I just had a (perhaps) crazy idea:Use the proposed independent BA-330 module as a lifeboat for ISS instead of Soyuz and the commercial crew vehicles. As BA-330 is designed with ECLSS for 6 astronauts long-term, you could use the hab as a short-term lifeboat for a doubled ISS crew of 12, some who would be working in the Bigelow module. If there's a problem with Station, the crew would evacuate to the Bigelow module and separate from station. The crew could return to Earth at their leisure instead of in a huge hurry. Or, the disaster could be averted and the crew could return to Station.Here's why it wouldn't be a dumb idea to use a non-reentry-vehicle as a lifeboat:1) Apollo 13 used the LM as a "lifeboat."2) On a trip to Mars, you also can't rely on just aborting straight to Earth all the time (though that would be feasible for individual astronauts as you'd keep some crew return vehicles on Station).3) Shuttle relied on abort-to-Station after return-to-flight, and in such a situation there wouldn't be enough reentry seats for everyone, they would've had to sit-tight on Station until more return vehicles arrived, just like in this scenario. This was deemed acceptable.It's an unorthodox idea, but it could allow much more crew time. You would need more supplies (and/or better recycling/reuse), but you could instead extend the length of the crew stays and use the same number of crew launches, thus allowing a much improved cost efficiency. You'd also gather data for longer-term spaceflight missions....though no doubt NASA would find this too risky.
In the original space station design, emergencies were intended to be dealt with by having a "safe area" on the station that the crew could evacuate to, pending a rescue from a U.S. Space Shuttle. However, the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and the subsequent grounding of the shuttle fleet caused station planners to rethink this concept.[1] Planners foresaw the need for a CRV to address three specific scenarios: Crew return if a space shuttle or Soyuz capsule was unavailable; An escape vehicle from a major time-critical space station emergency; Full or partial crew return in case of a medical emergency.[2]
I just had a (perhaps) crazy idea:Use the proposed independent BA-330 module as a lifeboat for ISS instead of Soyuz and the commercial crew vehicles. As BA-330 is designed with ECLSS for 6 astronauts long-term, you could use the hab as a short-term lifeboat for a doubled ISS crew of 12, some who would be working in the Bigelow module. If there's a problem with Station, the crew would evacuate to the Bigelow module and separate from station. The crew could return to Earth at their leisure instead of in a huge hurry. Or, the disaster could be averted and the crew could return to Station.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Return_VehicleNo, bad idea.
The CRVs are needed to return to Earth if there is a severe, life threatening, medical emergency.
Quote from: fredinno on 04/12/2016 05:36 amhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Return_VehicleNo, bad idea. A little harsh for a first post, especially since you completely missed what the point of the BA330 was for - to NOT return back to Earth immediately.QuoteThe CRVs are needed to return to Earth if there is a severe, life threatening, medical emergency.The CRV doesn't exist. But if a crew member had to leave the ISS for medical reasons they could take the Soyuz or Commercial Crew vehicle that they arrived in. This is not the situation Robotbeat was talking about - he was talking about a situation where the crew was not injured but had to evacuate the ISS for some reason.
I just had a (perhaps) crazy idea:Use the proposed independent BA-330 module as a lifeboat for ISS instead of Soyuz and the commercial crew vehicles. As BA-330 is designed with ECLSS for 6 astronauts long-term, you could use the hab as a short-term lifeboat for a doubled ISS crew of 12, some who would be working in the Bigelow moduleSnip...though no doubt NASA would find this too risky.
Excellent idea. This line of thinking is yet another reason why I never saw a need for the Orion to be a lifeboat for any reason - especially for the Mars missions you mentioned.
Because you don't understand the conop.
