Author Topic: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration  (Read 88742 times)

Online TrevorMonty

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.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9557
  • Liked: 343
  • Likes Given: 450
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.

Online TrevorMonty

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.

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 183
Are electric thrusters suitable for sustaining LLO? I know that is a fairly unstable orbit.

Online TrevorMonty

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.

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 912
  • Long Beach, California
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 452
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. 

Online TrevorMonty

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.

Offline jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 658
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 128
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.)
Recovering astronomer

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 183
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.

Online mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2052
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 161
  • Likes Given: 35
It all depends on the money, which has not been there previously.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5476
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 575
  • Likes Given: 676
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/
-- sdsds --

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8104
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 99
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.
« Last Edit: 03/14/2017 07:03 PM by A_M_Swallow »

Online redliox

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1663
  • Arizona USA
  • Liked: 311
  • Likes Given: 54
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.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9027
  • Liked: 1105
  • Likes Given: 743
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.
« Last Edit: 03/16/2017 06:23 PM by yg1968 »

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1300
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 181
  • Likes Given: 229
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.
« Last Edit: 03/18/2017 03:53 PM by BrightLight »

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1300
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 181
  • Likes Given: 229
Here are the power-point graphics for the preferred 7.2mm diameter habitat that would fit into the 8m SLS cargo 1b:

Online TrevorMonty

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/

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5476
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 575
  • Likes Given: 676
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.
-- sdsds --

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26575
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6468
  • Likes Given: 4694
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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online TrevorMonty

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.

Tags: