-
#320
by
redliox
on 11 Jun, 2015 11:02
-
This is summary of Evolvable Mars Campaign (EMC ). Has some info on DSH, Bigelow are proposing the BA330. Plan is to place it in lunar DRO so it doesn't need any station keeping compared to EML1 or 2.
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Craig_6-10-15/
Thanks for posting! I loved the info on habitats and the Mars lander chart in particular.
As far as habs, something Cygnus-derived would suffice for quickie Lunar missions but something in the class of BA330 or the SLS tanks should be drawn on for the long term and deep space expeditions. I don't think living in either the Orion or a 'closet' that Cygnus sporadically is referred to is enough - a good start but a lil more would be better.
-
#321
by
BrightLight
on 11 Jul, 2015 15:02
-
-
#322
by
A_M_Swallow
on 11 Jul, 2015 22:39
-
-
#323
by
TrevorMonty
on 30 Jul, 2015 05:23
-
Small commonality habitat module.
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Griffin_7-29-15/This is for rovers, landers, space exploration vehicles and logistics supply modules.
The DSH is likely to use a large diameter module.
Diameter is not set in stone yet but the preference is for approx 3m which just so happens to be in Cygnus size range. This standardizing on common module size has lot of benefits. One example I can think of is Masten Xeus lunar lander, the same lander with very little modifications could be used to deliver a supply module. A rover with 2 crew for 2 week exploration mission. A taxi module for ferrying 4 or more crew to and from a lunar base.
Habitat modules for small lunar outpost.
-
#324
by
jtrame
on 30 Jul, 2015 11:06
-
Small commonality habitat module.
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Griffin_7-29-15/
This is for rovers, landers, space exploration vehicles and logistics supply modules.
Commonality between Soyuz, Progress, Zond & some Cosmos still carries on to the present day. It makes a lot of sense for many reasons.
-
#325
by
redliox
on 30 Jul, 2015 11:26
-
Small commonality habitat module.
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Griffin_7-29-15/
This is for rovers, landers, space exploration vehicles and logistics supply modules.
The DSH is likely to use a large diameter module.
Diameter is not set in stone yet but the preference is for approx 3m which just so happens to be in Cygnus size range. This standardizing on common module size has lot of benefits. One example I can think of is Masten Xeus lunar lander, the same lander with very little modifications could be used to deliver a supply module. A rover with 2 crew for 2 week exploration mission. A taxi module for ferrying 4 or more crew to and from a lunar base.
Habitat modules for small lunar outpost.
Possibly useful, but looks pretty dang cramp. I could see it performing all the Lunar, orbital, and Phobos/Deimos roles but not so much a Martian device or any form of hab (logistics yes, living space heck no). Still might be useful to develop; perhaps developing a small module first and then applying the results to a DSH-scale hab would be efficient.
-
#326
by
BrightLight
on 30 Jul, 2015 16:48
-
Small commonality habitat module.
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Griffin_7-29-15/
This is for rovers, landers, space exploration vehicles and logistics supply modules.
The DSH is likely to use a large diameter module.
Diameter is not set in stone yet but the preference is for approx 3m which just so happens to be in Cygnus size range. This standardizing on common module size has lot of benefits. One example I can think of is Masten Xeus lunar lander, the same lander with very little modifications could be used to deliver a supply module. A rover with 2 crew for 2 week exploration mission. A taxi module for ferrying 4 or more crew to and from a lunar base.
Habitat modules for small lunar outpost.
Possibly useful, but looks pretty dang cramp. I could see it performing all the Lunar, orbital, and Phobos/Deimos roles but not so much a Martian device or any form of hab (logistics yes, living space heck no). Still might be useful to develop; perhaps developing a small module first and then applying the results to a DSH-scale hab would be efficient.
