EAM?  Since none of the contracts awarded for the EAM would use SLS-derived habs.

There are basically two philosophies for how NASA moves out of LEO:

1.  NASA builds, owns and operates everything
2.  NASA only builds, owns and operates what the private sector can't or won't do

I think #2 is the only affordable path, which means there are going to be a lot of commercial solutions that are tried out and ultimately built in volume.  It's very unlikely that any of those ultimate solutions would want to rely on government tooling and government assets unless it was mandated - and that doesn't look like it's going to happen with the direction the EAM is taking.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/20/2015 08:28 am
Attached is the SLS missions is from LEAG 2014 (Lunar Exploration Analysis Group) and Orbitals EAM concepts for Cygnus, I've renamed the files.

For Lunar DRO missions the Orion would dock with EAM or DSH module or supply module and deliver it to DRO.

A 4 segment Cygnus EAM would have about 26m2 of pressurized space with gas, water consumables and waste storage in one unpressurized section. The EAM is only for 50-60day missions in cis lunar space.

For initial missions building on the EAM is a quick easy way to get habitat in DRO. If the consumables in EAM can't be replenished a new EAM will have to be used each mission, but the old EAM can still be used as additional room. Eventually the older EAMs can be separated and used for garage disposal or repurposed eg communications relay in a different lunar orbit. 
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Oli on 12/20/2015 09:18 am
Relevant paper:

Concept of Operations for a Prospective "Proving Ground" in the Lunar Vicinity

Quote from: Abstract
NASA is studying a "Proving Ground" near the Moon to conduct human space exploration missions in preparation for future flights to Mars. This paper describes a concept of operations ("conops") for activities in the Proving Ground, focusing on the construction and use of a mobile Cislunar Transit Habitat capable of months-long excursions within and beyond the Earth-Moon system. Key elements in the conops include the Orion spacecraft (with mission kits for docking and other specialized operations) and the Space Launch System heavy-lift rocket. Potential additions include commercial launch vehicles and logistics carriers, solar electric propulsion stages to move elements between different orbits and eventually take them on excursions to deep space, a node module with multiple docking ports, habitation and life support blocks, and international robotic and piloted lunar landers. The landers might include reusable ascent modules which could remain docked to in-space elements between lunar sorties. The architecture will include infrastructure for launch preparation, communication, mission control, and range safety. The conops describes "case studies" of notional missions chosen to guide the design of the architecture and its elements. One such mission is the delivery of a ~10-ton pressurized element, co-manifested with an Orion on a Block 1B Space Launch System rocket, to the Proving Ground. With a large solar electric propulsion stage, the architecture could enable a year-long mission to land humans on a near-Earth asteroid. In the last case, after returning to near-lunar space, two of the asteroid explorers could join two crewmembers freshly arrived from Earth for a Moon landing, helping to safely quantify the risk of landing deconditioned crews on Mars. The conops also discusses aborts and contingency operations. Early return to Earth may be difficult, especially during later Proving Ground missions. While adding risk, limited-abort conditions provide needed practice for Mars, from which early return is likely to be impossible.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/20/2015 02:18 pm
I have gotten the impression that Orbital Sciences is trying to push their extended Cygnus module as a potentile deep space module.

Yes, and it goes further than that. OA received a NASA NEXTStep award to develop the concept. See the November 13, 2015 article by Chris Gebhardt: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/nasa-progress-habitat-development-deep-space-exploration/

An image from the article of how they might go about it (several modules together) is attached.

The standard Cygnus is ~4 feet longer than my kitchen so should make a good galley. The insides can be fitted on the ground and added to a spacestation or form one of the modules of a rotating transfer spacecraft.

I only keep a few days supply of food in my kitchen so consumables like food and water will need storing in a second module.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: the_other_Doug on 12/20/2015 02:37 pm
I only keep a few days supply of food in my kitchen so consumables like food and water will need storing in a second module.

Exactly.  And if you have to launch four to six Cygnus modules to provide the same amount of personal space and consumables storage space as you can get in a single Skylab II, what does that do to the economics of using smaller modules?

In other words, would not four to six FH or DIV or Vulcan launches cost more than a single SLS launch?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/20/2015 03:16 pm
I only keep a few days supply of food in my kitchen so consumables like food and water will need storing in a second module.

Exactly.  And if you have to launch four to six Cygnus modules to provide the same amount of personal space and consumables storage space as you can get in a single Skylab II, what does that do to the economics of using smaller modules?

I think you're getting ahead of the curve here.  What NASA is currently proposing is a pathfinder, not a final solution.  You can't build a final solution until you have validated your assumptions, which in this case for NASA means figuring out what is a sustainable operational tempo beyond LEO, how many personnel do they need, what are they going to be doing, what technical challenges need to be addressed and solved, etc. etc.

Making a commitment on a new type of space station (which is what the Skylab II is) would be a make or break situation for NASA - a potential financial quagmire that stops any positive forward progress.  And so far NASA has only been allocated "no less than $55M".

Quote
In other words, would not four to six FH or DIV or Vulcan launches cost more than a single SLS launch?

We know that Delta IV Heavy has been quoted to be $450M in the past, and that ULA has stated that Vulcan will cost less and do more (eventually).  Falcon Heavy was listed as $135M when they were last displaying the 53mT price, and if that price didn't change then 6ea flights would cost $810M.

We don't know what an SLS costs (and let's not debate that here), but keep in mind that with the ISS NASA likes to have frequent deliveries of supplies in order to quickly address current situations on the ISS - and the crew prefers fresh food over non-fresh food (an important morale factor too), so if anything having to rely on a single delivery (i.e. with a Skylab II) over the course of a year or more is not an advantage.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: the_other_Doug on 12/20/2015 04:04 pm
I only keep a few days supply of food in my kitchen so consumables like food and water will need storing in a second module.

Exactly.  And if you have to launch four to six Cygnus modules to provide the same amount of personal space and consumables storage space as you can get in a single Skylab II, what does that do to the economics of using smaller modules?

I think you're getting ahead of the curve here.  What NASA is currently proposing is a pathfinder, not a final solution.  You can't build a final solution until you have validated your assumptions, which in this case for NASA means figuring out what is a sustainable operational tempo beyond LEO, how many personnel do they need, what are they going to be doing, what technical challenges need to be addressed and solved, etc. etc.

Making a commitment on a new type of space station (which is what the Skylab II is) would be a make or break situation for NASA - a potential financial quagmire that stops any positive forward progress.  And so far NASA has only been allocated "no less than $55M".

Quote
In other words, would not four to six FH or DIV or Vulcan launches cost more than a single SLS launch?

We know that Delta IV Heavy has been quoted to be $450M in the past, and that ULA has stated that Vulcan will cost less and do more (eventually).  Falcon Heavy was listed as $135M when they were last displaying the 53mT price, and if that price didn't change then 6ea flights would cost $810M.

We don't know what an SLS costs (and let's not debate that here), but keep in mind that with the ISS NASA likes to have frequent deliveries of supplies in order to quickly address current situations on the ISS - and the crew prefers fresh food over non-fresh food (an important morale factor too), so if anything having to rely on a single delivery (i.e. with a Skylab II) over the course of a year or more is not an advantage.

I hear you, and I agree with a lot of what you're saying.  And I don't doubt that a Cygnus-sized resupply/logistics module will be used as part of the architecture.  As ISS experience has shown, they make great resupply vehicles.

You're right, I'm probably ahead of the curve, here.  I'm thinking that Cygnus-sized cans will make wonderful supply closets.  But I also think they will eventually have to be attached to hab modules that provide more personal space than just sticking together five or six supply closets.

That doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to develop and fly the supply closets, maybe even before you get to the point of even designing your main habitation module(s).  I'm arguing against only developing the closets and declaring you're ready to fly them to Mars without any additional, larger, hab modules in the transit stack.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 12/20/2015 04:04 pm
I only keep a few days supply of food in my kitchen so consumables like food and water will need storing in a second module.

Exactly.  And if you have to launch four to six Cygnus modules to provide the same amount of personal space and consumables storage space as you can get in a single Skylab II, what does that do to the economics of using smaller modules?

In other words, would not four to six FH or DIV or Vulcan launches cost more than a single SLS launch?

There are costs other than launch costs that could be addressed such as acquisition, development, testing, transportation and no one has mentioned what the mission is(i.e. how long does this habitat need to support crew?).

Cygnus for instance already has systems that could simply be beefed up for the environment, Skylab II would require a lot more systems to be developed. In addition you may not need an large station for the mission that is proposed. An inflatables can give an lot of volume for the amount of mass. In addition supporting the commercial industry is important if NASA is ever to get anywhere in the solar system(they can not do everything themselves and eventually Skylab II will need resupply.)
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: rayleighscatter on 12/20/2015 05:07 pm

Also, Delta IV Heavy will be EOL by that point (End Of Life).  Why wasn't Falcon Heavy assumed instead of Delta IV Heavy (or Vulcan)?  Falcon Heavy is a lot less expensive ($/kg), and it can push more than 50% more mass to GTO than Delta IV Heavy.

Just wondering...

Probably because when they formulated it Delta IV was the largest rocket they had complete data for (it probably still is too). It's not actual selection of a launch vehicle either, it just acts a a placeholder for (then) current capabilities. Presumably the assumption is that when Delta IV Heavy goes away there will be alternatives by the 2020's.



On another note, has it been said whether the money earmarked for the module is designed for a long lasting module for a station-like use or a short term module for use with individual missions? Or has it not been clarified yet?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/20/2015 07:55 pm
I have gotten the impression that Orbital Sciences is trying to push their extended Cygnus module as a potentile deep space module.

I'm sure they are.  I know that I, for one, just don't feel like a Cygnus-sized module is large enough....
The module they're considering would be about twice the size of the original Cygnus, which was already about the same as Orion (18-20m^3). A double-sized Cygnus with the ability to add more (via berthing ports) sounds like a very good, ultra-cheap but scalable architecture to me.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: redliox on 12/20/2015 08:00 pm
I have gotten the impression that Orbital Sciences is trying to push their extended Cygnus module as a potentile deep space module.

I'm sure they are.  I know that I, for one, just don't feel like a Cygnus-sized module is large enough....
The module they're considering would be about twice the size of the original Cygnus, which was already about the same as Orion (18-20m^3). A double-sized Cygnus with the ability to add more (via berthing ports) sounds like a very good, ultra-cheap but scalable architecture to me.

A larger version of Cygnus would be enough to warrant some use, just not from the current version which is still a bit cramp and best for cargo lugging.  I favor the Skylab 2 option but something like Cygnus I wouldn't turn down either.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Oli on 12/20/2015 08:15 pm

I don't think the size of the aluminium can is particularly relevant. What is inside is more important/expensive.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/20/2015 09:53 pm
A double-sized Cygnus with the ability to add more (via berthing ports) sounds like a very good, ultra-cheap but scalable architecture to me.

Ultra-cheap and scalable means fast iteration using the private sector.  And fast iteration means we can get out into space much quicker than we can today - with today meaning we have to wait 18 years for a new government crew vehicle to become operational.

The U.S. private space sector is just doing amazing stuff today.  I just hope funding streams to support increasing our activity levels in space can be found... NASA funding won't be enough.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/20/2015 10:16 pm

I don't think the size of the aluminium can is particularly relevant. What is inside is more important/expensive.
EAM will have at least life support and toilet/shower. Ideally they will use same systems as Orion allowing for one set of spares.


Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: KelvinZero on 12/20/2015 10:21 pm
What sort of commonality can there be between this 60-day EAM and what we need to support a crew for a phobos mission (2-3 years, arbitrarily longer if we stay)?

At first I thought 60 days sounds horrible and just a guarantee that you will have to start from scratch before beginning to develop confidence in the actual hardware that you need, but perhaps this could still fit the basic lifesupport systems. Extra volume and extra consumables for the LS could perhaps be added on as separate modules? I could also imagine multiple EAM docked to a single living area. Obviously you can't do this if say there is some filter whose size restricts its use to 60 days and can cannot be replaced except by technicians on earth.

IMO if it is just another part of the learning process, that is what we have the ISS for. I would prefer a shoddy attempt at the actual final product we can keep evolving than an excellent example of something we can't use.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Bob Shaw on 12/20/2015 10:39 pm
Has anyone yet considered what is to be done with Skylab 2 / Deep Space Habitat's garbage?

No access to fiery re-entries or the original Skylab's O2 tank for junk, and a fair amount of stuff being generated every day means that it's all got to go somewhere. Or can we re-use the waste (even as radiation protection) and wash clothing in an attempt to approach a win/win?

Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/20/2015 10:57 pm
Has anyone yet considered what is to be done with Skylab 2 / Deep Space Habitat's garbage?

No access to fiery re-entries or the original Skylab's O2 tank for junk, and a fair amount of stuff being generated every day means that it's all got to go somewhere. Or can we re-use the waste (even as radiation protection) and wash clothing in an attempt to approach a win/win?



Put a berthing port on the side of the spacestation. Berth a Cygnus or BEAM to the port and use as a trash can. When full add a propulsion module and fire the trash can into either the Moon or the Earth's atmosphere. Since it does not need to slow down the delta-v may be less than 2 km/s.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/20/2015 11:13 pm
What sort of commonality can there be between this 60-day EAM and what we need to support a crew for a phobos mission (2-3 years, arbitrarily longer if we stay)?

At first I thought 60 days sounds horrible and just a guarantee that you will have to start from scratch before beginning to develop confidence in the actual hardware that you need, but perhaps this could still fit the basic lifesupport systems. Extra volume and extra consumables for the LS could perhaps be added on as separate modules? I could also imagine multiple EAM docked to a single living area. Obviously you can't do this if say there is some filter whose size restricts its use to 60 days and can cannot be replaced except by technicians on earth.

IMO if it is just another part of the learning process, that is what we have the ISS for. I would prefer a shoddy attempt at the actual final product we can keep evolving than an excellent example of something we can't use.
Here is how I see it.

There 3 different habitats and missions and developed in this order.
1) EAM for 60day missions, open loop life support. Disposable?. Maybe as simple as fitting Orion systems to stretched Cygnus.

2) DSH a permanent station in cislunar space with closed ECLSS.
A modular design is not as mass efficient as large single module but this is not big issue if DSH is staying same location. Also allows it to be assembled over multiple missions. Given the list of possible uses for this station a modular approach maybe best as it doesn't limit final design.

3) Mars transit habitat which will use DSH proven ECLSS and other systems. Mass is critical in this case so design would favour large single module.

Standard cargo Cygnus could take care of garbage disposal, by heading into deep space or a stable lunar orbit.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/21/2015 04:09 am
Here is how I see it.

There 3 different habitats and missions and developed in this order.
1) EAM for 60day missions, open loop life support. Disposable?. Maybe as simple as fitting Orion systems to stretched Cygnus.

2) DSH a permanent station in cislunar space with closed ECLSS.
A modular design is not as mass efficient as large single module but this is not big issue if DSH is staying same location. Also allows it to be assembled over multiple missions. Given the list of possible uses for this station a modular approach maybe best as it doesn't limit final design.

Who says being "mass efficient" is the prime concern?  The lack of money has been the biggest factor in our not leaving LEO in over 40 years, not how "mass efficient" we have or have not been.  So I would say being "cost efficient" is the prime concern, and cost has many sub-components such as time, complexity, architectural approach, etc.

Quote
3) Mars transit habitat which will use DSH proven ECLSS and other systems. Mass is critical in this case so design would favour large single module.

I think the saying "train the way you play" is pretty relevant.  We have wide experience with modular space architectures (ISS for us, as well as Salyut, Mir and Tiangong), and NASA plans to extend that with EAM.  They are successful for a number of reasons such as cost, flexibility, etc.

We have no real experience with monolithic exploration architectures (Skylab was a one-off space station 40 years ago), so validating such structures will take years before we are ready to use them in operational environments.  And because of their size and complexity they will be more risky from a cost perspective.  Plus you typically only consolidate features once you've understood the advantages to be gained, and as of today I don't think we really know whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: QuantumG on 12/21/2015 04:12 am
The lack of money has been the biggest factor in our not leaving LEO in over 40 years

There's been plenty of money, more than any other space agency in the world, just a lack of will.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/21/2015 06:18 am
This from Spacenews article on NASA funding approval.

The bill’s report also sets aside exploration funding for a key element of NASA’s future deep space exploration plans, a habitat module. The report specifies NASA spend “not less than” $55 million on a “habitat augmentation module,” with a goal of having the prototype of such a module completed by 2018. NASA is currently funding several small studies of such modules, and has discussed developing a habitat that could be flown in cislunar space in the 2020s for missions lasting up to a year. - See more at: http://spacenews.com/nasa-receives-19-3-billion-in-final-2016-spending-bill/#sthash.Ul5pQmIs.dpuf

I'm not sure what they mean by a prototype, is this for ground or does it fly even if it is just to LEO?.

A Cygnus based EAM could combine a LEO test flight with a CRS mission. Commercial crew vehicles could also be used in the test flight, in combination with their normal ISS mission.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/23/2015 02:44 am
The lack of money has been the biggest factor in our not leaving LEO in over 40 years

There's been plenty of money, more than any other space agency in the world, just a lack of will.

The will to spend the money then.  When the George H.W. Bush trotted out the $600B estimate for Mars Congress clearly did not have the will to spend the money.  Same could be said when the Congress in 2010 decided that they didn't want to allocate the additional money needed for the Constellation program.

But while NASA, if given a blank check from politicians that were disinterested in what they did with it, could go far in space, if the politicians have the will to go far in space (which some claim today) but don't allocate the money, NASA's not going anywhere.

My $0.02
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 12/23/2015 04:32 pm
I only keep a few days supply of food in my kitchen so consumables like food and water will need storing in a second module.

Exactly.  And if you have to launch four to six Cygnus modules to provide the same amount of personal space and consumables storage space as you can get in a single Skylab II, what does that do to the economics of using smaller modules?

In other words, would not four to six FH or DIV or Vulcan launches cost more than a single SLS launch?

There are costs other than launch costs that could be addressed such as acquisition, development, testing, transportation and no one has mentioned what the mission is(i.e. how long does this habitat need to support crew?).

Cygnus for instance already has systems that could simply be beefed up for the environment, Skylab II would require a lot more systems to be developed. In addition you may not need an large station for the mission that is proposed. An inflatables can give an lot of volume for the amount of mass. In addition supporting the commercial industry is important if NASA is ever to get anywhere in the solar system(they can not do everything themselves and eventually Skylab II will need resupply.)
NASA and the NRC have put together requirements for a cis-lunar facility - 4 astronauts, three 60 day missions;
please see table 3 of "SLS-Derived Lab, Precursor Deep Space Human Exploration, by Brand N. Griffin et al, 2015"
also for a 60 day mission, each astronaut will need roughly 15m^3.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 12/23/2015 09:11 pm
I only keep a few days supply of food in my kitchen so consumables like food and water will need storing in a second module.

Exactly.  And if you have to launch four to six Cygnus modules to provide the same amount of personal space and consumables storage space as you can get in a single Skylab II, what does that do to the economics of using smaller modules?

In other words, would not four to six FH or DIV or Vulcan launches cost more than a single SLS launch?

There are costs other than launch costs that could be addressed such as acquisition, development, testing, transportation and no one has mentioned what the mission is(i.e. how long does this habitat need to support crew?).

Cygnus for instance already has systems that could simply be beefed up for the environment, Skylab II would require a lot more systems to be developed. In addition you may not need an large station for the mission that is proposed. An inflatables can give an lot of volume for the amount of mass. In addition supporting the commercial industry is important if NASA is ever to get anywhere in the solar system(they can not do everything themselves and eventually Skylab II will need resupply.)
NASA and the NRC have put together requirements for a cis-lunar facility - 4 astronauts, three 60 day missions;
please see table 3 of "SLS-Derived Lab, Precursor Deep Space Human Exploration, by Brand N. Griffin et al, 2015"
also for a 60 day mission, each astronaut will need roughly 15m^3.
The super 4 segment Cygnus would have 33.5 in an single module, so just one docking of an additional module would easily provide the space. An enhanced Cygnus  resupply could support an crew of 4 for 60 days. Not counting what other commercial resupply craft could be offered.

These craft could share parts and workforce with the LEO craft resulting in reduced costs for both.

Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Steam Chaser on 12/29/2015 01:25 am
This from Spacenews article on NASA funding approval.

The bill’s report also sets aside exploration funding for a key element of NASA’s future deep space exploration plans, a habitat module. The report specifies NASA spend “not less than” $55 million on a “habitat augmentation module,” with a goal of having the prototype of such a module completed by 2018. NASA is currently funding several small studies of such modules, and has discussed developing a habitat that could be flown in cislunar space in the 2020s for missions lasting up to a year. - See more at: http://spacenews.com/nasa-receives-19-3-billion-in-final-2016-spending-bill/#sthash.Ul5pQmIs.dpuf

I'm not sure what they mean by a prototype, is this for ground or does it fly even if it is just to LEO?.

A Cygnus based EAM could combine a LEO test flight with a CRS mission. Commercial crew vehicles could also be used in the test flight, in combination with their normal ISS mission.

Here's another Space News article with more on the Habitat Module language in the omnibus spending bill:

http://spacenews.com/spending-bill-to-accelerate-nasa-habitation-module-work/

The second paragraph below will probably raise a few eyebrows, if not wails of despair:

"One of the decisions facing NASA will be who will build the habitation module. Companies like Bigelow are interested in providing the module for NASA, leveraging technologies that could be also used commercially, such as for space stations that could succeed the International Space Station.

Scimemi, though, suggested that NASA might decide to build the habitation module internally. Asked at the luncheon who could build the module, he said, “I want to build it.”"
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/29/2015 05:51 am
<snip>
Here's another Space News article with more on the Habitat Module language in the omnibus spending bill:

http://spacenews.com/spending-bill-to-accelerate-nasa-habitation-module-work/

The second paragraph below will probably raise a few eyebrows, if not wails of despair:

"One of the decisions facing NASA will be who will build the habitation module. Companies like Bigelow are interested in providing the module for NASA, leveraging technologies that could be also used commercially, such as for space stations that could succeed the International Space Station.

Scimemi, though, suggested that NASA might decide to build the habitation module internally. Asked at the luncheon who could build the module, he said, “I want to build it.”"
More likely wails of despair for another internal NASA mega project. ::)
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/29/2015 05:58 am
This from Spacenews article on NASA funding approval.

The bill’s report also sets aside exploration funding for a key element of NASA’s future deep space exploration plans, a habitat module. The report specifies NASA spend “not less than” $55 million on a “habitat augmentation module,” with a goal of having the prototype of such a module completed by 2018. NASA is currently funding several small studies of such modules, and has discussed developing a habitat that could be flown in cislunar space in the 2020s for missions lasting up to a year. - See more at: http://spacenews.com/nasa-receives-19-3-billion-in-final-2016-spending-bill/#sthash.Ul5pQmIs.dpuf

I'm not sure what they mean by a prototype, is this for ground or does it fly even if it is just to LEO?.

A Cygnus based EAM could combine a LEO test flight with a CRS mission. Commercial crew vehicles could also be used in the test flight, in combination with their normal ISS mission.

Here's another Space News article with more on the Habitat Module language in the omnibus spending bill:

http://spacenews.com/spending-bill-to-accelerate-nasa-habitation-module-work/

The second paragraph below will probably raise a few eyebrows, if not wails of despair:

"One of the decisions facing NASA will be who will build the habitation module. Companies like Bigelow are interested in providing the module for NASA, leveraging technologies that could be also used commercially, such as for space stations that could succeed the International Space Station.

Scimemi, though, suggested that NASA might decide to build the habitation module internally. Asked at the luncheon who could build the module, he said, “I want to build it.”"
One way to make sure it cost $Bs instead of $100Ms and takes 10 years to develop.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 12/29/2015 03:31 pm
It's discouraging that NASA wants to build the augmentation module itself. It proves that NASA still doesn't want to let go and won't do so unless it is forced.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: QuantumG on 12/29/2015 10:43 pm
One way to make sure it cost $Bs instead of $100Ms and takes 10 years to develop.

Like commercial crew?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Robotbeat on 12/30/2015 02:48 am
I'm at least glad Congress is funding an actual payload instead of only more cash for SLS.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/30/2015 04:32 am
One way to make sure it cost $Bs instead of $100Ms and takes 10 years to develop.

Like commercial crew?
CC may not be cheap but it runs to budget (once bids are accepted) and time compared to Orion/SLS and JWST.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: b0objunior on 12/30/2015 04:46 am
One way to make sure it cost $Bs instead of $100Ms and takes 10 years to develop.

Like commercial crew?
CC may not be cheap but it runs to budget (once bids are accepted) and time compared to Orion/SLS and JWST.

Please, JWST is on budget and on time right now. Don't trow everything under the bus.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: AncientU on 12/30/2015 12:41 pm
One way to make sure it cost $Bs instead of $100Ms and takes 10 years to develop.

Like commercial crew?
CC may not be cheap but it runs to budget (once bids are accepted) and time compared to Orion/SLS and JWST.

Please, JWST is on budget and on time right now. Don't trow everything under the bus.

That's hilarious!  Or sad.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 12/30/2015 02:47 pm
One way to make sure it cost $Bs instead of $100Ms and takes 10 years to develop.

Like commercial crew?

COTS would be a better model for the augmentation module than commercial crew. Commercial crew was a compromise between a commercial program and a government one. It's better than a purely governmental program but the COTS model should have been followed for commercial crew until the end. Certification for commercial crew has added cost and delays to the program.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: b0objunior on 12/30/2015 02:58 pm
One way to make sure it cost $Bs instead of $100Ms and takes 10 years to develop.

Like commercial crew?
CC may not be cheap but it runs to budget (once bids are accepted) and time compared to Orion/SLS and JWST.

Please, JWST is on budget and on time right now. Don't trow everything under the bus.

That's hilarious!  Or sad.

OK, hum... Well since 2011 the program as been on time and on budget with what congress as given them. If we go back to 2005, sure, but right now I'm not seeing a program that always going over the barriers it as been given. And if you want JWST to fail just to prove your point, that's your problem, not mine. For me, I've been following the program and they're are making huge progress on time and on budget.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/30/2015 02:59 pm
One way to make sure it cost $Bs instead of $100Ms and takes 10 years to develop.

Like commercial crew?

COTS would be a better model for the augmentation module than commercial crew. Commercial crew was a compromise between a commercial program and a government one. It's better than a purely governmental program but the COTS model should have been followed for commercial crew until the end. Certification for commercial crew had added cost and delays to the program.
COTS may not work for EAM as NASA will dictate a lot of systems especially live support. One of driving forces is having common spares that astronaut can change between Orion and EAM.

ISS turned into spares nightmare as there are so many different systems. One example was 60 different fans.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 12/30/2015 03:13 pm
It's normal to have some requirements. But commercial crew had too much oversight in my opinion. In any event, I suspect that there would still be some certification requirements as there was for CRS/COTS.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: bad_astra on 12/30/2015 03:50 pm

Please, JWST is on budget and on time right now. Don't trow everything under the bus.

I am looking for a sarcasm tag and not finding one. The goal posts have been moved so many times on JWST that it would take the JWST to see where they've wound up. Recursive error.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: QuantumG on 12/30/2015 09:34 pm
I think we just need to admit that COTS/CRS was an anomaly. Attempts to repeat it will be met with failure.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 12/30/2015 11:58 pm
One way to make sure it cost $Bs instead of $100Ms and takes 10 years to develop.

Like commercial crew?

COTS would be a better model for the augmentation module than commercial crew. Commercial crew was a compromise between a commercial program and a government one. It's better than a purely governmental program but the COTS model should have been followed for commercial crew until the end. Certification for commercial crew had added cost and delays to the program.
COTS may not work for EAM as NASA will dictate a lot of systems especially live support. One of driving forces is having common spares that astronaut can change between Orion and EAM.

ISS turned into spares nightmare as there are so many different systems. One example was 60 different fans.
One of the problems of life support is that the systems are dictaed by things like duration of the mission, power and space available. This means that an life support system built for orion maybe less than ideal for an mission built for something more long term.  I.e. Water recycling makes more sense on long missions. Sure some commonality could be good, but that commonality could be supplied by having standards.


It also points to an Skylab type mission of disposablilty and great difficulty following it up. I hope not.

Extending resupply further out could be used for future missions.  Cots is an way to get the supporting infrastructure of space without nasa having to keep funding it 100%. These systems could find commercial uses and lower the cost going out. Mars is many years away and nasa is not likely to be in position to build an Mars habits if it must solely support and build every single craft needed. An hab could be built for both the LEO environment as well as BEO. Methods could be found for keeping such an habits both in production and development if outside funding is possible.

I.e. an Cygnus supply craft or an Bigelow station.


Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: sdsds on 12/31/2015 12:55 am
I think we just need to admit that COTS/CRS was an anomaly. Attempts to repeat it will be met with failure.

I understand your pessimism. Although a repeat seems unlikely, an extension seems like the kind of thing a government agency might readily do. So sure, a deep-space habitat might be off the table, but resupply of a deep-space habitat might be something to which NASA might "naturally" extend the COTS/CRS model....
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: QuantumG on 12/31/2015 01:14 am
CRS-2 isn't even CRS-like, let alone COTS-like.

Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/31/2015 01:21 am
CRS-2 isn't even CRS-like, let alone COTS-like.

COTS was the development part of course, and CRS is the service part, and CRS-2 doesn't need any development.

How is CRS-2 different than the current CRS?  Both cover deliveries, but you must be referencing some other aspect of the contracts?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/31/2015 01:42 am
So sure, a deep-space habitat might be off the table, but resupply of a deep-space habitat might be something to which NASA might "naturally" extend the COTS/CRS model....

An interesting question.

COTS was needed so that NASA could validate the cargo spacecraft, ensure they could safely operate in the vicinity of the ISS and berth, and that there were no issues with the ISS crew using the vehicles.  COTS did not really cover the "how do the cargo spacecraft get to the ISS" part though.

So if NASA places a human-rated space station beyond LEO, I'm not sure another COTS program would be needed if the cargo spacecraft being bid are the same ones that are already approved for the ISS - they are already rated for NASA operations.  Maybe there would be some minor issues to work out, but I can't see the need for an entirely new COTS program to handle that, it would just be part of the delivery contract.

And to a certain degree that might be the situation with a commercial crew spacecraft for beyond LEO operations too, if it is from one of the companies that is already certified to deliver crew to the ISS (which for now would only be Boeing & SpaceX).  Even if the spacecraft are different than what will be used for the ISS, NASA might have enough confidence/history with the private sector to not have to go through a new commercial crew development program.  Of course NASA plans to use the Orion, but as a backup...
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 12/31/2015 01:51 am
CRS-2 isn't even CRS-like, let alone COTS-like.

In what sense? There is more requirements under CRS2 than under CRS1?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: QuantumG on 12/31/2015 02:00 am
CRS-2 isn't even CRS-like, let alone COTS-like.

In what sense?

In the sense of political game playing, delays and deals.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: woods170 on 12/31/2015 07:44 am
I think we just need to admit that COTS/CRS was an anomaly. Attempts to repeat it will be met with failure.

CRS-2 isn't even CRS-like, let alone COTS-like.
In what sense?
In the sense of political game playing, delays and deals.


You might wanna tone-down on your sure's and will's. Adding 'IMO' in your writing would be so much more helpfull in the conversation.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/31/2015 02:53 pm
The current set of contracts for exploration of habitat ideas from industry sources predates the increased funding. So the question becomes does NASA start an actual PO (program office even if it consists of 2 people: program director and assistant director) to then start specific development program plans: contracting development method (CTOS like or directed or NASA as integrator) and program goals setting (the habitats requirements: size, radiation shielding levels, max weight[a target to shoot for], life cycle[reliability and duration levels], etc...)?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 12/31/2015 03:23 pm
The current set of contracts for exploration of habitat ideas from industry sources predates the increased funding. So the question becomes does NASA start an actual PO (program office even if it consists of 2 people: program director and assistant director) to then start specific development program plans: contracting development method (CTOS like or directed or NASA as integrator) and program goals setting (the habitats requirements: size, radiation shielding levels, max weight[a target to shoot for], life cycle[reliability and duration levels], etc...)?
Really relevant  questions about the potential management structure and if and when will an Office be rolled out.  Further, many of the requirements and constraints for a cis-lunar hab. have been published in the open literature but a good question is - will these goals, objectives  etc. be used in the Habitation Augmentation Module funding.  If MSFC criteria is used then the answer is most likely yes - but this remains to be seen.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: AncientU on 12/31/2015 10:06 pm
The real discriminator is whether the architecture will be used to further justify SLS (co-manifest constrained architecture) and keep the work in-house ("I want to build it.")

OR

Use commercial assets such as BA-330 and docked/berthed resupply vehicles such as Cygnus -- this is my preferred architecture -- which will be substantially cheaper and available sooner. (Caution: This option could be done completely without Orion and SLS.)

IMO, the former option will be followed by NASA and be cheered loudly by certain members of Congress. 

The latter will be done (or be largely prototyped) by private sector by 2018 and will negate the need for the former.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 01/01/2016 05:01 am

Use commercial assets such as BA-330 and docked/berthed resupply vehicles such as Cygnus -- this is my preferred architecture -- which will be substantially cheaper and available sooner. (Caution: This option could be done completely without Orion and SLS.)

Actually you would need SLS/Orion for that architecture. You need SLS to deliver the BA-330 to cislunar space (it is around 20 mt empty which means FH cannot lift it even in expendable mode). You also need SLS/Orion to deliver crew.

I completely agree with upgrading Cygnus and Dragon to BEO cargo vehicles and using FH or Vulcan to launch them to resupply the deep space hab (be that Skylab II or a Bigelow module).

If we followed the above architecture both Old Space and New Space would have skin in the game and instead of fighting each other and delaying progress they could band together to solidify support for BEO exploration and exploitation.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: AncientU on 01/01/2016 02:51 pm

Use commercial assets such as BA-330 and docked/berthed resupply vehicles such as Cygnus -- this is my preferred architecture -- which will be substantially cheaper and available sooner. (Caution: This option could be done completely without Orion and SLS.)

Actually you would need SLS/Orion for that architecture. You need SLS to deliver the BA-330 to cislunar space (it is around 20 mt empty which means FH cannot lift it even in expendable mode). You also need SLS/Orion to deliver crew.

I completely agree with upgrading Cygnus and Dragon to BEO cargo vehicles and using FH or Vulcan to launch them to resupply the deep space hab (be that Skylab II or a Bigelow module).

If we followed the above architecture both Old Space and New Space would have skin in the game and instead of fighting each other and delaying progress they could band together to solidify support for BEO exploration and exploitation.

Don't believe that there is a boundary line between LEO which NASA gave to commercial, and BEO which only NASA has the chops to explore.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 01/01/2016 03:33 pm
I would argue that anything up to the distance of Lunar Orbit is at least hypothetically within range and within competence of commercial crewed spaceflight providers to reach. This is because the hard work was all done in the 1950s and 1960s how to reach and sustain operations at this distance.

It is going beyond the limits of the Earth/Moon system that's difficult because it's never been done by anyone. NASA's only real claim to primacy at these distances is a theoretically-unlimited R&D budget to confront the problems of crews getting and working there.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: rcoppola on 01/01/2016 04:25 pm
The current set of contracts for exploration of habitat ideas from industry sources predates the increased funding. So the question becomes does NASA start an actual PO (program office even if it consists of 2 people: program director and assistant director) to then start specific development program plans: contracting development method (CTOS like or directed or NASA as integrator) and program goals setting (the habitats requirements: size, radiation shielding levels, max weight[a target to shoot for], life cycle[reliability and duration levels], etc...)?
Absolutely agree. I suspect this first part will be hotly debated and fought for within NASA first. We already have the ISS director saying "He" wants to build it. That is most definitely not how this should work. Frankly, that comment gives me great pause. Before he thinks he can, perhaps he should figure out if he should?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Oli on 01/01/2016 04:53 pm

There's absolutely no reason not to co-manifest payloads on Orion flights, whatever the payloads may be.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: the_other_Doug on 01/01/2016 05:20 pm
In general, there is not historically a dividing line where something is built directly by NASA vs. being built by a contractor.  With some exceptions (mostly involving the Marshall Space Flight Center and the JPL), NASA doesn't build a lot of things.  They let contracts for commercial providers to build them, and then take possession of them once they're built and ready to fly.  This was the huge paradigm shift that happened when NACA became NASA in 1958 -- moving from building everything in-house to letting contracts to have industry build things for them.  The big put-down by old Langley hands when they ran across members of Gilruth's Space Task Force back in the old days was "Let any good contracts today?"

NASA will never just go to industry and say "Hey, if you build something like a DSH, we'll buy some off the shelf from you."  As we've seen with Commercial Crew, NASA will have a lot of say in the design and development of any spacecraft they buy from a provider (or else there would never need to be design reviews, eh?).  For the foreseeable future, commercial providers like SpaceX and Bigelow will continue to occupy much the same role as earlier NASA contractors, especially during design, development and construction.

Some people are misled, I believe, about how a DSH contract would run because they are comparing it to launch and transportation service contracts let with ULA, SpaceX and Orbital/ATK, where they do something approaching "buying a rocket or spacecraft off the shelf" to perform a launch or transportation service.  With such things, you can to some extent buy off the shelf -- especially after you've had a good deal of say in the design reviews.  NASA and DoD have to certify any service provider before they can be contracted to perform that service, after all, so even when the government buys off the shelf, they still require adherence to specific design and performance requirements.  (And even then, they normally buy tailored services -- every Atlas, Falcon, Dragon, Cygnus, etc., they contract for tends to have small tweaks designed for their specific missions, so we're still not quite at a level of off-the-shelf service contracting.)

I don't think that NASA will be contracting for the "habitation service" from a company like Bigelow or Orbital/ATK -- they will be contracting for the construction of a spacecraft that, once completed and launched, will belong to NASA, be operated by NASA, and therefore will be built to specs provided by NASA.  In other words, unlike Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew for ISS, NASA will not be buying a service -- they will be buying spacecraft outright.

