SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Common 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 NTRS2019

Common Habitat for Long Duration Transit and Surface Operations

This concept is based on the Skylab II concept, which proposes using a SLS propellant tank as the primary structure of a habitat. Common Habitat takes this a step further, proposing an interior architecture that is equally viable as a lunar surface hab, transit hab, and Mars surface hab, thus enabling a single development to support all three long duration habitat roles. Common Habitat has been pursued by the PI and co-investigators at MSFC and other centers in a spare time / funding available basis, often with heavy student intern support. Student resources have developed preliminary concepts, but these models must be refined to reflect accurate vehicle subsystems, utilities, stowage, workstations, and other crew systems. This investigation applies NASA civil servant and contractor expertise to correct errors in the most recent student concepts in order to prepare them for future human-in-the-loop evaluations to determine the most viable configuration for a Common Habitat. In prior studies there was never an opportunity to trade both crew size and internal orientation. Prior work has been a series of point designs with inconsistent design constraints, making apples to apples comparisons impossible. The most recent student work produced CAD models of four habitat variants for future use in a trade study, but the student products contain model construction and geometry errors, inaccurate subsystems design and placement, and unrealistic structural elements and outfitting. These must be corrected before the models can be moved into a VR environment for humanin- the-loop testing. Through consultation with SMEs throughout the Agency, the fidelity of these designs will be upgraded to a level of quality sufficient to make a comparative analysis of crew size sensitivity and internal orientation. The product of this activity is four upgraded CAD models, each reflecting a different configuration of the Common Habitat. One is a horizontal configuration using the full length of the SLS LOX tank. One is a vertical configuration using the same tank dimensions. The third is a horizontal configuration using a truncated SLS LOX tank (half the barrel length). The fourth is a vertical configuration of the half-length SLS LOX tank.

Howard, Robert L.↗

NASA NTRS2019

Common Habitat for Long Duration Transit and Surface Operations

Howard, Robert L.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Science Capabilities of the Common Habitat

The Common Habitat is the primary habitable element in a conceptual architecture feasibility study for long-duration space exploration with an eight-person crew size. On lunar or planetary surfaces, the Common Habitat forms the core of a Surface Base Camp. In microgravity, the Common Habitat is the core of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle (DSEV), an in-space transportation spacecraft. The Common Habitat employs a horizontal orientation that is divided internally into a lower deck, mid deck, and upper deck, roughly separating outfitting into individual, work, and group functions. On a planetary surface, the habitat is incorporated into a base camp, located near the south pole in the case of the Moon. The Mars base camp is currently location agnostic. Each base camp is divided into habitation, landing, resource production, and power zones. In microgravity, the habitat is incorporated into the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle, a vessel capable of transporting the crew within the inner solar system. In addition to crew and teleoperated control of external science assets, the Common Habitat employs a suite of life and physical science laboratory systems to enable it to support science investigations across a variety of destination environments, primarily featuring the Moon and Mars, along with the intervening interplanetary space. Other potential destinations include Near Earth Asteroids and Venus and Earth orbits. Located in the aft starboard section of the Common Habitat mid deck, the life science laboratory supports primarily biology and human research. In its baseline configuration, the laboratory includes horizontal work surfaces, freezers, multiple gloveboxes, sample transfer/exposure capability, large instruments, and reconfigurable ISPR-compatible payload bays. The Medical Care Facility and exercise facility can also support life science research. In the aft port section of the mid deck, the physical science laboratory supports physics, chemistry, materials science, geology, and remote sensing (including astrophysics, heliophysics, Earth science, planetary science, and meteorology). It provides a baseline of similar ISPR-compatible payload bays and adds additional freezers, including those for cryogenic sample storage, a remote sensing workstation, more gloveboxes, also with sample transfer/exposure, combustion chambers, fluid mechanics chambers, and a gas chromatograph. It leverages the Command & Control Center for teleoperations of mobile science assets. Both laboratories are highly modular, with the ability to swap out both payloads and instruments on an as-needed basis. The integrated science outfitting of the Common Habitat positions its crew to contribute to all of NASA’s Moon to Mars science objectives and extend human understanding into the inner solar system.

Lunar Suface↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Vertical Translation System for the Common Habitat Architecture

The Common Habitat is a large, long-duration habitat that uses an SLS core stage Liquid Oxygen (LOX) tank as its primary structure. Measuring 8.4 meters in diameter and 15 meters in length, it is manufactured as a habitat and launched as such into space. It is intended for use on the Moon as part of a permanently occupied outpost, on Mars as part of an outpost that will be occupied for hundreds of days at a time, and in deep space as part of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle where it will support crewed missions up to 1200 days in duration. A study of internal orientation and crew size resulted in a Common Habitat configuration sized for a crew of eight with a three-deck horizontal orientation. The Common Habitat Vertical Translation System provides a means for transporting crew and cargo between decks in a Common Habitat spacecraft in gravity levels varying from 0g to 1g. A crowdsourcing campaign was conducted through the GrabCAD platform to initially solicit ideas for restraints and mobility aids, including vertical translation. Four of the five top responses repeated ideas that would be incorporated into features of the Vertical Translation System. The first was a safety barrier (to prevent falls into the opening between decks) that could collapse to form a floor surface covering the opening when not in use. The second idea was a folding ladder that could be stowed in the ceiling when not in use. The third idea was an elevator platform that could traverse the ladder. Several key driving requirements were established for the Vertical Translation System: it may not penetrate into or through the lower deck; it must work on the Earth, Moon, Mars, and in microgravity; it must be easy to operate; it must enable translation of any item that can fit through the Common Habitat’s 40” x 60” hatches, inclusive of suited and unsuited crew with any degree of incapacitation and any equipment or cargo item; and it must include three component systems – deploying floor / safety barriers, a deployable ladder, and an elevator platform. Additional requirements were established for each of the component systems. The safety barriers must form a roughly 40-inch tall, complete wall enclosure on all four sides when deployed; it must include an easy to open gate that allows access to/from the ladder when deployed; and when retracted, the safety barrier must form a smooth, load-bearing floor that can be walked on, and wheeled objects can be rolled across in gravity, without being a trip hazard. The deployable ladder must be composed of multiple ladders that work together; it must stow in the ceiling when not in use; and it must not penetrate into the 40” x 60” vertical passage corridor. The elevator platform must work with the deployable ladder system; it must be able to bridge any gap in ladders between decks; it must stop at each deck flush with the deck surface; it must be capable of transporting an incapacitated crew member as a single rescuer operation; it must be capable of transporting a full-size subsystems pallet; it must function as an elevator for a crew member carrying large objects; it must have safety functions to prevent falls from the platform, or crew/cargo collisions with edges of hatch openings, or entanglement with ladder rungs/structure; it must stow when not in use; and it must autonomously both connect itself to the ladder and deploy itself to any deck where needed when called (e.g., a crew member on any deck can call for the platform and it must connect itself to the ladders without assistance and translate to the requestor’s deck). These requirements were developed into a system concept with the assistance of a NASA Pathways Intern who also added the requirement to size the design based on the use of commercial components, using existing motors and other mechanisms to ensure that the resulting system could be inexpensively produced. The Floor and Safety Barrier consists of four panels, two roughly 40 inches long and two roughly 60 inches long that can fold into the floor on top of each other when not in use. The uppermost panel is load bearing and acts as the floor surface. When deployed, they connect with each other to form a rigid barrier surrounding the vertical passageway. One of the panels contains a hinged gate that can be opened when deployed to allow for access to/from the passageway. The Deploying Ladder consists of two ladder segments, one mounted on the ceiling of the lower deck and the other mounted on the ceiling of the mid deck. A rotating mechanism is mounted on the ladder to allow it to rotate into a horizontal position against the ceiling for stowage, or down to a vertical position for use. A second rotating mechanism is built into the ladder, allowing the rungs to rotate. A toothed surface intended to work with the elevator platform covers the front of the ladder rails and the top and bottom of the rails are designed to be flush when aligned with another ladder segment. The elevator platform is essentially a motorized, self-propelled deck. It has a mechanism that holds it in contact with the ladder rails and drives itself against the toothed surface. This mechanism allows the elevator platform to ascend or descend the ladder. In order to stow the platform when not in use, a set of short ladder rails (without rungs) are mounted to the ceiling of the mid deck. When the mid deck ladder is stowed, it is flush with these rails and the platform can drive itself onto those short rails for stowage. An additional mechanism on the platform can pitch its deck surface 90 degrees, such that when the ladder is to be stowed, the platform can fold up against the ceiling. As a consequence of the ladder and elevator platform design, the opening between decks in the Common Habitat was enlarged to ensure that the elevator platform can accept a payload up to 40”x60” in dimension.

Human Centered Design↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Common Habitat Architecture

The Common Habitat is a human habitation element for inner solar system long duration (assessed up to 1200 days) space missions, inclusive of both orbital and surface missions. Exploration Science is supported by both internal laboratories and external science platforms (e.g., telescopes and other remote sensing systems). The Common Habitat is integrated with other elements needed (e.g., propulsion, heat rejection, airlock, etc.) to make the total system a spacecraft, space station, base, or other facility. The Common Habitat Architecture is an exploratory, primarily volunteer, NASA conceptual study and is NOT the current Artemis architecture. Common Habitat elements do show a similarity to some elements under development for Artemis but do not imply any relationship to, influence on, or influence by Artemis requirements, objectives, or acquisitions.

Common Habitat↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Repair Maintenance and Fabrication Facility in the Common Habitat Architecture

The Common Habitat Architecture seeks to increase the habitability of long-duration human spaceflight systems. A key aspect of this is vehicle survivability. Missions beyond low Earth orbit need onboard capabilities for Repair, Maintenance, And Fabrication (RMAF) to overcome potential contingency scenarios. Strategies employed in historic human spaceflight such as redundancy management, reliability, sparing, orbital replacement units, and aborts may be insufficient by themselves. Based on subject matter input, a list of 53 critical failures defining a set of incidents that can render a key spacecraft subsystem inoperable were generated. A subsequent analysis found that a robust in-space RMAF system capable of performing 14 key functions can potentially repair a subsystem plagued by any of these failures. An ancillary benefit is this capability may provide psychological benefits to the crew, by enabling greater self-sufficiency in earth-independent problem solving. A basic RMAF facility has been defined for the Common Habitat, consisting of five workstations. A work bench and computer workstation provide a multipurpose horizontal work surface, computing interface, and tools storage. A CNC machining center provides a subtractive manufacturing capability for metals and plastics. A multi-material 3D printing facility provides additive manufacturing capabilities for plastic, metals, and printed electronics. A welding facility is used for joining metal components where a higher strength is needed than can be achieved with fasteners or adhesives. A glovebox facility is used to perform work that is too hazardous for any of the other workstations. This may include hardware brought in from outside the spacecraft that could potentially contaminate the cabin environment. Forward work includes considering the accommodation of additional manufacturing processes not modeled in the current system, assessing the ability of systems to operate in partial gravity and microgravity environments, incorporation of the system into the Common Habitat Computer Aided Design (CAD) model, bottoms-up mass estimating, and a crew time analysis.

Habitat↗

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 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 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

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

Configuration and Projected Capabilities of the Common Habitat Medical Care Facility

The Common Habitat is a large, long-duration habitat being explored as part of a conceptual study (not an active NASA program) that uses an SLS core stage Liquid Oxygen (LOX) tank as its primary structure. It is intended for use on the Moon as part of a permanently occupied outpost, on Mars as part of an outpost that will be occupied for hundreds of days at a time, and in deep space as part of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle where it will support crewed missions up to 1200 days in duration. A study of internal orientation and crew size resulted in a Common Habitat configuration sized for a crew of eight with a three-deck horizontal orientation. Additional work outside the scope of this paper is developing a vertical translation system, a crew mobility aids system based on wearable gecko-derived grippers, and a crew seating/restraint system. These systems are all assumed for use in conjunction with the Medical Care Facility, which is needed to maintain crew well-being during these missions, where distance from Earth precludes the possibility of evacuation to Earth. This paper describes recent improvements in the Common Habitat Medical Care Facility and associated benefits for crew survivability in long duration missions beyond Earth orbit. These improvements were made with the assistance of a NASA Pathways intern whose experience includes a tour of duty in Afghanistan as an Army combat medic with the 691st GHOST-T, attached to the 1st and 7th US Special Forces Groups as part of Operation Freedom’s Sentinel, where he helped provide far-forward surgical capabilities in austere combat environments. The initial baseline Medical Care Facility was developed working in conjunction with University of Houston Space Architecture graduate students. The facility was placed on the upper deck of the Common Habitat in a location that provided privacy, operational volume, and was close to the vertical translation pathway. The notional outfitting repurposed component CAD models from unrelated studies and notionally indicated a level of care roughly equivalent to that aboard the International Space Station. The CAD modeling provided notional stowage volumes, a deployable surface, some fixed equipment, an ultrasound, and a potentially reconfigurable treatment table. While this facility is clearly a competent arrangement, it was desired to leverage available expertise and upgrade the station given the vast distances from Earth to be experienced by the Common Habitat. Key driving requirements applied to the upgrade included to provide Medical Level of Care V, offer enhanced telemedicine capabilities, provide patient physical accommodation, provide caregiver access to the patient from all sides, include sliding pocket doors for access to hygiene and to the Vertical Translation System, and to add any additional capability possible for the best achievable medical care. The first step in the facility upgrade was to quantify the current medical inventory on the International Space Station and ensure that sufficient stowage volume was present for this purpose. To that end, the ISS medical kits were reviewed, and eight full size mid deck lockers were placed in the facility. A number of additional devices were also added, based on the intern’s combat medic experience. Also, two fixed shelves and one horizontal work surface were added to the Medical Care Facility, with the shelves providing storage space for the additional devices and the work surface providing a location for the caregiver to work or stage equipment. Four display monitors were added to the wall above the horizontal work surface, supporting data display, telemedicine, conferencing, or other needs. The existing treatment table was replaced with a mobile surgical stretcher-chair. Two additional doors were added to the Medical Care Facility. One leads directly to the hygiene compartment, allowing it to support medical operations in addition to providing galley/wardroom support. The other door leads directly into the Vertical Translation System. The wall adjacent to the subsystems bay was moved, adding additional volume to the Medical Care Facility. This improved caregiver access to the patient and allowed for a larger number of caregivers to be present. It also provided options for relocation of support equipment relative to the patient as needed. In the upgraded Medical Care Facility, the Surgical Stretcher-Chair and the Vertical Translation System can work together to provide incapacitated crew member transport from a site of injury on any deck of the Common Habitat to the Medical Care Facility. It can also support patient treatment in a variety of positions including a variety of sitting postures and a supine posture at a variety of pitch angles. The facility can also support caregiver office work for review of examination results, private consultation, inventory and maintenance, and a variety of other purposes. A forward activity will be to conduct evaluations of the Medical Care Facility with different medical scenarios. Additionally, ambient and task lighting selections remain as forward work. The eight mid deck lockers can be augmented to use as portable equipment carts, similar to a manner in which maintenance facility stowage was used as portable carts during the NASA Desert Research and Technology Studies in the Constellation Program. Trash accommodation will also need forward work to assess, including provision for wet trash, dry trash, and biological waste. It will be important to assess a redesign of the surgical stretcher-chair. The commercial version used in the upgrade can only enable vertical translation in the seated configuration, requiring the patient to bend both hips and knees. A possible redesign of the chair will allow for vertical translation without requiring any bending at the hip or knees. Also, the commercial version is wheeled, making it mobile in gravity but unanchored in microgravity. Work will be needed to adapt the chair for gravity-independent performance. The hygiene compartment can be redesigned for dual-use medical scrub and galley handwash facility. Pending sufficient volume, it may also be possible to place sanitation equipment in this location to clean medical tools. Finally, most space architectures have never allowed for more than one incapacitated crew member, but several scenarios could potentially injure two or more crew in the same incident. This facility could be assessed to determine its present ability to address two or more injured crew in parallel and determine the potential upper limit for number of treatable crew in a multi-crew injury scenario, or to treat polytrauma of a single patient.

Habitat↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Configuration and Projected Capabilities of the Common Habitat Medical Care Facility

The Common Habitat is a large, long-duration habitat being explored as part of a conceptual study (not an active NASA program) that uses an SLS core stage Liquid Oxygen (LOX) tank as its primary structure. It is intended for use on the Moon as part of a permanently occupied outpost, on Mars as part of an outpost that will be occupied for hundreds of days at a time, and in deep space as part of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle where it will support crewed missions up to 1200 days in duration. A study of internal orientation and crew size resulted in a Common Habitat configuration sized for a crew of eight with a three-deck horizontal orientation. Additional work outside the scope of this paper is developing a vertical translation system, a crew mobility aids system based on wearable gecko-derived grippers, and a crew seating/restraint system. These systems are all assumed for use in conjunction with the Medical Care Facility, which is needed to maintain crew well-being during these missions, where distance from Earth precludes the possibility of evacuation to Earth. This paper describes recent improvements in the Common Habitat Medical Care Facility and associated benefits for crew survivability in long duration missions beyond Earth orbit. These improvements were made with the assistance of a NASA Pathways intern whose experience includes a tour of duty in Afghanistan as an Army combat medic with the 691st GHOST-T, attached to the 1st and 7th US Special Forces Groups as part of Operation Freedom’s Sentinel, where he helped provide far-forward surgical capabilities in austere combat environments. The initial baseline Medical Care Facility was developed working in conjunction with University of Houston Space Architecture graduate students. The facility was placed on the upper deck of the Common Habitat in a location that provided privacy, operational volume, and was close to the vertical translation pathway. The notional outfitting repurposed component CAD models from unrelated studies and notionally indicated a level of care roughly equivalent to that aboard the International Space Station. The CAD modeling provided notional stowage volumes, a deployable surface, some fixed equipment, an ultrasound, and a potentially reconfigurable treatment table. While this facility is clearly a competent arrangement, it was desired to leverage available expertise and upgrade the station given the vast distances from Earth to be experienced by the Common Habitat. Key driving requirements applied to the upgrade included to provide NASA’s Medical Level of Care V, offer enhanced telemedicine capabilities, provide patient physical accommodation, provide caregiver access to the patient from all sides, include sliding pocket doors for access to hygiene and to the Vertical Translation System, and to add any additional capability possible for the best achievable medical care. The first step in the facility upgrade was to quantify the current medical inventory on the International Space Station and ensure that sufficient stowage volume was present for this purpose. To that end, the ISS medical kits were reviewed, and eight full size mid deck lockers were placed in the facility. A number of additional devices were also added, based on the co-author’s combat medic experience. Also, two fixed shelves and one horizontal work surface were added to the Medical Care Facility, with the shelves providing storage space for the additional devices and the work surface providing a location for the caregiver to work or stage equipment. Four display monitors were added to the wall above the horizontal work surface, supporting data display, telemedicine, conferencing, or other needs. The existing treatment table was replaced with a mobile surgical stretcher-chair. Two additional doors were added to the Medical Care Facility. One leads directly to the hygiene compartment, allowing it to support medical operations in addition to providing galley/wardroom support. The other door leads directly into the Vertical Translation System. The wall adjacent to the subsystems bay was moved, adding additional volume to the Medical Care Facility. This improved caregiver access to the patient and allowed for a larger number of caregivers to be present. It also provided options for relocation of support equipment relative to the patient as needed. In the upgraded Medical Care Facility, the Surgical Stretcher-Chair and the Vertical Translation System can work together to provide incapacitated crew member transport from a site of injury on any deck of the Common Habitat to the Medical Care Facility. It can also support patient treatment in a variety of positions including a variety of sitting postures and a supine posture at a variety of pitch angles. The facility can also support caregiver office work for review of examination results, private consultation, inventory and maintenance, and a variety of other purposes. A forward activity will be to conduct evaluations of the Medical Care Facility with different medical scenarios. Additionally, ambient and task lighting selections remain as forward work. The eight middeck lockers can be augmented to use as portable equipment carts, similar to a manner in which maintenance facility stowage was used as portable carts during the NASA Desert Research and Technology Studies in the Constellation Program. Trash accommodation will also need forward work to assess, including provision for wet trash, dry trash, and biological waste. It will be important to assess a redesign of the surgical stretcher-chair. The commercial version used in the upgrade can only enable vertical translation in the seated configuration, requiring the patient to bend both hips and knees. A possible redesign of the chair will allow for vertical translation without requiring any bending at the hip or knees. Also, the commercial version is wheeled, making it mobile in gravity but unanchored in microgravity. Work will be needed to adapt the chair for gravity-independent performance. The hygiene compartment can be redesigned to serve both as a medical scrub facility and for galley hand washing. Pending sufficient volume, it may also be possible to place sanitation equipment in this location to clean medical tools. Finally, most space architectures have never allowed for more than one incapacitated crew member, but several scenarios could potentially injure two or more crew in the same incident. This facility could be assessed to determine its present ability to address two or more injured crew in parallel and determine the potential upper limit for number of treatable crew in a multi-crew injury scenario, or to treat polytrauma of a single patient.

Common Habitat↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Surface Transportation of the Common Habitat from Lander to Habitation Zone

The Common Habitat Architecture is a feasibility study surrounding the use of an SLS core stage liquid oxygen tank as the pressure vessel for a long-duration habitat intended for use in multiple gravity environments. The Common Habitat is used within this study as the primary habitation element in both Moon and Mars surface base camps. The Common Habitat Architecture offloads the Common Habitat from its lander and transports it to a Habitation Zone instead of leaving the habitat integrated with the lander. In this study, the Landing Zone is assumed to be approximately 3.5 kilometers from the Habitation Zone. Given the physical size and estimated 90-ton mass of the Common Habitat, a four-week trade study encompassing Moon and Mars lander identification, offloading, surface transport, and emplacement was conducted in February 2021 to assess whether there are any credible options for landing the Common Habitat on the Moon or Mars and deliver it to its intended point of use. Constrained to use only public data, the study applied subject matter expert opinion to each component of the study. The surface transportation component of the trade study assumes the habitat has been successfully offloaded from its lander and is at a point of handover to the surface transportation system. It is assumed that there are no crew present, and all human operations are performed remotely by Mission Control personnel. Three core cargo handling elements from prior NASA studies were used as the basis from which to derive surface transportation options – the Chariot, the All-Terrain Hex-Limbed Extra-Terrestrial Explorer, and the Lightweight Surface Manipulator System. Variations and hybrid combinations of these elements were used to develop transportation options for the Moon and Mars, given different habitat masses. Ultimately, several potentially feasible solutions were identified, and a solution was recommended that is common to both the Moon and Mars, with the potential to use a dissimilar system as a backup during lunar Common Habitat delivery. Next steps for sizing and additional development and analysis of the recommended surface transportation system are included as forward work.

Surface Mobility↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Options for Offloading a 90-Ton Common Habitat from its Lander on the Surface of Mars

The Common Habitat is a large, long-duration habitat being explored as part of a conceptual study (not an active NASA program) that uses an SLS core stage liquid oxygen (LOX) tank as its primary structure. Measuring 8.4 meters in diameter and 15.6 meters in length, it is manufactured as a habitat and launched as such into space. It is intended for use on the Moon as part of a permanently occupied outpost, on Mars as part of an outpost that will be occupied for hundreds of days at a time, and in deep space as part of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle where it will support crewed missions up to 1200 days in duration. A study of internal orientation and crew size resulted in a Common Habitat configuration sized for a crew of eight with a three-deck horizontal orientation. There are obvious challenges associated with the delivery of such a large habitat, which may mass as much as 90-tons when initially deployed. The Mars destination in particular imposes extreme challenges due to Martian gravity. This paper identifies initial options for the offloading of a 90-ton Common Habitat from a lander spacecraft on the surface of Mars. On Mars, the Common Habitat is part of a surface outpost where a Habitation Zone includes the Common Habitat docked to a two-chamber airlock node, up to two logistics modules, and up to two pressurized rovers. It is connected by underground conduit to a radiator farm and communications tower assembly. These elements and other surface infrastructure, including robotic systems for surface preparation, are landed prior to the Common Habitat. In the baseline Common Habitat Architecture, the Common Habitat is delivered on the third heavy cargo flight. The Habitation Zone configuration dictates that the Common Habitat needs to be offloaded from the lander. All of the docked elements require direct access to the surface and the Common Habitat must actually be placed in a trench to lower its docking ports to be level with those of the mated elements. Additionally, the habitat must be emplaced in a horizontal configuration, while for any conceivable Earth launch system it must be launched in a vertical configuration. It is true that the Common Habitat must be offloaded from its lander on both the Moon and Mars and a common offloading system must therefore work in both destinations. Mars, however, is considered the driving case for offloading in most, but not all, aspects. A four-day internal study in 2021 recommended that a modified Starship be used to land the Common Habitat on Mars and considered multiple approaches to offload the Common Habitat from the payload section and lower it to the surface. The topic was presented at a public hackathon organized by the Johnson Space Center’s Emerge Employee Resource Group. One team took on the challenge and proposed a concept in some ways similar to the previously considered jib crane. Despite the excellent innovation in the team’s work, a number of study refinements are necessary to truly establish feasibility. These and other future work needed to mature the concept are discussed in this work.

Lander Offloading↗

NASA NTRS2020

Design Variants of a Common Habitat for Moon and Mars Exploration

The Common Habitat is a long-duration habitat concept based on the Skylab II architecture that leverages a single, multi-destination design applicable to microgravity Mars transit, 1/6 g lunar surface, 3/8 g Mars surface, and 1 g Earth. A trade study for the Common Habitat will address vertical versus horizontal internal orientation and a crew size of four or eight crew. This has resulted in the creation of four variants of the Common Habitat: Four Crew Horizontal Configuration, Four Crew Vertical Configuration, Eight Crew Horizontal Configuration, and Eight Crew Vertical Configuration. Design guidelines that shaped the four configurations are discussed, including: mission duration, destinations/missions, pressure vessel, hatches and docking, subsystems and utilities, lander integration and offloading, and eight-crew extensibility. Functional capabilities for crew-related systems are also discussed, including: private habitation, meal preparation, meal consumption, medical operations, exercise, group socialization and recreation, human waste collection, hygiene, logistics, spacecraft monitoring and commanding, mission planning, robotics and teleoperation, scientific research, maintenance and fabrication, and EVA. Each of the four Common Habitat designs will be presented, with a deck-by-deck description of each workstation, crew station, or subsystem along with an assessment of its degree of compliance with the guidelines and functional capabilities. Finally, forward work will be identified that will down-select a single Common Habitat. This includes multiple analyses that will be performed on the four variants, a down-selection process, and design refinement goals for the selected variant.

Habitability↗

NASA NTRS2020

Stowage Assessment of the Common Habitat Baseline Variants

This paper performs a stowage assessment of the four baseline variants of the Common Habitat, a SLS-derived long duration, multi-mission habitat. The Common Habitat can be utilized as a lunar surface outpost, a Mars surface outpost, or an in-space habitat for Mars transit flights. The paper will discuss the stowage philosophy applied to all baseline variants of the Common Habitat and will discuss the approaches taken to domain-specific stowage, bulk stowage, and fluid and gas stowage. Water and air stowage for the closed loop ECLS subsystem is described across the four variants. Stowage of other supplies, consumables, and equipment is also described across the four variants and based on logistics sizing studies, a self-contained mission endurance is predicted for each variant – e.g. how long a mission each can support without a docked logistics module. Finally, follow-on assessments, including a habitability evaluation, are discussed along with specific stowage issues relevant to these assessments.

Deep space habitat↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Internal Architecture of the Common Habitat

The core stage liquid oxygen tank of the Space Launch System can be manufactured as a habitat instead of as a propellant tank, with a common design such that it is equally suitable for use in 0g, 1/6g, 3/8g, 1g, or variable artificial gravity. This Common Habitat can be the central element of a human spaceflight architecture that encompasses the Moon, Mars, and other destinations within the inner solar system. The Common Habitat is specifically used within an alternative architecture study (that is not part of the current NASA baseline) as the core habitation element within a Lunar Basecamp, Mars Basecamp, and the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle. The Common Habitat internal architecture applies a design philosophy to separate crew functions according to deck. The lower deck is reserved for private functions. It includes eight private crew quarters and four waste and hygiene clusters – each with a private waste management compartment, private full body hygiene compartment, and foyer/clothes changing area. The mid deck is primarily allocated to mission-related working functions. It includes an exercise facility, fabrication / maintenance / repair facility, physical science laboratory (physics, geology, and astronomy), and life science laboratory (biology and human research). The mid deck also has four external hatches, clocked one every 90 degrees, centered on the vehicle vertical centerline. Each hatch has a 60-inch tall by 40-inch wide opening with the mid deck floor 16 inches below the bottom lip of the hatch opening. The upper deck is primarily allocated to group or social functions. It includes a large galley, wardroom with projector and display screen, plant growth chambers, bulk stowage, command and control station, medical facility, hygiene compartment, and vehicle subsystems. A Vertical Translation System, based in part on results from a GrabCAD public challenge, enables crew and equipment traverse between habitat decks in 0g, 1/6g, 3/8g, and 1g. A 40-inch by 60-inch vertical translation corridor ensures that anything that can fit through the external hatches can also be moved from deck to deck. The system includes three component systems: a deploying floor to safety barrier system that folds down to become a traversable floor when vertical translation is not in use and deploys to become a safety barrier during vertical translations; a folding ladder that stows in the ceiling when not in use; and an elevator platform that can attach to the ladder for cargo or incapacitated crew member transport. This system is complemented by a Horizontal Translation System, also based in part on the same GrabCAD challenge, provides for horizontal crew translation in microgravity but requires no vehicle reconfiguration for fractional or whole gravity operation. It relies primarily on gecko-inspired grippers, originally developed at Stanford and NASA JPL, attached to footwear to enable crew to emulate walking. Some handrails are also strategically placed throughout the Common Habitat to aid translation in both gravity and microgravity environments.

Common Habitat↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Internal Architecture of the Common Habitat

The core stage liquid oxygen tank of the Space Launch System can be manufactured as a habitat instead of as a propellant tank, with a common design such that it is equally suitable for use in 0g, 1/6g, 3/8g, 1g, or variable artificial gravity. It is capable of sustaining a crew size of eight for missions up to 1200 days in duration. This Common Habitat can be the central element of a human spaceflight architecture that encompasses the Moon, Mars, and other destinations within the inner solar system. Within this archtiecture, the Common Habitat is specifically used as the core habitation element within a Lunar Base Camp, Mars Base Camp, and the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle. The Common Habitat internal architecture applies a design philosophy to separate crew functions according to deck. The lower deck is reserved for private functions. It includes eight private crew quarters and four waste and hygiene clusters – each with a private waste management compartment, private full body hygiene compartment, and private foyer/clothes changing area. The mid deck is primarily allocated to mission-related functions. It includes an exercise facility, fabrication / maintenance / repair facility, physical science laboratory (physics, geology, and remote sensing: astronomy, heliophysics, planetary science, and Earth science), and life science laboratory (biology and human research). The mid deck also has four external hatches, clocked one every 90 degrees, centered on the vehicle vertical centerline. Each hatch has a 60-inch tall by 40-inch wide opening with the mid deck floor 16 inches below the bottom lip of the hatch opening. The upper deck also includes some mission functions, but is primarily allocated to social functions. It includes a large galley, wardroom with projector and display screen, plant growth chambers, bulk stowage, command and control station, medical facility, hygiene compartment, and vehicle subsystems.

Habitability↗