Simpler stations

[scipt]

I think that there should be more of a focus on simple two module or central node stations (see Mir..as a most complex illustration.) This is cheaper and more relevant for space exploration when not being concerned with space science (0G experiments).Discuss. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[telfrow]

<Bump><br /><br />SpaceAdmin has corrected the database error. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[j05h]

Simpler in the sense of "less expensive", yes. The Bigelow system should fit that profile. Simpler in the sense of less capable, no. The basic spacecraft needs to be more robust and able to accomodate unexpected uses. Design and materials advances have been huge since even ISS modules were built. Modularity, recyclability and a tinker-toy approach will allow us to travel throughout the inner solar system. <br /><br />For interplanetary trips, or long-term settlement of NEOs, the craft will probably be very large in terms of tonnage. They will carry as much equipment as possible, the sky is the limit. Or, the bank account. You COULD build a two-module, 40-ton+TMIstage to go to Mars, but that is incredibly limited for industrial/exploration use. As a vacation yacht, sure, but most uses of deep space craft intend on doing something at the other end. <br /><br />The various configurations that Bigleow Aerospace has shown include many modules, they are following an accretionary path. Energia's MarsPost would be a big central module with several others on a huge solar-truss. Whatever works. And in the environment that 21st C space development is shaping up: whatever pays the bills.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[brellis]

I've been jumping around looking back through some other threads, found this exchange from the NASA Plans After LRO thread to be very interesting:<br /><br />Scottb50:<br /><font color="yellow">What is needed is a central base and satellite bases. If you use a vehicle that lands and takes off might as well use the same one to move between bases as you use to rendevous in orbit with a Cycler Ship. Another plus is the same concept and essentially the same vehicle could be used at Mars or on asteroids and Comets. <br /><br />Basically hop around the moon and Mars or jump up to orbit. At Mars the atmosphere would present a challenge, but could be handled with a Re- Entry Vehicle. The vehicle descends from orbit through the high speed and temperature phase, releases the Lander and returns to orbit. <br /><br />You could do the same thing for return to Earth from LEO. A slightly modified Lear Jet would even work. Mount it to an REV and release it at a safe altitude. The REV then returns to orbit for re-use.</font><br /><br />Nibb31:<br /><font color="orange">The problem with RV with a cycler is that you need as much energy to catch up with the cycler as you would need to get onto that trajectory in the first place. <br /><br />With a moon direct return scenario, you have: <br />- Launch to LEO (accelerating) <br />- Trans Lunar Injection (accelerating) <br />- Lunar Orbit Insertion (braking) <br />- Descent (braking) <br />then: <br />- Launch to LMO (accelerating) <br />- Trans Earth Injection (accelerating) <br />- Direct Re-entry <br /><br />With a "moon ferry" or cycler scenario: <br />- Launch to LEO (accelerating) and RV with ferry <br />- Trans Lunar Injection on ferry (accelerating) <br />- Lunar Orbit Insertion (braking) <br />then <br />- Launch to LMO (accelerating) and RV with ferry <br />- Trans Earth Injection (acc</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[pathfinder_01]

“I think that there should be more of a focus on simple two module or central node stations (see Mir..as a most complex illustration.) This is cheaper and more relevant for space exploration when not being concerned with space science (0G experiments).Discuss.”<br /><br />In terms of what? The ISS has a core module or modules like mir. However the trouble is you can only fit so much into a rocket and any very large craft is going to have to be assembled in parts and there are some saving from not having each part of the spacecraft be a spacecraft unto itself.(i.e. In order to add a module the module doesn’t need to have it’s own separate navigation and propulsion system. It only needs to ride up on the shuttle or perhaps in the future make use of an on orbit tug) <br /><br /> The other problem is you really can’t neatly separate exploration from space science. The are both a part of the same thing just different sets of experiments. Now there may come a time for industrial space stations as those will contain as many modules as needed. <br />

 

[spacester]