Orion is the crew delivery vehicle, crew return vehicle, safe haven (not a life boat) and backup command center.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/12/2016 01:31 amI just had a (perhaps) crazy idea:Use the proposed independent BA-330 module as a lifeboat for ISS instead of Soyuz and the commercial crew vehicles. As BA-330 is designed with ECLSS for 6 astronauts long-term, you could use the hab as a short-term lifeboat for a doubled ISS crew of 12, some who would be working in the Bigelow module. If there's a problem with Station, the crew would evacuate to the Bigelow module and separate from station. The crew could return to Earth at their leisure instead of in a huge hurry. Or, the disaster could be averted and the crew could return to Station.Here's why it wouldn't be a dumb idea to use a non-reentry-vehicle as a lifeboat:1) Apollo 13 used the LM as a "lifeboat."2) On a trip to Mars, you also can't rely on just aborting straight to Earth all the time (though that would be feasible for individual astronauts as you'd keep some crew return vehicles on Station).3) Shuttle relied on abort-to-Station after return-to-flight, and in such a situation there wouldn't be enough reentry seats for everyone, they would've had to sit-tight on Station until more return vehicles arrived, just like in this scenario. This was deemed acceptable.It's an unorthodox idea, but it could allow much more crew time. You would need more supplies (and/or better recycling/reuse), but you could instead extend the length of the crew stays and use the same number of crew launches, thus allowing a much improved cost efficiency. You'd also gather data for longer-term spaceflight missions....though no doubt NASA would find this too risky.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Return_VehicleNo, bad idea. QuoteIn the original space station design, emergencies were intended to be dealt with by having a "safe area" on the station that the crew could evacuate to, pending a rescue from a U.S. Space Shuttle. However, the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and the subsequent grounding of the shuttle fleet caused station planners to rethink this concept.[1] Planners foresaw the need for a CRV to address three specific scenarios: Crew return if a space shuttle or Soyuz capsule was unavailable; An escape vehicle from a major time-critical space station emergency; Full or partial crew return in case of a medical emergency.[2]The CRVs are needed to return to Earth if there is a severe, life threatening, medical emergency. A person in that scenario would die in a BA-330 ISS lifeboat. It will almost certainly take a few weeks to prepare a crew vehicle to the ISS in an emergency, and in that case, it would be better not to have one at all- a "emergency" that takes place over 3 weeks is probably not a huge "emergency" at all.BTW, increasing risk to prepare for a nominal goal that will likely never happen is a crappy idea.
The BA330 needs to attach to a CBM.
Therefore it can't be used as lifeboat, because CBM vehicles can't undock themselves. To be able to undock itself, it would need to be docked to a IDA, both of which are required for commercial crew vehicles (which will be the actual lifeboats).
Good points.Let me modify and/or rephrase the idea:This is most analogous to Shuttle visiting Station. When Shuttle visited, there was a surge in ISS crew since Shuttle was supporting the extra crew with its ECLSS (and to some extent power) and heat rejection and pressurized volume. Of course, Shuttle was limited in how long it could stay at ISS, like a month or so. There were not any extra Soyuzes on station to provide life boat capacity for the extra crew as the extra crew would leave in Shuttle.If I understand the Bigelow idea correctly, the idea would be to basically dock what is essentially another autonomous station to ISS, with its own propulsion, power, command, radiators, etc. In free flight, such vehicle can accommodate 6 crew basically indefinitely (if resupplied). In this case, the Bigelow module would allow 6 extra crew to be at ISS, like a permanent surge crew on board. Just like Shuttle, if there were a problem on Station, the 6 extra crew would board the BA-330 and disembark from Station. The regular 6 or 7 ISS permanent crew would still use the commercial crew and/or Soyuz lifeboats in case of a problem on ISS. And just like with Shuttle abort-to-Station, if there were a problem with the BA-330, the 6 extra crew would leave the BA-330 and go to Station.Just like with Shuttle, there could be experiments on board the BA-330 itself for the astronauts to work on.Or actually, the most important idea would be to test out the BA-330 for long-duration flight. The BA-330 would stay attached to Station, but would otherwise be autonomous....so maybe I'm just restating in a complicated fashion the not-new idea of testing out an exploration ship while attached to ISS (but the hatch closed most of the time, just like with BEAM). One advantage to this over a truly free-flying module would be that extra crew transport wouldn't be required because you could just use ISS crew transport as it is now but extend the average crew duration. And ISS would serve as the lifeboat in case of a problem on the exploration module while it's being checked out.
Yes, you would need another (functional equivalent to an) IDA for the BA-330. BA-330 was always designed with just docking (using the LDS/modified-APS/whatever standard that commercial crew vehicles use), I am unaware of a design that used the larger CBM.
