In consideration of launch loads and radiation protection, I have a bit of an idea.
Polyethelchloride is the particular plastic that is considered best for radiation protection, correct?
So,instead of sending up stiff sheets of it, why not send up either woven mats of it, vacuum packed around equipment that would otherwise require polystyrene cushioning in their launch packaging, open up the vacuum bag after up packing the equipment, and silly layer it around a segment of the craft or station that you wish to use as the storm shelter until you have sufficient thickness for adequate protection?
Until the stormshelter tent was completed, the crew could still use whatever craft they came up in as a temporary storm shelter.
This would eliminate two major issues, at least on spacestations. The first being construction of a proper radiation resistant storm shelter, and the other being the waste created by packaging materials sent up on launches. Old clothing and other fabrics, if made of similar materials, could be sealed up in the vacuum bags, revacuumed, and used as further layering on the storm shelter after the fact to add further protection, and minimize waste.
If everygram sent up into space costs so much, alternative uses for each gram that makes it to orbit must be found to make the whole enterprise economical.
Before we go zooming off to snag an asteroid in a giant hefty bag, maybe we should try using the same technology to first clear out some of the junk in orbit, either recycling the materials in orbit, or deorbiting them into the ocean. This would not only act as proof of principle, but also reduce orbital hazards significantly.
(And if the material is recycled in orbit, some of it could be used for storm shelter materials).
Just a thought...
In consideration of launch loads and radiation protection, I have a bit of an idea.
Polyethelchloride is the particular plastic that is considered best for radiation protection, correct?
So,instead of sending up stiff sheets of it, why not send up either woven mats of it, vacuum packed around equipment that would otherwise require polystyrene cushioning in their launch packaging, open up the vacuum bag after up packing the equipment, and silly layer it around a segment of the craft or station that you wish to use as the storm shelter until you have sufficient thickness for adequate protection?
Until the stormshelter tent was completed, the crew could still use whatever craft they came up in as a temporary storm shelter.
This would eliminate two major issues, at least on spacestations. The first being construction of a proper radiation resistant storm shelter, and the other being the waste created by packaging materials sent up on launches. Old clothing and other fabrics, if made of similar materials, could be sealed up in the vacuum bags, revacuumed, and used as further layering on the storm shelter after the fact to add further protection, and minimize waste.
If everygram sent up into space costs so much, alternative uses for each gram that makes it to orbit must be found to make the whole enterprise economical.
Before we go zooming off to snag an asteroid in a giant hefty bag, maybe we should try using the same technology to first clear out some of the junk in orbit, either recycling the materials in orbit, or deorbiting them into the ocean. This would not only act as proof of principle, but also reduce orbital hazards significantly.
(And if the material is recycled in orbit, some of it could be used for storm shelter materials).
Just a thought...
What about the second stage tanks, or the cygnus pcm capsule. These can be recycled for the shelter wall too.
In consideration of launch loads and radiation protection, I have a bit of an idea.
Polyethelchloride is the particular plastic that is considered best for radiation protection, correct?
My interpretation is that what has been shown is that *any hydrocarbon / organic matter*, polymer plastics included, is considered better for radiation protection, by virtue of its abundant hydrogen, than aluminum/steel shielding. Nothing special about any particular one, except for minor differences according to how much hydrogen they contain (the general rule for hydrogenated carbon chains is 2 H's plus 2 H's for every C, but different substances deviate slightly from this).
In consideration of launch loads and radiation protection, I have a bit of an idea.
Polyethelchloride is the particular plastic that is considered best for radiation protection, correct?
My interpretation is that what has been shown is that *any hydrocarbon / organic matter*, polymer plastics included, is considered better for radiation protection, by virtue of its abundant hydrogen, than aluminum/steel shielding. Nothing special about any particular one, except for minor differences according to how much hydrogen they contain (the general rule for hydrogenated carbon chains is 2 H's plus 2 H's for every C, but different substances deviate slightly from this).
This is true. Which is why I suggested keeping the dirty clothes and any other cloths or fabrics that may sealed in a vacuum bag, compressed with a vacuum, and used as additional shielding.
Polystyrenepacking material, on the other had, is typically too loosely bound together due to its' being air puffed, to be usable. Sheets of denser plastic, either woven or in sheet form, could retain the same approximate mass in the vacuum bags, by usingba controlled amount of depressurization.
Polyfoam, while flexible, because of its'foamy nature,would, like polystyrene, be useless for this task.
In consideration of launch loads and radiation protection, I have a bit of an idea.
- Ka-snip! -
What about the second stage tanks, or the cygnus pcm capsule. These can be recycled for the shelter wall too.
