Author Topic: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)  (Read 38820 times)

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #60 on: 11/11/2017 04:09 am »
On the Moon astronauts will walk through the port hole between the ACES and Ixions. During takeoff this is vertical. Everything will have to be able to handle a 90 degree rotation and have walk spaces.

Offline Senex

  • Member
  • Posts: 57
  • Turtle Island
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #61 on: 12/06/2017 03:25 pm »
My first attempt at posting a link:

NanoRacks and NASA Sign NextSTEP Contract for Commercial Habitat Concept Study

http://nanoracks.com/nextstep-contract-for-commercial-habitat-concept/

" our team will leverage the habitat as a proving ground for a variety of private sector activities leading to a new era in commercial low-Earth orbit utilization."

Online jebbo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 940
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 608
  • Likes Given: 309
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #62 on: 12/06/2017 03:35 pm »
And their tweet:

Quote
We see the future commercialization of #LEO in re-using and re-purposing spent upper stages of launch vehicles. Here's a new look at #Ixion. Learn more about our #NextSTEP program here: https://t.co/CMXzFUiVyv #SpaceComExpo https://t.co/ueLgehtFg3

https://twitter.com/NanoRacks/status/938439243449368576

--- Tony

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #63 on: 12/06/2017 05:24 pm »
^This is also the first look at Centaur V, ULA's 5m upper stage for Vulcan.

Confirmed by MainEngineCutOff - who recently completed a nanoracks tour.
https://twitter.com/WeHaveMECO/status/938440720846872576

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #64 on: 12/06/2017 05:32 pm »
And their tweet:

Quote
We see the future commercialization of #LEO in re-using and re-purposing spent upper stages of launch vehicles. Here's a new look at #Ixion. Learn more about our #NextSTEP program here: https://t.co/CMXzFUiVyv #SpaceComExpo https://t.co/ueLgehtFg3

https://twitter.com/NanoRacks/status/938439243449368576

--- Tony

I'm glad that picture is finally public. I wish we had as good of a quality version of the Ixion/XEUS 4-person lunar lander habitat concept we looked at...

~Jon

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #65 on: 12/06/2017 06:16 pm »
Jon could starliner be used to deliver Centuar to a space station. If so between Cygnus and Starliner they could build quite station over a few missions.

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #66 on: 12/06/2017 06:51 pm »
Somewhat confusing.

Looks to have a side port on the Centaur V, which would be exposed on launch (fairing doesn't cover the sides of Centaur V on Vulcan, it's exposed to the air and has foam on the outside for TPS on ascent).

The FRGF would appear to be on the payload adapter, and the intended mate is appears to be with the Harmony forward port with the IDA2 and PMA2 removed (possibly both relocated to the zenith port of Harmony). The absence of a mid point grapple limits the options to handle the module elsewhere on the station.

One would assume as a VV it would arrive on an R bar approach, get grappled and relocated to the forward port. So this view shows it as a Z- (or V-bar) approach.

Note that the pressurized volume possible seems roughly that of KIBO.


Offline acolangelo

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • mainenginecutoff.com
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #67 on: 12/06/2017 11:17 pm »
^This is also the first look at Centaur V, ULA's 5m upper stage for Vulcan.

Confirmed by MainEngineCutOff - who recently completed a nanoracks tour.
https://twitter.com/WeHaveMECO/status/938440720846872576

Adding a bit of stream-of-consciousness-stlye context from memory of my visit to NanoRacks:

- Side CBMs are put there to meet NASA requirements for port placement. Couldn’t quite achieve that with the node on top of the tank per previous renderings.
- I saw some renderings with those intertank coverings removed on orbit, but I’m unsure if that’s something that would happen, or was rendered to better show the structure.
- They’re still focusing on keeping the architecture upper stage agnostic, so that what they develop can be used on other vehicles in the future. Some very interesting stages were brought up in the discussion.

