"We have a very strong incentive to send a crew as quickly as we can safely do so."
See full article...
See full article...
The first commercial space station, Haven-1, is now undergoing assembly for launch
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I would imagine that there are procedures to make sure that can't happen, including manual overrides to the automation. I don't see why this would be any less of a concern with a mission to the ISS, especially since a failure could leave the crew unable to get back into the station.
The docking port (both sides) are a single point of failure for all missions.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
You'd be better off running an axial stack up the middle rather than dividing into decks. Edit: Unless your module is very large, far beyond what a VHL can carry.
Last edited:
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
Well if anyone starts cutting corners in space like BP did pre-2010 with their Deepwater Horizon oil drilling platform there will be less rich people to profit from anything as they'll likley be dead.
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
The decks wouldn't need to be pressure bulkheads, the argument was about volume efficiency. There is also no reason you can't make a modular station from large modules.
Replacing the truss when it wears out would be challenging. Designing a good Theseus station is fussy.
Edit: Bulkhead decks could be strengthened by running columns between them. They don't need to be fully self-supporting.
Last edited:
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
First; Bender approves this message.
Second; Not sure why this is getting downvoted since literally throughout human history the Porn and Gambling industries are typically the first to adopt new technologies. Especially if humans start a new frontier (space stations / mininng colonies etc); until they become common place and/or more streamlined for easy access to and from Earth - local workers will be gambling their paychecks coz they won't have much else to do and even if its not organized, hookers will spring up because sex is an available alternative to gambling. Even iwth maybe some sort of "internet" network access back to Earth, they sure AF ain't going to be ordering shit off E-Bay or Amazon for delivery.
Upvote
3
(5
/
-2)
You need a fairly large established presence before a dedicated entertainment industry can spring up. Think in terms of an oil rig for what even a large space station would be.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
For all the new crewed modules, haven't they been tested for docking unmanned first with the ISS? If something happened then, all the crew on the ISS still has life pods they can access due to the excess docking ports. A crew sent up would have no way home until a liferaft was sent.
I don't know how many docking ports Haven 1 is supposed to have, if it has more then 1 they could at least send a liferaft, but if it is only 1, then in the (yes) rare chance of a un-docking issue, they would be truly stranded.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
The vacuum welding issue has long been known about.
The simpler issue is that ISS had a design life. Which has been exceeded by a considerable amount. It was originally supposed to be used for 15 years.
Everything is worn out. And the comment from most of the engineers involved is that they've learned an enormous amount about things they want to do differently, next time.
So there's not much worth reusing - both in lifespan and utility. Cheaper to start over.
Upvote
32
(32
/
0)
Because without the "crawl" phase, which this is, you generally don't get to the walk and run phases. They are competing for NASA money, and for first-mover advantage. Cadence and profit will come as they improve their design.
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
Personally, I favor the Sierra Space expandable modules that offer greater deployed volume at lower launched volume. But I also like that this company is attempting to provide what appears to be a simpler, cheaper, and faster space station. The size and mass look to make it easier to launch on commercial rockets. Well, SpaceX FH and Starship, and New Glenn. Even Vulcan Centaur is possible.
One thing I'd like to get clarified is if you have several modules hooked together, do they share power and life support as needed? If 1 module has a problem with life support or power generation, is there enough capacity system wide to provide what's needed till it's fixed? If so, then their plans to go up to 9 modules would provide incredible redundancy.
One thing I'd like to get clarified is if you have several modules hooked together, do they share power and life support as needed? If 1 module has a problem with life support or power generation, is there enough capacity system wide to provide what's needed till it's fixed? If so, then their plans to go up to 9 modules would provide incredible redundancy.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
If by 'module' you mean spacecraft, that's because NASA wants an uncrewed demo flight before putting crew on board a new spacecraft. Haven-1 is the reverse of that: The crew will be flying in a proven spacecraft that is also their lifeboat if something goes wrong.
Haven-1 will only have one port. The only way they could be stranded is if the spacecraft has a failure.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
You're assuming the crew gets stranded on station. Crew can get stuck in the capsule as well.
Just because something has docked before doesn't mean docking will work correctly next time. Things do go wrong and break. There are going to be emergency procedures for what to do in these cases that don't rely on docking working.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
If they follow the same pattern as the ISS there will be a core module that provides primary power and life support and the other modules will all have emergency backup systems in case the main system goes down.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
This has always confused me (given the plans for Mars). You'd think that a prerequisite for colonization would be to study the effects of lowered gravity on reproduction & long-term health.
Have there been experiments on the ISS doing things launching pregnant mice (or recently fertilized eggs) and seeing how that affects fetal development? Ideally, you'd want to do research on some type of spun (at 1/3rd g) station but that is a lot more challenging.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Microgravity is a completely different environment than reduced gravity. It's only relevant for the commute between planets and SpaceX has access to decades of NASA research on the topic. The only new thing is large scale fuel transfer, which doesn't need a space station to develop.
There was a centrifuge module planned for the ISS to study exactly that but political wrangling and Shuttle cost overruns killed it before construction was finished.
Upvote
11
(12
/
-1)
Experiments on that in either microgravity or at 1/3g have no practical or realistic use for SpaceX.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
We're nowhere near done on the study of biology in microgravity. The idea that the topic is done and dusted is a little silly.
Space stations in LEO are also the ideal environment to test advances in life support systems. If you're going to go to Mars, you want a tried and tested toilet and life support systems. You don't want to end up defecating into plastic bags for years because the mark V toilets eat spare parts and wouldn't work after 9 months.
Life in space is hard, and these programs are complimentary. Not all of it has to be immediately applicable. Understanding the effects of microgravity on the body is probably still the biggest one, and LEO gives the ability to regularly have new experiments sent up to work on.
