The first commercial space station, Haven-1, is now undergoing assembly for launch

"We have a very strong incentive to send a crew as quickly as we can safely do so."

See full article...

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

I am so excited for the team putting this together. Just wondering if it needs much more fly, fail, fix, repeat designed in to the plan, you know hardware rich, to have a 50/50 chance at 2030 timeframe of being NASA ready. Are space stations different to not do the same as SpaceX?

Space stations have longer useful lives than rockets so they benefit from a more stable iteration cycle. Vast has already tested the 'being a spacecraft' parts so they are confident enough to try out the 'being a space station' parts. What they learn from that will inform the production Haven-2 vehicle. So long as the bones are good and the interior is modular they can then iterate components without needing to replace the entire station for each round.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Even if NASA rejects HAVEN-1 as their "space station" the goal of 2 week missions would allow NASA to cycle entire classes of astronauts through to get in-space experience versus some of them waiting years to launch.
I did see a previous question of Dragon availability...with the 5 planned, can SpaceX turn around the capsules fast enough to support a mission every 2 weeks for months/years?

Nothing stops SpaceX from building more Dragons if there is enough demand for them. The wildcard is a crew-rated Starship.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Great article. An idea for a future interview "How would you handle a Starship docking?. or "Had you thought to design for a Starship docking, seeking to get SpaceX to be a customer rather than a vendor?"

Crew Starship is too far over the horizon to make informed decisions about how to dock with it. They won't need to cross that bridge until Haven-2 is in the pipeline, and from the sound of it they have enough flexibility that there isn't much rush.

SpaceX has no interest in space stations beyond being a vendor.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Can you say more about what has been commercialized from the Shuttle and ISS? Is it just space tech stuff? We've been hearing about space manufacturing since the 1960s, but nothing appears to have happened yet.

There has been active research into orbital manufacturing but nothing can happen at scale before there is enough launch capacity to support it. The litmus test will be what happens once Starship-scale commercial stations come online.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

It might not be the cheapest option, but wouldn't the simplest (and safest) way of doing this be to buy an uncrewed dragon mission from Space-X and have it dock to prove it is capable and safe before sending a crewed mission to try?

The hard parts of docking will be handled by Dragon, Haven-1 only needs to sit still for it, and the worst case is an abort. Testing the seals and opening the hatches requires crew. As Dragon is well tested and proven there isn't much point in doing an uncrewed docking test.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Nice article. I wish they could allow Haven-1 to go beyond 3 years and be included in the Haven-2 system until it is dysfunctional. Seems like a waste to toss it if it is still functional. Similarly, all the still-good modules and gear on the ISS. It cost so much to get it up there and then burn it up. Salvage what you can. Even dead weight is useful in orbit for the right use.

Haven-1's purpose is to learn how to build a space station. Once that's done it will be obsolete and have little to offer for Haven-2. The only possible successor stations in a position to use ISS gear are Axiom and the hypothetical Russian split.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

You could send up a big module and fit out the inside of it with “decks” to avoid having dead space in the middle.

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.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

It's very hard to build a rigid large decks that can withstand pressurization in case there is a pressure loss event, and it would be a huge waste of mass to build. Much easier and much cheaper to make cylinders with tapered or rounded ends and string them together directly or connect them via docking modules. You can also use a modular truss structure to add bracing or stiffness. Yes, you end up with something similar to the ISS, but I think the mistake with the ISS was not designing it with the capability to replace modules later. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with a modular structure with a truss skeleton.

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.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

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.

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.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

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 docking issue, they would be truly stranded.

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.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

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.

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.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

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.

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.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

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.

We aren't done, no, but NASA has all the microgravity data SpaceX needs for Mars transit.

Experiments on that in either microgravity or at 1/3g have no practical or realistic use for SpaceX.

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.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

What, no test docking without a crew first? That is surprising.

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.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

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.

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.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

The "decks" could just be chicken-wire stretched taut. Unless things go very wrong, they don't need to be any type of supporting.

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.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

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.

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.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

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.

Vast is very down-to-earth about their objectives and methods. Of all of them I think they have the highest chance of success.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Do we know for sure that bits would be left behind? When I said that earlier it was pretty much uninformed speculation.
But if the docking ring had gotten to a state where it couldn’t undock, I’m not sure I’d want to try again, even if the emergency separation system is designed to leave the adapter in a usable state.

A quick search doesn't turn up specific documentation but I recall seeing specific statements that it uses an explosive mechanism and that it leaves the port unusable afterwards. It was in context of the ISS jettisoning a dead spacecraft, so permanent damage to the passive port was a given, but I can't see how it would be different from the active side. There are twelve latches around the perimeter and three latches on the soft-capture system and any one of them failing to release would prevent undocking. It might be possible to force the ring latches without leaving chunks in the opposing slots, but severing the capture ring would leave it firmly attached to the other port. The worst case scenario is finding yourself stuck in a half-docked position where you can neither complete the hard-dock nor release the soft-dock. The Soviets nearly lost Soyuz 10 that way.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

... You know this is in microgravity, right? Equipment racks won't need to be "supported" so much as "secured".

They need to support their equipment during launch and they need to provide secure hand and foot holds for working astronauts. To provide that support they must be equally supported themselves.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

If the soft capture ring wasn’t disengaging, that’s accessible from inside the docking tunnel, so you could hit that with a hammer, then close hatches and release the hard capture hooks. You could probably even do it in such a way that only your soft capture ring takes any damage.