Working on scheduling an interview for the podcast in the coming weeks that will probably touch on a lot of this!
Podcasting about spaceflight at mainenginecutoff.com and offnom.com.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #68 on: 12/06/2017 11:22 pm »
That looks more like a 5.4m Centaur V with a node, and an *Additional* Centaur V tank/body at the end. There is no way that Centaur V is that long - that would make the stage 20-25m long.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2017 11:23 pm by Lars-J »

Offline acolangelo

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • mainenginecutoff.com
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #69 on: 12/06/2017 11:23 pm »
That looks more like a 5.4m Centaur V with a node, and an *Additional* tank at the end. There is no way that Centaur V is that long.

It’s a modified Centaur V with a CBM node in the intertank. Regular Centaur V looks like it’ll be common bulkhead, but those two sections you see there are the tanks.
Podcasting about spaceflight at mainenginecutoff.com and offnom.com.

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #70 on: 12/06/2017 11:26 pm »
That looks more like a 5.4m Centaur V with a node, and an *Additional* tank at the end. There is no way that Centaur V is that long.

It’s a modified Centaur V with a CBM node in the intertank. Regular Centaur V looks like it’ll be common bulkhead, but those two sections you see there are the tanks.

That's possible... But then the drawing must be off scale/proportion quite a bit. (again remember the 5.4m diameter - measure the image) That would be a super massive sized stage, the stack would be far taller than Atlas V. (which would go against them trying to maintain the stage heights to allow a transition without massive infrastructure changes)

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 711
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #71 on: 12/06/2017 11:30 pm »
Would the Ixion concept work with either EUS or IUS flying on SLS as way to implement the Lunar Deep Space Gateway? Since NASA is going to be sending these large upper stages towards the moon anyway...
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline acolangelo

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • mainenginecutoff.com
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #72 on: 12/06/2017 11:31 pm »
That looks more like a 5.4m Centaur V with a node, and an *Additional* tank at the end. There is no way that Centaur V is that long.

It’s a modified Centaur V with a CBM node in the intertank. Regular Centaur V looks like it’ll be common bulkhead, but those two sections you see there are the tanks.

That's possible... But then the drawing must be off scale/proportion quite a bit. (again remember the 5.4m diameter - measure the image) That would be a super massive sized stage, the stack would be far taller than Atlas V. (which would go against them trying to maintain the stage heights to allow a transition without massive infrastructure changes)

Illustrations are just that, and it’s obviously early on in both design processes, but I’ve seen some other renders showing internals. :)

Take out the middle node, and pull one tank dome into the other tank, and you’ve shortened its length quite a bit.
Podcasting about spaceflight at mainenginecutoff.com and offnom.com.

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #73 on: 12/06/2017 11:42 pm »

- They’re still focusing on keeping the architecture upper stage agnostic, so that what they develop can be used on other vehicles in the future. Some very interesting stages were brought up in the discussion.
Such a tease. I can't help but speculate as what could be more interesting than Atlas/Vulcan.
F9 would probably be less volume, I doubt the Kerosene tank would be very appealing to set up shop in.
New Glenn?
SLS's EUS for a DSG application I suppose.  The core could always make orbit without an upper stage if someone REALLY wanted to...

Although very far fetched, I think the most interesting stage would be a Long March 5 core.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2017 11:53 pm by GWH »

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #74 on: 12/07/2017 12:04 am »
Don't think that the crew access goes that high either. So ... dedicated mission with pad, umbilicals, MLP, and VIB mods?

Seems quite expensive for "cheap" hab space.

add:
SLS's EUS for a DSG application I suppose...

Although very far fetched, I think the most interesting stage would be a Long March 5 core.
There's such a thing as "too big" a space to fill.

Remember, it's a "wet" hab - you fit it out from other pressurized volume. Hundreds of Orion capsule volumes, and even with say Cygnus super ultra huge flights ... you'd need dozens of them.

Which works against the DSG concept, which is not to be huge like the severely underutilized ISS (limited by operating environment and frequency of visits by crew/cargo), but to be compact to be the smallest of way stations possible - so even the first EUS is overkill.

