-
#180
by
newpylong
on 31 Jan, 2015 10:43
-
I would not anticipate any significant monetary requests until SLS's/Orion's first flight and some development funds become available. That said Skylab was built in less that 4 years so...
-
#181
by
the_other_Doug
on 31 Jan, 2015 12:15
-
It sort of surprises me that a lot of people talk about Cygnus modules as if there are a few dozen of them sitting in a warehouse, all fitted out for acting as long-term habs for BLEO missions. They are undersized for really long missions, barely large enough for the consumables themselves for several months, leaving little extra living space.
If you need to spend roughly the same amount of time and money fitting out a Cygnus to barely provide enough consumables, and little extra living space, for a mid-length mission as you would need to build a larger, more capable vehicle, I'd vote for the larger vehicle. Give yourself more margin and more room for carrying along enough (and extra) consumables to give you some comfortable margins, as well as enough living space to keep the crews sane over months and years.
I guess I just don't see a lot of expandability in using a Cygnus-sized pressure shell for a ready-made hab. Rather than kludging together a bunch of small cans, do the job right and develop a really capable multi-mission hab/support module.
-
#182
by
jgoldader
on 31 Jan, 2015 12:45
-
I would not anticipate any significant monetary requests until SLS's/Orion's first flight and some development funds become available. That said Skylab was built in less that 4 years so...
4 years for Skylab? That was then and this is now. They had the basic hardware and plans, didn't have to make it all up from scratch. So NASA waits until 2018 or whatever to request money, which will be dribbled out to them at a rate that will result in a 10-year development cycle. The low-balling of costs that has plagued NASA since 1970, and is now made manifest in serial development paths for any new HSF hardware, is going to kill NASA HSF.
-
#183
by
jtrame
on 31 Jan, 2015 12:57
-
It sort of surprises me that a lot of people talk about Cygnus modules as if there are a few dozen of them sitting in a warehouse, all fitted out for acting as long-term habs for BLEO missions. They are undersized for really long missions, barely large enough for the consumables themselves for several months, leaving little extra living space.
If you need to spend roughly the same amount of time and money fitting out a Cygnus to barely provide enough consumables, and little extra living space, for a mid-length mission as you would need to build a larger, more capable vehicle, I'd vote for the larger vehicle. Give yourself more margin and more room for carrying along enough (and extra) consumables to give you some comfortable margins, as well as enough living space to keep the crews sane over months and years.
I guess I just don't see a lot of expandability in using a Cygnus-sized pressure shell for a ready-made hab. Rather than kludging together a bunch of small cans, do the job right and develop a really capable multi-mission hab/support module.
And they've got the new SLS sized large welders at Michoud, so even though an extra set of tankage is not already built as it was with Skylab, the potential for new construction on a Skylab II sized module is sitting there now.
-
#184
by
mike robel
on 31 Jan, 2015 13:48
-
Converting the remaining MPLM's or the European, Japanese, and Cygnus would be good starts, too. But that's old. We have to have NEW.
With fins. Just like in the 50's.
-
#185
by
RonM
on 31 Jan, 2015 14:05
-
I guess I just don't see a lot of expandability in using a Cygnus-sized pressure shell for a ready-made hab. Rather than kludging together a bunch of small cans, do the job right and develop a really capable multi-mission hab/support module.
The idea behind the smaller Cygnus-sized EAM is that it can be launched on a SLS with an Orion. That will give expanded cis-lunar operations on a single SLS launch. That will allow NASA to actually do something with SLS/Orion in the 2020s.
The modules could be used to build a EML2 station. While that's less than optimal, it would still be useful as a testbed and not cost as much as a big habitat.
Of course, a larger DSH would be needed for a mission to Mars.
-
#186
by
TrevorMonty
on 31 Jan, 2015 17:35
-
The EAM is testbed for technology, a habitat and mini lab. After a couple missions they may decide to replace it totally with another, with improved technology. NASA don't want another ISS which needs continuous support as it ages which they can't walk away from.
Bigelow may also have a proposal in with NASA, for something smaller and lighter than BA330 but bigger than BEAM.
