"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
Can't you do a multi modular station with the bigger vehicle?
That Shuttle was expensive to launch and that the cargo space was small, that doesn't means that multi module is worse than a single module.
Also, in his example, the modules are still the load bearing parts of the station, you could launch an exo structure that handle the loads from the modules away from the joins of the modules.
Module construction is limited by money, if you are building 1 ISS size module per year, you aren't going to build a module that is 4 times larger in 1 year for the same amount of money. Either it takes longer to build, or it cost more per year. If you are willing to spend more money per year, then you could also build more ISS sized modules per year.
Last edited:
Upvote
15
(16
/
-1)
In addition to what's been pointed out, something else I seem to remember is the module interfaces were welding themselves together due to vacuum welding that was not anticipated in the beginning.
Being the first really-long-term modular space station sure has it's learning opportunities.
EDIT: add modular
Last edited:
Upvote
30
(30
/
0)
I'd like some evidence of any of this.
By leak prone, you mean there have been two leaks. Two leaks is not exactly leak prone, especially when one was due to a hose that astronauts likely had inappropriately used as a hand hold.
Space stations are going to be complex, whether they're multimodular or not.
It is not surprising that Skylab was so cheap to operate, in part due to how little time it actually operated. Then the fact it relied on left over parts from Apollo.
The ISS isn't small and cramp, as much as it is simply full of supplies, experiments, and equipment. Space is meant to be used to support the mission, right? If skylab had ever gone for long term duration missions for years on hand, it likely would have become much more cramp feeling.
Starship as a space station will not support all the needs that NASA has, like a similar framework to attach experiments to like the truss system.
Yes, Starship will if it works be a great vehicle for launching large orbital modules. Due to its payload size, you will need far fewer modules for a similar sized station as the ISS. That means launching a larger station with more capabilities will be cheaper. Potentially meaning you can have more crew, more experiments, etc. for less money.
I don't see why keeping Starship on orbit is a huge advantage, when instead you can just shove a module in it as large as the payload bay. Then send all the heavy expensive things like engines back to Earth instead of forever paying to keep them in orbit as dead mass.
Upvote
32
(35
/
-3)
Apparently metals stick together in space (something called cold welding) so maybe that's why. You push two things together and after a while they just don't come apart.
I am speaking from a position of enormous ignorance though, so don't count on it being that.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
There are 2 main families. The Soyuz one, and the APAS family.
Soyuz one is used when Soyuz and Progress docks with the ISS.
APAS-89 was originally designed by the Russians for Buran to dock with MIR. That then developed into APAS-95, which the Shuttle used with ISS. That then further developed into LIDS, which was further developed into IDSS (Inernational Docking System Standard). Dragon/Starliner/Orion/Starship are all using implementations of IDSS.
Confusingly, there is also a hybrid of Soyuz and APAS used between the Russian modules on the ISS - it has the Soyuz capture system, but the wider collar from APAS.
China is using an APAS variant, but it’s unclear if it’s IDSS compatible.
There is also the CBM (common berthing mechanism), used between modules on the US side of ISS, and by some visiting cargo vehicles (Cygnus and HTV). This is much wider than IDSS, but needs a robotic arm to join the modules/vehicles together.
Upvote
36
(36
/
0)
On the international side, pretty much all docking ports of the same size are going to be interoperable. Even the one for the Orion and HLS module is based on the docking ports for Dragon which are based entirely on being able to dock on the ISS.
Russia has its own standard, and I do not know if China has its own or inherited the Russian design.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Spacecraft interface mechanisms, aka docking and berthing mechanisms, are distinguished not just by the shape and size of the hatch (transfer passage), but also by the mechanisms that align the vehicles and secure them together (soft and hard capture). Choices are driven sometimes by the relative mass budgets of the two spacecraft. The major ones are:
- APAS-89 and APAS-95: Soviet, androgenous, 800-mm circular hatch.
- Chinese Docking Mechanism: Used by Shenzhou and Tiangong. Derived from, and possibly compatible with, APAS-89/95.
- Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM) with 1,300-mm hatch: used by ISS, SpaceX Dragon 1.
- CBM with 940-mm hatch: Cygnus.
- International Docking System Standard (IDSS): 800-mm circular hatch, used by ISS, Dragon 2.
