• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Space Station Concepts

Graham1973

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
236

Attachments

  • MarsOrbitalTestStation04.png
    MarsOrbitalTestStation04.png
    173.4 KB · Views: 54
  • MarsOrbitalTestStation03.png
    MarsOrbitalTestStation03.png
    73.8 KB · Views: 57
  • MarsOrbitalTestStation02.png
    MarsOrbitalTestStation02.png
    190.1 KB · Views: 70
  • MarsOrbitalTestStation01.png
    MarsOrbitalTestStation01.png
    145.5 KB · Views: 59

Graham1973

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
236

Attachments

  • BoeingAlternateConfiguration02b.png
    BoeingAlternateConfiguration02b.png
    202.4 KB · Views: 68
  • BoeingAlternateConfiguration02.png
    BoeingAlternateConfiguration02.png
    188.2 KB · Views: 72
  • BoeingAlternateConfiguration01b.png
    BoeingAlternateConfiguration01b.png
    203.9 KB · Views: 74
  • BoeingAlternateConfiguration01.png
    BoeingAlternateConfiguration01.png
    166.3 KB · Views: 70
  • BoeingBaselineDesign03.png
    BoeingBaselineDesign03.png
    113.1 KB · Views: 71
  • BoeingBaselineDesign02.png
    BoeingBaselineDesign02.png
    200.4 KB · Views: 76
  • BoeingBaselineDesign01.png
    BoeingBaselineDesign01.png
    165.9 KB · Views: 65

Graham1973

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
236
Further proposed configurations for the Boeing Single Launch space station and two related designs for Mars Flyby spacecraft.
 

Attachments

  • BoeingMarsFlyby02b.png
    BoeingMarsFlyby02b.png
    186.7 KB · Views: 61
  • BoeingMarsFlyby02.png
    BoeingMarsFlyby02.png
    131.2 KB · Views: 54
  • BoeingMarsFlyby01b.png
    BoeingMarsFlyby01b.png
    185.2 KB · Views: 52
  • BoeingMarsFlyby01.png
    BoeingMarsFlyby01.png
    140.6 KB · Views: 57
  • BoeingAlternateConfiguration04b.png
    BoeingAlternateConfiguration04b.png
    244.2 KB · Views: 61
  • BoeingAlternateConfiguration04.png
    BoeingAlternateConfiguration04.png
    142.4 KB · Views: 67
  • BoeingAlternateConfiguration03b.png
    BoeingAlternateConfiguration03b.png
    185.8 KB · Views: 62
  • BoeingAlternateConfiguration03.png
    BoeingAlternateConfiguration03.png
    165 KB · Views: 45

Graham1973

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
236
Triton said:
Artist's impression of McDonnell Douglas Manned Orbital Systems Concept (MOSC) from 1975.

From NASA Images:
Despite the indefinite postponement of the Space Station in 1972, Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) continued to look to the future for some type of orbital facility during the post-Skylab years. In 1975, the MSFC directed a contract with the McDonnell Douglas Aerospace Company for the Manned Orbital Systems Concept (MOSC) study. This 9-month effort examined the requirements for, and defined a cost-effective orbital facility concept capable of, supporting extended manned missions in Earth orbit. The capabilities of this concept exceeded those envisioned for the Space Shuttle and Spacelab, both of which were limited by a 7 to 30-day orbital time constraint. The MOSC's initial operating capability was to be achieved in late 1984. A crew of four would man a four-module configuration. During its five-year orbital life the MOSC would have the capability to evolve into a larger 12-to-24-man facility. This is an artist's concept.

Source: http://www.nasaimages.org

Here are some more images from the McDonnell-Douglas official report.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760004107_1976004107.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760004108_1976004108.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760004109_1976004109.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760006049_1976006049.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760006050_1976006050.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760004110_1976004110.pdf
 

Attachments

  • MOF05.png
    MOF05.png
    152.2 KB · Views: 42
  • MOF04.png
    MOF04.png
    367.9 KB · Views: 55
  • MOF03.png
    MOF03.png
    101 KB · Views: 84
  • MOF02.png
    MOF02.png
    68.2 KB · Views: 63
  • MOF01.png
    MOF01.png
    51.8 KB · Views: 44

ender

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
21
Reaction score
3
The first one is from the Italian edition of "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology" b y K. Gatland.

Regards :)
 

Attachments

  • ScanImage054_cr.jpg
    ScanImage054_cr.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 93
  • 1975-McDAC-MOF (2).jpg
    1975-McDAC-MOF (2).jpg
    48.9 KB · Views: 91
  • 1975-McDAC-MOF (3).jpg
    1975-McDAC-MOF (3).jpg
    236.4 KB · Views: 70

Graham1973

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
236
ender said:
The first one is from the Italian edition of "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology" b y K. Gatland.

Regards :)

Interesting, I'll have to look the English edition of that book up. Where did you find the other two illustrations?
 

Graham1973

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
236
Space Operations Center (1979)

The Space Operations Center is a concept for a Shuttle-serviced, permanent, manned facility in low earth orbit. An analysis of this concept was conducted by personnel of the Johnson Space Center during 1979. The results of the study are presented in this document.

It should be noted that there are no NASA plans at present to implement such a concept. The study reported herein and currently planned follow-on studies are intended to explore the concept and develop material for consideration in future planning.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19800015850_1980015850.pdf

Is it true that NASA was forbidden from using the term 'Space Station' after the last Skylab mission?
 

Attachments

  • SOC04.png
    SOC04.png
    233.2 KB · Views: 71
  • SOC03.png
    SOC03.png
    189.5 KB · Views: 65
  • SOC02.png
    SOC02.png
    225.3 KB · Views: 70
  • SOC01.png
    SOC01.png
    189.7 KB · Views: 68

ender

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
21
Reaction score
3
Interesting, I'll have to look the English edition of that book up. Where did you find the other two illustrations?


hi!
the second one I don't remember from were it came, sorry. The third one is from the Italian book "Abitare lo spazio", printed in 1998. There is no reference to its precise source.

regards,
Carmine
 

Graham1973

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
236
ender said:
Interesting, I'll have to look the English edition of that book up. Where did you find the other two illustrations?


hi!
the second one I don't remember from were it came, sorry. The third one is from the Italian book "Abitare lo spazio", printed in 1998. There is no reference to its precise source.

regards,
Carmine

Thanks.
 

ender

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
21
Reaction score
3
follow on development of the SOC concept by Boeing in 1981-82
 

Attachments

  • ss1981-soc-(1981-H-793).jpg
    ss1981-soc-(1981-H-793).jpg
    439.9 KB · Views: 746
  • ss1981-soc-boeing-4.jpg
    ss1981-soc-boeing-4.jpg
    471.3 KB · Views: 705

Graham1973

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
236
 

Attachments

  • OLSAG.png
    OLSAG.png
    169.6 KB · Views: 561
  • OLS.png
    OLS.png
    165 KB · Views: 573

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,768
Reaction score
140
Graham1973 said:
An Unidentified US Space Station Design from the late 60s/early 70s.

The paper appears to date from soon after the development of the "Integrated Plan," which was in 1969, and it refers to figure 4 as something that should be launched around 1975 or later in the decade. I think this was just meant to be illustrative--not so much "here is a design" but "here is what it would look like including some of the things we think are needed." Note that they're talking about a 100-man space station. Try to imagine the logistical nightmare that would be!
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,023
Reaction score
1,582
About the SOC - JSC logic behind it was pretty horrific. Judge by yourself...

http://books.google.fr/books?id=SkBpbllvS2kC&pg=PA78&dq=%22+all+balled+up+with+the+user+requirements%22&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=bttAUZaDB-em0AWY3YHwBw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22%20all%20balled%20up%20with%20the%20user%20requirements%22&f=false

Quote of note

"Let's don't build [a space station] that caters to the users; we'll build one that is an operational base, a facility, and then what we'll do is just let the users come on board and when they come on board they will have to make their own beds.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,768
Reaction score
140
That link totally failed for me.

But what you quoted is not that unusual for NASA. There was always a high tension between the engineering desires (to ENGINEER!) and the science goals (to "understand"). The engineers always wanted to build stuff and found the science objectives to be things that got in their way and should be tossed overboard whenever they became inconvenient. Happened to ISS.
 

