-
#300
by
Raj2014
on 14 May, 2015 14:00
-
If they re-use the SLS parts for a deep space habitat, will it be stronger enough to protect the crew and technology from micrometeorites and radiations?
-
#301
by
BrightLight
on 14 May, 2015 15:11
-
If they re-use the SLS parts for a deep space habitat, will it be stronger enough to protect the crew and technology from micrometeorites and radiations?
The mmod and radiation shielding is built into the wall of the module, the space between the inner and outer walls is more than 10cm thick.
-
#302
by
Burninate
on 16 May, 2015 03:37
-
Is there any reason one might desire a *combination* of inflatables and tin cans?
Like, for example, node elements, or a trunk/branch topology with a stronger core?
*Are* rigid habs substantially structurally stronger than inflatable modules? Structural strength is relevant any time you want a high-thrust burn. Presently I think thrust-vector-perpendicular attachment points would be the first thing to go if you tried to put too many kilonewtons into the ISS (other than the solar panels & radiators), but that's not necessarily relevant in the future.
-
#303
by
BrightLight
on 16 May, 2015 03:49
-
Is there any reason one might desire a *combination* of inflatables and tin cans?
Like, for example, node elements, or a trunk/branch topology with a stronger core?
*Are* rigid habs substantially structurally stronger than inflatable modules? Structural strength is relevant any time you want a high-thrust burn. Presently I think thrust-vector-perpendicular attachment points would be the first thing to go if you tried to put too many kilonewtons into the ISS (other than the solar panels & radiators), but that's not necessarily relevant in the future.
I certainly don't know. The advantage of an inflatable is that a large pressurized volume can be placed inside of a relatively small fairing. The disadvantage is that it will require on-orbit internal construction.
It is my understanding that the inflatable units Bigelow is developing have very good structural properties once inflated and are on par with traditional modules. I think once outfitted with ECLSS etc material, the along axis plane is well suited to transport via rocket power as opposed to the ISS which I would think would require more gentle movement.
-
#304
by
Kaputnik
on 19 May, 2015 16:38
-
-
#305
by
BrightLight
on 20 May, 2015 15:12
-
Hope this is the right topic to post this:
http://www.orbitalatk.com/news-room/feature-stories/NEXTStep/default.aspx
I like the idea of a in-production modular system for building infrastructure. That being said the NASA plans for cis-lunar space at one of the EML's is for three 60day missions with 4 astronauts. Each person is required to have 25 m^3 of volume:
"Minimum Acceptable Net Habitable Volume
Based on the characteristics and parameters of the exploration class mission defined in Mars DRM 5.0
(Drake, 2009) , the SMEs, with concurrence of the NASA representatives, recommended a minimum acceptable NHV of 25m3 (883 ft3) per person."
from
http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/TM-2015-218564.pdfthat would mean at least 4 3-segment modules plus a node unit for the Cygnus-based hab system. The modules are only about 3 meters in diameter - kind of cramped inside once racks are installed. It is my understanding that the Cygnus hab system still needs radiation and meteorite shielding. Also, how will it be assembled - this is where the Bigelow modules might be a much better option.
-
#306
by
TrevorMonty
on 29 May, 2015 16:18
-
-
#307
by
BrightLight
on 29 May, 2015 16:26
-
Another article on this.
http://spacenews.com/nasa-developing-plans-for-human-missions-to-cislunar-space-in-2020s/
Good article
in it Smitherman says:
"The mass actually comes down a little bit as you go from a three-module set to a two-module set to a single module, even though you’re increasing volume all along the way,” he said, citing research to be published later this year."
This has been known for some time, one issue is the requirement for heavy connections between modules.
-
#308
by
jtrame
on 29 May, 2015 16:53
-
Another advantage of the modular approach from a crew safety standpoint is a damaged module can be closed off from the rest of the hab and eventually replaced. If it's configured around a central node.
-
#309
by
Endeavour_01
on 29 May, 2015 17:18
-
I like the idea of a in-production modular system for building infrastructure. That being said the NASA plans for cis-lunar space at one of the EML's is for three 60day missions with 4 astronauts. Each person is required to have 25 m^3 of volume:
"Minimum Acceptable Net Habitable Volume
Based on the characteristics and parameters of the exploration class mission defined in Mars DRM 5.0
(Drake, 2009) , the SMEs, with concurrence of the NASA representatives, recommended a minimum acceptable NHV of 25m3 (883 ft3) per person."
from http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/TM-2015-218564.pdf
that would mean at least 4 3-segment modules plus a node unit for the Cygnus-based hab system. The modules are only about 3 meters in diameter - kind of cramped inside once racks are installed. It is my understanding that the Cygnus hab system still needs radiation and meteorite shielding. Also, how will it be assembled - this is where the Bigelow modules might be a much better option.
Indeed. I can see a Cygnus derived hab module being used on an early cis-lunar mission like EM-2. It could provide more space for the crew and lengthen the mission somewhat. It also would be a good EAM for ARM. For a short term mission it makes more sense to have a cheaper and more "throw away able" module. Like you said though once you get to missions longer than a month you would need more than one Cygnus. A Bigelow module would be a good choice for a 2 month long mission. Then once you get to Mars timescale missions you want a Skylab II hab or 2 BA-330 sized hab modules.
Another advantage of the modular approach from a crew safety standpoint is a damaged module can be closed off from the rest of the hab and eventually replaced. If it's configured around a central node.
That is true but you could remedy that in a one module approach by making the "decks" sealable from each other.
-
#310
by
redliox
on 02 Jun, 2015 10:23
-
Another advantage of the modular approach from a crew safety standpoint is a damaged module can be closed off from the rest of the hab and eventually replaced. If it's configured around a central node.
