1 / 18

SLS Derived Vertical Habitat

SLS Derived Vertical Habitat. Dr. Robert Howard NASA Johnson Space Center Habitability Design Center. FISO Telecon October 22, 2014. This presentation represents work conducted by the Habitability Design Center in support of the former AES Deep Space Habitat Project. Habitat Design Problem.

inese
Download Presentation

SLS Derived Vertical Habitat

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SLS Derived Vertical Habitat Dr. Robert Howard NASA Johnson Space Center Habitability Design Center FISO Telecon October 22, 2014

  2. This presentation represents work conducted by the Habitability Design Center in support of the former AES Deep Space Habitat Project

  3. Habitat Design Problem • Cannot take a habitat designed for microgravity and use it in a planetary environment • Cannot take a habitat designed for planetary environments and use it in microgravity • Cannot afford to set up distinct habitat project offices for each destination: • Lunar Surface, Mars Surface, NEA Transit, Mars Transit, Cislunar, Captured Asteroid, Martian Moons • Is it possible to consider all environments upfront and design a habitat applicable to all destinations?

  4. Concept one of several based on use of an Space Launch System (SLS) propellant tank as a habitat Similar to Skylab use of Saturn V S-IVB stage Additional SLS upper stage hydrogen tank manufactured, but instead of filling with fuel is outfitted as habitat 495 m3 Launched as payload inside shroud Proposed Skylab II

  5. MSFC proposed application designed exclusively for microgravity Excellent use of volume in microgravity but problematic to use in planetary environment Alternate configurations can make different use of same volume Note: Additional MSFC Skylab II habitats have since been developed for Mars surface Original Skylab II Configuration

  6. JSC Habitability Design Center explored alternative concept Vertical orientation Four decks Four lateral docking ports One dorsal docking port Interior designed for multi-destination use Proposed Skylab II Configuration 38 ‘ 27 ‘

  7. Proposed Skylab II Configuration • Cutaway View Deck 3 Deck 2 Deck 1 Deck 0

  8. Subsystems Subsystems Proposed Skylab II Configuration • Deck 0 • Lower dome • Cannot use as normal deck in gravity environment • VIS allow exercise to fit within height of deck 1 • With no VIS, exercise lowers into Deck 0 • Crawlspace allows access to all subsystems • Vertical translation enables removal of failed hardware for servicing

  9. DOCKING PORT DOCKING PORT DOCKING PORT Proposed Skylab II Configuration • Deck 1 • Primary working deck • Note large maintenance and fabrication volume • Crew seats in gravity; hand and foot restraints in microgravity

  10. Proposed Skylab II Configuration • Primary private volumes • Deck 2 • Rapid access to medical from other decks

  11. Proposed Skylab II Configuration • Operations and group social volumes • Deck 3

  12. Proposed Skylab II Configuration • Cutaway View Deck 3 Deck 2 Deck 1 Deck 0

  13. Teleoperations Workstation Detail • Only notionally represented in CAD model • Important considerations • How many robots will be controlled at any given time? • What type of robots will be controlled from this station? (ATHLETE, RMS, Robonaut, etc.) • Will there be different types of robots controlled at the same time? (e.g. Robonaut on the end of an RMS mounted on an ATHLETE)

  14. Teleoperations Workstation Detail • Some lessons learned from NASA HDU DRATS incorporated to develop basic specifications • Six monitors available for crew display • Keyboard and mouse • Accommodate at least one RHC and THC • Accommodate experimental control interface devices (e.g. VR helmets, Kinnect sensors, Wii devices, sensor gloves, body-worn sensors, and video glasses)

  15. Conclusions • Providing additional effort in the design phase can enable accommodation of multiple gravity environments • Vertical and horizontal surfaces • Access volumes • Common solutions vs. interchangeable components (especially with respect to crew and equipment restraints) • Minimize effort to outfit for planetary vs. microgravity applications

  16. Conclusions • Accept inefficiencies • Not necessarily the “best” thing to have minimum mass, minimum function • Can be penny-wise but pound-foolish • Accommodating multiple gravity environments creates packaging or layout inefficiencies • Forced horizontal orientation for crew bunks • Subsystems and utility runs • Tradeoff is condensing multiple program offices, multiple prime contracts, multiple manufacturing centers into single organization

  17. Conclusions • Ideal volume unlikely to be achieved whether considering for multiple or single gravitational environment • Skylab, ISS, Shuttle, Orion, Apollo spacecraft volumes all impacted by factors unrelated to habitation • SLS upper stage hydrogen tank is a fixed volume (unless modify production line) • Design within volume given for solution that satisfies all mission environments

  18. Questions?

More Related