Slashdot Mirror


NASA's Deep Space Habitat Could Support the Journey To Mars and a Lunar Return (spaceflightinsider.com)

MarkWhittington writes: Back in 2012, when NASA first proposed building a deep space habitat (DSH) beyond the moon, the Obama administration took a dim view of the idea. However, fast forward over three years, and the idea has become part of the Journey to Mars program. According to a story in Spaceflight Insider, the deep space habitat will be deployed in cis-lunar space in the 2020s to test various technologies related to sending humans to Mars. The DSH could also be part of an infrastructure that would support a return to the moon should the next administration decide to go that route.

43 comments

  1. Translation: Another 50-state wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see how many Congressional Districts this one can pork up!

    No bets lower than 120.

  2. Re:Translation: Another 50-state wonder by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

    As long as we can reserve place for all of them on the 'B' ark ...

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  3. Re:Translation: Another 50-state wonder by Daemonik · · Score: 1

    I'd rather that they spend tax money on US Congressional Districts than hand it to a corporation that passes it to the Chinese.

    At least government pork is local, benefits Americans and keeps American jobs alive.

  4. Implications for systemd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was reported that the ISS was looking to switch over their life support and other service management over to systemd in an effort to modernize. Thus I'd like to know if this implies a greatly forever growing roadmap for systemd, spreading its reaches out as our explorations stretch further into the cosmos.

    1. Re: Implications for systemd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its the child version of O.D.I.N.

  5. Re:Translation: Another 50-state wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, paying some americans to dig holes and other americans to fill those holes in is better, because at least it's americans being stupid.

  6. Does space belong to us or the the US? by Teun · · Score: 1

    I strongly believe that from the POV of this simple earthling outer space belongs to us all and it would at this point be foolish to leave exploration to individual states or even corporations (persons right?)

    So my dream is to start building an ISS2 in a cislunar orbit, also orbiting the earth and moon.

    As a side exercise, how much energy would be needed to propel the present ISS (+400 tons) to such an orbit, would it be feasible over say a 5 year period?

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    1. Re:Does space belong to us or the the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "I strongly believe that from the POV of this simple earthling outer space belongs to us all "

      LOL. You have people that can't even feed themselves and you're worried about a vacuum?

      http://www.distancetomars.com/

      "So my dream is to start building an ISS2 in a cislunar orbit, also orbiting the earth and moon."

      And for what? For who? For your fantasies? Send a camera with a radio. That's all you need there.

    2. Re:Does space belong to us or the the US? by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 3, Informative

      The current ISS doesn't have the additional radiation shielding that an station in cislunar space would require. Additionally, it's design and instruments are pretty well tuned for its current mission. We're far better off with a new station.

      It would be great if an international cooperative effort could be made in this direction, but in the current political climate, I think that level of cooperation between the space powers is extremely unlikely. We certainly shouldn't wait until everything here is hunky dory before we move forward with exploration.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    3. Re:Does space belong to us or the the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      it's means it is.

    4. Re:Does space belong to us or the the US? by Teun · · Score: 1

      Good point about the greatly increased radiation!

      No I certainly wasn't suggesting a delay but am not all that negative about continued corporation in space.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    5. Re:Does space belong to us or the the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "continued corporation in space"

      WTF does that even mean? Put down the Battlestar Galactica DVDs... that was fiction, OK? Space isn't filled with skinny blondes, mkay?

    6. Re:Does space belong to us or the the US? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 0

      it's means it is.

      This.

      Some helpful links for the apostrophe-challenged:

      http://its-not-its.info/
      http://theoatmeal.com/comics/a...

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    7. Re:Does space belong to us or the the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there is one area where international cooperation overrides short term political mayhem it is in space related matters. The US Space command constantly monitors around 25000+ objects in orbit and shares that information with other foreign space agencies. The various space agencies around the world cooperate in monitoring and tracking anything launched into space. Cooperation is also mandatory to ensure missile launches are not misinterpreted as an ICBM nuclear missile strike. The people involved with their countries space programs are not political ideologues they are scientists, engineers, and astronauts. And the vast majority of these people have received their education in US universities and colleges at some point in their life. NASA has hosted Russian and Chinese astronauts in Houston for specialized training and knowledge sharing. It would take a full on war to kill international space cooperation.

    8. Re:Does space belong to us or the the US? by DarkTempes · · Score: 1

      I agree that sending people to mars is mostly pointless and definitely an inefficient way to go about exploring the solar system.
      However, developing technologies to improve survival in space should provide insight and technology to help increase efficiency in a terrestrial environment.

      The very nature of space is such a harsh environment that it demands innovation while sitting around and playing in the dirt doesn't.

      Well, until we hit a resource crisis and then it does.