Quite true, although recall what happened to Mir after a Progress ship damaged its Specktr module. They saved Mir and sealed off the module but it cut off critical power Mir needed from it, and that took a while to work around. Depending on what the entire habitat is doing, there's a chance that mistake could happen again with a modular setup. I suppose that's one advantage ISS has over Mir; it's harder to completely disable its power supply.
-
#311
by
JazzFan
on 02 Jun, 2015 17:32
-
-
#312
by
Kansan52
on 02 Jun, 2015 18:46
-
Just reviewed Bigelow's info on the B330 to refresh the memory cells.
The central axis core has all the support equipment so, once inflated and solar panels are extended, the module is outfitted. It does appear extras like the exercise equipment probably is stored and must be assembled.
The specification says equal to ISS for radiation shielding and better MMOD protection.
20 tons vs ISS 15 tons but more space, 330m cubed (33% more mass for a 210% increase in space). The two weights may be apples and oranges because (if memory serves) the ISS module is less complete when orbitted and needs additional outfitting. Plus, an ISS module would need a solar panel, thruster, and docking unit to operate seperately.
The Cygnus Enhanced appears to be 24m cubed and appx 2 tons.
-
#313
by
kkattula
on 03 Jun, 2015 15:58
-
I like the idea of larger SLS derived habitats because they provide more volume for the mass. This allows space for the crew to have easy access to equipment & utilities (power, data, ECLSS, plumbing , etc). For long durations they're going to need to be able to do routine maintenance as well as repairs.
There's sufficient room to separate crew living & working areas, from service & storage spaces. ISS is kind of a mess inside. You gotta wonder how much time they spend moving stuff to get to other stuff, then trying to find the first stuff later on.
-
#314
by
jtrame
on 03 Jun, 2015 16:34
-
Whatever concept they end up with, they need to add a Cupola for the crew. For long journeys cooped up in a habitat, it would be of psychological value to the crew.
-
#315
by
RonM
on 03 Jun, 2015 16:48
-
Just reviewed Bigelow's info on the B330 to refresh the memory cells.
The central axis core has all the support equipment so, once inflated and solar panels are extended, the module is outfitted. It does appear extras like the exercise equipment probably is stored and must be assembled.
The specification says equal to ISS for radiation shielding and better MMOD protection.
20 tons vs ISS 15 tons but more space, 330m cubed (33% more mass for a 210% increase in space). The two weights may be apples and oranges because (if memory serves) the ISS module is less complete when orbitted and needs additional outfitting. Plus, an ISS module would need a solar panel, thruster, and docking unit to operate seperately.
The Cygnus Enhanced appears to be 24m cubed and appx 2 tons.
I think a Bigelow B330 should be the main module with one or more Cygnus Enhanced vehicles bringing up additional supplies. That should be a good combination. A Cygnus Enhanced module could be outfitted as a shelter for use during solar flares or other emergencies.
-
#316
by
the_other_Doug
on 03 Jun, 2015 19:03
-
Just reviewed Bigelow's info on the B330 to refresh the memory cells.
The central axis core has all the support equipment so, once inflated and solar panels are extended, the module is outfitted. It does appear extras like the exercise equipment probably is stored and must be assembled.
The specification says equal to ISS for radiation shielding and better MMOD protection.
20 tons vs ISS 15 tons but more space, 330m cubed (33% more mass for a 210% increase in space). The two weights may be apples and oranges because (if memory serves) the ISS module is less complete when orbitted and needs additional outfitting. Plus, an ISS module would need a solar panel, thruster, and docking unit to operate seperately.
The Cygnus Enhanced appears to be 24m cubed and appx 2 tons.
I think a Bigelow B330 should be the main module with one or more Cygnus Enhanced vehicles bringing up additional supplies. That should be a good combination. A Cygnus Enhanced module could be outfitted as a shelter for use during solar flares or other emergencies.
I rather like that approach. I think something the size of a Cygnus module ought to be thought of as a "storage closet" rather than as living space. A large SLS-sized Skylab II module, or a B330-type module, as your living and working quarters, with a number of Cygnus-type storage closets attached, could make for a good BLEO exploration configuration. With an Orion and a "mission module" (Mars lander, asteroid interface module, whatever supports your particular mission) attached, of course.
-
#317
by
newpylong
on 04 Jun, 2015 12:45
-
Hope this is the right topic to post this:
http://www.orbitalatk.com/news-room/feature-stories/NEXTStep/default.aspx
My guess is that it would take three launches to complete and have around 119 M3 of pressurized volume. Just wonder how the cost of launch and capability provided compares to that of BA330/Falcon Heavy or SLS/Dry Lab.
It would be BA330/FH+F9 with some type of EDS. At 20 tons FH won't push that through TLI.
-
#318
by
A_M_Swallow
on 05 Jun, 2015 04:05
-
I think a Bigelow B330 should be the main module with one or more Cygnus Enhanced vehicles bringing up additional supplies. That should be a good combination. A Cygnus Enhanced module could be outfitted as a shelter for use during solar flares or other emergencies.
I rather like that approach. I think something the size of a Cygnus module ought to be thought of as a "storage closet" rather than as living space. A large SLS-sized Skylab II module, or a B330-type module, as your living and working quarters, with a number of Cygnus-type storage closets attached, could make for a good BLEO exploration configuration. With an Orion and a "mission module" (Mars lander, asteroid interface module, whatever supports your particular mission) attached, of course.
A Cygnus may act as a single room like a laboratory or office module. The equipment could be installed on Earth.
-
#319
by
TrevorMonty
on 11 Jun, 2015 01:24
-