Author Topic: Deep Space Habitat module concepts outlined for BEO exploration  (Read 208204 times)

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Small commonality habitat module.

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Griffin_7-29-15/

This is for rovers, landers, space exploration vehicles and logistics supply modules.

The DSH is likely to use a large diameter module.

Diameter is not set in stone yet but the preference is for approx 3m which just so happens to be in Cygnus size range. This standardizing on common module size has lot of benefits. One example I can think of is Masten Xeus lunar lander, the same lander with very little modifications could be used to deliver a supply module. A rover with 2 crew  for 2 week exploration mission. A taxi module for ferrying 4 or more crew to and from a lunar base.

Habitat modules for small lunar outpost.


Much too small for station modules but maybe about right for short duration missions though the SEV also fills this niche.

Offline TrevorMonty

NASA favouring a DSH made up of modules.

http://spacenews.com/bolden-nasa-doomed-if-next-president-dumps-journey-to-mars/

“NASA and its partners will also develop an initial habitation capability for short-duration missions in cislunar space during the early 2020s and evolve this capability for long-duration missions in the later 2020s,” the report states.

That capability, according to the report, would take the form of a “modular, pressurized volume” that would be visited by Orion spacecraft, with additional modules added to the facility over time.

- See more at: http://spacenews.com/bolden-nasa-doomed-if-next-president-dumps-journey-to-mars/#sthash.g6uKfKfa.dpuf


My idea.
A DSH in Deep Resonant Orbit (DRO) could also be used to beam power lunar assets, eg rovers, landers, monitoring stations.

This presentation talked about dedicated satellites for this job but DSH might also be able to do it.

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Schier_10-14-15/
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 01:04 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2180
Deep Resonant Orbit (DRO)

Doesn't DRO usually refer to a distant retrograde orbit? What's a "deep resonant orbit"?

Offline TrevorMonty

Deep Resonant Orbit (DRO)

Doesn't DRO usually refer to a distant retrograde orbit? What's a "deep resonant orbit"?
I thought the same but
Hop_David created this DRO thread so I assumed he was correct especially as he had SW to reproduce the orbits.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37592.msg1375252.msg#1375252

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Can't it be both?

Anyway, I listened in to the (public) teleconference today. NASA hasn't made a decision on whether to do a big monolithic habitat or a bunch of modular ones. But they have talked about a small volume habitat that can serve multiple roles, such as a pressurized rover, ascent vehicle volume, etc.
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 RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Can't it be both?

Anyway, I listened in to the (public) teleconference today. NASA hasn't made a decision on whether to do a big monolithic habitat or a bunch of modular ones. But they have talked about a small volume habitat that can serve multiple roles, such as a pressurized rover, ascent vehicle volume, etc.

Standardizing on a common small volume habitat shared between different roles is a good way to keep costs down.

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Can't it be both?

Anyway, I listened in to the (public) teleconference today. NASA hasn't made a decision on whether to do a big monolithic habitat or a bunch of modular ones. But they have talked about a small volume habitat that can serve multiple roles, such as a pressurized rover, ascent vehicle volume, etc.

Standardizing on a common small volume habitat shared between different roles is a good way to keep costs down.

Isn't it more a matter of standardizing the life support system?  Considering the total ISS volume could be matched by a single-launch DSH/Skylab 2...well why not just put the same (modernized naturally) systems on board?  The only difference is you'd put the same amount of equipment into a single module instead of several; from the POV of power there's no difference and thermally it's easier to handle one large module instead of several tiny ones.

The only trouble I'd see with using a large module might be structural, depending on whether they incorporate the craft into the rocket or encase it all in a shroud.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Can't it be both?

Anyway, I listened in to the (public) teleconference today. NASA hasn't made a decision on whether to do a big monolithic habitat or a bunch of modular ones. But they have talked about a small volume habitat that can serve multiple roles, such as a pressurized rover, ascent vehicle volume, etc.

Standardizing on a common small volume habitat shared between different roles is a good way to keep costs down.

Isn't it more a matter of standardizing the life support system?  Considering the total ISS volume could be matched by a single-launch DSH/Skylab 2...well why not just put the same (modernized naturally) systems on board?  The only difference is you'd put the same amount of equipment into a single module instead of several; from the POV of power there's no difference and thermally it's easier to handle one large module instead of several tiny ones.

The only trouble I'd see with using a large module might be structural, depending on whether they incorporate the craft into the rocket or encase it all in a shroud.

You may have quoted the wrong post.

On these missions we are not going to have rovers the size of the International Space Station driving around on the surface of the Moon and Mars. However the camper van sized rovers may be able to use the same standardised life support design as the Orion and the landers.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
...well why not just put the same (modernized naturally) systems on board?  The only difference is you'd put the same amount of equipment into a single module instead of several; from the POV of power there's no difference and thermally it's easier to handle one large module instead of several tiny ones.

One downside is that you would lose redundancy.  What if the single, large ECLSS broke down?  Until we perfect life support systems, and they are as close to 100% dependable as we can make them (which they aren't today), having multiple systems would seem to make more sense.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2180
The only difference is you'd put the same amount of equipment into a single module instead of several;
One downside is that you would lose redundancy.  What if the single, large ECLSS broke down?

Isn't Redilox suggesting each ECLSS unit would be the same size, you'd just have a bunch in a single large module, rather than one-each in smaller modules? So you'd still have precisely the same redundancy for anything short of a hull breach.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Standardizing on a common small volume habitat shared between different roles is a good way to keep costs down.

Isn't it more a matter of standardizing the life support

By life support do you mean the air and water processing units? I think it's more than that, particularly for small vehicles. There need to be paths for heat dissipation from electronics, as one example, and those vary as the size and shape of the pressure vessel change. Paths for air flow is another obvious example. There are likely more! ;)

These are the reasons why designing a new habitable volume by starting with an existing design and making only minimal tweaks would be attractive. Thus the Lockheed Martin proposal for its "kissing Orions" (Plymouth Rock) mission.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
These are the reasons why designing a new habitable volume by starting with an existing design and making only minimal tweaks would be attractive.

That would be an argument for using ISS modules then.

Quote
Thus the Lockheed Martin proposal for its "kissing Orions" (Plymouth Rock) mission.

The Orion is already a marginal design from a weight standpoint, so adding more requirements on it doesn't make sense.  Keeping the habitat separate from the transportation to the habitat means neither has to be compromised.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Hazards & Risk Analyst in SC, USA
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 580
Keeping the habitat separate from the transportation to the habitat means neither has to be compromised.

In this case we are in complete agreement Coastal. It makes more sense to develop a hab whose only job is habitation vs. the "kissing Orions." I would also extend that to habs on a long duration mission vs. a short duration mission

Like redliox I am a big fan of a Skylab II DSH. IMO a Skylab II is what is needed for long duration missions to Mars and or a lunar space station. It is less massive and less complicated than ISS and needs much less if any assembly in space. For short duration missions to DRO, however, a small EAM derived from say Cygnus will work just fine. There is no need for a one size fits all approach.
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starship/SH, 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.

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
The only difference is you'd put the same amount of equipment into a single module instead of several;
One downside is that you would lose redundancy.  What if the single, large ECLSS broke down?

Isn't Redilox suggesting each ECLSS unit would be the same size, you'd just have a bunch in a single large module, rather than one-each in smaller modules? So you'd still have precisely the same redundancy for anything short of a hull breach.

You are correct Paul.  The ISS, or any other spacecraft I'd hope, doesn't run on a single filter or generator, but a series that operate independently and redundantly...at least ideally.  Instead of 2 or 3 units inside 2 or 3 separate modules, put the 2 or 3 ECLSS units inside different parts of the same module.  That's indeed what I was stating.

Once again, there's minimal difference whether you use four little modules or one large one (from a system requirement POV), but since we're no longer bound by the shuttle's tight fuselage there's no harm in going big so long as you stay within launch vehicle capability.  Screw sardine cans...I want a full-body-tuna can!
« Last Edit: 11/11/2015 05:44 am by redliox »
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline TrevorMonty

Once again, there's minimal difference whether you use four little modules or one large one (from a system requirement POV), but since we're no longer bound by the shuttle's tight fuselage there's no harm in going big so long as you stay within launch vehicle capability.  Screw sardine cans...I want a full-body-tuna can!