-
#187
by
TrevorMonty
on 31 Jan, 2015 19:12
-
I personally like the Cygnus based module. There is a big plus to a Cygnus EAM, it can do a test flight to ISS and deliver cargo in the process. Once there ISS crew can stay in it for a few days testing ECLSS and other equipment. At end of it's visit the EAM can spend additional time in LEO proving its systems.
Supplying ISS would help offset the test flight costs.
-
#188
by
RonM
on 31 Jan, 2015 19:45
-
The EAM is testbed for technology, a habitat and mini lab. After a couple missions they may decide to replace it totally with another, with improved technology. NASA don't want another ISS which needs continuous support as it ages which they can't walk away from.
Bigelow may also have a proposal in with NASA, for something smaller and lighter than BA330 but bigger than BEAM.
A small EML2 station wouldn't need continuous support. It would only be occupied by the occasional Orion flight, perhaps once per year. It's just a way to get some more use out of EAMs as opposed to throwing them away after each mission. Once testing is complete, it could be abandoned.
-
#189
by
A_M_Swallow
on 31 Jan, 2015 20:03
-
The EAM is testbed for technology, a habitat and mini lab. After a couple missions they may decide to replace it totally with another, with improved technology. NASA don't want another ISS which needs continuous support as it ages which they can't walk away from.
Bigelow may also have a proposal in with NASA, for something smaller and lighter than BA330 but bigger than BEAM.
The cancelled Sundancer spacestation had a crew of 3 people. The BA330 can support 6 people. NASA's Orion capsule carries 4 people. Could Bigelow Aerospace fit the BA330's ECLSS and galley etc. into an intermediate sized spacestation for 4 people?
I doubt that Bigelow Aerospace can afford to design and certify a second life support system when he can use his current one.
-
#190
by
Patchouli
on 03 Feb, 2015 18:19
-
The mass saving of making a smaller BA330 may not be great enough to warrant the design and testing of a new version.
Keep in mind the BA330 is about 20tons which is about the same as a Russian DOS station so it already is a mass efficient solution to habitation.
-
#191
by
TrevorMonty
on 03 Feb, 2015 21:39
-
The mass saving of making a smaller BA330 may not be great enough to warrant the design and testing of a new version.
Keep in mind the BA330 is about 20tons which is about the same as a Russian DOS station so it already is a mass efficient solution to habitation.
I think Cygnus is front runner for this EAM but thought I'd put the Bigelow concept out there.
-
#192
by
BrightLight
on 03 Feb, 2015 21:47
-
The mass saving of making a smaller BA330 may not be great enough to warrant the design and testing of a new version.
Keep in mind the BA330 is about 20tons which is about the same as a Russian DOS station so it already is a mass efficient solution to habitation.
I think Cygnus is front runner for this EAM but thought I'd put the Bigelow concept out there.
Why would you think that - Cygnus has no radiation shielding or any infrastructure for habitation, its a logistics module. I know of no MSFC or JSC program that has promoted any of the Cygnus module proposals for the EAM. MSFC has selected a SLS segment as the front-runner for the EAM and its not clear what architecture JSC is studying presently. I reference the FISO reports for my statements and personal communication from MSFC.
-
#193
by
TrevorMonty
on 03 Feb, 2015 22:20
-
The mass saving of making a smaller BA330 may not be great enough to warrant the design and testing of a new version.
Keep in mind the BA330 is about 20tons which is about the same as a Russian DOS station so it already is a mass efficient solution to habitation.
I think Cygnus is front runner for this EAM but thought I'd put the Bigelow concept out there.
Why would you think that - Cygnus has no radiation shielding or any infrastructure for habitation, its a logistics module. I know of no MSFC or JSC program that has promoted any of the Cygnus module proposals for the EAM. MSFC has selected a SLS segment as the front-runner for the EAM and its not clear what architecture JSC is studying presently. I reference the FISO reports for my statements and personal communication from MSFC.
