-
Deep Space Habitat Concept of Operations for Transit Mission Phases
by
rdale
on 19 Oct, 2011 16:12
-
Neat graphics showing concepts for long timeframe missions...
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110016277_2011017267.pdfNational Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has begun
evaluating various mission and system components of possible implementations of what the U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee (also known as the Augustine Committee) has named the flexible path (Anon., 2009). As human spaceflight missions expand further into deep space, the duration of these missions increases to the point where a dedicated crew habitat element appears necessary. There are several destinations included in this flexible path a near Earth asteroid (NEA) mission, a Phobos/Deimos (Ph/D) mission, and a Mars surface exploration mission that all include at least a portion of the total mission in which the crew spends significant periods of time (measured in months) in the deep space environment and are thus candidates for a dedicated habitat element. As one facet of a number of studies being conducted by the Human Spaceflight Architecture Team (HAT) a workshop was conducted to consider how best to define and quantify habitable volume for these future deep space missions. One conclusion reached during this workshop was the need for a description of the scope and scale of these missions and the intended uses of a habitat element. A group was set up to prepare a concept of operations document to address this need. This document describes a concept of operations for a habitat element used for these deep space missions. Although it may eventually be determined that there is significant overlap with this concept of operations and that of a habitat destined for use on planetary surfaces, such as the Moon and Mars, no such presumption is made in this document.
-
#1
by
BrightLight
on 19 Oct, 2011 16:47
-
As a boundary layer physicist, I appreciate the contributions from the Chef Meteorologist.
Wonderful planning document. I noticed that the hybrid approach (pg 18) could also work for a lunar mission, at least an orbital station, if not a lander and hope that future detailed planning would incorporate a moon orbit/lander configuration. I also noted with pride that NTR is well positioned in NASA thinking for deep space missions.
-
#2
by
manboy
on 19 Oct, 2011 17:00
-
Great document but it looks like NASA is once again moving away from a zero pre-breathe suit.
-
#3
by
woods170
on 19 Oct, 2011 17:13
-
Interesting little note from page 17 (see attached screenshot)
So, Orion will have to beefed-up TPS-wise to survive re-entry from a NEA mission.
-
#4
by
Robotbeat
on 19 Oct, 2011 17:21
-
I'm curious as to why the Phobos/Deimos mission can go as close as Venus but the Mars surface mission cannot go inside Earth's orbit... Kind of constrains the mission classes (i.e. no short-stay) pretty severely. I mean, it's fine if you're ONLY looking at long stay missions, but overly constraining otherwise.
Also, if 4 crew are adequate for a Phobos/Deimos mission, why are 6 needed for a Mars surface mission? I understand it's helpful for comparison purposes (since many architectures already assumed that), but it's still kind of weird. I think that if 4 crew are sufficient, we should probably stick to only 4 crew for the first time... Mars surface missions are far off enough as it is...
I like the real similarities between NEA missions and Phobos/Deimos missions... Should be able to use the same exploration stack for the most part (though short-stay would need extra delta-v... at least 8km/s total versus probably 7km/s or less for NEA... and long-stay would need considerably more consumables and probably extra space). I sort of wish more thought was given to make the Mars surface mission more integrated with the Phobos/Deimos mission... With pre-placed assets like an orbiting lander and an already-ISRU-fueled ascent vehicle on the surface, a Phobos/Deimos short-stay mission (which would be just 50% longer than the standard NEA mission) could become a Mars surface mission. All it'd take is pre-placing assets (perhaps by SEP slow-boat) with an extra couple launches (doesn't even necessarily need to be with SLS, though if it's around, that'd likely be used), a couple of modest SEP tugs, a couple landers with an ISRU package. You could even skip the advanced EDL if you had to and rely mostly on propulsive landing (though I wouldn't recommend).
-
#5
by
manboy
on 19 Oct, 2011 17:33
-
Interesting little note from page 17 (see attached screenshot)
So, Orion will have to beefed-up TPS-wise to survive re-entry from a NEA mission.
Or switch to PICA.
-
#6
by
Patchouli
on 19 Oct, 2011 20:47
-
The only ones I can see them actually doing with this setup is the NEA and short stay Phobos and Demos mission as they keep the microgravity time close to something we know we can deal with.
