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.
They had some psychological issues.
If you can give them extra space and stay in the mass budget do it in this case it's actually less mass.
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?
Umm, their own data?
"Bigelow Aerospace’s planned first full-scale module is
the Sundancer, targeted for launch and orbit in 2014."
Orbit. (of Earth, implied)
edit to add: and this: "Radiation Protection:
•Bigelow Aerospace’s shielding is equivalent to or better than the International Space Station and substantially reduces the dangerous impact of secondary radiation."
Not anywhere near good enough for hard radiation, which would be seen outside of Earth's magnetic field. If they put something up there for Sundancer that says they are modifying, or planning to modify it for BEO, let me know.
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?
Umm, their own data?
"Bigelow Aerospace’s planned first full-scale module is
the Sundancer, targeted for launch and orbit in 2014."
Orbit. (of Earth, implied)
No public sources say that Bigelow's modules are "shells." Your statement that it would cost less to completely redesign them than to adapt them for BEO is baseless without detailed engineering and accounting data, which I don't see how you could have if you aren't an employee.
Does anyone have a link to the HEFT Element Catalog?
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.
I was thinking the same thing. Especially with Lori Garver's recent vist with Bob Bigelow.
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.
Besides, most of it is just a shell.
No.
No public sources say that Bigelow's modules are "shells." Your statement that it would cost less to completely redesign them than to adapt them for BEO is baseless without detailed engineering and accounting data, which I don't see how you could have if you aren't an employee.
modified my original post to ensure me beliefs for a BEO Sundancer weren't interpreted the wrong way.
If 365 days were the unicorn, perhaps 36.5 days could be the pony?
Imagine a lunar mission for 36.5 days. Quite the pony, I'd say.
The last slide basically says that NASA has serious directional, structural and budget problems that need to be fixed first.
I'd agree with you completely.
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!!!
Totally disagree, which is not the same thing as saying that Mars should not be considered as a destination.
What this report says is that we should go from orbiting the Earth at ISS and go directly to Mars via a 365 day mission. I'm not ok with this premise. This is a large step in capability, and I submit that it is a capability based virtually entirely on fantasy, as regards our likely abilities and likely budgets.
This project is wasting the efforts of a great number of talented people who should be working on lesser goals with more of a chance of actually being accomplished in the next decade or so.
Is there a pyramid on Mars or something? Why are our efforts being directed here with such compulsion? This is not the next thing we should be doing.
What this report says is that we should go from orbiting the Earth at ISS and go directly to Mars via a 365 day mission. I'm not ok with this premise. This is a large step in capability, and I submit that it is a capability based virtually entirely on fantasy, as regards our likely abilities and likely budgets.
This project is wasting the efforts of a great number of talented people who should be working on lesser goals with more of a chance of actually being accomplished in the next decade or so.
Is there a pyramid on Mars or something? Why are our efforts being directed here with such compulsion? This is not the next thing we should be doing.
I don't think that it says that we should go to Mars directly. If you look at slide 16, there is a lot of destinations in between LEO and Mars.
It also doesn't say that the DSH should be the first thing that should be built. If you look at if you look at slide 20 of this other recent presentation (which is a similar slide but with a lot more details), the CPS is the first thing that needs to be developed for any kind of BLEO mission but the DSH comes much later and possibly even after a moon lander:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/518779main_11_02_Exploration.pdf
What this report says is that we should go from orbiting the Earth at ISS and go directly to Mars via a 365 day mission. I'm not ok with this premise. This is a large step in capability, and I submit that it is a capability based virtually entirely on fantasy, as regards our likely abilities and likely budgets.
This project is wasting the efforts of a great number of talented people who should be working on lesser goals with more of a chance of actually being accomplished in the next decade or so.
Is there a pyramid on Mars or something? Why are our efforts being directed here with such compulsion? This is not the next thing we should be doing.
I don't think that it says that we should go to Mars directly. If you look at slide 16, there is a lot of destinations in between LEO and Mars.
It also doesn't say that the DSH should be the first thing that should be built. If you look at if you look at slide 20 of this other recent presentation (which is a similar slide but with a lot more details), the CPS is the first thing that needs to be developed for any kind of BLEO mission but the DSH comes much later and possibly even after a moon lander:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/518779main_11_02_Exploration.pdf
Whatever route for the baseline DSH is taken it would be one of the easier projects and certainly would be easier then the lunar lander.
The unflown habitation module, a node, and the propulsion from a large comsat could be used as DSH.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitation_ModuleNot the most mass efficient solution but if you have already have an HLV it could be the cheapest.
The concept in the opening looks to be a combination of a a node and a destiny type module.
First, since DSH is the "short pole" of the tent it should be worked on first. DSH is in a unique position since it is the "long pole" of the tent as well. It should be built first, landed on the Moon, along with, say half a dozen compatriots with various upgrades, and lived in for a year in that environment, where there is reduced gravity and distance from Earth.
Here we go again, with the dictionary definition of "distance". But I digress.
Second, certainly it is seen that DSH is "easier", than some other things; Easy is a less flashy way of saying "cheaper". And cheaper is better, unless the agency in question is also postulating the "unlimited budget scenario", which this HEFT2 presentation explicitly promises, I'd say.
We should not be "practicing" on DSH on its maiden flight to Mars; we should practice with it at least a year before, on the proximate destination. Which of course, should be the next destination, and that directly.
I have no idea what Mr. Bolden has been instructed to say upon the idea of going to Mars "DIRECT-ly". Could be a code word. I'm still going on his frenzied debate with that Congressman about how Mars was the "next destination", modified to be the "next ultimate destination", which kinda sez: That's also the last "destination". They went on and on about the meaning of the word "destination" and the word "next". Which sounded like "directly" to me, but hey. It was not a bright moment in the legislative and executive branch performances of late.
BTW, "next" has a contextual, meaningful relationship to "directly". Doesn't it?
This is going to sound a bit weird, but: It cannot be argued by policymakers that "directly" also means "indirectly", or "by any means which we eventually employ, considering that cost is no object". (Even if it doesn't mean "next"?)
These guys are all playing too many semantic games, none of it with an eye towards elucidating and explaining and justifying their choices to the ever patient taxpayer.
Just sayin'.
What this report says is that we should go from orbiting the Earth at ISS and go directly to Mars via a 365 day mission. I'm not ok with this premise. This is a large step in capability, and I submit that it is a capability based virtually entirely on fantasy, as regards our likely abilities and likely budgets.
This project is wasting the efforts of a great number of talented people who should be working on lesser goals with more of a chance of actually being accomplished in the next decade or so.
Is there a pyramid on Mars or something? Why are our efforts being directed here with such compulsion? This is not the next thing we should be doing.
I don't think that it says that we should go to Mars directly. If you look at slide 16, there is a lot of destinations in between LEO and Mars.
It also doesn't say that the DSH should be the first thing that should be built. If you look at if you look at slide 20 of this other recent presentation (which is a similar slide but with a lot more details), the CPS is the first thing that needs to be developed for any kind of BLEO mission but the DSH comes much later and possibly even after a moon lander:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/518779main_11_02_Exploration.pdf
Regarding that MPCV from page 5 (on the right):
Has anyone seen schematics, detailed images or good reading on this?
All I've ever come across is tiny thumbnails. Thanks!
I wonder if this could eventually evolve into a module for Nautilus-X.
Add a high performance propulsion module and centrifuge you would have an early version of Nautilus-X.
I wonder if this could eventually evolve into a module for Nautilus-X.
Add a high performance propulsion module and centrifuge you would have an early version of Nautilus-X.
Yeah, I think a smaller module like this makes more sense than the Nautilus-X idea of a big, heavy central node. A smaller module allows more flexibility with a modular approach, since you can just add modules to fit the mission requirements, but have an initial module which is quite small and thus suitable for missions which are beyond the capability of Orion but still small enough to actually be accomplished on a reasonable budget.
And I like the idea of water wall shielding for the crew quarters... I had another idea of an even more mass-efficient way to do shielding.
I wonder if this could eventually evolve into a module for Nautilus-X.
Add a high performance propulsion module and centrifuge you would have an early version of Nautilus-X.
Yeah, I think a smaller module like this makes more sense than the Nautilus-X idea of a big, heavy central node. A smaller module allows more flexibility with a modular approach, since you can just add modules to fit the mission requirements, but have an initial module which is quite small and thus suitable for missions which are beyond the capability of Orion but still small enough to actually be accomplished on a reasonable budget.
And I like the idea of water wall shielding for the crew quarters... I had another idea of an even more mass-efficient way to do shielding.
You can also pump the water into a "storm shelter" radiation bag, getting 3 or 4x the relative thickness of shielding.
Agreed that small modules are the way to go. Build them earlier, fly them earlier. If you need more volume, stack them together.
About time!
About time!