I agree that the idea of small common modules for infrastructure support makes enormous sense for both manned and unmanned utility/exploration vehicles. However, for habitation, they are sub-par, each person requires 25^3 m for modest duration, so a long-term habitation module should be somewhat larger. The MSFC Cis-Lunar DRM calls for three 60 day missions with up to 6 astronauts.
-
#327
by
Coastal Ron
on 30 Jul, 2015 17:10
-
Small commonality habitat module.
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Griffin_7-29-15/
This is for rovers, landers, space exploration vehicles and logistics supply modules.
Most of which are disposable, which is not optimal - the main reason we're not out beyond LEO is because of the cost of going beyond LEO, so unless we transition to a more reusable hardware architecture I doubt we'll be able to afford any sustained BEO operations.
The DSH is likely to use a large diameter module.
I did like in the report where they highlighted the benefits and challenges of standardization, but there will be different needs for different environments.
Diameter is not set in stone yet but the preference is for approx 3m which just so happens to be in Cygnus size range.
In the report the use of 3m structures didn't look like they were for living spaces, just access points.
This standardizing on common module size has lot of benefits.
We've tried standardization on the ISS and it works, but our future plans are ambiguous at best.
If we're serious about leaving LEO with humans, we need to have all interested parties (i.e. NASA, industry, science, academia, etc.) to work out the standards we'll use. However I don't see any interest or support for doing this, especially from Congress, which currently is only focused on sending lots of mass places, not in what the mass is. That's backwards to me.
-
#328
by
Mark S
on 30 Jul, 2015 19:05
-
The slide that shows 15 LEMs produced over a four year period, with four never been flown, is both encouraging and depressing. Encouraging, because it shows what we can do when we set our minds to it. And depressing because it shows the short-sightedness that more than a quarter of those built were not flown, and because I don't see any sign of that kind of programmatic boldness in the current political reality.
Regarding the common module proposed, I think 3m diameter would be about right for ascent/descent/hopper modules, but I also agree that it would be cramped for long-term hab modules. Especially if the core unit is 3m diameter but only 2m long.
In the report the use of 3m structures didn't look like they were for living spaces, just access points.
Just access points? No, 3m is the notional diameter for the main unit. Not sure where you got that.
Mark S.
-
#329
by
Coastal Ron
on 30 Jul, 2015 21:15
-
The slide that shows 15 LEMs produced over a four year period, with four never been flown, is both encouraging and depressing. Encouraging, because it shows what we can do when we set our minds to it. And depressing because it shows the short-sightedness that more than a quarter of those built were not flown, and because I don't see any sign of that kind of programmatic boldness in the current political reality.
According to the chart you are referencing, we only needed five to fulfill the goal of the Apollo program to "
landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth", so the rest were bonus/excess. Of course you would always build some extra until you validate the design, and luckily the program was allowed to "consume" the extra by adding more flights past Apollo 11.
But as to "
programmatic boldness in the current political reality", we don't have a political need today like we had during Apollo, and even for the ISS.
Which should be a lesson for those that think Congress is going to be opening the spigot on space exploration anytime soon. Without a clearly identified ROI (i.e. beat the USSR, employ Russian engineers, etc.), it is difficult to keep a large funding stream going that takes years to pay off - especially when the payoff is not part of taxpayers daily lives.
In the report the use of 3m structures didn't look like they were for living spaces, just access points.
Just access points? No, 3m is the notional diameter for the main unit. Not sure where you got that.
Slide 25 shows people in suits, and the slide is labeled as "Crew Anthropometry and Equipment Location" and "Suitport End Dome". That to me is access points for ingress/egress, not examples of sleeping quarters or work spaces.
-
#330
by
Mark S
on 30 Jul, 2015 21:31
-
In the report the use of 3m structures didn't look like they were for living spaces, just access points.
Just access points? No, 3m is the notional diameter for the main unit. Not sure where you got that.
Slide 25 shows people in suits, and the slide is labeled as "Crew Anthropometry and Equipment Location" and "Suitport End Dome". That to me is access points for ingress/egress, not examples of sleeping quarters or work spaces.