Thus, we can't compare a DSH contract process to a Dragon 2 or Starliner contract.  They are different animals, with different end products.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/01/2016 06:05 pm
In general, there is not historically a dividing line where something is built directly by NASA vs. being built by a contractor.  With some exceptions (mostly involving the Marshall Space Flight Center and the JPL), NASA doesn't build a lot of things.  They let contracts for commercial providers to build them, and then take possession of them once they're built and ready to fly.  This was the huge paradigm shift that happened when NACA became NASA in 1958 -- moving from building everything in-house to letting contracts to have industry build things for them.  The big put-down by old Langley hands when they ran across members of Gilruth's Space Task Force back in the old days was "Let any good contracts today?"

NASA will never just go to industry and say "Hey, if you build something like a DSH, we'll buy some off the shelf from you."  As we've seen with Commercial Crew, NASA will have a lot of say in the design and development of any spacecraft they buy from a provider (or else there would never need to be design reviews, eh?).  For the foreseeable future, commercial providers like SpaceX and Bigelow will continue to occupy much the same role as earlier NASA contractors, especially during design, development and construction.

Some people are misled, I believe, about how a DSH contract would run because they are comparing it to launch and transportation service contracts let with ULA, SpaceX and Orbital/ATK, where they do something approaching "buying a rocket or spacecraft off the shelf" to perform a launch or transportation service.  With such things, you can to some extent buy off the shelf -- especially after you've had a good deal of say in the design reviews.  NASA and DoD have to certify any service provider before they can be contracted to perform that service, after all, so even when the government buys off the shelf, they still require adherence to specific design and performance requirements.  (And even then, they normally buy tailored services -- every Atlas, Falcon, Dragon, Cygnus, etc., they contract for tends to have small tweaks designed for their specific missions, so we're still not quite at a level of off-the-shelf service contracting.)

I don't think that NASA will be contracting for the "habitation service" from a company like Bigelow or Orbital/ATK -- they will be contracting for the construction of a spacecraft that, once completed and launched, will belong to NASA, be operated by NASA, and therefore will be built to specs provided by NASA.  In other words, unlike Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew for ISS, NASA will not be buying a service -- they will be buying spacecraft outright.

Thus, we can't compare a DSH contract process to a Dragon 2 or Starliner contract.  They are different animals, with different end products.
What you are describing is an Orion like program with its costs and long duration to get to flight hardware.

I think congress's time goals and budgets would drive the program toward a more COTS like program with its shorter timeline and lower costs. If NASA does not recognize that they must go in that direction to keep the program alive by making visible progress rapidly the funding will die. It is not an SLS or a Orion that has significant congress support. It must be developed rapidly and cheaply or it is dead.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/01/2016 07:25 pm
Absolutely agree. I suspect this first part will be hotly debated and fought for within NASA first. We already have the ISS director saying "He" wants to build it. That is most definitely not how this should work. Frankly, that comment gives me great pause. Before he thinks he can, perhaps he should figure out if he should?


That sounds like good news. The ISS director wants it.

However someone may have to remind him that he is no longer a hands on design engineer but a boss in charge of operations. He is the customer - other people get to design and built the DSH.

Expecting junior design engineers to think of all the spacecraft functions that operations have discovered over the years are needed is ... optimistic.  So briefing their managers and sending them a list of wanted features is probably within the responsibilities of the ISS director. Do not be surprised if a version of the list turns up in the requirements, particularly if each feature comes with a reason.

NASA to save money by using common components - where two or more rival companies are producing rival products the anti-trust laws can ban then from talking. This law does not apply to government departments so a catalogue, that is regularly updated, of existing common parts may be useful.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/01/2016 07:31 pm
Issuing two year Agreements (or contracts) with milestones to develop parts of products like the DSH are now tested tools of NASA's management of contractors. Both sides will have to think carefully about the content of the milestones.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: AncientU on 01/01/2016 07:36 pm

There's absolutely no reason not to co-manifest payloads on Orion flights, whatever the payloads may be.

Agree. 
Likewise, there is absolutely no reason for NASA to build the co-manifested payloads.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Khadgars on 01/01/2016 07:41 pm

There's absolutely no reason not to co-manifest payloads on Orion flights, whatever the payloads may be.

Agree. 
Likewise, there is absolutely no reason for NASA to build the co-manifested payloads.

I seem to recall most of this site clamoring NASA not to build SLS/Orion so they could focus on building things like the DSH  :o
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 01/01/2016 09:04 pm

There's absolutely no reason not to co-manifest payloads on Orion flights, whatever the payloads may be.


There are very good reasons not to co-manifest payloads with Orion. The whole payload capacity of the rocket be it SLS or Commercial would be available and the payload can take an different trajectory than Orion to it's destination. This results in cheaper delivery of supplies as well as possibly larger amounts. It also stimulates the development of technology should commercial get it. (the profit motive and the real possibility of switching contracts).

In the case of resupply for the hab, resupply should be sent by commercial. In the case of the habit itself, if major elements are commercially available or near commercially available NASA should simply purchase.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 01/01/2016 10:40 pm
Don't believe that there is a boundary line between LEO which NASA gave to commercial, and BEO which only NASA has the chops to explore.

Never said there was. However, there is a capability gap. Commercial can't do parts of the BEO job you were describing earlier:

Crew Delivery/Recovery: Dragon 2 isn't BEO certified and even if it was FH doesn't have enough payload capacity to send it to cis-lunar space and back.

DSH delivery: Again Falcon Heavy can't send something like a BA-330 or Skylab II to cis-lunar space.

In terms of contracting for the DSH I am hoping for a modified CCDev kind of model. NASA owned and operated but with initial competition on design. You could have Bigelow (BA-330) and Boeing (Skylab II) compete against each other for the DSH. Hopefully the loser would then have enough funding to start a commercial LEO version of their DSH which would fill the gap from ISS decommissioning in 2024.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/01/2016 11:40 pm
Don't believe that there is a boundary line between LEO which NASA gave to commercial, and BEO which only NASA has the chops to explore.

Never said there was. However, there is a capability gap. Commercial can't do parts of the BEO job you were describing earlier:

Crew Delivery/Recovery: Dragon 2 isn't BEO certified and even if it was FH doesn't have enough payload capacity to send it to cis-lunar space and back.

DSH delivery: Again Falcon Heavy can't send something like a BA-330 or Skylab II to cis-lunar space.

In terms of contracting for the DSH I am hoping for a modified CCDev kind of model. NASA owned and operated but with initial competition on design. You could have Bigelow (BA-330) and Boeing (Skylab II) compete against each other for the DSH. Hopefully the loser would then have enough funding to start a commercial LEO version of their DSH which would fill the gap from ISS decommissioning in 2024.
Before you say FH can't read the latest discussion on possible increases in FH performance that FT would give the FH over that of the FHv1.1 related performance numbers.

FHv1.1 with crossfeed 53mt LEO, 16mt TLI
FHFT with crossfeed 70mt LEO, 20mt TLI
NOTE: the FHFT values are speculative based on the 33% performance increase over v1.1. Until SpaceX publishes new performance numbers will not know for sure what the performance numbers are and even then like as with F9 the numbers published may not be the max capabilities just the higher mission assurance numbers incorporating engine out or RTLS (in some cases engine out if it occurs will preclude RTLS recovery).

Some say it would not ever implement crossfeed but if there is a customer I am sure SpaceX would provide. The other caveat is the FHFT numbers are for expendable and not reusable boosters.

See the FH discussion thread for more details on the disscusion. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39181.new#new (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39181.new#new)

Correct about Dragon 2 not being a BEO capable craft even probably for cargo. But making it a BEO capable craft may not be that much of a problem except the added weight for shielding. Its this last item which makes Orion so heavy, not other items. It would also make a BEO Dragon 2 weigh a lot like an Orion shrinking its already tight quarters to such that only 2 crew could travel in a BEO Dragon. But even at increased weight the FHFT could still get the BEO Dragon V2 through TLI.

For DSH deployment using an FHFT with its higher performance capabilities than FHv1.1 would be a stand-in for SLS. The only remaining question is the faring volume needed to launch it. If the DSH as it would be designed requires a wider than 5m faring then probably FH no mater how high its payload capability becomes would not be able to launch it. If we are talking a BA330 like DSH then a FHFT is definitely an LV candidate.

For smaller DSH sizes a co-payload to Orion on a upgraded SLS 105mt or more is probably what NASA may have in mind for use on actual Deep Space missions. DSH weight of <20mt fully loaded with a crew volume of about 220m^3. The volume that NASA believes would be needed for a crew of 4 (~55m^3 per person) is probably going to be the volume value that is part of the requirements. That could be higher or lower than the value of 220m^3. Depending on pressurized storage requirements for supplies. A 220m^3 DSH could be a 7m diameter by 6 m tall giving a close to optimal solution for volume to surface area.

Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/02/2016 12:10 am

There's absolutely no reason not to co-manifest payloads on Orion flights, whatever the payloads may be.

Agree. 
Likewise, there is absolutely no reason for NASA to build the co-manifested payloads.

I seem to recall most of this site clamoring NASA not to build SLS/Orion so they could focus on building things like the DSH  :o

I think it's pretty clear, based on past NASA history, that NASA doesn't leave a durable presence in space when it's done doing something major.  It didn't do that with Apollo, and it didn't do that with the Shuttle.  Still too early to know what will happen with the ISS though, but it's also a broad partnership, not a NASA-only effort.

So NASA could build a custom facility that doesn't end up being an anchor for the future expansion of humanity out into space, or it could fund a facility to be built that would leverage partnerships with the private sector and other countries, and provide a more sustainable presence.

Maybe this habitat program is the not the right vehicle for doing that, but at some point we need to start focusing on what is going to not only get us out into space, but keep us there too.  And the sooner we start doing that the quicker we'll be able to expand humanity out into space...
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/02/2016 12:26 am
Never said there was. However, there is a capability gap. Commercial can't do parts of the BEO job you were describing earlier:

Crew Delivery/Recovery: Dragon 2 isn't BEO certified and even if it was FH doesn't have enough payload capacity to send it to cis-lunar space and back.

DSH delivery: Again Falcon Heavy can't send something like a BA-330 or Skylab II to cis-lunar space.

If you completely ignore the possibility of refueling in space, or using space tugs for pushing payloads beyond LEO, then sure, some sort of HLV is probably needed.  But remember that even the 130mT SLS has limitations for what it can push beyond LEO, so single-launch architectures are not really the future of space transportation.

Quote
In terms of contracting for the DSH I am hoping for a modified CCDev kind of model. NASA owned and operated but with initial competition on design.

That would be nice.

We have to remember that there is a more important goal than just NASA going to a destination and doing something.  The more important goal is how sustainable is that effort?  That once NASA funding goes away do we have to retreat back to Earth like we did at the end of Apollo?

We don't know if the private sector is ready to support a sustained human presence in space - we all hope they are, but it's too early to tell.

But just like NASA is devoting time and money trying to encourage the private sector to get into space today, NASA should continue that by encouraging the private sector to go beyond LEO.  Because until the private sector finds business models for human activity in space beyond NASA's needs, we (humanity) won't be able to afford to do much in space.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/02/2016 01:24 am
A Note.
CCDev is the production of systems that are neither NASA owned or operated but NASA approved for NASA crew. The contractors own and operate the systems with NASA personnel as watchers and riders. If DSH is done the same then the same would be that the contractors are the owner operators and NASA looks on. But as far as I know the DSH previously mentioned in NASA documentation for missions is one where NASA is at least the operator. In that case the equipment would have to be transitioned to NASA at some point and NASA then becomes fully responsible for whatever they do with it afterwards. Any engineering technical support after transition would be a separate contract and could be with even someone else than the original manufacturer if NASA also owns the IP. But if the contracting mechanisms are a public-private then NASA would not own the IP so they would have to contract with the IP owner or someone the IP owner designates as authorized to get engineering technical support.

On commercial crew NASA purchases mission support which not only is operation of the system but includes technical support as part of the contractor "guarantees" that the system will perform as advertised. It is an all included package.

Orion has many contract pieces. NASA performs the top level mission support with various contractors providing technical support for a mission. Contracts in this environment are more complex, have many more participants and as such cost a lot more even though contractors are taking almost no risks. But NASA has tight control over everything that happens (or at least we hope so). For a first of its kind exploration mission that may be the way to success. But again this is an environment of "failure is not an option". Sometimes this environment cannot be ignored or mitigated. On CC an LAS is used to mitigate the "failure is not an option" environment of HSF. For a deep space mission there may not be any such mitigation possible, requiring tight controls over design and manufacture. If we are just talking cis-lunar space then the mitigation is an early return to Earth. For an asteroid or Mars mission there is not a real option for early return.

This last probably leans a DSH program more towards a directed program than a public-private partnership COTS like program. A modified COTS where the contractors retain the IP but are not the operators may be the better solution.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: AncientU on 01/02/2016 01:59 am
Dragon 2 is likely getting kitted out for BEO -- Red Dragon, probably heading to Mars in 2018.  Additional systems will be needed for BEO human spaceflight, but a BA-330 hab would go a long way in that direction.  Expect a Bigelow/SpaceX team-up announcement synchronized with the upcoming BEAM trip to ISS in 2016.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Oli on 01/02/2016 02:00 am
Commercial cargo/crew may have been cheaper than other programs, but it was hardly a bargain and it didn't push technology. DSH will push technology and thus NASA will be heavily involved no matter what.

There are very good reasons not to co-manifest payloads with Orion. The whole payload capacity of the rocket be it SLS or Commercial would be available and the payload can take an different trajectory than Orion to it's destination.

That makes no sense. NASA will fly Orion to cis-lunar space regularly because that's what this is all about, human spaceflight. The excess capacity on those flights will be for free. Not only that: Orion will do attitude control, insertion, rendezvous and docking so the payload can be dumb and cheap.

But just like NASA is devoting time and money trying to encourage the private sector to get into space today, NASA should continue that by encouraging the private sector to go beyond LEO. Because until the private sector finds business models for human activity in space beyond NASA's needs, we (humanity) won't be able to afford to do much in space.

If sustainability (i.e. human spaceflight without NASA funding) is the goal going BEO makes no sense at all since the private sector is far from ready to take over LEO.

Maybe NASA should just fly hundreds of Americans to the ISS every year until costs have come down and reliability has increased to the point that enough rich individuals are willing to pay for it.
 
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Billium on 01/02/2016 04:13 am
Don't believe that there is a boundary line between LEO which NASA gave to commercial, and BEO which only NASA has the chops to explore.

Never said there was. However, there is a capability gap. Commercial can't do parts of the BEO job you were describing earlier:

Crew Delivery/Recovery: Dragon 2 isn't BEO certified and even if it was FH doesn't have enough payload capacity to send it to cis-lunar space and back.

DSH delivery: Again Falcon Heavy can't send something like a BA-330 or Skylab II to cis-lunar space.

In terms of contracting for the DSH I am hoping for a modified CCDev kind of model. NASA owned and operated but with initial competition on design. You could have Bigelow (BA-330) and Boeing (Skylab II) compete against each other for the DSH. Hopefully the loser would then have enough funding to start a commercial LEO version of their DSH which would fill the gap from ISS decommissioning in 2024.
Before you say FH can't read the latest discussion on possible increases in FH performance that FT would give the FH over that of the FHv1.1 related performance numbers.

FHv1.1 with crossfeed 53mt LEO, 16mt TLI
FHFT with crossfeed 70mt LEO, 20mt TLI
NOTE: the FHFT values are speculative based on the 33% performance increase over v1.1. Until SpaceX publishes new performance numbers will not know for sure what the performance numbers are and even then like as with F9 the numbers published may not be the max capabilities just the higher mission assurance numbers incorporating engine out or RTLS (in some cases engine out if it occurs will preclude RTLS recovery).

Some say it would not ever implement crossfeed but if there is a customer I am sure SpaceX would provide. The other caveat is the FHFT numbers are for expendable and not reusable boosters.

See the FH discussion thread for more details on the disscusion. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39181.new#new (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39181.new#new)

Correct about Dragon 2 not being a BEO capable craft even probably for cargo. But making it a BEO capable craft may not be that much of a problem except the added weight for shielding. Its this last item which makes Orion so heavy, not other items. It would also make a BEO Dragon 2 weigh a lot like an Orion shrinking its already tight quarters to such that only 2 crew could travel in a BEO Dragon. But even at increased weight the FHFT could still get the BEO Dragon V2 through TLI.

For DSH deployment using an FHFT with its higher performance capabilities than FHv1.1 would be a stand-in for SLS. The only remaining question is the faring volume needed to launch it. If the DSH as it would be designed requires a wider than 5m faring then probably FH no mater how high its payload capability becomes would not be able to launch it. If we are talking a BA330 like DSH then a FHFT is definitely an LV candidate.

For smaller DSH sizes a co-payload to Orion on a upgraded SLS 105mt or more is probably what NASA may have in mind for use on actual Deep Space missions. DSH weight of <20mt fully loaded with a crew volume of about 220m^3. The volume that NASA believes would be needed for a crew of 4 (~55m^3 per person) is probably going to be the volume value that is part of the requirements. That could be higher or lower than the value of 220m^3. Depending on pressurized storage requirements for supplies. A 220m^3 DSH could be a 7m diameter by 6 m tall giving a close to optimal solution for volume to surface area.

When I asked Gwynne Shotwell about it on the space show she said that FH could launch Dragon on a free return lunar trajectory. She said Dragon would need communication upgrades however.

Isn't Orion supposed to handle cislunar space without a DSH? I thought that was reason for the extra volume and life support.

In terms of the DSH, Elon has raised the idea of a public/private partnership. I know, politically a non starter, but after he unveils his Mars architecture who knows what might happen.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/02/2016 04:41 am
Commercial cargo/crew may have been cheaper than other programs, but it was hardly a bargain and it didn't push technology.

The goal was not to "push technology", it was to commercialize what had been government-only capabilities.

As to whether it was a "bargain", no doubt there is room for debate.

The way I see it Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew were pathfinder programs - NASA had never done anything like that before.  So from what NASA and the aerospace industry learned from those programs, future efforts (like this DSH) will be far easier and less expensive.

Quote
DSH will push technology and thus NASA will be heavily involved no matter what.

If NASA is funding the DSH, then of course NASA will be heavily involved - they are the customer.

And sure there will be new stuff to be developed, but a DSH is going to be leveraging lots of existing technology.  And don't forget how much knowledge exists in our aerospace industry, who builds everything major NASA needs.

Quote
If sustainability (i.e. human spaceflight without NASA funding) is the goal going BEO makes no sense at all since the private sector is far from ready to take over LEO.

There are a number of ways the private sector can take on more responsibility, and how NASA can transfer the liability of routine tasks off their books.  And that is important for NASA, since the more operations it wants to do means more money it has to spend supporting those operations.  Using systems the private sector can support means NASA can go further, quicker.

Quote
Maybe NASA should just fly hundreds of Americans to the ISS every year until costs have come down and reliability has increased to the point that enough rich individuals are willing to pay for it.

The government should only do what the private sector can't or won't do - SpaceX is already pushing the transportation sector to reduce costs, so NASA doesn't need to help there.

NASA really doesn't get a lot of funding for going to new places, so NASA needs to ensure that what they do results in a sustainable effort.  Leveraging the private sector, and their strengths, not only helps NASA but helps the private sector develop and perfect the technologies they'll need to find their own sustainable business models without NASA.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Oli on 01/02/2016 07:28 am
What I find particularly "encouraging", is that once you have a not-too-heavy deep space habitat in LDRO, you can transfer it to a NEA with a 300kw SEP or to Mars orbit with a 435kw SEP (+17t of MMH/NTO and a bunch of R–42 thrusters).

As long as you do not land anywhere, it might actually be pretty cheap to do BEO missions.

Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: AncientU on 01/02/2016 04:32 pm
What I find particularly "encouraging", is that once you have a not-too-heavy deep space habitat in LDRO, you can transfer it to a NEA with a 300kw SEP or to Mars orbit with a 435kw SEP (+17t of MMH/NTO and a bunch of R–42 thrusters).

As long as you do not land anywhere, it might actually be pretty cheap to do BEO missions.

Can you set that bar any lower?
If this is all we can expect, then the 'push technology' mantle you've placed on NASA is pretty flimsy.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 01/02/2016 07:03 pm
Before you say FH can't read the latest discussion on possible increases in FH performance that FT would give the FH over that of the FHv1.1 related performance numbers.

FHv1.1 with crossfeed 53mt LEO, 16mt TLI
FHFT with crossfeed 70mt LEO, 20mt TLI
NOTE: the FHFT values are speculative based on the 33% performance increase over v1.1.

I am well aware of these numbers but as you say that 33% increase is quite speculative and crossfeed has been delayed indefinitely. I am assuming the maximum value SpaceX has given (53mt to LEO, which implies ~16mt to TLI) until we here from them otherwise.

When I asked Gwynne Shotwell about it on the space show she said that FH could launch Dragon on a free return lunar trajectory. She said Dragon would need communication upgrades however.

FH can certainly launch Dragon on a free-return to the moon but it doesn't have enough capability to launch Dragon and the means to return it from lunar orbit, even a DRO.

Quote
Isn't Orion supposed to handle cislunar space without a DSH? I thought that was reason for the extra volume and life support.

It can for 21 days but if you want missions longer than that you need a DSH. It also could host a reusable lunar lander.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/02/2016 11:05 pm
Hmm.

4 SLS missions with an EUS that co-payloads
1) Orion with a DSH
2) Orion with reusable Lunar Lander (unfueled)
3) Orion with fuel for lander (to make an unmanned landing and return test flight)
4) Orion with fuel for lander to make a manned landing and return

At 2 flights per year that's only 2 year span (once EUS, the reusable lander, and the DSH have been developed and produced) fully possible under a $3B per year budget. The question is how long to get the DSH and reusable lander developed?

We have the start of the second part the DSH development now we need the third part the reusable lunar lander. Otherwise the DSH will have only partial utility as a destination in and of itself instead of a gateway and place to park the lander, somewhere where it can recharge its batteries and refuel.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/03/2016 12:41 am
Hmm.

4 SLS missions with an EUS that co-payloads
1) Orion with a DSH
2) Orion with reusable Lunar Lander (unfueled)
3) Orion with fuel for lander (to make an unmanned landing and return test flight)
4) Orion with fuel for lander to make a manned landing and return

At 2 flights per year that's only 2 year span (once EUS, the reusable lander, and the DSH have been developed and produced) fully possible under a $3B per year budget. The question is how long to get the DSH and reusable lander developed?

We have the start of the second part the DSH development now we need the third part the reusable lunar lander. Otherwise the DSH will have only partial utility as a destination in and of itself instead of a gateway and place to park the lander, somewhere where it can recharge its batteries and refuel.
A reusable robotic lander (250-500kg) payload would be good place to start. Would enable sample returns and lot exploration especially if Orion can deliver 10t fuel/ payload to DRO per mission.
The existing Lunar Catalyst companies are more than capable of such a lander and there are no shortage of XPrize rovers.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 01/03/2016 01:19 am


That makes no sense. NASA will fly Orion to cis-lunar space regularly because that's what this is all about, human spaceflight. The excess capacity on those flights will be for free. Not only that: Orion will do attitude control, insertion, rendezvous and docking so the payload can be dumb and cheap.

Orion isn't the Shuttle or Apollo. Unless things have changed, CXP Orion was not supposed to brake the lander into lunar orbit. The lander was to brake the whole stack.Odds are this thing is going to require the payload to have engines anyway because Orion might not be designed to brake it. It only needs enough delta V to get itself into DRO as well as return.  The payload in question needs power, life support, and thrusters most of the same systems that an Commercial Cargo craft has for Cargo. It just needs an improved life support system, communication system and radiation shielding and perhaps some changes in the guidance system.


With limited launch opportunities( 2 flights a year) and no resupply ability in between this is going to have  severely limited mission span.

Payloads that are co-manifested with Orion will have to be evaluated for safety during launch which could add costs. Payloads that travel separately can use different trajectories to get to the moon which could increase the amount of mass that can be carried. An manned spacecraft needs to consider things like free return and short mission time, cargo does not. This means SLS(or frankly any rocket) can't take advantage of it's full capability.

Odds are this thing is going to have an very short single mission lifespan and be disposable or be launched separately.

 
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/03/2016 01:51 am


That makes no sense. NASA will fly Orion to cis-lunar space regularly because that's what this is all about, human spaceflight. The excess capacity on those flights will be for free. Not only that: Orion will do attitude control, insertion, rendezvous and docking so the payload can be dumb and cheap.

Orion isn't the Shuttle or Apollo. Unless things have changed, CXP Orion was not supposed to brake the lander into lunar orbit. The lander was to brake the whole stack.Odds are this thing is going to require the payload to have engines anyway because Orion might not be designed to brake it. It only needs enough delta V to get itself into DRO as well as return.  The payload in question needs power, life support, and thrusters most of the same systems that an Commercial Cargo craft has for Cargo. It just needs an improved life support system, communication system and radiation shielding and perhaps some changes in the guidance system.


With limited launch opportunities( 2 flights a year) and no resupply ability in between this is going to have  severely limited mission span.

Payloads that are co-manifested with Orion will have to be evaluated for safety during launch which could add costs. Payloads that travel separately can use different trajectories to get to the moon which could increase the amount of mass that can be carried. An manned spacecraft needs to consider things like free return and short mission time, cargo does not. This means SLS(or frankly any rocket) can't take advantage of it's full capability.

Odds are this thing is going to have an very short single mission lifespan and be disposable or be launched separately.

 
You are describing what was called in the CXP the Mission Module. It extended the mission beyond the capabilities of Orion and added other features as well. If the DSH is co-payload to Orion it would effectively be the same as the CXP MM. To be discarded after the end of the mission because all of its supplies would be depleted without an ability to resupply.

A real DSH would be a permanent item that would have an infrastructure (some sort of cargo resupply support probably other than using SLS). This usage would require a cargo resupply system to be developed simultaneous to the DSH development.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/03/2016 05:01 am
{snip}
A real DSH would be a permanent item that would have an infrastructure (some sort of cargo resupply support probably other than using SLS). This usage would require a cargo resupply system to be developed simultaneous to the DSH development.

A DSH spacestation at EML-1 could be supplied from a LEO spacestation by a SEP tug.

The simplest design for the LEO spacestation is a copy of the DSH, although there are other possibilities. The gateway spacestation could use its robotic arms to transfer cargo brought by CRS launch vehicles (or SLS) to the SEP.

In 2021 the Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission (ARRM) is due to be launched. This uses a Solar Electric Proportion (SEP) stage that is designed to operate as a tug. A second SEP of the same design but with a different mission module/payload adaptor could be purchased to fly payloads of up to 28 tonnes to the EML-1 DSH.

I am assuming the SEP returns empty, has a dry mass of about 4000 kg, uses 40 kW of Hall Thrusters Isp 3000, 50 kW solar arrays and has a maximum propellent load of 10 tonne of Xenon. The one way delta-v is 7000 m/s since the SEP has to circle out, taking up to 1.5 years.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 01/03/2016 03:45 pm
{snip}
A real DSH would be a permanent item that would have an infrastructure (some sort of cargo resupply support probably other than using SLS). This usage would require a cargo resupply system to be developed simultaneous to the DSH development.

A DSH spacestation at EML-1 could be supplied from a LEO spacestation by a SEP tug.

The simplest design for the LEO spacestation is a copy of the DSH, although there are other possibilities. The gateway spacestation could use its robotic arms to transfer cargo brought by CRS launch vehicles (or SLS) to the SEP.

In 2021 the Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission (ARRM) is due to be launched. This uses a Solar Electric Proportion (SEP) stage that is designed to operate as a tug. A second SEP of the same design but with a different mission module/payload adaptor could be purchased to fly payloads of up to 28 tonnes to the EML-1 DSH.

I am assuming the SEP returns empty, has a dry mass of about 4000 kg, uses 40 kW of Hall Thrusters Isp 3000, 50 kW solar arrays and has a maximum propellent load of 10 tonne of Xenon. The one way delta-v is 7000 m/s since the SEP has to circle out, taking up to 1.5 years.
The Cygnus using Atlas or Vulcan and Dragon on FH should both be able to supply a DSH. Both may need slightly more DV, but nothing larger fuel tanks can't fix.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/03/2016 05:40 pm
{snip}
A real DSH would be a permanent item that would have an infrastructure (some sort of cargo resupply support probably other than using SLS). This usage would require a cargo resupply system to be developed simultaneous to the DSH development.

A DSH spacestation at EML-1 could be supplied from a LEO spacestation by a SEP tug.

The simplest design for the LEO spacestation is a copy of the DSH, although there are other possibilities. The gateway spacestation could use its robotic arms to transfer cargo brought by CRS launch vehicles (or SLS) to the SEP.

In 2021 the Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission (ARRM) is due to be launched. This uses a Solar Electric Proportion (SEP) stage that is designed to operate as a tug. A second SEP of the same design but with a different mission module/payload adaptor could be purchased to fly payloads of up to 28 tonnes to the EML-1 DSH.

I am assuming the SEP returns empty, has a dry mass of about 4000 kg, uses 40 kW of Hall Thrusters Isp 3000, 50 kW solar arrays and has a maximum propellent load of 10 tonne of Xenon. The one way delta-v is 7000 m/s since the SEP has to circle out, taking up to 1.5 years.
The Cygnus using Atlas or Vulcan and Dragon on FH should both be able to supply a DSH. Both may need slightly more DV, but nothing larger fuel tanks can't fix.
Vulcan with ACES could deliver ~12mt to EML2 in a single launch. This is due to the ACES stage tremendous PF and other factors such as an ISP of up to 465 and several weeks of loiter time. ACES would perform Lunar orbit insertion as well,  then a sun disposal burn while Cygnus does the station rendezvous. Later it does a sun disposal burn. Eventually the ACES may be collected for parts to support Xeus (engines, avionics, even tanks) or as storage tanks for use with an expanding prop depot.

So at the time it would be needed current plans for LV development would have LV's that could provide 2 independent providers of cargo services to an EML2 station in as early as 2022.

It may also be possible for Vulcan/ACES to perform sufficiently for a crew service to EML2 based on CST-100 upgraded to a BEO vehicle. If not then ACES ability to transfer prop would enable even a very heavy CST-100 derived vehicle to make their trip using 2 launches first prop to LEO second the crew vehicle that then refuels the ACES with an additional 30mt of prop could get a truly heavy crew vehicle to EML2 even an Orion. Cost of 2 Vulcan /ACES with 6 solid boosters each ~$350M. Cost of 1 SLS ~$1B.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Oli on 01/03/2016 07:27 pm
Orion isn't the Shuttle or Apollo. Unless things have changed, CXP Orion was not supposed to brake the lander into lunar orbit. The lander was to brake the whole stack.Odds are this thing is going to require the payload to have engines anyway because Orion might not be designed to brake it. It only needs enough delta V to get itself into DRO as well as return.

Orion can brake itself and a 10t payload into EML-2 or LDRO. That's what is needed in this case.

The payload in question needs power, life support, and thrusters

Not necessarily.

I suggest to read the paper here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38818.msg1460473#msg1460473
Its very informative.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/03/2016 10:25 pm
So a 10mt 100m^3 volume would be both large enough and small enough to be a disposable per mission habitat to extend duration of an Orion mission. Orion volume being only 19m^3 with 10m^3 for equipment and supplies allows for at least a 5X duration extension to >100 days (50^3 for equipment and supplies and an additional 50m^3 of open living space.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Oli on 01/04/2016 12:20 pm
 
So a 10mt 100m^3 volume would be both large enough and small enough to be a disposable per mission habitat to extend duration of an Orion mission.

I don't think it will be disposable. A possible build-up scenario looks like this (some of them optional):

- Small Power and Propulsion Bus.
- Small Habitat (life support provided by Orion)
- Advanced Life Support Module (for testing advanced regenerative life support systems).
- Small Node (3 docking ports)
- Large Habitat (20t+, for long duration missions)
- Large Power and Propulsion Bus (can take the large hab to a NEA)
- International Lunar Lander.

For excursion to a NEA the stack will split.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: kingfisherb90 on 01/19/2016 11:22 pm
What I would like to see:
Deep Space Exploration Gateway at L2.

NASA/Commercial hybrid station.

NASA provides:
STA / Node 4
Utility Module (Shuttle OBS + SSRMS on SLP)
40ft ISS Centrifuge (Nautilus demonstrator)
MPLM derived TransHab x2 with Orbiter External Airlocks attached.

BA330 with 6 way hub/tug expandable as needed
CYGNUS EAM expandable as needed
ACES derived fuel depot (LOX/H2)
ACES derived fuel depot (SEP fuel)
SEP Tug for cislunar transfers / Station Keeping (OATK/Aerojet/Boeing etc)
Xeus based manned Lunar Lander

This station would have the following near term goals.
1. Capture an asteroid via ARRM.
2. Demo the production of ISRU fuels LOX/H2 from asteroid
3. Demo the production of structural components via 3D printing from asteroid.
4. Conduct Lunar sorties to gather ISRU raw materials
5. Demo the production of ISRU fuels LOX/H2 from Lunar Materials
6. Demo the production of structural components via 3D printing from Lunar Materials
7. Remotely operated Lunar rovers
8. Conduct partial gravity experiments via centrifuge / validate inflatable design

Long terms goals could be:
1. Demo Lunar Space Elevator
2. Support Lunar base(s) (Commercial / ESA etc)
3. Act as deep space launch point for missions
4. Support the creation of L1 station.
5. Support the creation of Lunar surface to LEO through L1 elevator
6. Home port for Nautilus style exploration spaceships (Refuel / Refit)


Thoughts?

Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: CitabriaFlyer on 01/20/2016 09:50 am
I would like to see NASA purchase a Dragon, potentially a previously flown Dragon, with shielding for lunar re entry and deep space comm and fly EM-2 with Block 1 SLS and Dragon in 2019.  Then SLS will at a minimum have validated the heat shields for two spacecraft for BEO re entry speeds.

I certainly hope that prop depots combined with reusable BFRs replace SLS.  I would hate to see SLS soldiering at great expense in the 2040s; but SLS is the nearest term rocket to get Orion and Dragon to cislunar space.  I advocate using SLS as much as possible while it still has some relevance.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 03/31/2016 02:57 am
Good news! There will be a Nextstep-2 BAA which will be issued in April 2016. I am guessing that is related to the $55M that was appropriated in the FY 2016 bill for an augmentation module:

http://www.nasa.gov/nextstep

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2350bb0e328e814dec4fa385b4dcb17e&tab=core&_cview=0
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 03/31/2016 03:37 am
The most important part of the synopsis is this one:

Quote from: BAA synopsis
NASA anticipates initially releasing the omnibus BAA in the April 2016 timeframe with the first Appendix focused on developing deep space habitation concepts, engineering design and development, and risk reduction efforts leading to a habitation capability in cislunar space that can support more extensive human space flight missions in the proving ground around and beyond cislunar space while encouraging application to commercial LEO habitation capabilities. Ultimately this cislunar habitation capability will support development of the human rated deep space habitation and transportation spacecraft by validating the human systems, elements and operations in cislunar space thus enabling human exploration beyond the Earth/Moon system. Under a prior solicitation (NextSTEP BAA NNH15ZCQ001K), NASA is exercising Phase 1 awarded efforts on habitation systems with the plan for continuing some or all of the studies into Phase 2. Appendix A of the omnibus NextSTEP-2 BAA will provide a new opportunity for additional other commercial partners to be added to the Phase 2 efforts.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: jgoldader on 03/31/2016 07:09 pm
"The duration of NextSTEP-2 contracts will vary depending upon the complexity of the studies or development effort. NASA anticipates phased approaches that may extend up to 5 years."
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/01/2016 12:20 am
"The duration of NextSTEP-2 contracts will vary depending upon the complexity of the studies or development effort. NASA anticipates phased approaches that may extend up to 5 years."

Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) was 2006 to 2013, so nothing odd there. Although NASA did require milestones at approximately monthly intervals and major agreement reviews every couple of years.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: jgoldader on 04/01/2016 02:32 pm
"The duration of NextSTEP-2 contracts will vary depending upon the complexity of the studies or development effort. NASA anticipates phased approaches that may extend up to 5 years."

Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) was 2006 to 2013, so nothing odd there. Although NASA did require milestones at approximately monthly intervals and major agreement reviews every couple of years.

Absolutely.  But you got vehicles out of COTS, not reports.  Add another 5 years for the next round of reports, and we're two Presidents downstream.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/01/2016 06:21 pm
We'll find out more when the BAA is issued. But I think that their aim is ideally to get a prototype.

Quote from: BAA synopsis
NASA will be seeking proposals in research areas to include, but not limited to: studies to support mission architecture definition, new approaches to rapidly develop prototype systems, demonstration of key capabilities, validating operational concepts for future human missions beyond low-Earth orbit, and end-to-end design, development, test, and in-space evaluation of future flight systems. This BAA is intended to enable a robust exploration of public-private partnership opportunities with NASA that will complement other NASA activities. The Advanced Exploration Systems Division within the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate has identified key long term potential capability areas that could benefit human space exploration. An omnibus BAA will be released with an Appendix soliciting the first of these key capabilities. Subsequent Appendices will be released soliciting proposals in other key areas as needed.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Cherokee43v6 on 04/01/2016 06:35 pm
I would like to see NASA purchase a Dragon, potentially a previously flown Dragon, with shielding for lunar re entry and deep space comm and fly EM-2 with Block 1 SLS and Dragon in 2019.  Then SLS will at a minimum have validated the heat shields for two spacecraft for BEO re entry speeds.

Honestly, SpaceX could do this mission itself with FalconHeavy.  Though they may need to develop a kick-stage for TLI purposes.  Then again, they'll need something along those lines for their Mars plans anyway.

Besides, why would NASA want to redesign the entire top of the stack for a 1 off that doesn't progress their own plans?

The best Proposed SLS mission I've heard so far is to launch a BA2100.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/02/2016 06:08 am
"The duration of NextSTEP-2 contracts will vary depending upon the complexity of the studies or development effort. NASA anticipates phased approaches that may extend up to 5 years."

Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) was 2006 to 2013, so nothing odd there. Although NASA did require milestones at approximately monthly intervals and major agreement reviews every couple of years.

