Orbital outposts have come and gone over the years, but the most persistent by far is the International Space Station. Every other space station has been a relatively short-lived affair, lasting anywhere from a few months to a few years. But the ISS has been keeping humans alive and unraveling the mysteries of the universe for two straight decades — and it still has more to do before it's done. Private companies and other countries are starting to build their own orbital outposts, which means the ISS is probably the last space station that will ever be unambiguously referred to as The Space Station. It deserves this honorific. The ISS is an engineering marvel, a space age Notre Dame, a triumph of human ingenuity. It was also an utter pain in the ass to design.Pulling together a space station is a Herculean task under the best of circumstances, but it’s like squeezing blood from a stone when three different presidential administrations, 15 countries, hundreds of American congressmen, thousands of engineers, and more than $150 billion of public funds are involved. It’s true Rome wasn’t built in a day, but it was probably built easier than the International Space Station. Depending on how you count, it took NASA 30 years to get the station it wanted. Even still, it pales in comparison to the agency’s original vision.
The idea of a major space station/harbor/base/dock/port has been something I have been working on as a hobby. I started with a modular concept, where there would be a basic design, as opposed to specialized components. I started with Skylab as the basic module design and that would be mated with a six-point docking module similar to what was used for Mir (and now with the Chinese space station) rather than the two-point one used on Skylab. From there each module could be fitted out as needed for it's purpose. Using this as a foundation, it would be possible to assemble an infinitely expandable space port. initially the cost would be high until these modules were manufactured in a production line fashion. Sadly, the Apollo infrastructure has been dismantled, so to try and use this method today would probably never be considered because the initial cost would be too high. Also sadly, this concept would make going to the moon and Mars much less expensive in the long run. We could build a LOP-G type of space port around the moon as well as a similar one around Mars and bring down the costs of space travel dramatically.
The only answer was to manufacture a new piece of hardware. It could be very simple: all that was needed was a shell-a cylindrical extension of the airlock-capable of withstanding launch and docking loads, but serving no purpose other than to provide two or more docking ports. It was literally a multiple docking adapter, a name that was soon made official. The details of its design changed several times during its first few weeks, but the basic idea was a cylinder, to be mounted above the airlock, carrying four radial tunnels at its upper end. The main structure and each radial tunnel would carry Apollo docking gear. The new module would have no active systems; power required at the docking ports would come from the airlock.
Similarly, the multiple docking adapter was no longer a simple passive module enabling the cluster to carry several experiment packages. During 1967 and 1968 it had been enlarged to provide space for carrying the workshop's furnishings into orbit, meanwhile losing one after another of the original five docking ports. The dry-workshop decision, however, nullified this function, and at mid-1969 the adapter was once again a virtually empty shell: a cylinder 3.05 meters in diameter by 5.25 meters long, with the main docking port in its forward end and a contingency port on one side, enclosing about 35 cubic meters of space.
A few years ago I designed my own version. I believe we should be building a rotating space station with 1g artificial gravity in the living quarters, with a non-rotating hub for microgravity research, docking, entertainment, and manufacturing. This design would require very heavy lift rocket like SpaceX Starship to lift a module to orbit.
Quote from: davamanra on 12/18/2021 11:45 pmThe idea of a major space station/harbor/base/dock/port has been something I have been working on as a hobby. I started with a modular concept, where there would be a basic design, as opposed to specialized components. I started with Skylab as the basic module design and that would be mated with a six-point docking module similar to what was used for Mir (and now with the Chinese space station) rather than the two-point one used on Skylab. From there each module could be fitted out as needed for it's purpose. Using this as a foundation, it would be possible to assemble an infinitely expandable space port. initially the cost would be high until these modules were manufactured in a production line fashion. Sadly, the Apollo infrastructure has been dismantled, so to try and use this method today would probably never be considered because the initial cost would be too high. Also sadly, this concept would make going to the moon and Mars much less expensive in the long run. We could build a LOP-G type of space port around the moon as well as a similar one around Mars and bring down the costs of space travel dramatically. Skylab's multiple docking adapter was originally designed with five docking ports (the sixth point was permanently connected to the airlock), before being reduced to two ports. See the below quotes from Chapters 2 and 11 and sketches in Chapter 2 of Living and Working in Space.QuoteThe only answer was to manufacture a new piece of hardware. It could be very simple: all that was needed was a shell-a cylindrical extension of the airlock-capable of withstanding launch and docking loads, but serving no purpose other than to provide two or more docking ports. It was literally a multiple docking adapter, a name that was soon made official. The details of its design changed several times during its first few weeks, but the basic idea was a cylinder, to be mounted above the airlock, carrying four radial tunnels at its upper end. The main structure and each radial tunnel would carry Apollo docking gear. The new module would have no active systems; power required at the docking ports would come from the airlock.https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4208/ch2.htmQuoteSimilarly, the multiple docking adapter was no longer a simple passive module enabling the cluster to carry several experiment packages. During 1967 and 1968 it had been enlarged to provide space for carrying the workshop's furnishings into orbit, meanwhile losing one after another of the original five docking ports. The dry-workshop decision, however, nullified this function, and at mid-1969 the adapter was once again a virtually empty shell: a cylinder 3.05 meters in diameter by 5.25 meters long, with the main docking port in its forward end and a contingency port on one side, enclosing about 35 cubic meters of space. https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4208/ch11.htm
Quote from: davamanra on 12/18/2021 11:45 pmThe idea of a major space station/harbor/base/dock/port has been something I have been working on as a hobby. I started with a modular concept, where there would be a basic design, as opposed to specialized components. I started with Skylab as the basic module design and that would be mated with a six-point docking module similar to what was used for Mir (and now with the Chinese space station) rather than the two-point one used on Skylab. From there each module could be fitted out as needed for it's purpose. Using this as a foundation, it would be possible to assemble an infinitely expandable space port. initially the cost would be high until these modules were manufactured in a production line fashion. Sadly, the Apollo infrastructure has been dismantled, so to try and use this method today would probably never be considered because the initial cost would be too high. Also sadly, this concept would make going to the moon and Mars much less expensive in the long run. We could build a LOP-G type of space port around the moon as well as a similar one around Mars and bring down the costs of space travel dramatically. Me too ! I used David Portree drawings from "Mir hardware heritage" to imagine what a post-Apollo, "American Mir" could have looked like. I reasoned that if the Soviets picked that shape for Mir, it shouldn't be too bad. https://historycollection.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle-mir/references/documents/mirheritage.pdfI use to decribe Mir basic shape as a "four bladded propeller": the hub being DOS-7 and the propeller blades being Krystall, Priroda, Spektr and Kvant-2. Plus Kvant-1 in the back, also on the axis Per lack of a better picture... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325159025/figure/fig3/AS:870509633863690@1584557078634/Geometric-model-of-propeller-PPTC-II.ppm Instead of Proton / Shuttle 15-feet diameter constrained modules, I used a 33 feet S-II for what the Soviets called the "base block", derived from the Salyut: DOS-7 / DOS-8. As for the others modules, they are "sons of Skylab", that is: 22 ft diameter S-IVBs. Essentially a Mir on steroids made of Saturn dry workshops. Each one of the S-IVB modules would have 300 cubic meter of space, plus the enormous S-II own volume (1000 cubic meters or so)Per lack of a Space Shuttle, assembly could be done by Agena space tugs - also to be used for a crapton of other missions: logistics, reboost, on-orbit refueling, satellite servicing... I like the way the Soviets pulled automated assembly of Mir. They first put a "docking ball" in front of a Salyut, creating the DOS-7 / DOS-8 base blocks: with one axial / front docking and four radial ports on the sides. Spektr, Krystall, Priroda and Kvant-2 all came docking to the front docking port (attached picture: in red), Soyuz-style. Once safely docked, they sprouted a "side hinge" (Lyappa arm). Then they kind of tilted themselves by 90 degrees; their docking aparatus coming to dock on the "radial" ports (attached picture: green). Rinse, repeat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyappa_armClever trick.
The idea of a major space station/harbor/base/dock/port has been something I have been working on as a hobby. I started with a modular concept, where there would be a basic design, as opposed to specialized components. I started with Skylab as the basic module design and that would be mated with a six-point docking module similar to what was used for Mir (and now with the Chinese space station) rather than the two-point one used on Skylab.
3. The second stage will be used as a WWS and puts the rest of the station into orbit.
Quote from: davamanra on 12/18/2021 11:45 pmThe idea of a major space station/harbor/base/dock/port has been something I have been working on as a hobby. I started with a modular concept, where there would be a basic design, as opposed to specialized components. I started with Skylab as the basic module design and that would be mated with a six-point docking module similar to what was used for Mir (and now with the Chinese space station) rather than the two-point one used on Skylab.I have no idea what people are supposed to be advocating for with the title of the thread being "How (Not) To Design a Space Station", but if we're supposed to point out what NOT to repeat in history, Skylab would be one of them.For instance, we don't need to repeat Skylab to have modules with multiple docking ports, because we already have that on the ISS - Unity connects the U.S. and Russian elements, and Harmony (i.e. the "utility hub") has six Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM) connections. No need to mess around with wet labs, just build what you need and launch it.The ISS has been a wonderful test platform, and what we have definitely learned is that modular construction not only works, but it can last for decades. So whatever comes after the ISS should cost far less if it uses the same general designs, and coupled with existing (and near-future) launchers, the speed of construction and overall cost should be far less than what the ISS initially cost.LOTS of lessons learned!
Rather than positing an imaginary super-heavy-lift launcher with a wet workshop stage (the continued nonexistance of either of which dooms the station), smaller modules have advantages even of a SHL vehicle is available. They can be launched on a range of vehicles giving flexibility and redundancy in launching (not tied to one vehicle), can be clustered for one launch in the event that a SHL vehicle is available, and by using a standardised 'base' module design can be produced in bulk at potentially a lower cost than a handful of bespoke modules. The lesson of the ISS should be: "Yes, but size the modules so you are not locked into a single launch system, and try not to make them so unique"
This doesn't seem to really be a history thread. Maybe it belongs elsewhere?
Quote from: edzieba on 12/21/2021 05:59 pmRather than positing an imaginary super-heavy-lift launcher with a wet workshop stage (the continued nonexistance of either of which dooms the station), smaller modules have advantages even of a SHL vehicle is available. They can be launched on a range of vehicles giving flexibility and redundancy in launching (not tied to one vehicle), can be clustered for one launch in the event that a SHL vehicle is available, and by using a standardised 'base' module design can be produced in bulk at potentially a lower cost than a handful of bespoke modules. The lesson of the ISS should be: "Yes, but size the modules so you are not locked into a single launch system, and try not to make them so unique"I am an advocate of SHLLV for many reasons. 1. With respect to space stations, I don't know the exact costs of sending the Mir modules into orbit, but even adjusted for inflation, they were more than launching Skylab, with comparable internal volume, on one Saturn V. Same thing with ISS. It weighs 500 tons and has an internal volume of 35,000 ft^3. A comparable space station could be built using only 3 SHLLV's like the Saturn V.2. Granted, several smaller LV's can be used to launch several smaller modules, but a single SHLLV can also launch several smaller modules as well as launch larger modules that the smaller LV's cannot.3. With respect to payloads like the JWST and similar bulky payloads, it would be necessary to design and perform these complex unfolding procedures in order to function. Even though I hope JWST unfolds properly and is able to carry out its mission, I fear that something might go wrong. With a SHLLV a payload like JWST would not have to be anywhere near as complex or weigh as little as it does. It could have been launched years earlier and for a fraction of the cost and with less chance of malfunction if it were launched on a SHLLV.4. With respect to missions back to the Moon, establishing a LOP-G in lunar orbit as well as landing payloads on the moon would be much more economic and simpler using an SHLLV, especially since the largest part of the payload will be propellant.5. With respect to interplanetary missions, reasons #3 and#4 apply.6. With respect to missions to Mars, especially manned missions, reason #4 especially applies.7. Granted, SHLLV's initially can be expensive, but, as I propose, developing a production line infrastructure and developing a space program around this strategy the long term costs will be very affordable.8. There are other situations where an SHLLV can have advantages over smaller LV'S, it is just a matter of considering it as an option.At least we are in agreement with respect to specialized, unique modules. Starting with a standardized basic design and then fitting them out for a particular purpose would be very economical.
Quote from: Blackstar on 12/21/2021 08:12 pmThis doesn't seem to really be a history thread. Maybe it belongs elsewhere?The original post links to an article on the history of the ISS design (didn't read it; can't speak to the quality). But the title of the article (and the post linking to it) are almost guaranteed to send the thread in non-historical directions and encourage people to discuss their own hobby-horse designs.
