MOTH Mars Transit Habitat
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Elvira Melamed↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Transit 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.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Deep Space Mars Transit Habitat Layout and Development Studies
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Shayna Borgfeld↗
EDEN Mars Transit Habitat Concept of Operations
EDEN is a transportation/orbital habitat that carries large amounts of crew members, food, and supplies from Earth to Mars and back, but can also act as a permanent, simulated-1g-environment space station in Martian orbit. The focus of the project is to create a temporary, but long-term living environment that focuses on human health and food production. The project is composed of four major habitable parts (in addition to other major components). Moving from the center out, the first is a central core that acts as a hub that connects to the structural spokes, the main propulsion rockets and serves as a place for other spacecraft to dock onto, in addition to housing some of the basic station control, navigation and automated computer systems. The second set of parts are the spokes that connect the ring to the central core; these are the primary structural components with elevators in the middle carrying people from the ring to the core. The ‘lower’ portions, near the ring and it’s 1g environment, also act as storage centers. The third part is the 2-story outer ring of the craft, which holds all of the food production along with medical bays, a control center and a few parks. This ring also integrates the rigid keystone modules, which are the interface between the spokes, the expandable-construction portions of the ring and the habitation pods. The keystone modules also incorporate redundant, distributed ECLSS systems, medical storage, airlocks, and other integral station functions. The last parts are the habitation pods; these hold the sleeping quarters along with the bathrooms, showers, kitchen space and lounge areas. These expandable modules latch onto the keystone modules of the ring, which serves as a circulatory link between the different habitation pods.
Jackson Behre↗
Future Homes in Space: Development of Concepts for Exploration Space Habitats
NASA’s Artemis campaign seeks to return humans to the moon and establish a sustained presence on the lunar surface. This session will emphasize how habitation capabilities on the moon and in cislunar space can potentially contribute to the sustainability objectives of Artemis. Habitable elements represent opportunities to enable longer duration stays, increase the number of crew members present, enhance science and utilization activities, drive technology development for future Mars exploration, perform analog missions, and fuel economic opportunities for US industry. Panelists include Paul Kessler (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, deputy lead for lunar surface habitation); Andrew Choate (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Mars habitation lead); Krystofer Dudzinski (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, a space architect within the MSFC Advanced Concepts Office); and Larry Toups (retired from NASA Johnson Space Center, currently an adjunct professor at University of Houston in space architecture). The panel is moderated by Tracie Prater (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Habitation Systems Development Office). The panel will begin with an overview of the history of habitation concepts and an academic perspective on general considerations in space habitat design (Larry Toups). Paul Kessler and Andrew Choate will introduce NASA’s principle of “architecting from the right” to help define objectives for Artemis missions, needs/characteristics, use cases, and functions (as published in the agency’s Architecture Definition Document) and provide perspective on how this principle informs habitation concept development work. NASA panelists will discuss key engineering challenges identified for developing, deploying, and operating habitable assets on the lunar surface and/or in deep space. These may include dust mitigation, outfitting of inflatable softgoods (for concepts which may use softgoods as a primary structural material), survival in lunar darkness, human health and performance considerations, maintenance/repair/sparing, and autonomy. These identified challenges represent risks for habitation systems development and relate closely to capability gaps identified by the agency. While the work of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center’s habitation development office is primarily focused on habitats which are launched from earth pre-integrated (referred to as Class I in the framework previously developed by NASA space architects Kennedy/Cohen) or launched from earth and deployed at the point of use (Class II), there is also extensive work in NASA, academia, and companies on constructed habitats, which would be built on a planetary surface using indigenous resources (Class III habitats). Panelist Krystopher Dudzinski will discuss potential evolutionary pathways from Class I and Class II habitats to Class III habitats, unique and common architectural challenges within each habitat class, and key gaps in implementing Class III habitats from an architectural perspective. NASA panelists and the moderator will also provide an overview of partnership opportunities and avenues for further engagement to advance habitation systems for the SpaceCom audience. NASA is currently developing notional concepts for a lunar surface habitat and Mars transit habitat, which will be discussed during this panel session and used as examples. These concepts represent options for habitation system design and are a point of departure. They do not represent a final plan or formal recommendation on the part of the agency. Based on the most recent analysis cycle, NASA’s lunar surface habitat (SH) concept nominally supports two crew members for 30 days, with the capacity to support four crew during a surge period where crew will swap between the SH and another surface asset, such as a pressurized rover. This example design has a metallic airlock for ingress/egress and the upper portion is an inflatable material system which serves as the habitation module. The notional interior of the habitat is a three-deck layout/configuration which supports all crew mission functions, including exercise, stowage, extravehicular activity (EVA), sleep, hygiene waste collection, maintenance and repair, and meal preparation. Under analysis assumptions for habitation, the Mars Transit Habitat (TH) concept would support four crew on an up to 1,200 day Mars mission. One option for the concept is to initially dock Transit Habitat at Gateway, where it can be used to increase the duration of crew stays in cislunar space and perform shakedown and analog missions prior to a Mars departure. One challenge in longer duration missions which involve both surface exploration and transit is understanding crew adaptation when transitioning between partial gravity and microgravity environments. TH at Gateway offers an opportunity to study this transition and in doing so reduce risks associated with future Mars exploration. Like lunar SH, the most recent analysis cycle concept of a Mars TH is a hybrid structure design, with a metallic section supporting EVAs, axial/radial docking, and Safe Haven capabilities, and an inflatable softgoods structure for the primary habitation function. Interior layouts to optimize crew usability and livability are currently under trade. The panel will include presentation material, but also seeks to engage the audience in a highly interactive conversation regarding the potential role for habitation in future exploration initiatives. Potential topics for discussion include the influence of the crew experience on habitation systems design and livability/usability considerations, the benefits of space habitation development in terrestrial applications, and challenges and opportunities in “feeding forward” lunar surface habitation systems development to Mars exploration.