Absolutely.  But you got vehicles out of COTS, not reports.  Add another 5 years for the next round of reports, and we're two Presidents downstream.

NextSTEP (1) is paying for ground testing of the VASIMR and ARRM's ion thrusters. The SLS will be sending NextSTEP (1) cubesats to the Moon. Habitation was allowed 1 year to produce reports.
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/march/nasa-announces-new-partnerships-with-us-industry-for-key-deep-space-capabilities (http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/march/nasa-announces-new-partnerships-with-us-industry-for-key-deep-space-capabilities)

Consequently I doubt NextSTEP-2 will allow more reports (except on mission architecture, a new subject). The 5 years will be to turn reports into "on-ramp"ed prototypes.
http://www.nasa.gov/nextstep (http://www.nasa.gov/nextstep)
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/02/2016 03:05 pm
...Besides, why would NASA want to redesign the entire top of the stack for a 1 off that doesn't progress their own plans?

The best Proposed SLS mission I've heard so far is to launch a BA2100.

Which unless there is a planned and funded goal for it, would itself be a 1-off.

Habitats are not the end goal, just part of the hardware needed to reach an end goal.  The U.S. Government needs to agree that there is a need to expand humanity out into space, for some reason.  Only then will habitats become part of the solution.

I hope that realization comes soon, but so far our Presidential candidates have not shown any specific interest, nor has the current Congress.  So in the meantime we'll have to continue with wishful thinking...
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/11/2016 05:09 pm
Good news! There will be a Nextstep-2 BAA which will be issued in April 2016. I am guessing that is related to the $55M that was appropriated in the FY 2016 bill for an augmentation module:

http://www.nasa.gov/nextstep

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=2350bb0e328e814dec4fa385b4dcb17e&tab=core&_cview=0

Reading the explanatory statement to the FY16 CJS Appropriation bill, it now seems clear to me that this program is related to the $55M that was apropriated by Congress in that bill. 

Quote from: page 44 of the ES to the FY16 CJS appropriation bill
In lieu of Senate language on Advanced Exploration Systems, no less than $55,000,000 is provided for a habitation augmentation module to maximize the potential of the SLS/Orion architecture in deep space. NASA shall develop a prototype deep space habitation module within the Advanced exploration systems program no later than 2018 and provide a report within 180 days after enactment, and annually thereafter, regarding the status and obligation of funding for the program. The first such report shall include an analysis to determine the appropriate management structure for this program.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37330.msg1458222#msg1458222
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/20/2016 03:27 pm
The BAA for the cislunar habitat prototype came out yesterday:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=cc98f982cc85bc0c9d1461bc5edd9286&tab=core&_cview=0
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/20/2016 03:33 pm
I have highlighted the most important of the BAA in the posts below. Proposals are due June 15th, 2016 and awards are in August, 2016:

Quote from: Appendix A to the BAA
6.2 Award Date: Award is anticipated on or about August 2016. The price proposal should be based on this anticipated award date. Any reduced appropriations or continuing resolution may effect NASA’s ability to award selected offerors or exercise options.

6.3 Funding Allocation: NASA anticipates initially allocating a total of $65M in FY16 and FY17 (in accordance with the President’s Budget request).

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=f87833c03dc9eb29d63f5b465ae813d8
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/20/2016 03:37 pm
Use of SLS is optional:

Quote from: Appendix A to the BAA
2.1 Description of Solicitation Topic
[...]
The following is a listing of objectives for this phase of the habitation system development:
• Develop and refine the evolvable, modular architecture, functional allocation options, standards, and common interfaces required to enable interoperability of the aggregate system to provide long duration deep space transit habitation.
– Achieve a level of fidelity in technical and programmatic feasibility concepts for ground protoflight vehicle(s)/modules/units
• Further define and develop deep space habitation capabilities that can be flown as co-manifested payloads on SLS Block 1B with an initial SLS co-manifesting capability of 4 – 6 metric tons starting in early-to-mid 2020s, or later in the 2020s on a cargo-only version of SLS, or on alternative launch vehicles. Note the habitation system concept can be separated into multiple integrated modules with distributed functions. If the habitation concept is not flown on SLS, provide details of the launch vehicle assumptions.
• Mature the design of the overall deep space integrated system(s) and, at a minimum, develop a full size, ground prototype of the portion of your design that provides the majority of the habitation capabilities for form, fit, and partial function integration testing
• Identify commercial capability development for LEO that intersects NASA long duration deep space habitation requirements along with any potential option to maximize the leveraging of commercial LEO advancements towards meeting NASA long duration deep space habitation needs.
• Provide information on company end-to-end development effort and ROM costs for flight development - companies to provide a proposal, SOW, and fully priced Appendix A efforts and ROM costs for subsequent phases for engineering and flight unit development.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/20/2016 03:39 pm
Contribution of 30% by participants is required:

Quote from: Appendix A to the BAA
3.2 Corporate Resources
Offerors are required to show a minimum corporate contribution of 30% of the overall effort for eligibility to participate in this solicitation effort. The overall effort is defined as the combination of corporate contribution and government resources invested in the proposed effort. At least half of the corporate resources must be direct in-kind contributions during the period of performance. The remainder of CR may be prior investments made within one year prior to submission of the proposal. Additional information on corporate resources is contained in the omnibus portion of this BAA.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/20/2016 03:49 pm
I am concerned about the IP provisions:

Quote from: Omnibus BAA
10.7 Intellectual Property Developed Under an Award
As noted, the objective of an award made under this BAA is to provide recipients with the incentive to develop commercial applications of technologies developed through the partnership. The intent is that awards resulting from this BAA will enable public-private partnerships for robust exploration and implementation of opportunities managed by AES. The BAA anticipates that the capabilities and technologies developed through these partnerships also will provide significant commercial applications beyond NASA. In order to ensure the offerors have the incentive to develop commercial applications, NASA may require offerors to provide corporate contributions.

10.7.1 Data Rights:
Normally, the government has unlimited rights in technical data created by a contractor under a NASA contract. In some situations, recipients may protect qualifying limited rights data and restricted computer software, which has been developed at private expense, by withholding the data from the Government and instead delivering form, fit, and function data. However, even when delivery of limited rights data or restricted computer software is required to satisfy NASA's own needs, the government is under legal obligation to only use such data for prescribed purposes associated with the contract and to refrain from disclosing the data to unauthorized parties.

10.7.2 Patent Rights:
The government will have certain statutory rights in an invention that is conceived or first actually reduced to practice under a NASA award. 51 U.S.C. 20135 (awards to large entities) provides that title to such inventions vests in the United States, except where 35 U.S.C. 202 provides otherwise for nonprofit organizations or small business firms.
Where 51 U.S.C. 20135 applies i.e., under an award with a large entity, a recipient may request a waiver to obtain title to inventions made under the award in accordance with 51 U.S.C. 20135(g) and 14 C.F.R. 1245 Subpart 1. Such a request may be made in advance of the award or within 30 days thereafter. Even if a waiver request is not made, or denied, a large business recipient may request a waiver on individual inventions made during the course of the award.

NASA normally grants requests for waiver unless the interests of the United States are better served by restricting or eliminating all or part of the rights of a contractor as set forth in 14 CFR 1245.104(b). Among the most important goals are providing incentives to foster inventiveness and encouraging the reporting of inventions. As noted previously, corporate contributions are encouraged.
For joint inventions, NASA will typically agree, pursuant to a Joint Ownership Agreement, to refrain from exercising its undivided interest in a manner inconsistent with a recipient’s commercial interest.
For all recipients, the patent rights provision in a resulting award will require the disclosure to NASA of all subject inventions made under the contract. NASA/AES considers the reporting of inventions an important metric that will be used to measure whether new technologies are being developed. Reporting of inventions also protects a recipient’s ownership to such inventions since NASA has the right to obtain title in unreported inventions.

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=2d4d9358dcaef711a9fc4105916764dd
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/20/2016 03:55 pm
I am also concerned about certified cost or pricing since it is cumbersome. It's not usually required for a SAA but I don't know if it normally is for a BAA:

Quote from: Omnibus BAA
12.1.2.10 [...]

For proposals exceeding $750K, fully certified cost or pricing data will be required.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/20/2016 04:13 pm
Industry forum on April 25th at 11 am (local time):

Quote from: Appendix A to the BAA
2.2 [...]

Industry Forum: A NextSTEP-2 Partnership virtual forum will be held electronically for this Appendix and proposers will have a chance to ask questions about this particular solicitation. The tentative date for the forum is April 25, 11:00am Eastern Time. The meeting agenda and related information will be posted to the NextSTEP website.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/20/2016 04:53 pm
Objective of the habitat solicitation:

Quote from: Appendix A to BAA
2.1 Description of Solicitation Topic
[...]
Therefore, NASA is seeking proposals to provide complete deep space long duration architecture designs (including standards, common interfaces, and testing approach) and the development of full size, ground prototype units no later than 2018. NASA envisions development and integrated test of prototypes by the end of this phase with potential follow-on phases. NASA Procedural Requirements NPR 7120.8 defines a prototype as: “A high fidelity unit that demonstrates critical aspects of the engineering processes involved in the development of the operational unit. Engineering test units are intended to closely resemble the final product (hardware/software) to the maximum extent possible and are built and tested so as to establish confidence that the design will function in the expected environments.”
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/20/2016 04:55 pm
It could be up to 5 years long:

Quote from: Appendix A to BAA
6.1 Period of Performance: Period of performance (PoP) for the contracts may be up to 5 years over multiple phases with no period exceeding 12 months. The period of performance for the 12 month base contract will start as of the authorization to proceed effective date which is intended to be Aug 2016. The anticipated PoP for this Habitation Phase 2 effort is 18 months or August 2016 – March 2018, consisting of a 1 year base period and 6 month option with price depending upon the CLIN’s selected by the Government. In addition, the proposal shall also include a 3-6 month no-cost option period after the first option (estimated July – Sept 2018) to accommodate government evaluation of Phase 2 results and facilitate potential transition to a follow-on phase.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/20/2016 06:05 pm
Objective of the habitat solicitation:

Quote from: Appendix A to BAA
2.1 Description of Solicitation Topic
[...]
Therefore, NASA is seeking proposals to provide complete deep space long duration architecture designs (including standards, common interfaces, and testing approach) and the development of full size, ground prototype units no later than 2018. NASA envisions development and integrated test of prototypes by the end of this phase with potential follow-on phases. NASA Procedural Requirements NPR 7120.8 defines a prototype as: “A high fidelity unit that demonstrates critical aspects of the engineering processes involved in the development of the operational unit. Engineering test units are intended to closely resemble the final product (hardware/software) to the maximum extent possible and are built and tested so as to establish confidence that the design will function in the expected environments.”

NASA is looking for a ground prototype by 2018 and mentions that the engineering test unit must ressemble the final product. For Bigelow, that likely means a ground prototype B330-DS.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/20/2016 06:24 pm
I just re-read page 4 of Appendix A to the BAA, this part is actually very interesting as it contemplates the possibility of attaching a test module to the ISS as Bigelow suggested doing with the B330 last week:

Quote from: Appendix A to the BAA
1.2 Proving Ground Strategy
[...]
To accomplish the development of the standards and common interfaces, the NextSTEP-2 Habitat awardees will participate in a government-led standards and common interface working groups. These working groups will also discuss the desirability of systems testing on ISS in addition to prototype ground testing. The working groups will be made up of government and industry team members working together. The working group activity, along with the ground prototype development and testing activities of the awarded contractors, will inform the requirements and architecture for meeting NASA’s requirements for the Phase 2 validation of the long duration deep space habitat.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/20/2016 11:00 pm
I noticed that a lot of the details are provided in the clauses below:

Quote from: Appendix A to the BAA
4.2.1.3 Schedule.

The intended schedule for this activity, referred to as NextSTEP Habitation Phase 2, is depicted in Enclosure 1 and is divided into three main periods (2a, 2b, 2c). The tasks and deliverables for Phases 2a and 2b are the base period and 6 month option 1 of the contract during which all achievement-based milestones will be executed. The 6 month option will provide the flexibility required by the government to match the CLINs proposed with available resources and appropriated funding. The second option is a period that may vary from three to six months to allow for transition to potential follow on phases.

Phase 2a is the primary development period for the contractor’s complete, integrated deep space habitat architecture and concepts, development of ground prototypes and participation in the government interface working group and modular reference architecture.
Phase 2b is the period when the contractor shall complete ground prototype development and testing. Phase 2b also includes refinement of the contractor architecture to incorporate results of the interface working group and reference architecture in Phase 2a, and formulate detailed Phase 3 plans (SOW, schedule/milestones, deliverables, and Price).

Phase 2c is the period when the government evaluates and tests selected results from Phase 2a/b results. Phase 2c also marks the transition of selected efforts to Phase 3.

4.2.1.4 Government Testing.

After the 12 month base period of the contracts in Phase 2a, NASA will designate a limited number of the prototypes being developed for independent government testing. This designation does not constitute a downselect decision and all contractors will continue to execute the CLINs and options agreed to in the terms and conditions of their contracts. The nature of the testing has not been fully decided, but testing is anticipated to occur at the end of or after completion of the contractor’s testing in Phases 2a and 2b (approximately ATP +18 months). The contractor shall include an option for a priced sub-CLIN to provide potential support for shipping of selected modules to a NASA center. Note: For purpose of pricing this option, the government intends to pay for shipping as part of the resulting awards under this solicitation and the contractor will be responsible for providing a shipping concept, developing associated shipping hardware (special fittings), and preparing and packaging the article for shipping. Alternatively or in addition, NASA may participate in or observe contractor testing of ground prototypes.

4.2.1.5 Launch Requirements.

If choosing to launch on SLS, the initial payloads must address how they will fit within a 4-6MT co-manifest limit, including adapter, and must address cargo version characteristics necessary to accommodate elements or modules. If not exclusively using SLS, the concepts must include other launch vehicle assumptions.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: sanman on 04/21/2016 12:45 am
Sorry, I'm not up on my acronyms - google says BAA means "Broad Agency Announcement" and SAA means "Systems Assurance Analysis" - is that correct?

What specifically is the issue with the IP policy?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/21/2016 01:04 am
Sorry, I'm not up on my acronyms - google says BAA means "Broad Agency Announcement" and SAA means "Systems Assurance Analysis" - is that correct?

What specifically is the issue with the IP policy?

In this case SAA means 'Space Act Agreement'. A SAA is like a contract but special rules apply to NASA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Act_Agreement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Act_Agreement)
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/21/2016 03:12 am
Sorry, I'm not up on my acronyms - google says BAA means "Broad Agency Announcement" and SAA means "Systems Assurance Analysis" - is that correct?

What specifically is the issue with the IP policy?

For commercial crew, the providers got to keep all of their IP and didn't have to share it or give it to NASA. For this  commercial habitats BAA, it seems that they have to share their IP with NASA. However, it seems that NASA can't use it to hurt them commercially.

As far as the certified cost and pricing, I know that was an issue for commercial crew. It wasn't required for most of the commercial crew program in order to lower the cost of the program. Most of this changed under certification and CCtCap which were under FAR (and not SAAs like the prior rounds). But the the commercial crew companies fought it as long as they could as they find it very cumbersome.

But I might be overblowing the importance of these issues. I am hoping someone else jumps in and voices their opinion (JoeK perhaps?).
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/25/2016 03:53 pm
An amended omnibus BAA has been posted:
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=c732a8ce657247eed1a8768f6ec5360c
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/25/2016 07:44 pm
Industry forum on April 25th at 11 am (local time):

Quote from: Appendix A to the BAA
2.2 [...]

Industry Forum: A NextSTEP-2 Partnership virtual forum will be held electronically for this Appendix and proposers will have a chance to ask questions about this particular solicitation. The tentative date for the forum is April 25, 11:00am Eastern Time. The meeting agenda and related information will be posted to the NextSTEP website.

Industry forum was today. The slides have been posted here:

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nextstep-2-virtual-industry-forum.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/nextstep
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: redliox on 04/25/2016 11:00 pm
Some fluff but obviously setting rules for would-be-contractors chiefly.  Alludes to DSH/Cislunar Habitat being on NASA's mind at least with ARM in the agenda...for now at least.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/26/2016 01:03 am
I like the presentation. The most important slide is the following one:

Quote from: slide 28
NextSTEP BAA Habitation Phase 2 Award Information

Will award multiple contracts in Aug 2016. Funding levels depend on FY16-FY18 appropriations and proposed content.
– Will mitigate budget uncertainty with structured options from proposal and resulting structured CLINs on the contract that can be incrementally funded.
• CLINs will be activated on availability of funding.
An estimated $65M will potentially be available in FY16 and FY17 with potential of additional funding in FY18.
• Estimated period of performance ~NTE 18 months with an additional 6 month no cost option period to support NASA test and negotiate potential follow on phase(s)
– 18 months would mean going from Aug/Sep 2016 – April 2018
– Follow-on activities in the 6 month no cost phase includes the shipment of selected contractor modules to NASA for integration and testing
• 30% minimum corporate contribution with at least half during the period of performance.
– Only can look back one year for partner contribution
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/26/2016 01:17 am
Slide 24 is also interesting:

Quote from: slide 24
NextSTEP BAA Habitation Phase 2 - Goal

• Develop long duration deep space habitation capabilities that lead towards a deep space transit habitat and can be flown on SLS flight(s) (or alternative launch vehicles) starting by the early to Mid 2020s
• Advance the long duration deep space habitation system concepts and mature the design and development of the integrated system(s) to achieve a high level of fidelity
– From appropriations bill: “Develop prototype deep space habitation module within the advanced exploration systems program no later than 2018.”
• NASA interprets this as direction as to develop/test a full size ground prototype unit by the end of Phase 2 to support first flight opportunities in Early to Mid 2020s
• Potential for different capabilities from domestic and international suppliers will require standards and common interfaces for aggregation. NASA led standards working group will be implemented during Phase 2.

Ground Prototype units delivered to NASA for testing and integration of NASA/AES developed capabilities
• Testing includes form, fit, volumetric, subsystem integration, and interface standards
• May use NASA-developed node/airlock and hab mockups for integration testing with contractor modules
• Ensures consistent test and interface verification approach, allows us to incorporate and test other AES
subsystems, facilitates crew training and feedback on human factors, shows stakeholders progress [#quote]
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/26/2016 02:12 am
I am not sure what to make of slide 27. I am assuming that the government furnished equipment (GFE) is optional but given how limited the funding is, I wonder how optional it really is. The government services have to be factored in the price evaluation of the proposals. But I don't know if it gets factored in for the overall budget of $65M per year. 

Quote from: slide 27
Potential GFE to Be Reviewed During Phase 2

• Environmental Control & Life Support Systems
- Highly reliable, ISS-derived life support systems, including carbon dioxide removal, oxygen generation, waste water processing, trace contaminant control, and environmental monitoring for atmosphere, water and surfaces.
- Universal Waste Management System - development of compact toilet for smaller volumes of exploration vehicles
- Ground test bed for integrated ECLSS systems that could be linked to prototype habitat.
• Modular Power Systems
- Modular power systems standards and interfaces to provide commonality across a variety of exploration vehicles.
- Interchangeable modular power distribution units and power converters.
- Autonomous power system fault detection and recovery.
- Integrated modular power systems test bed at JSC that could be linked to prototype habitat.
• Avionics and Software
- Common avionics architectures based on an open source Time Triggered Ethernet data bus that can be used by a variety of exploration vehicles.
- High performance processors, voting flight computers, and wireless instrumentation.
- Core Flight Software certified for human missions.
- Integrated avionics and software test bed at JSC that could be linked to prototype habitat.
• Docking Hatch
- Prototype lightweight docking hatch that can be used as a standard interface between exploration vehicles
• Radiation Monitoring, Modeling, and Protection
- Development radiation sensors and concepts for storm shelters.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/26/2016 02:31 am
I am not sure what to make of slide 27. I am assuming that the government furnished equipment (GFE) is optional but given how limited the funding is, I wonder how optional it really is.
{snip}

There are older designs for many of those GFE items. So if the new design does not work the habitat module and spacecraft designers will have to use an older design. Possibly imposing a cost, mass, size and reliability penalty.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 05/05/2016 02:14 pm
Here is an interesting, non-technical, Q&A which explains the motivation behind this initiative:

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nextstep-2-q-a-log.pdf
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 05/05/2016 02:32 pm
Question 9 is interesting

Quote from: Q&A log
Q9: Why is NASA soliciting industry-built habitation concepts? Why can't NASA build its own habitation?

A:
An important part of NASA’s strategy is to stimulate the commercial space industry while leveraging those same commercial capabilities through public-private partnerships and potentially future contracts to deliver mission capabilities at lower costs. NASA is looking to reach long duration habitation objectives while leveraging available industry existing or planned capabilities in LEO.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 05/05/2016 03:30 pm
I am not sure what to make of slide 27. I am assuming that the government furnished equipment (GFE) is optional but given how limited the funding is, I wonder how optional it really is.
{snip}

There are older designs for many of those GFE items. So if the new design does not work the habitat module and spacecraft designers will have to use an older design. Possibly imposing a cost, mass, size and reliability penalty.
The first item - ECLSS is going to be a huge part of the design/build/test cycle.  It is my opinion that just writing the test specifications for certifying the ECLSS on the habitat is going to cost 10's of millions, let alone quantifying its behavior.  i also suspect that the ECLSS will be a major portion of the development funding and so must be GFE.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TexasRED on 05/06/2016 03:02 pm
I am not sure what to make of slide 27. I am assuming that the government furnished equipment (GFE) is optional but given how limited the funding is, I wonder how optional it really is. The government services have to be factored in the price evaluation of the proposals. But I don't know if it gets factored in for the overall budget of $65M per year. 

Quote from: slide 27
Potential GFE to Be Reviewed During Phase 2

• Environmental Control & Life Support Systems
- Highly reliable, ISS-derived life support systems, including carbon dioxide removal, oxygen generation, waste water processing, trace contaminant control, and environmental monitoring for atmosphere, water and surfaces.
- Universal Waste Management System - development of compact toilet for smaller volumes of exploration vehicles
- Ground test bed for integrated ECLSS systems that could be linked to prototype habitat.
• Modular Power Systems
- Modular power systems standards and interfaces to provide commonality across a variety of exploration vehicles.
- Interchangeable modular power distribution units and power converters.
- Autonomous power system fault detection and recovery.
- Integrated modular power systems test bed at JSC that could be linked to prototype habitat.
• Avionics and Software
- Common avionics architectures based on an open source Time Triggered Ethernet data bus that can be used by a variety of exploration vehicles.
- High performance processors, voting flight computers, and wireless instrumentation.
- Core Flight Software certified for human missions.
- Integrated avionics and software test bed at JSC that could be linked to prototype habitat.

• Docking Hatch
- Prototype lightweight docking hatch that can be used as a standard interface between exploration vehicles
• Radiation Monitoring, Modeling, and Protection
- Development radiation sensors and concepts for storm shelters.

Thanks for the post. Liking the items on this list as some of these are already in progress notably some of the bolded.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 05/19/2016 12:11 am
Press release by Orbital ATK which promotes their cislunar habitat:
http://www.orbitalatk.com/news-room/release.asp?prid=150
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 05/19/2016 02:15 am
This hearing discussed deep-space habitats:

I didn't know we made the "first step"... ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-22hUz2vI8

See this thread for more info:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40326.msg1536274#msg1536274
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 05/20/2016 12:02 am
Here is a related thread and article:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/05/orbital-atk-cislunar-habitat-missions-sls-orion/

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40332.msg1536392#msg1536392
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 06/28/2016 03:10 am
A small update. The proposals for the habitats were due on June 15th and awards are planned in August of this year. 
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Khadgars on 06/28/2016 04:41 pm
A small update. The proposals for the habitats were due on June 15th and awards are planned in August of this year.

Do we know who submitted proposals by chance?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 07/13/2016 07:10 pm
There is some new \material starting on slide 47 of the SLS derived habitat.
https://prezi.com/ti8fu8bs4ais/etsu-2016-appalachian-forum/
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Eric Hedman on 07/13/2016 07:57 pm
There is some new \material starting on slide 47 of the SLS derived habitat.
https://prezi.com/ti8fu8bs4ais/etsu-2016-appalachian-forum/
I have to say I do like the SLS derived habitat.  Its shape and volume is impressive.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 07/14/2016 09:31 am
Great presentation! Attached are some screen captures in zip file.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/25/2016 05:35 pm
Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) tweeted at 2:15 AM on Tue, Jul 26, 2016:
Gerst: expect to make selections in August for NextSTEP Phase 2 (cislunar habitat work); that would cover ground test article development.


Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) tweeted at 2:29 AM on Tue, Jul 26, 2016:
Gerst: expect to develop flight hardware for a cislunar hab module in 2021-22 timeframe; could fly on SLS with Orion.

The habitat could be ready for first human flight. Would allow for longer mission.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: rayleighscatter on 07/25/2016 10:12 pm
Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) tweeted at 2:15 AM on Tue, Jul 26, 2016:
Gerst: expect to make selections in August for NextSTEP Phase 2 (cislunar habitat work); that would cover ground test article development.


Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) tweeted at 2:29 AM on Tue, Jul 26, 2016:
Gerst: expect to develop flight hardware for a cislunar hab module in 2021-22 timeframe; could fly on SLS with Orion.

The habitat could be ready for first human flight. Would allow for longer mission.

Would "develop" in that case mean actually building? Otherwise waiting until 2021 to start developing would be cutting it rather close (and haven't we already started?).
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 07/26/2016 04:17 pm
Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) tweeted at 2:15 AM on Tue, Jul 26, 2016:
Gerst: expect to make selections in August for NextSTEP Phase 2 (cislunar habitat work); that would cover ground test article development.


Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) tweeted at 2:29 AM on Tue, Jul 26, 2016:
Gerst: expect to develop flight hardware for a cislunar hab module in 2021-22 timeframe; could fly on SLS with Orion.

The habitat could be ready for first human flight. Would allow for longer mission.

Would "develop" in that case mean actually building? Otherwise waiting until 2021 to start developing would be cutting it rather close (and haven't we already started?).
NASA- MSFC has built three simulators, two using ISS components and one using a SLS-derived (sized) module - all are simulators.  BA has also built a BA-330 simulator.  None of these are ready for testing beyond "ergonomics".
In my opinion, 5 years is tight and will require substantial funding to get a flight article ready.  That being said, an existing ISS module not being used, such as the Boeing hab shell and/or  the Node (4?) at MSFC could work.  However, the list of "stuff" to make a manned DSH like ECLSS, power, thermal control etc. is long and will require decision making shortly if a flight-ready DSH is to be available as a co-manifested module with Orion in 2021.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/26/2016 04:41 pm
However, the list of "stuff" to make a manned DSH like ECLSS, power, thermal control etc. is long and will require decision making shortly if a flight-ready DSH is to be available as a co-manifested module with Orion in 2021.

If any of that "stuff" requires new funding from Congress then it's not likely to happen very soon.  The current NASA budget is pretty much set, so if it's not in there already then it will have to wait until next year to be added.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 07/26/2016 05:01 pm
However, the list of "stuff" to make a manned DSH like ECLSS, power, thermal control etc. is long and will require decision making shortly if a flight-ready DSH is to be available as a co-manifested module with Orion in 2021.

If any of that "stuff" requires new funding from Congress then it's not likely to happen very soon.  The current NASA budget is pretty much set, so if it's not in there already then it will have to wait until next year to be added.
At this point, if a DSH is going to be ready by 2021 then "stuff" like the ECLSS would most likly use ISS/Orion hardware - I agree that if the DSH is real - it will need a substantial budget increase in the next FY funding.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 07/27/2016 01:03 am
Quote from: Jeff Foust
Crusan: on track to make NextSTEP phase 2 awards in August. Anticipate to have $65M available in FY16-17 to fund them.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/757933632933666816

Quote from: Jeff Foust
Jason Crusan: the 4 companies that received NextSTEP phase 1 awards last year for hab studies accelerating work to complete by end of FY16.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/757931447923507200
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Khadgars on 07/27/2016 07:16 pm
Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) tweeted at 2:15 AM on Tue, Jul 26, 2016:
Gerst: expect to make selections in August for NextSTEP Phase 2 (cislunar habitat work); that would cover ground test article development.


Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) tweeted at 2:29 AM on Tue, Jul 26, 2016:
Gerst: expect to develop flight hardware for a cislunar hab module in 2021-22 timeframe; could fly on SLS with Orion.

The habitat could be ready for first human flight. Would allow for longer mission.

This is really significant and could completely change the outlook for the 2020's.  An orion+ DSH in cislunar space in early 2020's leads to some great mission potentials and firmly places Mars on the horizon.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: redliox on 07/27/2016 08:00 pm
Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) tweeted at 2:15 AM on Tue, Jul 26, 2016:
Gerst: expect to make selections in August for NextSTEP Phase 2 (cislunar habitat work); that would cover ground test article development.


Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) tweeted at 2:29 AM on Tue, Jul 26, 2016:
Gerst: expect to develop flight hardware for a cislunar hab module in 2021-22 timeframe; could fly on SLS with Orion.

The habitat could be ready for first human flight. Would allow for longer mission.

This is really significant and could completely change the outlook for the 2020's.  An orion+ DSH in cislunar space in early 2020's leads to some great mission potentials and firmly places Mars on the horizon.

That may depend on what NASA's future priorities become.

If NASA is pushed toward the lunar route, this would work perfectly.  The DSH would become a lunar gateway where Orion meets up with a future lunar lander stored at the DSH, or otherwise studies of the Moon could be conducted in a similar manner to the Earth from ISS.  The DSH could possibly have uses for deep space (yet near Earth) expeditions, like the various Lagrange points for one.

However, a Mars route might not need the DSH.  The most efficient way to get to Mars is a straight line, ala the Mars Direct method; of course this depends on if you have a large enough rocket.  As for DSH's role, it will depend on what orbit it ends up occupying; a position at L2 seems the most optimal staging point for Mars for example, but it seems a retrograde or otherwise lunar orbit is currently favored which may not be as useful.

Either way, I believe phasing out the ISS and establishing the DSH is a good idea.  We'd at least be moving out of LEO to the fringes of cislunar space where we'd be actually exploring space.  Even if NASA itself doesn't build Lunar or Martian landers, this gives it something useful to construct that could aid them.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/27/2016 09:16 pm

That may depend on what NASA's future priorities become.

If NASA is pushed toward the lunar route, this would work perfectly.  The DSH would become a lunar gateway where Orion meets up with a future lunar lander stored at the DSH, or otherwise studies of the Moon could be conducted in a similar manner to the Earth from ISS.  The DSH could possibly have uses for deep space (yet near Earth) expeditions, like the various Lagrange points for one.

However, a Mars route might not need the DSH.  The most efficient way to get to Mars is a straight line, ala the Mars Direct method; of course this depends on if you have a large enough rocket.  As for DSH's role, it will depend on what orbit it ends up occupying; a position at L2 seems the most optimal staging point for Mars for example, but it seems a retrograde or otherwise lunar orbit is currently favored which may not be as useful.

Either way, I believe phasing out the ISS and establishing the DSH is a good idea.  We'd at least be moving out of LEO to the fringes of cislunar space where we'd be actually exploring space.  Even if NASA itself doesn't build Lunar or Martian landers, this gives it something useful to construct that could aid them.

The Deep Space Habitat (DSH) sounds like a space caravan. If the design works and is cheap to duplicate then NASA may be able to afford 2 or 3. Say at LEO, low lunar and EML-2.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Khadgars on 07/27/2016 09:26 pm
Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) tweeted at 2:15 AM on Tue, Jul 26, 2016:
Gerst: expect to make selections in August for NextSTEP Phase 2 (cislunar habitat work); that would cover ground test article development.


Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) tweeted at 2:29 AM on Tue, Jul 26, 2016:
Gerst: expect to develop flight hardware for a cislunar hab module in 2021-22 timeframe; could fly on SLS with Orion.

The habitat could be ready for first human flight. Would allow for longer mission.

This is really significant and could completely change the outlook for the 2020's.  An orion+ DSH in cislunar space in early 2020's leads to some great mission potentials and firmly places Mars on the horizon.

That may depend on what NASA's future priorities become.

However, a Mars route might not need the DSH.  The most efficient way to get to Mars is a straight line, ala the Mars Direct method; of course this depends on if you have a large enough rocket.  As for DSH's role, it will depend on what orbit it ends up occupying; a position at L2 seems the most optimal staging point for Mars for example, but it seems a retrograde or otherwise lunar orbit is currently favored which may not be as useful.

Either way, I believe phasing out the ISS and establishing the DSH is a good idea.  We'd at least be moving out of LEO to the fringes of cislunar space where we'd be actually exploring space.  Even if NASA itself doesn't build Lunar or Martian landers, this gives it something useful to construct that could aid them.

Not sure I follow you.  No matter how you end up going to Mars, you will need a DSH regardless of choice.  So this advances any movement towards the Moon or Mars.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: redliox on 07/27/2016 10:19 pm
Not sure I follow you.  No matter how you end up going to Mars, you will need a DSH regardless of choice.  So this advances any movement towards the Moon or Mars.

In general yes, it's more good than trouble.  However, suppose you want to streamline and minimize architecture and rendezvous...in this case for Mars.  A lander could be developed that's essentially a DSH with legs and a heatshield on a one-way trip to Mars with a second lander prepositioned for the return trip; that was essentially Mars Direct in a nutshell, coupled with fuel manufacture on Mars itself.

So far we only know that 2 flights with the SLS and a handful of commercial flights (crewed and cargo) are firmly in the works.  The DSH is still purely on paper, and it may be altered.  Its main function is to test out life support for Mars trips.  This could take a form other than a lunar space station I'm saying.  As is, the lunar space station route is the simplest and best compromise going by current priorities...which frankly are indecisive.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/28/2016 12:51 am



The Deep Space Habitat (DSH) sounds like a space caravan. If the design works and is cheap to duplicate then NASA may be able to afford 2 or 3. Say at LEO, low lunar and EML-2.

The companies that supply the DSH may build another one for LEO, but it will be privately funded. If NASA is involved it will be as a tenant.


Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/28/2016 05:08 am



The Deep Space Habitat (DSH) sounds like a space caravan. If the design works and is cheap to duplicate then NASA may be able to afford 2 or 3. Say at LEO, low lunar and EML-2.

The companies that supply the DSH may build another one for LEO, but it will be privately funded. If NASA is involved it will be as a tenant.


If NASA is willing to sign a 4 year lease I strongly suspect that the DSH manufacture and a bank will be happy to build more.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 07/28/2016 03:25 pm
The latest HEO presentations are up for July, including the Jason Crusan presentation on Habitation Modules:
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc
The presentation makes it clear that after NASA does the engineering trades, the preference is for a commercial entity to build the module.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Bubbinski on 07/29/2016 03:36 am
If NASA wants the deep space habitat available for a 2021-22 launch, and if there's not enough lead time to have a new design module ready to go, could NASA use a life support system mounted into an Orion pressurized capsule and interior without a heat shield, attached to an Orion service module (existing design) to make the 2021-22 launch date?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 07/29/2016 04:35 am
The latest HEO presentations are up for July, including the Jason Crusan presentation on Habitation Modules:
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc
The presentation makes it clear that after NASA does the engineering trades, the preference is for a commercial entity to build the module.

Slide 25 says that there will be multiple awards:

Quote
Will award multiple contracts by Sept 2016.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: brickmack on 07/31/2016 03:13 am
If NASA wants the deep space habitat available for a 2021-22 launch, and if there's not enough lead time to have a new design module ready to go, could NASA use a life support system mounted into an Orion pressurized capsule and interior without a heat shield, attached to an Orion service module (existing design) to make the 2021-22 launch date?

I've seen this (http://i.imgur.com/7tPI1Bgl.jpg) design concept floating around before, though I've not been able to find where it came from. But it looks relatively simple, just a couple Orion pressure vessel barrel sections and endcaps welded together plus a service module. Apparently Lockheeds habitat proposal is "Orion-derived" to reduce cost and time, but I don't think any specifics have come out on it yet
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: redliox on 07/31/2016 03:50 am
If NASA wants the deep space habitat available for a 2021-22 launch, and if there's not enough lead time to have a new design module ready to go, could NASA use a life support system mounted into an Orion pressurized capsule and interior without a heat shield, attached to an Orion service module (existing design) to make the 2021-22 launch date?

I've seen this (http://i.imgur.com/7tPI1Bgl.jpg) design concept floating around before, though I've not been able to find where it came from. But it looks relatively simple, just a couple Orion pressure vessel barrel sections and endcaps welded together plus a service module. Apparently Lockheeds habitat proposal is "Orion-derived" to reduce cost and time, but I don't think any specifics have come out on it yet

The last time I saw that design was in the presentations for asteroid and Deimos missions.  Hypothetically it could work fine; maybe even better than Orion's deep space operations.

The latest HEO presentations are up for July, including the Jason Crusan presentation on Habitation Modules:
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc
The presentation makes it clear that after NASA does the engineering trades, the preference is for a commercial entity to build the module.

Technically companies have been building things for NASA for decades, Boeing being largely the provider of ISS components for example.  A better question will be whether it will be handled like the commerical program; this is for a space station habitat after all, which is slightly more involved than a cargo shuttle run.

The chosen companies seem to each have respectable strengths in this hab "contest."  Lockheed Martin can draw from Orion, Boeing already built the ISS components, Orbital ATK has flown two variations of Cygnus. and Bigelow has thrice now proven it can do inflatables (two Genesis ships and now BEAM).  It'll be hard to choose, especially since ALL of these companies have actually built working spacecraft!

Personally, I favor Bigelow since it is a larger module and they proved "they can do it" in SpaceX bold fashion.  For a second, Boeing would be my next favored since they do have solid habitat experience not to mention, like Lockeed with Orion or OrbitalATK with Cygnus, they're building their own crewed vehicle to boot.

Is it known how many modules the DSH will require or is that a matter up to the commercial entities?  Surely there would be both a habitat and a propulsion components.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 08/02/2016 06:01 pm
Is it known how many modules the DSH will require or is that a matter up to the commercial entities?  Surely there would be both a habitat and a propulsion components.

