Author Topic: NASA reviews progress of habitat development for deep-space exploration  (Read 93373 times)

Online MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 701
  • Likes Given: 1324
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.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1306
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 189
  • Likes Given: 237
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.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2017 03:45 PM by BrightLight »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9066
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 755
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.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2017 04:08 PM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9066
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 755
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
« Last Edit: 04/02/2017 05:19 AM by yg1968 »

Offline redliox

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1691
  • Arizona USA
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 54
How well could this habitat development tech be applied toward Martian habitats...on the surface?
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline smfarmer11

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 52
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.

Online jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 667
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 130
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?).
« Last Edit: 04/05/2017 07:36 PM by jgoldader »
Recovering astronomer

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9066
  • Liked: 1113
  • Likes Given: 755
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).

Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 19
It would be interesting to see the ITS upper stage against the deep space transport in scale.

Online brickmack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • USA
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 9
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
« Last Edit: 04/12/2017 03:02 AM by brickmack »

Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 19
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.

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 5083
  • Likes Given: 1227
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.

Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 19
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.
« Last Edit: 04/12/2017 11:33 AM by corneliussulla »

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 5083
  • Likes Given: 1227
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.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26862
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6770
  • Likes Given: 4802
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.
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

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3464
  • Liked: 453
  • Likes Given: 114
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.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2547
  • Liked: 1134
  • Likes Given: 721
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.

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 5083
  • Likes Given: 1227
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.

Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 19
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.
« Last Edit: 05/16/2017 09:44 AM by corneliussulla »

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
  • Physics Professor in SC, USA
  • Liked: 399
  • Likes Given: 405
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.
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Tags: