SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Large habitat”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Metallic Vs Inflatable Primary Structure: A Comprehensive Trade for a Mars Transit Habitat

Large diameter inflatable habitat solutions are hypothesized to have an advantage over traditional metallic habitats of equal volume and functional requirements in terms of minimizing mass. A fair and comprehensive trade of metallic primary structure versus inflatable softgoods primary structure for a Mars Transit Habitat was conducted by The Boeing Company under the NASA Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships-2 (NextSTEP-2)Appendix A contract in order to determine the minimum mass option from a system level. A Mars Transit Habitat is a major system mass driver because small increases in the mass can create large mass changes in the propulsive stage, adding complexity and cost to the mission. Three different vehicle configurations were traded using a fixed volume constraint and the same Ground Rules and Assumptions(GR&A)provided by NASA. The configurations were 1) 5.5 m diameter metallic habitat, 2) 7.0 m diameter metallic habitat, and 3) 7.63 m diameter inflatable habitat. In order to complete the trade, each configuration was analyzed and sized, but a system level approach had to be taken to ensure other aspects and subsystems besides the structure were captured. The primary functions (i.e. restraint layer, bladder, multilayer insulation [MLI], micro-meteoroid orbital debris [MMOD]) and strength advantages of softgoods are well understood, but there were other system level impacts that were discovered or addressed that are unique to softgoods. For the metallic structure, a modern and mass optimal material and manufacturing process was adopted to ensure the lightest weight options were evaluated. Two different aluminium lithium structures were evaluated, a longer length 5.5 m diameter and a shorter length 7 m diameter structure. The trade demonstrates that each configuration is feasible and close to the target dry mass for the Mars Transit Habitat Trans-Martian Injection burn. System level mass was the primary consideration, but since the three concepts were close in total mass, a clear winner did not arise. Secondary factors were evaluated such as architecture habitability (human factors), development considerations, on-orbit activation and outfitting, extensibility to other applications, and configuration flexibility. The aggregation of the lowest mass, most benefits, and fewest challenges resulted in the 5.5m diameter metallic configuration being the most favorable.

Matthew Ziglar↗

NASA NTRS1978

Developing closed life support systems for large space habitats

In anticipation of possible large-scale, long-duration space missions which may be conducted in the future, NASA has begun to investigate the research and technology development requirements to create life support systems for large space habitats. An analysis suggests the feasibility of a regeneration of food in missions which exceed four years duration. Regeneration of food in space may be justified for missions of shorter duration when large crews must be supported at remote sites such as lunar bases and space manufacturing facilities. It is thought that biological components consisting principally of traditional crop and livestock species will prove to be the most acceptable means of closing the food cycle. A description is presented of the preliminary results of a study of potential biological components for large space habitats. Attention is given to controlled ecosystems, Russian life support system research, controlled-environment agriculture, and the social aspects of the life-support system.

Phillips, J. M.↗

DOE OSTI2025

The Economic, Environmental, and Performance Impacts of Co-locating Pollinator Habitat at Large Scale Solar Facilities (Final Technical Report)

The Pollinator Habitat Aligned with Solar Energy (PHASE) project studied the impacts of co-location of pollinator plantings at large-scale solar facilities (10 MW or larger). The project focused on the ecological benefits, economic considerations, and PV performance impacts of co-located pollinator vegetation through field research at seven operating solar sites.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

NASA NTRS2018

Advantages of a Modular Mars Surface Habitat Approach

Early crewed Mars mission concepts developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) assumed a single, large habitat would house six crew members for a 500-day Mars surface stay. At the end of the first mission, all surface equipment, including the habitat, -would be abandoned and the process would be repeated at a different Martian landing site. This work was documented in a series of NASA publications culminating with the Mars Design Reference Mission 5.0 (NASA-SP-2009-566). The Evolvable Mars Campaign (EMC) explored whether re-using surface equipment at a single landing site could be more affordable than the Apollo-style explore-abandon-repeat mission cadence. Initial EMC assumptions preserved the single, monolithic habitat, the only difference being a new requirement to reuse the surface habitat for multiple expedition crews. A trade study comparing a single large habitat versus smaller, modular habitats leaned towards the monolithic approach as more mass-efficient. More recent work has focused on the operational aspects of building up Mars surface infrastructure over multiple missions, and has identified compelling advantages of the modular approach that should be considered before making a final decision. This paper explores Mars surface mission operational concepts and integrated system analysis, and presents an argument for the modular habitat approach.

