Deep Space Habitat

SpaceNut · 2016-04-02 20:40:04

This is a radiational shield created by magnetics....

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-bl … ba6bfdf65d

1*pDybSxlxPQNRiCF7EFIh0A.png

1*6DoghdImxTLv2hR01wqPKg.png

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-02 21:03:03

Looks like a pair of spinning Orion spacecraft, one looks configured for landing on Mars, the other for return to Earth, and they both generate a magnetic field around their mutual center. Does this qualify as a magsail? A magsail would counter act the force of gravity towards the Sun with the Solar wind pushing it in the opposite direction. An object in orbit around the Sun which deploys its magsail would have its orbital path straightened out, and it would pull further and further away from the Sun, while losing less of its velocity than it normally would, thus towards Mars orbit if aimed right. One thing a mag sail isn't good for is getting back to Earth. A magsail, unlike a solar sail, cannot angle against the Solar Wind, so it can't tack against it and draw itself closer to the Sun, instead it would either have to deploy a solar sail or use rockets to slow down its orbit and fall towards the Sun.

Well admittedly upon further reflection, I admit their is a way back towards Earth, using the magsail alone, what this would involve would be letting the Solar Wind push this space vehicle further away from the Sun, and towards Jupiter, and as the vehicle approaches Jupiter, it would diminish its mag sail, and use Jupiter's gravity to fling it back towards Earth - I'm not sure NASA or the astronauts would want to do that however!

SpaceNut wrote:

This is a radiational shield created by magnetics....
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-bl … ba6bfdf65d
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800 … EFIh0A.png
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/400 … 1wqPKg.png

So it tumbles end over end, I imagine with such a short spin radius, it doesn't produce much gravity. Does it depend on superconductors to produce the magnetic shield?

SpaceNut · 2016-04-03 20:36:38

add post content from other....

Tom wrote:

Looks like a pair of spinning Orion spacecraft, one looks configured for landing on Mars

The image is not of a spinning orion and they do not land on mars as its just a transit habitat....with the other image above it indicating that it does have superconducting electromagnetic field coils. The field is produced by passing current through the windings of the coil.

As for magsail I do not know if that is possible since the power would need to greatly large for what those solar panels can produce.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-03 21:09:19

SpaceNut wrote:

add post content from other....
Tom wrote:
Looks like a pair of spinning Orion spacecraft, one looks configured for landing on Mars
The image is not of a spinning orion and they do not land on mars as its just a transit habitat....with the other image above it indicating that it does have superconducting electromagnetic field coils. The field is produced by passing current through the windings of the coil.
As for magsail I do not know if that is possible since the power would need to greatly large for what those solar panels can produce.

1*pDybSxlxPQNRiCF7EFIh0A.png
What I see here is two Orion Capsules facing each other. There is a docking module between them that does not seem to be very long for the purpose of producing centrifugal force for gravity, the spin rate would habe to be much too high to produce 1g, I think from looking at that diagram. I notice the Orion Capsule on the left has a different sort of rocket engine than the one on the right, though it appears both capsules are designed to reenter the Earth's atmosphere. I thought the one on the left was an Earth Return Vehicle, as it had an Orion Capsule on top, the one on the right looks sort of like an Apollo Command module, and the engine looks like a similar engine to the one used by a Command module. The vehicle looks short for an interplanetary space vessel.

SpaceNut · 2016-04-03 21:59:19

I have been searching for more than just art but thats all I seem to be finding...

The one on the left appears to be a stretched orion habitat module...something like this next one....

RobertDyck · 2016-04-03 22:40:00

SpaceNut wrote:

The image is not of a spinning orion and they do not land on mars as its just a transit habitat...

To be fair, the image is labelled with "Artificial Gravity Module (AGM)". And does have support rods between modules. The left side appears to be a cylinder with a cone of some sort on top. The cone does look similar to Orion. Don't know why it would need a cone, it isn't an atmospheric entry capsule.

SpaceNut wrote:

As for magsail I do not know if that is possible since the power would need to greatly large for what those solar panels can produce.

According to the PDF document here, round solar arrays for the 606 service module were "UltraFlex" by ATK. They each would be 6 metre diameter, and power production depended on diameter. For 1.6m diameter they would produce 0.5kW, for 10m 20kW. So for 6m diameter Orion should have 7.2kW per "wing", or 14.4kW total. But the image labels the wings as 6kW, with 4 on the deeps space habitat and 2 for Orion, so 36kW. How does that compare to requirements for Mini-Mag? I read something years ago from Washington University that said it would require 50kW. What does the article say now? And what about power required for life support and electronics, such as radio and computers?

SpaceNut · 2016-04-04 16:50:04

Sorry Tom I was incorrect for the gravity creation... Thanks RobertDyck, I guess I was sleep deprieved more than I realized.....

Located some more to what these are in respect referenced to.... Concept for Human Exploration of NEO Asteroids using MPCV, Deep Space Vehicle , Artificial Gravity Module , and Mini - Magnetosphere Radiation Shield
or
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2011-7138
research artificial gravity
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140011449

RECOMMENDED RESEARCH ON ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY

SpaceNut · 2016-04-04 17:21:38

Artificial Gravity for Exploration Class Missions?

Artificial Gravity Research Project

Design Concepts for a Manned Artificial Gravity Research Facility

kbd512 · 2016-04-17 23:42:19

SpaceNut wrote:

So what is the exact size of the chemical kick stage?

Depends on what the solution is. I wanted to use storable chemical propellants because that technology is mature and the engineering solution is comparatively simpler, but there seems to be great momentum behind long term storage of cryogenic propellants in space. Suffice it to say that with either solution a single FH is more than sufficient to deliver the TEI kick stages to Mars.

SpaceNut wrote:

Which pieces need them?

Only the DSH's require TEI kick stages.

SpaceNut wrote:

Which pieces need just the SEP and Which ones need both?

DSH's use integrated SEP for capture at Mars. The storable chemical propellant kick stages I sized actually have enough propellant to orbit the DSH's on the return from Mars, with SEP providing additional dV capability, if required.

The MDV's must be delivered using SEP-CTV's. The only way to avoid the use of SEP-CTV's here is to deliver an ISRU plant.

The quad stack of LPR's don't require a SEP-CTV.

The MSH requires a SEP-CTV if it's over 10t or so. NASA wants 20t to 40t MSH's, so the only way that's feasible is with SEP-CTV's. I don't fully understand the requirement for 40t MSH's, but I'm quite certain that they've thought of more contingencies than I have.

Anything you want to deliver that has a mass over ~10t is going to require a SEP-CTV if you want to deliver it with a single FH.

SpaceNut · 2016-04-18 17:33:51

kbd512 wrote:

I wanted to use storable chemical propellants because that technology is mature and the engineering solution is comparatively simpler, but there seems to be great momentum behind long term storage of cryogenic propellants in space.

Thats because of the impulse power and speed that can be achieved by the cryogenic is greater versus storeable.

DSH as a transport vehicle to and from Mars for crew needs to move quickly and SEP does not do that.....nor can SEP be used for mars orbital capture as it does not have the power to break it into orbit....

kbd512 · 2016-04-18 20:39:04

SpaceNut wrote:

Thats because of the impulse power and speed that can be achieved by the cryogenic is greater versus storable.

I understand, but there's not enough of a dV requirement coming back from Mars to warrant the expense and complication of cryogenics. As previously stated, either approach should work. However, using storable chemical propellants means we can design and develop a TEI kick stage today rather than several years from now.

SpaceNut wrote:

DSH as a transport vehicle to and from Mars for crew needs to move quickly and SEP does not do that.....nor can SEP be used for mars orbital capture as it does not have the power to break it into orbit....

SEP doesn't have to TEI the DSH and it's not something I've proposed doing. The entire point to using SEP was to insert the DSH into LMO and backstop the capture of the DSH in LEO or GEO in the event that the TEI kick stage can't be restarted. The spiral in to LMO takes about 30 days and we're talking about orbiting a miniature space station with a mass of less then 12t. It's entirely doable.

SpaceNut · 2016-04-19 19:48:16

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … System.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

Table 1: Conic Analysis
Mars Mars Min. Mars Earth Earth Mars Mars Min. Mars
Opportunity Departure Date V-inf (km/s) Depart. DV Arrival Date V-inf (km/s) Arrival Date V-inf (km/s) Arrival. DV
07-12 07/24/07 4.77 1.96 01/20/08 8.27 07/17/12 4.40 1.71
09-14 09/12/09 4.30 1.64 03/11/10 8.56 09/06/14 4.63 1.87
11-16 11/04/11 4.72 1.93 05/02/12 6.82 10/28/16 4.78 1.97
13-18 12/30/13 5.12 2.21 06/28/14 4.90 12/24/18 3.55 1.17
16-21 02/13/16 3.82 1.33 08/11/16 4.28 02/06/21 2.72 0.72
18-23 03/19/18 2.67 0.69 09/15/18 4.46 03/13/23 4.46 1.75
20-25 05/10/20 4.10 1.51 11/06/20 5.38 05/04/25 5.04 2.16
22-27 07/04/22 4.90 2.06 12/31/22 7.59 06/28/27 4.53 1.80
24-29 08/23/24 4.42 1.72 02/19/25 8.72 08/17/29 4.46 1.75
26-31 10/14/26 4.46 1.75 04/12/27 7.67 10/08/31 4.85 2.02
28-33 12/08/28 5.09 2.19 06/06/29 5.49 12/02/33 4.18 1.56
31-36 01/29/31 4.55 1.81 07/28/31 4.46 01/23/36 2.71 0.71
33-38 03/04/33 2.76 0.74 08/31/33 4.30 02/26/38 3.73 1.28
35-40 04/19/35 3.44 1.10 10/16/35 4.83 04/12/40 5.04 2.16
37-42 06/13/37 4.80 1.98 12/10/37 6.72 06/07/42 4.75 1.95
39-44 08/05/39 4.64 1.87 02/01/40 8.53 07/29/44 4.38 1.69
41-46 09/24/41 4.31 1.65 03/23/42 8.32 09/18/46 4.73 1.94
43-48 11/16/43 4.88 2.04 05/14/44 6.32 11/09/48 4.64 1.87
46-51 01/11/46 5.01 2.13 07/10/46 4.70 01/05/51 3.19 0.96

GW Johnson · 2016-04-22 17:29:26

That rig depicted in posts 101 and 104 above looks suspiciously like the 14 m radius 8 rpm job I recommend for spin gravity. What it lacks is living space required for sanity on a long voyage. Spin the damned thing and be done with microgravity disease issues. What could be more obvious?

I dunno at all about EM radiation shielding, that's out of my areas of expertise. What I do know is that hydrogen-rich materials are good passive shields for solar flare radiation storms. Water, wastewater, frozen food, and hydrazine propellant all qualify. It is solar flare radiation storms that are the real potential crew killers. We have known this since Apollo.

One exceeds dose limits only in year 1 of a Mars mission due to GCR, and at that only in a peak radiation year. One exceeds the dose limit by less than about 15-20% worst case, again only in a peak year. Those limits are set for what is perceived to be a 3% increased chance of cancer later in life. Such things are inherently "fuzzy". I don't think we need let the GCR problem stop us, even if there is no practical EM radiation shield.

GW

SpaceNut · 2016-04-24 22:31:26

Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) consist of high energy protons (85%), helium (14%) and other high energy nuclei (HZE ions).

PIA17601-Comparisons-RadiationExposure-MarsTrip-20131209.png

http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/shielding

radiation-space-danger-130529b-02.jpg?interpolation=lanczos-none&downsize=600:*

SpaceNut · 2016-08-16 19:27:42

Mars Space Station Could Pave Way for 1st Footsteps on Red Planet

Images tell alot about what we think we can do.....
mars-base-camp-space-station.jpg?interpolation=lanczos-none&fit=inside|660:*

The aerospace company Lockheed Martin recently proposed that NASA work with its international partners and private industry to set up a space station in Mars orbit by 2028. The astronauts working and living aboard this "Mars Base Camp" could help collect information that any future Red Planet explorer would need to know, the project's developers say.

but then again the timeline says....
mbc-top-missions8-950.jpg?1470799952?interpolation=lanczos-none&downsize=640:*

proposed steps leading to the launch of Lockheed Martin's envisioned "Mars Base Camp" space station

SpaceNut · 2016-08-16 19:32:13

Lockheed plan, is to build a 132-ton (120 metric tons) Red Planet space station, the core of which would be composed of two Orions and two habitat modules/science laboratories. (For comparison, the International Space Station weighs about 440 tons, or 400 metric tons.)
Mars Base Camp could support up to six astronauts, who would stay aboard for about a year.
Making Mars Base Camp happen doesn't require any big technological leaps, Jolly said. The plan should be affordable as well, he added, given the amount of money NASA will spend in the near future in an attempt to get astronauts to Mars — the chief long-term goal of the agency's human-spaceflight program.
"Between the $4 [billion] to $9 billion a year that NASA will spend on exploration missions — and that includes both EM stuff and, obviously, [the International] Space Station — then, over a 10- or 15- or 20-year period, they will have spent $50 to $80 billion in total expenditures," Jolly said. ("EM stuff" refers to EM-1 and a series of other test flights involving Orion and SLS.)

We have heard the modify what we have to make it cost effective speech before an only a quarter the size of the ISS????

SpaceNut · 2017-02-19 11:37:11

Under the Moon first than to Mars we need to design deep space habitats for use...

Bill introduced to redirect NASA to Moon, establish sustained presence

In the 2015 omnibus spending bill, NASA was ordered to develop a prototype habitat by 2018.

Under the agency’s NextSTEP program, it is doing just that. Currently, six companies are competing to develop a prototype deep space habitat that could be used in cislunar space.

9476-nasa_nathan_koga_illustrations-nathan_koga-1280x696.jpg

kbd512 · 2017-02-20 13:16:22

We don't need a 120t space station in Mars orbit. That nonsense is just Lockheed-Martin's desire to spend our tax payer money on unnecessary extravagance. A BA-330 with integrated SEP for station keeping and a multi-port docking node is sufficient. Water, rather than cryogenic propellants, should provide the necessary radiation shielding. A single SLS with EUS could deliver an equipped BA-330 to Mars. The station would still cost a pretty penny, but it's well within NASA's human space flight budget.

SpaceNut · 2017-02-20 15:47:09

The infleatable is an empty balloon with zero capability to support life and must be augmented with supplies and everything else to make it capable. Sure its lighter than a can but that can comes with everything included. Zero station keeping capability and only 2 ports per module to connect to.

https://bigelowaerospace.com/b330/

Space station as suggested with Bigelow's inflateable units.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_C … ce_Station

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B330

pressurised volume of a 20-ton B330 module is 330 m3, compared to 106 m3 of the 15 ton ISS Destiny module. Thus B330 offers 210% more habitable space, with an increase in mass of only 33%.

Sure but its empty....

GW Johnson · 2017-02-28 12:16:54

Well, for deep space use, there are two issues to resolve before selecting the approach: radiation shielding effects and micrometeroid protection.

To resolve the micrometeroid issue, I would suggest docking a Cygnus-derived "tuna can" demonstrator to a Bigelow B330 inflatable demonstrator, and putting them into an orbit known to be at risk for debris. See which one depressurizes first from getting penetrated. Or else stand off in a third craft and shoot at it with a rail gun. You want tiny projectiles about the size of paint flakes or bb's moving around 5-10 km/s relative.

If this cluster has a propulsion stage attached, then send it up into the low van Allen belt, with geiger counters inside and outside. See which construction offers more protection, and how much. Doesn't matter if either is still holding air for that. This could be done on a single unmanned mission.

By the way, the B330 comes with a hard core running the length and extending beyond the inflatable on both ends. That's where you pack your supplies and equipment, the inflatable volume is collapsed about that for launch. If memory serves (haven't looked this up in a long time), the inflatable wall is multi-layered and half a meter thick, which should be decent meteor protection, and not trivial as radiation protection.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-02-28 12:19:03)

SpaceNut · 2017-09-02 16:42:39

bump to help others find

louis · 2017-09-03 05:07:01

The idea of a Mars space station is an interesting one but I am not convinced. The resources are all on the surface, not in orbit! Why force yourself to provision a space station 100 Kms away with water, for example, when there is plentiful water available on the surface a few tens of Kms below?

SpaceNut · 2017-09-03 08:29:20

I could see that the story line in post #115 could lead you to think that we are creating a station for mars but that is only when unoccupied that its parked in orbit that it would be used that way. For the most part its the transit vehicle for long term drives to anywhere beyound LEO.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-09-06 10:50:12

Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and ULA seem to keep recycling the same-old same-old ideas in new cosmetics. The 90 Day plan just won't go away. This is just more workfare for the Preferred Contractors. NASA has become just another bureaucracy, and needs a thorough shake up and shake out. Maybe Bridenstine can accomplish something more innovative, if confirmed?

SpaceNut · 2017-09-06 16:41:36

Nasa and Lockheed are already at a phase 2 by refurbishing the Donatello Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM).to create a full sized mockup of what they are trying to build.

Living in Deep Space: Lockheed Martin to Build Full-Scale Prototype of NASA Cislunar Habitat

Then here is another mistake to be taken by nasa as it Call For Ideas For Research On The Deep Space Gateway

No research testbed required as this is a transportation vehicle to get man to the next stop an nothing more if we ever want to go anywhere.

http://exploration.esa.int/science-e/ww … ctid=59392

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2016-04-02 20:40:04

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#102 2016-04-02 21:03:03

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#103 2016-04-03 20:36:38

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#104 2016-04-03 21:09:19

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#105 2016-04-03 21:59:19

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#106 2016-04-03 22:40:00

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#107 2016-04-04 16:50:04

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#108 2016-04-04 17:21:38

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#109 2016-04-17 23:42:19

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#110 2016-04-18 17:33:51

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#111 2016-04-18 20:39:04

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#112 2016-04-19 19:48:16

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#113 2016-04-22 17:29:26

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#114 2016-04-24 22:31:26

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#115 2016-08-16 19:27:42

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#116 2016-08-16 19:32:13

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#117 2017-02-19 11:37:11

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#118 2017-02-20 13:16:22

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#119 2017-02-20 15:47:09

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#120 2017-02-28 12:16:54

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#121 2017-09-02 16:42:39

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#122 2017-09-03 05:07:01

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#123 2017-09-03 08:29:20

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#124 2017-09-06 10:50:12

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#125 2017-09-06 16:41:36

Re: Deep Space Habitat

Board footer