Deep Space Habitat

Johnceju · 2017-09-25 10:27:29

Ive got an idea. Why dont we write down what we think it would be like to work on Deep Space 9?

Does anyone have anything to say?

giggles

SpaceNut · 2017-09-25 16:51:17

First deep space 9 is a bit off the topic as its a stationary outpost for all visitations and little to do with a vehicles for travel from earth over extended periods of time.

One of the biggest hazards to man is Cosmic rays. This powerful type of radiation does pose a risk to astronauts. Beyond Earth's protective magnetic shield, they increase the risk of cancer and other health effects. The first Mars explorers may face a two-fold higher risk than previously thought, according to a recent study in mice. However, researchers may soon develop better radiation shielding. NASA is dead-set on sending astronauts to Mars within the next 15 to 20 years.

SpaceNut · 2017-09-28 20:53:17

GW Johnson wrote:

It's official. NASA is going for the money-pit Gateway space station in cis-lunar space, and agreed with the Russians to build and operate it. That's the one place SLS/Orion, as it is, can actually reach. The contractors they are bringing on board are the "usual crowd", already funded for "risk reduction studies", as I hear it.
Budget-wise, NASA has demonstrated in recent decades that it can take on only two big front-burner projects at a time, like shuttle and ISS. We still have major ongoing commitments to ISS, and now there will be Gateway. So, there will be no front-burner moon effort, much less a Mars effort.
If anybody goes to Mars in our lifetimes, it will be a private entity that does it. Musk will present the next version of his paper Mars rocket and spaceship at an upcoming meeting, I hear.
GW

Ya a vehicle in search a full time use at a huge cost.....

Excelsior · 2017-09-29 22:06:44

The only way the SLS will ever be worthwhile is if you where to only use it once to launch every member of the Senate into the Sun.

Excelsior · 2017-09-29 22:11:53

As for the Gateway, the BFR will easily loft an Olympus inflatable module to... where ever you'd like.

But since we can land, offload, and lift off with out using precious lunar fluids, I'm not sure if it is relevant anymore.

SpaceNut · 2017-09-30 15:36:20

GW Johnson wrote:

As far as doing anything on the moon is concerned, Gateway has little, if any, technological relevance. Why go there and make your voyage longer, if you can go straight to the moon quicker? Something in orbit around the moon might make sense, until and unless the vehicles make direct landings. If Musk has his way, they will.
Gateway ONLY makes sense to me as (1) corporate welfare for Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, and (2) a political tie to the Russians. And (3) as a budgetary excuse not to take on the risk and expense of going to Mars with men. There is no lander that could travel from Gateway to the lunar surface and back, something more demanding than a lander from low lunar orbit to the surface and back. Until there is, of what use is Gateway to doing anything on the moon? I see no use.
Unless they do the solar storm radiation shelter "right", they'll kill a crew on Gateway with lethal radiation exposure. Does anyone see any indication in any of the Boeing or Lockheed-Martin designs they will address that risk? I don't. Adding a little plastic hull lining to Orion won't protect those crews from solar storm radiation, either. It's too thin to serve, and no room or weight allowance (in an already overweight capsule) to add enough to do the job.
Musk's IAC presentation does address the radiation shelter issue, although his earlier Guadalajara presentation did not. If the BFR actually flies the way he projects, those crews may actually be safe enough for any destination outside the Van Allen Belts.
I had assumed the design requirements for a manned interplanetary transport vehicle were different enough from an atmospheric lander to justify separate designs, and basing from orbit at both the moon and Mars. Musk's team obviously doesn't think so. We'll see who's closer to right eventually, but the odds seem to favor them, at least at the BFR scale.
GW

Lockheed has started the project by using the already built method and going forward with retrofitting it for use with the ISS module that they are using.

SpaceNut · 2017-10-21 13:00:09

86ee9fe653172e75d4c2b84ff81ce890

No surprise with their past track record...NASA chooses not to tell Congress how much deep space missions cost

This week, the US Government Accountability Office reported on progress the space agency is making to prepare the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, and launch systems at Kennedy Space Center for future missions. NASA is making progress on these complex integration activities, the report finds, but the space agency has a long ways to go to make a test flight in late 2019 or early 2020. One surprise in the report is that NASA still has not provided Congress (or anyone else) with cost estimates for the first crewed mission of the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft, which could occur in 2023 or later. This "Exploration Mission 2," which would entail flying a crew of four into deep space

continue to story here

One surprise in the report is that NASA still has not provided Congress (or anyone else) with cost estimates for the first crewed mission of the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft, which could occur in 2023 or later. This "Exploration Mission 2," which would entail flying a crew of four into deep space and possibly delivering the first component of a space station into lunar orbit, would mark the first human mission after 12 years of development of the rocket and nearly two decades of work on Orion.