Rucker, Michelle A.↗

NASA NTRS2018

Advantages of a Modular Mars Surface Habitat Approach

Early crewed Mars mission concepts developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) assumed a single, large habitat would house six crew members for a 500-day Mars surface stay. At the end of the first mission, all surface equipment-including the habitat-would be abandoned and the process would be repeated at a different Martian landing site. This work was documented in a series of NASA publications culminating with the Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.0. More recent work, dubbed the Evolvable Mars Campaign (EMC), explored whether re-using surface equipment at a single landing site could be more affordable than the Apollo-style explore-abandon-repeat mission cadence. Initial EMC assumptions preserved the single, monolithic habitat-the only difference being a new requirement to reuse the surface habitat for multiple expedition crews. A trade study comparing a single large habitat versus smaller, modular habitats leaned towards the monolithic approach as more mass-efficient. More recent work has focused on the operational aspects of building up Mars surface infrastructure over multiple missions, and has identified compelling advantages of a modular approach that should be considered before making a final decision. This paper explores Mars surface mission operational concepts and integrated system analysis, and presents an argument for the modular habitat approach.

Rucker, Michelle A.↗

NASA NTRS2018

Advantages of a Modular Mars Surface Habitat Approach

Early crewed Mars mission concepts developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) assumed a single, large habitat would house six crew members for a 500-day Mars surface stay. At the end of the first mission, all surface equipment?including the habitat--would be abandoned and the process would be repeated at a different Martian landing site. This work was documented in a series of NASA publications culminating with the Mars Design Reference Mission 5.0 (NASA-SP-2009-566). The Evolvable Mars Campaign (EMC) explored whether re-using surface equipment at a single landing site could be more affordable than the Apollo-style explore-abandon-repeat mission cadence. Initial EMC assumptions preserved the single, monolithic habitat?the only difference being a new requirement to reuse the surface habitat for multiple expedition crews. A trade study comparing a single large habitat versus smaller, modular habitats leaned towards the monolithic approach as more mass-efficient. More recent work has focused on the operational aspects of building up Mars surface infrastructure over multiple missions, and has identified compelling advantages of the modular approach that should be considered before making a final decision. This paper explores Mars surface mission operational concepts and integrated system analysis, and presents an argument for the modular habitat approach.

Rucker, Michelle↗

NASA NTRS2018

3D Printed Structural Core with MMOD Protection

Deep space exploration requires large habitats for both orbital and surface missions. The weight of a habitat is driven largely by its structure and future vehicles require lighter weight structures to minimize launch mass and cost. Unlike honeycomb core materials used in the past, a 3D printed core can be analyzed and optimized for specific load environments, further cutting down mass of the vehicle. Multi-functional structures can integrate features into the primary structure that are traditionally added mass. MMOD (Micro Meteor and Orbital Debris) protection, for example, can be integrated directly into the primary structure of a habitat. This minimizes the mass of the structure and eliminates the need for additional MMOD layers and attachment hardware. This project seeks to develop 3D printed structural core that can be optimized for flights loads and provide integrated MMOD protection.

Hagen, Richard↗

NASA NTRS2005

Using Dynamic Simulations and Automated Decision Tools to Design Lunar Habitats

This paper describes the role of transient simulations, heuristic techniques, and closed loop integrated control in designing and sizing habitat life support systems. The integration of these three elements allows for more accurate requirements to be derived in advance of hardware choices. As a test case, we used a typical lunar surface habitat. Large numbers of habitat configurations were rapidly tested and evaluated using automated decision support tools. Through this process, preliminary sizing for habitat life support systems were derived. Our preliminary results show that by using transient simulations and closed loop control , we substantially reduced the system mass required to meet mission goals. This has greater implications for general systems analyses and for life support systems. It is likely that transient models, realtime integrated control, and other analyses capable of capturing the uncertainties of systems can be useful for systems analyses much earlier in the system development life cycle than has previously been considered.

