-
#140
by
Patchouli
on 17 Apr, 2014 16:49
-
updated SLS derived deep space hab drawings
from April 17, 2014 Bookout Prezi presentation.
http://prezi.com/bmvgr0iu5u7c/deep-space-habitat-concept-demonstrators-directors-lunch/
I corrected the year
That looks like a fairly efficient internal arrangement compared to Skylab.
I favor the SLS derived as it leverages the larger LVs SLS and Falcon heavy coming online and it's a useful right away vs requiring assembly.
The large size also means in theory you could store enough consumables for a trip to Mars in it and should be good for the crew's psychological well being.
I like how the crew quarters is placed at the center of the module so all the other rooms and systems can act as shielding.
It should offer better radiation protection then possible with the ISS derived.
The equipment racks,floors, and even the air in the other parts all would contribute the total amount of shielding for the storm cellar at the core.
-
#141
by
BrightLight
on 17 Apr, 2014 19:20
-
updated SLS derived deep space hab drawings
from April 17, 2014 Bookout Prezi presentation.
http://prezi.com/bmvgr0iu5u7c/deep-space-habitat-concept-demonstrators-directors-lunch/
I corrected the year
That looks like a fairly efficient internal arrangement compared to Skylab.
I favor the SLS derived as it leverages the larger LVs SLS and Falcon heavy coming online and it's a useful right away vs requiring assembly.
The large size also means in theory you could store enough consumables for a trip to Mars in it and should be good for the crew's psychological well being.
I like how the crew quarters is placed at the center of the module so all the other rooms and systems can act as shielding.
It should offer better radiation protection then possible with the ISS derived.
The equipment racks,floors, and even the air in the other parts all would contribute the total amount of shielding for the storm cellar at the core.
The idea behind the SLS derivation is that ISS modules are no longer in production, has the tooling been destroyed? - and the SLS tooling for the barrel sections will be in production. Further, like Skylab, extensive storage is possible making 60 days mission relatively easy and much longer ones as well, making the mission logistical planning relativity simple - fill the thing up and go. I haven't seen a RL-10 on the back-end modeled yet but would be nice to see a mars mission package.
-
#142
by
BrightLight
on 17 Apr, 2014 19:29
-
I spoke too soon, a powered hab module and SLS stack.
-
#143
by
JasonAW3
on 17 Apr, 2014 20:12
-
nice you tube video from Langley on radiation protection for the DSH
Oh my...
A micro Gravity Couch Fort!
-
#144
by
simonbp
on 17 Apr, 2014 22:14
-
-
#145
by
Halidon
on 17 Apr, 2014 23:28
-
Not to make headaches for anyone, but would it be worth studying use of the A1US/Pyrios tooling to construct 5.5m diameter modules?
-
#146
by
M129K
on 18 Apr, 2014 19:04
-
I spoke too soon, a powered hab module and SLS stack.
What are those smaller propulsion modules in the stack? Orion SM derived storable propulsion modules?
-
#147
by
BrightLight
on 18 Apr, 2014 19:21
-
I spoke too soon, a powered hab module and SLS stack.
What are those smaller propulsion modules in the stack? Orion SM derived storable propulsion modules?
[/quote
I don't know, i should start to collect new questions for Bookout and the SLS derived hab system.
-
#148
by
BrightLight
on 18 Apr, 2014 19:23
-
here is a slightly more detailed look at the "floor" plan wih the older 2-D plans - note they are a bit different.
-
#149
by
Lars_J
on 18 Apr, 2014 20:56
-
That layout is quite inefficient, IMO. I think aligning the floors like Skylab would provide more usable and accessible living space.
-
#150
by
BrightLight
on 18 Apr, 2014 20:59
-
That layout is quite inefficient, IMO. I think aligning the floors like Skylab would provide more usable and accessible living space.
The domed ends are basically empty, I would think there is some reason for this - a question is why this layout? what about the space between the floors and the domes?
-
#151
by
Eer
on 18 Apr, 2014 23:10
-
Question: SLS derived is presumably 8 meter, using tooling STS uses. Someone just asked about 5.4 Meter.
If someone were building a 10 meter shlv, might its tooling be used to create a 10 m dsh? How much is too much?