A modular approach means they can deliver each module with SLS during a crew mission, as DSH grows so does mission length. Also there is no large outlay for one large single DSH which would require a dedicated SLS launch.
The build cost of the modules gets spread over multiple years, if there are budget cuts NASA still has destination even if mission length maybe cut.
Assembly maybe something like this.
Module 1) EAM with open loop ECLSS
Module 2) Closed loop ECLSS
Module 3) Lab.

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
A modular approach means they can deliver each module with SLS during a crew mission, as DSH grows so does mission length. Also there is no large outlay for one large single DSH which would require a dedicated SLS launch.
The build cost of the modules gets spread over multiple years, if there are budget cuts NASA still has destination even if mission length maybe cut.
Assembly maybe something like this.
Module 1) EAM with open loop ECLSS
Module 2) Closed loop ECLSS
Module 3) Lab.

My suggestion: combine modules 1 and 3 into one for a single launch and launch module 2 later.  The SLS can lift alot but it won't be available often - hence why it may be wiser to condense assembly and flights.  I suspect there could be a lot of competition for payloads to SLS simply because maybe 2 a year can be built, and 1 of those will almost always be an Orion flight.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8

Assembly maybe something like this.
Module 1) EAM with open loop ECLSS
Module 2) Closed loop ECLSS
Module 3) Lab.

Nah in the case of the ISS, it's upgrades to the life were delivered by the Shuttle(or other Cargo Craft) in pieces to be installed by the crew. The Russian life support was simply pre-installed.  The US system had parts that were installed after launch.

IMHO any modern space station is going to need cargo craft. The great thing about the ISS is the modularity allows life support to be upgraded because it was built to be assembled and serviced on Orbit.  No need for separate modules for that if you have Cargo Craft capable of reaching the station and carrying the pieces. Part of the system were tested on board shuttle, just as parts of any upgrades or even parts of the station could be tested aboard the ISS or other LEO station. 

Small modules are much better from an commercialization point of view(i.e. something that can fit on commercial launcher without being limited to SLS.). i.e. Can sell one for LEO and or deep space. They also are very much capable of hosting an crew with limited assembly(the Salyuts, Mir, Russian side of the ISS).

 
« Last Edit: 11/11/2015 07:39 pm by pathfinder_01 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
Once again, there's minimal difference whether you use four little modules or one large one (from a system requirement POV), but since we're no longer bound by the shuttle's tight fuselage there's no harm in going big so long as you stay within launch vehicle capability.

Maybe that can be said from a functional standpoint, but it can't be said from an industrial base standpoint.  5m diameter modules can be built anywhere in the world and moved by ground or air - as well as be launched by a fleet of international launchers.  Modules that are larger can only be moved by water over long distances, which limits the industrial base that can be utilized, and that affects the overall costs.

And money has to be a primary consideration for whatever we do in space.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Burninate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
  • Liked: 360
  • Likes Given: 74
Once again, there's minimal difference whether you use four little modules or one large one (from a system requirement POV), but since we're no longer bound by the shuttle's tight fuselage there's no harm in going big so long as you stay within launch vehicle capability.

Maybe that can be said from a functional standpoint, but it can't be said from an industrial base standpoint.  5m diameter modules can be built anywhere in the world and moved by ground or air - as well as be launched by a fleet of international launchers.  Modules that are larger can only be moved by water over long distances, which limits the industrial base that can be utilized, and that affects the overall costs.

And money has to be a primary consideration for whatever we do in space.

My impression was that the cutoff for routine road & rail transport was ~14ft, about 4.25m, with practical fully encumbered numbers being more like 3.5-3.8m.  Falcon 9 is spoken of as the thing they built as large as possible which still fits on the freeway system.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11929
My impression was that the cutoff for routine road & rail transport was ~14ft, about 4.25m, with practical fully encumbered numbers being more like 3.5-3.8m.  Falcon 9 is spoken of as the thing they built as large as possible which still fits on the freeway system.

You're right.  I was generalizing too much.  The ISS modules like Destiny are 4.2m in diameter, and that is close to the largest you can transport by road or by air (I think the C-5C can carry Shuttle sized 4.6m diameter payloads).

So once you get above the size of existing ISS modules you have to rely on factories that have water access.  And while there are probably a number of those that could do space hardware if needed (and some might already do space hardware), it eliminates the already existing ones not with water access that already do space hardware - it reduces choice/competition.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0