Well there's a lot to be said for specialized stations for differing science activities. ISS tries to be all things to all people and that leaves opportunities for lots of different specialized stations.<br /><br />Protein crystal growth is looking for long term undisturbed micro gravity. Materials science is looking for specialized capabilities and only periodic micro gravity. A full time habitat experimenting with integrating plants and other biotic means into the CELSS (Closed Environment Life Support Systems) need not worry about vibrations.<br /><br />'Space Station' implies human habitation, but that does not mean full-time occupancy.<br /><br />The ISS is criticized as a 'tinker-toy' approach and it is defended as the necessary approach given launch capacity and other constraints. But we are in an era not only with Bigelow doing very nicely so far, we are post Zvezda deploy, meaning that a two-launch space station is in the picture. Three launches for sure.<br /><br />JO5H can talk about this as well - if one can attach a Zvezda-equivalent Functional Cargo Block directly to a Bigelow Habitat, you can have a space station. You may need a node as well on a third launch. Additional provisioning and crew transport required. <br /><br />So these are Bigelow's target market - industrial (private dollars) research facilities, specialized for their customer's needs.<br /><br />It would seem important to minimize exterior systems - ISS has a lot of them by necessity but EVAs are expensive so a private station is looking to eliminate exterior maintenance if possible. Likely some things would require attention at some point, so some EVA provision is needed.<br /><br />So the system would largely be maintained from inside, and the utility systems between modules would NOT require EVAs ever.<br /><br />Put all this together and I envision a group of Bigelow Stations flying as a fleet in high LEO. One facility would be permanently occupied, it would do life science. Private astronauts wo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[brellis]

<font color="yellow">Gonna need on-orbit propellant resupply to do all this.</font><br /><br />I keep dreaming of ion propulsion keeping an unmanned space armada aloft for decades in earth orbit, cycling around the moon and mars, returning samples from comets, Jovian and Saturnian moons, etc., preparing nice hutches for human explorers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"However the trouble is you can only fit so much into a rocket and any very large craft is going to have to be assembled in parts..."</font><br /><br />Hence the extreme value of space stations built from 'expandable' components (Bigelow prefers this term to 'inflatable' for much the same reason people involved with the space program don't care for the term 'blast-off'). In general -- the focus on the problem of launching items into space focuses on mass. This is because almost everything we luanch is mass-limeted rather than volume-limited. Probes and satellites are generally very densely packed -- components, propellant, solar panels, etc. By the time you run out of volume -- the mass limit has been met or exceeded. <br /><br />The habitable portions of space stations are the exception. Traditionally they are largely hollow shells, so you run out of volume long before mass limitations are met. As of September, the ISS had a habitable volume of ~424m3. By contrast, Bigelow's full-size modules will have a habitable volume of ~330m3. Two of them therefore would be a fairly 'simple' station that would still exceed the habitable volume of the ISS to-date by about 50%.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Well there's a lot to be said for specialized stations for differing science activities. ISS tries to be all things to all people and that leaves opportunities for lots of different specialized stations.</font>/i><br /><br />I agree with much of what has been said in this discussion. My guess is that ISS is the last of her kind.</i>

 

[willpittenger]

Probably not until there is more than one game in town. Stations, even modular ones, are just too expensive. That's why NASA has worldwide partners. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

ISS will probably not be the last in modular stations. When you have to build everthing on the ground (or even the Moon), it makes a lot of sense. If anything, I expect the modularity of stations to increase. I forsee an experimental space hotel. A company launchs a core and designs some basic habitat modules that would come blank. Various hotel chains each take one habitat module and, working with space habitation module specialists, configure the interior to match what that chain would have on the ground -- at least as close as possible. The main company then launches each module and attachs them to the core and launchs customers.<br /><br />Each hotel chain gains experience in space and a chance to experiment. The company with the core and launch services would make a lot of money. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[halman]

scipt,<br /><br />Orbital station design is going to mature a great deal over the next 25 years, based upon the experience gained from the International Space Station. But to constrain the design to just a couple of modules is probably not a good idea. What we need to do, I think, is to design standardized shells, which interlock easily, but which can be outfitted as a dormitory, galley, laboratory, repair depot, storage, etcetera. Each module should have the capability of sealing its openings to other modules, but the airlock(s) should be limited to modules designed for that purpose.<br /><br />We also need to address designs for mission support, which might include temporary power supply for spacecraft in dock, dormitories for crews awaiting launch or return transportation, sickbay, workshop, and whatever else might be needed to mount a mission.<br /><br />The designs for science and industrial applications will probably resist standardization after a point, as material processing requirements determine design. But having a standard for power couplings, air supply and return, and other such 'backbone' functions would be a benefit.<br /><br />A large part of the high costs associated with the ISS are a result of the fact that no one has ever done many of these things before, so every step has to be analyzed in detail, rehearsed, and co-ordinated by ground controllers. Having to incorporate the use of 'temporary' components for years has also affected how design and planning are done, because the switch over to the 'permanent' components has to be planned for at the beginning of the design phase. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Stations, even modular ones, are just too expensive. That's why NASA has worldwide partners.</font>/i><br /><br />We have had many threads that cover this topic. My position is that ISS's goals might be laudable, but its execution was poor. I don't think very many general conclusions can be drawn from ISS (but I will try to draw one <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />):<br /><br />On orbit construction will have lasted 12 years. Even without Columbia, construction would have been 9-10 years. From conception of ISS to completion, 17 years will have lapsed. From the time NASA first started seriously planning a LEO space station (initially called Freedom) to completion, 26 years will have lapsed. Estimates for the cost of ISS run from $60 Billion to $100 Billion.<br /><br />I think future space stations may be modular, but the components will be launched in only 3-5 launches spanning 12-18 months.<br /><br />My primary conclusion: The scope of ISS (cost to build, time to build, number of launches to build, number of EVAs to build, number of goals it tried to satisfy, number of masters it served) is the anomaly.</i>

 

[pathfinder_01]

I would agree that the ISS scope is much too large. How many buildings on earth take a decade to construct? Granted the ISS has been able to support science since it was first manned, but still I think NASA should have built something smaller and added to it over time. <br /><br />One thing I can not understand is why NASA was unable to propose a small station instead of Freedom. Buzz Aldrin had an interesting idea for a station that could support a crew of three and be operation with just 3 flights of the shuttle. Was it a national pride thing that the US couldn’t have something smaller than MIR?<br /><br />As for micro-gravity experiments that are disturbed by crew, the ISS (or was it freedom?) was originally to have free flying modules that could be brought in to dock with the station. I think something like that would be a great idea, too bad the funding didn’t hold out. <br /><br /> <br />

 

[j05h]

<i>> I would agree that the ISS scope is much too large. </i><br /><br />ISS is not to large - it is to complex. It is actually very small compared to the proposed Bigelow Nautilus stations. The problem is the amount of assembly and especially EVA for assembly. Shirtsleeve outfitting is much simpler. ISS has not supported much science - especially compared to what it was sold under. Where's the centrifuge again? <br /><br />The problem with ISS is that it became the One True Station. ESA's Columbus was originally going to be a free-flyer, but that violated the One Path. We need a plethora of platforms, throughout the solar system. The embarassing thing is we have the technology to do it, but can't yet close the economic case.<br /><br />We don't need "simpler" stations, or smaller ones, but more robust stations. The Nautilus-Sundancer combination looks to address this, and I'm apparently getting my wish for an "American FGB" in Sundancer. For a basic outfitter, you need three units: a baseblock (FGB) that includes control, bunks, exercise, shower, life support, tankage, basic power and engines. You need a node. Lastly (or firstly for Bigelow) you need a big "expandable" unit that is somewhat universal - it can be configured as needed. From those three components (plus reliable Earth-LEO transport) you can go anywhere in the inner solar system. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[docm]

The cool part of Bigelows system is that just two of his 330 cu/m Nautilus modules + a hub is not only 50% larger in volume than the current status of the ISS (425 cu/m) but is also expandable to 6 habitats; 1,980 cu/m. <br /><br />This is not only 2x the final volume of ISS, but it could be achieved in a fraction of the launches it'll take to build the ISS. According to Bigelow's artwork it would also provide for a docking/expansion port on the opposite end of each module.<br /><br />The sickening part of this is that NASA had the base tech in TransHab, but neither the will nor the funding to take Bigelows leap. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

Volumewise it would be fewer launches, but to outfit that space it still might take a fair number of launches.

 

[ldyaidan]

How many deflated Bigelow modules can fit on the shuttle? Can they be attached to the current station?<br /><br />Rae

 

[docm]

The Bigelow Nautilus module is mainly compressed in diameter, not length, and require launchers that can handle its 50,000 lb. (23,000 kg) weight and deflated size.<br /><br />Since the Nautilus will not be ready for launch until after the shuttle is retired it's a moot question, but at 45' long just one would fit in the shuttles 60' bay. Two of the 180 cu/m Sundancer modules <i>might</i> fit, and IIRC they go up ~2009.<br /><br />They use the Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM) like the ISS, Orion, Dragon, Japans HTV etc., but can easily be adapted to the Russian system.<br /><br />CBM:<br /><br />http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/images/ISS-structure/cbm2.jpg<br /><br />Basically they did their homework.<br /><br />Name for Bigelow's first station?<br /><br />CSS Skywalker. CSS = Commercial Space Station<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[acid_frost]

I love this company Bigelow and where they are going with these experimental stations and there future Nautilus module, it is just remarkable on the side that the private company's are doing.<br /><br />Well, iam more excited about what the private sector can do than NASA at the moment and this is just one more than confirms my faith in future of space on. Well it could be to i work in the defense industry also so.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Acid

 

[ldyaidan]

Thank you for the info. That helps put their size into perspective. Do you think that we will eventually use the modules to expand on the current ISS, or perhaps move the ISS functions into a newer, inflatable station? This seems to be a great new way of building in space, and I'd like to see it used to it's fullest advantage.<br /><br />Rae

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Do you think that we will eventually use the modules to expand on the current ISS..."</font><br /><br />Not a chance. This would be comparable to:<br /><br />You have a 1985 Mazda Miata with 300,000 miles on it(tiny 2-seater sports car in case you don't recognize the model). Your wife has twins and suddenly you need more room. Therefore, you add a roof-rack to the car and strap two infant seats to it.<br /><br />Pros: The miata is the car you have. A roof rack is a perfectly valid means of allowing a car to carry more. A roof rack is much cheaper than buying a new car.<br /><br />Cons: The car is old and nearing end-of-life. The Miata is *not* a car that is designed for a roof rack. Cleaning bugs off of the front of your children after car trips will get old very quickly.<br /><br />The solution is to buy a new car (or in this case -- build a new station).

 

[space_dreamer]

How big could a Bigelow module be if it was designed to be launched with a Ares 5?

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">How big could a Bigelow module be if it was designed to be launched with a Ares 5? </font><br /><br />Now we talkin'! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[docm]

Given its length, number of fabric/bladder layers etc. Nautilus is likely as big as their habs will get absent a redesign to increase inflated rigidity. <br /><br />As far as the Ares V goes you might be able to drop the EDS and LSAM, produce a custom fairing and launch 2 Nautilus habs stacked but why? <br /><br />The 46 MT (23 MT x 2) mass would be a fraction of the Ares V's 130 MT to LEO capability and it would likely cost far more than 2 Atlas V Heavy or Falcon 9 S9 launches, especially once you figure in the cost of the custom fairing, its dev, etc. etc. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>