-
#220
by
Patchouli
on 28 Apr, 2015 18:52
-
A new article was posted in Aviation Week about Habitat/logistics modules for BEO;
http://aviationweek.com/Habitats
This represents an additional avenue of study with a quoted 50/50 spending split between vendors and NASA.
I have attached one of the figures from Av Week as an example.
On Space.com is another.
The Orbital ATK concept reminds me of Mir.
-
#221
by
okan170
on 28 Apr, 2015 21:09
-
Nice food for thought there!
-
#222
by
KelvinZero
on 28 Apr, 2015 21:45
-
Life imitates Kerbal
-
#223
by
TrevorMonty
on 29 Apr, 2015 00:49
-
Nice find Bright light.
This DSH concept is starting to get exciting. Not only are these companies competing for the habitat modules but will also end up competing for cargo supply contracts to DSH.
The idea of using same modules for both space and surface(moon/Mars) is great idea. I can see LM or Boeing using their modules married to a modified ACES to create lunar lander that could support crew for a week or two.
-
#224
by
Patchouli
on 29 Apr, 2015 02:04
-
Nice find Bright light.
This DSH concept is starting to get exciting. Not only are these companies competing for the habitat modules but will also end up competing for cargo supply contracts to DSH.
The idea of using same modules for both space and surface(moon/Mars) is great idea. I can see LM or Boeing using their modules married to a modified ACES to create lunar lander that could support crew for a week or two.
Some companies such as Masten Space System are already considering doing exactly that.
A Centaur/ACES derived lander could do most of what was outlined for Altair for a fraction of the cost plus it solves a few problems such as the payload being high off the ground.
-
#225
by
redliox
on 29 Apr, 2015 10:07
-
I could see how a concept derived from the Jupiter tug might have use in Cislunar space or even NEOs; indeed any of these could be great. There needs to be a beefier propulsion system if they expect anything to enter Martian orbit without aerocapture however, or in the case of solar electric much larger arrays.
I like the Jupiter one best (it does have a robotic arm), but I suspect the Cygnus one may be the easiest to develop.
Hopefully something gets developed that can augment the Orion.
-
#226
by
Robotbeat
on 29 Apr, 2015 14:30
-
I could see how a concept derived from the Jupiter tug might have use in Cislunar space or even NEOs; indeed any of these could be great. There needs to be a beefier propulsion system if they expect anything to enter Martian orbit without aerocapture however, or in the case of solar electric much larger arrays.
...
Not really. It doesn't take much thrust.
-
#227
by
BrightLight
on 29 Apr, 2015 15:03
-
Nice find Bright light.
This DSH concept is starting to get exciting. Not only are these companies competing for the habitat modules but will also end up competing for cargo supply contracts to DSH.
The idea of using same modules for both space and surface(moon/Mars) is great idea. I can see LM or Boeing using their modules married to a modified ACES to create lunar lander that could support crew for a week or two.
This program, now formally funded to evaluate COTS-like components for BEO options divides the NASA-lead SLS derived EAM with smaller and possibly faster construction of modules based on using a modular approach (nothing new about this!). This maybe a less expensive mode for government procurement, although cost reduction for this purpose is yet to be shown or announced.
For instance using "standard" ISS rack configuration might not be the most cost efficient or practical way of getting the required equipment into a working BEO system.
-
#228
by
Coastal Ron
on 29 Apr, 2015 19:37
-
Some companies such as Masten Space System are already considering doing exactly that.
A Centaur/ACES derived lander could do most of what was outlined for Altair for a fraction of the cost plus it solves a few problems such as the payload being high off the ground.
I don't know if someone has already provided this, but ULA has two papers that outline how ACES could be used as a lunar lander and general transporter:
Robust Lunar Exploration Using an Efficient Lunar Lander Derived from Existing Upper StagesA Commercially Based Lunar ArchitectureMaybe Masten's version is based on ULA's?
