NASA accelerates Deep Space HAB Work

[fredinno]

http://spacenews.com/spending-bill-to-accelerate-nasa-habitation-module-work/

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/nasa-progress-habitat-development-deep-space-exploration/

Congress has provided Fifty-Five Million to develop a Habitat Module for deep-space Orion/SLS expeditions- a module which would be tested in Cis-lunar space, becoming the 'Cis-Lunar Space station' that was one of the primary contenders for a Orion/SLS mission. In other words, NASA is actually finally working on a payload for SLS/Orion. However, one concern is if this funding would survive the 2016 elections and actually lead to a Deep Space HAB.

 

Call the NextSTEP Contracts, NASA has given contracts to Bigelow, Boeing, LockMart, and OrbitalATK for study HAB designs, and for Dynetics, Hamilton Sundstrand, and Orbital Technologies (not the same corporation as Orbital Sciences) to develop support systems for these HABs. Each company has been given $1 Million each to do so, and eventually, this will lead to a prototype module (built by the company selected to build the module), which is supposed to be completed by 2018.

 LockMart has proposed a Thales Alenia Space-Subcontracted module, based off Thales' ISS modules (as the HAB module), and LockMart's Orion Spacecraft and its planetary probes (to build the service module.)

Bigelow has proposed to use their BA-330 as a deep-space HAB.

OrbitalATK has proposed to use a Cynus-Derived modular HAB, using Cygnus Spacecraft with stretched pressurized sections (which also may be attached to node modules to make modular HABs.)

Boeing's is a solid (non-inflatable) HAB, but has revealed nearly nothing on what it will be like. Typical Boeing.

 

NextSTEP will likely be accelerated due to the extra funding provided, and the requirement to produce a prototype module in 2 years. NASA may also build the HAB modules internally, instead of giving it out to commercial companies, though this seems unlikely.

 

Who should build the HAB module? Will this survive to become an early SLS/Orion payload?

[Mitchz95]

I sure hope it survives, because the potential applications are pretty exciting.

[insert_name]

its already 2016, so it has survived into 2016

[fredinno]

34 minutes ago, insert_name said:

its already 2016, so it has survived into 2016

I meant the elections, and a new presidency.

[Nibb31]

It's the only thing that SLS has to launch after 2023, so if they don't want to cancel the whole program, it pretty much has to go through.

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

It's the only thing that SLS has to launch after 2023, so if they don't want to cancel the whole program, it pretty much has to go through.

I hope you're right. It's definitely not going to be something NASA is going to be bragging too much about though.

 

Either way, people over here really like Bigelow's plans, huh?

[DBowman]

I think the modularity of the Cygnus is appealing. They can add extra 'sections' to make super enhanced etc (at 8.1 m^3 for 300kg = 27 m^3/ton), it's 3 m diameter so I guess they could 'pre cluster' them into larger diameter structures (stacking them on an airlock EVA prep 'hub' for example).

Bigelow 330 delivers 16.5 m^3/ton vs Cygnus 15 m^3/ton but their design looks less finely modular - it seems harder for them to engineer a 'stretch 330' than for Orbital ATK to stretch the Cygnus. I thought the inflatable would be much more compelling m^3/ton, probably/maybe the 330 is already counting a bunch of 'Hab services' and Cygnus is 'just a shell'.

Edited January 7, 2016 by DBowman
typo

[Nibb31]

I don't think anybody is proposing a DSH based on a BA330. It would make no sense. Inflatables save space on launch, but they need a lot of time outfitting, and with one SLS launch per year, you can't afford to do many servicing missions to get it running.

[fredinno]

8 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

I don't think anybody is proposing a DSH based on a BA330. It would make no sense. Inflatables save space on launch, but they need a lot of time outfitting, and with one SLS launch per year, you can't afford to do many servicing missions to get it running.

You could launch it to LEO first, service it there, then send a SLS with a EUS to send the spacecraft to LLO. And no, Bigelow IS proposing a Deep-Space BA-330. Whether they'd get the contract is another question.

Edited January 7, 2016 by fredinno

[problemecium]

I nominate SpaceX!

[fredinno]

44 minutes ago, parameciumkid said:

I nominate SpaceX!

Not here, SpaceX fan. Elon wasn't interested.

[Kerbart]

On 1/7/2016 at 7:27 PM, DBowman said:

I think the modularity of the Cygnus is appealing. They can add extra 'sections' to make super enhanced etc (at 8.1 m^3 for 300kg = 27 m^3/ton), it's 3 m diameter so I guess they could 'pre cluster' them into larger diameter structures (stacking them on an airlock EVA prep 'hub' for example).

Bigelow 330 delivers 16.5 m^3/ton vs Cygnus 15 m^3/ton but their design looks less finely modular - it seems harder for them to engineer a 'stretch 330' than for Orbital ATK to stretch the Cygnus. I thought the inflatable would be much more compelling m^3/ton, probably/maybe the 330 is already counting a bunch of 'Hab services' and Cygnus is 'just a shell'.

There have been many complaints about the new forum software. But not to take advantages of what it does offer is plain silly. Why not write:

I think the modularity of the Cygnus is appealing. They can add extra 'sections' to make super enhanced etc (at 8.1 m³ for 300kg = 27 m³/ton), it's 3 m diameter so I guess they could 'pre cluster' them into larger diameter structures (stacking them on an airlock EVA prep 'hub' for example).

Bigelow 330 delivers 16.5 m³/ton vs Cygnus 15 m³/ton but their design looks less finely modular - it seems harder for them to engineer a 'stretch 330' than for Orbital ATK to stretch the Cygnus. I thought the inflatable would be much more compelling m³/ton, probably/maybe the 330 is already counting a bunch of 'Hab services' and Cygnus is 'just a shell'.

(Sorry to go off-topic but that “^” crutch drives me nuts)

 

[SomeGuy123]

What is the purpose of this Hab?  So you have a thing in orbit.  But not in orbit around Earth, orbit around the Moon.  Or really high orbit around earth, depending.  

Astronauts are exposed to microgravity, just like on ISS.  Everything is the same except there's more radiation and it takes more fuel to get there.  So very little more to learn - you can't study the effects of the radiation exposure ethically like that - and it costs more and exposes the astronauts to more risk.

You can test inflatable modules by adding them to the ISS.  There are also experiments never performed on true closed loop life support systems - would be a great place to test them, on the ISS as well.  They could add centrifuge modules to the ISS to get to the bottom of whether 1/6 G or 1/3 G is sufficient gravity for humans to survive in long term.

 

[sojourner]

A centrifuge system is a whole order of magnitude harder/expensive to build than a deepspace hab.

[fredinno]

58 minutes ago, SomeGuy123 said:

What is the purpose of this Hab?  So you have a thing in orbit.  But not in orbit around Earth, orbit around the Moon.  Or really high orbit around earth, depending.  

Astronauts are exposed to microgravity, just like on ISS.  Everything is the same except there's more radiation and it takes more fuel to get there.  So very little more to learn - you can't study the effects of the radiation exposure ethically like that - and it costs more and exposes the astronauts to more risk.

You can test inflatable modules by adding them to the ISS.  There are also experiments never performed on true closed loop life support systems - would be a great place to test them, on the ISS as well.  They could add centrifuge modules to the ISS to get to the bottom of whether 1/6 G or 1/3 G is sufficient gravity for humans to survive in long term.

 

It's supposed to test ultra-long-duration space flights of at least a year w/o resupply, and in a higher radiation environment. Bascially, it's a life science lab built into a Mars HAB- but orbiting the Moon, and without propulsion to take it anywhere. Honestly, building it in GSO is better, but being over the Moon allows for lunar observations.

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, SomeGuy123 said:

What is the purpose of this Hab?  So you have a thing in orbit.  But not in orbit around Earth, orbit around the Moon.  Or really high orbit around earth, depending.  

It's supposed to serve as a base camp for BEO exploration as well as something that you can tug along with you for long duration flights or become the main hab module of a larger exploration vehicle.

[fredinno]

4 minutes ago, Nibb31 said:

It's supposed to serve as a base camp for BEO exploration as well as something that you can tug along with you for long duration flights or become the main hab module of a larger exploration vehicle.

And that.

[PB666]

On January 6, 2016 at 3:14 PM, fredinno said:

http://spacenews.com/spending-bill-to-accelerate-nasa-habitation-module-work/

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/nasa-progress-habitat-development-deep-space-exploration/

Congress has provided Fifty-Five Million to develop a Habitat Module for deep-space Orion/SLS expeditions- a module which would be tested in Cis-lunar space, becoming the 'Cis-Lunar Space station' that was one of the primary contenders for a Orion/SLS mission. In other words, NASA is actually finally working on a payload for SLS/Orion. However, one concern is if this funding would survive the 2016 elections and actually lead to a Deep Space HAB.

 

Call the NextSTEP Contracts, NASA has given contracts to Bigelow, Boeing, LockMart, and OrbitalATK for study HAB designs, and for Dynetics, Hamilton Sundstrand, and Orbital Technologies (not the same corporation as Orbital Sciences) to develop support systems for these HABs. Each company has been given $1 Million each to do so, and eventually, this will lead to a prototype module (built by the company selected to build the module), which is supposed to be completed by 2018.

 LockMart has proposed a Thales Alenia Space-Subcontracted module, based off Thales' ISS modules (as the HAB module), and LockMart's Orion Spacecraft and its planetary probes (to build the service module.)

Bigelow has proposed to use their BA-330 as a deep-space HAB.

OrbitalATK has proposed to use a Cynus-Derived modular HAB, using Cygnus Spacecraft with stretched pressurized sections (which also may be attached to node modules to make modular HABs.)

Boeing's is a solid (non-inflatable) HAB, but has revealed nearly nothing on what it will be like. Typical Boeing.

 

NextSTEP will likely be accelerated due to the extra funding provided, and the requirement to produce a prototype module in 2 years. NASA may also build the HAB modules internally, instead of giving it out to commercial companies, though this seems unlikely.

 

Who should build the HAB module? Will this survive to become an early SLS/Orion payload?

55m is chicken scratch. The only reason it would be cut if it gets a political vendetta against it. 

[Kaos]

On 6.1.2016 at 11:03 PM, fredinno said:

On 6.1.2016 at 10:29 PM, insert_name said:

its already 2016, so it has survived into 2016

 

I meant the elections, and a new presidency.

The election might be in 2016, but the presidency will start in 2017. So if you mean the presidency, you should wonder whether it will make it into 2018. Just because the new president will be in duty somewhere in 2017, it does not mean, that the program will be stopped retroactively in the beginning of 2017.

For the topic: Even if centrifuge modules might be more expensive, I would vote to add one. Or add the one that is standing around, because they decided to not include it in ISS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge_Accommodations_Module

[sojourner]

Wouldn't do much good to add a "partially built shell" to the ISS.

[fredinno]

2 hours ago, Kaos said:

The election might be in 2016, but the presidency will start in 2017. So if you mean the presidency, you should wonder whether it will make it into 2018. Just because the new president will be in duty somewhere in 2017, it does not mean, that the program will be stopped retroactively in the beginning of 2017.

For the topic: Even if centrifuge modules might be more expensive, I would vote to add one. Or add the one that is standing around, because they decided to not include it in ISS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge_Accommodations_Module

It's a horrible idea- the CAM is partially built, and it's rotting under a tarp in a Japanese Parking Lot. In other words, it's in terrible contention. Adding a PMM-2, but with a centrifuge would be easier- at least that one's human-rated, proven, and is in much better shape.

 

And by 2018, our concern should be if the program will survive into building the flight HAB unit...