Unfortunately, these stages are made of lighter metals that actually create cascade radiation when struck by other particles, either from solar storms or cosmic rays. Denser metals and water are better at protecting, but still not perfect.
Hey, this may not be very profound but on another thread
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35122.msg1223761#msg1223761I made the assertion that the DSH is the one element that is central to essentially any plan. This was assuming it could also be the MHU for a mars direct approach, or used for long term stays at lunar base. This isn't automatically true but it seems a very wise specification to me. The ability does not need to be there from the beginning but neither do you want to start from scratch developing confidence in a mars unit after slowly, painfully developing confidence in your DSH. Confidence in one should be required to directly flow into the other.
It just occurred to me that although I love the idea of other technologies such as SEP and propellant depots, a DSH that is also as close as possible to a future surface module is simply the one thing part of all plans. It is not anti SEP or depot or ISRU or any other thing NASA could do since every such plan also needs this.
..also if it was an ISS project, and a portion of the ISS budget was clearly advancing our BEO capability, perhaps people would stop calling to drop the ISS into the ocean...
..So lets get on with it! If the above is true, or made true, then there isnt a debate of what we should be doing.
(I also like the idea that all the complicated moving parts are in a central column that can fit within a narrow stage, and also provide a solar storm shelter, thus decisions of inflatable vs HLV etc can be made and changed later)
A prime example of utilizing the DSH for more useful vehicles: the Phobos Lander.
More details about the Phobos concepts here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32234.0Sticking to topic, the Deep Space Habitat seems a little silly by itself, either as a space station or a simple module meant to make Orion, put bluntly,
'more useful.' However, if it at least has the shielding for deep space, it could be the centerpiece to more complete vehicles.
An analogy I compare it to: if the Apollo 'LEM' was a bug, then I see the DSH as a larva. Not exactly useful in its current state, but easy to evolve and upgrade into something more. Most obviously it's perfect for deep space, but hypothetically it could makeup a Mars Accent Vehicle, depending on the landing package it's 'shrink-wrapped' into.
A SLS derived DSH-AES presentation on FISO - this time from JSC, the URL is:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Howard_10-22-14/what I find interesting is the criticism of the MSFC SLS is that the MSFC design is exclusively for micro/zero gravity applications and can't be used for planetary environments, most likely true but -
How do you land a SLS sized module on the surface of a planet intact?
How do you land a SLS sized module on the surface of a planet intact?
May be your question is better framed as: How do you transport, test, certify and launch an EDL big enough to land an SLS-sized module on Mars?
A SLS derived DSH-AES presentation on FISO - this time from JSC, the URL is:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Howard_10-22-14/
what I find interesting is the criticism of the MSFC SLS is that the MSFC design is exclusively for micro/zero gravity applications and can't be used for planetary environments, most likely true but -
How do you land a SLS sized module on the surface of a planet intact?
Never mind the EDL issues. Both this FISO presentation and the previous MSFC FISO presentation presumes there is spare production capacity with the SLS. Basically you sacrifice one SLS production slot to get a SLS LOX tank derived DSH. Further reducing the production rate.
A SLS derived DSH-AES presentation on FISO - this time from JSC, the URL is:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Howard_10-22-14/
what I find interesting is the criticism of the MSFC SLS is that the MSFC design is exclusively for micro/zero gravity applications and can't be used for planetary environments, most likely true but -
How do you land a SLS sized module on the surface of a planet intact?
Never mind the EDL issues. Both this FISO presentation and the previous MSFC FISO presentation presumes there is spare production capacity with the SLS. Basically you sacrifice one SLS production slot to get a SLS LOX tank derived DSH. Further reducing the production rate.
The fundamental premise of this FISO presentation is that it cost too much to have zero-G and planetary surface Habs - so how does this solution reduce costs?
NASA are now calling the DSH a Exploration Augmentation Module (EAM). The plan is to use it for CIS Lunar missions while proving technology and techniques for a Mars mission.
Here is latest FISO teleconference on this.
Findings and Strategies for Enabling Human Habitation during Remote Destination Space Transit
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Bailey_1-28-15/Orbital's conceptions on using modified Cygnus module as a EAM.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/03-Walz_Cygnus_Beyond_Low-Earth_Orbit.pdfI've seen one picture on web of similar module to Cygnus which had four ports in its sides with inflatable modules (similar to Bigelow BEAM) attached. NB this picture was pre Cygnus and BEAM. Adding a couple of soon to be flight proven BEAMs would be a easy and affordable way to add extra rooms.