space habitats↗
Inflatable Softgoods Testing Capability Development for Habitation
The Habitation Systems Development Office (HP40) at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center supports systems engineering, integration, and project management for next generation space habitats. The office is responsible for formulation activities for Lunar Surface Habitat and Mars Transit Habitat. HP40 also manages commercial partnerships for exploration habitat development. The Lunar Surface Habitat is intended to initially support a minimum of two crew on the lunar surface for an approximately 30-day mission, with the ability to accommodate four crew for short durations. The Mars Transit Habitat will transport four crew to and from Mars orbit on a potentially 1,200 day mission. Both concepts are envisioned to leverage inflatable softgoods as the primary structural material for the habitation portion of the architecture. Inflatable softgoods are a complex, multi-material system consisting of multiple layers which perform specific functions. A bladder layer (polymer) contains the habitat’s atmosphere. The bladder is indexed to a woven restraint layer, usually Kevlar or Vectran, which serves as the structural layer. The remaining outer layers are for micro-meteoroid orbital debris (MMOD) shielding, protection from atomic Oxygen (if the material system is to be deployed in low earth orbit), and thermal insulation. The primary advantage of inflatable softgoods is that they can offer a larger volume per unit mass relative to a rigid metal structure. Inflatable softgoods have a strong development heritage within NASA, beginning with work in the 1960s in partnership with Goodyear Aerospace and continuing with Johnson Space Center’s TransHab project in the 1990s . Some development efforts subsequently transitioned into the private sector to mature the material technology for flight applications, including human habitation. In August 2022, NASA published its guidelines for certification of crewed inflatable softgoods structures (JSC-67721). This document outlines a series of tests which will be needed to certify inflatable softgoods material systems for use in crewed mission applications. It includes burst testing at the subscale and full-scale to determine the ultimate burst pressure of the softgoods architecture. Creep (long term deformation of the material under stress) is a key failure mode which must be characterized. Creep testing at the component and module levels is also recommended to generate time to failure curves and verify that the inflatable system has a predicted operational life which exceeds mission parameters. ET (Test Engineering) at MSFC and HP40 have worked together to establish softgoods testing capabilities for the center. This includes the ability to conduct module level burst tests and creep tests. The poster will highlight these capabilities and provide examples of testing which has been performed to date by ET. NASA MSFC anticipates that these test capabilities will continue to offer critical support for companies pursuing inflatable softgoods for exploration applications (lunar surface habitation, Mars transit) as well as commercial low earth orbit platforms.
habitation↗
NASA's Moon to Mars Autonomous Habitat Status
NASA is developing a strategy for sending humans to the Mars vicinity, known broadly as the Moon to Mars (M2M) Campaign. A critical part of this campaign is the development of in-space and surface habitation systems capable of substantially extending human presence beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Mars missions feature an in-space transit habitat capable of supporting crews of four on ~850-1200-day missions, including transit to and from Mars and time in Mars orbit. Surface and transit habitats are complex elements which must keep crewmembers healthy and productive in deep-space environments with limited resources, long rescue times in contingency situations, and communication delays; all within constrained mass, volume, and power budgets. These habitats provide crew both living and workspace as well as most of the resources needed to support crew life. For deep space habitats, automation needs to be employed due to latency and for significant amounts of time when the habitats are uncrewed. Automation of systems is possible in space applications, but there are limitations. Outside of the Earth’s (or any) magnetosphere, radiation environments are harsh to both the physical hardware and the software components. Radiation (charged particles and ionizing electromagnetic waves) degrades and damages the hardware and causes single event upsets (SEUs) in software. If the hardware is damaged, data can be lost, or control actions not made. For software, SEUs cause algorithms to result in different solutions, or incorrect commands to be sent out. This means that algorithms and hardware used for deep space systems are different than what is used on Earth. Radiation-tolerant hardware is generations behind the current state-of-the-art hardware. Recent NASA missions, such as James Webb Space Telescope, continue to rely on older technologies such as the RAD750 processor, and the most advanced processors are still single core and less than 1.5 GHz. There have been attempts to use higher performance processors, but these often take multiple mitigation steps to handle the radiation environments, which limits the processing power and/or throughput. Current techniques for radiation mitigation have been redundancies, voting, physical separation of hardware, encasing materials, under-clocking hardware, and more. Some radiation mitigation techniques do provide benefits such as having a redundant system to improve the probability that a system will be available when needed. Autonomous software systems will have fewer interactions with humans on deep space missions and therefore need to be able to handle more off-nominal conditions. Microgravity also complicates the autonomous aspects of the mission because autonomous systems are usually built from known deterministic states, but microgravity causes physical objects to shift and move changing the location an autonomous system placed the object. Not only does the software need to be reliable and deterministic, losing resources due to a software error is not only costly but detrimental to reputation. The combination of having lower performance hardware and having to be able to verify and deterministically run software and an ever-changing environment makes deep space autonomous systems more complicated. Multiple gaps have been identified including verification of autonomous software algorithms (including artificial intelligence and machine learning), higher performance processors (graphics and general purpose), high speed networks (onboard and transmissions), memory, power distribution, data security, and variations from these. These gaps need to be closed for more advanced systems to be deployed and reduce the size, weight, and power impacts on the habitats.
Scott B. Tashakkor↗
SLS-Derived Lab: Precursor to Deep Space Human Exploration
Plans to send humans to Mars are in work and the launch system is being built. Are we ready? Robotic missions have successfully demonstrated transportation, entry, landing and surface operations but for human missions there are significant, potentially show-stopping issues. These issues, called Strategic Knowledge Gaps (SKGs) are the unanswered questions concerning long-duration exploration beyond low-earth-orbit. The gaps represent a risk of loss of life or mission and because they require extended exposure to the weightless environment outside earth's protective geo-magnetic field they cannot be resolved on the earth or on the International Space Station (ISS). Placing a laboratory at the relatively close and stable lunar Distant Retrograde Orbit (DRO) provides an accessible location with the requisite environmental conditions for conducting SKG research and testing mitigation solutions. Configurations comprised of multiple 3 meter and 4.3 meter diameter modules have been studied but the most attractive solution uses elements of the human Mars launch vehicle or Space Launch System (SLS) for a Mars proving ground laboratory. A shortened version of an SLS hydrogen propellant tank creates a Skylab-like pressure vessel that flies fully outfitted on a single launch. This not only offers significant savings by incorporating SLS pressure vessel development costs but avoids the expensive ISS approach using many launches with substantial on-orbit assembly before becoming operational. One of the most challenging SKGs is crew radiation protection; this is why SKG laboratory research is combined with Mars transit Habitat systems development. Fundamentally, the two cannot be divorced because using the habitat systems for protection requires actual hardware geometry and material properties intended to contribute to shielding effectiveness. The SKGs are difficult problems, solutions are not obvious, and require integrated, iterative, and multi-disciplinary development. A lunar DRO lab built from the launch system elements enables an early and representative transit habitat test bed necessary for closing gaps before sending humans on a 1000 day Mars mission.
Griffin, Brand↗
Concept for 2033 Crewed Mars Orbital Mission with Venus Flyby
The 2033 Mars launch period provides a unique opportunity for a round trip mission with a total flight time of only 1.6 years. A concept is presented to perform a crewed Mars orbital mission in 2033 that would minimize development and mission risk by using conventional hypergolic in-space propulsion stages with a common design. The Mars mission vehicle would include a Mars transit habitat, an Orion spacecraft, and chemical propulsion stages. It would be launched by a combination of SLS and commercial rockets to be aggregated in high Earth orbit or at the Lunar Gateway. The crew would launch to the mission vehicle in Orion as the final element in the assembly. After transit to Mars, the crew would spend about 30 days in a high Mars orbit and then return to Earth via a Venus flyby and gravity assist. A sunshade would be deployed for thermal control of the mission vehicle inside 1 AU. The crew would return directly to Earth in the Orion crew module, with the transit habitat being expended. The 2033 mission would not be a “one-off”, but could be a pathfinder for crew transport for landing missions to follow, perhaps starting as early as 2037.
Woolley, Ryan↗
SLS-Derived Lab- Precursor to Deep Space Human Exploration
Plans to send humans to Mars are in the works and the launch system is being built. Are we ready? Transportation, entry, landing, and surface operations have been successfully demonstrated for robotic missions. However, for human missions, there are significant, potentially show-stopping issues. These issues, called Strategic Knowledge Gaps (SKGs), are the unanswered questions concerning long duration exploration Beyond low Earth Orbit (BEO). The gaps represent a risk of loss of life or mission and because they require extended exposure to the weightless environment outside of earth's protective geo-magnetic field, they cannot be resolved on Earth or on the International Space Station (ISS). Placing a laboratory at a relatively close and stable lunar Distant Retrograde Orbit (DRO) provides an accessible location with the requisite environmental conditions for conducting SKG research and testing mitigation solutions. Configurations comprised of multiple 3 m and 4.3 m diameter modules have been studied but the most attractive solution uses elements of the human Mars launch vehicle or Space Launch System (SLS) for a Mars proving ground laboratory. A shortened version of an SLS hydrogen propellant tank creates a Skylab-like pressure vessel that flies fully outfitted on a single launch. This not only offers significant savings by incorporating SLS pressure vessel development costs but avoids the expensive ISS approach using many launches with substantial on-orbit assembly before becoming operational. One of the most challenging SKGs is crew radiation protection; this is why SKG laboratory research is combined with Mars transit habitat systems development. Fundamentally, the two cannot be divorced because using the habitat systems for protection requires actual hardware geometry and material properties intended to contribute to shielding effectiveness. The SKGs are difficult problems. The solutions to these problems are not obvious; they require integrated, iterative, and multi-disciplinary development. A lunar DRO lab built from SLS elements enables an early and representative transit habitat test bed necessary for closing gaps before sending humans on a 1,000-day Mars mission.
Griffin, Brand M.↗
Human Exploration of Phobos
This study developed, analyzed, and compared mission architectures for human exploration of Mars' Moons within the context of an Evolvable Mars Campaign. METHODS: All trades assumed conjunction class missions to Phobos (approximately 500 days in Mars system) as it was considered the driving case for the transportation architecture. All architectures assumed that the Mars Transit Habitat would remain in a High Mars Orbit with crewmembers transferring between HMO and Phobos in a small crew taxi vehicle. A reference science / exploration program was developed including performance of a standard set of tasks at 55 locations on the Phobos surface. Detailed EVA timelines were developed using realistic flight rules to accomplish the reference science tasks using exploration systems ranging from jetpacks to multi-person pressurized excursion vehicles combined with Phobos surface and orbital (L1, L4/L5, 20km Distant Retrograde Orbit) habitat options. Detailed models of propellant mass, crew time, science productivity, radiation exposure, systems and consumables masses, and other figures of merit were integrated to enable quantitative comparison of different architectural options. Options for pre-staging assets using solar electric propulsion (SEP) vs. delivering all systems with the crew were also evaluated. Seven discrete mission architectures were evaluated. RESULTS: The driving consideration for habitat location (Phobos surface vs. orbital) was radiation exposure, with an estimated reduction in cumulative mission radiation exposure of up to 34% (vs. Mars orbital mission) when the habitat is located on the Phobos surface, compared with only 3-6% reduction for a habitat in a 20km DRO. The exploration utility of lightweight unpressurized excursion vehicles was limited by the need to remain within 20 minutes of Solar Particle Event radiation protection combined with complex GN&C systems required by the non-intuitive and highly-variable gravitational environment. Two-person pressurized excursion vehicles as well as mobile surface habitats offer significant exploration capability and operational benefits compared with unpressurized EVA mobility systems at the cost of increased system and propellant mass. Mechanical surface translation modes (i.e. hopping) were modeled and offer potentially significant propellant savings and the possibility of extended exploration operations between crewed missions. Options for extending the utilization of the crew taxi vehicle were examined, including use as an exploration asset for Phobos surface exploration (when combined with an alternate mobility system) and as an EVA platform, both on Phobos and for contingency EVA on the Mars Transit Habitat. CONCLUSIONS: Human exploration of Phobos offers a scientifically meaningful first step towards human Mars surface missions that develops and validates transportation, habitation, and exploration systems and operations in advance of the Mars landing systems.