  7. Protection from Cosmic Rays? by shoor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Years ago I read an article somewhere about protection from Cosmic Rays. It made an impression, and what's also made an impression is that I don't think I've ever come across anything else about it in the discussions about plans to send people to Mars. I gather though, that cumulative damage from Cosmic Rays are a serious enough issue that it would be criminally negligent of the powers to be if they didn't offer protection. So, what to do about Cosmic Rays? This is from memory about what the article said and may not be quite right but:
    1. 3 feet of water offers as much protection from Cosmic Rays as the earth's atmosphere (maybe it was the atmosphere as it is in Denver, Colo.) So a ship going to Mars could be sheathed in a water jacket. That's a lot of mass, but, the bigger the ship, the less the total percentage of mass would be dedicated to the water jacket. Also, the water could be used for drinking, then purified and recycled. (Also, since the article came out, I've read about water being found on the Moon. Getting water from the Moon for the water jacket might be more practical as it has less of a gravity well to be hauled up from.)
    2. Alternatively, a very strong magnetic field around the ship would deflect the cosmic rays. This would be less massive. Methinks it would have to be a very powerful field and I'm wondering a bit at the technology to do it.

    --
    In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
    1. Re:Protection from Cosmic Rays? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 3, Informative

      Electromagnetic shielding tech is up to this task. Per my link, "no bigger than a large desk". Now that the USA is finally spinning back up RTG production, paintable solar cells, Tesla's advancement in battery tech, etc we COULD do quite a bit more than we are.

    2. Re:Protection from Cosmic Rays? by shoor · · Score: 2

      I visited that link. From what I read, the "no bigger than a large desk" solution is for solar wind, not cosmic rays, which are more energetic. In fact, reading farther down, there was a reply, 'let me rain on this parade' about the strength and power requirements of a field strong enough to deflect cosmic rays. It also gave a link to an article that seems similar to the one I remember reading except that it's gloomier https://engineering.dartmouth.edu/~d76205x/research/Shielding/docs/Parker_06.pdf as in 5 meters, not 3 feet of water. It also talks about the possibly negative effects of such a strong magnetic field.

      Two things that I wonder about wrt a magnetic field. I'm not an electrical engineer or a physicist, but, do you need to constantly supply power to such a field? Permanent magnets maintain a field without using power. Also, could the astronauts protect themselves from the field by being in something like a faraday cage?

      The article mentions that the 'poles' of the magnetic field would not be shielding from the field. How about the astronauts live in the poles and just protect that patch of space with a water shield? (Ooh, Ooh, where's the patent office?)

      --
      In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
    3. Re:Protection from Cosmic Rays? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Asteroids. Lots of cheap rock out there (except for the delta V, of course). Patience and planning can substitute for big badda boom in most cases.

      However, planning more than two years out is clearly beyond the US government at these cost levels. Maybe the mother of all Kickstarters (so to speak). Kick your own asteroid into orbit! Perhaps start out when your kid is born, keep contributing and by the time she's ready to be an astronaut you could. .. Well, you could, you could ... get her a picture of the asteroid.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Protection from Cosmic Rays? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you used superconducting magnets, you'd only have to supply enough power to offset the "indirect" work done by the field in deflecting the solar wind and cosmic rays...

    5. Re:Protection from Cosmic Rays? by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      A 10 ton asteroid tug with 20-25 tons of fuel can return about 1000 tons of asteroid rock to a high orbit, such as near the Moon. That's enough to shield a few Deep Space Habitat modules. Assume the modules are Space Station-sized, about 5x10 m cylinders. You want 1 meter of shielding, which is then a cylinder 7x10 meters, or 188 cubic meters. Chondrite type meteorites have a solid density of 2-3 tons/cubic meter, so the mass would be 375 to 560 tons. So you can cover roughly 2-3 modules. You build a cylinder of storage lockers around the pressure shell of the module, stuff each locker with rocks, and you are done.

      The tug takes about 2 years to make the trip to a good Near Earth Asteroid, though the trip time will depend on which asteroid and when you leave. Because you want to use it as shielding, you grab dust and small rocks off the asteroid surface, and not big chunks. Later you can process the rock to extract water and other useful stuff. Since the tug's engines and solar arrays have a life of ~15 years, you can make multiple trips. The first one is for shielding, the ones after that are for processing.

      10 tons of vehicle hardware should cost about two large comsats, or ~$600 million. It's mostly solar arrays and electric propulsion units, with enough multiples of each that a failure or two doesn't doom the mission. Each time the tug returns, you can fix whatever breaks before the next trip. The first load of propellant has to come from Earth, but the later trips can use water extracted from your asteroid rock.

    6. Re:Protection from Cosmic Rays? by nomentanus · · Score: 1

      Lots of rock, yes, for shielding and more - but shot up from the lunar surface to the L1 gravitational saddle point with electromagnetic cannons. like rolling a marble up a smooth mountain so it just nicely comes to rest at the top. (How best to balance the station, etc, there is a whole other discussion.) Not using current rail gun designs, though, because those wear out way too quickly. Essentially we need to be able to greatly accelerate a bucket, and then slow it while letting the payload sail away. The lunar poles might be a good location for such guns for a few reasons, including more reliable sunlight for power and the fact that the gun could be horizontal and still aim at at the L1 point. True, a tether (moonthread) elevator could be used coming up from the lunar surface with a counterweight nearer earth. We doubtless have materials strong enough. But very complex Coriolis effects from various climbing payloads and descending containers likely make this impractical for the time being.

    7. Re:Protection from Cosmic Rays? by hackertourist · · Score: 2

      Radiation is an issue that gets talked about, it just doesn't end up on the front page.
      I've seen calculations that suggest 500 kW of electric power would be enough to drive a decent magnetic shield. The ISS solar arrays supply about 120 kW of peak power.
      A water jacket on even a small ship ends up being very heavy. If you attach two ISS modules to each other for a volume of 3.5 x 20 m, you need 1000 tons of water for a shield 2 m thick.

  8. Am I the only one... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    ...who noticed that the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM) looks like a giant Jiffy Pop?

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  9. BEAM by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    With the BEAM idea, we could relatively easily build this and include electromagnetic shielding to guard against cosmic rays. Inflatable modules could be built en-mass, there is no reason we couldn't use them to make several Deep Space Habitats. All that's lacking is the political will power and vision.

  10. Re:Translation: Another 50-state wonder by sidyan · · Score: 2

    You *do* realise that all the Golgafrinchans who *weren't* on the B ark, died, right? Wiped out by a virulent disease contracted from a dirty telephone...

  11. Re:Translation: Another 50-state wonder by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd rather that they spend tax money on US Congressional Districts than hand it to a corporation that passes it to the Chinese.

    At least government pork is local, benefits Americans and keeps American jobs alive.

    You're gonna love this one then.

    "Congress has officially mandated the creation of such a module."

            Really - this needs to stop. Congress should mandate broad projects with goals that support the nation as a whole (e.g., the Interstate Highway system). They should stay away from legislating where overpasses go.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  12. Could it? Or.. by KeensMustard · · Score: 0
    But perhaps the question to be asked is not "could it?" but "should it?"

    Unless someone can come forward and provide a compelling reason why we should send humans (of all things) to Mars, any such venture is doomed to failure in the long term. By compelling, I mean, demonstrating some objective benefit that we mostly agree on. The reasons givens o far fall short of that benchmark:

    1. "Because we can". We "can" also eat a bag of pinecones. Doesn't make it a good idea.

    2. "We like to explore" - now we can use robots to explore for us. Why dick around on a dead rock when there are interesting places for us to go (via our robot allies)?

    3. "We need a backup" - but humans aren't pigs or cows. You can't breed a herd to replace your old herd from a remnant number of bulls and heifers. Humans are culture and belief and outlook and songs and poetry. Whose culture will you choose to preserve on Mars? Will there be people there to carry on the lifestyle of the Bantu? The Zulu? The Fijians? How will you structure that society - according to the cultural norms of the Motswana? The Brahman caste system? Will you adopt Sharia Law?

    4. "It's exciting" Exciting for a few. But in general, people are going about their lives and never thinking about Mars and landing on Mars. Look around. There is just not enough public interest.

    1. Re:Could it? Or.. by Kjella · · Score: 2

      By compelling, I mean, demonstrating some objective benefit that we mostly agree on.

      What's the objective benefit of Spirit and Opportunity? Sure, a bit of knowledge that's mostly useless outside Mars but has it produced any tangible benefits for mankind? Robots do it cheaper, but you don't get a return on investment, at least not measured in dollars. Not that space exploration is alone, what's the ROI on CERN? National parks? Protecting endangered species? Preserving historic artifacts and buildings? Supporting art and culture? Sure, some people only care about what directly impacts their lifestyle and wallet. But I'm glad that some look longer than the tip of their nose.

      Pushing our science and knowledge is the way we create capabilities and very often the tangible benefit is the culmination of a long series of not so obviously beneficial advances. We know that doing a manned Mars mission requires solving many technological challenges, that I would argue by themselves have value. For example, maybe we have to find a way to fix radiation damage to the cells, that could have far-reaching applications. Sure we could just not go and not have the problem, but often it's our desire to go faster and higher for less time and resources that trickle down to commodities.