I'm going by the condition Valeri Polyakov was in after a 437 day stay on Mir.
They probably could hopped up the delta V end to get it back under the 437 to 450 day limit.
The long stay missions you'll almost certainly need something more along the lines of Nautilus-X or a large pre landed hab on Mars.
Mars at least has some gravity and some protection from radiation which makes a long stay there less dicey then in Mars orbit.
-
#7
by
Robotbeat
on 19 Oct, 2011 21:02
-
The only ones I can see them actually doing with this setup is the NEA and short stay Phobos and Demos mission as they keep the microgravity time close to something we know we can deal with.
I'm going by the condition Valeri Polyakov was in after a 437 day stay on Mir.
They probably could hopped up the delta V end to get it back under the 437 to 450 day limit.
The long stay missions you'll almost certainly need something more along the lines of Nautilus-X or a large pre landed hab on Mars.
...
Not necessarily... We're finally starting to test some (anti-osteoporosis) drugs on ISS which could allow extension beyond the 437 days of Valeri's trip. And providing enough delta-v is VERY difficult for anything shorter than the trip times they give for a short-stay Mars orbit mission. There's also the possibility of getting some benefit out of very small, "human-powered" centrifuges which could easily fit in a deep space hab. Also, we've learned more about exercise techniques since then. I agree the long-stay missions will need probably 50%+ more volume (partly for habitable space partly for more consumables).
-
#8
by
Khadgars
on 19 Oct, 2011 23:21
-
Are there any studies about converting ESA ATV into a Hab module? Seems like a perfect candidate for such a mission.
-
#9
by
clongton
on 20 Oct, 2011 01:25
-
Are there any studies about converting ESA ATV into a Hab module? Seems like a perfect candidate for such a mission.
Too small. 4 to 6 people in a can for a year need space - lots of it.
Maybe as one module among many, but alone - no.
-
#10
by
A_M_Swallow
on 20 Oct, 2011 01:30
-
{snip}
I like the real similarities between NEA missions and Phobos/Deimos missions... Should be able to use the same exploration stack for the most part (though short-stay would need extra delta-v... at least 8km/s total versus probably 7km/s or less for NEA... and long-stay would need considerably more consumables and probably extra space). I sort of wish more thought was given to make the Mars surface mission more integrated with the Phobos/Deimos mission... With pre-placed assets like an orbiting lander and an already-ISRU-fueled ascent vehicle on the surface, a Phobos/Deimos short-stay mission (which would be just 50% longer than the standard NEA mission) could become a Mars surface mission. All it'd take is pre-placing assets (perhaps by SEP slow-boat) with an extra couple launches (doesn't even necessarily need to be with SLS, though if it's around, that'd likely be used), a couple of modest SEP tugs, a couple landers with an ISRU package. You could even skip the advanced EDL if you had to and rely mostly on propulsive landing (though I wouldn't recommend).
Or the Phobos/Deimos mission creates a base for the Mars mission that follows. Possible including a hanger for the reusable lander.
-
#11
by
Patchouli
on 20 Oct, 2011 01:53
-
The only ones I can see them actually doing with this setup is the NEA and short stay Phobos and Demos mission as they keep the microgravity time close to something we know we can deal with.
I'm going by the condition Valeri Polyakov was in after a 437 day stay on Mir.
They probably could hopped up the delta V end to get it back under the 437 to 450 day limit.
The long stay missions you'll almost certainly need something more along the lines of Nautilus-X or a large pre landed hab on Mars.
...
Not necessarily... We're finally starting to test some (anti-osteoporosis) drugs on ISS which could allow extension beyond the 437 days of Valeri's trip. And providing enough delta-v is VERY difficult for anything shorter than the trip times they give for a short-stay Mars orbit mission. There's also the possibility of getting some benefit out of very small, "human-powered" centrifuges which could easily fit in a deep space hab. Also, we've learned more about exercise techniques since then. I agree the long-stay missions will need probably 50%+ more volume (partly for habitable space partly for more consumables).
I have to say even with those findings 600 days will likely be the max as most of those have been found to be at best only partially effective.