This concept sure does give Bigelow a run for the "ISS backup" and transfer to a commercial non joint operation concept. It does have potentially station keeping and long lived propulsion possibilities, although not with storable props (GOx to supplant ECLSS too). Not passivated fully for those cases. Wonder how those would go over with ASAP?
« Last Edit: 12/07/2017 01:04 am by Space Ghost 1962 »

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #75 on: 12/07/2017 01:56 am »
How much work will this take once it reaches orbit, to make it usable?
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #76 on: 12/07/2017 06:39 am »
That looks more like a 5.4m Centaur V with a node, and an *Additional* tank at the end. There is no way that Centaur V is that long.

It’s a modified Centaur V with a CBM node in the intertank. Regular Centaur V looks like it’ll be common bulkhead, but those two sections you see there are the tanks.

But the LOX and LH tanks aren't the same size. And making such a custom modification of Centaur V seems to defeat the point of this.

As for the size... here is a quick image I mocked up that illustrates the issue with size... Compare with Centaur and ACES. The size makes no sense. If the center are is the intertank, the stage would have so much mass that the thrust to weight ratio would be anemic, even moreso than Centaur. Even with 4 RL-10s. Now look at the ACES stage. Suspiciously about half the length.

The other possible explanation is that the "intertank" is actually the top of Centaur V, and that what is above it is simply a cargo module that happens to share the Centaur V diameter - a more streamlined version of their earlier Centaur/Cygnus combo that Ixion has shown. (see image 2)
« Last Edit: 12/07/2017 06:43 am by Lars-J »

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 711
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #77 on: 12/07/2017 09:55 pm »
Don't think that the crew access goes that high either. So ... dedicated mission with pad, umbilicals, MLP, and VIB mods?

Seems quite expensive for "cheap" hab space.

add:
SLS's EUS for a DSG application I suppose...

Although very far fetched, I think the most interesting stage would be a Long March 5 core.
There's such a thing as "too big" a space to fill.

Remember, it's a "wet" hab - you fit it out from other pressurized volume. Hundreds of Orion capsule volumes, and even with say Cygnus super ultra huge flights ... you'd need dozens of them.

Which works against the DSG concept, which is not to be huge like the severely underutilized ISS (limited by operating environment and frequency of visits by crew/cargo), but to be compact to be the smallest of way stations possible - so even the first EUS is overkill.

This concept sure does give Bigelow a run for the "ISS backup" and transfer to a commercial non joint operation concept. It does have potentially station keeping and long lived propulsion possibilities, although not with storable props (GOx to supplant ECLSS too). Not passivated fully for those cases. Wonder how those would go over with ASAP?

The current rough idea for DSG seems to involve a lot of docking and assembly over several years even though it is a relatively small station. Nowhere as much as ISS but pretty significant. It depends what would be worse, lots of spare capacity to fill or docking and assembling multiple modules over years.  I'm curious to know if the same capability as DSG could be achieved rapidly in one or two launches through retrofitting an upperstage that's already going to TLI with Orion. The Ixion concept even mentions the possiblity of robotic outfitting of the eventual habitat. Since the DSG is not intended to be permanently inhabited, perhaps this would benefit the speedy construction of such a station between SLS/Orion missions.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2780
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2925
  • Likes Given: 2247
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #78 on: 12/08/2017 03:15 am »
Don't think that the crew access goes that high either. So ... dedicated mission with pad, umbilicals, MLP, and VIB mods?

Seems quite expensive for "cheap" hab space.

add:
SLS's EUS for a DSG application I suppose...

Although very far fetched, I think the most interesting stage would be a Long March 5 core.
There's such a thing as "too big" a space to fill.

Remember, it's a "wet" hab - you fit it out from other pressurized volume. Hundreds of Orion capsule volumes, and even with say Cygnus super ultra huge flights ... you'd need dozens of them.

Which works against the DSG concept, which is not to be huge like the severely underutilized ISS (limited by operating environment and frequency of visits by crew/cargo), but to be compact to be the smallest of way stations possible - so even the first EUS is overkill.