We need to be able to do it all, because it is all scientifically worth while doing.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
I'd also note that the engineers when designing the ISS almost certainly knew they'd learn an enormous amount. I don't think they ever thought they'd want to try to do anything but fully replace the station.
Furthermore, I very much doubt the next station will be different. There is just a lot to learn, which is exciting.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Upvote
-2
(1
/
-3)
SpaceX did send in a bid for the first round of CLDs, but didn't really have much of a plan for commercialization so NASA went with three others. Until at least one of them can show a working business model I think there's at least a slim chance that SpaceX will be asked to build a last minute ISS replacement. Between Starship (launch capacity), Starlink (communications, power), Dragon (docking) and HLS (long term life support) they shouldn't have many problems putting an empty shell in orbit so NASA can save face if the commercialization flops.
Upvote
1
(4
/
-3)
It would be if, for example, the Dragon docked with the single port station and the station wouldn’t release the Dragon for return.
Edit: ninja’d
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
We aren't done, no, but NASA has all the microgravity data SpaceX needs for Mars transit.
1/3g experiments have direct applications for SpaceX's Mars colonization goals. That's the one place where they might be willing to fund outside research.
Upvote
10
(11
/
-1)
Not needed. Dragon is a flight-proven vehicle so the worst case scenario for a failed docking attempt is an abort back to Earth. All of the risk comes after the hatches are opened, and that requires a crew.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
IDSS has an emergency release feature which is pretty fundamental, IIRC.
It leaves a whole mess of stuff behind. Again, IIRC.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
The hatch isn’t part of the docking system. So it would be unaffected by an inability to undock normally. I would assume the emergency undock process would be:
Close hatch.
Fire emergency separator (which might leave part of the dragon's capture ring behind).
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
This is being heavily downvoted but he does have a point about whether SpaceX could sustain a biweekly crew rotation. They only have 5 crew Dragons so they would have to be able to refurnish a Dragon in less than 8 weeks. And if they have to pull a Dragon out of the schedule that's going to be matters worse. SpaceX had said they weren't building any more Dragons but for Haven they may have to.
Upvote
-6
(2
/
-8)
I think I misspoke or you misunderstood- I meant the nose cone (cover) that closes over the docking system and would be closing over any left over remnants.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
It is being downvoted because neither Vast or anyone else is talking about a biweekly crew rotation. Vast is talking about four two week missions across the three year life of the station, with one possibly extended to 30 days. That means close to a year between missions so plenty of time for SpaceX to have a Dragon ready and for the crew to be trained.
Upvote
30
(30
/
0)
SpaceX didn't have a commercialization plan because they weren't interested in actually running a space station, they only wanted access to related NASA engineering data. It's the same reason they bid on HLS.
If Vast can get their foot in the door with CLD then they will have time to attract other customers as they're able. Once the ISS retires then a lot of that work is going to be looking for a new home and the choices will be Vast, maybe one or two other CLDs, or Tiangong.
Vast is already assembling flight hardware and there is no particular reason to think it won't work so needing an HLS as a stop-gap seems unlikely.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
The "decks" could just be chicken-wire stretched taut. Unless things go very wrong, they don't need to be any type of supporting.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Space is at a premium and the floor, walls, and ceiling, are all interchangeable, so any partition wall is going to be supporting equipment racks. The part about support columns was addressing @Randomizer's bulkhead argument.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
If the nose cone isn't able to close then it can be jettisoned. That likely requires substantial repair work before the Dragon can fly again, but blowing the emergency release probably has the same result so it's a wash. From what I understand the bigger concern is that it would leave the ship's soft capture ring attached to the station, preventing any other spacecraft from docking.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
You're right. Skylab was constructed from leftover Apollo parts. And the inventory of those parts was extremely limited. NASA could only assign three Apollo Command/Service Modules to Skylab for 1973 and only one other CSM to the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program of 1975. NASA ran out of Saturn IB launch vehicles that put those CSMs into LEO. And the production lines for all of that Apollo-Saturn hardware had been shut down years before Skylab was launched in 1973. NASA crammed as many consumables as possible aboard Skylab for those three crews.
After the third Skylab crew departed in late 1973, NASA put Skylab in a dormant state to await the arrival of the Space Shuttle in 1976. At that time the Shuttle would attach a propulsion module to Skylab to boost its orbit back to 435 km altitude. Then the Shuttle would take over for the Apollo CSMs and ferry crews and consumables up to Skylab to continue its operational life.
Unfortunately, NASA ran into lengthy delays in starting Shuttle operations (the first flight didn't happen until April 1981). By that time Skylab had already deorbited (11July1979) and Skylab was no more. NASA tried to extend the useful life of Skylab but failed.
Last edited:
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
I love that they've got their first station largely hardware complete (at least, the overall structure, if not all the interior components). I do hope somebody eventually puts up another inflatable hab, along the lines of Bigelow's planned modules (now defunct) or Sierra Space's designs. But in the meantime, Vast's station seems like a low-risk design to move quickly.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Vast is very down-to-earth about their objectives and methods. Of all of them I think they have the highest chance of success.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Nobody is going to be going to space for blackjack and hookers any time soon, the cost is just too high compared to the same services on Earth. Any spacers wanting to gamble away their wages will do it on smartphone/tablet apps, those could offer enormously better odds than someone who has to pay for the cost shipping a blackjack table and dealer to orbit.
Nobody will be going up just to make adult films any time soon either. While the aggregate amount of money passing through the porn industry is large, it is also diffuse. The amount of footage that could be produced on a single trip wouldn’t come anywhere close to paying back the costs.
As space tourism becomes more common, I’m sure there will be some people who will join the hundred mile high club, but they won’t be there specifically for that, they will be there for the view and the experience of free fall, and joining the club will just be a bonus.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)