If anything the experience since then and testing of those solutions has only reaffirmed there is a limit and you'll need AG for anything more then 500 days.
As for getting under 437 days it's easier then you think as seen in the Ride report.
In fact it may be the easiest solution at the moment.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/rideport.htmAfter that tethers would be second.
I think they're either not really serious about this plan ie it's mostly an attempt at PR to sell SLS or it's simply unfinished at this stage and will evolve over time as they refine it and fix the glaring issues.
-
#12
by
Khadgars
on 20 Oct, 2011 02:01
-
Are there any studies about converting ESA ATV into a Hab module? Seems like a perfect candidate for such a mission.
Too small. 4 to 6 people in a can for a year need space - lots of it.
Maybe as one module among many, but alone - no.
Agreed, but could you not stack 3-4 or however many you need of them together and attach an Orion on one of the ends?
-
#13
by
Jason1701
on 20 Oct, 2011 02:05
-
Are there any studies about converting ESA ATV into a Hab module? Seems like a perfect candidate for such a mission.
Too small. 4 to 6 people in a can for a year need space - lots of it.
Maybe as one module among many, but alone - no.
Agreed, but could you not stack 3-4 or however many you need of them together and attach an Orion on one of the ends?
DSH would do a better job for much less mass.
-
#14
by
Patchouli
on 20 Oct, 2011 02:15
-
Are there any studies about converting ESA ATV into a Hab module? Seems like a perfect candidate for such a mission.
Too small. 4 to 6 people in a can for a year need space - lots of it.
Maybe as one module among many, but alone - no.
Agreed, but could you not stack 3-4 or however many you need of them together and attach an Orion on one of the ends?
DSH would do a better job for much less mass.
A transhab type module would have still better mass numbers.
Maybe something like a BA-330 but with two redundant pressurized sections or two Sun dancer sized modules.
-
#15
by
Khadgars
on 20 Oct, 2011 02:16
-
Are there any studies about converting ESA ATV into a Hab module? Seems like a perfect candidate for such a mission.
Too small. 4 to 6 people in a can for a year need space - lots of it.
Maybe as one module among many, but alone - no.
Agreed, but could you not stack 3-4 or however many you need of them together and attach an Orion on one of the ends?
DSH would do a better job for much less mass.
Hmm are you referring to this little beauty?
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=85841491It looks more for planetary missions than long space travel, but I could be wrong. The video was pretty cool though
-
#16
by
Patchouli
on 20 Oct, 2011 02:27
-
Are there any studies about converting ESA ATV into a Hab module? Seems like a perfect candidate for such a mission.
Too small. 4 to 6 people in a can for a year need space - lots of it.
Maybe as one module among many, but alone - no.
Agreed, but could you not stack 3-4 or however many you need of them together and attach an Orion on one of the ends?
DSH would do a better job for much less mass.
Hmm are you referring to this little beauty?
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=85841491
It looks more for planetary missions than long space travel, but I could be wrong. The video was pretty cool though
Looks a lot like Zurbin's Mars Hab that's supposed to be modular in that you could dock multiple units together building a Mars base.
-
#17
by
clongton
on 20 Oct, 2011 02:41
-
For long duration missions just build the Nautilus
-
#18
by
Robotbeat
on 20 Oct, 2011 02:45
-
Are there any studies about converting ESA ATV into a Hab module? Seems like a perfect candidate for such a mission.
Too small. 4 to 6 people in a can for a year need space - lots of it.
Maybe as one module among many, but alone - no.
Agreed, but could you not stack 3-4 or however many you need of them together and attach an Orion on one of the ends?
DSH would do a better job for much less mass.
Hmm are you referring to this little beauty?
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=85841491
It looks more for planetary missions than long space travel, but I could be wrong. The video was pretty cool though
That does look cool. Nice to see ATHLETE at work. JPL is awesome.
-
#19
by
Patchouli
on 20 Oct, 2011 03:22
-
For long duration missions just build the Nautilus
I agree for a long mission Nautilus-X is probably the best option.
Now this would be a good starting point to work towards Nautilus sorta like how Gemini lead to Apollo.
Start with easier missions such as close NEOs six month mission time and sprint class Mars missions and Venus flybys.