I would think that would be up to the commercial entities. The number of modules is dependent on the specific proposal. For a Bigelow DSH you might only need one BA-330 and a propulsion module, while a Cygnus will require multiple habitat modules along with propulsion.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 08/02/2016 07:33 pm
Is it known how many modules the DSH will require or is that a matter up to the commercial entities?  Surely there would be both a habitat and a propulsion components.

I would think that would be up to the commercial entities. The number of modules is dependent on the specific proposal. For a Bigelow DSH you might only need one BA-330 and a propulsion module, while a Cygnus will require multiple habitat modules along with propulsion.

Phase 2 doesn't go that far. It's a ground prototype. Besides, couldn't Orion act as the propulsion module? I don't think that there is any intent of having a permanent station at this point in time. The habitat would be launched at the same time as Orion.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/02/2016 08:44 pm
I've seen this (http://i.imgur.com/7tPI1Bgl.jpg) design concept floating around before, though I've not been able to find where it came from. But it looks relatively simple, just a couple Orion pressure vessel barrel sections and endcaps welded together plus a service module. Apparently Lockheeds habitat proposal is "Orion-derived" to reduce cost and time, but I don't think any specifics have come out on it yet

Ugh, is that ugly looking from a functional standpoint.

The only benefit of a cone-shaped enclosure if for withstanding re-entry, so removing the rear end and adding a cylindrical section to it makes no sense.  The cone-shaped end is not going to land back on Earth, so it is over-engineered for the needs of space.

If you need volume, you start with a cylinder or a sphere and connect more together.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: RonM on 08/02/2016 09:58 pm
I've seen this (http://i.imgur.com/7tPI1Bgl.jpg) design concept floating around before, though I've not been able to find where it came from. But it looks relatively simple, just a couple Orion pressure vessel barrel sections and endcaps welded together plus a service module. Apparently Lockheeds habitat proposal is "Orion-derived" to reduce cost and time, but I don't think any specifics have come out on it yet

Ugh, is that ugly looking from a functional standpoint.

The only benefit of a cone-shaped enclosure if for withstanding re-entry, so removing the rear end and adding a cylindrical section to it makes no sense.  The cone-shaped end is not going to land back on Earth, so it is over-engineered for the needs of space.

If you need volume, you start with a cylinder or a sphere and connect more together.

You need to look at the artwork again. The cone part has been replaced with a cylinder. There is no cone on the habitat.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 08/02/2016 10:22 pm
Besides, couldn't Orion act as the propulsion module? I don't think that there is any intent of having a permanent station at this point in time. The habitat would be launched at the same time as Orion.

Orion could act as propulsion if we are talking about a DSH that is only intended to extend Orion missions in cis-lunar space. That won't work for a DSH that is intended to operate independently as say a lunar way station. Right now NASA seems to be leaning towards the former type of DSH but that could change. What may happen is that we get multiple kinds of "DSHs" intended for different mission types (say a Cygnus derived module for 60 day Orion missions and a BA-330 for a lunar station).
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/03/2016 12:33 am
Modular design allows each module hitch a ride with Orion, with Orion delivering module after TLI to DSH.

An initial Cygnus type module which relies on Orion for life support would be great start. With each mission adding specialized modules.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 08/05/2016 04:05 pm
Modular design allows each module hitch a ride with Orion, with Orion delivering module after TLI to DSH.

An initial Cygnus type module which relies on Orion for life support would be great start. With each mission adding specialized modules.
Nasa is expecting that the initial habitat module will only be partially outfitted and will require logistics modules to finish off the operational cis-lunar system.  The co-manifest payload is limited to 10mt.

From the co-manifest paper: Space Launch System Co-Manifested Payload Options For Habitation by David Smitherman, NASA NTRS.
"HAB 1 fit within the 10 mt budget only by removing almost all of the internal outfitting, requiring most internal
systems to be modular for delivery on logistics flights. Open loop ECLSS consumables are included to support the Orion crew for 60 days while they install the closed loop ECLSS system in HAB 1. HAB 2 fits within the 10 mt budget but also requires logistics flights and significant on-orbit assembly."

HAB 1 and HAB 2 are NASA designed modules, I suspect that any of the commercially designed modules will have the same issues with payload mass and will require one or more logistics missions to outfit the habitat and "other" systems.  The volume for the co-manifest payload was described in: http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/05/2016 07:23 pm
Having crew fitting out habitat, especially ECLSS means it will be serviceable and can be upgraded. Will also give crew something to do.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: AncientU on 08/05/2016 08:28 pm
Having crew fitting out habitat, especially ECLSS means it will be serviceable and can be upgraded. Will also give crew something to do.

Trying to rationalize the fact that SLS will be delivering an empty can, not a habitation module?
Doesn't sound very convincing...

Who will launch the hardware, how much does the hab have to be tailored to allow on orbit build-out, will this be done in DRO, etc. are a few of the questions that this Very Bad Idea raises.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Khadgars on 08/05/2016 09:57 pm
This presentation is very enlightening.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/8-crusan_habitation_module.pdf

Many of us are on SpaceX bandwagon, but the capabilities that we are going to need have not been demonstrated by anyone, including SpaceX.

Things like 75% O2 recovery from CO2, 98% water recovery, demonstrated 24 months MTF, fire suppression systems just to name a few. 

I like the path that NASA is taking to be honest.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: ncb1397 on 08/05/2016 10:10 pm
This presentation is very enlightening.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/8-crusan_habitation_module.pdf

Many of us are on SpaceX bandwagon, but the capabilities that we are going to need have not been demonstrated by anyone, including SpaceX.

Things like 75% O2 recovery from CO2, 98% water recovery, demonstrated 24 months MTF, fire suppression systems just to name a few.

SpaceX gets around the O2 and water recovery issues with just more upmass and more fuel for faster transits. Fire suppression goes under SpaceX's "yeah, people will die like in the boats to the americas" attitude. Two very different approaches because of different goals, mindsets, funders and stakeholders.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: AncientU on 08/05/2016 10:27 pm
This presentation is very enlightening.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/8-crusan_habitation_module.pdf

Many of us are on SpaceX bandwagon, but the capabilities that we are going to need have not been demonstrated by anyone, including SpaceX.

Things like 75% O2 recovery from CO2, 98% water recovery, demonstrated 24 months MTF, fire suppression systems just to name a few.

So, after fifteen years operating the ISS, we're somehow going to be able to fit out/commission a hab in DRO five years from now with technology that doesn't yet exist?  There's a lot of work to do, folks.

Suggestion: Scrap the hab module ride-along, do-it-yourself fit-out concepts -- they are simply foolish.  Extensively test the Hab in LEO before moving it to DRO, or send a second module to DRO that incorporates all the lessons learned on the first.  Launch SLS with Orion and crew, and dock with already fitted out and tested module in DRO.   

We're not going to Mars on a shoestring mass budget.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Khadgars on 08/05/2016 10:39 pm
This presentation is very enlightening.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/8-crusan_habitation_module.pdf

Many of us are on SpaceX bandwagon, but the capabilities that we are going to need have not been demonstrated by anyone, including SpaceX.

Things like 75% O2 recovery from CO2, 98% water recovery, demonstrated 24 months MTF, fire suppression systems just to name a few.

SpaceX gets around the O2 and water recovery issues with just more upmass and more fuel for faster transits. Fire suppression goes under SpaceX's "yeah, people will die like in the boats to the americas" attitude. Two very different approaches because of different goals, mindsets, funders and stakeholders.

That makes zero sense.  If you think SpaceX is going to get away with doing BLEO exploration like that you're kidding your self.  It's fine to do trail and error with a unmanned launch vehicles, completely different in LEO and even more so BLEO.  This is actually why I'm not excited for the MCT reveal in Sept.

Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/05/2016 11:33 pm
Chris Gebhardt article on the new updates, but also with quotes per the recordings of the sessions in L2:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/08/nasa-progress-deep-space-habitat-development/
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/06/2016 12:12 am
That makes zero sense.  If you think SpaceX is going to get away with doing BLEO exploration like that you're kidding your self.

Remember they are not doing exploration per se, but colonization.  That is a different mindset for what you take, meaning they plan on taking lots of everything.

Quote
It's fine to do trail and error with a unmanned launch vehicles, completely different in LEO and even more so BLEO.

Don't set too high a bar here - NASA has been fine with sending humans into risky situations.  And not just Apollo, but the Shuttle was an experimental system being operated as if it was operational - but it obviously wasn't.

So NASA's experiences have shown that educated and highly qualified people are willing to take risks.  That's pretty typical of humanity.

That said, SpaceX is full of employees that don't want to knowingly kill anyone, so I'm sure they will be doing their best to come up with good solutions.

Back to the topic at hand, I agree with AncientU that most of the development work needed per that NASA "Specific Habitation Systems Objectives" chart you referenced upthread can be done in LEO.  Plus, it's needed for every destination humanity would want to go to, so it's a common problem for everyone - NASA, SpaceX, etc.

Quote
This is actually why I'm not excited for the MCT reveal in Sept.

It will be interesting to see how much is common or divergent from what NASA has been pursuing...
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Bob Shaw on 08/06/2016 12:24 am

Don't set too high a bar here - NASA has been fine with sending humans into risky situations.  And not just Apollo, but the Shuttle was an experimental system being operated as if it was operational - but it obviously wasn't.

X-15, 199 flights, one fatal crash. Experimental, so OK.

Shuttle...
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: AncientU on 08/06/2016 12:47 am
Thinking about this some more...
How can the SLS Block 1B only have capacity to put the Orion stack (100% of which is NOT going to Mars) plus a ten tonne empty can to DRO?  Where did all the capacity of that monster rocket go?  Is the Orion stack that overweight or is the rocket under-performing massively?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/06/2016 02:08 am
Thinking about this some more...
How can the SLS Block 1B only have capacity to put the Orion stack (100% of which is NOT going to Mars) plus a ten tonne empty can to DRO?  Where did all the capacity of that monster rocket go?  Is the Orion stack that overweight or is the rocket under-performing massively?

The SLS monster rocket is the same class is the Saturn 5 launch vehicle. DRO is a lunar orbit. Saturn 5 could send the Apollo 11 Command Module with Service Module and ~12.5mT LEM to lunar orbit. So the habitat has to mass about the same as the LEM. If you want bigger masses launch to LEO and use a second rocket to push everything to the Moon orbit.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/06/2016 02:43 am
Thinking about this some more...
How can the SLS Block 1B only have capacity to put the Orion stack (100% of which is NOT going to Mars) plus a ten tonne empty can to DRO?  Where did all the capacity of that monster rocket go?  Is the Orion stack that overweight or is the rocket under-performing massively?
The Orion and its service module will be delivering Hab module to lunar orbit after TLI. Some of mass limit maybe due to Orion limited DV.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/06/2016 03:11 am
If you want bigger masses launch to LEO and use a second rocket to push everything to the Moon orbit.

Once you start breaking up payloads you open the door to not needing an HLV - not sure that's politically viable...
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/06/2016 04:17 am
If you want bigger masses launch to LEO and use a second rocket to push everything to the Moon orbit.

Once you start breaking up payloads you open the door to not needing an HLV - not sure that's politically viable...

When dealing with habitats dry payloads of 30-40 metric tons are easy to arrange. For example just furnish a B330.

There is also a mammoth difference in the cost of assembling something on Earth and in space. Does any one have the hourly rate for the ISS?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Khadgars on 08/06/2016 04:51 am
If you want bigger masses launch to LEO and use a second rocket to push everything to the Moon orbit.

Once you start breaking up payloads you open the door to not needing an HLV - not sure that's politically viable...

You mean BFR?  In fact, no one with any serious plans is moving to smaller launch vehicles for BLEO exploration.  I find it amusing you reduce every discussion in the same way so you can make the same argument over and over.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/06/2016 05:04 am
There is also a mammoth difference in the cost of assembling something on Earth and in space.

Assembling modules in space is not that hard (ISS assembly went rather well).  And to a certain degree having a design philosophy that relies on lots of standardized modules versus one custom (and non-reconfigurable) assembly has it's advantages.

Quote
Does any one have the hourly rate for the ISS?

Hourly rates don't matter for in-space assembly if what you're assembling is far larger than what can be launched from Earth in one piece.  Like the 450mT ISS.

A DSH won't be very big to start, but we all hope that it (or it's successor) gets larger and more capable.  And at some point the size of the desired structure is going to exceed the capabilities of even the largest Earth-to-space lifter.  So modular assembly, which we used for the ISS, is the future.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/06/2016 05:14 am
You mean BFR?

No, the SLS.  My opinion has always been that whatever SpaceX does with regards to Mars is immaterial to the future of the SLS.

Quote
In fact, no one with any serious plans is moving to smaller launch vehicles for BLEO exploration.

The topic is NASA, not anyone else.  And NASA doesn't yet have any serious BLEO exploration plans - everything is pretty preliminary.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: AncientU on 08/06/2016 11:26 am
Thinking about this some more...
How can the SLS Block 1B only have capacity to put the Orion stack (100% of which is NOT going to Mars) plus a ten tonne empty can to DRO?  Where did all the capacity of that monster rocket go?  Is the Orion stack that overweight or is the rocket under-performing massively?

The SLS monster rocket is the same class is the Saturn 5 launch vehicle. DRO is a lunar orbit. Saturn 5 could send the Apollo 11 Command Module with Service Module and ~12.5mT LEM to lunar orbit. So the habitat has to mass about the same as the LEM. If you want bigger masses launch to LEO and use a second rocket to push everything to the Moon orbit.

I've asked earlier without a response, is there planning to have the EUS be refuelable?
Seems like this is a capability that would help improve the mass delivery situation.

Refueling in LEO is certainly easier than fitting out a hab module interior in DRO.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Jim on 08/06/2016 11:31 am

I've asked earlier without a response, is there planning to have the EUS be refuelable?
Seems like this is a capability that would help improve the mass delivery situation.


Why?  It is too big the way it is now.  And what good would that be?  There are no depot plans.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/06/2016 12:03 pm
There is also a mammoth difference in the cost of assembling something on Earth and in space.

Assembling modules in space is not that hard (ISS assembly went rather well).  And to a certain degree having a design philosophy that relies on lots of standardized modules versus one custom (and non-reconfigurable) assembly has it's advantages.

Quote
Does any one have the hourly rate for the ISS?

Hourly rates don't matter for in-space assembly if what you're assembling is far larger than what can be launched from Earth in one piece.  Like the 450mT ISS.

A DSH won't be very big to start, but we all hope that it (or it's successor) gets larger and more capable.  And at some point the size of the desired structure is going to exceed the capabilities of even the largest Earth-to-space lifter.  So modular assembly, which we used for the ISS, is the future.

The maximum mass of modules changes the number of launches and spacewalks needed to join the modules together. There is a big cost difference between 10 space walks and 30 space walks.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Torbjorn Larsson, OM on 08/06/2016 12:30 pm
This presentation is very enlightening.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/8-crusan_habitation_module.pdf

Many of us are on SpaceX bandwagon, but the capabilities that we are going to need have not been demonstrated by anyone, including SpaceX.

Things like 75% O2 recovery from CO2, 98% water recovery, demonstrated 24 months MTF, fire suppression systems just to name a few. 

I like the path that NASA is taking to be honest.

Thanks, interesting, and now I understand the commercial hab plans that has been presented in media.

I don't know if this is off topic/breaks comment rules, but this site loves detail and I note that the supposedly science based NASA doesn't know internally that most cellular DNA has a right handed twist [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid_double_helix#Helix_geometries ]; the else illustrative "Crew Health" page 5 icon.

As interested in astrobiology I am aghast. NASA founded it but also tend to fumble it. (PPP, Vikings, Archean and ALH 84001 'microfossils'; a growing list.) Maybe it is lucky that the new ISS DNA sequencer works on linearized DNA strands...
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Jim on 08/06/2016 01:17 pm

I don't know if this is off topic/breaks comment rules, but this site loves detail and I note that the supposedly science based NASA doesn't know internally that most cellular DNA has a right handed twist [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid_double_helix#Helix_geometries ]; the else illustrative "Crew Health" page 5 icon.

As interested in astrobiology I am aghast. NASA founded it but also tend to fumble it. (PPP, Vikings, Archean and ALH 84001 'microfossils'; a growing list.) Maybe it is lucky that the new ISS DNA sequencer works on linearized DNA strands...

You mean engineering based NASA.  And it is a symbol (it could be a mirror image mistake).  And most of the  smaller science based part of NASA wouldn't notice it. Likely less than 1% of NASA would deal with it.  I haven't dealt with biology in decades so why would any notice a little nuance like that.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/06/2016 07:47 pm

I've asked earlier without a response, is there planning to have the EUS be refuelable?
Seems like this is a capability that would help improve the mass delivery situation.


Why?  It is too big the way it is now.  And what good would that be?  There are no depot plans.
If ULA can make distributed launch work and are using it reliably on regular basis then a reusable EUS would be an option. Not only would the technoglogy be proven but infrastructure would be in place to refuel EUS.

Of course NASA still need missions/payloads to justify development costs.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/06/2016 09:05 pm
This presentation is very enlightening.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/8-crusan_habitation_module.pdf

Many of us are on SpaceX bandwagon, but the capabilities that we are going to need have not been demonstrated by anyone, including SpaceX.

Things like 75% O2 recovery from CO2, 98% water recovery, demonstrated 24 months MTF, fire suppression systems just to name a few.

SpaceX gets around the O2 and water recovery issues with just more upmass and more fuel for faster transits. Fire suppression goes under SpaceX's "yeah, people will die like in the boats to the americas" attitude. Two very different approaches because of different goals, mindsets, funders and stakeholders.

That makes zero sense.  If you think SpaceX is going to get away with doing BLEO exploration like that you're kidding your self.  ...
You should've seen what we did during Apollo!
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/06/2016 11:14 pm
The maximum mass of modules changes the number of launches and spacewalks needed to join the modules together. There is a big cost difference between 10 space walks and 30 space walks.

Space walks don't cost that much.

And you would already have the personnel and supplies at the "station" anyways.  So the cost would boil down to replacing the air you lose in the airlock and spacesuits, and general wear & tear.  Pretty miniscule.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/06/2016 11:52 pm
The maximum mass of modules changes the number of launches and spacewalks needed to join the modules together. There is a big cost difference between 10 space walks and 30 space walks.

Space walks don't cost that much.

And you would already have the personnel and supplies at the "station" anyways.  So the cost would boil down to replacing the air you lose in the airlock and spacesuits, and general wear & tear.  Pretty miniscule.

For 30 spacewalks there are about 20 cargo launches to the construction spacestation. At one a week that is ~20 weeks so it is possible that it is the same crew but with fewer modules the ISS changed the astronauts.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Torbjorn Larsson, OM on 08/07/2016 12:18 am

I don't know if this is off topic/breaks comment rules, but this site loves detail and I note that the supposedly science based NASA doesn't know internally that most cellular DNA has a right handed twist [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid_double_helix#Helix_geometries ]; the else illustrative "Crew Health" page 5 icon.

As interested in astrobiology I am aghast. NASA founded it but also tend to fumble it. (PPP, Vikings, Archean and ALH 84001 'microfossils'; a growing list.) Maybe it is lucky that the new ISS DNA sequencer works on linearized DNA strands...

You mean engineering based NASA.


Wrong. "President Dwight D. Eisenhower established NASA in 1958[7] with a distinctly civilian (rather than military) orientation encouraging peaceful applications in space science. " [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA ]

And as an engineer, I know that engineering is based in science.

And it is a symbol (it could be a mirror image mistake).  And most of the  smaller science based part of NASA wouldn't notice it. Likely less than 1% of NASA would deal with it.  I haven't dealt with biology in decades so why would any notice a little nuance like that.

Yes, of course. But few interested in science would notice little nuances like that, and instead be aghast by the science mistake.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/07/2016 03:18 am
Honestly. You have no idea how siloed people at NASA are. The engineers know basically nothing about biology. And the random graphic artist who made the drawing know even less, as likely as not.

Jim is referencing the cultural split between the engineering side of NASA and the scientific side.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: KelvinZero on 08/07/2016 04:09 am
Chris Gebhardt article on the new updates, but also with quotes per the recordings of the sessions in L2:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/08/nasa-progress-deep-space-habitat-development/

I really liked this article because it pointed out the gap between ISS and where we need to get to, not in distance but in reliability and so on. We are at about 6 months mean time to failure on the ISS apparently. This project aims for 24 months, and I guess we need to do significantly better to visit Mars as anything more than a stunt. That would give you about a 50/50 chance of surviving a mars mission timeframe? You can add redundancy of course. If you send two vehicles I guess that becomes 75% but that is still pretty abysmal.

Im not pessimistic about this. Im sure it is something we can really ace if we just keep working at it. Several things have meant that the ISS has not really focused it's budget here. I think if we ever do start spending serious budget on this we can improve at a moderate pace but it will still take years to develop something that we are confident in for multiyear missions so the sooner we start the better. It is not like the rocket equation which has diminishing returns. I think the amount of time that we can keep a crew alive in a box is just going to start shooting up till we are pretty confident their kids would be ok too, and so on.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/07/2016 06:10 am
Chris Gebhardt article on the new updates, but also with quotes per the recordings of the sessions in L2:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/08/nasa-progress-deep-space-habitat-development/

I really liked this article because it pointed out the gap between ISS and where we need to get to, not in distance but in reliability and so on. We are at about 6 months mean time to failure on the ISS apparently. This project aims for 24 months, and I guess we need to do significantly better to visit Mars as anything more than a stunt. That would give you about a 50/50 chance of surviving a mars mission timeframe? You can add redundancy of course. If you send two vehicles I guess that becomes 75% but that is still pretty abysmal.

I'm not sure we remember (or even realize) this enough.  And our lack of innovation and iteration on this using the ISS is pretty unremarkable, so one has to wonder if it's because of the challenge at hand (i.e. it's really tough), a lack of funding (wouldn't be surprising) or a lack of focus.

Lots of people think NASA is going to Mars "soon", but as you point out we don't have a path to success for basic survival systems.

Quote
Im not pessimistic about this. Im sure it is something we can really ace if we just keep working at it. Several things have meant that the ISS has not really focused it's budget here. I think if we ever do start spending serious budget on this we can improve at a moderate pace but it will still take years to develop something that we are confident in for multiyear missions so the sooner we start the better. It is not like the rocket equation which has diminishing returns. I think the amount of time that we can keep a crew alive in a box is just going to start shooting up till we are pretty confident their kids would be ok too, and so on.

As someone outside of NASA, and outside of the industry of "space", what I observe is that there is a high degree of interest in going to Mars or other places beyond LEO.  No question about that.

But what I also observe is that I don't really see a cohesive plan, with proper funding, for doing that.  Because otherwise you'd think we'd be innovating and iterating life support solutions at a much faster rate and then building operational or test systems to try them out in increasingly harsh conditions (i.e. beyond LEO).

Maybe some day it will all come together, but as of today I don't think a date can be predicted - or a decade.  This is disconcerting to say the least...
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Khadgars on 08/08/2016 03:35 am
Quote
I'm not sure we remember (or even realize) this enough.  And our lack of innovation and iteration on this using the ISS is pretty unremarkable, so one has to wonder if it's because of the challenge at hand (i.e. it's really tough), a lack of funding (wouldn't be surprising) or a lack of focus.

Lots of people think NASA is going to Mars "soon", but as you point out we don't have a path to success for basic survival systems.

Clearly you haven't read NSF's own recent article or the numerous presentations located below.  There is indeed lots of work going on, on every point you made.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/8-crusan_habitation_module.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc

Quote
As someone outside of NASA, and outside of the industry of "space", what I observe is that there is a high degree of interest in going to Mars or other places beyond LEO.  No question about that.

But what I also observe is that I don't really see a cohesive plan, with proper funding, for doing that.  Because otherwise you'd think we'd be innovating and iterating life support solutions at a much faster rate and then building operational or test systems to try them out in increasingly harsh conditions (i.e. beyond LEO).

Maybe some day it will all come together, but as of today I don't think a date can be predicted - or a decade.  This is disconcerting to say the least...

We know the "plan" up through EM-2, I suggest you stay tuned for NASA's reveal I believe slated for next month.  And no, I'm not referring to MCT reveal.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/08/2016 05:42 am
We know the "plan" up through EM-2...

Which is development.  The development of the SLS and Orion were created out of the cancellation of the Constellation program, so they didn't have to go through the normal funding processes.

What hasn't happened yet is Congress approving an OPERATIONAL budget.  NASA hasn't even released the cost numbers for the SLS, which is very curious.

And to have an operational budget there needs to be payloads and missions funded.  Some individual ones have, like the DSH, but not enough to fill up the SLS manifest through next decade, and certainly nothing to indicate NASA can't do it's job without an HLV.

Quote
I suggest you stay tuned for NASA's reveal I believe slated for next month.

NASA can announce whatever they want, but unless the President and Congress FUND what NASA announces, it will just be just another "forward-looking statement".
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: KelvinZero on 08/08/2016 07:44 am
Clearly you haven't read NSF's own recent article or the numerous presentations located below.  There is indeed lots of work going on, on every point you made.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/8-crusan_habitation_module.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc
Lots of work is going on, sure. However I think that if we were serious about going anywhere beyond LEO then our BEO budget should have at least three major prongs, not two: SLS, Orion and the DSH.

..And the DSH could have been started pretty much as one of the first modules of the ISS, 15 years ago.
..And one or two of those other prongs may be redundant by the first genuine BEO mission ..crickets. ;-)

The DSH would not be redundant, because even if we had to start again from scratch it would be a learning curve we have go through.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: AncientU on 08/08/2016 11:00 am

We know the "plan" up through EM-2, I suggest you stay tuned for NASA's reveal I believe slated for next month.  And no, I'm not referring to MCT reveal.

Will the reveal include a budget?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Wayne Hale on 08/08/2016 04:40 pm
Chris,

Good article summarizing the material presented to the NASA Advisory Council and the NAC Human Exploration and Operations Committee.

Just as a note, I am not the interim chairman of the NAC; Ken Bowersox has been named to be the interim chair following the departure of Dr. Steve Squyers.  I have been asked to serve as interim chair of the Human Exploration and Operations Committee of the NAC.  It may be a small distinction to your readers, but I wanted you to get your article just right.


Wayne Hale
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/08/2016 05:15 pm
Chris,

Good article summarizing the material presented to the NASA Advisory Council and the NAC Human Exploration and Operations Committee.

Just as a note, I am not the interim chairman of the NAC; Ken Bowersox has been named to be the interim chair following the departure of Dr. Steve Squyers.  I have been asked to serve as interim chair of the Human Exploration and Operations Committee of the NAC.  It may be a small distinction to your readers, but I wanted you to get your article just right.


Wayne Hale

Thanks! I'll edit that into Chris' article.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Khadgars on 08/08/2016 05:26 pm
Clearly you haven't read NSF's own recent article or the numerous presentations located below.  There is indeed lots of work going on, on every point you made.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/8-crusan_habitation_module.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc
Lots of work is going on, sure. However I think that if we were serious about going anywhere beyond LEO then our BEO budget should have at least three major prongs, not two: SLS, Orion and the DSH.

..And the DSH could have been started pretty much as one of the first modules of the ISS, 15 years ago.
..And one or two of those other prongs may be redundant by the first genuine BEO mission ..crickets. ;-)

The DSH would not be redundant, because even if we had to start again from scratch it would be a learning curve we have go through.

Not sure there is a point debating about spilled milk.  The DSH is front and center more now than ever, with actual funds allocated to it.  By EM-1, we will likely have a prototype.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 08/08/2016 06:52 pm
Chris Gebhardt article on the new updates, but also with quotes per the recordings of the sessions in L2:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/08/nasa-progress-deep-space-habitat-development/

Good article! There is not enough articles on habitats. This is the next logical step after the commercial crew program in my opinion. Habitats are very important for the commercial space sector. It's one thing to have commercial crew but you also need a destination for it. These habitats will be the destinations. Habitats are also important for BLEO exploration. So it's a good fit for a public/private partnership.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: ncb1397 on 08/08/2016 06:57 pm
Clearly you haven't read NSF's own recent article or the numerous presentations located below.  There is indeed lots of work going on, on every point you made.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/8-crusan_habitation_module.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc
Lots of work is going on, sure. However I think that if we were serious about going anywhere beyond LEO then our BEO budget should have at least three major prongs, not two: SLS, Orion and the DSH.

..And the DSH could have been started pretty much as one of the first modules of the ISS, 15 years ago.
..And one or two of those other prongs may be redundant by the first genuine BEO mission ..crickets. ;-)

The DSH would not be redundant, because even if we had to start again from scratch it would be a learning curve we have go through.

Arguably, you could get Mars orbit done with only two prongs (Orion and SLS) if there is a SEP service module developed for Orion that also is able to do hydrolysis to provide a larger supply of O2. The original plan was for NASA to develop a service module anyway. Obviously, we would be talking about a smaller crew(2-3).
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/08/2016 07:28 pm
I'm glad about the deep space habitat. It'll be useful for further trips out into the solar system.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 08/08/2016 07:45 pm
The latest HEO presentations are up for July, including the Jason Crusan presentation on Habitation Modules:
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc
The presentation makes it clear that after NASA does the engineering trades, the preference is for a commercial entity to build the module.

If you look at slides 23 and 29 of the Crusan presentation, it seems that life support will be provided by the government. More specifically, it seems that ECLSS could be mandatory government furnished equipement (GFE).

That makes the habitat not entirely commercial in my opinion but I understand why NASA wants to do that. They are the ones that will be making the repairs to the life support system. So they want something that they know and understand.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Jim on 08/08/2016 07:52 pm

  The DSH is front and center more now than ever, with actual funds allocated to it.  By EM-1, we will likely have a prototype.

No, and no.  It is still second tier.  And EM-1 and DSH funding have issues.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 08/08/2016 08:53 pm
The latest HEO presentations are up for July, including the Jason Crusan presentation on Habitation Modules:
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc
The presentation makes it clear that after NASA does the engineering trades, the preference is for a commercial entity to build the module.

If you look at slides 23 and 29 of the Crusan presentation, it seems that life support will be provided by the government. More specifically, it seems that ECLSS could be mandatory government furnished equipement (GFE).

That makes the habitat not entirely commercial in my opinion but I understand why NASA wants to do that. They are the ones that will be making the repairs to the life support system. So they want something that they know and understand.
Through some personal communications I have had with a past DSH manager, I also believe that the ECLSS and other sub-systems will be GFE, some of which has been posted in the past in L2.  I also think that a commercial vendor will supply the module(s) and probably not use a SLS derived stage adapter as the "shell" with the philosophy that the modules will be a production item and not a one-off. It is unclear how much capability development will be complete by 2018 and 2021, I don't see a flight module in cis-lunar orbit before 2025 (that's my personal prediction).  Further, the funding profiles for the DSH are not clear yet and might become problematic in the near future - it is my hope that we see solid funding at reasonable levels for the next 5 years.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: KelvinZero on 08/08/2016 10:29 pm
The DSH would not be redundant, because even if we had to start again from scratch it would be a learning curve we have go through.
Arguably, you could get Mars orbit done with only two prongs (Orion and SLS) if there is a SEP service module developed for Orion that also is able to do hydrolysis to provide a larger supply of O2. The original plan was for NASA to develop a service module anyway. Obviously, we would be talking about a smaller crew(2-3).
To me that would be great too if you can do it. Effectively you would be redefining the Orion as your DSH in the absolutely vital sense: it has to reliably keep your crew alive, not for 6 months but for Mars mission durations where there is zero hope of material support. Till we have that we are stuck here. The bit of extra mass of an Orion really isn't a big deal to me, compared to that.

I would also argue that just solving the problem with more consumables and parts and redundancy is not an answer, because just getting to mars and back safely does not mean much if the end goal is a permanent base or even space settlement. It would be just like building a bigger trebuchet when you know at some point you have to start from scratch with an entirely different approach to get high enough to actually reach your end goal.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/08/2016 10:56 pm
Arguably, you could get Mars orbit done with only two prongs (Orion and SLS) if there is a SEP service module developed for Orion that also is able to do hydrolysis to provide a larger supply of O2. The original plan was for NASA to develop a service module anyway. Obviously, we would be talking about a smaller crew(2-3).

2-3 humans surviving in the Orion's 691 cu ft of space for over a year?  That would be throwing out a lot about what we learned on the ISS for keeping humans alive in 0G.  Have you listened to any of the feedback from Scott Kelly after his one year mission?

Even this proposed DSH is probably the bare minimum amount of room needed for an expedition to Mars.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: dks13827 on 08/09/2016 01:02 am
Josh Hopkins at LM has done a detailed study of 2 Orions together, 2 crewmen, and a 4 month round trip mission to a near earth asteroid.  They think it would be possible to do that but the space limitations are a big issue.  Food storage and trash is very much a limiting factor for such a mission.  In other words, an Orion spacecraft alone is not large enough for the necessary supplies.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 08/09/2016 02:35 pm
During the NAC teleconference, Gerst mentionned that partial gravity may create additionnal problems. He said that you could likely not have gravity in the entire ship. So you could have vestibular problems when going from zero G to a partial gravity module. Gerst sounded pretty negative on the idea of partial gravity. But he said that the testing of partial gravity on mice on ISS should let them know if partial gravity can be helpful. But he didn't seem to think that it was necessary or helpful for Mars.

Someone asked a question about the propulsion module on the habitat. Gerst said that they hadn't decided on that yet but if there was going to be one, it would be a separate module. That might explain Bigelow laying off its propulsion team a few months ago. NASA doesn't seem to have any immediate plans for it.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: PahTo on 08/09/2016 03:24 pm

Given the attention to (partial, "artificial" and other flavors of) gravity during transit, it calls to mind a conversation I had with a young MIT engineer and some others at one table at the NSF pre-launch dinner for STS-130.  The idea of a rotating and/or counter rotating section of the ship was impracticable for a host of reasons, most notably spacecraft complexity and navigation challenges imparted by such dynamics.  This person/persons were working on individual "gravity pods" (my term) whereby an individual or small number of people would be in a rotating chamber(s) for a significant period of the journey to mitigate zeroG impacts on the body.   Not sure where all of that went, but suffice it to say this has been given considerable attention.  The solution would appear to be more elusive and complex than one might imagine...
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/09/2016 03:32 pm
I like the small-scale artificial gravity pods. I think a lot of pro-artificial-gravity purists hate it, though.

Coriolis forces can be adapted to, and the brain can actually become skilled at switching neurovestibular environments.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: the_other_Doug on 08/09/2016 06:37 pm
What hasn't happened yet is Congress approving an OPERATIONAL budget.

Operations are not planned, nor even possible, for SLS or a DSH within the next fiscal year.  The only activities that will, or can, be happening will be design, development and construction.

Congress does not approve multi-year funding.  Congress appropriates funding for the current fiscal year only.  They cannot begin to appropriate funds for activities that will not occur beyond the fiscal year in question.  And no government agency or administration is allowed to have "funding in advance," monies that are appropriated during the current fiscal year but not planned to be spent until a later fiscal year.  Any monies appropriated to any agency or administration that are not spent at the end of the fiscal year are generally required to be refunded to the common fund.

As an example -- can you point me at operational funding appropriations for a new Naval submarine during the year its keel is being laid?  Such boats take two to three years from keel laying to become operational.  Even though constructing something assumes it will be put into operation, the Navy is not required to specify operational budgets, and cannot request operational funding, for such a boat until the time during which it will become operational.

So -- is there an operational mission SLS or a DSH will fly within the next fiscal year?  No?  Then Congress cannot appropriate any funds for such a mission yet.

It is how the funding system works.  It helps when criticizing the system to at least understand how it works... ;)
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Jim on 08/09/2016 06:44 pm

As an example -- can you point me at operational funding appropriations for a new Naval submarine during the year its keel is being laid?  Such boats take two to three years from keel laying to become operational.  Even though constructing something assumes it will be put into operation, the Navy is not required to specify operational budgets, and cannot request operational funding, for such a boat until the time during which it will become operational.


Not a relevant analogy.  But to continue using it, the payload has already been developed. 
The analogy also fails on the budget part.  The Navy does budget plans that do take into account the sub's operations.  It may include a discomissioning of an existing sub or includes assuming a planned request for increases in operations budget.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/09/2016 08:49 pm
Congress does not approve multi-year funding.

Congress does agree to a funding profile for multi-year programs, such as what it already does with the development program for the SLS and Orion.

Quote
As an example -- can you point me at operational funding appropriations for a new Naval submarine during the year its keel is being laid?

Yes.  It's called the current operational budget, since the Navy keeps the same number of submarines on active duty, with rare exceptions.  And that is something that the Congress has already reviewed and agreed upon for long-term planning.

Quote
So -- is there an operational mission SLS or a DSH will fly within the next fiscal year?  No?  Then Congress cannot appropriate any funds for such a mission yet.

NASA is very good about proposing things, but so far how the DSH will be used is far from set.

For instance, NASA should be able to tell Congress how many SLS flights will be required, how many Orion need to be built, and how much overall this effort that uses the DSH will cost.  But we haven't heard that yet, so obviously Congress has not bought into the entire program yet.  We do have that for the ISS though, and Congress is OK with supporting it.  See the difference?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: the_other_Doug on 08/09/2016 10:26 pm
I do understand what you're saying, Ron.  And yes, a lot of DoD programs offer multi-year profiles of required funding schedules to maintain a specific capability.  These are all to inform Congress on their one and only actual responsibility, which is to decide how much money gets appropriated for the current fiscal year.

And yes, I agree that NASA has not presented a 20-year budget profile that shows how their Mars DRA can be accomplished, the times by which the individual pieces need to be in place, and how much per year it will all cost.

That's very likely because it cannot be done on flat budgets, at least not in the next 20 years, and NASA doesn't want to propose a program that will involve, as Mike Griffin's doomed VSE did, a nice big balloon payment at the end to cover the final push of paying for everything all at once.  I think they're aware that this would be political death for any continuing NASA involvement in future crewed exploration programs.

So, they keep developing the pieces they're allowed to develop, and hope that when it comes time to present the actual budget requirements to complete the preparations and start into operations, the political support can be mustered to push it through.