NASA are now calling the DSH a Exploration Augmentation Module (EAM). The plan is to use it for CIS Lunar missions while proving technology and techniques for a Mars mission.
Here is latest FISO teleconference on this.
Findings and Strategies for Enabling Human Habitation during Remote Destination Space Transit
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Bailey_1-28-15/
Orbital's conceptions on using modified Cygnus module as a EAM.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/03-Walz_Cygnus_Beyond_Low-Earth_Orbit.pdf
I've seen one picture on web of similar module to Cygnus which had four ports in its sides with inflatable modules (similar to Bigelow BEAM) attached. NB this picture was pre Cygnus and BEAM. Adding a couple of soon to be flight proven BEAMs would be a easy and affordable way to add extra rooms.
Seen the Cygnus stuff before, but the Bailey stuff caught my attention. They point out Orion's life support limitations and explain how EAM can compensate. If they could find a way to make such a module last for at least 10 months and serve as a storm shelter we have a way to safely push Orion into the solar system.
Mentioning this thing the next time Congress asks NASA a question would be a step in the right direction for making sense, as this thing should allow us to do more well before Mars is more seriously spoken of.
NASA are now calling the DSH a Exploration Augmentation Module (EAM). The plan is to use it for CIS Lunar missions while proving technology and techniques for a Mars mission.
Here is latest FISO teleconference on this.
Findings and Strategies for Enabling Human Habitation during Remote Destination Space Transit
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Bailey_1-28-15/
Orbital's conceptions on using modified Cygnus module as a EAM.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/03-Walz_Cygnus_Beyond_Low-Earth_Orbit.pdf
I've seen one picture on web of similar module to Cygnus which had four ports in its sides with inflatable modules (similar to Bigelow BEAM) attached. NB this picture was pre Cygnus and BEAM. Adding a couple of soon to be flight proven BEAMs would be a easy and affordable way to add extra rooms.
Seen the Cygnus stuff before, but the Bailey stuff caught my attention. They point out Orion's life support limitations and explain how EAM can compensate. If they could find a way to make such a module last for at least 10 months and serve as a storm shelter we have a way to safely push Orion into the solar system.
Mentioning this thing the next time Congress asks NASA a question would be a step in the right direction for making sense, as this thing should allow us to do more well before Mars is more seriously spoken of.
Unfortunately, not much is new in this latest FISO report, most of the concepts and rationals have been covered. There are several CIS-Lunar concepts for the EAM, notably MSFC wants to use a SLS section as a Hab, they specifically don't want to use existing ISS modules - where does this leave the extended Cygnus proposal?, MSFC uses a Cygnus as a logistics module, not a Hab unto itself. I suspect the MSFC approach sees the SLS in production and a rationale (political?) for using the existing tooling, and getting more funds to Huntsville. That being unsubstantiated supposition - where is the budget for the EAM?
Unfortunately, not much is new in this latest FISO report, most of the concepts and rationals have been covered. There are several CIS-Lunar concepts for the EAM, notably MSFC wants to use a SLS section as a Hab, they specifically don't want to use existing ISS modules - where does this leave the extended Cygnus proposal?, MSFC uses a Cygnus as a logistics module, not a Hab unto itself. I suspect the MSFC approach sees the SLS in production and a rationale (political?) for using the existing tooling, and getting more funds to Huntsville. That being unsubstantiated supposition - where is the budget for the EAM?
That's not necessarily a bad idea, using something scaled up to the SLS' girth. I'd love to see that applied to a Martian lander for instance. Cygnus would be good choice if they want a commercial option, otherwise an SLS section could be interesting. Whichever they use it's obvious something's required to supplement Orion.
I can just see a Mars lander outfitted from an SLS stage a la the Skylab wet workshop concept. I would put big stenciled letters on the side reading:
U S A MARS LANDER Some Assembly Required
Bailey said first EAM would be small and just a habitat extension for Orion. Plan is to make it modular and expand it over time. I'm not expecting it to much more than an enhanced Cygnus in size initially.
Long term they may replace it with something like a BA330, but that is a long way off.
A Cygnus size module can be launched by commercial LV. Maybe a Ariane 5 if ESA want to be involved.
Bailey said first EAM would be small and just a habitat extension for Orion. Plan is to make it modular and expand it over time. I'm not expecting it to much more than an enhanced Cygnus in size initially.
Long term they may replace it with something like a BA330, but that is a long way off.
A Cygnus size module can be launched by commercial LV. Maybe a Ariane 5 if ESA want to be involved.
Still it'll be a good start. I wouldn't expect Orion to haul a huge module around everywhere unless it were either a space station or a lander.