Bell, Scott↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Down-Selection of Four Common Habitat Variants

The Common Habitat is a large habitat developed as an alternative architecture study, not part of the current NASA baseline, that uses the SLS core stage liquid oxygen tank as its primary structure. It has a gravity-independent internal architecture, such that identical units can be used on the lunar surface, Mars surface, and in microgravity. In developing the habitat, two key architectural questions emerged. Should the internal layout use a vertical or horizontal orientation of the tank? Should the crew size be four or eight? This led to the design of four variants: a four-crew horizontal, four-crew vertical, eight-crew horizontal, and eight-crew vertical. The four-crew variants use a shortened version of the tank while the eight-crew variants use the entire tank. The primary consideration applied for down-selection is the crew experience living and working in the habitat, inclusive of crew productivity, well-being, and survivability. Based on this consideration, a series of seven assessments were performed to compare the variants. This analysis was performed as an unfunded, volunteer activity leveraging civil servants across multiple field centers, most with expertise working in various Artemis teams. Additionally, the evaluation was limited to the use of CAD models, images, and spreadsheet data, with no resources available for mockups or Virtual Reality. A logistics analysis developed a standard logistics module and then estimated how much stowage could be carried onboard each Common Habitat and how many logistics modules are required by each variant for a given mission duration. It also considered the amounts of water to be stored in each variant. A functional analysis identified and compared the living and working functions across the habitats, ranking them relative to each other. A crew time assessment first estimated the total crew time, building a weekly crew timeline for both four and eight-person crews. It then allocated time to activities linked to living and working functions, comparing how much time was available for each function in each variant. A science productivity assessment developed a relative metric using crew time, science stowage, and assumed rates of experiment consumables use to analytically compare the four variants. It also comparatively ranked the habitats with respect to a number of subjective parameters and a workstation acceptability rating. A maintenance capacity assessment identified and compared eleven generic maintenance capabilities across the variants and also ranked them for their predicted ability to complete twelve fabrication, maintenance, and repair scenarios. A contingency responsiveness analysis examined twelve serious in-flight contingencies. For each scenario, the number of crew needed to respond were predicted and acceptability of various aspects of contingency response were evaluated, comparing the variants against each other. Finally, in a habitability assessment, 120 habitability characteristics reflecting 13 major categories were evaluated for each habitat. These results were compared to identify the most acceptable habitat in each category. Ultimately, the data favored the horizontal orientation over the vertical and an eight-person crew over four. Implications of selecting this variant are discussed, including specific architectural challenges that result from the use of the full tank.

Habitability↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Down-Selection of Four Common Habitat Variants

The Common Habitat is a large habitat that uses the Space Launch System core stage liquid oxygen tank as its primary structure. It has a gravity-independent internal architecture, such that identical units can be used on the lunar surface, Mars surface, and in microgravity. In developing the habitat, two key architectural questions emerged. Should the internal layout use a vertical or horizontal orientation of the tank? Should the crew size be four or eight? This led to the design of four variants: a four-crew horizontal, four-crew vertical, eight-crew horizontal, and eight-crew vertical. The primary consideration applied for down-selection was the crew experience living and working in the habitat, inclusive of crew productivity, well-being, and survivability. Based on this consideration, a series of seven assessments was performed to compare the four variants. A stowage assessment developed a standard logistics module and then considered the amounts of water to be stored in each variant. It then estimated how much stowage could be carried onboard each Common Habitat and how many logistics modules are required by each variant for a given mission duration. A functional analysis identified and compared the living and working functions across the four habitat, ranking them relative to each other. A crew time assessment first estimated the total crew time, building a weekly crew timeline for both four and eight-person crews. It then allocated time to activities linked to living and working functions, comparing how much time was available for each function in each variant. A science productivity assessment developed a relative metric using crew time, science stowage, and assumed rates of experiment consumables use to analytically compare the four variants. It also comparatively ranked the habitats with respect to a number of subjective parameters and a workstation acceptability rating. A maintenance capacity assessment identified and compared eleven generic maintenance capabilities across the four variants and also ranked the variants for their predicted ability to complete twelve fabrication, maintenance, and repair scenarios. A contingency responsiveness analysis examined twelve serious in-flight contingencies. For each scenario, the number of crew needed to respond was predicted and acceptability of various aspects of contingency response was evaluated, comparing the four variants against each other. Finally, in a habitability assessment, 120 habitability characteristics reflecting 13 major categories were evaluated for each habitat. These results were compared to identify the most acceptable habitat in each category. Ultimately, the data was shown to favor the horizontal orientation over the vertical and an eight-person crew over four. Implications of selecting this variant are discussed, including specific architectural challenges that result from the use of the full SLS liquid oxygen tank.

