Author Topic: HEFT2 Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation  (Read 34878 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
HEFT2 Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« on: 03/26/2011 11:31 pm »
Here is a recent HEFT2 presentation on Deep Space Habitats:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110006982_2011003312.pdf
« Last Edit: 03/26/2011 11:36 pm by yg1968 »

Online Chris Bergin

Re: HEFT2 Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« Reply #1 on: 03/27/2011 12:20 am »
Some very nice digging going on here YG :)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: HEFT2 Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« Reply #2 on: 03/27/2011 12:51 am »
Some very nice digging going on here YG :)

Yes, and greatly appreciated.  Thanks! 

Noting from page 3, "DSH Element Description": Crewed Mission Duration: 365 days.  They really seem to be taking the NEO mission to heart, which of course is reasonable since the President featured that in his proposals.

The sense that I get from Congress is that even that kind of mission will need to be approached in a phased implementation, i.e. maybe the DSH crewed mission duration should be "evolvable" to 365 days.

If 365 days were the unicorn, perhaps 36.5 days could be the pony?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: HEFT2 Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« Reply #3 on: 03/27/2011 02:17 am »
Why not use an expandable transhab type structure instead?
A BA-330 type module would offer more habitable volume,better radiation shielding and would weigh less.

The main reason for the larger volume other then psychological it offers the option of a short arm centrifuge.

The ISS style module leaves the Nautilus X style centrifuge as your only option.

I'd also not fly the urine recycler as a mission critical item it has been more trouble then it's worth on ISS.
Maybe fully isolate it from the potable water loop and have it supply a backup O2 generator.

You get the option of being able to recycle every last bit of water but you don't put as many systems or the crew at risk of contamination.

Plus the hydrogen could be use in thrusters for station keeping.
« Last Edit: 03/27/2011 02:43 am by Patchouli »

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: HEFT2 Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« Reply #4 on: 03/27/2011 04:04 am »
I agree with most of what it said so far. There is a big partner in Bigleow that they could use to create something lightweight.

However  I think I would fly the Urine recycler.  It is just one of those things that when it breaks down no one wants to repair (i.e. Like a sewer system) but it does work from what I have read. The real issue with the ISS life support systems is that they take more labor than thought and are less reliable than planned.

Also 365 days for a crew of 3 might not be that ambitious. Skylab could support 3 crews of 3 people for 3 months each so in theory it could support 3 people for 270 days with no recycling. ISS recycling can reduce water demand for the crew byu p to 65% so 365 for 3 people might not be that extreme esp. as in theory the ISS has closed the oxygen loop.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: HEFT2 Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« Reply #5 on: 03/27/2011 04:29 am »
I agree with most of what it said so far. There is a big partner in Bigleow that they could use to create something lightweight.

However  I think I would fly the Urine recycler.  It is just one of those things that when it breaks down no one wants to repair (i.e. Like a sewer system) but it does work from what I have read. The real issue with the ISS life support systems is that they take more labor than thought and are less reliable than planned.

Also 365 days for a crew of 3 might not be that ambitious. Skylab could support 3 crews of 3 people for 3 months each so in theory it could support 3 people for 270 days with no recycling. ISS recycling can reduce water demand for the crew byu p to 65% so 365 for 3 people might not be that extreme esp. as in theory the ISS has closed the oxygen loop.


I'd still fly the urine recycler the only difference is I'd just have it isolated from the potable water supply.

Seems if a membrane fails you could end up having to dump all the water and cleaning and or replacing everything contaminated.

Bad enough to do in LEO but you'd really have a problem BEO.
They actually had to do such a plumbing repair on Salyut 7 but because it froze and several lines broke.

Though I think on ISS they can decide to put it in the potable water or use it as utility water based on test results.

One good use for the recovered water might be what's called an electrothermo thruster which could be useful it's power requirements are fairly low yet has an ISP of 800.
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=27360

I think Bigelow actually has this planned for Sundancer it has two OMS systems one a conventional system and the other fueled by waste gases and fluids likely an electrothermo thruster or plasma arcjet.

One really good location for DSH might be GEO it's close but still in a deep space environment.
They also could attempt satellite servicing.

Yes I know it's not cost effective to repair GEO sats but in this case you already paid to have the crew up there so adding the mission would be a minor increase and would teach techniques and methods needed for doing repairs in deep space.

« Last Edit: 03/28/2011 11:27 pm by Patchouli »

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: HEFT2 Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« Reply #6 on: 03/27/2011 12:46 pm »
The last side basically says that NASA has serious directional, structural and budget problems that need to be fixed first. No surprises there -- probably no mitigatory actions in the works, either.

It might be nice, though, if they were a little more direct in their recommendations as (for example) "NASA-wide transformational change is required to significantly improve affordability and meet budget constraints" is a rather non-specific recommendation.
John

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: HEFT2 Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« Reply #7 on: 03/27/2011 08:17 pm »
Hmmm... this fits pretty closely part of what I'd want to do if I were "emperor of NASA." DSH is a bit bigger than Salyut, which held 3 crew for over 200 days, so this is about right (when you add in the volume of Orion, etc). I like it. About the same size as Destiny (and a little smaller than node 4 size). I do wonder if it could be slightly expanded to 4 crew, perhaps if they added a little extra space (a lander? an airlock?) in addition to the DSH and Orion. That would be nice to have for a Mars mission.

Just think, it's totally doable to fly something like this! We've been doing this for over a decade in LEO on ISS, which is made out of many modules which are around the same size as DSH. The relatively low mass of DSH also makes the mission cost a lot less, because it means your propulsion requirements are a LOT lower for a given delta-v, which is a really good thing even with SLS. And DSH doesn't necessarily need SLS, either, so can be launched on an EELV-class launch vehicle if need be. Good to have options and flexibility!

I like this A LOT.
« Last Edit: 03/27/2011 08:20 pm by Robotbeat »
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: HEFT2 Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« Reply #8 on: 03/27/2011 08:35 pm »
This is rather low-risk and an eminently doable element. I really, really like it, the more I read about it. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE SHOULD BE FUNDING!!!

(and a lander  :P)
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 robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: HEFT2 Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« Reply #9 on: 03/28/2011 12:57 am »
Here is a recent HEFT2 presentation on Deep Space Habitats:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110006982_2011003312.pdf


(Reposting here, as I had the following in the wrong thread):

Good find!

I like how they are showcasing the ISS ECLSS for use on this.

(personal note: I hope those few detractors can see WHERE the benefit of ISS component development is crucial for deep space missions)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: HEFT2 Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« Reply #10 on: 03/28/2011 01:56 am »
Here is a recent HEFT2 presentation on Deep Space Habitats:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110006982_2011003312.pdf


(Reposting here, as I had the following in the wrong thread):

Good find!

I like how they are showcasing the ISS ECLSS for use on this.

(personal note: I hope those few detractors can see WHERE the benefit of ISS component development is crucial for deep space missions)
Agreed, especially with the last part. A while ago, I might have considered myself an ISS detractor, but I've long since realized that what is used for ISS has very direct application to deep space applications and is just about the perfect low-risk test bed for such technologies and components.
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 robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: HEFT2 Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« Reply #11 on: 03/28/2011 02:08 am »
yay, a convert! Welcome aboard! ;)   LOL

We all have our own likes & aspirations for spaceflight. My problem is I want all the groups to have a slice of it, and hopefully we can meet at some point where everyone has gained.

There are some aspects to ISS systems which might have a tough time in deep space habitats: specifically if we want an artificial gravity system provided. ISS systems are designed for microgravity, so they aren't necessarily a 1:1 transfer. I realize that. However, there would also be times when AG can fail, or ops require no AG, or the journey is too short to require it. In those cases, having that built-in capability can be essential, so these 'baby steps' we are taking at developing these capabiltities now can become contigency factors later on.

So for a lower-cost capability, we use such a habitat as a non-AG version, and perhaps fly one in LEO WITH that AG capability to test those system long term.

One thing I'm not sure about is if the ISS systems are hardened against radiation. I know the station laptop computers aren't, but not sure about ECLSS. I wouldn't mind clarification from one our esteemed members :)

Offline scienceguy

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Lethbridge, Alberta
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: HEFT2 Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« Reply #12 on: 03/28/2011 02:13 am »
It's interesting what they said about solar electric propulsion. I agree that they should research that more.
e^(pi*i) = -1

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: HEFT Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« Reply #13 on: 03/28/2011 03:20 am »
yay, a convert! Welcome aboard! ;)   LOL

We all have our own likes & aspirations for spaceflight. My problem is I want all the groups to have a slice of it, and hopefully we can meet at some point where everyone has gained.

There are some aspects to ISS systems which might have a tough time in deep space habitats: specifically if we want an artificial gravity system provided. ISS systems are designed for microgravity, so they aren't necessarily a 1:1 transfer. I realize that. However, there would also be times when AG can fail, or ops require no AG, or the journey is too short to require it. In those cases, having that built-in capability can be essential, so these 'baby steps' we are taking at developing these capabiltities now can become contigency factors later on.

So for a lower-cost capability, we use such a habitat as a non-AG version, and perhaps fly one in LEO WITH that AG capability to test those system long term.

One thing I'm not sure about is if the ISS systems are hardened against radiation. I know the station laptop computers aren't, but not sure about ECLSS. I wouldn't mind clarification from one our esteemed members :)

So far HEFt has no plans for artificial gravity.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: HEFT Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« Reply #14 on: 03/28/2011 03:31 am »
yay, a convert! Welcome aboard! ;)   LOL

We all have our own likes & aspirations for spaceflight. My problem is I want all the groups to have a slice of it, and hopefully we can meet at some point where everyone has gained.

There are some aspects to ISS systems which might have a tough time in deep space habitats: specifically if we want an artificial gravity system provided. ISS systems are designed for microgravity, so they aren't necessarily a 1:1 transfer. I realize that. However, there would also be times when AG can fail, or ops require no AG, or the journey is too short to require it. In those cases, having that built-in capability can be essential, so these 'baby steps' we are taking at developing these capabiltities now can become contigency factors later on.

So for a lower-cost capability, we use such a habitat as a non-AG version, and perhaps fly one in LEO WITH that AG capability to test those system long term.

One thing I'm not sure about is if the ISS systems are hardened against radiation. I know the station laptop computers aren't, but not sure about ECLSS. I wouldn't mind clarification from one our esteemed members :)

So far HEFt has no plans for artificial gravity.
And that's fine by me, FWIW. I don't think it's absolutely necessary, even for a Mars mission. ISS should be investigating this, even more than they already are.
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 Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: HEFT2 Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« Reply #15 on: 03/28/2011 11:28 pm »
I don't think anything needs to be invented for DSH just buy an off the shelf station and adapt it.
The Bigelow Sundancer pretty much already is a self contained station.
I can't think of anything better suited for the mission and it's perfectly sized large enough that it's not cramped but not so large it would need an HLV to be taken to a BEO location.

It also should be possible to perform this mission using just EELV class LVs.

A Delta IV-H or F9-H should be able to place a SunDancer in GEO or L1.

Or if you want to be creative attach a SEP tug to it and once it's in the desired orbit use the extra solar power to power experiments such as a mag shield or advanced closed loop life support.

Then an Orion plus Centaur could visit it.

Replacement of consumables as well as trash disposal could be handled by small SEP ferries and COTS vehicles.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2011 11:45 pm by Patchouli »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: HEFT2 Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« Reply #16 on: 03/28/2011 11:40 pm »
I don't think anything needs to be invented for DSH just buy an off the shelf station and adapt it.
The Bigelow Sundancer pretty much already is a self contained station.

It also should be possible to perform this mission using just EELV class LVs.

Ask yourself: what is the purpose of Sundancer?

LEO

These were not designed for deep space, and it would likely cost more to adapt them, rather than design from the ground up for deep space.

Edited: 'removed shell comment' & added 'likely'
« Last Edit: 03/29/2011 12:42 am by robertross »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: HEFT2 Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« Reply #17 on: 03/28/2011 11:49 pm »
I don't think anything needs to be invented for DSH just buy an off the shelf station and adapt it.
The Bigelow Sundancer pretty much already is a self contained station.

It also should be possible to perform this mission using just EELV class LVs.

Ask yourself: what is the purpose of Sundancer?

LEO

These were not designed for deep space, and it would cost more to adapt them, rather than design from the ground up for deep space. Besides, most of it is just a shell.

LEO space hotel but it does outperform a can type module in every way that counts for this.

It would no more work then any other LEO station and a lot less then something ground up.

A Russian DOS module for example would require the same amount of work but would be heavier and much less capable and an ISS module far more work as it lacks all the systems to operate as an independent station.

Besides Bigelow already is considering BEO uses for their station modules.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2011 11:52 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: HEFT2 Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« Reply #18 on: 03/28/2011 11:50 pm »
I don't think anything needs to be invented for DSH just buy an off the shelf station and adapt it.
The Bigelow Sundancer pretty much already is a self contained station.

It also should be possible to perform this mission using just EELV class LVs.

Ask yourself: what is the purpose of Sundancer?

LEO

These were not designed for deep space, and it would cost more to adapt them, rather than design from the ground up for deep space. Besides, most of it is just a shell.

How do you know any of this?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25241
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: HEFT2 Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Presentation
« Reply #19 on: 03/28/2011 11:51 pm »
I don't think anything needs to be invented for DSH just buy an off the shelf station and adapt it.
The Bigelow Sundancer pretty much already is a self contained station.

It also should be possible to perform this mission using just EELV class LVs.

Ask yourself: what is the purpose of Sundancer?

LEO

These were not designed for deep space, and it would cost more to adapt them, rather than design from the ground up for deep space. Besides, most of it is just a shell.

LEO space hotel but it does outperform a can type module in every way that counts for this....
Are you sure about that? The DSH would need to function as a node, which could cause clearance issues for an inflatable. Salyut wasn't that big, but was fine for 3 crew for hundreds of days at a time, and this will have considerably more volume.
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

Tags:
 

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