In any case, I think these concepts look very doable, and provide the features needed for what would be needed for supporting lunar operations. Plus, since the lunar lander version is essentially just a big fuel tank, it also supports a depot architecture that would be needed to support any beyond LEO activities such as a DSH.
-
#229
by
Coastal Ron
on 29 Apr, 2015 19:53
-
Hopefully something gets developed that can augment the Orion.
The Orion is just an expendable taxi - maybe a very capable expendable taxi, but still just an expendable taxi. Unfortunately it's strong points are not really for supporting a regularly serviced beyond LEO destination, since it's not reusable (i.e. high cost of use in a continuous mode).
If we're going to commit to a Deep Space Habitat of any kind, and it's purpose will be to act as an anchor to encourage an increasing amount of visitation and usage, then we'll need to invest in a reusable space transportation system. Such a system would have a space-only vehicle that would move people and cargo between LEO and wherever the DSH is located (i.e. LLO, EML, etc.), so something ACES-like that includes fuel depots would probably be the first step. We'll also have to perfect how to re-enter LEO from beyond LEO, but we'll need that eventually anyways.
As to a hab, since we already know that metal containers are not the preferred radiation blockers (i.e. secondary radiation concerns), I would think that habs made from plastic material would be the primary focus initially, especially if the Bigelow BEAM experiment on the ISS returns positive results. Which would mean that Bigelow would be well positioned for supplying BA330's.
However that's not to say that someone else couldn't develop a plastic construction module that could be attached to a Cygnus SM or Jupiter, so I think there could be enough healthy competition for this.
-
#230
by
TrevorMonty
on 29 Apr, 2015 21:01
-
The Orion is designed to be reusable up to 5 times. An Orion project leader was on Space show few months back, it is worth listening to.
Yes. Masten Xeus is based on ULA lander design.
-
#231
by
Coastal Ron
on 29 Apr, 2015 23:12
-
The Orion is designed to be reusable up to 5 times. An Orion project leader was on Space show few months back, it is worth listening to.
Part of the Orion, the Command Module (CM), could be reusable. The Service Module (SM) is thrown away on each flight though, and that is a significant cost. Plus it's still too early to know if it makes economic sense to refurbish the CM, since if we need multiple flights per year we don't know what the actual refurbishment costs would be versus "volume" production of new Orion CM's.
What I was talking about was a vehicle that would stay in space and would just need to be replenished. We need that at some point anyways, so the sooner we field one the better...
-
#232
by
redliox
on 30 Apr, 2015 09:40
-
I could see how a concept derived from the Jupiter tug might have use in Cislunar space or even NEOs; indeed any of these could be great. There needs to be a beefier propulsion system if they expect anything to enter Martian orbit without aerocapture however, or in the case of solar electric much larger arrays.
...
Not really. It doesn't take much thrust.
...so long as you have a million years to waste.
-
#233
by
BrightLight
on 02 May, 2015 17:42
-
A relatively new paper (from a conference I think: AIAA SPACE 2014 Conference ) from MSFC and Gray Research (Huntsville) on BEO habitation systems. On page 6 there is a briefing on the SLS derived hab concepts, now their are three: a minimum design, maximum capability and a Mars hab module.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140012883.pdf
-
#234
by
Robotbeat
on 02 May, 2015 20:01
-
I could see how a concept derived from the Jupiter tug might have use in Cislunar space or even NEOs; indeed any of these could be great. There needs to be a beefier propulsion system if they expect anything to enter Martian orbit without aerocapture however, or in the case of solar electric much larger arrays.
...
Not really. It doesn't take much thrust.
...so long as you have a million years to waste.
False. It really doesn't take much thrust.
-
#235
by
BrightLight
on 02 May, 2015 20:22
-
I could see how a concept derived from the Jupiter tug might have use in Cislunar space or even NEOs; indeed any of these could be great. There needs to be a beefier propulsion system if they expect anything to enter Martian orbit without aerocapture however, or in the case of solar electric much larger arrays.
...
Not really. It doesn't take much thrust.
or time.
...so long as you have a million years to waste.
False. It really doesn't take much thrust.
-
#236
by
BrightLight
on 02 May, 2015 20:41
-
One of the interesting components of the analysis shown in Figure 12 of the paper is that the SLS derived habitat systems has less mass than the ISS modular designs - interesting.
also
The SLS designs are more capable multi-mission systems - is this the proverbial "thumb on the scale" or is this a result of better design?. All of these designs appear to be much larger than the commercial concepts outlined in the program described in
http://aviationweek.com/HabitatsAttached is the Mars stack with the SLS derived Habitat from "Habitat Concepts for Deep Space Exploration"
-
#237
by
Endeavour_01
on 02 May, 2015 23:28
-
A relatively new paper (from a conference I think) from MSFC and Gray Research (Huntsville) on BEO habitation systems. On page 6 there is a briefing on the SLS derived hab concepts, now their are three: a minimum design, maximum capability and a Mars hab module.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140012883.pdf
One of the interesting components of the analysis shown in Figure 12 of the paper is that the SLS derived habitat systems has less mass than the ISS modular designs - interesting.
also
The SLS designs are more capable multi-mission systems - is this the proverbial "thumb on the scale" or is this a result of better design?. All of these designs appear to be much larger than the commercial concepts outlined in the program described in http://aviationweek.com/Habitats
I have always been interested in the idea of making a SLS derived Skylab II hab/lunar station. The big benefit to an SLS designed hab is more space with fewer launches. We can launch a lunar station in one shot vs. an ISS style assembly. It also helps the SLS program maintain a better operating cadence.
-
#238
by
sdsds
on 03 May, 2015 01:05
-
the SLS derived habitat systems has less mass than the ISS modular designs [...] is this the proverbial "thumb on the scale" or is this a result of better design?
I think it is because the SLS derived design is essentially one big, nearly spherical volume, whereas the ISS derived design is lots of little cylindrical volumes. But consider: (a) structures for the ISS derived design exist and (b) this paper doesn't discuss costs to fly the first of these stations.
That's not to say I don't believe in "Skylab II". I do. But to get started they should have considered the simplest possible configuration, which is I think essentially Node 1 plus the airlock tube plus a single MPLM. (See attached image.)
(Note also it looks like the second MPLM only provides the longer mission times they claim because all their scenarios assume fully closed-loop water and air ECLSS.)
-
#239
by
BrightLight
on 03 May, 2015 02:09
-
the SLS derived habitat systems has less mass than the ISS modular designs [...] is this the proverbial "thumb on the scale" or is this a result of better design?
I think it is because the SLS derived design is essentially one big, nearly spherical volume, whereas the ISS derived design is lots of little cylindrical volumes. But consider: (a) structures for the ISS derived design exist and (b) this paper doesn't discuss costs to fly the first of these stations.
That's not to say I don't believe in "Skylab II". I do. But to get started they should have considered the simplest possible configuration, which is I think essentially Node 1 plus the airlock tube plus a single MPLM. (See attached image.)
(Note also it looks like the second MPLM only provides the longer mission times they claim because all their scenarios assume fully closed-loop water and air ECLSS.)
The second MPLM is primarily for logistics. The volume requirement per astronaut is 25m^3, for four astronauts it appears the node plus MPLM configuration might be sub par.
I agree that the cost is not discussed in the paper, the trade will be between utilizing the refurbished modules and launching them and stacking the package - at the ISS? or in orbit (how do you get the modules to the stacking location - space tug?)? versus building a SLS "shell" and building the habitat and launching on a SLS LV. Then the question will be - what is the cost for three 60 day missions at EML 2 (logistics, LV's etc)? I recall that a SLS LV is on order $500 million.
