-
#340
by
Patchouli
on 06 Aug, 2015 16:51
-
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.
Much too small for station modules but maybe about right for short duration missions though the SEV also fills this niche.
-
#341
by
TrevorMonty
on 01 Nov, 2015 12:59
-
-
#342
by
Paul451
on 01 Nov, 2015 14:54
-
Deep Resonant Orbit (DRO)
Doesn't DRO usually refer to a distant retrograde orbit? What's a "deep resonant orbit"?
-
#343
by
TrevorMonty
on 01 Nov, 2015 16:53
-
-
#344
by
Robotbeat
on 05 Nov, 2015 03:29
-
Can't it be both?
Anyway, I listened in to the (public) teleconference today. NASA hasn't made a decision on whether to do a big monolithic habitat or a bunch of modular ones. But they have talked about a small volume habitat that can serve multiple roles, such as a pressurized rover, ascent vehicle volume, etc.
-
#345
by
RonM
on 05 Nov, 2015 05:03
-
Can't it be both?
Anyway, I listened in to the (public) teleconference today. NASA hasn't made a decision on whether to do a big monolithic habitat or a bunch of modular ones. But they have talked about a small volume habitat that can serve multiple roles, such as a pressurized rover, ascent vehicle volume, etc.
Standardizing on a common small volume habitat shared between different roles is a good way to keep costs down.
-
#346
by
redliox
on 10 Nov, 2015 20:30
-
Can't it be both?
Anyway, I listened in to the (public) teleconference today. NASA hasn't made a decision on whether to do a big monolithic habitat or a bunch of modular ones. But they have talked about a small volume habitat that can serve multiple roles, such as a pressurized rover, ascent vehicle volume, etc.
Standardizing on a common small volume habitat shared between different roles is a good way to keep costs down.
Isn't it more a matter of standardizing the life support system? Considering the total ISS volume could be matched by a single-launch DSH/Skylab 2...well why not just put the same (modernized naturally) systems on board? The only difference is you'd put the same amount of equipment into a single module instead of several; from the POV of power there's no difference and thermally it's easier to handle one large module instead of several tiny ones.
The only trouble I'd see with using a large module might be structural, depending on whether they incorporate the craft into the rocket or encase it all in a shroud.
-
#347
by
A_M_Swallow
on 10 Nov, 2015 20:58
-
Can't it be both?
Anyway, I listened in to the (public) teleconference today. NASA hasn't made a decision on whether to do a big monolithic habitat or a bunch of modular ones. But they have talked about a small volume habitat that can serve multiple roles, such as a pressurized rover, ascent vehicle volume, etc.
Standardizing on a common small volume habitat shared between different roles is a good way to keep costs down.
Isn't it more a matter of standardizing the life support system? Considering the total ISS volume could be matched by a single-launch DSH/Skylab 2...well why not just put the same (modernized naturally) systems on board? The only difference is you'd put the same amount of equipment into a single module instead of several; from the POV of power there's no difference and thermally it's easier to handle one large module instead of several tiny ones.
The only trouble I'd see with using a large module might be structural, depending on whether they incorporate the craft into the rocket or encase it all in a shroud.
You may have quoted the wrong post.
On these missions we are not going to have rovers the size of the International Space Station driving around on the surface of the Moon and Mars. However the camper van sized rovers may be able to use the same standardised life support design as the Orion and the landers.
-
#348
by
Coastal Ron
on 10 Nov, 2015 21:11
-
...well why not just put the same (modernized naturally) systems on board? The only difference is you'd put the same amount of equipment into a single module instead of several; from the POV of power there's no difference and thermally it's easier to handle one large module instead of several tiny ones.
One downside is that you would lose redundancy. What if the single, large ECLSS broke down? Until we perfect life support systems, and they are as close to 100% dependable as we can make them (which they aren't today), having multiple systems would seem to make more sense.
-
#349
by
Paul451
on 11 Nov, 2015 00:45
-
The only difference is you'd put the same amount of equipment into a single module instead of several;
One downside is that you would lose redundancy. What if the single, large ECLSS broke down?