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
4,023
Reaction score
1,582
No surprise it didn't worked - link to google books = bad.
I quoted this book

The Space Station Decision: Incremental Politics and Technological Choiceby Howard E. McCurdy, 2007

I just found that attitude outrageous. With such mindset it is no surprise NASA manned spaceflight is agonizing.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
480
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Press photograph of Grumman space station concept circa 1970 found on eBay.

URL:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1970-Spacecraft-History-Station-concept-Press-Photo-/230929121842?pt=Art_Photo_Images&hash=item35c472c232
 

Attachments

  • 1_16_826_8-09282012-10002243A.jpg
    1_16_826_8-09282012-10002243A.jpg
    394.7 KB · Views: 55
  • 1_16_826_8-09282012-10002243B.jpg
    1_16_826_8-09282012-10002243B.jpg
    242.5 KB · Views: 51

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,709
Reaction score
1,863
http://cyberneticzoo.com/teleoperators/1987-flight-telerobotic-servicer-fts-grumman-american/

http://cyberneticzoo.com/teleoperators/1987-flight-telerobotic-servicer-fts-martin-marietta-american/
 

magnus_z

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
115
Reaction score
14
Triton said:
This is the Johnson Space Center's 1984 "roof" concept for a space station. The "roof" was covered with solar array cells, that were to generate about 120 kilowatts of electricity. Within the V-shaped beams there would be five modules for living, laboratory space, and external areas for instruments and other facilities.

Source:
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2003-00096.html
Shuttle-launch triangular space station
US 4579302 A
http://www.google.com/patents/US4579302
 

cluttonfred

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,364
Reaction score
94
Website
cluttonfred.info
The triangular station brings to mind those old "space spider" concepts in which rolled, flat alloy sheet could be easily transported by the Shuttle and then fabricated into beams and large flat truss structures by relatively simple robots. NASA is still funding development of the idea, though today's more sophisticated robots could tackle for more elaborate structures.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,768
Reaction score
140
cluttonfred said:
The triangular station brings to mind those old "space spider" concepts in which rolled, flat alloy sheet could be easily transported by the Shuttle and then fabricated into beams and large flat truss structures by relatively simple robots. NASA is still funding development of the idea, though today's more sophisticated robots could tackle for more elaborate structures.

That was the Grumman Beam Builder, or B2. I've gathered some information about it, including some nice unpublished photos. They built a ground-based prototype ca 1981 that was tested at Marshall. They also built an underwater mockup for the training tank at Marshall. According to somebody who was familiar with it, the project just sorta died out. They didn't do any follow-on after the initial tests. However, NASA apparently funded a different technology for connecting composite materials. There's a report on that you can probably find on NTRS.

The problem with the B2 was that it used a lot of power and they had problems with machine operation (I think it jammed). They might have been able to fix the latter problem, but not the former--welding takes a lot of power.

What I think would be interesting is to learn why NASA made the decisions that they did and how. They obviously determined that launching completed structures and assembling them was a better solution than actually constructing structures in orbit. Why? Was it just sort of intuitive, or did they do the math and determine that on-orbit construction was going to use too much power and be inefficient? My guess is that it was a bit of both. For example, with the B2, you needed to bring that big heavy machine into orbit and operate it. Now if that machine weighed more than the materials it was supposed to make, that might have been a poor trade. You might have been better just making everything on the ground and taking it up. The B2 might have only made sense if you needed to build truly immense structures.

The Spiderbot in the image is some interesting technology, but there's a lot of work that needs to be done to make it work.

You can find some information on these projects in our new report "3D Printing in Space," which you can download for free from the internet. I've got a few pages in there on that.
 

cluttonfred

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,364
Reaction score
94
Website
cluttonfred.info
blackstar said:
You can find some information on these projects in our new report "3D Printing in Space," which you can download for free from the internet. I've got a few pages in there on that.

Thanks, blackstar. Could you please provide a link? "3D Printing in Space" alone turns up a lot of Google hits.
 

blackstar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,768
Reaction score
140
cluttonfred said:
blackstar said:
You can find some information on these projects in our new report "3D Printing in Space," which you can download for free from the internet. I've got a few pages in there on that.