Slide page 28 "Small Cabin Common Pressure Vessel" shows 3m inside diameter cabin. Page 27 shows various end caps, with dimensioned 0.5m plain/window cap, 1.0m suit lock, and 1.3m airlock caps. Barrel length is not dimensioned anywhere, but I get 2m when using suit lock as baseline.
If you look at page 25 again, you will see that they are comparing various cabin diameters for best compromise of fit and function. They opt for 3m diameter, as shown by the blue highlight boxes.
Mark S.
-
#331
by
TrevorMonty
on 30 Jul, 2015 22:32
-
The common end modules ( hatches, windows , suit lockers) could also be used with larger (4.5m?) modules for long duration/ permanent habitats.
These small 3m modules are only intended for short durations, 14 days in case of rover. EAM is 60 day when docked with an Orion.
-
#332
by
Burninate
on 30 Jul, 2015 22:48
-
I don't understand why anyone would want to build smaller than the ISS USOS modules, at 4.2-4.5m diameter. That permits an ISPR rack at roughly 1m x 1m x 2m on each of four sides, and then a 2.1m x 2.1m square cross section living space inside of those racks, with utilities routed through the gaps. One ISPR rack can hold a life support system, an experiment rack, or a sleeping quarters. Racks can be installed or switched out in a modular fashion as the mission requires.
Put another way: I don't think it's the case that space gets cheaper as you divide a minimal mission for a small crew up into a higher number of identical modules. I think space gets cheaper per person and per volume as the crew & the mission gets bigger, both through more modules and also larger modules, with more missions as another option.
-
#333
by
RonM
on 30 Jul, 2015 23:14
-
I don't understand why anyone would want to build smaller than the ISS USOS modules, at 4.2-4.5m diameter. That permits an ISPR rack at roughly 1m x 1m x 2m on each of four sides, and then a 2.1m x 2.1m square cross section living space inside of those racks, with utilities routed through the gaps. One ISPR rack can hold a life support system, an experiment rack, or a sleeping quarters. Racks can be installed or switched out in a modular fashion as the mission requires.
Put another way: I don't think it's the case that space gets cheaper as you divide a minimal mission for a small crew up into a higher number of identical modules. I think space gets cheaper per person and per volume as the crew & the mission gets bigger, both through more modules and also larger modules, with more missions as another option.
ISS USOS sized modules would be good, but they're heavy. Destiny is about 14.5 tonne. Since you'd have to add some sort of bus to it to maneuver it once in orbit, it would take FH or SLS to launch it.
Keeping modules Cygnus sized means they can be launched by more modest launch vehicles. Someone would have to run the numbers to see which is less expensive, few big launches or many smaller ones.
-
#334
by
Coastal Ron
on 31 Jul, 2015 00:17
-
ISS USOS sized modules would be good, but they're heavy. Destiny is about 14.5 tonne. Since you'd have to add some sort of bus to it to maneuver it once in orbit, it would take FH or SLS to launch it.
If we're talking about delivery to LEO, then add Delta IV Heavy, Atlas V, Vulcan, Ariane 5/6, JAXA H-IIB...
However I think if the intended destination is beyond LEO, then they might make the sections out of some sort of non-metallic material that has less harmful secondary radiation effects than aluminum has. NASA has talked about plastic as being more deep space friendly, but who knows how that would affect weight.
I do like the module construction in the study, which could greatly reduce costs.
Keeping modules Cygnus sized means they can be launched by more modest launch vehicles. Someone would have to run the numbers to see which is less expensive, few big launches or many smaller ones.
We have a lot of options for launching 4.2m diameter modules, as I listed above, so I don't see that as a limitation. That said, Cygnus itself is a pretty intriguing vehicle, and there might indeed be some specific uses for customized Pressurized Cargo Modules (PCM). Plus the Cygnus Service Module (SM) could be used as a tug for the 4.2m modules too.
