1. SLS Derived Vertical Habitat
Dr. Robert Howard
NASA Johnson Space Center
Habitability Design Center
FISO Telecon October 22, 2014

2. This presentation represents work conducted by the Habitability Design Center in support of the former AES Deep Space Habitat Project

3. Habitat Design Problem
Cannot take a habitat designed for microgravity and use it in a planetary environment
Cannot take a habitat designed for planetary environments and use it in microgravity
Cannot afford to set up distinct habitat project offices for each destination:
Lunar Surface, Mars Surface, NEA Transit, Mars Transit, Cislunar, Captured Asteroid, Martian Moons
Is it possible to consider all environments upfront and design a habitat applicable to all destinations?

4. Proposed Skylab II
Concept one of several based on use of an Space Launch System (SLS) propellant tank as a habitat
Similar to Skylab use of Saturn V S-IVB stage
Additional SLS upper stage hydrogen tank manufactured, but instead of filling with fuel is outfitted as habitat
495 m3
Launched as payload inside shroud

5. Original Skylab II Configuration
MSFC proposed application designed exclusively for microgravity
Excellent use of volume in microgravity but problematic to use in planetary environment
Alternate configurations can make different use of same volume
Note: Additional MSFC Skylab II habitats have since been developed for Mars surface

6. Proposed Skylab II Configuration
JSC Habitability Design Center explored alternative concept
Vertical orientation
Four decks
Four lateral docking ports
One dorsal docking port
Interior designed for multi-destination use
38 ‘
27 ‘

7. Proposed Skylab II Configuration
Cutaway View
Deck 3
Deck 2
Deck 1
Deck 0

8. Proposed Skylab II Configuration
Subsystems
Deck 0
Lower dome
Cannot use as normal deck in gravity environment
VIS allow exercise to fit within height of deck 1
With no VIS, exercise lowers into Deck 0
Crawlspace allows access to all subsystems
Vertical translation enables removal of failed hardware for servicing

9. Proposed Skylab II Configuration
DOCKING PORT
Deck 1
Primary working deck
Note large maintenance and fabrication volume
DOCKING PORT
Crew seats in gravity; hand and foot restraints in microgravity
DOCKING PORT

10. Proposed Skylab II Configuration
Primary private volumes
Deck 2
Rapid access to medical from other decks

11. Proposed Skylab II Configuration
Operations and group social volumes
Deck 3

12. Proposed Skylab II Configuration
Cutaway View
Deck 3
Deck 2
Deck 1
Deck 0

13. Teleoperations Workstation Detail
Only notionally represented in CAD model
Important considerations
How many robots will be controlled at any given time?
What type of robots will be controlled from this station? (ATHLETE, RMS, Robonaut, etc.)
Will there be different types of robots controlled at the same time? (e.g. Robonaut on the end of an RMS mounted on an ATHLETE)

14. Teleoperations Workstation Detail
Some lessons learned from NASA HDU DRATS incorporated to develop basic specifications
Six monitors available for crew display
Keyboard and mouse
Accommodate at least one RHC and THC
Accommodate experimental control interface devices (e.g. VR helmets, Kinnect sensors, Wii devices, sensor gloves, body-worn sensors, and video glasses)

15. Conclusions
Providing additional effort in the design phase can enable accommodation of multiple gravity environments
Vertical and horizontal surfaces
Access volumes
Common solutions vs. interchangeable components (especially with respect to crew and equipment restraints)
Minimize effort to outfit for planetary vs. microgravity applications

16. Accept inefficiencies
Conclusions
Accept inefficiencies
Not necessarily the “best” thing to have minimum mass, minimum function
Can be penny-wise but pound-foolish
Accommodating multiple gravity environments creates packaging or layout inefficiencies
Forced horizontal orientation for crew bunks
Subsystems and utility runs
Tradeoff is condensing multiple program offices, multiple prime contracts, multiple manufacturing centers into single organization

17. Conclusions
Ideal volume unlikely to be achieved whether considering for multiple or single gravitational environment
Skylab, ISS, Shuttle, Orion, Apollo spacecraft volumes all impacted by factors unrelated to habitation
SLS upper stage hydrogen tank is a fixed volume (unless modify production line)
Design within volume given for solution that satisfies all mission environments

18. Questions?