      As for preservation our culture is in constant change, I can't be my parents. My children - if I get around to having any - can't be me. Mars couldn't be a museum of human culture, nor should it. But it's the carrying on of human culture, that we as a people don't disappear. From the chanting it sounds like a lot of Americans feel the same about their country. If you can feel that strongly about 300 million people, why not about 7 billion people? In any case, Mars will be nothing like that for ages. For the foreseeable future it'll be a research outpost like Antarctica, just more inhospitable.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Could it? Or.. by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      My reason is making money by expanding civilization into the Solar System. There are huge amounts of untapped energy and material resources out there. For a description of how the "mining and manufacturing based space program" would work, see:

      https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/... (part 1), and

      https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/... (part 2)

    3. Re: Could it? Or.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To each their own. I'm sure there are people who find space exploration useful. Me, I find stomping on dogs useful. Dogs are annoying. They yap and bark and bite all the time and they piss and shit everywhere. That's why I stomp on dogs. I stomp them flat, from toy poodles to great danes. You only have to raise your foot a little more and put all your weight on it and you can stomp flat even a St Bernard. Stomp stomp stomp.

    4. Re:Could it? Or.. by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      There are huge amounts of untapped energy and material resources out there.

      In the pilbara region of Western Australia the mining operation is almost completely automated. Trains run for 1000 km - no driver. Trucks drive around the mines by themselves.

      If we don't need humans in the pilbara to tap resources, we don't need them in space either - space is much further away than Western Australia (strange as that may seem).

    5. Re:Could it? Or.. by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      What's the objective benefit of Spirit and Opportunity?

      We're interested in the Solar System, and so we send probes into it. I see what you are getting at though, that this activity doesn't necessarily qualify as 'objectively beneficial' and that's a good point. But if we agree that learning more about the Solar System and indeed the world around us is an 'agreed benefit' then how does sending humans to Mars actually benefit that outcome?

      What outcome does sending humans serve that sending robots doesn't do better?

      What if we had said: "Let's not build [the giant machine called] CERN , because humans can do a better job of energising atoms to ridiculous levels and seeing what happens" would we have learned as much as we did? Is that idea actually any more ridiculous than sending a human to space instead of a 10 or 100 robots?

      Pushing our science and knowledge is the way we create capabilities and very often the tangible benefit is the culmination of a long series of not so obviously beneficial advances.

      But if we make those advances (e.g. in AI for self navigation, in solar cell technology, in material science) and then ignore those advances for a mere ideological reason "we want humans to go space" because we can't cope with the idea that robots do a better job in space than humans do then the material benefit of those discoveries is greatly lessened.

      We know that doing a manned Mars mission requires solving many technological challenges, that I would argue by themselves have value. For example, maybe we have to find a way to fix radiation damage to the cells, that could have far-reaching applications.

      If we are not motivated by the millions (billions?) of people who suffer radiation damage and cell degeneration NOW, why would we be motivated for the benefit of the 5 or 6 people who go to Mars? Maybe, what we ought to do is: (a) send a robot with a tissue sample to Mars, if there is something special about the deadly radiation there that we wouldn't see in a lab (b) spend the rest on finding a cure for cancer.

    6. Re:Could it? Or.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we need the resources that are abundant and the space from a terraformed planet if we are to eventually survive being overpopulated and the ever dwindling resources on this planet. may sound far fetched but that, short of actually culling the herd literally, is the only way we are going to keep all of our species plentiful with resources in the future. we need to push the boundaries now for solutions later, no doubt about it.

      and we may learn a bunch of things about keeping ourselves alive and healthy that may have far reaching, good consequences here on Earth.

    7. Re:Could it? Or.. by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      we need the resources that are abundant and the space from a terraformed planet if we are to eventually survive being overpopulated and the ever dwindling resources on this planet.

      Mars is too far away for it's resources to make any difference to a shortage on Earth and Mars is too small to make a dent in the Earth's population - even if fully populated it could house a fraction of what the Earth can house. Plus it's cold and airless and bombarded with deadly radiation, even 100 000 years would not be sufficient to terraform it and without terraforming nobody would want to live there.

  13. Re:Translation: Another 50-state wonder by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    But that was before everyone had their own individual phones, so nobody needs a phone sanitizer nowadays. That's why they still go on the B Ark :-)

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  14. Re: Anything is better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh brother.

  15. It could by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it won't.

  16. Re: Anything is better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I told you to quit having your head banged against the wall when you are sucking the kock bros. . your lack of intelligence is just one of the symptoms. Damn, you are one stupid fuck.

  17. Re:Translation: Another 50-state wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes because space exploration is equivalent to digging holes and never aided in scientific discovery.