-
#40
by
MATTBLAK
on 15 Jul, 2012 10:14
-
Having read about the design of the Deep Space Hab and vehicles, I see the radiation protection rating of them is to be 11cm/gm2. Is this going to be enough protection against major solar flares?
-
#41
by
clongton
on 15 Jul, 2012 11:18
-
The tunnel air lock would worry me because it would cut you off from supplies in the other part of the ship.
That would worry me as well because it makes the airlock a single-point failure. It could potentially be catastrophic for the mission and crew. It would be far better to have an isolated airlock that didn't cut the spacecraft in half.
-
#42
by
MATTBLAK
on 15 Jul, 2012 11:25
-
Perhaps they should come up with a derivative of the small, Pirs docking module built by Russia for ISS? It masses about 3.5 tons and is about the same size as a front Soyuz orbital module.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirs_(ISS_module)
-
#43
by
RocketmanUS
on 15 Jul, 2012 16:30
-
-
#44
by
Lars_J
on 15 Jul, 2012 19:05
-
The tunnel air lock would worry me because it would cut you off from supplies in the other part of the ship.
That would worry me as well because it makes the airlock a single-point failure. It could potentially be catastrophic for the mission and crew. It would be far better to have an isolated airlock that didn't cut the spacecraft in half.
I agree.
Another concern of mine is the suit-lock idea for the MMSEV. Are they imagining two EVA suits permanently attached on the outside of the craft for the 500 day journey? It seems like the EVA suits would require significant redesign to be able to be stored on the outside of a craft for such an extended time. The suit lock idea seems to have a lot of merit for a dusty planetary environment - but it would seem better to have a real airlock (or depress the entire cabin if only a few of 2).
-
#45
by
RocketmanUS
on 15 Jul, 2012 19:40
-
The tunnel air lock would worry me because it would cut you off from supplies in the other part of the ship.
That would worry me as well because it makes the airlock a single-point failure. It could potentially be catastrophic for the mission and crew. It would be far better to have an isolated airlock that didn't cut the spacecraft in half.
I agree.
Another concern of mine is the suit-lock idea for the MMSEV. Are they imagining two EVA suits permanently attached on the outside of the craft for the 500 day journey? It seems like the EVA suits would require significant redesign to be able to be stored on the outside of a craft for such an extended time. The suit lock idea seems to have a lot of merit for a dusty planetary environment - but it would seem better to have a real airlock (or depress the entire cabin if only a few of 2).
I one of the pictures they had a cover that went over the suit ports ( at least for the land version ).
-
#46
by
A_M_Swallow
on 15 Jul, 2012 21:13
-
{snip}
Another concern of mine is the suit-lock idea for the MMSEV. Are they imagining two EVA suits permanently attached on the outside of the craft for the 500 day journey? It seems like the EVA suits would require significant redesign to be able to be stored on the outside of a craft for such an extended time. The suit lock idea seems to have a lot of merit for a dusty planetary environment - but it would seem better to have a real airlock (or depress the entire cabin if only a few of 2).
I one of the pictures they had a cover that went over the suit ports ( at least for the land version ).
Is the cover air tight? A dust cover may only be rain proof.
-
#47
by
RocketmanUS
on 15 Jul, 2012 21:30
-
{snip}
Another concern of mine is the suit-lock idea for the MMSEV. Are they imagining two EVA suits permanently attached on the outside of the craft for the 500 day journey? It seems like the EVA suits would require significant redesign to be able to be stored on the outside of a craft for such an extended time. The suit lock idea seems to have a lot of merit for a dusty planetary environment - but it would seem better to have a real airlock (or depress the entire cabin if only a few of 2).
I one of the pictures they had a cover that went over the suit ports ( at least for the land version ).
Is the cover air tight? A dust cover may only be rain proof.
On the moon there is no air. Cover just needs to keep out the dust and small particles. In space , keep out small particles and objects.
-
#48
by
A_M_Swallow
on 15 Jul, 2012 21:50
-
{snip}
Another concern of mine is the suit-lock idea for the MMSEV. Are they imagining two EVA suits permanently attached on the outside of the craft for the 500 day journey? It seems like the EVA suits would require significant redesign to be able to be stored on the outside of a craft for such an extended time. The suit lock idea seems to have a lot of merit for a dusty planetary environment - but it would seem better to have a real airlock (or depress the entire cabin if only a few of 2).
I one of the pictures they had a cover that went over the suit ports ( at least for the land version ).
Is the cover air tight? A dust cover may only be rain proof.
On the moon there is no air. Cover just needs to keep out the dust and small particles. In space , keep out small particles and objects.
"On the Moon there is no air." - Except inside the rover. The air tight seal would be there to keep the air
in. This is a back up to the suit lock.
-
#49
by
RocketmanUS
on 15 Jul, 2012 22:42
-
{snip}
Another concern of mine is the suit-lock idea for the MMSEV. Are they imagining two EVA suits permanently attached on the outside of the craft for the 500 day journey? It seems like the EVA suits would require significant redesign to be able to be stored on the outside of a craft for such an extended time. The suit lock idea seems to have a lot of merit for a dusty planetary environment - but it would seem better to have a real airlock (or depress the entire cabin if only a few of 2).