Vestibule access isn't guaranteed. See Soyuz 10. That also wouldn't help with a stuck hard dock latch because those aren't accessible while docked.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

I've heard that some politicians with skin in the game were angling for an ISS extension, despite its age and condition. The comments from Vast are the first time I've heard that come up on the outside. If I were a commercial operator, that'd be the kiss of death for me... that would tell me that at the end of the day, Congress, and NASA are going to pull the rug out from under the commercial stations to keep the ISS jobs program running... and that's a bad thing.

2030 is already an extension from 2028.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

I guess if you require the crew to wear space suits the entire time, then it's less of an issue (although if they survived the immediate issue they may still be stuck in space with no ride home and only hours of oxygen).

I know the depiction of the 'imperfect lock' from Interstellar is likely not exactly how it works, but something catastrophic happening after dock is complete and astronauts have entered the station while the Dragon is docked and taken off their helmets is what I would be worried about. Some kind of unknown issue that occurs only after being docked for a period of time.

The station's hull will have passed structural and pressure testing before launch and will be pressure tested again once in orbit. The docking seals will also be tested on the ground before flight and again before the hatches are opened. SpaceX engineers will be doing their own design review and NASA is probably involved as well. A crewed mission will not happen until the people who know what they are doing are fully satisfied that it will be safe. There is no 'go fever' here. If it still bothers you, go outside, take a nice easy walk, and breathe. It will be fine.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

I'm not worried about go fever or lack of testing on the ground, no need to be condescending. I still think an unmanned test would be safer for an entirely new build, because we certainly can't say we've never experienced unexpected or problematic behavior during missions before.

I apologize, that was uncalled for.

Let me ask you this: What would an uncrewed Dragon mission be able to test? What value would it add?

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

If we look at the history of maiden dockings to stations to US ports, the breakdown is as follows.

• Skylab - first docking was by the crewed Skylab 2
• Mir Kristall - first docking was by the crewed Soyuz TM-16 (yes, this port was intended for Buran, but this was a test run for the Shuttle)
• Mir docking module - module was berthed to the shuttle with the Canadarm, Shuttle then undocked from the module after docking the module to Kristall.
• PMA-2 - similar to previous, Unity was berthed to the Shuttle, Shuttle then undocked after docking Unity to Zarya.
• PMA-3 - first docking by the Shuttle.
• IDA-2 - first docking by uncrewed Dragon Demo-2
• IDA-3 - first docking by uncrewed CRS-21.

So we get 3 where first docking was with a crew, and 2 with no crew. And then 2 weird ones with undocking after berthing (but subsequent first dockings) done with crews.

It should be noted that both uncrewed dockings were acceptance tests of the vehicle rather than testing anything on the station.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

People work on the underside of bridges all the time. It's likely to be less than 1 g, so even less of a problem.

People work on the underside of a bridge by putting a platform there. Even when the platform itself is suspended from the bridge it is normally installed from below.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Tethers cost money and require special additions to the structure and need training. Nope, that's not in the budget. /S

Speaking seriously, tethers are a hazard in space because they can become tangled and astronauts have limited dexterity to fix the problem. There is a reason that space walks are often done on the end of a robot arm.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

1. You're in a bulky environmental suit.
2. Outer ring work (facing away from the hub) means working over your head while your body is being pushed away.
3. Material is trying to push you away as well - and big parts are hard to maneuver in space.
4. Walkway would get in the way of the material being assembled.

Not even close to working like on earth.

Extra credit: try working on the ceiling while trying to stay attached to the ceiling, and the ceiling is 20 feet above ground. Not an option to have something pushing against the earth floor since we're trying to simulate outer edge of a 1G space station - no floor in space.

5. The Coriolis effect means that 'raising' or 'lowering' material also requires accelerating it laterally. A simple crane isn't enough. This also applies to suspended work platforms.
6. The rotating starfield could potentially cause vertigo.
7. A dropped tool is now space junk in your orbit.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

It looks like a vast improvement on their competitors, but not (yet) the ancestor. The ISS replacement program started late ...

First, that's a terrible pun. Take your like. Second, baby steps. This is their Skylab. Third, a lot of things NASA should have been doing decades ago are woefully late and under-performing. At least CLD isn't grossly over budget.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

What would be the point of a space station if it can't do space or ground observations, or do micro-gravity experiments?

Crew movement makes space stations too bouncy to be useful for telescope observations. Microgravity and reduced gravity are the only practical reasons to build them, and the latter can be achieved with an on-board centrifuge. The only reason to build a rotating station is if it is entirely dedicated to reduced gravity work, and even then you'd want to spin it down before doing any external work.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Magnetic bearings are a thing that exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_bearing

Magnetic bearings that large are either very heavy or require a lot of power to maintain the field. Edit: they also don't play well with pressure seals because they don't provide precise alignment.

 

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Pretty much what I said before: an end-to-end dress rehearsal to allow for observing unknown unknowns. It's a matter of risk, not a matter of specific concerns to address. Specific concerns you know about can and should be addressed before launch, of course. So, also like I said before, if folks don't think that's necessary, that's fine. I know I would want it to be tested in space first if I were on the first astronaut team going up, is all I'm saying.

It's a bit of surprising whiplash to go from endless threads where people are criticizing Artemis II reusing the same heat shield design from Artemis I (even after NASA says they understand and replicated the problem observed during Artemis I and determined a resolution), to this thread where people think an unmanned test for this spacecraft is unnecessary or wasteful.

The only part of Haven-1 that an uncrewed flight can test is the capture system. If that fails then Dragon aborts back to Earth. There is no additional risk to the crew in that scenario so there is no point in not bringing crew.

Artemis II involves A) a known-defective spacecraft that B) has no abort option if the defect results in a failure and C) the defective part could be safely tested without crew. That's a completely different situation so a different response is warranted.