Their continuing new starts -- for now, on demo versions of DSH modules, and on SEP design programs and other new pieces -- and continuing development and construction of the pieces that have been in work for years, i.e. SLS and Orion, show NASA's determination to get everything to within that magic eight-year, we-can-push-it-through-now point and then work on mustering the political support.

If they have any other plans for how they are going to accomplish their Journey to Mars, you're right, it's sure not out there right now.

But, again, when your real political support-mustering can't even begin for another 10 to 12 years, by which time the current people in power may be dead or retired, what purpose does it serve to begin to try and put together your campaign for the funding levels you think you'll need in 12 years, or 15, or more?  You can't help your cause in any way, and can only hurt it.  Better to wait until you get to that magical eight-year point, and then push your planning -- and budget requests-- into high gear.

Myself, I believe that SLS will be a valuable HLV to have in America's arsenal, Orion and a variety of DSH units will also be highly valuable and have great uses, and I predict that the best and most important uses they will be put to won't directly involve Mars, haven't even been spoken of yet -- and certainly have no funding projections in place... :)
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 08/09/2016 11:53 pm
The NextStep Phase 2 artwork has been published by NASA at:
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nextstep-partnerships-develop-ground-prototypes

6 DSH concepts from BA, Boeing, Nanoracks IXIOM team, LM, OA, SNC
Short descriptions for each concept are on the website.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: catdlr on 08/10/2016 12:16 am
August 09, 2016
RELEASE 16-084
NASA Selects Six Companies to Develop Prototypes, Concepts for Deep Space Habitats


Through the public-private partnerships enabled by the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships-2 (NextSTEP-2) Broad Agency Announcement, Appendix A, NASA and industry partners will expand commercial development of space in low-Earth orbit while also improving deep space exploration capabilities to support more extensive human spaceflight missions.

The selected companies are:

Bigelow Aerospace of Las Vegas
Boeing of Pasadena, Texas
Lockheed Martin of Denver
Orbital ATK of Dulles, Virginia
Sierra Nevada Corporation’s Space Systems of Louisville, Colorado
NanoRacks of Webster, Texas
Habitation systems provide a safe place for humans to live as we move beyond Earth on our Journey to Mars.

“NASA is on an ambitious expansion of human spaceflight, including the Journey to Mars, and we’re utilizing the innovation, skill and knowledge of the both the government and private sectors,” said Jason Crusan, director of NASA’s Advanced Exploration Systems. “The next human exploration capabilities needed beyond the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion capsule are deep space, long duration habitation and in-space propulsion. We are now adding focus and specifics on the deep space habitats where humans will live and work independently for months or years at a time, without cargo supply deliveries from Earth.”

The six partners will have up to approximately 24 months to develop ground prototypes and/or conduct concept studies for deep space habitats. The contract award amounts are dependent on contract negotiations, and NASA has estimated the combined total of all the awards, covering work in 2016 and 2017, will be approximately $65 million, with additional efforts and funding continuing into 2018. Selected partners are required to contribute at least 30 percent of the cost of the overall proposed effort.

The ground prototypes will be used for three primary purposes: supporting integrated systems testing, human factors and operations testing, and to help define overall system functionality. These are important activities as they help define the design standards, common interfaces, and requirements while reducing risks for the final flight systems that will come after this phase.

NASA made the first NextSTEP selections in 2015, which include deep space habitation concept studies that also advance low-Earth orbit commercial capabilities. Four companies were selected under that solicitation: Bigelow Aerospace LLC, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Orbital ATK.

This round of NextSTEP selections are part of a phased approach that will catalyze commercial investment in low-Earth orbit and lead to an operational deep space habitation capability for missions in the area of space near the moon, which will serve as the proving ground for Mars during the 2020s. These missions will demonstrate human, robotic and spacecraft operations in a true deep space environment that’s still relatively close to Earth and validate technologies for the longer journey to Mars.

The activities of these NextSTEP awards will inform the acquisition and deployment approach for the next phase of flight systems for deep space including important aspects, such as standards and interfaces, module configurations, and options for deployment using SLS and Orion and commercial vehicles. In addition to U.S. industry, NASA is in discussions on collaborative opportunities with our international partners to enable fully operational deep space habitation capability.

NextSTEP is managed by the Advanced Exploration Systems Division (AES) in NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. AES is pioneering innovative approaches and public-private partnerships to rapidly develop prototype systems, advance key capabilities, and validate operational concepts for future human missions beyond Earth orbit.

For additional information about this round of NextSTEP habitation selections, visit:

www.nasa.gov/feature/nextstep-partnerships-develop-ground-prototypes

To learn more about NextSTEP, visit:

http:/www.nasa.gov/nextstep

-end-


Concept image of the interior of a deep space habitat.
Credits: NASA
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Khadgars on 08/10/2016 03:33 pm
Right on queue  ;)  Some interesting proposals, I would think Bigelow has the inside track seeing as BEAM is currently on the station.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: okan170 on 08/10/2016 03:55 pm
I have to say, I would not presume the DC Cargo carrier to be the go-to shape for a space station module!
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: the_other_Doug on 08/10/2016 03:59 pm
I still believe that NASA is following their classic pattern -- asking industry to provide designs, and even prototypes, of a given vehicle, and then saying "Thank you for your work, we'll incorporate some of the best ideas you've come up with in the hab module we're planning to build using SLS tank tooling.  Don't worry, we may yet offer contracts to build smaller modules -- after all, we may need more closet space!"

;)
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 08/10/2016 04:55 pm
I still believe that NASA is following their classic pattern -- asking industry to provide designs, and even prototypes, of a given vehicle, and then saying "Thank you for your work, we'll incorporate some of the best ideas you've come up with in the hab module we're planning to build using SLS tank tooling.  Don't worry, we may yet offer contracts to build smaller modules -- after all, we may need more closet space!"

;)
There are two competing philosophies at NASA, 1. Use the 5.5m  inter-stage as a module and outfit as Hab units and 2. Use a commercial vendor to build modules as specified and required; the engineering trades are apparently not complete. The politics of using SLS-derived components have compelling support while commercial vendors -might- be less expensive.  For instance the ability to fabricate an expandable module at the size/volume required for three 60-day missions with 4 astronauts is not clear at all, while outfitting a metal alloy module has high TRL.  This is one reason why "capability" in Phase II of NextStep has been emphasized.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Jim on 08/10/2016 04:56 pm
Right on queue  ;)  Some interesting proposals, I would think Bigelow has the inside track seeing as BEAM is currently on the station.

No more than Boeing or OA.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: LM13 on 08/10/2016 05:09 pm
It's interesting to see that Nanoracks is apparently resurrecting the Wet Workshop concept.  I wonder if that will bear any fruit--would be neat to see an ACES or an 8.4-meter SLS stage outfitted that way.  Or maybe even other stages--it's been said before that Falcon and Delta core stages can make orbit without payload.  If you could make use of that stage once it's up there...
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 08/10/2016 06:31 pm
LM details of their habitat designs and mockups.
From various sources including:
http://www.space.com/32571-lockheed-martin-space-projects-facility-photo-tour.html
Note that the modules are MPLM sized and will be co-manifested with Orion.  The co-manifest mass limit is roughly 10mT - how much can be outfitted as a secondary payload beyond  the "shell".  The plan is apparently to have three manned modules and a power/thermal module.  Four SLS-1B missions plus some number of logistics missions.  Attached are the external artwork for two of the missions and the mockup of one of the DSH internal configurations.  The internal rack design and layout differ somewhat from the MSFC MPLM-derived modules.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Danderman on 08/10/2016 06:33 pm
I wonder if Nanoracks would be developing an airlock for exploration missions.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/10/2016 09:37 pm
There are two competing philosophies at NASA, 1. Use the 5.5m  inter-stage as a module and outfit as Hab units and 2. Use a commercial vendor to build modules as specified and required; the engineering trades are apparently not complete. The politics of using SLS-derived components have compelling support while commercial vendors -might- be less expensive.

What is currently lacking in guidance for NASA is a philosophy of when to involve the private sector (and why), and when to do everything in-house at NASA.  This could be a philosophy that the NASA Administrator pushes on their own, but I think it should be something announced and bought into at the political level (i.e. President & Congress).

Based on what you stated above, it seems clear to me that there are conflicting philosophies being pushed within NASA, with one group clearly trying to involve the private sector, and another that would prefer to keep everything in-house.

For myself, my view is that NASA should only do what the private sector can't or won't do.

Which means for a Deep Space Habitat that with six very good proposals to choose from, it's clear the private sector HAS the ability to create a DSH - so NASA doesn't need to build this in-house.

Now if NASA eventually decides they want a DSH made out of SLS tooling, then SPECIFY that.  Geez.

Quote
For instance the ability to fabricate an expandable module at the size/volume required for three 60-day missions with 4 astronauts is not clear at all, while outfitting a metal alloy module has high TRL.  This is one reason why "capability" in Phase II of NextStep has been emphasized.

The other part of the philosophy thing is to understand what NASA's role is.  Is it to help the private sector to expand the U.S. economy out into space?  If so, then what NASA does with it's own needs should be in parallel with helping the private sector to gain knowledge and skills - like finding out if expandable modules are appropriate for deep-space missions, or if metal alloy modules are better.

There are many ways the government (which includes NASA) can add or create value.  Knowledge is one of them, but helping our private sector to create new business models is another one.

I think it would be a complete waste of time and money if the end result of this habitat proposal ends up being NASA rejecting all the private sector proposals and NASA building their own module.  Let's hope that doesn't happen...
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: jongoff on 08/11/2016 06:33 am
LM details of their habitat designs and mockups.
From various sources including:
http://www.space.com/32571-lockheed-martin-space-projects-facility-photo-tour.html
Note that the modules are MPLM sized and will be co-manifested with Orion.  The co-manifest mass limit is roughly 10mT - how much can be outfitted as a secondary payload beyond  the "shell".  The plan is apparently to have three manned modules and a power/thermal module.  Four SLS-1B missions plus some number of logistics missions.  Attached are the external artwork for two of the missions and the mockup of one of the DSH internal configurations.  The internal rack design and layout differ somewhat from the MSFC MPLM-derived modules.

I've actually been inside this mockup on a tour earlier in the year. Pretty cool. I'm glad NASA picked a range of providers for Ph2.

~Jon
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: kingfisherb90 on 08/11/2016 06:22 pm
Not to be all "Rockets are Lego" but are there enough systems covered between the proposals of the various stage 2 participants to build something like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus-X ?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Khadgars on 08/11/2016 07:52 pm
The maximum mass of modules changes the number of launches and spacewalks needed to join the modules together. There is a big cost difference between 10 space walks and 30 space walks.

Space walks don't cost that much.

And you would already have the personnel and supplies at the "station" anyways.  So the cost would boil down to replacing the air you lose in the airlock and spacesuits, and general wear & tear.  Pretty miniscule.

How do you make that assertion?  Based on the the below NSF thread, the Russians say the following in referencing the MLM capabilities.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23444.msg1568233#new

Quote
"The high degree of automation MLM will reduce the number of expensive spacewalks - many transactions behind can be performed without leaving the station."

I honestly have no idea how expensive or cheap a spacewalk is, and neither do you.  But it's certainly not free and adds lots of complexity and modes of failure.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Political Hack Wannabe on 08/11/2016 09:10 pm
I am looking at the SNC proposal and wondering something. 

I stipulate up front I have no inside data, and nothing more than the pictures that are posted and the little blurb NASA put up.

But I note that the central piece of their picture looks a lot like the cargo module of the Dreamchaser.  Given that, and what the blub says, could SNC be designing their cargo module to be converted into a node, that then could be used for a modular station? 

Comments? 
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: RonM on 08/12/2016 12:05 am
I am looking at the SNC proposal and wondering something. 

I stipulate up front I have no inside data, and nothing more than the pictures that are posted and the little blurb NASA put up.

But I note that the central piece of their picture looks a lot like the cargo module of the Dreamchaser.  Given that, and what the blub says, could SNC be designing their cargo module to be converted into a node, that then could be used for a modular station? 

Comments?

Yes, it says on the SNC web site it's based on the Dream Chaser cargo module.

Note that the hub, expandable module, and cylindrical module have the same solar panel section. That would be three different modules.

I wonder what the gold expandable thing is. Maybe a BEAM like test before they send up the expandable module.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: ncb1397 on 08/12/2016 06:35 pm
The maximum mass of modules changes the number of launches and spacewalks needed to join the modules together. There is a big cost difference between 10 space walks and 30 space walks.

Space walks don't cost that much.

And you would already have the personnel and supplies at the "station" anyways.  So the cost would boil down to replacing the air you lose in the airlock and spacesuits, and general wear & tear.  Pretty miniscule.

Also, a vehicle assembled out of bunch of different smaller modules will have a higher leak rate than a single module or small number of modules. Every mated surface exposed to vacuum will leak. On multi-year expeditions with no resupply, this could be significant.

Quote
ISS is not completely air-tight. Since it was assembled in space, the station did not have access to Earth-based manufacturing and testing techniques applied to most spacecraft. As a result, a leak rate of about 0.05% is to be expected and is factored into available stockpiles of oxygen. As a side effect, this low, steady leak rate can make it more difficult to identify and locate small off-nominal leaks. This is exactly the situation UBNT could help address.
http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/spaceflight/life-in-orbit/listening-leaks-iss/

Quote
The downside to increased ISS volume is that each module that is added has a small amount of nominal leakage associated with it and it also increases the potential locations that a leakage issue may occur. To ensure that overboard leakage is minimized, all modules that are added to the ISS are put through a stringent ground testing program that evaluates leakage of the module’s individual feedthroughs (holes in the pressure shell) in addition to leak testing the overall module. Experience has shown that module leakage measured on the ground is lower than that observed once modules are on-orbit. Trending of data on-orbit cannot isolate individual modules, but an overall comparison of observed on-orbit leakage to ground leakage has shown that on-orbit leakage is 12-15 times higher. The higher leakage is attributed to the additional interfaces to mate modules together and increases in leakage due to launch vibration.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110012997.pdf

Launch on current EELV class vehicles is not required given there are multiple SHLV vehicles in development. The current EELV vehicles besides possibly Falcon probably won't even be in service when DSH launches in the mid 2020s. The U.S. launch industry would likely consist of small launch vehicles(<5 mT LEO), Vulcan, Falcon(54 mT LEO), SLS(100 mT) and BFR(>100 mT)
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Jim on 08/12/2016 07:23 pm

Launch on current EELV class vehicles is not required given there are multiple SHLV vehicles in development. The current EELV vehicles besides possibly Falcon probably won't even be in service when DSH launches in the mid 2020s. The U.S. launch industry would likely consist of small launch vehicles(<5 mT LEO), Vulcan, Falcon(54 mT LEO), SLS(100 mT) and BFR(>100 mT)

Wrong.  EELV class will still be the primary launch vehicle for the US.  F9 and Vulcan (Atlas V/Delta IV replacement) will be delivering most of the US payloads.  Also, Delta IV H will still be around.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: ncb1397 on 08/12/2016 07:38 pm

Launch on current EELV class vehicles is not required given there are multiple SHLV vehicles in development. The current EELV vehicles besides possibly Falcon probably won't even be in service when DSH launches in the mid 2020s. The U.S. launch industry would likely consist of small launch vehicles(<5 mT LEO), Vulcan, Falcon(54 mT LEO), SLS(100 mT) and BFR(>100 mT)

Wrong.  EELV class will still be the primary launch vehicle for the US.  F9 and Vulcan (Atlas V/Delta IV replacement) will be delivering most of the US payloads.  Also, Delta IV H will still be around.

Delta Heavy is the higher end of EELV anyways, which will simply be the lower end of the peak performance variants of the vehicles available at the time. I mean, the fact that rockets have been trending bigger isn't exactly controversial is it? The medium version of delta is discontinued. ULA is targeting better performance than Delta Heavy with Vulcan. FH is more capable than anything in the U.S. after Saturn V. This isn't even counting SLS and whatever SpaceX is building that is too big for the 39-A flame trench.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/12/2016 08:03 pm
The other 3 proposals besides Boeing, OA, and Bigelow are actually more interesting to me. Nanoracks, especially.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: sdsds on 08/13/2016 05:59 am
The other 3 proposals besides Boeing, OA, and Bigelow are actually more interesting to me. Nanoracks, especially.

I really like the "look" of the LM proposal's end result. Plus it starts reasonably, with reconfiguration of a "spare" MPLM so it provides prototype ECLSS and Orion crew communications avionics.

The picture makes it clear it would also require a (presumably pricey) airlock and main station module before it could be deployed. Plus a robotic arm. But hey, what's wrong with dreaming big?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/13/2016 10:20 am
The other 3 proposals besides Boeing, OA, and Bigelow are actually more interesting to me. Nanoracks, especially.

I really like the "look" of the LM proposal's end result. Plus it starts reasonably, with reconfiguration of a "spare" MPLM so it provides prototype ECLSS and Orion crew communications avionics.

The picture makes it clear it would also require a (presumably pricey) airlock and main station module before it could be deployed. Plus a robotic arm. But hey, what's wrong with dreaming big?
I think robotic arm is going be necessary on any DSH.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Arb on 08/13/2016 03:50 pm
Have you listened to any of the feedback from Scott Kelly after his one year mission?
Where does one find this?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: GWH on 08/13/2016 03:59 pm
I am looking at the SNC proposal and wondering something. 

I stipulate up front I have no inside data, and nothing more than the pictures that are posted and the little blurb NASA put up.

But I note that the central piece of their picture looks a lot like the cargo module of the Dreamchaser.  Given that, and what the blub says, could SNC be designing their cargo module to be converted into a node, that then could be used for a modular station? 

Comments?

Yes, it says on the SNC web site it's based on the Dream Chaser cargo module.

Note that the hub, expandable module, and cylindrical module have the same solar panel section. That would be three different modules.

I wonder what the gold expandable thing is. Maybe a BEAM like test before they send up the expandable module.

Not just based on but literally same modules from ISS missions "In this concept, the cargo module would be left in orbit at the end of an ISS mission and serve as the core of the habitat, which would also include an expandable module and a solar electric propulsion system to transport it into cislunar space. - See more at: http://spacenews.com/nasa-adds-companies-to-program-to-develop-deep-space-habitats/#sthash.BWl6FY8Z.dpuf"

Opens up some interesting possiblities. If modules were assembled at the ISS then perhaps prop tanks could be shipped in the dragon VVs trunk and take up some of the unutilized upmass capabilities.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: redliox on 08/13/2016 06:55 pm
The other 3 proposals besides Boeing, OA, and Bigelow are actually more interesting to me. Nanoracks, especially.

I really like the "look" of the LM proposal's end result. Plus it starts reasonably, with reconfiguration of a "spare" MPLM so it provides prototype ECLSS and Orion crew communications avionics.

The picture makes it clear it would also require a (presumably pricey) airlock and main station module before it could be deployed. Plus a robotic arm. But hey, what's wrong with dreaming big?
I think robotic arm is going be necessary on any DSH.

It would be helpful, but only if things will get more complex than 2 vehicles/modules docking. It doesn't need to be another ISS all over again.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/13/2016 07:21 pm
The other 3 proposals besides Boeing, OA, and Bigelow are actually more interesting to me. Nanoracks, especially.

I really like the "look" of the LM proposal's end result. Plus it starts reasonably, with reconfiguration of a "spare" MPLM so it provides prototype ECLSS and Orion crew communications avionics.

The picture makes it clear it would also require a (presumably pricey) airlock and main station module before it could be deployed. Plus a robotic arm. But hey, what's wrong with dreaming big?
I think robotic arm is going be necessary on any DSH.

It would be helpful, but only if things will get more complex than 2 vehicles/modules docking. It doesn't need to be another ISS all over again.

Certainly it doesn't make sense to add features that won't add value, but having a robotic arm means that a DSH can be supported by more than just crew vehicles with the international Low Impact Docking System (iLIDS).  With a robotic arm cargo vehicles like the current Cygnus and Dragon can be captured and berthed using the larger Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM) - assuming the DSH has a CBM port that is available.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/13/2016 07:46 pm
Salyut 7, Mir did just fine with just docking. Though Mir did have a kind of arm, it wasn't needed for docking.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: okan170 on 08/13/2016 08:43 pm
That SNC concept would probably need an arm too.  There are some CBMs on that render and, unless that mystical green spotlight coming out of them is some sort of tractor beam, they're going to need an arm for that.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Patchouli on 08/13/2016 10:20 pm
I still believe that NASA is following their classic pattern -- asking industry to provide designs, and even prototypes, of a given vehicle, and then saying "Thank you for your work, we'll incorporate some of the best ideas you've come up with in the hab module we're planning to build using SLS tank tooling.  Don't worry, we may yet offer contracts to build smaller modules -- after all, we may need more closet space!"

;)
Wouldn't surprise me but one of the other concepts could still get used as an add on module or repurposed as logistics vehicle.


I think robotic arm is going be necessary on any DSH.

Pretty much every version of DHS except for Skylab II would need one and even a station based on a single large monolithic module would benefit from having an arm of sorts as would would simplify space walks and allow use of a CBM for cargo vehicles.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/14/2016 07:22 am
Salyut 7, Mir did just fine with just docking. Though Mir did have a kind of arm, it wasn't needed for docking.

True, but the Russian vehicles used Soyuz-style docking ports. I think that the US proposal is to use CBM mating points (thus making it easier to move big stuff around the inside of the spacecraft) and that will require a robot arm.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/14/2016 06:58 pm
Salyut 7, Mir did just fine with just docking. Though Mir did have a kind of arm, it wasn't needed for docking.

True, but the Russian vehicles used Soyuz-style docking ports. I think that the US proposal is to use CBM mating points (thus making it easier to move big stuff around the inside of the spacecraft) and that will require a robot arm.
But you could use iLIDS, and for especially large cargo, remove the docking petals.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: sdsds on 08/15/2016 05:04 am
But you could use iLIDS, and for especially large cargo, remove the docking petals.

I was somehow under the impression that some large items, like say the hard upper torso of an EMU, simply would not fit through an 800mm circular hatch, petals or no.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: woods170 on 08/15/2016 07:45 am
But you could use iLIDS, and for especially large cargo, remove the docking petals.

I was somehow under the impression that some large items, like say the hard upper torso of an EMU, simply would not fit through an 800mm circular hatch, petals or no.
The airlock hatch diameter is in the order of 1 meter to allow clear passage of the hard upper torso of an EMU. A long time ago the airlock/vehicle hatch diameter requirement for an EMU was 914 mm. Not sure if this has changed, but if the old requirement still applies then 800mm is indeed not enough.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/15/2016 01:54 pm
But you could use iLIDS, and for especially large cargo, remove the docking petals.

I was somehow under the impression that some large items, like say the hard upper torso of an EMU, simply would not fit through an 800mm circular hatch, petals or no.
The airlock hatch diameter is in the order of 1 meter to allow clear passage of the hard upper torso of an EMU. A long time ago the airlock/vehicle hatch diameter requirement for an EMU was 914 mm. Not sure if this has changed, but if the old requirement still applies then 800mm is indeed not enough.
So you're saying the EMU couldn't fit through the Shuttle's docking adapter? I'm pretty sure that it can.

Trying to get out an airlock while wearing a pressurized spacesuit is different than bringing an empty spacesuit through a docking hatch.

...additionally, the Russians seem to have no problem with their spacesuits, and their docking adapter is the same size.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/15/2016 03:04 pm
... additionally, the Russians seem to have no problem with their spacesuits, and their docking adapter is the same size.

Don't the Russians use a specialised EVA airlock on Pirs that's much larger in diameter than the Soyuz docking system hatch?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 08/15/2016 03:09 pm
The other 3 proposals besides Boeing, OA, and Bigelow are actually more interesting to me. Nanoracks, especially.

I have trouble getting excited about any of the proposals. Spreading $60 million per year to 6 awards means that they will all be underfunded. I am in favour of competition but 6 proposals is simply too many.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/15/2016 03:58 pm
The other 3 proposals besides Boeing, OA, and Bigelow are actually more interesting to me. Nanoracks, especially.

I have trouble getting excited about any of the proposals. Spreading $60 million per year to 6 awards means that they will all be underfunded. I am in favour of competition but 6 proposals is simply too many.

If all 6 are for living quarters yes there are too many.  However if some proposals turn into say a multi-port docking module, customisable control room, large (wet) storeroom module, airlock module, station keeping module with long range option (big fuel tanks) and repair hanger module for the landers then 6 contracts may be very useful.

When it builds its DSH NASA will have to Lego on a galactic scale, picking the appropriate modules for the spacestation or transfer vehicle.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/15/2016 04:23 pm
FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if Nanoracks were bidding for a modular internal equipment system or something similar.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 08/15/2016 04:45 pm
FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if Nanoracks were bidding for a modular internal equipment system or something similar.

Here is what Nanoracks will be doing under its award:

Quote from: Nanoracks Summary
NanoRacks of Webster, Texas in conjunction with its partners, Space Systems Loral and the United Launch Alliance, referred to collectively as the Ixion Team, will conduct a comprehensive feasibility study regarding the conversion of an existing launch vehicle’s upper stage, or propellant segment, into a pressurized habitable volume in space. The feasibility study will provide insight into this innovative and low-cost approach that can be used for any rocket system, including SLS.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nextstep-partnerships-develop-ground-prototypes
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Lars-J on 08/15/2016 06:11 pm
... additionally, the Russians seem to have no problem with their spacesuits, and their docking adapter is the same size.

Don't the Russians use a specialised EVA airlock on Pirs that's much larger in diameter than the Soyuz docking system hatch?

For convenience, yes, but they have used Orlan suits to do internal EVA's through hatches. (On Mir at least)
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/15/2016 06:59 pm
... additionally, the Russians seem to have no problem with their spacesuits, and their docking adapter is the same size.

Don't the Russians use a specialised EVA airlock on Pirs that's much larger in diameter than the Soyuz docking system hatch?
Yes, but we're talking about moving a spacesuit inside, not doing an EVA inside. Basically all Russian cargo (including spacesuits) comes via Progress.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 08/15/2016 07:20 pm
The other 3 proposals besides Boeing, OA, and Bigelow are actually more interesting to me. Nanoracks, especially.

I have trouble getting excited about any of the proposals. Spreading $60 million per year to 6 awards means that they will all be underfunded. I am in favour of competition but 6 proposals is simply too many.

Two or three awards may have been better.  Do you think NASA will downselect?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 08/15/2016 08:10 pm
It is possible for them to downselect under the next phase 3 (Nexstep-3).
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 08/15/2016 08:25 pm
It is possible for them to downselect under the next phase 3 (Nexstep-3).
I agree that it will probably by until Phase 3 for a downselect to one vendor. Phase 2A and B is for developing capabilities and increasing TRL of critical components such as the ECLSS etc, many susb-systems will be built and tested in these two phases.  I doubt that full-up DSH will be built until Phase 3 at which time a downselect will be probably be made.  My guess is that their will be a commercial vendor - LM (for political reasons) which will integrate GFE and other concepts into a design for a minimum of three missions with 4 astronauts with each mission lasting 60 days.  The design will most likely utilize the 10mT limit for co-manifest with Orion and wouldn't surprise me if they use a SLS-derived 5.5m section as the module shell, built at Michoud and will be GFE (more political support).  My guess is that several vendors will provide sub-systems such as power, thermal etc. while LM writes the ICD and does the full integration.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/15/2016 11:00 pm
FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if Nanoracks were bidding for a modular internal equipment system or something similar.

Here is what Nanoracks will be doing under its award:

Quote from: Nanoracks Summary
NanoRacks of Webster, Texas in conjunction with its partners, Space Systems Loral and the United Launch Alliance, referred to collectively as the Ixion Team, will conduct a comprehensive feasibility study regarding the conversion of an existing launch vehicle’s upper stage, or propellant segment, into a pressurized habitable volume in space. The feasibility study will provide insight into this innovative and low-cost approach that can be used for any rocket system, including SLS.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nextstep-partnerships-develop-ground-prototypes
Here is another article on Nanorack idea.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/08/15/nanoracks-teams-ssl-ula-nextstep2-habitat-development/#more-59153

A repurposed Centuar could be used for garbage disposal. Add docking hatch to LH tank, put divider in LH tank so it can still be used for LH.
Load front half of tank with rubbish, fuel with GH GOx, use gas thrusts to separate from station then dock with depot for LH and LOx topup. Then do a deorbit burn or in case of DSH head off to deep space.

This would free Cygnus cargo modules up, to be added to space station.

NB  a 5.5m 70t ACES tank would provide one huge rubbish truck or  habitat volume.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 08/15/2016 11:46 pm
FWIW, I wouldn't be surprised if Nanoracks were bidding for a modular internal equipment system or something similar.

Here is what Nanoracks will be doing under its award:

Quote from: Nanoracks Summary
NanoRacks of Webster, Texas in conjunction with its partners, Space Systems Loral and the United Launch Alliance, referred to collectively as the Ixion Team, will conduct a comprehensive feasibility study regarding the conversion of an existing launch vehicle’s upper stage, or propellant segment, into a pressurized habitable volume in space. The feasibility study will provide insight into this innovative and low-cost approach that can be used for any rocket system, including SLS.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nextstep-partnerships-develop-ground-prototypes
Here is another article on Nanorack idea.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2016/08/15/nanoracks-teams-ssl-ula-nextstep2-habitat-development/#more-59153

A repurposed Centuar could be used for garbage disposal. Add docking hatch to LH tank, put divider in LH tank so it can still be used for LH.
Load front half of tank with rubbish, fuel with GH GOx, use gas thrusts to separate from station then dock with depot for LH and LOx topup. Then do a deorbit burn or in case of DSH head off to deep space.

This would free Cygnus cargo modules up, to be added to space station.

NB  a 5.5m 70t ACES tank would provide one huge rubbish truck or  habitat volume.
I think the salient point of the Ixion Phase 2a contract is:
"After being proven in LEO, the Ixion Team’s approach can be used to create deep space habitats from any future rocket upper stages, including the Space Launch System’s upper stage, which would provide a substantial amount of volume and capability for beyond LEO human exploration missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond."
further supporting the idea of using the 5.5m SLS-derived section.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: GWH on 08/16/2016 12:46 am
[
A repurposed Centuar could be used for garbage disposal. Add docking hatch to LH tank, put divider in LH tank so it can still be used for LH.
Load front half of tank with rubbish, fuel with GH GOx, use gas thrusts to separate from station then dock with depot for LH and LOx topup. Then do a deorbit burn or in case of DSH head off to deep space.

This would free Cygnus cargo modules up, to be added to space station.

NB  a 5.5m 70t ACES tank would provide one huge rubbish truck or  habitat volume.

I think that is where the real strength to this concept lies.  Not trying to make it an all out habitat but rather leveraging off other vehicles/habitats.  If a deep space Cygnus were built with functional equipment installed on it's inner perimeter but stuffed full of consumables then the same upper stage that delivers it to deep space can effectively be converted into a storage closet and eventual disposal for said consumables.

Perhaps a generic docking or birthing adapter can be integrated into the payload adapter?

There could be a surplus of ACES tanks available in orbit depending on how much distributed launch works out.

Long term if asteroid mining is to take off this pressurized volume could be very valuable for storage throughout processing stages.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/16/2016 01:07 am
For asteroid mining the ACES delivers the manufacturing equipment then becomes part of plant. If part LH tank is reserved, then still have a functional US with reduced DV.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: GWH on 08/16/2016 04:15 pm
Looking at things a little more I think the SNC proposal tied in with Nanoracks would make a lot of sense.  At a glance the SNC proposal seems pretty limited as it hinges on the availability of additional modules for habitable volume.

 The Dream Chaser cargo module already includes a front and rear port, and at least the solar panels to support a larger spacecraft.  Presumably the cargo module would dock to a Centaur/ACES stage left in orbit after completion of the primary DC mission for outfitting. 
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/16/2016 04:42 pm
Deleted, duplicate entry.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 08/16/2016 04:53 pm
This is the MSFC co-manifest Cis-Lunar DSH abstracted from Smitherman, 2015 (ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150021406.pdf) and oriented the same way as in the LM concept, using the 5.5m diameter modules instead of the 4.5m modules.  The 5.5m modules will be in production for the SLS and might be preferred over the 4.5m units not in production.  Note that once the modules are put into the LM proposal artwork orientation, they are quite similar with the exception that the MSFC uses an additional node module with both CBM and NDS ports.  This concept would require 5 SLS co-manifested missions or possibly 2 co-manifest missions and one SLS 1B cargo mission plus roughly 5 to 7 logistics missions to outfit and supply the DSH.  The co-manifest missions will be limited to 10mT payloads, requiring logistics packages (Extended Cygnus?) for completion. Dropping the Node module, the LM preferred design, would reduce the SLS requirements by one mission, and two logistics missions, a substantial cost savings.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: the_other_Doug on 08/16/2016 04:57 pm
My concern with some of these smaller hab modules being proposed is the personal space issue.

I get the feeling that, if you decided that, say, each of the projected four crew people needs about three square meters of personal space, some of these companies would say "Sure, no problem!  Let's see, you just need to order 18 of them, then..."
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/16/2016 04:57 pm
The reuse of ACES could be taken one step further. After docking with station detach propulsion section, deorbit it and recover using SMART system.

Deorbiting of propulsion section could be do by a returning DC or Starliner. NB propulsion section even after separation does have some maneuvering thrust available from small tanks of pressurized GH and GO.

A large empty tank would solve ISS storage issues. At present ISS has supplies and spare stored all over place and quite often crew can't locate what they want especially in a timely fashion.
The empty tank would allow them to store everything against outer hull 1-2 layers deep.



Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 08/16/2016 05:05 pm
My concern with some of these smaller hab modules being proposed is the personal space issue.

I get the feeling that, if you decided that, say, each of the projected four crew people needs about three square meters of personal space, some of these companies would say "Sure, no problem!  Let's see, you just need to order 18 of them, then..."
The requirement for 4 astronauts for a 60 day mission is 25^3m per astronaut of habitable space.  Some of the proposed DSH concepts as you noted will be less then ideal, further the more interfaces on the DSH the more leaks - for instance with a leak rate of 000.05% per day for the entire system, with a 1000 day mission period, 50% of the atmosphere is lost and must be replenished.   This is one of the reasons why larger modules are preferred.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: the_other_Doug on 08/16/2016 05:23 pm
My concern with some of these smaller hab modules being proposed is the personal space issue.

I get the feeling that, if you decided that, say, each of the projected four crew people needs about three square meters of personal space, some of these companies would say "Sure, no problem!  Let's see, you just need to order 18 of them, then..."
The requirement for 4 astronauts for a 60 day mission is 25^3m per astronaut of habitable space.  Some of the proposed DSH concepts as you noted will be less then ideal, further the more interfaces on the DSH the more leaks - for instance with a leak rate of 000.05% per day for the entire system, with a 1000 day mission period, 50% of the atmosphere is lost and must be replenished.   This is one of the reasons why larger modules are preferred.

Thanks for the clarification as to space requirements for crew, I was just tossing out a number for the sake of argument; I knew the actual number was likely larger.  And I agree with your observations on leak rates, too -- the more interfaces, the more leaking you'll get.  It's inevitable.

Besides, everyone knows that a proper planetary spaceship is a long, cigar-shaped single module with long, tapering swept-back fins that serve as the landing legs... ;)
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: PahTo on 08/16/2016 05:41 pm
My concern with some of these smaller hab modules being proposed is the personal space issue.

I get the feeling that, if you decided that, say, each of the projected four crew people needs about three square meters of personal space, some of these companies would say "Sure, no problem!  Let's see, you just need to order 18 of them, then..."
The requirement for 4 astronauts for a 60 day mission is 25^3m per astronaut of habitable space.  Some of the proposed DSH concepts as you noted will be less then ideal, further the more interfaces on the DSH the more leaks - for instance with a leak rate of 000.05% per day for the entire system, with a 1000 day mission period, 50% of the atmosphere is lost and must be replenished.   This is one of the reasons why larger modules are preferred.

Thanks for the clarification as to space requirements for crew, I was just tossing out a number for the sake of argument; I knew the actual number was likely larger.  And I agree with your observations on leak rates, too -- the more interfaces, the more leaking you'll get.  It's inevitable.

Besides, everyone knows that a proper planetary spaceship is a long, cigar-shaped single module with long, tapering swept-back fins that serve as the landing legs... ;)

Good stuff all the way around (seriously and not so much).  :)  Of course, it will also need airlocks at least at both ends so crew can EVA around the outside to backdoor any unfriendlies contained within (reference:  "It, The Terror From Beyond Space").
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 08/16/2016 06:11 pm
My concern with some of these smaller hab modules being proposed is the personal space issue.

I get the feeling that, if you decided that, say, each of the projected four crew people needs about three square meters of personal space, some of these companies would say "Sure, no problem!  Let's see, you just need to order 18 of them, then..."
The requirement for 4 astronauts for a 60 day mission is 25^3m per astronaut of habitable space.  Some of the proposed DSH concepts as you noted will be less then ideal, further the more interfaces on the DSH the more leaks - for instance with a leak rate of 000.05% per day for the entire system, with a 1000 day mission period, 50% of the atmosphere is lost and must be replenished.   This is one of the reasons why larger modules are preferred.

Thanks for the clarification as to space requirements for crew, I was just tossing out a number for the sake of argument; I knew the actual number was likely larger.  And I agree with your observations on leak rates, too -- the more interfaces, the more leaking you'll get.  It's inevitable.