I one of the pictures they had a cover that went over the suit ports ( at least for the land version ).
Is the cover air tight? A dust cover may only be rain proof.
On the moon there is no air. Cover just needs to keep out the dust and small particles. In space , keep out small particles and objects.
"On the Moon there is no air." - Except inside the rover. The air tight seal would be there to keep the air in. This is a back up to the suit lock.
I see your point.
Don't know if it is are tight as a back up or not. If it does not add to much mass that would be a good idea to have the cover air tight. Should be no problem in making it that way, at least as a back up. Even if it did not totally stop the air from leaking it could then slow down the loss rate long enough to seal the leak from the inside of the crew cabin.
-
#50
by
pathfinder_01
on 15 Jul, 2012 23:56
-
I agree.
Another concern of mine is the suit-lock idea for the MMSEV. Are they imagining two EVA suits permanently attached on the outside of the craft for the 500 day journey? It seems like the EVA suits would require significant redesign to be able to be stored on the outside of a craft for such an extended time. The suit lock idea seems to have a lot of merit for a dusty planetary environment - but it would seem better to have a real airlock (or depress the entire cabin if only a few of 2).
The DSH and MMSEV would be used for an astriod mission so you would need protetion from dust. Also with suit locks you still need a real airlock for back up and to allow you to take stuff inside and out. The idea of the suitlock is to keep the outside out.
Depressing the cabin is the least flexable way to do it. I makes all crew memebers need to use a space suit or head to a part of the spacecraft that is airtight. For the MMSEV not bad idea perhaps as you could design it in.
-
#51
by
spectre9
on 16 Jul, 2012 02:56
-
Here's the back covering for the old style LER.
But is keeping dust out really important?
It makes me wonder how much lunar dust there is in those Apollo command modules and if it caused any problem at all on any mission.
-
#52
by
pathfinder_01
on 16 Jul, 2012 03:12
-
Here's the back covering for the old style LER.
But is keeping dust out really important?
It makes me wonder how much lunar dust there is in those Apollo command modules and if it caused any problem at all on any mission.
Yes, they complained of sneazing. The dust also scracthed up the glass of the space suit helmit. It has some toxic properties and really not good for breathing or the equipment inside(i.e. it can clog things up).
Apollo was a short mission, they only spent a very little time on the moon. Longer missions would be spending more time on the moon, mars, or an NEO could be more problematic.
-
#53
by
manboy
on 16 Jul, 2012 04:44
-
Here's the back covering for the old style LER.
But is keeping dust out really important?
Lunar regolith sticks to everything and is toxic to humans, although the Apollo astronauts weren't exposed enough to cause any permanent damage. The dust can also prevent a proper seal.
-
#54
by
BrightLight
on 01 Aug, 2012 14:56
-
-
#55
by
BrightLight
on 08 Nov, 2012 19:31
-
-
#56
by
ChileVerde
on 08 Nov, 2012 20:46
-
-
#57
by
BrightLight
on 08 Nov, 2012 21:17
-
attached is a document with full NASA briefs on the DSH as of 12/2011
I don't recall this being posted before.
Also attached is a sensitivity analysis for DSH radiation issues - its not pretty.
-
#58
by
woods170
on 09 Nov, 2012 07:48
-
attached is a document with full NASA briefs on the DSH as of 12/2011
I don't recall this being posted before.
Also attached is a sensitivity analysis for DSH radiation issues - its not pretty.
Ouch! The exposure chart for previous missions (page 18) shows very clearly that ISS astronauts have gone right up to the 150mSv lifetime limit. That would probably explain why some US astronauts are banned from flying in the proposed full-year missions to ISS.
And the remainder of the document is sobering as well. Some of the proposed NEA missions will go way over the imposed lifetime radiation limit. No wonder the document opens with the statement that limiting the amount of exposure to Galactic Cosmic Radiation (GCR) is "the sound-barrier to break" before real BEO exploration can take place.
-
#59
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 09 Nov, 2012 11:08
-
[No wonder the document opens with the statement that limiting the amount of exposure to Galactic Cosmic Radiation (GCR) is "the sound-barrier to break" before real BEO exploration can take place.
It's clear that it's the elephant sitting in the middle of the room.
IMHO, as no-one is seriously talking about an aircraft-carrier-sized DSH with most of its mass made up of shielding, it makes the EML spacelab even more important. That would allow for testing of mitigation methods and technologies in the BEO environment but also with an easy Earth return in the event of an emergency. The NEO missions simply wouldn't provide that.
[edit]
Just an additional point: This is only going to be possible if there is a standing rule of: "Nothing is unthinkable". Flying with huge unfurling sun-shades (as on JWST)? Composite-hulled inflatable habs with a water layer on the inside? It's clear that this is a big unknown area and it's going to take a lot of effort (and money - horror of horrors!) to fix.