Thanks, blackstar. Could you please provide a link? "3D Printing in Space" alone turns up a lot of Google hits.


http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18871
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,326
Reaction score
1,357
How well do plastics and composites do in space? (Not very, I'd imagine.)
 

magnus_z

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
115
Reaction score
14
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Douglas-Aircraft-Company-Skylab-Space-Station-Vintage-Concept-Photo-NASA-RARE-/261298529088?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&nma=true&si=PwZrDLGXrNYBR76sPB%252BLb5SxkMU%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

This is an original 20" x 16" vintage concept photo for the NASA Skylab Space Station program. This is from the McDonnell Douglas Company's Photo Department complete with stamped identification on the back from it's original company headquarters. This photo would be prior to 1967 when the Company merged to become McDonnell Douglas. I'm assuming this was used for decoration in the Douglas Aircraft Company Headquarters Lobby or Hallway area or as a concept idea for NASA. Either way it's a very cool original early design example of the Skylab or Space Station. I doubt many of these would have been printed. This is a real photo matted to cardboard. Photo has wear from years of use. Photo has some warped edges, scratches and crazing or cracking of the finish. These flaws would not be noticeable with good framing and do not detract from the beauty of this unique piece.
 

Attachments

  • s-l1600[1].jpg
    s-l1600[1].jpg
    279.9 KB · Views: 687

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
595
That not Skylab, but concept art of Douglas MORL station study.
 

archipeppe

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
1,662
Reaction score
289
Michel Van said:
That not Skylab, but concept art of Douglas MORL station study.

Absolutely correct.

It is a MORL with the S-IVB still attached (and not should be once in orbit) not to mislead with the initial AAP configuration as "wet workshop" (emptied S-IVB used as space laboratory with minimal modifications).
 

Barrington Bond

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
929
Reaction score
80
Cropped and colours corrected a bit.
 

Attachments

  • $T2eC16dHJHIE9nysfB4(BRNVpuBWSw~~60_57 - Copy.JPG
    $T2eC16dHJHIE9nysfB4(BRNVpuBWSw~~60_57 - Copy.JPG
    436 KB · Views: 570

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
595
nice work Barrington

now one question why is there a S-IVB stage attach to MORL on that graphic ?
is this part of "gravity by rotate" experiment, the station use the S-IVB as counter weight

see on top of picture it show the concept

 

Barrington Bond

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
929
Reaction score
80
Can't remember where this came from but pretty much the same. Can't see them rotating this for gravity though!?

Regards,
Barry
 

Attachments

  • morls4b.jpg
    morls4b.jpg
    30.3 KB · Views: 444

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
595
yes they had centrifuge on board
but this clean up picture show the MORL is connect with Cable to S-IVB

that is only for Rotation gravity experiment only
 

Attachments

  • MORLSIVB.jpg
    MORLSIVB.jpg
    101.4 KB · Views: 420

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
11,709
Reaction score
1,863
http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/01/to-boost-commercial-activity-nasa-may-add-private-airlock-to-iss/
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,489
Reaction score
3,354

Attachments

  • Douglas.png
    Douglas.png
    462.9 KB · Views: 245

GeorgeA

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
795
Reaction score
118
Early Saturn-launched space station artwork, from a Boeing tweet today:

https://twitter.com/boeingspace/status/1074717198671740930?s=21
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,442
Reaction score
168
George,

Could you please attach the picture here?. Not everyone has an account in Twitter or Facebook and any link send us to "please sign here" page :)
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,695
Reaction score
463
George Allegrezza said:
Early Saturn-launched space station artwork, from a Boeing tweet today:

https://twitter.com/boeingspace/status/1074717198671740930?s=21
I don't have a twitter-account. I saved the images by left-clicking on the appropriate area in the twitter-message:
 

Attachments

  • Saturn launched space station 1.jpg
    Saturn launched space station 1.jpg
    158.7 KB · Views: 56
  • Saturn launched space station 2.jpg
    Saturn launched space station 2.jpg
    191.8 KB · Views: 63
  • Saturn launched space station 3.jpg
    Saturn launched space station 3.jpg
    209.9 KB · Views: 64
  • Saturn launched space station 4.jpg
    Saturn launched space station 4.jpg
    204.3 KB · Views: 62
Top