Here is what I'm basing my opinion on. NB there is be big difference between a SLS segment and Cygnus in size.
http://spacenews.com/4212765th-international-astronautical-congress-nasa-studying-habitation-module/Moore described the Exploration Augmentation Module as similar in size to a Cygnus spacecraft, a comparison that may not be coincidental. Orbital Sciences Corp. has expressed interest in finding new applications for its Cygnus cargo spacecraft, including use as a habitat module for missions in cislunar or deep space. - See more at:
http://spacenews.com/4212765th-international-astronautical-congress-nasa-studying-habitation-module/#sthash.FbaCucFa.dpuf
-
#194
by
the_other_Doug
on 03 Feb, 2015 23:53
-
The mass saving of making a smaller BA330 may not be great enough to warrant the design and testing of a new version.
Keep in mind the BA330 is about 20tons which is about the same as a Russian DOS station so it already is a mass efficient solution to habitation.
I think Cygnus is front runner for this EAM but thought I'd put the Bigelow concept out there.
Why would you think that - Cygnus has no radiation shielding or any infrastructure for habitation, its a logistics module. I know of no MSFC or JSC program that has promoted any of the Cygnus module proposals for the EAM. MSFC has selected a SLS segment as the front-runner for the EAM and its not clear what architecture JSC is studying presently. I reference the FISO reports for my statements and personal communication from MSFC.
Here is what I'm basing my opinion on. NB there is be big difference between a SLS segment and Cygnus in size.
http://spacenews.com/4212765th-international-astronautical-congress-nasa-studying-habitation-module/
Moore described the Exploration Augmentation Module as similar in size to a Cygnus spacecraft, a comparison that may not be coincidental. Orbital Sciences Corp. has expressed interest in finding new applications for its Cygnus cargo spacecraft, including use as a habitat module for missions in cislunar or deep space. - See more at: http://spacenews.com/4212765th-international-astronautical-congress-nasa-studying-habitation-module/#sthash.FbaCucFa.dpuf
From what I can tell, the only place where anyone is discussing using Cygnus modules as EAMs is here. And I just don't see it. By the time you load something the size of a Cygnus with even 6 months' worth of water, air and groceries for three or four people, you're not talking about a hab module, you're talking about a densely-packed closet. With four people still trying to live for months in a space the size of the interior of an SUV.
I really don't see that happening. I truly think you need to design an EAM from scratch, and you need to consider the need to make the space livable for the crew for a multi-month (or multi-year) flight, and yet able to carry the consumables and exploration tools needed to carry out your mission. I just don't think a Cygnus is big enough to do this, and if you start to say "Well, what if we stack a few of them?" then I'll just conclude that you have a special interest in seeing the Cygnus used for BLEO missions come what may.
Don't kludge it together from a bunch of cans. Build it right in the first place, eh?
-
#195
by
rayleighscatter
on 04 Feb, 2015 00:36
-
I truly think you need to design an EAM from scratch
NASA isn't building anything from scratch anymore unless Congress tells them to. Whatever the EAM is will be a modified version of something extant at the time.
-
#196
by
BrightLight
on 04 Feb, 2015 00:51
-
-
#197
by
TrevorMonty
on 04 Feb, 2015 01:13
-
The SLS concept is more like space station than a EAM. Its like comparing a large mobile home to a small caravan.
The SLS concept is going to cost billions, it maybe cheaper and quicker to use a BA330.
Yes I know it has't flown yet but is a lot closer to completion than a SLS habitat. NB One if not two BA330s are being built for 2017-2018 launch.
-
#198
by
BrightLight
on 04 Feb, 2015 01:35
-
The SLS concept is more like space station than a EAM. Its like comparing a large mobile home to a small caravan.
The SLS concept is going to cost billions, it maybe cheaper and quicker to use a BA330.
Yes I know it has't flown yet but is a lot closer to completion than a SLS habitat. NB One if not two BA330s are being built for 2017-2018 launch.
I don't know that the BA330 will be quicker or cheaper and the BA330 is only a model in Las Vegas and not real functional hardware. Further, Bigelow has no packaging technology for the BA330, they have no way to fold it and get it into a airplane, let alone into a fairing and then there is all the qualification work which has yet to occur.
That being said, the SLS module is in between a space station and a hab module for Orion - it will be ideal for EML-2.
-
#199
by
TrevorMonty
on 04 Feb, 2015 02:16
-
What is estimated mass of SLS module?
I'm guessing a Cygnus EAM will be around 5t. BA330 is 20t.
The alternative to Cygnus is SEV (space exploration Vehicle).