So we will kick the can down the road why Finally, some details about how NASA actually plans to get to Mars emerges but the really problem is NASA finally admits it doesn’t have the funding to land humans on Mars

SpaceNut · 2019-01-04 22:43:01

This ought to be converted into an unmanned fuel depot as Nasa has done very little to progress man on the way to the moon or anywhere else...

SpaceNut · 2020-08-20 18:48:20

Large transport and gyro wheel both are looking at temporary housing while we build the deep space transport.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-06-04 09:24:31

12 United States President and NASA, what has changed? We had, Eisenhower, JFK, Obama, Trump, and now Biden. 14 NASA admins and many, many deputy administrators, the next Hubble will be named after Webb who served from 1961 to 1968.

NASA is a different agency than an agency who had a mission to beat the Russians to the Moon in the 1960s, much of the excitement today is about the Us Private Sector.

Elon Musk announces SpaceX Starship set for Mars will launch from OCEAN
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/ … -Texas-ont
China's 'bold breakthroughs' in space go beyond Mars and the moon
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-05-28/chi … d-the-moon
ESA chief says Europe’s space program risks losing out to China, USA
https://www.laprensalatina.com/esa-chie … china-usa/

Could Mars have been done in the 60s and 1970s, von Braun and JFK discussed it but it is not known if they could have asked for such a mission, Apollo got the United States to the Moon and history will always remember the US as the first. NASA and Soviet Union remained in LEO for the past 50 years, other groups and countries have space programs, Japan, European, India says it will have a manned program, only Musk and China seem to have an ambition for people on Mars.

There have been 12 US Presidents and a 'Vision' for NASA
what has changed...i guess rather than a human colony on Mars you have a 'Space Force?

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2021-06-04 09:27:50)

SpaceNut · 2021-06-04 19:15:36

Yes the political whim of those at the top have had an impact not only on funding, programs but over all direction that its taken as an agency.

SpaceNut · 2021-06-26 21:24:03

When asked in the past to speak up and tell congress what's going on or why the delayed and did not respond we all were shaking our heads.
Now NASA tells lawmakers that it wants to see moon landings occur annually for 12 straight years

Agency Administrator Bill Nelson on Wednesday said the $2.9 billion contract awarded to SpaceX for the Artemis program marked the beginning of what would be a series of ambitious projects to return often to the moon.
The committee hearing was on NASA's 2022 budget request for $24.8 billion, a 6.6% increase over its 2021 budget.
The agency had requested $3.4 billion for the competition, but was handed $850 million in appropriations instead

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-12-14 09:29:23

This Gateway hub or Gateway station module will be built, or at least some functional testing models of it will be built even if people desire it or not, I feel there is too much time and money in it to cut down and it is too far politically pushed to be cancelled. However it had some critics and former admin Griffin said Gateway could be useful only after there are facilities on the Moon manufacturing stuff, factories on the Moon and a Luanr outpost producing propellant. The Moon Gateway or the Gateway Lunar Station as I have seen described in other newmars threads and in news and reports, is a NASA planned space station in an odd orbit around the Moon intended to measure people's expoure to Deep Space to serve as a solar-powered communication hub, it will be a re-fueling station, it will also be science laboratory, a hug of sorts to go between Earth and the Moon, it will also be short-term habitation module for government-agency astronauts maybe international astronauts or even tourists, as well as a holding area for rovers, equipment and other Moon cars or robots? The Gateway does have its critics, Collins said to Trump he should support Mars-Direct and Buzz Aldrin stated that he is "quite opposed to the Gateway"

Some news items

NASA Prepares Its Artemis Gateway to Orbit the Moon
https://eos.org/articles/nasa-prepares- … t-the-moon

Why can’t we just put a space station on the Moon already?
https://thenextweb.com/news/why-cant-we … yndication

SpaceNut wrote:

six companies are competing to develop a prototype deep space habitat that could be used in cislunar space.

I think a Mars station makes sense as humanity would have no humans in orbit if people were on the ground needing something above them in orbit. The Moon however already has a satellite called planet Earth so in a ways its a pity Trump was not his usual stubborn, annoying, hotheaded self and pit he had not went ahead and cancelled the Gateway, which seems to be more of a politically launched station than a one of real need.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2021-12-14 13:30:40)

GW Johnson · 2021-12-14 13:17:23

To answer the question posed in paragraph 4 of post 135:

Yes, the manned Mars mission was "on the books" for the NASA of the 1960's. Before the moon flights, the manned Mars mission was planned for the 1983 opposition. By the time Nixon killed Apollo in 1972, it had been pushed back to the 1987 opposition.