-
#152
by
sdsds
on 19 Apr, 2014 06:03
-
That layout is quite inefficient
why this layout?
I speculate it might reflect launch loads. The mass of the floors and any racks, etc. attached to them would be carried directly to the aft dome. In a liquid stage that's where the propellant loads are carried, isn't it? Thus this configuration (compared with floors attached to the barrel sections) requires less beefing up of the barrel section structure.
Alternately (or additionally) the "inefficient" void spaces between the rectilinear floors and the curved barrels and domes might be later filled with radiation shielding, e.g. in the form of polyethylene pellets or whatever.
-
#153
by
DDTIM
on 19 Apr, 2014 10:09
-
That layout is quite inefficient
why this layout?
I speculate it might reflect launch loads. The mass of the floors and any racks, etc. attached to them would be carried directly to the aft dome. In a liquid stage that's where the propellant loads are carried, isn't it? Thus this configuration (compared with floors attached to the barrel sections) requires less beefing up of the barrel section structure.
Alternately (or additionally) the "inefficient" void spaces between the rectilinear floors and the curved barrels and domes might be later filled with radiation shielding, e.g. in the form of polyethylene pellets or whatever.
there is actually a pdf on the subject.
-
#154
by
sdsds
on 19 Apr, 2014 18:48
-
there is actually a pdf on the subject.
Thanks very much for providing that link!
For most of its life, the internal structure provides restraint for packaging, utilities and the crew in the weightless environment;
however, the design is dominated by launch loads during the first 10 minutes.(page 13)
They do mention the idea of removable bracing to handle launch loads. That helps, but the mass of that bracing must still be carried to orbit, right?
Also regarding radiation:
A passive radiation map was created in order to compare the volume captured within the insulated “sweet spot.” [...] The two floor longitudinal arrangement contained the most insulated volume while the transverse three floor contained the least.(page 15)
Finally in the Conclusion:
Layouts for both the transverse and longitudinal floor orientations can be made to work, but the longitudinal offers more efficient packaging, better use
of floor area and improved crew translation.(page 19)
All around good reading. Thanks again!
-
#155
by
Lar
on 19 Apr, 2014 22:30
-
Oh my...
A micro Gravity Couch Fort!
The problem I have with this concept is the time to put the fort together. It seems like a lot of packing and unpacking (in a cramped space regardless of which of the two designs chosen) that has to happen between warning and flare arrival.
-
#156
by
IRobot
on 19 Apr, 2014 23:22
-
I wonder how the design would be constrained when active radiation shields become possible.
-
#157
by
WellingtonEast
on 30 May, 2014 01:36
-
Pardon if this has been already covered.
I saw in a previous Robertross post mention of Water Walls and I have seen this link elsewhere
http://www.spacearchitect.org/pubs/GLEX-2012.10.1.9x12503.pdf Water Wall provides:
1. Gray water processing for urine and wash water,
2. Black water processing for solid waste,
3. Air processing for CO2 removal and O2 revitalization,
4. Thermal and humidity control,
5. Food growth using green algae,
6. Provide radiation protection to the crew habitat.
-
#158
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 06 Jun, 2014 15:53
-
That layout is quite inefficient, IMO. I think aligning the floors like Skylab would provide more usable and accessible living space.
My own amendment is to make the walls thicker. If you're building a bigger hab, then you might as well put more GCR protection into the walls.
-
#159
by
baldusi
on 06 Jun, 2014 23:44
-
That layout is quite inefficient, IMO. I think aligning the floors like Skylab would provide more usable and accessible living space.
My own amendment is to make the walls thicker. If you're building a bigger hab, then you might as well put more GCR protection into the walls.
Wall mass growths quadratically. It's scary how fast you add tonnes. That's why they usually try to put as much equipment as possible on the walls and have a "safe haven" area in the center, where they can afford to cover with radiation absorbing materials.
Personally, I believe that is the best justification for a SEP stage. You can add radiation protection in LEO and then move it at a more leisures pace. Something like a polypropylene covers outside the hull. It could work both for MMOD and radiation. If the outside work is considered too bothersome, flexible internal wall that get attached with velcro to the internal side of the hull could also work. But the thermal and access issues are greater.