Isn't Redilox suggesting each ECLSS unit would be the same size, you'd just have a bunch in a single large module, rather than one-each in smaller modules? So you'd still have precisely the same redundancy for anything short of a hull breach.
-
#350
by
sdsds
on 11 Nov, 2015 04:35
-
Standardizing on a common small volume habitat shared between different roles is a good way to keep costs down.
Isn't it more a matter of standardizing the life support
By life support do you mean the air and water processing units? I think it's more than that, particularly for small vehicles. There need to be paths for heat dissipation from electronics, as one example, and those vary as the size and shape of the pressure vessel change. Paths for air flow is another obvious example. There are likely more!
These are the reasons why designing a new habitable volume by starting with an existing design and making only minimal tweaks would be attractive. Thus the Lockheed Martin proposal for its "kissing Orions" (Plymouth Rock) mission.
-
#351
by
Coastal Ron
on 11 Nov, 2015 04:59
-
These are the reasons why designing a new habitable volume by starting with an existing design and making only minimal tweaks would be attractive.
That would be an argument for using ISS modules then.
Thus the Lockheed Martin proposal for its "kissing Orions" (Plymouth Rock) mission.
The Orion is already a marginal design from a weight standpoint, so adding more requirements on it doesn't make sense. Keeping the habitat separate from the transportation to the habitat means neither has to be compromised.
-
#352
by
Endeavour_01
on 11 Nov, 2015 05:11
-
Keeping the habitat separate from the transportation to the habitat means neither has to be compromised.
In this case we are in complete agreement Coastal. It makes more sense to develop a hab whose only job is habitation vs. the "kissing Orions." I would also extend that to habs on a long duration mission vs. a short duration mission
Like redliox I am a big fan of a Skylab II DSH. IMO a Skylab II is what is needed for long duration missions to Mars and or a lunar space station. It is less massive and less complicated than ISS and needs much less if any assembly in space. For short duration missions to DRO, however, a small EAM derived from say Cygnus will work just fine. There is no need for a one size fits all approach.
-
#353
by
redliox
on 11 Nov, 2015 05:40
-
The only difference is you'd put the same amount of equipment into a single module instead of several;
One downside is that you would lose redundancy. What if the single, large ECLSS broke down?
Isn't Redilox suggesting each ECLSS unit would be the same size, you'd just have a bunch in a single large module, rather than one-each in smaller modules? So you'd still have precisely the same redundancy for anything short of a hull breach.
You are correct Paul. The ISS, or any other spacecraft I'd hope, doesn't run on a single filter or generator, but a series that operate independently and redundantly...at least ideally. Instead of 2 or 3 units inside 2 or 3 separate modules, put the 2 or 3 ECLSS units inside different parts of the same module. That's indeed what I was stating.
Once again, there's minimal difference whether you use four little modules or one large one (from a system requirement POV), but since we're no longer bound by the shuttle's tight fuselage there's no harm in going big so long as you stay within launch vehicle capability. Screw sardine cans...I want a full-body-tuna can!
-
#354
by
TrevorMonty
on 11 Nov, 2015 08:27
-
Once again, there's minimal difference whether you use four little modules or one large one (from a system requirement POV), but since we're no longer bound by the shuttle's tight fuselage there's no harm in going big so long as you stay within launch vehicle capability. Screw sardine cans...I want a full-body-tuna can!
A modular approach means they can deliver each module with SLS during a crew mission, as DSH grows so does mission length. Also there is no large outlay for one large single DSH which would require a dedicated SLS launch.
The build cost of the modules gets spread over multiple years, if there are budget cuts NASA still has destination even if mission length maybe cut.
Assembly maybe something like this.
Module 1) EAM with open loop ECLSS
Module 2) Closed loop ECLSS
Module 3) Lab.
-
#355
by
redliox
on 11 Nov, 2015 09:04
-
A modular approach means they can deliver each module with SLS during a crew mission, as DSH grows so does mission length. Also there is no large outlay for one large single DSH which would require a dedicated SLS launch.