Habitability↗

NASA NTRS2007

A Minimized Technological Approach towards Human Self Sufficiency off Earth

Since the early 1970's it has been known that it is technically feasible to build large habitats in space where many people could live, more or less, independently off Earth. These large habitats would require decades of Apollo level expenditures to build. The objective of this paper is to begin the study of the minimum technological system that wi11 enable the historic shift from the state where all of humanity is dependent on Earth to the state where an independent human community can exist off Earth. It is suggested that such a system is more on the order of a homestead than a city. A minimum technical system is described that could support one human reproductive unit (family) in free space or on a planetary or lunar surface. The system consists of life support, materials extraction, mobility, and power production. Once the technology is developed for the single unit, many could be deployed. They could reproduce themselves at an exponential rate using space resources and energy. One would imagine cooperation of these units to build any combination of towns, cities and nations in space to extend human life beyond Earth.

Curreri, Peter A.↗

NASA NTRS2007

A Minimized Technological Approach towards Human Self Sufficiency off Earth

Curreri, Peter A.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Multi-Gravity Docking and Utilities Transfer System for a Common Habitat Architecture

The Common Habitat architecture, a study architecture based on a large habitat derived from the SLS Core Stage Liquid Oxygen tank and designed to operate in microgravity, lunar surface, and Mars surface environments, requires a pressurized docking and berthing system that also works in all three domains. Prior flown docking systems have only been designed for microgravity, but a prototype suit port-derived docking system was developed under the Constellation program for the lunar surface. This system employed an active-active mating adapter approach consisting of a simplistic passive docking system on all spacecraft and a pressurized mating adapter with active systems on each end to form the docking connection. Derived from this approach, the Common Habitat architecture will use a multi-gravity active-active mating adapter (MGAAMA) to perform this function on the Moon, Mars, and in microgravity, connecting the various pressurized elements needed for surface base camps or deep space habitation. Design aspects and open trades of the MGAAMA system will be described. In addition to forming a structural connection and enabling the transfer of crew and equipment, the MGAAMA must also transfer utilities in the form of gases, fluids, power, and data. The MGAAMA is also designed with a degree of articulation in order to accommodate significant angular misalignment. Due to the environmental conditions the MGAAMA will experience, dust and thermal protection systems are discussed. Because the MGAAMA involves docking to spacecraft with different docking systems of different sizes, the MGAAMA is a family of docking systems with interfaces compatible with current and legacy spacecraft docking systems.

Docking↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Crew and Logistics Lander for the Common Habitat Architecture

