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.
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 configurationThere 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 controlof 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
Quote from: BrightLight on 12/16/2015 05:43 pmGetting 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 configurationThere 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 controlof 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, 35812Thanks 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.
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.
{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.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 12/18/2015 10:17 amAnything 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.
QuoteIf 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.
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.
Quote from: redliox on 11/13/2015 09:17 pmOut 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.
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.
I have gotten the impression that Orbital Sciences is trying to push their extended Cygnus module as a potentile deep space module.
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.