Besides, everyone knows that a proper planetary spaceship is a long, cigar-shaped single module with long, tapering swept-back fins that serve as the landing legs... ;)

Good stuff all the way around (seriously and not so much).  :)  Of course, it will also need airlocks at least at both ends so crew can EVA around the outside to backdoor any unfriendlies contained within (reference:  "It, The Terror From Beyond Space").
\
Thank you for the compliment. My post number 297 shows that the MSFC and LM concepts have a airlock module attached to the stack.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: jongoff on 08/22/2016 09:59 pm
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/space-flight/nasa-funds-partnership-to-explore-making-space-habitats-out-of-used-rocket-fuel-tanks

Good article giving a lot of new details about NanoRacks Ixion concept. Key concepts they want to explore:

1- Dual launching with a Cygnus, which provides the maneuvering smarts to get it to ISS.
2- Having a mission module made from Centaur forward skirts, tank domes, and a ring for attaching various docking ports. The mission module would be attached between Centaur and Cygnus, and the whole thing would still fit within the existing fairing.
3- Want to look at eventually using this for manufacturing spacecraft on-orbit for deployment.
4- Focused primarily on LEO commercialization/ISS follow-on instead of Deep Space Habs

Interesting concept. It would be neat to see someone finally try the wet-lab approach. And a Centaur is a great stage to start from, especially since most lessons learned would apply well to ACES, which should be a much more capable stage.

~Jon
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: dks13827 on 08/23/2016 01:36 am
Have you listened to any of the feedback from Scott Kelly after his one year mission?
Where does one find this?
   Youtube
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: CTC on 09/20/2016 03:26 pm
Probably plenty of reasons, but I'm still wondering.

None of the companies is suggesting a truncated cone shaped HAB module that is just large enough to fit the payload adapter for Orion. A module that has 5 meters diameter at one end, and 8 meters at the other. For a length of 7 meters, this would seem to have about 40% larger pressurized volume than the 5.5 meters diameter cylinder. And probably 50% more habitable volume.

In case a node module is added and two of this modules are connected to it at their narrow end, organizing the interior space should not be very difficult.

You get the same volume in 3 SLS launches instead of 4, so some of the extra cost would be mitigated by that.

Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: whitelancer64 on 09/20/2016 04:12 pm
Probably plenty of reasons, but I'm still wondering.

None of the companies is suggesting a truncated cone shaped HAB module that is just large enough to fit the payload adapter for Orion. A module that has 5 meters diameter at one end, and 8 meters at the other. For a length of 7 meters, this would seem to have about 40% larger pressurized volume than the 5.5 meters diameter cylinder. And probably 50% more habitable volume.

In case a node module is added and two of this modules are connected to it at their narrow end, organizing the interior space should not be very difficult.

You get the same volume in 3 SLS launches instead of 4, so some of the extra cost would be mitigated by that.

The optimum shape for containing pressure is a sphere. After that the simplest form for containing pressure is a cylinder, which is why most of the modules on the ISS are cylindrical in shape. Deviating from optimal shapes result in pressure vessels that have forces acting on them at odd angles, which must be reinforced, especially at structurally weaker areas, making them heavier.

Number 1 consideration for all things space travel related is weight.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: redliox on 09/21/2016 09:29 am
Probably plenty of reasons, but I'm still wondering.

None of the companies is suggesting a truncated cone shaped HAB module that is just large enough to fit the payload adapter for Orion. A module that has 5 meters diameter at one end, and 8 meters at the other. For a length of 7 meters, this would seem to have about 40% larger pressurized volume than the 5.5 meters diameter cylinder. And probably 50% more habitable volume.

In case a node module is added and two of this modules are connected to it at their narrow end, organizing the interior space should not be very difficult.

How big does that volume compare to ISS modules or Bigelow's?  I'm going to assume a deflated Bigelow could fit into that cone without issues.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Jim on 09/21/2016 11:57 am
Probably plenty of reasons, but I'm still wondering.

None of the companies is suggesting a truncated cone shaped HAB module that is just large enough to fit the payload adapter for Orion. A module that has 5 meters diameter at one end, and 8 meters at the other. For a length of 7 meters, this would seem to have about 40% larger pressurized volume than the 5.5 meters diameter cylinder. And probably 50% more habitable volume.

In case a node module is added and two of this modules are connected to it at their narrow end, organizing the interior space should not be very difficult.

You get the same volume in 3 SLS launches instead of 4, so some of the extra cost would be mitigated by that.

The optimum shape for containing pressure is a sphere. After that the simplest form for containing pressure is a cylinder, which is why most of the modules on the ISS are cylindrical in shape. Deviating from optimal shapes result in pressure vessels that have forces acting on them at odd angles, which must be reinforced, especially at structurally weaker areas, making them heavier.

Number 1 consideration for all things space travel related is weight.

So to take the best of both worlds and use the available volume, the pressurized space should be a cylinder with a diameter 5.5 meter.  Then to use the volume of the aft end of the adapters, items can be mounted around the aft end of the cylinder.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 09/21/2016 05:43 pm
Probably plenty of reasons, but I'm still wondering.

None of the companies is suggesting a truncated cone shaped HAB module that is just large enough to fit the payload adapter for Orion. A module that has 5 meters diameter at one end, and 8 meters at the other. For a length of 7 meters, this would seem to have about 40% larger pressurized volume than the 5.5 meters diameter cylinder. And probably 50% more habitable volume.

In case a node module is added and two of this modules are connected to it at their narrow end, organizing the interior space should not be very difficult.

You get the same volume in 3 SLS launches instead of 4, so some of the extra cost would be mitigated by that.

The optimum shape for containing pressure is a sphere. After that the simplest form for containing pressure is a cylinder, which is why most of the modules on the ISS are cylindrical in shape. Deviating from optimal shapes result in pressure vessels that have forces acting on them at odd angles, which must be reinforced, especially at structurally weaker areas, making them heavier.

Number 1 consideration for all things space travel related is weight.

So to take the best of both worlds and use the available volume, the pressurized space should be a cylinder with a diameter 5.5 meter.  Then to use the volume of the aft end of the adapters, items can be mounted around the aft end of the cylinder.

From:
Space Launch System Co-Manifested Payload Options For Habitation. ntrs.nasa.gov/archive nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150021406.pdf

"HAB 1 fit within the 10 mt budget only by removing almost all of the internal outfitting, requiring most internal
systems to be modular for delivery on logistics flights."

Both the 4.5 and 5.5 m diameter modules when co-manifested with Orion will be stripped of most of its internal "fittings" and will require additional missions to outfit the modules for use.  There should be volume available for items around the module but I suspect the SLS stack will be at its weight limit.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: jtrame on 09/22/2016 10:47 am
Maybe it makes more sense to outfit the Hab on Earth and send it up on a dedicated flight.  Then co-manifest Orion and the Node on the second flight.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 09/22/2016 03:22 pm
Maybe it makes more sense to outfit the Hab on Earth and send it up on a dedicated flight.  Then co-manifest Orion and the Node on the second flight.
In the paper I quoted above, a 10m Hab module would be launched on a SLS cargo variant which can loft at least 40mt. It seems to me that a cargo version could launch at least 2 of the 5.5m Hab modules fully outfitted, while the Orion and co-manifested node module could be launched to rendezvous with the Hab modules.  Is the Orion Service module capable of moving an additional 40mt to cis-lunar orbit from LEO?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Jim on 09/22/2016 03:48 pm

Maybe it ma Is the Orion Service module capable of moving an additional 40mt to cis-lunar orbit from LEO?

No, and the SM is not a stand alone stage
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 09/22/2016 04:18 pm

Maybe it ma Is the Orion Service module capable of moving an additional 40mt to cis-lunar orbit from LEO?

No, and the SM is not a stand alone stage
I didn't think of the SM as a stand-alone stage as it would need GNC and a lot of communications - which is not part of the SM.  You did answer a bigger question as to why a number of logistics flights are needed for a Cis-Lunar facility as their appears to be no way to get large-mass components to lunar orbits.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/22/2016 05:37 pm
Sounds like there is plenty of assembly work to keep the first few crew missions busy.

 Plus a demand for Cygnus type commercial supply missions to carry station equipment.

Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Danderman on 09/22/2016 05:43 pm
An interesting aspect of the Ixiom concept is the re-use of upper stages.

In that world where first stages are commonly re-used, there would exist the problem of the second stage being recovered.  In my opinion the optimal solution would be a winged upper stage using LH2 prop, and therefore being so voluminous that re-entry loads would be gentle. However, if we are going to go through a period of using more or less current upper stages, one approach might be to re-use the upper stages as habitable volume, ie as an example, a cargo mission to ISS might re-use the upper stage by parking it in a nearby orbit, and assembling a new platform based on these upper stages.

In a world where launch costs are cheap, and loads of tourists are flying in orbit, this might be one way to accommodate the tourists without using ISS.

Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: jtrame on 09/22/2016 06:00 pm

Maybe it ma Is the Orion Service module capable of moving an additional 40mt to cis-lunar orbit from LEO?

No, and the SM is not a stand alone stage
I didn't think of the SM as a stand-alone stage as it would need GNC and a lot of communications - which is not part of the SM.  You did answer a bigger question as to why a number of logistics flights are needed for a Cis-Lunar facility as their appears to be no way to get large-mass components to lunar orbits.

Wouldn't the EUS perform the transfer in this example?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/22/2016 06:33 pm
You did answer a bigger question as to why a number of logistics flights are needed for a Cis-Lunar facility as their appears to be no way to get large-mass components to lunar orbits.

No way using the current SLS, or no way using any other space transportation system?

Regardless, if there is a need to move "large-mass components" to lunar orbits I'm sure there are plenty of commercial entities that could provide that service, either with existing systems (i.e. like Centaur) or with newly developed ones.

I don't see this as a limiting issue for supporting the establishment of a DSH.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 09/22/2016 06:33 pm

Maybe it ma Is the Orion Service module capable of moving an additional 40mt to cis-lunar orbit from LEO?

No, and the SM is not a stand alone stage
I didn't think of the SM as a stand-alone stage as it would need GNC and a lot of communications - which is not part of the SM.  You did answer a bigger question as to why a number of logistics flights are needed for a Cis-Lunar facility as their appears to be no way to get large-mass components to lunar orbits.

Wouldn't the EUS perform the transfer in this example?
Yes, it completely escaped me, of course the EUS can do the job.  By using the EUS to move the stack including Orion it would demonstrate many of the requirements for a Mars stack as well.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/22/2016 08:22 pm
Maybe it makes more sense to outfit the Hab on Earth and send it up on a dedicated flight.  Then co-manifest Orion and the Node on the second flight.
In the paper I quoted above, a 10m Hab module would be launched on a SLS cargo variant which can loft at least 40mt. It seems to me that a cargo version could launch at least 2 of the 5.5m Hab modules fully outfitted, while the Orion and co-manifested node module could be launched to rendezvous with the Hab modules.  Is the Orion Service module capable of moving an additional 40mt to cis-lunar orbit from LEO?

By the time the DSH is ready to go to lunar orbit the ARM's SEP stage will be flying (TRL 9). Build a second SEP tug to push the DSH into position. Then bring it back for cargo resupply trips.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: catdlr on 09/23/2016 12:34 am
Orion Backstage: Evaluating Radiation Protection Plans for Astronauts

NASA Johnson

Published on Sep 22, 2016
When astronauts in Orion venture far beyond Earth into deep space, they will expand humanity’s frontier and push the boundaries of exploration. While the spacecraft is designed with systems and materials to keep the crew safe during their journey, leaving the protection of Earth’s magnetosphere exposes astronauts to a radiation environment in space that scientists and engineers at Johnson Space Center in Houston are working hard to protect against.

https://youtu.be/70GrihLXmSs?t=001

https://youtu.be/70GrihLXmSs
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 09/26/2016 06:16 pm
Boeing is now showing an "updated" Cis-lunar habitat design.  The older version used a modified 702 power bus and a Russian Zvezda Module, this newer (dated 07/15) power-point design looks in-house with 4.5m diameter modules to be co-manifested with Orion. From: http://beyondearth.com/path-to-mars/
Both Boeing and LM have similar design mirroring the co-manifest Nasa paper, suggesting that the SLS cargo version might be less advantageous for the cis-lunar habitat?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Khadgars on 09/27/2016 05:06 pm
Boeing is now showing an "updated" Cis-lunar habitat design.  The older version used a modified 702 power bus and a Russian Zvezda Module, this newer (dated 07/15) power-point design looks in-house with 4.5m diameter modules to be co-manifested with Orion. From: http://beyondearth.com/path-to-mars/
Both Boeing and LM have similar design mirroring the co-manifest Nasa paper, suggesting that the SLS cargo version might be less advantageous for the cis-lunar habitat?

Thanks for posting.  Not sure what you mean by less advantageous cargo version of SLS. 

NASA specifically requested proposals on co-manifested habitats to fly along with Orion on a single launch.  This allows testing of habitat capabilities (ECLSS, etc) and expanded missions on a single SLS launch.  I don't think it has anything to do with cargo version, which will only used sparingly until 2028+.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: redliox on 09/27/2016 10:01 pm
Boeing is now showing an "updated" Cis-lunar habitat design.  The older version used a modified 702 power bus and a Russian Zvezda Module, this newer (dated 07/15) power-point design looks in-house with 4.5m diameter modules to be co-manifested with Orion. From: http://beyondearth.com/path-to-mars/
Both Boeing and LM have similar design mirroring the co-manifest Nasa paper, suggesting that the SLS cargo version might be less advantageous for the cis-lunar habitat?

Looks like a slightly more straightforward cousin of the ISS.  I think I see a robotic arm on their M-3 module.  I assume the M-2 module is launched solo while the others alongside Orion?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/27/2016 10:34 pm
Boeing is now showing an "updated" Cis-lunar habitat design.  The older version used a modified 702 power bus and a Russian Zvezda Module, this newer (dated 07/15) power-point design looks in-house with 4.5m diameter modules to be co-manifested with Orion. From: http://beyondearth.com/path-to-mars/
Both Boeing and LM have similar design mirroring the co-manifest Nasa paper, suggesting that the SLS cargo version might be less advantageous for the cis-lunar habitat?

Looks like a slightly more straightforward cousin of the ISS.  I think I see a robotic arm on their M-3 module.  I assume the M-2 module is launched solo while the others alongside Orion?

If you look at the "Exploration Habitat" graphic, it lists how each element is deployed(they are all co-manifested).
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 09/27/2016 11:45 pm
Boeing is now showing an "updated" Cis-lunar habitat design.  The older version used a modified 702 power bus and a Russian Zvezda Module, this newer (dated 07/15) power-point design looks in-house with 4.5m diameter modules to be co-manifested with Orion. From: http://beyondearth.com/path-to-mars/
Both Boeing and LM have similar design mirroring the co-manifest Nasa paper, suggesting that the SLS cargo version might be less advantageous for the cis-lunar habitat?

Thanks for posting.  Not sure what you mean by less advantageous cargo version of SLS. 

NASA specifically requested proposals on co-manifested habitats to fly along with Orion on a single launch.  This allows testing of habitat capabilities (ECLSS, etc) and expanded missions on a single SLS launch.  I don't think it has anything to do with cargo version, which will only used sparingly until 2028+.
In the NASA co-manifest paper, the cargo version of the SLS (1b) is used to launch the 8.4m module with other units as co-manifested.  The odd thing to me is that by using one cargo SLS for the 4.5 or 5.5m modules, a number of SLS LV's can be saved, cutting costs and the Cis-lunar facility could be used sooner.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 09/29/2016 04:29 pm
Latest published FISO report/power point on ECLSS evolution for exploration: http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/archivelist.htm The power point on evolved habitation ECLSS puts the racks on ISS in 2024 and in Cis-lunar DSH. It also has final downselects at the end of 2018 - this has impact on NextStep program as well.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/29/2016 11:43 pm
Boeing is now showing an "updated" Cis-lunar habitat design.  The older version used a modified 702 power bus and a Russian Zvezda Module, this newer (dated 07/15) power-point design looks in-house with 4.5m diameter modules to be co-manifested with Orion. From: http://beyondearth.com/path-to-mars/
Both Boeing and LM have similar design mirroring the co-manifest Nasa paper, suggesting that the SLS cargo version might be less advantageous for the cis-lunar habitat?

Thanks for posting.  Not sure what you mean by less advantageous cargo version of SLS. 

NASA specifically requested proposals on co-manifested habitats to fly along with Orion on a single launch.  This allows testing of habitat capabilities (ECLSS, etc) and expanded missions on a single SLS launch.  I don't think it has anything to do with cargo version, which will only used sparingly until 2028+.
In the NASA co-manifest paper, the cargo version of the SLS (1b) is used to launch the 8.4m module with other units as co-manifested.  The odd thing to me is that by using one cargo SLS for the 4.5 or 5.5m modules, a number of SLS LV's can be saved, cutting costs and the Cis-lunar facility could be used sooner.
The smaller modules need to be launched on crew mission as Orion is used to deliver modules to DSH. Without Orion each module would need a service module, adding considerable expense and mass.

A dedicated cargo mission would be at expense of crew mission. If crew missions weren't used for cargo/habitat module delivery, the extra capacity of 1B would be wasted.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/30/2016 12:07 am
The smaller modules need to be launched on crew mission as Orion is used to deliver modules to DSH. Without Orion each module would need a service module, adding considerable expense and mass.

A dedicated cargo mission would be at expense of crew mission. If crew missions weren't used for cargo/habitat module delivery, the extra capacity of 1B would be wasted.

Cygnus can act as a service module for cargo and I suspect the Dragon can. The Falcon Heavy can put significant mass in LEO and lunar orbit.

The SLS 1B can lift heavy modules to lunar orbit. Such as entire spacestations and landers.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 10/13/2016 01:51 am
Here is a relatively new video from ATK on their Cis-lunar and Mars habitation concept:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9FUsEgrGh0

it has the same basic configuration as shown previously (post 247 in 8/9/2016) and the same advantages and dis-advantages.
Pros: high TRL, in production now, can be ready by 2021, can be co-manifested with Orion, with a well configured system.
Cons: limited volume, many module interfaces.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 10/14/2016 06:26 pm
From Habitation Concepts For Human Missions Beyond Low-Earth-Orbit by David Smitherman, NTRS, October 2016.

In this paper, a NASA designed Cis-Lunar habitat is built using three SLS launches, two of which are co-manifested and one is a dedicated cargo version of SLS1b.  the habitats are relatively large with the smallest being 5.5 m in diameter while the other two are 7.2 and 8.4 m respectively.

SLS Co-Manifested Payload Options indicating that habitable volume can be built up with small, ISS-sized modules, but that larger dedicated payloads are more efficient by providing more volume per unit mass, and significantly reducing the number of launches required to build up a habitation capability.  Further, these designs are not predicated on ISS heritage rack cionfigurations

The SLS co-manifested payloads are delivered with the Orion through the trans-lunar injection (TLI) burn by the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS). With the payload still attached to the EUS, the Universal Stage Adapter (USA) fairing is jettisoned and the Orion rotates to dock with the payload. After docking, the EUS releases the payload and the Orion service module delivers the payload to the lunar DRO destination.

The SLS payload delivery flights are simpler, but each requires an attached propulsion bus with the payload to complete the delivery from the end of the EUS TLI burn to the final destination in the lunar DRO. SLS payload propulsion capability beyond the TLI burn is required to maneuver around the Moon and into the lunar DRO orbit. Propulsion bus on the ASM is required only to do station keeping of the built-up stack in the lunar DRO.

The large habitat or HAB at 5.5m, 7.2m and 8.4m diameter, is delivered on a payload flight by the SLS 1b. Included with the payload, an attached propulsion stage provides propulsion beyond the EUS TLI burn for transfer around the Moon and into the lunar DRO. The propulsion element is built into an 8.4 m diameter skirt, the same diameter as the EUS stage below.

Both the Augmentation Service Module (ASM) and the Docking Module (DM) were sized to fit within an assumed 10-mt co-manifested payload mass goal. The payload mass budget was found to be tight for both elements.

Four SLS 1b payload (no Orion) configurations studied used different fairing configurations to fit each of the habitat designs. A long 5.5 m diameter habitat module uses the SLS Long Fairing; the 7.2 m diameter habitat module uses the SLS Short Fairing; and an 8.4 m diameter habitat module uses two configurations: a nose cone only, and a 10 m diameter fairing. The standard SLS fairings are the same diameter as the core stage (8.4 m in diameter), 90 feet long for the Long Fairing, and 67 feet long for the Short Fairing. The Long Fairing and the large 10 m diameter fairing shown bring the SLS vehicle height close to the maximum height available to fit inside the vertical assembly building (VAB).
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 10/14/2016 06:39 pm
From Habitation Concepts For Human Missions Beyond Low-Earth-Orbit by David Smitherman, NTRS, October 2016.'
The Cis-Lunar facility is composed of three elements; an Augmentation module for power, limited propulsion and thermal requirements. Note that the 5.5m hab is considerably larger then the 2015 co-manifested version - about twice as long.

The first element is the ASM, which is delivered by the Orion with the crew to the lunar DRO. It provides a small habitable volume for logistics and open-loop environmental control and life support system (ECLSS) to supplement the capabilities of the Orion.

Each flight has the open-loop ECLSS provision to protect the reserves on the Orion and provide an approach to longer duration missions during the build sequence. The propulsion bus was sized for basic station keeping of the entire stack in the lunar DRO and includes a pressurized tunnel and docking port to permit docking at either end of the ASM.

The second element is the docking module (DM) and is also delivered by the Orion with the crew to the lunar DRO. The DM provides both NASA Docking System (NDS) and Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM) ports with pressurized mating adapters similar to the ISS standard. This permits both docking by the Orion for crew transfers and berthing using a robotic arm for logistics transfers and interior circulation with utility feed-through for the habitable volumes. In addition, the DM includes an EVA hatch for contingency purposes only so it can serve as an airlock if needed.

The third element is a large habitat or HAB, which is delivered on a payload flight by the SLS. The large HAB supports a crew of 4 for 1000 days when fully outfitted with provisions.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: PahTo on 10/14/2016 07:05 pm

Thanks BrightLight.  Is this "propulsion bus" like one would find "off the shelf" for a comm sat, and uses hypergols?  Very interesting stuff...
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 10/14/2016 07:18 pm

Thanks BrightLight.  Is this "propulsion bus" like one would find "off the shelf" for a comm sat, and uses hypergols?  Very interesting stuff...
Its not clear from the paper where the propulsion bus comes from. 
Also note that this requires only 3 SLS launches compared to 5 (or more) for the co-manifest approach plus additional logistics launches for outfitting the co-manifested modules.
BTW - i believe that the 5.5m diameter large hab is the preferred version of the NASA-designed, contractor built solution and will be compared to a commercial solution that NASA buys.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: jgoldader on 10/17/2016 02:39 pm
Three SLS launches?  I know there are all kinds of ways to price out an SLS launch, but even so, that's expensive.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 10/17/2016 03:00 pm
Three SLS launches?  I know there are all kinds of ways to price out an SLS launch, but even so, that's expensive.
This is the NASA concept for a Cid-lunar facility, the earlier concepts used up to 6 SLS LV's and 5 to 6 logistics packages to augment the SLS, so the new 2016 approach is a clear improvement.  Several of the the commercial vendor NextStep proposals for Cis-lunar space also call for up to 5 SLS LV's.
I have also just posted in the members-section a responce for a NASA engineer about this topic.  in
Re: Orion Deep Space Presentation - Sept, 2013 « Reply #143 on: Today at 02:54 PM »
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Oli on 10/17/2016 04:42 pm
The paper:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160012094.pdf
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 10/17/2016 05:19 pm
From the latest Smitherman paper; http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160012094.pdf
(Thanks Oli, I forgot to put in the URL)

These are the internal layouts of the 5.5, 7.4 and 8.4 m NASA-Marshall habitat designs for Cis-lunar and possibly Mars missions.  These are big modules with full mission capabilities (multiple 60 day, 4 astronaut missions or a 1000 day Mars mission) requiring a single SLS 1B cargo launch. This is in direct contrast to earlier co-manifested modules with Orion utilizing 5 SLS launches and built over 5 years. From a NASA source, it is now clear that the tooling exists within NASA to produce any of these sized modules. The 5.5m module would be adequate for the proposed missions but for the Smitherman paper, not an optimal mass to volume design and it appears that a 7.4m module diameter unit is better suited to the task. It is not clear at this time if the appropriate fairing will be built to accommodate a 7.4 or 8.4 m diameter modules for the Cis-lunar mission – thus the 5.5m design has some advantages on the manufacturing side.  The single-module approach is most akin to the commercial vendor designed Bigelow Aerospace BA330, now under NextStep Phase II funding.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/17/2016 06:41 pm
The co manifest launches of smaller habitats are kind of free as they make use of surplus lift capability on crew missions. Plus no propulsion modules needed as Orion acts as space tug.

The larger modules will require a very expensive extra launches plus they will need dedicated propulsion modules. These extra launches maybe at cost of crew missions, which is whole point of SLS existence. Launching large science missions is added bonus.

Smaller modules also have option of using commercials LVs eg FH, Vulcan, New Glenn.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: jtrame on 10/17/2016 07:16 pm
A combination of the stand alone mission and the co- manifested missions allow the larger, more permanent DSH to be serviced by a co-manifested Orion/ Cygnus
type supply craft.  Each mission that visits the habitat brings along the supplies needed for their stay.  Once the DSH is in place, any number of co-manifested missions could visit.

So after the initial DSH launch, no loss of human missions at that point.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: sdsds on 10/17/2016 07:34 pm
Three launches seems like it hits the sweet spot for a cis-lunar proving ground effort in a number of ways.

First, just the probability of success thing. If each of 3 independent missions has a 91% chance of going smoothly, the chances that all three go smoothly is around 75%. (Less dramatically if each of 3 missions has a 96.5% chance, all three together have a 90% chance. Etc.) That's the kind of risk NASA (and the public) can manage.

Second, having three acquisitions lets NASA divide the funding among several prime contractors and their supply chains, thus spreading the available funding to -- and gaining the support from -- a diverse set of constituencies. (I predict LM gets the ASM due to the synergies with Orion, Orbital/ATK with Alenia as sub-contractor gets the DM, and Boeing (or possibly Bigelow) gets the Large Hab itself.)

Finally it prepares the culture (both inside NASA and within the supporting communities) for a Mars-bound complex that would require even more launches (e.g. 5 or 6).
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 10/18/2016 05:13 pm
Summary of various configurations from 2015 co-manifest paper and 2016 Habitat concept papers

Configuration 2c
1) The multiple modules provide opportunities for development of safe haven capabilities in the event of fire
or pressure loss
2) The separate logistics module provides a means for trash disposal prior to return from Mars orbit
3) The three-module set is the most massive option
Configuration 3a
1) The long cylinder length is not efficient structurally and may present complications for the launch
Configuration
2) The volume available may not be sufficient for the logistics volume required.
3) There are no safe-haven capabilities
Configuration 3a
1) The long cylinder length is not efficient structurally and may present complications for the launch
Configuration
2) The volume available may not be sufficient for the logistics volume required.
3) There are no safe-haven capabilities
Configuration 3b
1) The overall mass and volume appear adequate for the mission.
2) Crew quarters located in the center provide maximum radiation protection.
3) There are no safe-haven capabilities
4) There are no known commercial manufacturing capabilities for this size module.
Configuration 3c2
1) The overall mass and volume appear adequate for the mission.
2) Crew quarters located in the center provide maximum radiation protection.
3) There are no safe haven capabilities
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/20/2016 03:22 am
The little pod like spacecraft designed to perform maintenance can be used as safe havens for a few hours.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: AndrewSmith on 10/20/2016 06:10 pm
I always assumed the visiting crew vehicle is the safe haven --

Especially for the many-module co-manifest option I doubt you want any scenario where the crew is forced to take shelter in a section that isn't directly connected to their ride home.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/21/2016 03:19 am
I always assumed the visiting crew vehicle is the safe haven --

Especially for the many-module co-manifest option I doubt you want any scenario where the crew is forced to take shelter in a section that isn't directly connected to their ride home.

Space stations should have visiting crew vehicles but I suspect Mars Transfer Vehicles and planetary habitats may not.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: brickmack on 10/21/2016 01:45 pm
Space stations should have visiting crew vehicles but I suspect Mars Transfer Vehicles and planetary habitats may not.

Yeah, unfortunately Orion has too short a service life to be used for a full duration Mars mission, it'll have to be ditched before TMI or perhaps a few months later. I don't think either of the commercial crew vehicles can last that long either, so short of something like ITS theres probably not going to be an Earth reentry vehicle as part of the outbound Mars craft
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Khadgars on 10/21/2016 02:21 pm
Space stations should have visiting crew vehicles but I suspect Mars Transfer Vehicles and planetary habitats may not.

Yeah, unfortunately Orion has too short a service life to be used for a full duration Mars mission, it'll have to be ditched before TMI or perhaps a few months later. I don't think either of the commercial crew vehicles can last that long either, so short of something like ITS theres probably not going to be an Earth reentry vehicle as part of the outbound Mars craft

Wouldn't an Orion with a co-manifested hab attached to MTV be used as a life boat? It might be worth the extra mass.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: brickmack on 10/21/2016 09:40 pm
Wouldn't an Orion with a co-manifested hab attached to MTV be used as a life boat? It might be worth the extra mass.

To clarify, the issue isn't Orions life support capability, but that its only rated for missions of (IIRC) 1 year. Past that they can't guarantee that the capsule will be safe to inhabit, that its propulsion system will remain functional, that it can safely separate and reenter, etc. Earth return (nominal or otherwise) would require propulsively braking back into HEO or cislunar orbit and rendezvousing with a second Orion which then goes back to Earth.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Khadgars on 10/21/2016 10:15 pm
Wouldn't an Orion with a co-manifested hab attached to MTV be used as a life boat? It might be worth the extra mass.

To clarify, the issue isn't Orions life support capability, but that its only rated for missions of (IIRC) 1 year. Past that they can't guarantee that the capsule will be safe to inhabit, that its propulsion system will remain functional, that it can safely separate and reenter, etc. Earth return (nominal or otherwise) would require propulsively braking back into HEO or cislunar orbit and rendezvousing with a second Orion which then goes back to Earth.

Interesting points, never thought about it in that regard.  I had always assumed it was life support/consumables that were the deciding factor.

Those factors that you mentioned could be improved upon by the time we head to Mars in 10+ years?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: jtrame on 10/21/2016 10:22 pm
Wouldn't an Orion with a co-manifested hab attached to MTV be used as a life boat? It might be worth the extra mass.

To clarify, the issue isn't Orions life support capability, but that its only rated for missions of (IIRC) 1 year. Past that they can't guarantee that the capsule will be safe to inhabit, that its propulsion system will remain functional, that it can safely separate and reenter, etc. Earth return (nominal or otherwise) would require propulsively braking back into HEO or cislunar orbit and rendezvousing with a second Orion which then goes back to Earth.
Of course, the DSH is just notional at this point, so in the same notional world that allows a hab to be in deep space for 2 years or more allows a notional Orion to do the same.  In other words, Orion is upgraded over the same period of time that produces this amazing DSH that, unlike the ISS, doesn't require periodic servicing and re supply.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: sdsds on 10/22/2016 06:59 am
in the same notional world that allows a hab to be in deep space for 2 years or more allows a notional Orion to do the same.  In other words, Orion is upgraded over the same period of time that produces this amazing DSH that, unlike the ISS, doesn't require periodic servicing and re supply.

That sounds like one of the best technical rationales for having the Augmentation Service Module be derived from Orion. Whatever approaches LM develops that make the ASM spaceworthy for several years could be "back-ported" to Orion.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/22/2016 08:45 am
If the life boat is only used for a couple of weeks, say whilst the main spaceship is repaired, then it will need a shelf life of several years but only needs an operational life of a couple of weeks. This can be important in the case of consumables.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: B. Hendrickx on 01/24/2017 10:07 am
An international version of the Deep Space Habitat has been discussed in this thread in the Russian section :

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39391.0

The latest news on this came from Anatoly Zak in an article in "Popular Mechanics" last December. Gerstenmaier reportedly disclosed details on an international DSH in a press conference last December, but what press conference is the author referring to?

(removed quoted copyrighted text, article is not behind a paywall)

More details on Anatoly Zak's website here :
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/imp.html
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/09/2017 12:03 am
NASA are looking to launch first habitat modules on EM2 and EM3.

Jeff Foust (@jeff_foust) tweeted at 8:25 AM on Thu, Mar 09, 2017:
Gerst: establish a “deep space gateway” in cislunar space for crews with 2 SLS missions (EM-2 and 3), using secondary payload capacity.
(https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/839557619782049792)

NB Even if EM2 is uncrewed it could still be used to deliver a module.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: brickmack on 03/09/2017 02:06 am
Specific mention of 2 comanifested SLS flights probably means no large hab, yet/ever. Too bad. With the largest comanifestable modules in development, how long could they realistically spend at lunar orbit (without any commercial flights supplementing SLS/Orion)?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/09/2017 03:10 am
Specific mention of 2 comanifested SLS flights probably means no large hab, yet/ever. Too bad. With the largest comanifestable modules in development, how long could they realistically spend at lunar orbit (without any commercial flights supplementing SLS/Orion)?
The smaller modules have a few advantages over single large one. Don't need dedicated launch, build cost can be spread over years, option for international partners to provide modules.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 03/09/2017 03:38 am
Specific mention of 2 comanifested SLS flights probably means no large hab, yet/ever. Too bad. With the largest comanifestable modules in development, how long could they realistically spend at lunar orbit (without any commercial flights supplementing SLS/Orion)?
The smaller modules have a few advantages over single large one. Don't need dedicated launch, build cost can be spread over years, option for international partners to provide modules.
As far as I understand it, two 4.5 meter diameter modules are to be used with a habitat module - this would suggest to me that after the two co-manifested flights a hab module will be possible [with a cargo 1B flight (?)].  Further, the three 60 day missions with 4 astronauts each will require some sort of habitat.  All in all, a habitat module is not out of the system....yet.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/09/2017 04:07 am
I used to think that a Mir/Zvedza style Core module would have been a good Habitat base block module to park out there; beyond the Moon etc. But with the strained relations with Russia - plus the snails pace with which they work these days - I guess it's just not going to happen. Shame that :( A combination of an unused MPLM and 1 or two stretched Cygnus' perhaps?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: brickmack on 03/09/2017 04:18 am
I used to think that a Mir/Zvedza style Core module would have been a good Habitat base block module to park out there; beyond the Moon etc. But with the strained relations with Russia - plus the snails pace with which they work these days - I guess it's just not going to happen. Shame that :( A combination of an unused MPLM and 1 or two stretched Cygnus' perhaps?

The Russian module concept you're thinking of, though externally similar to a DOS module, was to be a totally new design based on the NEMs instead of TKS or DOS. Given how long its taken them just to finish building Nauka, which was already mostly designed and mostly constructed years ago, I have very low expectations there.

I don't really see how Cygnus can be viable as a permanent station module though. Its way too narrow, by the time you put in even minimal equipment and cargo a person could barely squeeze in length-wise. Maybe just as a docking spacer or something, but not as a lab and certainly not living space.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/09/2017 04:47 am
I used to think that a Mir/Zvedza style Core module would have been a good Habitat base block module to park out there; beyond the Moon etc. But with the strained relations with Russia - plus the snails pace with which they work these days - I guess it's just not going to happen. Shame that :( A combination of an unused MPLM and 1 or two stretched Cygnus' perhaps?
Russians may have module but I doubt it will be essential, best a nice optional add on.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Danderman on 03/09/2017 05:02 am
I used to think that a Mir/Zvedza style Core module would have been a good Habitat base block module to park out there; beyond the Moon etc. But with the strained relations with Russia - plus the snails pace with which they work these days - I guess it's just not going to happen. Shame that :( A combination of an unused MPLM and 1 or two stretched Cygnus' perhaps?

The last time Khrunichev produced a DOS shell was in 1985. It would be a bit much to ask them to make a new one.

Energia is moving towards 3.3 meter diameter hulls, I suspect that they picked up the tooling (or made it) a few years back, since most of their new designs use that specification, whether a cargo vehicle or a space module.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/10/2017 08:49 pm
Some more information on the DSH in this article.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3187/1

Having international partners providing bulk of modules, reduces demand on NASA budget. NASA has stated in past that DSH would be available to commercial groups to use eg staging post for commercial lunar missions.

This from article.

While NASA has not officially announced any specific mission objectives for SLS launches beyond EM-2 (except for the Asteroid Redirect Crewed Mission), information obtained by Anatoly Zak suggests the assembly of the outpost could begin in 2023 with the launch of an 8.5-ton US-European propulsion and power module equipped with electric thrusters as well as a Canadian-built robot arm. It would ride piggyback on the SLS together with Orion on the vehicle’s Exploration Mission 3 (EM-3). Two subsequent SLS launches would add European and Japanese habitation modules to give the outpost an initial human-tended capability. Japan has reportedly agreed to contribute a habitat module featuring a closed-loop life support system that would significantly reduce its dependence on oxygen and water supplies from Earth. Also under consideration is a 10-ton European-Japanese-Canadian robotic vehicle that could be equipped with a rover and ascent stage for returning soil samples from the Moon beginning in 2026. The international team has also studied the possibility of carrying out crewed sorties to the lunar surface from the outpost.

The second assembly phase in the late 2020s would see the addition of a large US habitation and power module launched on a dedicated SLS cargo mission. According to Zak, this would be equipped with new electric propulsion systems and enable the outpost “to become the first interplanetary crewed spacecraft heading into deep space to explore asteroids or even reach the vicinity of Mars in the 2030s.” Whatever path is ultimately chosen, the current strategy is flexible enough to begin construction of the outpost in the early 2020s without the need for an early commitment to its final goal.

Information from other sources indicates that the team is shying away from the idea to place the station at the EM-L2 point beyond the Moon. Other orbits seriously evaluated by the team were low lunar orbits (LLO), near rectilinear orbits (NRO), and distant retrograde orbits (DRO). All these were judged on the basis of such factors as accessibility from Earth (and other lunar orbits, stationkeeping requirements, Earth communication capabilities, eclipse durations, and thermal environment impacts.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: rayleighscatter on 03/10/2017 09:59 pm
Are electric thrusters suitable for sustaining LLO? I know that is a fairly unstable orbit.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/10/2017 10:38 pm
Are electric thrusters suitable for sustaining LLO? I know that is a fairly unstable orbit.
DSH will not be in LLO. NRO and DRO are stable.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Khadgars on 03/13/2017 02:20 pm
Some more information on the DSH in this article.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3187/1

Having international partners providing bulk of modules, reduces demand on NASA budget. NASA has stated in past that DSH would be available to commercial groups to use eg staging post for commercial lunar missions.

This from article.

While NASA has not officially announced any specific mission objectives for SLS launches beyond EM-2 (except for the Asteroid Redirect Crewed Mission), information obtained by Anatoly Zak suggests the assembly of the outpost could begin in 2023 with the launch of an 8.5-ton US-European propulsion and power module equipped with electric thrusters as well as a Canadian-built robot arm. It would ride piggyback on the SLS together with Orion on the vehicle’s Exploration Mission 3 (EM-3). Two subsequent SLS launches would add European and Japanese habitation modules to give the outpost an initial human-tended capability. Japan has reportedly agreed to contribute a habitat module featuring a closed-loop life support system that would significantly reduce its dependence on oxygen and water supplies from Earth. Also under consideration is a 10-ton European-Japanese-Canadian robotic vehicle that could be equipped with a rover and ascent stage for returning soil samples from the Moon beginning in 2026. The international team has also studied the possibility of carrying out crewed sorties to the lunar surface from the outpost.

The second assembly phase in the late 2020s would see the addition of a large US habitation and power module launched on a dedicated SLS cargo mission. According to Zak, this would be equipped with new electric propulsion systems and enable the outpost “to become the first interplanetary crewed spacecraft heading into deep space to explore asteroids or even reach the vicinity of Mars in the 2030s.” Whatever path is ultimately chosen, the current strategy is flexible enough to begin construction of the outpost in the early 2020s without the need for an early commitment to its final goal.

Information from other sources indicates that the team is shying away from the idea to place the station at the EM-L2 point beyond the Moon. Other orbits seriously evaluated by the team were low lunar orbits (LLO), near rectilinear orbits (NRO), and distant retrograde orbits (DRO). All these were judged on the basis of such factors as accessibility from Earth (and other lunar orbits, stationkeeping requirements, Earth communication capabilities, eclipse durations, and thermal environment impacts.

Wow, that's some pretty juicy information there.  I like it. 
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/13/2017 05:00 pm
The cost of these habitat modules shouldn't be that expensive. NASA is sharing service module cost with ESA. ESA, Japan and Canada are providing everything else. NASA has to pay for SLS/Orion launches, but that is already accounted for.

For long stay missions, commercial cargo flights will be needed, but these can be shared around international partners.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: jgoldader on 03/13/2017 07:13 pm
A US/European-built module with SEP and a Canadian arm, budgeted for, designed, built, tested, and ready to go, in 6 years?  Is that achievable?

(Lofting big payloads seems like a reasonable thing for SLS to do. But the timescale seems a little short, unless a lot of the design work is already well under way.)
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: rayleighscatter on 03/13/2017 07:29 pm
A US/European-built module with SEP and a Canadian arm, budgeted for, designed, built, tested, and ready to go, in 6 years?  Is that achievable?

(Lofting big payloads seems like a reasonable thing for SLS to do. But the timescale seems a little short, unless a lot of the design work is already well under way.)

It's not impossible. It is mostly just existing technology, and in configurations we're already generally familiar with.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: mike robel on 03/14/2017 12:56 am
It all depends on the money, which has not been there previously.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: sdsds on 03/14/2017 08:05 am
Quote
Gerstenmaier said development of the outpost could begin with the second and third SLS missions, EM-2 and -3
http://spacenews.com/nasa-moving-ahead-with-plans-for-cislunar-human-outpost/
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/14/2017 07:02 pm
Quote
Gerstenmaier said development of the outpost could begin with the second and third SLS missions, EM-2 and -3
http://spacenews.com/nasa-moving-ahead-with-plans-for-cislunar-human-outpost/

I hope NASA publishes every 3 months the completed milestones for NextSTEP-2 and CCtCap.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: redliox on 03/14/2017 11:50 pm
It all depends on the money, which has not been there previously.

That is the cold truth.  NASA hasn't had the funding levels of the Apollo days, hence why the 1980s and '90s were largely uneventful for both human and robotic spaceflight.  Regan might have proposed space station Freedom at the time, but neither his successors or Congress did much to speed its assembly.

I think I'm 50/50 about a DSH around Luna.  On the con side, it might deter Martian or even Lunar exploration by hogging funds, whereas on the plus side it could spur on deep space commercial servicing akin to ISS as well as serve as rally point for deep space expeditions.  Ideally the DSH will be more streamlined than ISS, but sadly streamlining by government standards is a joke.  Maybe fittingly it will become a project that's half government and half commercial in its elements.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 03/16/2017 06:19 pm
Public-private partnerships for deep space habitats were specifically mentionned in the President's FY2018 budget:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42543.msg1654923#msg1654923

Quote from: FY 2018 Budget
Supports and expands public-private partnerships as the foundation of future U.S. civilian space efforts. The Budget creates new opportunities for collaboration with industry on space station operations, supports public-private partnerships for deep-space habitation and exploration systems, funds data buys from companies operating small satellite constellations, and supports work with industry to develop and commercialize new space technologies.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 03/18/2017 03:48 pm
This is a long post - excuse the length.  For those of us posting on habitat development, many suggestions and 'PR' articles pop up every few weeks but there are real requirements for a potential cislunar habitat, for one NASA would like to see a close analog to a Mars transit habitat, the following is the requirements list for such habitats (making a collection of tiny modules much less likely).  This requirement list came from; NASA’s Advanced Exploration Systems Mars Transit Habitat Refinement Point of Departure Design by an list of authors - google the title or go to NTRS.

Crew Number
4 crew assumed for all missions is EMC baseline
Mass Limits Launch mass limit: Habitat launched mass limit is based upon the Space Launch System capability to launch the combined mass of the Hybrid Propulsion Stage (HPS) attached to the Transit Habitat.[4] Interplanetary mass limit: <~43 metric tons gross mass for Transit Habitat (4 crew, ~1100 days of logistics) [4]
Mass Growth / Margin Mass growth allowances for each subsystem are provided by subsystem experts based upon the maturity of the subsystem as described in American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) mass growth standards [7]. Margins and Program Manager’s Reserve (PMR), are not carried in this haHabitat are sized for ~1100 days crewed + uncrewed duration to Distant Retrograde Orbit (DRO) and time for checkout.
Habitat Lifetime Habitat are assumed to last for 15 years. Subsystem mass deltas for multi-mission reuse are not captured at this time in EMC habitat estimates but would be needed for logistics delivery and refurbishment flights. The 15 year lifetime includes up to 3 years of dormancy operations.
Geometry/Structure Geometry/structure must provide sufficient (load bearing) interfaces for integration with propulsion stage or other elements above or below the habitat in the launch-vehicle stack. Factors of safety to comply with JSC 65828 "Structural Design Requirements and Factors of Safety for Spaceflight Hardware" (Factor of Safety 2.0 on ultimate load for habitable modules) [8]
Net Habitable Volume Transit habitat should provide at least 25 m3/p (Human Research Program (HRP)/ Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP) Consensus Session 2014) [9]. Also, it is assumed that no Orion volume is leveraged to reduce the habitable volume requirement, as Orion is nominally not transported with Transit Habitat in some mission concepts.
Docking Guidelines The Transit Habitat should provide 3 docking mechanisms with hatches, which is driven by aggregation operations requiring simultaneous docking with Initial Cislunar Habitat, logistics delivery, and Orion. Hatch sizes should be allow for docking with other mission elements and required functionality (translation of crew, logistics, and assembly/maintenance activities and items). Any power, fluid, data, or other connections not integrated into the existing docking interface may require separate connection across elements (assumed to be connectable without Extravehicular Activities (EVAs)). Assume no drag-throughs. Additionally, another hatch without a docking mechanism may be required for an airlock for emergency EVAs.
Interfaces (reliance on other vehicles/ elements, systems guidance) Transit Habitat is responsible for maintenance and repair of all docked elements. Habitat provides thermal control, deep space and proximity communications, ECLSS for all attached elements. Common interfaces should be used across all mission elements to enable reusability. Habitat receives power generation and stack control from propulsive element.
Micrometeoroid Orbital Debris Micrometeoroid Orbital Debris (MMOD) protection will be provided for the habitat appropriate to the lifetime and environmentbitat estimate. They are carried at the architecture modeling and launch vehicle integration levels.  Habitat are sized for ~1100 days crewed + uncrewed duration to Distant Retrograde Orbit (DRO) and time for checkout.
Habitat Lifetime Habitat are assumed to last for 15 years. Subsystem mass deltas for multi-mission reuse are not captured at this time in EMC habitat estimates, but would be needed for logistics delivery and refurbishment flights. The 15 year lifetime includes up to 3 years of dormancy operations.
Packaging/ Offloading Constraints Dimensional limits: Assume habitat compatible with 8.4 m diameter shroud for Space Launch System (SLS) which corresponds to a 7.5 m diameter usable envelope that limits habitat diameter to <7.5 m stowed diameter (expandables may grow to larger diameters). This diameter maintains flexibility to use 8.4 m or 10 m diameter shrouds. Length limits set by 8.4 m diameter shroud usable envelope when co-manifested with hybrid propulsive stage. Transit habitat launched with the HPS, with the habitat on the top of the propulsion stage. These launch vehicles are packaged with adaptors such that neither payload carries the loads of the other. They are assumed to be launched on the 10 m SLS shroud which is necessary for packaging of the large hybrid propulsion system solar arrays around the habitat.
EVA Guidelines (Baseline set) EVA Assumptions: Assume only contingency EVA for transit habitat utilizing modified Launch, Entry, and Abort (LEA) suits and an inflatable airlock. Assume TBD amount of spares/logistics for EVAs. Assume that surface EVA suits are delivered on the destination habitat and checked out in orbit prior to crew descent. After operations at the destination are complete, surface EVA suits are left at the destination if there is a pressurized IVA transfer capability available. Crewmembers then ascend in their LEA suits (brought with them during landing) for planetary protection (backward). Risks associated with cabin depress/docking failure to Mars Transit Habitat are future work. Number and Types of Suits: Assume the number of LEA suits = number of crew. Also assume 2 in-space Portable Life Support Systems (PLSSs). Crew brings these LEA suits along to the surface and on the return trip. Habitat EVA Services: The habitat has umbilical interface panels located where suit services or suited crewmember operations occur. Suit services/umbilical interface panels provide: Recharge capability for the suit includes: oxygen (3000 psia), water w/biocide (potable and cooling) resupply, and battery recharge and utility services: power, communications (wireless and hardline), and vacuum lines (if required).
Internal Atmosphere Assume 101.3 kPa (14.7 psia), 21% O2 nominal atmosphere with capability to go down to 70.3 kPa (10.2 psia), 26% O2 for short durations to prep for landing or EVAs
ECLSS Assumptions Assume closed-loop life support systems for transit habitats and consistently apply baseline technology choices across investigated transit habitation concepts. Assume ECLSS architectures will also be designed to handle long dormancy, possibly requiring regular keep-alive activities while unmanned, and flow paths very different from ISS to enable automated recirculation and reprocessing of fluids. Additionally, increased reliability and maintainability are required to prevent multiple, fully functional redundant units and reduce sparing masses. Adjustments to existing exploration ECLSS technologies will be made to account for the additional requirements of long lifetime, dormancy, increased reliability and maintainability. Assume low mass impacts for maintainability/accessibility improvements. Assume 30 day open loop consumable backup for critical systems (O2, H2O, CO2 Removal) to eliminate redundant units.
Logistics, Spares and Maintenance Guidelines and Assumptions Transit habitat should provide logistics, spares, and maintenance for full crew for entire mission duration (~1100 days plus contingency). Assume no Orion may be leveraged for logistics. Gas and fluids are stored internally and sized for partially closed ECLSS with no laundry. Assume components are common across other habitat elements (TBR). Spares/Maintenance equipment is assumed to support the expected repair and maintenance requirements for the Transit Habitat for 1000 days. Maintenance capability is assumed to be capable of servicing both the habitat and attached vehicles. Dry goods are stored in CTBs with a 15% packing factor assumed for storage volume loss and an additional internal packaging penalty (TBR). In situ manufacturing, alternative packing (CTBs), and potential food resupply kept as trade options.
Radiation protection The baseline Transit Habitat will not provide additional GCR and SPE protection beyond onboard logistics placement and layout options (May assume spent logistics may be necessary (not jettisoned/destroyed) to increase radiation protection on return trip). This assumes that some combination of a revised risk posture (based upon increased understanding of the incidence of space radiation exposure induced effects such as fatal cancers, central nervous system damage, and cardiovascular damage), operational planning, and biological mitigation methods will allow for human participation in the planned missions within human requirements. Trades to be investigated include increased SPE or GCR protection and mission duration changes to achieve acceptable risk of loss of crew or loss of mission.
Exercise Assume 2.5 hrs./crewmember/day for the entire 1100 day mission. Assume a combination of resistance and cardiovascular exercise through an ergometer and rowing/resistive machine not to exceed ~ 350 kg, not including spares. Assume low mass solution to vibration isolation system.
Waste disposal    Assume waste storage.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 03/18/2017 04:03 pm
Here are the power-point graphics for the preferred 7.2mm diameter habitat that would fit into the 8m SLS cargo 1b:
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/20/2017 01:09 am
Here is project that would keep DSH busy for while.
16m Telescope assembled in space.

http://www.manyworlds.space/index.php/2017/03/15/a-vision-that-could-supercharge-nasa/
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: sdsds on 03/20/2017 02:55 am
there are real requirements for a potential cislunar habitat, for one NASA would like to see a close analog to a Mars transit habitat, the following is the requirements list for such habitats (making a collection of tiny modules much less likely).

I respect that approach. If NASA had the budget to do everything at once it would make lots of sense to do so!

That there are those at NASA who want to load Mars transit requirements onto cis-lunar habitat requirements shows a certain disconnect in NASA thinking regarding budget and timeline realities. Taking those "really real" requirements into consideration makes the cis-lunar collection of smaller modules win the trade.

My opinions only, actual mileage may vary, etc.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/20/2017 03:25 am
Here is project that would keep DSH busy for while.
16m Telescope assembled in space.

http://www.manyworlds.space/index.php/2017/03/15/a-vision-that-could-supercharge-nasa/
Not big enough. If you're going to do a telescope too big to just unfold like JWST, then you should make it HUGE, like 50m.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/20/2017 05:08 am
Here is project that would keep DSH busy for while.
16m Telescope assembled in space.

http://www.manyworlds.space/index.php/2017/03/15/a-vision-that-could-supercharge-nasa/
Not big enough. If you're going to do a telescope too big to just unfold like JWST, then you should make it HUGE, like 50m.
I think 16m is big enough as first attempt. If successful they can go bigger later, there is no size limit with in space assembly.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 03/30/2017 01:54 am
Update on cislunar habitats:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/20170329-nacheoc-crusan-gatens-hab-eclss-v5b.pdf
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 03/30/2017 02:17 am
Quote
Crusan: people believe NextSTEP phase 2 [he likely meant Phase 3] is a downselect: we’ll pick one of the six designs. Instead, want to find best aspects from each.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/847078037753679872
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 03/30/2017 02:22 am
Quote
Crusan: people believe NextSTEP phase 2 [he likely meant Phase 3] is a downselect: we’ll pick one of the six designs. Instead, want to find best aspects from each.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/847078037753679872

I hate this idea. It's not commercial if you force companies into a joint project. NASA just doesn't get it.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: GClark on 03/30/2017 07:00 am
I'm not sure that's what they're doing.

It sounds to me more like what Argentina did when they were looking to get 2 battleships built in the years before WWI.  They solicited for bids and when they had all the competing designs in hand, issued a revised solicitation incorporating the desired elements of the various submitted designs.  The shipbuilding firms were outraged, believing that their design secrets were being advertised to the competition.  The Argentinians got their way (They were paying after all).

What jumped out at me was "...find best aspects from each."  That's what reminded me of the above episode.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/30/2017 12:42 pm
From the standpoint of the acquisition strategy, remember this is an element of the SLS/Orion program. So the method is to gather ideas and potential suppliers of systems/subsystems and then put out for bid the contract for the integrator, directing the integrator to integrate using specific systems from specific providers. Al la SLS.

The cost is not going to be cheap. But the performance-capabilities per kg should be quite high. NASA still thinks of payloads maximizing performance -capability and minimizing weight without considering costs. If they were going for the lowest cost that meets a minimum set of requirements then it would be more like COTS with a down-select occurring at each of the phases. Also it would be a FFP contract and not a cost  plus contract like SLS and Orion.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 03/30/2017 02:36 pm
This is where the Trump Administration needs to step in. They have said in the FY 2018 budget that they wanted a public-private partnerships for deep space habitats. It's not a public-private partnersip if NASA forces them to work on a joint project.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: rayleighscatter on 03/30/2017 08:47 pm
Quote
Crusan: people believe NextSTEP phase 2 [he likely meant Phase 3] is a downselect: we’ll pick one of the six designs. Instead, want to find best aspects from each.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/847078037753679872

I hate this idea. It's not commercial if you force companies into a joint project. NASA just doesn't get it.

How exactly is NASA forcing them? Court order? Gunpoint? Hostage taking?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 03/30/2017 11:27 pm
Quote
Crusan: people believe NextSTEP phase 2 [he likely meant Phase 3] is a downselect: we’ll pick one of the six designs. Instead, want to find best aspects from each.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/847078037753679872

I hate this idea. It's not commercial if you force companies into a joint project. NASA just doesn't get it.

How exactly is NASA forcing them?

Crusan said that NASA won't pick a winner for phase 3 of NextStep. Instead, they would pick components from each company. It's not clear who would integrate all of these components together. Either NASA themselves or they would pick one of the companies to do it. Either way is a terrible idea. Pick a winner, let them to the habitat and pay a fee for their services. That's how commercial is supposed to work.

I hope that the Trump administration will tell them that this is not what they had in mind in the FY18 Budget when they said that they wanted to pursue deep space habitats public-private partnerships. From what I recall phase 3 is optional. So there is still time to reverse course on this issue.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: brickmack on 03/31/2017 12:11 am
I think you may be misinterpreting what "find best aspects of each" means. This sounds to me more like "Bigelow has the strongest main lab concept, Boeing has the best node design, Lockheed's design is good for blah blah, lets stick compatible ports on these and bolt them all together", rather than "lets build 1 module with life support from Lockheed and electronics from Boeing and whatever". In which case this is exactly how commercial is supposed to work: NASA buys what they need and puts it together into 1 station, and each company can go and sell the same thing to other customers too. Same model used for commercial crew/cargo, and for orbital launch vehicles
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 03/31/2017 01:37 am
I think you may be misinterpreting what "find best aspects of each" means. This sounds to me more like "Bigelow has the strongest main lab concept, Boeing has the best node design, Lockheed's design is good for blah blah, lets stick compatible ports on these and bolt them all together", rather than "lets build 1 module with life support from Lockheed and electronics from Boeing and whatever". In which case this is exactly how commercial is supposed to work: NASA buys what they need and puts it together into 1 station, and each company can go and sell the same thing to other customers too. Same model used for commercial crew/cargo, and for orbital launch vehicles

I really hope that you are right but I have some doubts. Gerst's slides doesn't show multiple habitats.

Life support (ECLSS) is likely to be GFE (Government furnished equipment -possibly by ESA).

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nss_chart_v23.pdf

Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/31/2017 02:16 am
One large habitat is more mass efficient than modular approach. The DST has to go to Mars and back so needs to optimal design. 

For DSG modular is cheaper and launch costs are shared with Orion, plus it is not going to travelling anywhere as far as DST. There is also a good chance DSG will grow overtime.

Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/31/2017 02:47 am
NASA wants the DSH to have an ECLSS which has a Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of at least 30 months. This will be difficult to achieve since the MTBF of the ISS's ECLSS is less than 6 months. Consequently the DSH habitat module will not be ready for integration until the ECLSS has worked for at least a year on the ground.

Can a cost plus contract be written such that NASA does not pay for a milestone until that milestone has been completed? Put a 3 year limit on a milestone.

If necessary extra milestones can be introduced.

edit:grammar
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 03/31/2017 04:06 am
Here is a NASA article on the deep space gateway:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/deep-space-gateway-to-open-opportunities-for-distant-destinations
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/31/2017 04:52 am
If they build this thing - and get the problems of ECLSS licked - then they could probably do Martian orbital manned missions with it. Orion would not need to to go all the way to Mars and back; just taxi the crews back and forth to Cislunar space. In-space chemical propulsion stages could be used to push the DSH from Lunar regions to high Martian orbit/Deimos/Phobos and back again. Human crews would need to get there and back quicker than SEP could push them there. Combined chemical/SEP could send supplies/equipment/other modules to the Martian moons ahead of the manned vehicle. Assuming the DSH would mass 50-70 tons - how much delta-v would that require to set it to Mars in 6 or 7 months with a Mars Orbital Insertion burn?

If the return propellants - in the form of other pre-fueled, in-space propulsion stages - were sent on ahead and arrived safely, the DSH would only need delta-v for DRO departure and MOI burns. If not, then more propulsion stages. I'm thinking storable hypergolics for less technical challenge, though for greater capability; LOX/CH4. I'd go for hypergolics. A stage that fits the capability of a Block 1B SLS or New Glenn to get it out there would hold about 40 tons of propellants. I'm thinking it could be powered by twinned AJ10 engines, for redundancy. Or for bigger payloads - 4x AJ10's and propellant capacity of 100+tons. The stages are delivered to the DSH in DRO or other Cislunar space. Follow up with tanker modules from Falcon Heavy or New Glenn to fill the propulsion modules for departure. The DSH might need between 3 and 5 of these propulsion modules to get to Martian orbit and back.

The Propulsion Modules could be arranged in a trio row - like Falcon or Delta IV-Heavy - or 5x in a cruciform arrangement. For eventual Mars landing missions (finally) the Cargo and Crew Landers are sent on ahead of the DSH as it transits to and fro from Mars. The Crew Lander would be waiting in Martian orbit - sent there by efficient SEP/Chemical Tugs.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 03/31/2017 04:56 am
The following parts of Crusan's presentation are relevant in understanding what NexStep-3 [the acquisition phase] should look like:

Quote from: Crusan presentation slide 5
Hab Development Phase 2

Continue concept refinement and development of domestic ground prototype module(s) and lead the evelopment of standards and common interfaces (US/International)

• Contractor (NextSTEP Phase 2): Concept description with concept of operations, provide Phase 3 proposal and SOW [Statement of Work], delivery of ground prototype module(s)

• NASA: Define reference habitat architecture based on contractor and international concepts and identified GFE [Government Furnished Equipment] in preparation for Phase 3

Quote from: Crusan presentation slide 5
Hab Development Phase 3

• Determine acquisition approach including domestic and international partnerships

• Development of Deep Space Habitat for Proving Ground Phase 1 Objectives
  [per slide 2, Phase 1 Objectives = Conduct missions in cislunar space; assemble Deep Space Gateway and Deep Space Transport]

• Deliverables include Flight Unit(s) (note may be multiple modules integrated via common interfaces and standards)

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/20170329-nacheoc-crusan-gatens-hab-eclss-v5b.pdf
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 03/31/2017 05:09 am
The bullet above that says: "Deliverables include Flight Unit(s) (note may be multiple modules integrated via common interfaces and standards)" does suggests that I have misconstrued Jeff Foust's tweet.

In my defense, Tweets are easy to misconstrue.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: GWH on 03/31/2017 05:26 am
The bullet above that says: "Deliverables include Flight Unit(s) (note may be multiple modules integrated via common interfaces and standards)"

Well that does bode well for multiple commercial companies being able to supply a complete module where they have the needed control of scope and supply to function efficiently.  Hopefully down the line they can access a larger market in other countries and tourism like SpaceX seems to be with tgier lunar flyby(s).
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Oli on 03/31/2017 07:12 am
If they build this thing - and get the problems of ECLSS licked - then they could probably do Martian orbital manned missions with it. Orion would not need to to go all the way to Mars and back; just taxi the crews back and forth to Cislunar space. In-space chemical propulsion stages could be used to push the DSH from Lunar regions to high Martian orbit/Deimos/Phobos and back again. Human crews would need to get there and back quicker than SEP could push them there. Combined chemical/SEP could send supplies/equipment/other modules to the Martian moons ahead of the manned vehicle. Assuming the DSH would mass 50-70 tons - how much delta-v would that require to set it to Mars in 6 or 7 months with a Mars Orbital Insertion burn?

If the return propellants - in the form of other pre-fueled, in-space propulsion stages - were sent on ahead and arrived safely, the DSH would only need delta-v for DRO departure and MOI burns. If not, then more propulsion stages. I'm thinking storable hypergolics for less technical challenge, though for greater capability; LOX/CH4. I'd go for hypergolics. A stage that fits the capability of a Block 1B SLS or New Glenn to get it out there would hold about 40 tons of propellants. I'm thinking it could be powered by twinned AJ10 engines, for redundancy. Or for bigger payloads - 4x AJ10's and propellant capacity of 100+tons. The stages are delivered to the DSH in DRO or other Cislunar space. Follow up with tanker modules from Falcon Heavy or New Glenn to fill the propulsion modules for departure. The DSH might need between 3 and 5 of these propulsion modules to get to Martian orbit and back.

The Propulsion Modules could be arranged in a trio row - like Falcon or Delta IV-Heavy - or 5x in a cruciform arrangement. For eventual Mars landing missions (finally) the Cargo and Crew Landers are sent on ahead of the DSH as it transits to and fro from Mars. The Crew Lander would be waiting in Martian orbit - sent there by efficient SEP/Chemical Tugs.

The hybrid propulsion stage(s) (HPS) mentioned will do all transportation, habitat and cargo (landers etc.). There's no refueling/staging during the trip. There's refueling back in cis-lunar space in preparation for the next mission.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: jgoldader on 03/31/2017 11:04 am
I thought the cislunar gateway was supposed to be paid for by ESA/Japan... did I misunderstand the discussion over on the SLS thread?  I have trouble seeing ESA and JAXA just handing over €/¥ to US-based companies for a NASA-designed, US-built outpost.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Bynaus on 03/31/2017 11:23 am
If they build this thing - and get the problems of ECLSS licked - then they could probably do Martian orbital manned missions with it. Orion would not need to to go all the way to Mars and back; just taxi the crews back and forth to Cislunar space. In-space chemical propulsion stages could be used to push the DSH from Lunar regions to high Martian orbit/Deimos/Phobos and back again. Human crews would need to get there and back quicker than SEP could push them there. Combined chemical/SEP could send supplies/equipment/other modules to the Martian moons ahead of the manned vehicle. Assuming the DSH would mass 50-70 tons - how much delta-v would that require to set it to Mars in 6 or 7 months with a Mars Orbital Insertion burn?

If the return propellants - in the form of other pre-fueled, in-space propulsion stages - were sent on ahead and arrived safely, the DSH would only need delta-v for DRO departure and MOI burns. If not, then more propulsion stages. I'm thinking storable hypergolics for less technical challenge, though for greater capability; LOX/CH4. I'd go for hypergolics. A stage that fits the capability of a Block 1B SLS or New Glenn to get it out there would hold about 40 tons of propellants. I'm thinking it could be powered by twinned AJ10 engines, for redundancy. Or for bigger payloads - 4x AJ10's and propellant capacity of 100+tons. The stages are delivered to the DSH in DRO or other Cislunar space. Follow up with tanker modules from Falcon Heavy or New Glenn to fill the propulsion modules for departure. The DSH might need between 3 and 5 of these propulsion modules to get to Martian orbit and back.

The Propulsion Modules could be arranged in a trio row - like Falcon or Delta IV-Heavy - or 5x in a cruciform arrangement. For eventual Mars landing missions (finally) the Cargo and Crew Landers are sent on ahead of the DSH as it transits to and fro from Mars. The Crew Lander would be waiting in Martian orbit - sent there by efficient SEP/Chemical Tugs.

Well, if you look at the documents, it is evident that is not how this is planed to play out. The DSH / Gateway stays in lunar orbit, and only the "DST" (Deep Space Transport), a one-piece, 8.4 m diameter space ship equipped with an SEP/chemical propulsion system and ECLSS, makes the actual sorties, first to a "shake down cruise" in cis/translunar space, then on to the orbit of Mars. The mass of DST is about 45 tons. And yes, it seems that the Orion would stay attached to the DSH during that time, and the DST returns to the DSH from Mars orbit.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/31/2017 11:31 am
If they build this thing - and get the problems of ECLSS licked - then they could probably do Martian orbital manned missions with it. Orion would not need to to go all the way to Mars and back; just taxi the crews back and forth to Cislunar space. In-space chemical propulsion stages could be used to push the DSH from Lunar regions to high Martian orbit/Deimos/Phobos and back again. Human crews would need to get there and back quicker than SEP could push them there. Combined chemical/SEP could send supplies/equipment/other modules to the Martian moons ahead of the manned vehicle. Assuming the DSH would mass 50-70 tons - how much delta-v would that require to set it to Mars in 6 or 7 months with a Mars Orbital Insertion burn?

If the return propellants - in the form of other pre-fueled, in-space propulsion stages - were sent on ahead and arrived safely, the DSH would only need delta-v for DRO departure and MOI burns. If not, then more propulsion stages. I'm thinking storable hypergolics for less technical challenge, though for greater capability; LOX/CH4. I'd go for hypergolics. A stage that fits the capability of a Block 1B SLS or New Glenn to get it out there would hold about 40 tons of propellants. I'm thinking it could be powered by twinned AJ10 engines, for redundancy. Or for bigger payloads - 4x AJ10's and propellant capacity of 100+tons. The stages are delivered to the DSH in DRO or other Cislunar space. Follow up with tanker modules from Falcon Heavy or New Glenn to fill the propulsion modules for departure. The DSH might need between 3 and 5 of these propulsion modules to get to Martian orbit and back.

The Propulsion Modules could be arranged in a trio row - like Falcon or Delta IV-Heavy - or 5x in a cruciform arrangement. For eventual Mars landing missions (finally) the Cargo and Crew Landers are sent on ahead of the DSH as it transits to and fro from Mars. The Crew Lander would be waiting in Martian orbit - sent there by efficient SEP/Chemical Tugs.

Well, if you look at the documents, it is evident that is not how this is planed to play out. The DSH / Gateway stays in lunar orbit, and only the "DST" (Deep Space Transport), a one-piece, 8.4 m diameter space ship equipped with an SEP/chemical propulsion system and ECLSS, makes the actual sorties, first to a "shake down cruise" in cis/translunar space, then on to the orbit of Mars. The mass of DST is about 45 tons. And yes, it seems that the Orion would stay attached to the DSH during that time, and the DST returns to the DSH from Mars orbit.
There is some minor variance across the DRM's in the different documents. No actual declaration of a definitive mission architecture. But notionals are to be expected at this stage.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 03/31/2017 03:42 pm
If they build this thing - and get the problems of ECLSS licked - then they could probably do Martian orbital manned missions with it. Orion would not need to to go all the way to Mars and back; just taxi the crews back and forth to Cislunar space. In-space chemical propulsion stages could be used to push the DSH from Lunar regions to high Martian orbit/Deimos/Phobos and back again. Human crews would need to get there and back quicker than SEP could push them there. Combined chemical/SEP could send supplies/equipment/other modules to the Martian moons ahead of the manned vehicle. Assuming the DSH would mass 50-70 tons - how much delta-v would that require to set it to Mars in 6 or 7 months with a Mars Orbital Insertion burn?

If the return propellants - in the form of other pre-fueled, in-space propulsion stages - were sent on ahead and arrived safely, the DSH would only need delta-v for DRO departure and MOI burns. If not, then more propulsion stages. I'm thinking storable hypergolics for less technical challenge, though for greater capability; LOX/CH4. I'd go for hypergolics. A stage that fits the capability of a Block 1B SLS or New Glenn to get it out there would hold about 40 tons of propellants. I'm thinking it could be powered by twinned AJ10 engines, for redundancy. Or for bigger payloads - 4x AJ10's and propellant capacity of 100+tons. The stages are delivered to the DSH in DRO or other Cislunar space. Follow up with tanker modules from Falcon Heavy or New Glenn to fill the propulsion modules for departure. The DSH might need between 3 and 5 of these propulsion modules to get to Martian orbit and back.

The Propulsion Modules could be arranged in a trio row - like Falcon or Delta IV-Heavy - or 5x in a cruciform arrangement. For eventual Mars landing missions (finally) the Cargo and Crew Landers are sent on ahead of the DSH as it transits to and fro from Mars. The Crew Lander would be waiting in Martian orbit - sent there by efficient SEP/Chemical Tugs.

Well, if you look at the documents, it is evident that is not how this is planed to play out. The DSH / Gateway stays in lunar orbit, and only the "DST" (Deep Space Transport), a one-piece, 8.4 m diameter space ship equipped with an SEP/chemical propulsion system and ECLSS, makes the actual sorties, first to a "shake down cruise" in cis/translunar space, then on to the orbit of Mars. The mass of DST is about 45 tons. And yes, it seems that the Orion would stay attached to the DSH during that time, and the DST returns to the DSH from Mars orbit.
There is some minor variance across the DRM's in the different documents. No actual declaration of a definitive mission architecture. But notionals are to be expected at this stage.
To pick at the nits:
As posted in post #374, page 19  - the Transit Hab is designed as 7.2m diameter (GFE tooling at Michaud)
Packaging/ Offloading Constraints
Dimensional limits: Assume habitat compatible with 8.4 m diameter shroud for Space Launch System (SLS) which corresponds to a 7.5 m diameter usable envelope that limits habitat diameter to <7.5 m stowed diameter (expandables may grow to larger diameters). This diameter maintains flexibility to use 8.4 m or 10 m diameter shrouds. Length limits set by 8.4 m diameter shroud usable envelope when co-manifested with hybrid propulsive stage. Transit habitat launched with the HPS, with the habitat on the top of the propulsion stage. These launch vehicles are packaged with adaptors such that neither payload carries the loads of the other. They are assumed to be launched on the 10 m SLS shroud which is necessary for packaging of the large hybrid propulsion system solar arrays around the habitat.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 03/31/2017 03:44 pm
I thought the cislunar gateway was supposed to be paid for by ESA/Japan... did I misunderstand the discussion over on the SLS thread?  I have trouble seeing ESA and JAXA just handing over €/¥ to US-based companies for a NASA-designed, US-built outpost.

Apparently, ESA might provide ECLSS on the habitat module (ECLSS is GFE) and Canada might contribute a robotic arm attached to a module of the deep space gateway:

http://spacenews.com/esa-deal-hinges-on-what-trump-does-with-nasas-human-spaceflight-plans/

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canada-looking-to-contribute-to-deep-space-habitat-orbiting-moon-and-eventual-mars-mission

So the Deep Space Gateway (DSG) will be a mixture of public and private partnerships and international partnerships. However, the propulsion module on the DSG should be solar electric according to Gerst's NAC presentation.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/02/2017 04:58 am
I think you may be misinterpreting what "find best aspects of each" means. This sounds to me more like "Bigelow has the strongest main lab concept, Boeing has the best node design, Lockheed's design is good for blah blah, lets stick compatible ports on these and bolt them all together", rather than "lets build 1 module with life support from Lockheed and electronics from Boeing and whatever". In which case this is exactly how commercial is supposed to work: NASA buys what they need and puts it together into 1 station, and each company can go and sell the same thing to other customers too. Same model used for commercial crew/cargo, and for orbital launch vehicles

It seems that you were right. NASA will figure out what kind of reference habitat it wants through out NextStep phase 2. So it wouldn't be a down selection since NASA will have new habitat requirements for phase 3. Once they have decided on a reference habitat, several companies or international partners may be involved in making it under phase 3.

Quote from: Crusan presentation slide 5
Hab Development Phase 2 [...]

• NASA: Define reference habitat architecture based on contractor and international concepts and identified GFE [Government Furnished Equipment] in preparation for Phase 3

Hab Development Phase 3 [...]

• Deliverables include Flight Unit(s) (note may be multiple modules integrated via common interfaces and standards)

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/20170329-nacheoc-crusan-gatens-hab-eclss-v5b.pdf
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: redliox on 04/05/2017 12:30 am
How well could this habitat development tech be applied toward Martian habitats...on the surface?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: smfarmer11 on 04/05/2017 01:22 am
Presumably the ECLSS could be adapted to a surface habitat, and perhaps the method of radiation shielding. Other than that most would probably have to be altered.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: jgoldader on 04/05/2017 07:35 pm
As with all these things, it's not whether it can be done, but rather about the cost and how it'll be paid for.  So far, we haven't heard a peep about either of those (unless I missed something?).
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: yg1968 on 04/06/2017 02:36 pm
As with all these things, it's not whether it can be done, but rather about the cost and how it'll be paid for.  So far, we haven't heard a peep about either of those (unless I missed something?).

Gerst said that this should fit under the current budget (ideally with an adjustment for inflation).
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: corneliussulla on 04/11/2017 08:41 pm
It would be interesting to see the ITS upper stage against the deep space transport in scale.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: brickmack on 04/12/2017 02:59 am
It would be interesting to see the ITS upper stage against the deep space transport in scale.

DST still hasn't been precisely defined yet. The 7.2 meter SLS-launched hab was the favorite last I heard though, heres a quick and dirty shot of that
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: corneliussulla on 04/12/2017 05:27 am
Thanks. The DST is an uninspiring looking vessel, but practicality is what's needed I suppose. When u see all the movies and TV dock dramas made in last twenty years about travel to Mars none came up with a bean can in space, but I suppose the craft has no landing stage etc.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: okan170 on 04/12/2017 06:03 am
Thanks. The DST is an uninspiring looking vessel, but practicality is what's needed I suppose. When u see all the movies and TV dock dramas made in last twenty years about travel to Mars none came up with a bean can in space, but I suppose the craft has no landing stage etc.

What movies are you referring to?  Lots of "uninspiring cans" for Mars transfer vehicles in the last 20 years of TV and film, especially starting in the 90s with separate fictional landers etc.  Unless we're talking far future science fiction.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: corneliussulla on 04/12/2017 08:22 am
I suppose the ones I was referring to where, the Martian, red planet, mission to Mars. TV race to Mars, and Nat geo recent Mars show.

