Space Station Concepts

[hesham]

A McDonnell Douglas Space Station of 1970;


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710012179_1971012179.pdf

 

[hesham]

Hi,


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710008962_1971008962.pdf

 

[Graham1973]

1967 Boeing design that was intended to combine Earth Orbital science with flight-testing of components of the proposed Mars Flyby mission via a simulated Mars mission.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700018358_1970018358.pdf

 

[Graham1973]

Further designs for the Boeing Single Launch Station, including a picture of the proposed Apollo based logistics vehicle.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700075027_1970075027.pdf

Rather sadly, this report and the one I linked to in the previous post seem to be the only surviving documentation on this project.

 

[Graham1973]

Further proposed configurations for the Boeing Single Launch space station and two related designs for Mars Flyby spacecraft.

 

[Michel Van]

Big Thx for picture
Graham1973

 

[Graham1973]

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

 

[ender]

The first one is from the Italian edition of "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology" b y K. Gatland.

Regards

 

[Graham1973]

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]

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?

 

[ender]

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]

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]

follow on development of the SOC concept by Boeing in 1981-82

 

[Graham1973]

North American/Rockwells Orbiting Lunar Station

This is the only NASA report I've so far located dealing with space stations intended for orbiting bodies other than Earth, though I have seen NASA illustrations that hint at planned Mars orbiting space stations dating from around the same period (Late 60s/Early 70s)

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710015273_1971015273.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710016356_1971016356.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710016357_1971016357.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710016358_1971016358.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710016359_1971016359.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710016360_1971016360.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710015626_1971015626.pdf

 

[Graham1973]

An Unidentified US Space Station Design from the late 60s/early 70s.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710002227_1971002227.pdf

 

[blackstar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Grey Havoc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

How well do plastics and composites do in space? (Not very, I'd imagine.)

 

[ender]

An Unidentified US Space Station Design from the late 60s/early 70s.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710002227_1971002227.pdf

see there
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacestations.php#id--Designs--NASA_Space_Station:_Key_to_the_Future

 

[magnus_z]

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.

 

[Michel Van]

That not Skylab, but concept art of Douglas MORL station study.

 

[archipeppe]

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]

Cropped and colours corrected a bit.

 

[Michel Van]

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]

Can't remember where this came from but pretty much the same. Can't see them rotating this for gravity though!?

Regards,
Barry

 

[Michel Van]

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

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/01/to-boost-commercial-activity-nasa-may-add-private-airlock-to-iss/

 

[hesham]

A McDonnell Douglas Space Station of 1970;

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710012179_1971012179.pdf

Anther artist drawing to Douglas unknown design for Space Station of 1967,appeared in
a Langley Researcher LaRC 1967 pdf,but I can't find its source now,some help to get it
directly.

 

[GeorgeA]

Early Saturn-launched space station artwork, from a Boeing tweet today:

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

 

[Antonio]

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]

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: