Long Duration Habitat for ISS?
David Spain
a long duration habitation module to the ISS. I can't remember if I read mention of
it in either one of the sci.space. newsgroups on on a space blog somewhere.
In any case, I'd appreciate any references from folks about this project. Web links,
news articles, NASA press releases, etc.
If any reader here has direct knowledge of it I'd appreciate any comment about it
you might have along with answers to the following questions:
1) How many crew members was the module designed to support? I'm especially interested
in knowing if the module was intended to support a crew separate from the rest of
the ISS or as a support module to be shared by the entire ISS crew.
2) How much power would it require from the ISS? Would the current ISS power infra-
structure have been sufficient?
3) What would have been the re-supply interval? Would it have enabled the crew
to be able to recycle all their water and be able to grow their own food?
4) If adding to the crew of the ISS, did the module provide its own emergency escape
system or would it have required an additional Soyuz attached to the ISS? Did it
require the now defunct emergency crew return vehicle?
5) Why was the project canceled?
6) What technical obstacles would have to be overcome to revive this project?
Dave
Jorge R. Frank
> I read a mention some time back about a (canceled) project that would
> have attached
> a long duration habitation module to the ISS. I can't remember if I read
> mention of
> it in either one of the sci.space. newsgroups on on a space blog somewhere.
>
> In any case, I'd appreciate any references from folks about this
> project. Web links,
> news articles, NASA press releases, etc.
>
> If any reader here has direct knowledge of it I'd appreciate any comment
> about it
> you might have along with answers to the following questions:
>
> 1) How many crew members was the module designed to support? I'm
> especially interested
> in knowing if the module was intended to support a crew separate from
> the rest of
> the ISS or as a support module to be shared by the entire ISS crew.
It was intended to support the current three USOS crewmembers. Not
separate from the ISS crew. Total ISS crew capacity (6) is unchanged.
The crew just doesn't have a dedicated hab module any more.
> 2) How much power would it require from the ISS? Would the current ISS
> power infra-
> structure have been sufficient?
Yes. The life support equipment on the hab has been scattered among the
other modules (in particular, the extended Node 2), so the power is
still being consumed.
> 3) What would have been the re-supply interval? Would it have enabled
> the crew
> to be able to recycle all their water and be able to grow their own
> food?
Resupply situation unchanged. Capabilities unchanged. Some "amenities",
not necessities.
> 5) Why was the project canceled?
Cost overruns. It was cancelled in spring 2001, along with the US CRV.
> 6) What technical obstacles would have to be overcome to revive this
> project?
No technical, only money. And lots of it, since the hab shell has been
extensively used as a test article and can no longer be space rated. But
a dedicated hab module isn't needed.
Derek Lyons
>I read a mention some time back about a (canceled) project that would have attached
>a long duration habitation module to the ISS.
You're probably thinking about Transhab, which was 'more habitation'
not 'longer habitation'.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Jorge R. Frank
> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:35:29 EDT, fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons)
> wrote:
>
>> David Spain <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>>> I read a mention some time back about a (canceled) project that would have attached
>>> a long duration habitation module to the ISS.
>> You're probably thinking about Transhab, which was 'more habitation'
>> not 'longer habitation'.
>
> been planned/suggested/scrapped for ISS.
No, there was the original aluminum Hab module, which Transhab (briefly)
replaced.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:c9jv55deqt6mn1brf...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>I read a mention some time back about a (canceled) project that would
>>>have attached
>>>a long duration habitation module to the ISS.
>>
>>You're probably thinking about Transhab, which was 'more habitation'
>>not 'longer habitation'.
>
> been planned/suggested/scrapped for ISS.
>
The original poster may have also been thinking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitation_extension_module
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
Jorge R. Frank
David Spain
> Or this, which my response was geared for:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitation_Module
>
Yes. That's it.
Thanks Jorge.
Dave
Derek Lyons
>Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>> Or this, which my response was geared for:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitation_Module
>>
>
>Yes. That's it.
Except that's not a long duration habitat module as specified in your
original post.
David Spain
> David Spain <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> Jorge R. Frank wrote:
>>> Or this, which my response was geared for:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitation_Module
>>>
>> Yes. That's it.
>
> Except that's not a long duration habitat module as specified in your
> original post.
>
> D.
That is true. Jorge addressed that in his first response. I should
not have used the phrase 'long duration' in my post as this does
not fit that purpose. But I believe this *is* what I had read about
and Jorge explains its purpose in his response.
Dave
Mike DiCenso
> OM wrote:
It would be a nice thing if NASA would have a Transhab module built
for ISS by Bigelow using their Sundancer module, which in turn is
based heavily on the original Transhab concept and technologies.
-Mike
Me
Why? it is not needed
Mike DiCenso
Not needed? The module is a necessity since by having all the crew
sleep stations and ECLSS gear scattered about the station, it takes up
room that can be used for experiments, or logistics storage.
Additionally, Bigelow gets to test run their largest module in very
ideal conditions before having others like it put in use as part of
independent commercial space hotel stations. The crew on ISS gains a
major psychological boost by having their own dedicated wardroom and
there will be more room for future crew expansion with such a large
volume module.
-Mike
MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
JDL
Derek Lyons
>Not needed? The module is a necessity since by having all the crew
>sleep stations and ECLSS gear scattered about the station, it takes up
>room that can be used for experiments, or logistics storage.
ECLLS was scattered around the station by design - for redundancy and
to simply overall ECLSS operations.
>Additionally, Bigelow gets to test run their largest module in very
>ideal conditions before having others like it put in use as part of
>independent commercial space hotel stations.
If Bigelow needs a test run of his equipment, let him pay for it.
>The crew on ISS gains a major psychological boost by having their own
>dedicated wardroom
Maybe a minor boost. Maybe.
>and there will be more room for future crew expansion with such a large
>volume module.
Given that there aren't any plans to provide increased taxi service to
get them to and from there, or any plans to provide things for the
increased crew to do... And that both are unlikely.
So what?
David Spain
>
> It would be a nice thing if NASA would have a Transhab module built
> for ISS by Bigelow using their Sundancer module, which in turn is
> based heavily on the original Transhab concept and technologies.
> -Mike
My original thinking on this was not hab for hab's sake or even
as proof-of-concept.
No, I was thinking of a specific. A long duration habitation module
that would be self-sufficient. Capable of supporting a small crew
nearly indefinitely using recyclables (such as air, water, etc.)
and growing its own food. This would be a prelude study in prep
for an interplanetary mission to a either Venus or Mars. The module
could focus on the sustainability aspect while relying on power
and other infrastructure support on the ISS. Much as a habitation
module on an interplanetary vehicle would depend upon it for infra-
structure. Whether crews could intermingle is secondary (although
perhaps desirable).
Again only proposed for LEO studies. I don't subscribe to the idea
of converting the ISS to an interplanetary exploration vehicle.
It wasn't designed for it, is ill suited to the task and is much
more valuable *today* staying where it is in LEO.
My "opinion" is having this as a module attachable to the ISS would
be cheaper than building a stand-alone orbital lab, but I have no
numbers to offer. I would think the price would be somewhere between
and MPLM and a stand-alone station. Facts and figures always appreciated,
esp. if this idea has been seriously explored in the past. Links
welcome.
Dave