-
#335
by
sdsds
on 31 Jul, 2015 03:32
-
This commonality standard looks to be in competition with the Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle standard. Am I misunderstanding that? How do they compare? Regarding MMSEV, see for example:
An Alternate Configuration of the Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D.
Habitability and Human Factors Branch
NASA Johnson Space Center
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140004223.pdf
-
#336
by
A_M_Swallow
on 31 Jul, 2015 03:50
-
Small commonality habitat module.
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Griffin_7-29-15/
This is for rovers, landers, space exploration vehicles and logistics supply modules.
The DSH is likely to use a large diameter module.
Diameter is not set in stone yet but the preference is for approx 3m which just so happens to be in Cygnus size range. This standardizing on common module size has lot of benefits. One example I can think of is Masten Xeus lunar lander, the same lander with very little modifications could be used to deliver a supply module. A rover with 2 crew for 2 week exploration mission. A taxi module for ferrying 4 or more crew to and from a lunar base.
Habitat modules for small lunar outpost.
Possibly useful, but looks pretty dang cramp. I could see it performing all the Lunar, orbital, and Phobos/Deimos roles but not so much a Martian device or any form of hab (logistics yes, living space heck no). Still might be useful to develop; perhaps developing a small module first and then applying the results to a DSH-scale hab would be efficient.
That makes sense. Like most people in the UK my car is smaller than my bedroom.
-
#337
by
A_M_Swallow
on 31 Jul, 2015 05:22
-
Small commonality habitat module.
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Griffin_7-29-15/
This is for rovers, landers, space exploration vehicles and logistics supply modules.
The DSH is likely to use a large diameter module.
Diameter is not set in stone yet but the preference is for approx 3m which just so happens to be in Cygnus size range. This standardizing on common module size has lot of benefits. One example I can think of is Masten Xeus lunar lander, the same lander with very little modifications could be used to deliver a supply module. A rover with 2 crew for 2 week exploration mission. A taxi module for ferrying 4 or more crew to and from a lunar base.
Habitat modules for small lunar outpost.
There are similar advantages to commonality between Mars and lunar equipment. Gravity and temperature range are different which effects transport and temperature handling. However the insides of the modules doing the same job can be the same.
Two to three week trips may prefer longer modules for storage space and to allow the astronauts to lie down. However that length has not been fixed yet.
Larger lunar and Mars bases may have commonality with spacestations and transfer vehicles. None of which have to take-off again after deployment.
-
#338
by
BrightLight
on 31 Jul, 2015 17:53
-
This commonality standard looks to be in competition with the Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle standard. Am I misunderstanding that? How do they compare? Regarding MMSEV, see for example:
An Alternate Configuration of the Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle
Robert L. Howard, Jr., Ph.D.
Habitability and Human Factors Branch
NASA Johnson Space Center
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140004223.pdf
I would agree that there appears to be a competition between the MMSEV and the EMC small common vehicle (EMCSCV - my designation). The published cost analysis does not show very much difference between the two concepts, in fact it appears that the MMSEV approach might be a little less costly. However, the MMSEV wont be able to land on Mars while the MAV can be used in place of the MMSEV - this suggests that if multiple missions to Mars are attempted then the EMCSCV might show a cost savings with similar capability.
-
#339
by
sdsds
on 06 Aug, 2015 06:19
-
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Griffin_7-29-15/
Possibly useful, but looks pretty dang cramp. I could see it performing all the Lunar, orbital, and Phobos/Deimos roles but not so much a Martian device or any form of hab (logistics yes, living space heck no).
I agree a 3 m diameter is small, especially because the presentation doesn't provide much detail about the "internal secondary structure" that might be needed. Maybe they reduce the need for much of that compared with e.g. International Space Station node modules (which are very roughly similar) by eliminating the radial ports? Still, compare what they show to this cutaway diagram showing how much secondary structure Unity needed....
(Image from
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110013394.pdf.)