However I assume some extra stuff needs to be attached to the NASA bean can to Impart some delta v and to put it in orbit etc.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: okan170 on 04/12/2017 01:04 pm
I suppose the ones I was referring to where, the Martian, red planet, mission to Mars. TV race to Mars, and Nat geo recent Mars show.

However I assume some extra stuff needs to be attached to the NASA bean can to Impart some delta v and to put it in orbit etc.

Considering that all of those films involved a large modular transfer spacecraft that did not itself land, they have a lot more in common with "can designs" than SpaceX's ITS super-lander-spaceship.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/15/2017 03:09 am
I wish it was just an optimized transit vehicle made to operate in cislunar mode.

I liked the gateway idea when it was just using ISS ground spares, but this is a whole new thing, and so we should just do what we actually want: build something light enough to be a transit vehicle. We'll otherwise spend tens of billions of dollars doing missions and upkeep on a miniature ISS at a higher orbit. Come on, let's at least get to Phobos or something.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: KelvinZero on 04/15/2017 09:25 am
I wish it was just an optimized transit vehicle made to operate in cislunar mode.

I liked the gateway idea when it was just using ISS ground spares, but this is a whole new thing, and so we should just do what we actually want: build something light enough to be a transit vehicle. We'll otherwise spend tens of billions of dollars doing missions and upkeep on a miniature ISS at a higher orbit. Come on, let's at least get to Phobos or something.
The feature I would really like to see, different from the ISS, is something really plug and play. It should be something we can assemble at L2 or Phobos or any other (zero-g) destination before sending people, or take apart, replace some core spinal module and put back together again, all remotely. How about even a design that you never ever need retire.. just keep retiring pieces and reusing others?

I would be willing to put up with something a bit heavier for that. Suppose it weighs 25% more. That is just 25% more launches of propellant or whatever, so not even 25% additional cost to the entire architecture. Something much less.

I have the impression that the ISS construction was _designed_ to justify all the shuttles's features: crew, garage and cargo all in one on every mission, and thus was all about learning exactly the wrong lessons for going beyond LEO.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: envy887 on 04/15/2017 08:15 pm
I suppose the ones I was referring to where, the Martian, red planet, mission to Mars. TV race to Mars, and Nat geo recent Mars show.

However I assume some extra stuff needs to be attached to the NASA bean can to Impart some delta v and to put it in orbit etc.

Considering that all of those films involved a large modular transfer spacecraft that did not itself land, they have a lot more in common with "can designs" than SpaceX's ITS super-lander-spaceship.

The Nat Geo Mars show had a ship that was basically ITS.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: okan170 on 04/15/2017 08:21 pm
The Nat Geo Mars show had a ship that was basically ITS.


Considering that one was heavily influenced and leaning towards the commercial side and SpaceX in particular, it'd be strange if it wasn't.  My point is its hardly been the norm for "plausible" science fiction depictions.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: corneliussulla on 05/16/2017 09:43 am
The Cis lunar base has nothing to do with going to Mars it just gives Orion somewhere to go.

NASA is lost its main mission is to keep various legacy Rocket development centres populated with people. The fact there is a outcome of this process is almost irrelevant.

Imagine a trip to Mars lasting 2-3 years and u don't Evan land, its sad, sort of pathetic. No vision, Evan the things we are building have no obvious purpose other than getting a few people to Mars orbit or lunar orbit so we can say we have been there.

The absolute truth is SX and to a lesser extent BO are the only people with a vision for space and are making strides to make it happen. NASA will continue with this waste of time until its cancelled and the congress will look for some other nonsense to keep the jobs in their states.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 05/16/2017 07:44 pm
The Cis lunar base has nothing to do with going to Mars it just gives Orion somewhere to go.


IMHO a cis-lunar base can be much more useful than "just giving Orion a place to go." Besides being a testbed for closed loop ECLSS and other deep space necessities its location allows for it to be used as a waystation for a reusable lunar lander. ESA and others really want to go back to the lunar surface and this station would allow for that in a sustainable fashion.

Many people say, "just test everything on ISS." I disagree somewhat. ISS's ECLSS was purpose built for its environment and distance to Earth and as we all know station maintenance takes a lot of crew time. We need to build a new system with lessons learned from ISS. Now you could maybe launch a module with an experimental closed loop system and attach it to ISS but it wouldn't be in the deep space environment and would have to be compatible with ISS systems.

Building up a cis-lunar station with an all new ECLSS made from lessons learned is far more beneficial in my view than trying to make it ISS compliant.

Quote
Imagine a trip to Mars lasting 2-3 years and u don't Evan land, its sad, sort of pathetic.

I guess Apollo 8 was sad and pathetic in your view.

Evan the things we are building have no obvious purpose other than getting a few people to Mars orbit or lunar orbit so we can say we have been there.

Why should NASA focus on landing hundreds of people on Mars or colonizing space? NASA is the Lewis and Clark expedition, the initial explorers. The idea that we shouldn't go anywhere in space unless we can colonize it at the same time is incorrect in my view. Let the private sector worry about colonization and let NASA focus on actually reaching the location for the first time.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: montyrmanley on 05/16/2017 08:02 pm
Why should NASA focus on landing hundreds of people on Mars or colonizing space? NASA is the Lewis and Clark expedition, the initial explorers. The idea that we shouldn't go anywhere in space unless we can colonize it at the same time is incorrect in my view. Let the private sector worry about colonization and let NASA focus on actually reaching the location for the first time.

I agree with everything you said vis-a-vis the cislunar station idea -- in fact, if I had my way, NASA would focus all of their efforts on orbital stations and give up on the idea of planetary bases for the forseeable future. But then I'm an advocate of the O'Neill "cities in space" idea -- I find the idea of going right back down another gravity well after spending eons getting out of this one to be ludcrous. Planets are where you put your mining and resource-gathering robots; space stations are the things you build for people to live in.

I do take issue with the notion that NASA is the "Lewis and Clark" of space exploration, however. Notionally, that should (IMO) be their remit, but in reality NASA has never been that organization, either spiritually or as a matter of organizational purpose. NASA's legacy is a conservative engineering bureaucracy, but gradually the "bureaucracy" part has overwhelmed even the "engineering" part and now NASA mainly exists to perpetuate itself. It exists to employ people, and to distribute federal funds to the districts the various centers operate in. To the extent that NASA can do "space exploration" commensurate with those two higher goals, fine; but when actual space science and exploration conflict with those goals, space exploration is going to lose. Every time. I don't think there was ever a "golden age" of NASA where things were ever any different, really -- NASA was born and bred as such an organization, and to expect anything different from it is actually kind of silly.

NASA's innate risk-aversion and (increasingly) bureaucratic inertia is completely at odds with being the path-breaker for crewed deep space missions. I expect the private sector to quickly outpace the nation-state space programs in the coming decades (we be at the leading edge of that process right now).
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/21/2017 02:29 am
Why should NASA focus on landing hundreds of people on Mars or colonizing space? NASA is the Lewis and Clark expedition, the initial explorers. The idea that we shouldn't go anywhere in space unless we can colonize it at the same time is incorrect in my view. Let the private sector worry about colonization and let NASA focus on actually reaching the location for the first time.

I agree with everything you said vis-a-vis the cislunar station idea -- in fact, if I had my way, NASA would focus all of their efforts on orbital stations and give up on the idea of planetary bases for the forseeable future.

I just wanted to highlight this comment, but I'll address it last...

Quote
But then I'm an advocate of the O'Neill "cities in space" idea -- I find the idea of going right back down another gravity well after spending eons getting out of this one to be ludcrous. Planets are where you put your mining and resource-gathering robots; space stations are the things you build for people to live in.

You appear to be assuming that humans can actually live in space - not only survive, but thrive.  And that it will be easily to have the same quality of life and GDP in space that it would on a planet. I'm not sure I agree with that, or at least not until we know that artificial gravity space stations will be a popular thing (and I hope they will be). So I think this is a premature conclusion to make at this point.

Quote
I do take issue with the notion that NASA is the "Lewis and Clark" of space exploration, however. Notionally, that should (IMO) be their remit, but in reality NASA has never been that organization, either spiritually or as a matter of organizational purpose.

My philosophy about NASA is based on remembering that NASA is just one of many government agencies that the U.S. Government uses to solve problems. Which for NASA means addressing problems that require sending hardware and/or humans into space to solve problems in peaceful ways.  But they are still U.S. Government problems, not goals set by those within NASA. That is an important point to remember, that NASA works for the President and is funded by Congress - it does not get to pick what it wants to do.

But what it does well is what the private sector can't or won't do. But once the private sector is able to do something, then it should be questioned whether the U.S. Government should have NASA do that same task.

In that light, it may be appropriate for NASA to be the lead for a deep space habitat, but so far there is no U.S. Government need for doing that. Does it solve a problem with another country, like Apollo did in the Cold War? Does it solve a science problem that is acknowledged to be something needed to be solved by many nations, like the ISS? I'm not sure we have a clear "business case" for a lunar DSH yet. It would be nice to have some clarity on this, but our government seems too busy with many other issues to provide clear direction during this year.

My $0.02
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: corneliussulla on 05/22/2017 06:30 am
The Cis lunar base has nothing to do with going to Mars it just gives Orion somewhere to go.

NASA is lost its main mission is to keep various legacy Rocket development centres populated with people. The fact there is a outcome of this process is almost irrelevant.

Imagine a trip to Mars lasting 2-3 years and u don't Evan land, its sad, sort of pathetic. No vision, Evan the things we are building have no obvious purpose other than getting a few people to Mars orbit or lunar orbit so we can say we have been there.

The absolute truth is SX and to a lesser extent BO are the only people with a vision for space and are making strides to make it happen. NASA will continue with this waste of time until its cancelled and the congress will look for some other nonsense to keep the jobs in their states.

I see zubrin is in agreement with me http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447644/nasa-lunar-orbit-space-station-terrible-idea.

Although I don't agree with his solution. NASA only roll should be publish destinations and required capabilities in broadest terms, choose best solution and administer contracts. Never going to happen but as NASA is really just a political slush fund.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 08/15/2017 03:39 pm
FISO report on Boeing version of DSG and integrated Lunar and Mars lander programs:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/%7Efiso/telecon/Duggan_8-9-17/

The DSG proposals coming from the commercial sector are incorporating ISS diameter (if not actual hardware) modules for the Cis-Lunar gateway.  This concept is using the MSFC larger diameter module for the Mars Transport facility similar to the Smitherman report - which used ISS heritage modules for the DSG and recommended a 5.2m diameter module for the Mars Transport.  This concept mirrors the MSFC co-manifest plan with the addition of lunar, Phobos and Mars landers explicitly called. Note that the Smitherman MSFC report does not call out landers.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: redliox on 08/15/2017 07:50 pm
The chart about how they'd handle Lunar operations got my attention chiefly.  It appear that the station would indeed be used as a gateway, or likewise a way-point, for the Orion and would-be-Lunar Lander.  More specifically they clearly show the lander traveling all the way from DRO/NRO to the lunar surface.  It appears that the ascent stage would return to the station, so possibly half-a-lander could be reused.

Without the dead weight of an Orion to drag around, I would think it could be reasonably possible to have a (clearly a slimmed-down -Altair-redux) lander capable of shuttling between the surface and the Gateway Station.

Can't say I'm as impressed with the Martian half of plans, but we'll see.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: okan170 on 08/16/2017 02:59 am
The chart about how they'd handle Lunar operations got my attention chiefly.  It appear that the station would indeed be used as a gateway, or likewise a way-point, for the Orion and would-be-Lunar Lander.  More specifically they clearly show the lander traveling all the way from DRO/NRO to the lunar surface.  It appears that the ascent stage would return to the station, so possibly half-a-lander could be reused.

I wonder if you could just bring a new descent stage with you for the next mission?  Who knows how it'd berth to the ascent stage, but at least the DSG notionally has a Canadarm.


Just a moment... whats that half-cut out Cargo SLS image?  Enhance!  Is that... my public-side SLS cargo render?   :o
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: brickmack on 08/16/2017 05:12 am
The chart about how they'd handle Lunar operations got my attention chiefly.  It appear that the station would indeed be used as a gateway, or likewise a way-point, for the Orion and would-be-Lunar Lander.  More specifically they clearly show the lander traveling all the way from DRO/NRO to the lunar surface.  It appears that the ascent stage would return to the station, so possibly half-a-lander could be reused.

I wonder if you could just bring a new descent stage with you for the next mission?  Who knows how it'd berth to the ascent stage, but at least the DSG notionally has a Canadarm.


Just a moment... whats that half-cut out Cargo SLS image?  Enhance!  Is that... my public-side SLS cargo render?   :o

Well, if you only bring new descent stages on Orion flights, that doesn't leave much room for expansion or logistics modules (which should take priority for Orion comanifests, given the lack of propulsive capability). If you let the descent stage do its own orbital maneuvering, you could launch it on a much smaller vehicle (DIVH class?), maybe even carry some small cargo externally and use it as a logistics vehicle on the way up. Not clear how fuel would be delivered for the ascender though. Carry it up in extra tanks on descent module deliveries? At that point, might as well just go for direct tank swapping

Boeing's legal department just felt a ripple in the Force
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/16/2017 10:30 am


The chart about how they'd handle Lunar operations got my attention chiefly.  It appear that the station would indeed be used as a gateway, or likewise a way-point, for the Orion and would-be-Lunar Lander.  More specifically they clearly show the lander traveling all the way from DRO/NRO to the lunar surface.  It appears that the ascent stage would return to the station, so possibly half-a-lander could be reused.

I wonder if you could just bring a new descent stage with you for the next mission?  Who knows how it'd berth to the ascent stage, but at least the DSG notionally has a Canadarm.



Beside new descent stage would also need fuel for ascent stage.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 08/25/2017 04:11 pm
A video tour of the Lockheed-Martin DSG habitat module - part 1, part 2 has yet to be published.

https://englishsubtitles.online/videos/exclusive-look-inside-nasa-deep-space-gateway-lockheed-martin-visit-part-1-158166

This mockup looks to be the same module as the previous hab module developed a few years ago, using 8020 extrusions - the LM tour guide says that the NextStep Phase II Module prototype will require 18 months to complete.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/31/2017 09:58 am
A good podcast on what LM are doing on DSG. Habitat module will be very basic relying on Orion for bathroom and kitchen facilities. This is primary to keep costs down, future modules could add these features along with ECLSS.

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/archivelist.htm
30August
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 08/31/2017 02:47 pm
A good podcast on what LM are doing on DSG. Habitat module will be very basic relying on Orion for bathroom and kitchen facilities. This is primary to keep costs down, future modules could add these features along with ECLSS.

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/archivelist.htm
30August
Thanks for the post.  The LM concept is highlighting several issues with using MPLM modules for the gateway - the lack of volume - using the ECLSS on Orion is cost-effective but one of the objectives for the Cis-lunar facility was to develop and validate a closed-loop or near-closed loop ECLSS.  LM states in the brief that it is designed to evolve as time/funding permits - but gives no timeline for such evolution (slide 13).  In addition, LM is proposing their own logistics module as a co-manifest option, competing with ATK-Orbital for logistics.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/31/2017 04:04 pm
A good podcast on what LM are doing on DSG. Habitat module will be very basic relying on Orion for bathroom and kitchen facilities. This is primary to keep costs down, future modules could add these features along with ECLSS.

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/archivelist.htm
30August
Thanks for the post.  The LM concept is highlighting several issues with using MPLM modules for the gateway - the lack of volume - using the ECLSS on Orion is cost-effective but one of the objectives for the Cis-lunar facility was to develop and validate a closed-loop or near-closed loop ECLSS.  LM states in the brief that it is designed to evolve as time/funding permits - but gives no timeline for such evolution (slide 13).  In addition, LM is proposing their own logistics module as a co-manifest option, competing with ATK-Orbital for logistics.
This type of version of DSG would limit visit times at the DSG to about 7 days. The current mission length support for an Orion is 14 days (hopefully I am wrong and it is longer). The other 7 days is eaten by the trip to and from Earth in order to get to the DSG. So the visit times for missions to the DSG would be the max ECLSS allowed time for the Orion minus the trip time ~7 days.

A vist of one to two weeks, even three weeks is not long enough for any significant work (scientific or infrastructure building) to occur. It would support at best an EVA if the DSG had an airlock. Without an airlock the visit time will be significantly shortened. I do not see any plans for airlocks for the DSG?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Proponent on 08/31/2017 04:18 pm
Without an airlock the visit time will be significantly shortened. I do not see any plans for airlocks for the DSG?

Why would the lack of an airlock shorten the visit?  Would it be possible to use Orion's crew module as an airlock?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 08/31/2017 04:19 pm
A good podcast on what LM are doing on DSG. Habitat module will be very basic relying on Orion for bathroom and kitchen facilities. This is primary to keep costs down, future modules could add these features along with ECLSS.

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/archivelist.htm
30August
Thanks for the post.  The LM concept is highlighting several issues with using MPLM modules for the gateway - the lack of volume - using the ECLSS on Orion is cost-effective but one of the objectives for the Cis-lunar facility was to develop and validate a closed-loop or near-closed loop ECLSS.  LM states in the brief that it is designed to evolve as time/funding permits - but gives no timeline for such evolution (slide 13).  In addition, LM is proposing their own logistics module as a co-manifest option, competing with ATK-Orbital for logistics.
This type of version of DSG would limit visit times at the DSG to about 7 days. The current mission length support for an Orion is 14 days (hopefully I am wrong and it is longer). The other 7 days is eaten by the trip to and from Earth in order to get to the DSG. So the visit times for missions to the DSG would be the max ECLSS allowed time for the Orion minus the trip time ~7 days.

A vist of one to two weeks, even three weeks is not long enough for any significant work (scientific or infrastructure building) to occur. It would support at best an EVA if the DSG had an airlock. Without an airlock the visit time will be significantly shortened. I do not see any plans for airlocks for the DSG?
The objectives for the cis-lunar facility posted earlier in this thread (replys 327,332 374) require up to 60 day missions - see * NextSTEP-2_Appendix_A_Habitat_Systems_Final.pdf  at reply 135.  The nextstep site, https://www.nasa.gov/nextstep Aug 2017 briefing for the P&PE module calls out a minimum of 30 days for 4 astronauts.
Also, slide 10 of the brief does show an airlock.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/31/2017 07:31 pm
Without an airlock the visit time will be significantly shortened. I do not see any plans for airlocks for the DSG?

Why would the lack of an airlock shorten the visit?  Would it be possible to use Orion's crew module as an airlock?
Airlock would be 4th trip/module, logistic module being 3rd trip. With logistic module Orion should be able to support  crew for 30 days. Not presented anyway but using a Cygnus as logistic module delivered by commercial LV would allow airlock to be brought forward to 3rd mission.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/01/2017 05:48 pm
Without an airlock the visit time will be significantly shortened. I do not see any plans for airlocks for the DSG?

Why would the lack of an airlock shorten the visit?  Would it be possible to use Orion's crew module as an airlock?
Airlock would be 4th trip/module, logistic module being 3rd trip. With logistic module Orion should be able to support  crew for 30 days. Not presented anyway but using a Cygnus as logistic module delivered by commercial LV would allow airlock to be brought forward to 3rd mission.
The unfortunate thing about this is that the reality of this happening feels a lot like us waiting on the the FH to fly. We know it will, but the details keep changing (the FH capabilities, site used, other hardware details changed). The mission plans for anything other than EM-2 are penciled in plans since the hardware programs that would be providing the hardware are only pencil plans and suggestions by contractors to NASA. There is only one item that is currently even being defined through work on a requirements document/RFI(P). So the details about the DSG as it currently exists may be very different than when it is deployed including orbits and even which LV is used to deploy it.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/01/2017 06:20 pm
I don't think DSG has been officially funded yet or approved by current Administration.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: okan170 on 09/01/2017 07:50 pm
I don't think DSG has been officially funded yet or approved by current Administration.

According to NASA its being covered under NEXT-Step and ARM contracts for now.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Eric Hedman on 09/02/2017 04:14 am
I don't think DSG has been officially funded yet or approved by current Administration.

According to NASA its being covered under NEXT-Step and ARM contracts for now.
When I talked with some NASA people at the EAA AirVenture in late July, they were confident this will be moving ahead full speed.  They were speaking like this is a given next step.  Time will tell if the National Space Council and Congress agree.  I suspect that they will.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: tea monster on 09/02/2017 09:09 am
Is there any reason that the lander isn't completely reusable? Otherwise, this moon program is going to be slow going with only one SLS launch a year. I'm assuming that the recent requirement to put the Orion on a new launch vehicle is to free up SLS launches for delivering DSG parts?

Can the lunar lander be lofted by anything else?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Chalmer on 09/02/2017 09:33 am
Is there any reason that the lander isn't completely reusable? Otherwise, this moon program is going to be slow going with only one SLS launch a year. I'm assuming that the recent requirement to put the Orion on a new launch vehicle is to free up SLS launches for delivering DSG parts?

Can the lunar lander be lofted by anything else?

What lunar lander? There is none.

DSG phase one plans so far is a Bus+A Hab+An Airlock. All co-launched with Orion on SLS on EM-2, EM-3 and EM-5 respectively.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: brickmack on 09/02/2017 06:03 pm
What lunar lander? There is none.

Referring to the Boeing DSG concept, which includes a lander.

Is there any reason that the lander isn't completely reusable? Otherwise, this moon program is going to be slow going with only one SLS launch a year

Mass, most likely. Single stage to lunar surface and back is rather harder. I would question how much harder though. Looking at the Apollo LM for example (since its the only such thing flown...), if you combine the total dry and gross masses into a single stage, it has a pretty decent delta v capacity already, and it can match the round-trip delta v of the Apollo LM (4720 m/s) if it can shed "only" 940 kg of dry mass. I'd take a guess that eliminating the extra weight required in a 2 stage system (separate ascent engine, tanks, and plumbing, separation systems, etc) would have very nearly gotten them to the point of it being viable, requiring only a smallish increase in mass, but Apollo was so mass limited they needed to shave off every milligram so it made sense. With modern materials and higher performance engines, it should be even easier. I'd agree with your statement, a few kilograms mass reduction aren't worth tossing any prospect of economic viability or useful flightrate.

I'm assuming that the recent requirement to put the Orion on a new launch vehicle is to free up SLS launches for delivering DSG parts?

There is no such requirement, just a congressionally mandated study into alternatives, to which NASA basically replied "lol, not happening"

Can the lunar lander be lofted by anything else?

Boeings concept should barely fit into Vulcan-ACES, and quite easily into FH's and New Glenn's payload mass capacity. Fairing volume is harder, its a pretty wide payload. New Glenn can support it, FH cannot, Vulcan ACES probably could aerodynamically but it would require a new fairing (a 7 meter fairing was determined feasible for Atlas V, so on a 5.4 meter core it should be fine)
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/02/2017 07:28 pm
A DSG based reusable single stage lander needs 5-5.5km/s for round trip. For methane its 3.5t fuel per 1t dry mass, LH its 2.3t.

Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: KelvinZero on 09/03/2017 12:12 am
A DSG based reusable single stage lander needs 5-5.5km/s for round trip. For methane its 3.5t fuel per 1t dry mass, LH its 2.3t.
Gripe: I wish I could respond with "ISRU!"

It's frustrating that 45 years after Apollo, 8 years after LCROSS, water ISRU and even basic oxygen ISRU can't be a serious part of the conversation. We just haven't done the necessary homework. We absolutely could have, but we didn't.

One of the reasons Im am enthusiastic about this DSH is that even if done for the wrong reasons, politicians will be embarrassed by astronauts twiddling their thumbs, so will squeeze out some money for in space projects so they have something to do. Finally, some budget may be allowed to dribble to the ISRU tech development HSF really needs to make sense.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: brickmack on 09/03/2017 01:52 am
ISRU on the moon would be pretty easy. The only issue is infrastructure, we need a way to completely robotically deploy and test this without humans on-site, otherwise if you choose the wrong location or theres a mechanical failure before redundancy is established, a few astronauts die. Which means either a completely separate design (expensive), or a vehicle large enough to do useful missions without ISRU and still be reusable but could be enhanced by it later (like 2016ITS, ~40 tons to lunar surface and back without prop transfer)
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Nibb31 on 09/05/2017 02:27 pm
Mass, most likely. Single stage to lunar surface and back is rather harder. I would question how much harder though. Looking at the Apollo LM for example (since its the only such thing flown...), if you combine the total dry and gross masses into a single stage, it has a pretty decent delta v capacity already, and it can match the round-trip delta v of the Apollo LM (4720 m/s) if it can shed "only" 940 kg of dry mass. I'd take a guess that eliminating the extra weight required in a 2 stage system (separate ascent engine, tanks, and plumbing, separation systems, etc) would have very nearly gotten them to the point of it being viable, requiring only a smallish increase in mass, but Apollo was so mass limited they needed to shave off every milligram so it made sense. With modern materials and higher performance engines, it should be even easier. I'd agree with your statement, a few kilograms mass reduction aren't worth tossing any prospect of economic viability or useful flightrate. (a 7 meter fairing was determined feasible for Atlas V, so on a 5.4 meter core it should be fine)

There were other reasons for staging the LM, notably redundancy for abort modes, restartability, and protecting the ascent engine from landing damage.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: redliox on 09/07/2017 06:28 pm
Is there any reason that the lander isn't completely reusable? Otherwise, this moon program is going to be slow going with only one SLS launch a year. I'm assuming that the recent requirement to put the Orion on a new launch vehicle is to free up SLS launches for delivering DSG parts?

Can the lunar lander be lofted by anything else?

Hard to say, but maybe.  The thought that comes to mind would be Falcon Heavy or perhaps Vulcan; in both cases a lander could be cobbled together via 3 launches:
1) Core Lander (maybe resuable?)
2) Crasher Descent Stage
3) Booster to get prior 2 items to DSG locale

Fuel and replacement Descent Stages could be later ferries via Orion (or something better later).
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: brickmack on 09/07/2017 11:55 pm
If Vulcan is used as the launch vehicle, suddenly the whole thing just got a lot easier. Refuel ACES in LEO, payload capacity to TLI is well beyond SLS performance and it can directly insert to cislunar orbit. Lander design can be augmented with ACES tech to increase performance, and later ACES (tanker config) launches deliver propellant for additional landing missions until surface ISRU is established. FH is nice, but nowhere near as capable
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: envy887 on 09/11/2017 08:49 pm
If Vulcan is used as the launch vehicle, suddenly the whole thing just got a lot easier. Refuel ACES in LEO, payload capacity to TLI is well beyond SLS performance and it can directly insert to cislunar orbit. Lander design can be augmented with ACES tech to increase performance, and later ACES (tanker config) launches deliver propellant for additional landing missions until surface ISRU is established. FH is nice, but nowhere near as capable

The problem is that ACES is no closer to flying than any other reuseable transfer stage and/or lander concept.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: wannamoonbase on 09/12/2017 04:25 am
Is there any reason that the lander isn't completely reusable? Otherwise, this moon program is going to be slow going with only one SLS launch a year. I'm assuming that the recent requirement to put the Orion on a new launch vehicle is to free up SLS launches for delivering DSG parts?

Can the lunar lander be lofted by anything else?

Hard to say, but maybe.  The thought that comes to mind would be Falcon Heavy or perhaps Vulcan; in both cases a lander could be cobbled together via 3 launches:
1) Core Lander (maybe resuable?)
2) Crasher Descent Stage
3) Booster to get prior 2 items to DSG locale

Fuel and replacement Descent Stages could be later ferries via Orion (or something better later).

I disagree with crasher stages.   I think landers need to be designed for disassembly and reuse on the surface.   Tanks will be reused for strong ISRU products.

Eventually there would be a tank farm with loads of LOx.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: tea monster on 09/12/2017 08:32 am
The only reason that I'm asking is that if you only send a team to the surface when you launch an SLS, then you are only sending one team a year (assuming that no other launches are used for other projects). If the lander is reusable you get a lot more lunar visits in that year than one. I'm not an engineer, but I'm going to assume that the increase in science and usability will far outweigh saving a few pounds per trip.

The Apollo program got 4 flights off in one year (1969). If we are aiming for lunar 'operations' then 1 flight/1 landing per year is probably not going to fulfill that. Even if they manage to increase the flight rate to 2 per year, it's still a slog.

Also, what happens if there is an accident and a crew is stuck on the lunar surface or at the DSG?
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Zed_Noir on 09/12/2017 12:37 pm
....
Also, what happens if there is an accident and a crew is stuck on the lunar surface or at the DSG?

Call up the folks at Hawthorne for help. The best and probably the only near term option for retrieving crew stranded at the DSG or getting a lander to the DSG in time. Maybe our Amazon pal can also do these missions at a later date.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: tea monster on 09/12/2017 06:30 pm
Yes, hopefully either Bezos or Musk could make a quick rescue run.

I imagine that when making plans, that NASA won't write that into the manuals. It may be that they have a second Orion docked to the station as a lifeboat (one SLS mission down). Option two is to have an SLS booster mothballed in Florida, ready to fuel and go in case of emergencies (again, one year out of the program).

I don't know if it is possible to detach The Power and Propulsion module from the rest of the DSG if the Orion suffers a major failure. I don't know enough rocket science to calculate how much delta V you would need to change orbit to return it to LEO and dock with the ISS. It might be possible to fit it with one of those inflatable heat shields that they tested recently to shed enough velocity to dock with the ISS.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/13/2017 12:57 am
Yes, hopefully either Bezos or Musk could make a quick rescue run.

I imagine that when making plans, that NASA won't write that into the manuals. It may be that they have a second Orion docked to the station as a lifeboat (one SLS mission down). Option two is to have an SLS booster mothballed in Florida, ready to fuel and go in case of emergencies (again, one year out of the program).

I don't know if it is possible to detach The Power and Propulsion module from the rest of the DSG if the Orion suffers a major failure. I don't know enough rocket science to calculate how much delta V you would need to change orbit to return it to LEO and dock with the ISS. It might be possible to fit it with one of those inflatable heat shields that they tested recently to shed enough velocity to dock with the ISS.

SEP tugs are slow so it would take months to fly the DSG back to the ISS.

If it is unmanned an Orion can be lifted to LEO as cargo on a smaller launch vehicle. The spacecraft can then be pushed to the DSG by a second Power and Propulsion module.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 09/27/2017 09:14 pm
NASA has signed a statement of interest with Roscosmos for deep space exploration
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-roscosmos-sign-joint-statement-on-researching-exploring-deep-space
"Building a strategic capability for advancing and sustaining human space exploration in the vicinity of the Moon will require the best from NASA, interested international partners, and U.S. industry. As NASA continues formulating the deep space gateway concept, the agency signed a joint statement with the Russian Space Agency, Roscosmos, on Wednesday, Sept. 27 at the 68th International Astronautical Congress in Adelaide, Australia.

This joint statement reflects the common vision for human exploration that NASA and Roscosmos share. Both agencies, as well as other International Space Station partners, see the gateway as a strategic component of human space exploration architecture that warrants additional study. NASA has already engaged industry partners in gateway concept studies. Roscosmos and other space station partner agencies are preparing to do the same.

"While the deep space gateway is still in concept formulation, NASA is pleased to see growing international interest in moving into cislunar space as the next step for advancing human space exploration," said Robert Lightfoot, NASA's acting administrator at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "Statements such as this one signed with Roscosmos show the gateway concept as an enabler to the kind of exploration architecture that is affordable and sustainable."

NASA plans to expand human presence into the solar system starting in the vicinity of the Moon using its new deep space exploration transportation systems, the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft. This plan challenges our current capabilities in human spaceflight and will benefit from engagement by multiple countries and U.S. industry.

Studies of the gateway concept will provide technical information to inform future decisions about potential collaborations. These domestic and international studies are being used to shape the capabilities and partnering options for implementing the deep space gateway.

The space station partners are working to identify common exploration objectives and possible missions for the 2020s, including the gateway concept. A key element of their study is to ensure that future deep space exploration missions take full advantage of technology development and demonstration enabled by the International Space Station, as well as lessons learned from its assembly and operations.

During the same time period and in parallel, NASA has been engaging U.S. industry to evaluate habitation concepts for the gateway and for the deep space transport that would be needed for Mars exploration. NASA has competitively awarded a series of study and risk reduction contracts under the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) Broad Agency Announcement to advance habitation concepts, technologies, and prototypes of the required capabilities needed for deep space missions. The most recent awards included six U.S. companies; Bigelow Aerospace, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Orbital ATK, Sierra Nevada Corporation, and Nanoracks. Five of the six firms were selected to develop full-sized ground-based engineering prototypes of habitation systems, expected to be complete in 2018. NASA has also solicited industry proposals for studies on concept development of a power and propulsion element, which would be the first piece of a gateway architecture."
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Star One on 09/27/2017 09:39 pm
Rather surprisingly this has been fairly widely reported in the UK, even making the BBC news.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: TrevorMonty on 10/06/2017 03:22 pm
Excellent article on DSH from Anatoly.

www.russianspaceweb.com/imp-che.html#2017_08
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 11/02/2017 02:11 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-studies-for-gateway-power-and-propulsion-element (hopefully this will change soon).

The DSG work continues, even though Congress has yet to authorize funds directly for the Cis-lunar facility.

The contractors for  NextStep Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) studies have been selected for a 4-month analysis period:
    Boeing of Pasadena, Texas 
    Lockheed Martin of Denver, Colorado
    Orbital ATK of Dulles, Virginia
    Sierra Nevada Corporation’s Space Systems of Louisville, Colorado
    Space Systems/Loral in Palo Alto, California
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 11/08/2017 07:44 pm
Details of the SNC NextStep phase 2 proposal for a DSG.  SNC states that they propose to modify CRS Dream Chaser components to reduce the cost of the DSG and use their team (SNC Space Systems, Aerojet Rocketdyne, ILC Dover and NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC)) to build the modules.

 http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-5102
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
http://spacearchitect.org/pubs/pub-biblio.htm

Figure 1 is the latest rendering of the SNC DSG
The modular building blocks, shown in Fig. 2, include:
• Logistics and Control Module (LCM) used to house the free-flying and life-support components and serve as assembly nodes.
• Minimalistic Airlock with Soft-goods Hatch (MASH) used for extra-vehicular activities (EVA) that enable installation and servicing of orbital replacement units (ORU).
• Solar Electric Propulsion Module (SEPM) used for transporting the various building blocks to a location in space for assembly of the habitat and for providing additional power generation to support the overall system when not in transporting mode.
• Large Inflatable Fabric Environment (LIFE), which provides a large living and experiment processing area for the crew.
• Extended Logistics Control Module (ELCM) used to provide supplies and ORUs needed for long-duration crewed missions on an enduring cislunar platform.

Figure 3 shows the critical components of the DSG being tested at the ISS. This suggests that the ISS will be in the critical path for the DSG - the cost savings for new programs from ending the ISS program won't be available in this scenario.

Modular Architecture Development
Individual building blocks evolved from components with a high technology readiness level (TRL) comprise the cornerstone of the design. By evolving the LCM from the CRS2 cargo module (CM), the LIFE module from ILC Dover’s commercial Resilient Tunnel Plug (RTP) design and TransHab technology, and the ECLSS system from the Dream Chaser® spacecraft, SNC can accelerate the schedule and leverage previous investments to effectively lower overall program costs. The evolution of the individual building blocks and the overall system are shown in Fig.4.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: BrightLight on 02/22/2018 06:18 pm
Mars Transit Hab paper from: Safe Haven Configurations for Deep Space Transit Habitats by David Smitherman* Tara Polsgrove†, and Justin Rowe‡ and Matthew Simon,NASA. in https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170012304 2018-02-22T03:32:12+00:00Z

Figure 1.
EMC Mars Transit Habitat. The advanced habitat in configuration 1a designed with technology
assumptions for the 2030s was revised to current standards in configuration 1b to help establish a baseline for
safe haven mass calculations in a variety of possible layouts illustrated in configurations 2 through 5.
Figure 2. Common Bulkhead Habitat. Configuration 2 added an internal bulkhead and airlock between the
upper and lower decks with duplicate life support systems to provide full duration capability in either volume.
Figure 3. Dual Pressure Vessel Habitat. Configuration 3 separates the two volumes in configuration 2 into two
separate pressure vessels of equal size for manufacturing and assembly simplifications.
Figure 4. EUS Derived Habitat. Configuration 4 uses the EUS manufacturing capabilities to create a safe haven
habitat with the large volume providing a closed loop life support system and the attached smaller volume
providing a 30-day safe haven using an open loop life support system.
Figure 5. Dual Pressure Vessel Habitat. Configuration 5 separates the total volume provided by the EUS derived
habitat in configuration 4 with a 30-day safe haven into two pressure vessels of equal size with a full duration safe
haven capability.
Figure 6. Launch Vehicle Packaging. Configurations 1 through 3 are packaged with a large hybrid propulsion
system designed for Mars transfer, whereas configurations 4 and 5 are packaged with a small chemical propulsion
system designed to complete the transfer from TLI to a cis-lunar orbit where final assembly to a Mars transfer
stage is accomplished.

Note that all of these Hab. systems are using the 8 meter EUS diameter dimension which probably is not the final configuration.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: mike robel on 02/22/2018 07:22 pm
And what's new is old again.  This reminds me of the early Boeing CEV proposals.
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Lars-J on 02/22/2018 11:43 pm
The multiple pressure vessels variants or EUS derived variants are just bonkers, IMO. You have all that volume, and you are just going to waste it?
Title: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: Markstark on 02/23/2018 01:02 am
The multiple pressure vessels variants or EUS derived variants are just bonkers, IMO. You have all that volume, and you are just going to waste it?
Additional payload for that empty volume may be out of scope of this study (to be honest, I haven't read it yet. Will do that tonight). But they probably should have put a notional co-manifested payload if the intent is to carry something else as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: pospa on 02/27/2018 11:17 am
Today starts 3-day DSG Science workshop 2018 in Denver.

Event home page: https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/deepspace2018/
Program incl. white papers: https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/deepspace2018/pdf/program.pdf
Title: Re: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/26/2018 08:04 pm
https://youtu.be/NDPwN6sMNRA (https://youtu.be/NDPwN6sMNRA)