The build cost of the modules gets spread over multiple years, if there are budget cuts NASA still has destination even if mission length maybe cut.
Assembly maybe something like this.
Module 1) EAM with open loop ECLSS
Module 2) Closed loop ECLSS
Module 3) Lab.
My suggestion: combine modules 1 and 3 into one for a single launch and launch module 2 later. The SLS can lift alot but it won't be available often - hence why it may be wiser to condense assembly and flights. I suspect there could be a lot of competition for payloads to SLS simply because maybe 2 a year can be built, and 1 of those will almost always be an Orion flight.
-
#356
by
pathfinder_01
on 11 Nov, 2015 19:33
-
Assembly maybe something like this.
Module 1) EAM with open loop ECLSS
Module 2) Closed loop ECLSS
Module 3) Lab.
Nah in the case of the ISS, it's upgrades to the life were delivered by the Shuttle(or other Cargo Craft) in pieces to be installed by the crew. The Russian life support was simply pre-installed. The US system had parts that were installed after launch.
IMHO any modern space station is going to need cargo craft. The great thing about the ISS is the modularity allows life support to be upgraded because it was built to be assembled and serviced on Orbit. No need for separate modules for that if you have Cargo Craft capable of reaching the station and carrying the pieces. Part of the system were tested on board shuttle, just as parts of any upgrades or even parts of the station could be tested aboard the ISS or other LEO station.
Small modules are much better from an commercialization point of view(i.e. something that can fit on commercial launcher without being limited to SLS.). i.e. Can sell one for LEO and or deep space. They also are very much capable of hosting an crew with limited assembly(the Salyuts, Mir, Russian side of the ISS).
-
#357
by
Coastal Ron
on 11 Nov, 2015 21:35
-
Once again, there's minimal difference whether you use four little modules or one large one (from a system requirement POV), but since we're no longer bound by the shuttle's tight fuselage there's no harm in going big so long as you stay within launch vehicle capability.
Maybe that can be said from a functional standpoint, but it can't be said from an industrial base standpoint. 5m diameter modules can be built anywhere in the world and moved by ground or air - as well as be launched by a fleet of international launchers. Modules that are larger can only be moved by water over long distances, which limits the industrial base that can be utilized, and that affects the overall costs.
And money has to be a primary consideration for whatever we do in space.
-
#358
by
Burninate
on 12 Nov, 2015 01:02
-
Once again, there's minimal difference whether you use four little modules or one large one (from a system requirement POV), but since we're no longer bound by the shuttle's tight fuselage there's no harm in going big so long as you stay within launch vehicle capability.
Maybe that can be said from a functional standpoint, but it can't be said from an industrial base standpoint. 5m diameter modules can be built anywhere in the world and moved by ground or air - as well as be launched by a fleet of international launchers. Modules that are larger can only be moved by water over long distances, which limits the industrial base that can be utilized, and that affects the overall costs.
And money has to be a primary consideration for whatever we do in space.
My impression was that the cutoff for routine road & rail transport was ~14ft, about 4.25m, with practical fully encumbered numbers being more like 3.5-3.8m. Falcon 9 is spoken of as the thing they built as large as possible which still fits on the freeway system.
-
#359
by
Coastal Ron
on 12 Nov, 2015 02:01
-
My impression was that the cutoff for routine road & rail transport was ~14ft, about 4.25m, with practical fully encumbered numbers being more like 3.5-3.8m. Falcon 9 is spoken of as the thing they built as large as possible which still fits on the freeway system.
You're right. I was generalizing too much. The ISS modules like Destiny are 4.2m in diameter, and that is close to the largest you can transport by road or by air (I think the C-5C can carry Shuttle sized 4.6m diameter payloads).
So once you get above the size of existing ISS modules you have to rely on factories that have water access. And while there are probably a number of those that could do space hardware if needed (and some might already do space hardware), it eliminates the already existing ones not with water access that already do space hardware - it reduces choice/competition.