Abercromby, Andrew F. J.↗
An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities
Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.
technology development↗
An Analysis of Exploration Capability Gaps for Future Habitation Systems to Inform Risk Assessment and Development Priorities
Within NASA, exploration capability gaps are defined as the difference between the current state-of-the-art in capabilities and the anticipated needs of future human spaceflight architectures. As NASA and its partners’ capabilities for human exploration of deep space continue to mature, it is necessary to understand the capability gaps that require closure to support future habitation systems, such as the Lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH) currently in concept development. This paper will identify high-priority capability gaps for exploration habitation and show potential options for gap closure through investment in technology, development, and testing. High-priority capability gaps are divided into the following general taxonomy areas: human health/life support/habitation systems, flight computing and avionics, power and energy storage, communications and navigation, thermal management systems, human exploration destination systems, autonomous systems, sensors and instruments, GNC (guidance, navigation, and control), robotic systems, ground and uncrewed surface systems, and materials/structures/mechanical systems/manufacturing. In the gap identification process, teams of discipline experts from across NASA reviewed the latest habitation architecture needs against current capabilities to understand where gaps may exist. The results of the assessment established a basis for the current state-of-the-art within each gap and identified the capability needs of the proposed exploration missions the gap links to. An assessment of how each test platform (e.g., Ground, International Space Station (ISS), Commercial Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Destinations, Gateway) may be leveraged to mature capabilities and potentially provide a route to gap closure will be discussed. The notional timeline for gap closure to support reference missions and impacts to overall schedule are also assessed where appropriate. Based on the capability gap analysis described above, the paper summarizes important technology maturation considerations for human exploration architectures, with a focus on the Mars TH. The previously published NASA habitation ground rules and assumptions document is used as the basis to classify gaps as enabling, enhancing, or “push” opportunities for a particular architecture. Stepwise technology maturation plans/considerations are presented for some selected critical gaps. Overall, the analysis in this paper is intended to help influence development priorities for habitation systems, where high-priority, critical gaps are those currently assessed as having a low probability of closure by the anticipated need date. Capability gap analysis also informs the risk register for exploration habitation systems and mitigation strategies to ensure readiness of key technologies to support future mission timelines. Linkage between capability gaps for Moon and Mars is noted, as closure of a gap at a Lunar destination may subsequently enable or enhance Mars TH architectures.
technology development↗
A Review of Baseline Assumptions and Ersatz Waste Streams for Partial Gravity Habitats and Orbiting Microgravity Habitats
Highly efficient water management and recovery systems will be required to support human missions beyond the low Earth orbit of the International Space Station (ISS).A review of baseline assumptions for the human activities and associated water cycle in surface, partial gravity habitats and orbiting, microgravity habitats is conducted. The paper reviews and updates ersatz formulations and water flow rates for the main liquid water waste streams of urine, humidity condensate, hygiene, and laundry. A framework is provided to coordinate development of water recovery systems for 30-day crew occupancies under partial gravity with longer term, continuous occupancy in orbiting microgravity habitats and the Mars transit habitat.
Water Ersatz Habitat↗
A Review of Baseline Assumptions and Ersatz Waste Streams for Partial Gravity Habitats and Orbiting Micro-gravity Habitats
Highly efficient water management and recovery systems will be required to support human missions beyond the low Earth orbit of the International Space Station (ISS). A review of baseline assumptions for the human activities and associated water cycle in surface, partial gravity habitats and orbiting, microgravity habitats is conducted. The paper reviews and updates ersatz formulations and water flow rates for the main liquid water waste streams of urine, humidity condensate, hygiene, and laundry. Development of a new framework is recommended to coordinate advancement and commonalities of water recovery systems for 30- day crew occupancies under partial gravity with longer term, continuous occupancy in surface or orbiting microgravity habitats and the Mars transit habitat.
Dean Leslie Muirhead↗
NASA's Habitation Development Status: Current Concepts and ISRU Opportunities
Introduction: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is embarking on a bold journey to return humankind to the Moon and onward to Mars with innovative commercial, international, and academic partnerships. Under the Artemis series of missions, NASA seeks to establish sustained human exploration of deep space through an objectives-based approach. This approach drives the identification of needed system functionality and the current and future capabilities which will eventually allow humanity to sustainably live beyond Earth. Providing evolvable and scalable habitation is a cornerstone function that calls for the collection and integration of current, developmental, and future technologies that can meet near-term exploration needs while growing into long-term sustained presence. NASA is advancing in-space habitation through its Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) model while designing lunar, Mars transit, and Mars surface habitat government reference concepts for Artemis missions. These efforts have unveiled possible near-term opportunities for the in-space resource utilization community if human habitation is considered a future customer of space resources. NextSTEP Habitation Development: NASA is closely working with commercial partners under its NextSTEP Appendix A model to advance habitation systems in the arena of inflatable and composite habitation structures. Such efforts promise efficiencies in volumetric packaging and overall spacecraft mass respectively. Recent testing by commercial partners have helped to quantify possible failure mechanisms for inflatable structures while advancing their technology towards eventual flight certification. The advancement of such Class II habitation structures, in which the habitat is only fully deployed once in-space or on a planetary surface, is critical to providing increased habitable volume for long-duration missions with no additional mass penalties. The progression of such technology is infused into NASA’s government reference concepts for notional deep space habitation concepts. Current Government Reference Concepts: To best inform the formulation of future collaborative solicitations, NASA employs the practice of internally developing reference concepts for future exploration elements. These concepts aid in identifying the functions and capabilities needed to complete NASA missions as well as feasible solutions within the timeframe needed. Government reference concepts for a lunar Surface Habitat, Mars Transit Habitat, and Mars Sur-face Habitat are continuously being developed and updated to better guide the Agency’s overall exploration architecture. Lunar Surface Habitat. As NASA returns to the Moon, it is evaluating possible lunar surface habitation concepts. The Surface Habitat (SH) reference concept entails a hybrid metallic-inflatable structure capable of initially housing two crew for surface stays of up to 30 days in duration. While initial missions may span ~7 days in duration, consideration is being given to expanding SH’s capability to support a crew of four for up to 60 days over its 15-year design life. Functionally, the SH serves as a ‘hub’ for all Artemis crewed surface operations, providing internal volume for maintenance, medical, logistics, science utilization, and extravehicular activity (EVA) support in addition to core habitation functionality such as environmental control and life support (ECLS) and power generation and distribution among many others. Additionally, NASA has entered a study agreement with the Italian Space Agency (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana – ASI) to investigation a possible Multi-Purpose Habitat (MPH) as an additional or augmenting habit-able element for the lunar surface. Mars Transit Habitat. NASA’s current architectural concept for initial human missions to Mars entails the utilization of a transit habitat (TH) to transport a four-person crew to and from Mars orbit, departing from and returning to a lunar near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO), over the course of a ~1,200-day mission. While holding a similar 15-year design lifetime, TH will also support a series of analog mission activities in NRHO to gradually test the systems and interaction with lunar surface elements, some of which may be adapted for Mars surface exploration. Holding similar functional capabilities as SH, TH is sized to support much longer durations in space and greater logistical independence. Mars Surface Habitat. NASA is still exploring the concept of operations for initial crewed missions to Mars. As such, the Mars Surface Habitat (MSH) concept is still in its infancy as options for mobile, pressurized habitation and stationary habitats are being explored. It is expected MSH will leverage heavily from the lunar SH and possible lunar pressurized rover, however the very different Martian environment will likely necessitate modifications. ISRU Opportunities: Despite the advancements under NASA’s NextSTEP habitation work and continually optimized reference concepts, NASA is facing near-term mass and power challenges that may create opportunities to the ISRU community by providing yet another possible customer for space resources. While NASA desires to use regenerative ECLS systems (ECLSS) for all habitation concepts, their operation comes with initial mass penalties and maintenance overheads when compared to simpler open-loop architectures. Because of this, NASA is currently pro-posing an open-loop, consumables-based architecture for its surface habitats to achieve initial launch and delivery lander mass targets while scarring for the in-corporation of regenerative ECLSS to meet longer mission durations and sustained presence. With such an architecture, oxygen and potable water are needed consumables, which initial ISRU systems may be able to provide in a pilot capacity. Although the TH is expecting to utilize regenerative ECLSS, advancements in lunar surface-based ISRU and possible re-supply of spacecraft in lunar or Mars orbit could significantly reduce the logistical need for ECLSS related spares on TH and possibly allow a similar open-loop and consumables-based architecture. In addition to ECLSS mass concerns, the SH is facing challenges with energy storage to support operations over periods of darkness exceeding 100 hours. Both battery and fuel cell-based power architectures are being traded, opening options for external power generation and energy storage. One possibility is ISRU-produced H2 and O2 feeding external primary fuel cell systems which could supplement habitation power generation while reducing initial mass and volume until much more powerful fission power systems might be deployed. Conclusion: Significant advancements are being made in evolvable habitation concepts that span from near-term technologies, such as inflatable structures under NextSTEP, to potentially revolutionary capabilities like the lunar surface construction as funded through the Moon-to-Mars Planetary Autonomous Construction Technologies (MMPACT) project. As NASA investigates both heritage capabilities and rap-idly advancing, disruptive technologies, there are likely many near-term opportunities for initial ISRU capabilities to significantly aid human habitation and increase self-sufficiency beyond Earth.
habitation↗
NASA's Habitation Development Status: Current Concepts and ISRU Opportunities
Introduction: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is embarking on a bold journey to return humankind to the Moon and onward to Mars with innovative commercial, international, and academic partnerships [1]. Under the Artemis series of missions, NASA seeks to establish sustained human exploration of deep space through an objectives-based approach [2]. This approach drives the identification of needed system functionality and the current and future capabilities which will eventually allow humanity to sustainably live beyond Earth. Providing evolvable and scalable habitation is a cornerstone function that calls for the collection and integration of current, developmental, and future technologies that can meet near-term exploration needs while growing into long-term sustained presence. NASA is advancing in-space habitation through its Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) model while designing lunar, Mars transit, and Mars surface habitat government reference concepts for Artemis missions. These efforts have unveiled possible near-term opportunities for the in-space resource utilization community if human habitation is considered a future customer of space resources. NextSTEP Habitation Development: NASA is closely working with commercial partners under its NextSTEP Appendix A model to advance habitation systems in the arena of inflatable and composite habitation structures. Such efforts promise efficiencies in volumetric packaging and overall spacecraft mass respectively. Recent testing by commercial partners have helped to quantify possible failure mechanisms for inflatable structures while advancing their technology towards eventual flight certification. The advancement of such Class II habitation structures, in which the habitat is only fully deployed once in-space or on a planetary surface [3], is critical to providing increased habitable volume for long-duration missions with no additional mass penalties. The progression of such technology is infused into NASA’s government reference concepts for notional deep space habitation concepts. Current Government Reference Concepts: To best inform the formulation of future collaborative solicitations, NASA employs the practice of internally developing reference concepts for future exploration elements. These concepts aid in identifying the functions and capabilities needed to complete NASA missions as well as feasible solutions within the timeframe needed. Government reference concepts for a lunar Surface Habitat, Mars Transit Habitat, and Mars Sur-face Habitat are continuously being developed and updated to better guide the Agency’s overall exploration architecture. Lunar Surface Habitat. As NASA returns to the Moon, it is evaluating possible lunar surface habitation concepts. The Surface Habitat (SH) reference concept entails a hybrid metallic-inflatable structure capable of initially housing two crew for surface stays of up to 30 days in duration [4]. While initial missions may span ~7 days in duration, consideration is being given to expanding SH’s capability to support a crew of four for up to 60 days over its 15-year design life [5]. Functionally, the SH serves as a ‘hub’ for all Artemis crewed surface operations, providing internal volume for maintenance, medical, logistics, science utilization, and extravehicular activity (EVA) support in addition to core habitation functionality such as environmental control and life support (ECLS) and power generation and distribution among many others. Additionally, NASA has entered a study agreement with the Italian Space Agency (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana – ASI) to investigation a possible Multi-Purpose Habitat (MPH) as an additional or augmenting habit-able element for the lunar surface [6]. Mars Transit Habitat. NASA’s current architectural concept for initial human missions to Mars entails the utilization of a transit habitat (TH) to transport a four-person crew to and from Mars orbit, departing from and returning to a lunar near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO), over the course of a ~1,200-day mission [5]. While holding a similar 15-year design lifetime, TH will also support a series of analog mission activities in NRHO to gradually test the systems and interaction with lunar surface elements, some of which may be adapted for Mars surface exploration. Holding similar functional capabilities as SH, TH is sized to support much longer durations in space and greater logistical independence. Mars Surface Habitat. NASA is still exploring the concept of operations for initial crewed missions to Mars. As such, the Mars Surface Habitat (MSH) concept is still in its infancy as options for mobile, pressurized habitation and stationary habitats are being explored. It is expected MSH will leverage heavily from the lunar SH and possible lunar pressurized rover, however the very different Martian environment will likely necessitate modifications. ISRU Opportunities: Despite the advancements under NASA’s NextSTEP habitation work and continually optimized reference concepts, NASA is facing near-term mass and power challenges that may create opportunities to the ISRU community by providing yet another possible customer for space resources. While NASA desires to use regenerative ECLS systems (ECLSS) for all habitation concepts, their operation comes with initial mass penalties and maintenance overheads when compared to simpler open-loop architectures. Because of this, NASA is currently pro-posing an open-loop, consumables-based architecture for its surface habitats to achieve initial launch and delivery lander mass targets while scarring for the