This concept sure does give Bigelow a run for the "ISS backup" and transfer to a commercial non joint operation concept. It does have potentially station keeping and long lived propulsion possibilities, although not with storable props (GOx to supplant ECLSS too). Not passivated fully for those cases. Wonder how those would go over with ASAP?

The current rough idea for DSG seems to involve a lot of docking and assembly over several years even though it is a relatively small station.
IMHO it's a balancing act of exploration, construction, and replenishment.

The components are carefully chosen to match SLS capability.

Quote
Nowhere as much as ISS but pretty significant. It depends what would be worse, lots of spare capacity to fill or docking and assembling multiple modules over years.
The benefit of this "wet" station is supposed to be lots of cheap, pressurized volume.

DSG, why to some already has too much pressurized volume, is mostly about unpressurized capabilities like power and docking/airlock capability. You could build them into its EUS stage, but then you'd have to carry along way too much additional mass. One of the benefits of keeping DSG lithe, is that you can inject it with SEP into a long trajectory to get it to LMO as a receiving station that could support surface access.

Quote
  I'm curious to know if the same capability as DSG could be achieved rapidly in one or two launches through retrofitting an upperstage that's already going to TLI with Orion.
Nope.

Mass limits, not pressurized volume. Which costs in dragging things to Mars. And it can't be paired down. Nor does the integration save you, because a lot of things need to be deployed and are inconsistent with a US environment (power, comm, robotic arm).

Now, lets say you used something like Centaur 3 (or V) - you could have like with ISS a hab portion brought along, about the right size. But how do you jettison the excess weight of the other tank, the engine(s), and the TPS covering it aren't the right material for deep space.

Non functional concept.

Quote
The Ixion concept even mentions the possiblity of robotic outfitting of the eventual habitat.

Actually,  you could more quickly and cost effectively entirely robotically (and teleoperated) assembled without any Orion flights, possibly from many different LV's. This would be a better means for DSG because it could also be serviced and modules replaced autonomously, for the lowest overhead cost of way stations at here and Mars.

(But that doesn't supply govt guaranteed jobs to congressional districts.)

Quote
Since the DSG is not intended to be permanently inhabited, perhaps this would benefit the speedy construction of such a station between SLS/Orion missions.
No, it would slow things down and make them even less optimal than the current bad.

Because there's more total mass to be delivered, more missions, more things to go wrong. And designing things to work with it would defeat the purpose of using many of the advantages of the modules chosen.

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1929
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: Ixion Wet Station Concept (NanoRacks, ULA, and MDA)
« Reply #79 on: 12/08/2017 05:51 pm »
Mass limits, not pressurized volume. Which costs in dragging things to Mars. And it can't be paired down. Nor does the integration save you, because a lot of things need to be deployed and are inconsistent with a US environment (power, comm, robotic arm).

Keep in mind the Deep Space Gateway, and Deep Space Transport are two separate things. One stays in cis-lunar orbit, the other is actually intended to leave. 

I totally agree with your points on the cost of mass to inject to a given orbit - which is where the real benefit of a wet lab starts to shine IMO, just so much as it remains a stationary asset.  That way the mass of the pressure vessel is essentially transported for free, while parasitic mass of engines and the like only become a minor long term cost for small course corrections and the like.

For Deep Space Gateway, any use of EUS as a module would really require a complete redesign of the concept due to the size and many other factors you point out.  Is it practical and worth talking about? Eh, probably not. Point well taken that this application, while exciting at a glance, probably just isn't practical. I've attached a sketch illustrating sizes in comparison to Lars-J's sketch, for an illustration but not to make any specific points.
In comparison to the current plans: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/imp.html

Getting away from the EUS + DSG detour, back to the value that IXION could bring: a very interesting comparison to make would be Bigelow's plans for a LLO station and an ACES derived wetlab. Could that be outfitted robotically after placing itself in lunar orbit? How would the trades of transportation costs for a standalone hab vs this concept come out?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1