- International Berthing and Docking Mechanism (IBDM): Derivative of IDSS for use on ESA craft and Dream Chaser.
- Bhartiya Docking System: Indian, modification of IDSS for upcoming Gaganyaan, et seq.
See "ISS Interface Mechanisms and their Heritage" (Cook et al., 2011) and "Fig. 1 - A conceptual family tree of Docking and Berthing Mechanisms" and the summary table in "Docking and berthing of spacecraft" (Wikipedia).
Upvote
38
(38
/
0)
My understanding from the interview was that Vast is planning for as many as four two-week missions over the three-year lifetime of the station, not a mission every two weeks.
Upvote
29
(29
/
0)
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.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
Nothing stops SpaceX from building more Dragons if there is enough demand for them. The wildcard is a crew-rated Starship.
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
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.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
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.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
There are literally thousands of things. Most of them are rather esoteric, so not many folks hear about it. But they do add a lot to our quality of life here on Earth!
Upvote
34
(34
/
0)
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.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
I see that, and I see Mideast tyrannies investing the money from their oil we pump into the sky getting a subsidized ride on decades of American ingenuity, risk and expense. So they can move past the oil they've locked us into paying for by backing Trump.
Upvote
-12
(2
/
-14)
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
Upvote
21
(22
/
-1)
By the same token, commercial manned spaceflight makes at least as much sense as manned spaceflight. And since manned spaceflight makes a lot of sense, as the way that humans spread out to populate space the way we spread out to populate the Earth, that's a lot of sense.
Upvote
6
(8
/
-2)
Absolutely, and that's part of management. Bean counters exist in a for-profit and not-for-profit space.
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
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?
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
If the Dragon can't dock, then the crew can just come back home. If the life-support doesn’t work, they can just come back home. I don’t see what sending up an uncrewed dragon proves that a crewed one couldn’t do safely.
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
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.
Upvote
23
(23
/
0)
What happened to Axiom? They gave the impression that they were going to be up by now. They must have their modules delivered by Thales Alenia by now.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
I think the first module has been or is about to be shipped from Italy. They are also looking to repurpose one of the MLPMs. Eric has previously expressed some doubt about their financial viability on the twitters.
They also have had to rejig their assembly schedule, as the US deorbit vehicle will be using the forward port that Axiom were going to use.
Edit: tweet from Eric late last year after CEO quit.
Eric Berger said:
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
So a little over one mission per year? How does that in any way make financial sense for Vast?
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
I was thinking of potential catastrophic failures, not routine failures. Stuff like being unable to undock for some reason. Or worse.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I it doesn’t by itself. But it lets them demonstrate capabilities to NASA that improves their chances of getting a CLD contract. That gets them money from NASA, and also make them a more appealing investment. Which lets them launch Haven-2, and that’s where they start making money.
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
IDSS is a well understood system by now, so I don’t see that being a problem. And I’m not aware of anybody ever having trouble undocking before. First time docking of new systems, yes. But never when separating.
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
You might be surprised to learn that private corporations have always been the ones building space hardware in the US.
Upvote
42
(42
/
0)
The advantages of a modular system, though, is that each module or group of modules can have their own life-support subsystems. This will allow the station to scale up or down and, more critically, provide redundancy. Depending on station layout/design, you could also then jettison older modules or modules that are failing or damaged. You can then "ship of Theseus" your station indefinitely, which is much less wasteful in the long run and allows for a more continuous presence in space - just keep cranking out modules instead of having to design a whole new $$$ station every decade.
You also need a modular approach because micrometeorite or orbital debris damage to single module will allow crew to escape to other spaces. This is only currently feasible to do my making a bunch of smaller self-contained modules and not a single large module with.
Space stations will always be tight because open air is wasted space and mass. It looks cramped but this is the norm on ships, submarines, aircraft, and other such places where mass and energy have a very high cost and human comfort has to be compromised. This has been well understood for hundreds of years. If you've ever go to "tall ship" below decks, you'll see incredibly cramped spaces, no privacy, and most space is "mixed use" - the gun deck is also your mess hall, for example, so you toss the benches into the center of the ship to clear space to roll in the guns to load them.
Last edited:
Upvote
12
(14
/
-2)
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.
Upvote
-2
(1
/
-3)
You could send up a big module and fit out the inside of it with “decks” to avoid having dead space in the middle.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
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.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
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.
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)