in-corporation of regenerative ECLSS to meet longer mission durations and sustained presence. With such an architecture, oxygen and potable water are needed consumables, which initial ISRU systems may be able to provide in a pilot capacity. Although the TH is expecting to utilize regenerative ECLSS, advancements in lunar surface-based ISRU and possible re-supply of spacecraft in lunar or Mars orbit could significantly reduce the logistical need for ECLSS related spares on TH and possibly allow a similar open-loop and consumables-based architecture. Table 1 Notional ECLSS consumables per mission use for SH and TH [5]. SH (28-day) Open Loop: Water (kg) 288 | Oxygen (kg) 30 TH (1110-day) Closed-Loop: Water (kg) 182 | Oxygen (kg) 123 In addition to ECLSS mass concerns, the SH is facing challenges with energy storage to support operations over periods of darkness exceeding 100 hours. Both battery and fuel cell-based power architectures are being traded, opening options for external power generation and energy storage. One possibility is ISRU-produced H2 and O2 feeding external primary fuel cell systems which could supplement habitation power generation while reducing initial mass and volume until much more powerful fission power systems might be deployed. Conclusion: Significant advancements are being made in evolvable habitation concepts that span from near-term technologies, such as inflatable structures under NextSTEP, to potentially revolutionary capabilities like the lunar surface construction as funded through the Moon-to-Mars Planetary Autonomous Construction Technologies (MMPACT) project [7]. As NASA investigates both heritage capabilities and rap-idly advancing, disruptive technologies, there are likely many near-term opportunities for initial ISRU capabilities to significantly aid human habitation and increase self-sufficiency beyond Earth.
habitation↗
Austere Human Missions to Mars
The Design Reference Architecture 5 (DRA 5) is the most recent concept developed by NASA to send humans to Mars in the 2030 time frame using Constellation Program elements. DRA 5 is optimized to meet a specific set of requirements that would provide for a robust exploration program to deliver a new six-person crew at each biennial Mars opportunity and provide for power and infrastructure to maintain a highly capable continuing human presence on Mars. This paper examines an alternate architecture that is scaled back from DRA 5 and might offer lower development cost, lower flight cost, and lower development risk. It is recognized that a mission set using this approach would not meet all the current Constellation Mars mission requirements; however, this 'austere' architecture may represent a minimum mission set that would be acceptable from a science and exploration standpoint. The austere approach is driven by a philosophy of minimizing high risk or high cost technology development and maximizing development and production commonality in order to achieve a program that could be sustained in a flat-funded budget environment. Key features that would enable a lower technology implementation are as follows: using a blunt-body entry vehicle having no deployable decelerators, utilizing aerobraking rather than aerocapture for placing the crewed element into low Mars orbit, avoiding the use of liquid hydrogen with its low temperature and large volume issues, using standard bipropellant propulsion for the landers and ascent vehicle, and using radioisotope surface power systems rather than a nuclear reactor or large area deployable solar arrays. Flat funding within the expected NASA budget for a sustained program could be facilitated by alternating cargo and crew launches for the biennial Mars opportunities. This would result in two assembled vehicles leaving Earth orbit for Mars per Mars opportunity. The first opportunity would send two cargo landers to the Mars surface to preposition a habitat, supplies, and exploration equipment. The next opportunity, two years later, would send to Mars orbit 1) a lander with a Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) and 2) a crewed Mars Transit Habitat with an Orion CEV for Earth return. The following opportunity, two years after the first crew, would go back to cargo-only launches. This alternation of cargo and crew opportunities results in a sustainable launch rate of six Ares V launches every two years. It is notable that four of the six launches per Mars opportunity are identical, build-to-print, Tran-Mars Injection stages. This type of production rate could lend itself well to a COTStype service provider, and would make it feasible to have a live spare in place in the event of a single launch failure.
landers↗
Austere Human Missions to Mars
This slide presentation reviews a possible mission architecture for a more austere Mars mission, than the one developed by NASA outlined in the Design Reference Architecture 5 (DRA 5). "Austere" architecture is scaled back from DRA 5 and might offer lower development cost, lower flight cost, and lower development risk. This approach will not meet all the DRA 5 mission requirements. Included in the presentation are the elements of an Austere mission, diagrams of the trans-Mars injection (TMI), cruise, and Mars Orbital Insertion for various phases of the mission, the entry descent landing (EDL) concept. The key features of the Transit Habitat (TransHab), the Earth Departure Stage (EDS), the landers, are reviewed. A chart shows the Mass in tons, of the conceptual types of Mars Landers. The EDL concept, EDL Phase diagrams for the Mars Lander are reviewed. New technologies that would be required are also reviewed. Flight test programs for the various parts of the architecture and a flight schedule are reviewed.
transit habitat (TransHab)↗