The Common Habitat Architecture is a conceptual study that explores the use of a large habitat derived from the Space Launch System (SLS) liquid oxygen tank as a core habitation element that can be used for crew missions or training in 0g, 1/6g, 3/8g, and 1g. This is not part of current NASA Artemis mission planning, but instead represents an architecture that could potentially follow after the Artemis missions and initial human Mars landings. This architecture leverages Starship-derived vehicles for crew landing on and ascent from the Moon and Mars in support of long-duration surface missions with pressurized crew transfer baselined as a nominal capability. This is not the Human Landing System variant of Starship but represents a number of modifications to enable long-duration surface missions with an eight-person crew size. A rapid brainstorming study was conducted in February of 2021, using only public data, to identify options to deliver the 90-ton Common Habitat to the surface and emplace it at the intended habitation site. This study compared three lunar lander concepts and three Mars lander concepts before ultimately selecting the SpaceX Starship as the most viable lander. The Common Habitat Architecture assumes that this Starship variant can further be modified for crew and cargo delivery, assuming that the use of a common system will lead to cost benefits. It is assumed that the Starship will expend too much propellant in landing crew and logistics to be able to launch, given the assumed absence of surface propellant production. Consequently, a separable ascent stage is used for crew ascent. The pressurized elements of this modified Starship are discussed: Starship Ascent Module, Airlock, Transfer Tunnel, Pressurized Crew Transfer Module, and Logistics Modules. For each element, a description, dimensions, rough mass estimates, core capabilities, and design features are presented. Key mechanisms and internal structures of the starship are also discussed. This will include flame diverters for the ascend module, the orbital docking hatch, Pressurized Crew Transfer Module Garage door, Starship Ascent Module fairing, flame diverter blow-out panels, Pressurized Crew Transfer Module lift system, logistics module lift system, contingency crew ascent via the logistics module lift system, internal catwalks, and structural interfaces. Concept of Operations will be discussed for both Moon and Mars. This will include in-space crew rendezvous and transfer, crewed landing, shirtsleeve crew transfer, crew departure, contingency surface operations, and final element disposition. Key differences for Mars will be discussed, such as the Martian atmosphere, dust storms, the absence of crew handover, and Deep Space Exploration Vehicle rendezvous. Contingency microgravity maintenance access will also be discussed. This work will demonstrate viable pressurized crew transfer with a Starship-based lander architecture. Forward work includes Garage lighting and camera systems, Starship Ascent Module propulsion system and docking port trades, contingency habitation trades, and mass/power equipment estimation. Finally, forward work includes developing a heavy cargo return system derived from the Crew and Logistics Starship. The goal of this system is the return of at least 10,000 kg payloads from the surfaces of the Moon and Mars.

Lunar Lander↗

NASA NTRS1979

The future United States space program; Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Anniversary Conference, Houston, Tex., October 30-November 2, 1978. Parts 1 & 2

Space Shuttle guidance problems, solar power satellites, space law, satellite communications, space medicine, and engineering of large space systems are discussed. Topics of the papers include biological experiments designed for the Space Shuttle, an optimized guidance law for Space Shuttle re-entry, aircraft propulsion based on laser energy, industrial materials available in the lunar soil, health programs for a solar power satellite construction team, closed life support systems for large habitats in space, the advantages of a manned mission to Mars, the interpretation of radar imagery of Venus, a cost analysis for the satellite power system, and the geological history of Mars.

Johnston, R. S.↗

NASA NTRS2008

The Space Homestead and Creation of Real Estate and Industry Beyond Earth

During the 1970's large habitats were proposed by G. K. O'Neill and studied by NASA that could house 10,000 to 4 million people in Earth/Moon space. These peoples would be employed in building space solar satellites and more habitats for new settlers. Such a program, the NASA studies concluded, could reach financial break even in 17 to 30 years of peak Apollo level expenditures. During the STAIF 2007 conference the first author presented a proposal to begin human settlement not by building city size structures but with a minimum technology habitat that could provide subsistence for a human family (10 people) and be capable of producing new habitats with extraterrestrial materials and energy. Such a habitat would be the equivalent of a space homestead. Later these habitats could cooperate to form towns and cities in a free ad hoe manner similar to the development of the American west. In addition the approach could provide a quicker return on investment and lower start up costs, and would be of a scale that could be developed and tested within the planned transportation and lunar base architecture of the Exploration Vision. This paper examines the population growth kinetics of humans in space, and the development of space solar power industry for the space homestead in comparison to larger habitat designs considered in the 1970's.

Curreri, Peter A.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Life Support Systems for a New Lunar Lander

A life support system concept has been developed for a new NASA lunar lander concept. The ground rules and assumptions driving the design of this vehicle are different from the Constellation Altair vehicle, and have led to a different design solution. For example, this concept assumes that the lander vehicle arrives in lunar orbit independently of the crew. It loiters in lunar orbit for months before rendezvousing with the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), resulting in the use of solar power for this new lander, rather than fuel cells that provided product water to the life support system in the Altair vehicle. Without the need to perform a single Lunar Orbit Insertion burn for both the lander and the MPCV, the modules do not have to be centered in the same way, so the new lander has a smaller ascent module than Altair and a large habitat rather than a small airlock. This new lander utilizes suitport technology to perform EVAs from the habitat, which leads to significantly different requirements for the pressure control system. This paper describes the major trades and resulting concept design for the life support system of a new lunar lander concept.

Anderson, Molly↗

NASA NTRS2012

Life Support Systems for a New Lunar Lander

Anderson, Molly↗