Deep Space Habitat module concepts outlined for BEO exploration

[Chris Bergin]

Putting this in Orion, as it's not actually specific to SLS.

Excellent article (part 1 of 2) by Chris Gebhardt via a superb L2-acquired presentation:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/03/dsh-module-concepts-outlined-beo-exploration/

[Fred M]

Very interesting article! This is where the future gets exciting!

[clongton]

Thanks Chris - very nice writeup.
It's good to see some executable details beginning to emerge instead of just good ideas. Thanks to Chris Gebhardt for his effortys. Very much appriiated.

[sdsds]

It looks like this concept moves away from packaging equipment so it fits into ISPR payload rack shapes and sizes.  If equipment isn't in ISPRs, then is there still a need for CBM-sized hatches?

Does ISS operations experience support this rejection of the ISPR design?  Have the ISPRs been difficult to handle?

[Blackjax]

Does anyone else think this might face an uphill funding battle in congress as a result of the fact that it emphasized reusing a lot of prexisting technology (and hardware?) rather than developing a bunch of new stuff via spending in various congressional districts?  Congress hasn't shown a lot of friendliness to projects that emphasize flying things sooner/cheaper over pork delivery lately.

[Jason1701]

I think it will face a battle because it baselines using existing launch vehicles. If the DSH can do that, why not the entire exploration stack?

[sdsds]

Does anyone else think this might face an uphill funding battle in congress as a result of the fact that it emphasized reusing a lot of prexisting technology (and hardware?) rather than developing a bunch of new stuff via spending in various congressional districts?  Congress hasn't shown a lot of friendliness to projects that emphasize flying things sooner/cheaper over pork delivery lately.

Converting a structural test article into a flight article is going to be expensive. And it likely requires that the contractor who built that test article be hired to do the conversion.  This creates a "Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition," allowing them to award the contract to Boeing and requiring that the work be done at Marshall.  That is to say, it enables pork-barrel spending, rather than discouraging it.

[CitabriaFlyer]

This was an informative and well written article but I do not like the direction NASA is taking with the DSH.  I would prefer that NASA consider Bigelow derived modules.  Doing that would help subsidize what I would hope would be a new American industry: the manufacture of smaller purpose built space stations for government agencies (foreign and domestic), academic consortiums, industrial applications, tourist operations, and exploration applications.  Bigelow architecture seems to have more growth potential and greater flexibility than this recycled 1980s Boeing can design.  (Nothing against Boeing.  I have flown their products in combat and am a big fan.  I absolutely love their jets...  just not so much their space habitations.)

[Blackjax]

This was an informative and well written article but I do not like the direction NASA is taking with the DSH.  I would prefer that NASA consider Bigelow derived modules.  Doing that would help subsidize what I would hope would be a new American industry: the manufacture of smaller purpose built space stations for government agencies (foreign and domestic), academic consortiums, industrial applications, tourist operations, and exploration applications.  Bigelow architecture seems to have more growth potential and greater flexibility than this recycled 1980s Boeing can design.  (Nothing against Boeing.  I have flown their products in combat and am a big fan.  I absolutely love their jets...  just not so much their space habitations.)

Why would congress desire for Bigelow to have this money vs. the contractors who might benefit from the options previously stated?  They aren't like you and I, who would prefer to see the most space bang for the space buck, they fund things based on consideration of who gets the space buck largely regardless of the amount of bang they might end up delivering.

I have the suspicion that you could count the number of people in both houses of congress, who have actual space accomplishments as one of the primary drivers of their decision making process, without taking your socks off.

[DanielW]

A couple of questions for those in the know,

Will the entire stack is atmospherically decommissioned at the end of every mission?

Are there high energy orbits within a few days travel where it would make economic sense to park such a stack between missions and ferry fuel only?

I have no idea how much delta V it would take to park at EM1 or even some slightly less ambitious orbit. Perhaps just a bit further out than a graveyard orbit?

Just seems like there must be someway to save money on re-use. Would the required system simply be too complex to maintain ala ISS?

[clongton]

Just seems like there must be someway to save money on re-use. Would the required system simply be too complex to maintain ala ISS?

Being careful not to draw things off-topic, but I would say that the best way to foster re-use of a spacecraft like what's being discussed here would be a permanent station at EML-1/2, designed specifically to be a way station for outfitting, launching, receiving and re-outfitting returning spacecraft from deep space missions. The alternative is to leave it by itself somewhere, untended.

But that station would itself be a different kind of spacecraft and should be discussed in a thread of its own.

[DanielW]

Just seems like there must be someway to save money on re-use. Would the required system simply be too complex to maintain ala ISS?

Being careful not to draw things off-topic, but I would say that the best way to foster re-use of a spacecraft like what's being discussed here would be a permanent station at EML-1/2, designed specifically to be a way station for outfitting, launching, receiving and re-outfitting returning spacecraft from deep space missions. The alternative is to leave it by itself somewhere, untended.

But that station would itself be a different kind of spacecraft and should be discussed in a thread of its own.

I agree that speculating on a station is outside the scope of the thread, but since the proposed vehicle utilises ISS derived hardware would it be capable of re-use and would it even make sense from a delta-v standpoint?

[RocketmanUS]

Just seems like there must be someway to save money on re-use. Would the required system simply be too complex to maintain ala ISS?

Being careful not to draw things off-topic, but I would say that the best way to foster re-use of a spacecraft like what's being discussed here would be a permanent station at EML-1/2, designed specifically to be a way station for outfitting, launching, receiving and re-outfitting returning spacecraft from deep space missions. The alternative is to leave it by itself somewhere, untended.

But that station would itself be a different kind of spacecraft and should be discussed in a thread of its own.

I agree that speculating on a station is outside the scope of the thread, but since the proposed vehicle utilises ISS derived hardware would it be capable of re-use and would it even make sense from a delta-v standpoint?

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Smitherman_3-14-12/Smitherman_3-14-12.pdf

Would it not be safer to have the DSH return to EML2? Then they would not have to take the Orion with them. Would that use less fuel round trip to NEO or Mars? Reuse, add food and water , transfer waste to resupply vehicle, add new propulsion unit ( CPS ), and send crew to EML2. A possible EML2 station could it just be a modified DSH ( 500 day version ) with an added robotic arm?

The DSH as shown looks like it would make a good DSH for both NEO and Mars.

[spectre9]

You need to read the presentation to get a real feel for what the TRL of all of the systems is.

They make quite the point of telling you the numbers they think they're at given the experience and qualification gained using modules on the ISS.

Bigelow is still well behind. They will get their chance to catch up in time but for now it does look like a good idea to leverage investments made in ISS to build DSH.

This is one of those times where the article has not done the presentation full justice. Not because the article wasn't awesome and well written just because this presentation happens to be so jam packed with great information.

I recommend anybody really interested in this to sign up to L2 and go have a look. You will not regret it.

[pathfinder_01]

Would it not be safer to have the DSH return to EML2? Then they would not have to take the Orion with them. Would that use less fuel round trip to NEO or Mars? Reuse, add food and water , transfer waste to resupply vehicle, add new propulsion unit ( CPS ), and send crew to EML2. A possible EML2 station could it just be a modified DSH ( 500 day version ) with an added robotic arm?

The DSH as shown looks like it would make a good DSH for both NEO and Mars.

With electric propulsion and esp. solar electric it could make sense delta V wise.  Time wise it may or may not make sense.  The boeing plan used no capsule at all. They parked Orion at a station located at EML-1 and departed. Other plans I have seen take the capsule along but use it to depart with the crew and leave the deep space stack to go into orbit all by itself unmanned.

Returning to the ISS for servincing is possible, but a bad idea delta V wise. However building it at the ISS(or LEO) isn't a bad idea.

[robertross]

Really nice write-up Chris G, thanks.

I personally think it's a great idea to look at using the existing ISS modules, but I now have slightly different thought. Why not use them as the gound test & simulation articles, and (assuming they haven't been destroyed), use the old tooling to build the flight articles?

And in case anyone missed it:

"Moreover, an interior radiation water wall will be incorporated in the DHS HAB design to protect crews from Solar Particle Events.

"The water wall, in both the 60-day and 500-day configurations, will consist of a 0.55 cm thick polyethylene tank and a 9.9 cm thick water wall for a total protection rating of 11g/cm squared."

So we now have a better sense of the radiation mitigation attempts.

And has been noted, the L2 info is much more expansive on TRL limitations, which
was a driving factor for this concept (which is a really cool 'affordable' step forward).

[sdsds]

I personally think it's a great idea to look at using the existing ISS modules, but I now have slightly different thought. Why not use them as the gound test & simulation articles, and (assuming they haven't been destroyed), use the old tooling to build the flight articles?

I think the question is, "At what production rate do we want to create deep space habitat modules?" Personally I would like to see a new one produced on average every 2.5 years.  Does it make sense to have Boeing use its old tooling at Marshall for that, or does it make better sense to let aerospace manufacturers compete openly for the production contract, using whatever modern production tooling, techniques and workforce allow them to deliver a quality product at an affordable price?

[A_M_Swallow]

I personally think it's a great idea to look at using the existing ISS modules, but I now have slightly different thought. Why not use them as the gound test & simulation articles, and (assuming they haven't been destroyed), use the old tooling to build the flight articles?

I think the question is, "At what production rate do we want to create deep space habitat modules?" Personally I would like to see a new one produced on average every 2.5 years.  Does it make sense to have Boeing use its old tooling at Marshall for that, or does it make better sense to let aerospace manufacturers compete openly for the production contract, using whatever modern production tooling, techniques and workforce allow them to deliver a quality product at an affordable price?

That is one way of allowing Bigelow to bid for the Deep Space Habitat contract.

[Chris Bergin]

Click here for Part 2:

Article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/04/delving-deeper-dsh-configurations-support-craft/

Specific thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28528.0

[robertross]

I personally think it's a great idea to look at using the existing ISS modules, but I now have slightly different thought. Why not use them as the gound test & simulation articles, and (assuming they haven't been destroyed), use the old tooling to build the flight articles?

I think the question is, "At what production rate do we want to create deep space habitat modules?" Personally I would like to see a new one produced on average every 2.5 years.  Does it make sense to have Boeing use its old tooling at Marshall for that, or does it make better sense to let aerospace manufacturers compete openly for the production contract, using whatever modern production tooling, techniques and workforce allow them to deliver a quality product at an affordable price?

It's not production rates per se, but lessons learned and not having to re-design an existing module to support anciliary exterior (and interior) equipment it 'may' not have been designed for.

It's just a thought.

If the 'outer mold' (if applicable) doesn't change radically (or at all), you can make all the necessary modifications you WILL need to do no matter the configuration, and do it easier starting with the basic 'design'.

And as for an 'affordable design': if you have few design changes, that's the cheapest solution.