The baseline design was assembled in orbit at about 4 million pounds, powered by the NERVA nuclear rocket being tested 1958-1973 at Jackass Flats, Nevada. The backup was all-chemical at 12 million pounds as assembled in orbit. NERVA was ready for its initial flight test as an alternative 3rd stage for Saturn-5 when Nixon killed Apollo. NASA then killed NERVA because "who needs the rocket if we aren't going to go?" (They had already killed the nuclear explosion propulsion designs they got from the Air Force, as being a competitor for the NERVA that they preferred.)

Ultimately, THAT is why we are still flying only chemical rockets today.

The Mars craft was based on Apollo with a crew habitat resembling some of the designs for Skylab. It had the interior space to keep the crew sane in confinement. It lacked spin gravity, and it lacked a solar flare radiation shield. (I don't know what the lander looked like.) So in hindsight, it seems likely any crew going this way would have died of microgravity disease and/or radiation poisoning. But yes, there was a plan to go!

And no, I quite agree that the NASA of today is NOT the NASA that sent Apollo to the moon.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2021-12-14 13:22:02)

Oldfart1939 · 2021-12-15 16:01:55

"And no, I quite agree that the NASA of today is NOT the NASA that sent Apollo to the moon."

I agree with that statement, as does Buzz Aldrin.

NASA still hasn't adequately addressed the issues of Solar Flare radiation, nor have they made any efforts to include artificial gravity through centripetal acceleration (incorporation of tethers). They are overlooking several of the salient issues remaining--as is Elon. But Elon is a fast learner, and once he sees the problem, he's a fixer and a doer. NASA is mired in bureaucracy and stodgy mindsets.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2021-12-15 16:07:34)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-05-03 09:41:45

'The Gateway is about one-sixth the size of the ISS and can support four crew members for 30 – 60 days while
NASA_Orion
spacecraft is docked'

https://twitter.com/NASA_Gateway/status … 6461521920

'Gateway’s Habitation and Logistics Outpost team had a chance to climb inside the initial HALO module mock-up framework.'

https://twitter.com/NASA_Gateway/status … 8194741250

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-05-03 09:41:56)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-06-04 08:33:36

NASA Moon Mission Set to Break Record in Navigation Signal Test

https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA … t_999.html

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-08-12 15:08:56

Cygnus cargo ship berthed at space station
https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/08/04/c … e-station/

Small Asteroid Passing by Earth
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-s … -this-week

Former astronaut says it’s “extremely important” to study artificial gravity
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/07/f … l-gravity/
"We have nothing in between one and zero."

A little more than 15 years ago, astronaut Garrett Reisman was among a crew of seven who launched into orbit aboard Space Shuttle Endeavour. The shuttle remained attached to the Space Station for nearly two weeks, but when the orbiter departed, it left Reisman behind for an extended stay.
During his time at the station, Reisman would often pass through the Harmony module, which serves as a corridor connecting laboratory modules built by NASA and the European and Japanese space agencies. Sometimes, he would look up and see a small placard that said, "To CAM." The arrow, however, pointed out into space.
"When I was up there on the space station, there was still the sign that says, 'To CAM,'" Reisman said in an interview. "But there's just a closed hatch. It was tragic. It was just kind of taunting me when I saw that because I think that could have been one of the most important scientific discoveries that we made."
The "CAM" was the Centrifuge Accommodation Module, originally built by the Japanese space agency. It was intended to provide an environment for artificial gravity experiments, from just slightly above zero gravity all the way to 2 gs. However, NASA canceled the final development and launch of the centrifuge module in 2005 due to budgetary concerns.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-03-22 11:41:13

Space-Born Muscle Monitoring Technology Promises Earthly Healthcare Advancements

https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Spac … s_999.html

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-04-01 10:12:33

SpaceX's Starship will go interstellar someday, Elon Musk says
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-g … -musk-says

"This Starship is designed to traverse our entire solar system and beyond to the cloud of objects surrounding us. A future Starship, much larger and more advanced, will travel to other star systems,"

Avoiding the "Great Filter": A Projected Timeframe for Human Expansion Off-World
https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.01730

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2017-09-25 10:27:29

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#127 2017-09-25 16:51:17

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#128 2017-09-28 20:53:17

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#129 2017-09-29 22:06:44

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#130 2017-09-29 22:11:53

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#131 2017-09-30 15:36:20

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#132 2017-10-21 13:00:09

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#133 2019-01-04 22:43:01

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#134 2020-08-20 18:48:20

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#135 2021-06-04 09:24:31

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#136 2021-06-04 19:15:36

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#137 2021-06-26 21:24:03

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#138 2021-12-14 09:29:23

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#139 2021-12-14 13:17:23

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#140 2021-12-15 16:01:55

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#141 2022-05-03 09:41:45

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#142 2022-06-04 08:33:36

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#143 2023-08-12 15:08:56

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#144 2024-03-22 11:41:13

Re: Deep Space Habitat

#145 2024-04-01 10:12:33

Re: Deep Space Habitat

Board footer