Orbital Hub: a concept for human spaceflight beyond ISS operations

  • Stephan S. Jahnke
  • Volker Maiwald
  • Claudia Philpot
  • Dominik Quantius
  • Oliver Romberg
  • Wolfgang Seboldt
  • Vincent Vrakking
  • Conrad Zeidler
Original Paper
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

The International Space Station (ISS) is the greatest endeavour in low-Earth orbit since the beginning of the space age and the culmination of human outposts like Skylab and Mir. While a clear schedule has yet to be drafted, it is expected that ISS will cease operation in the 2020s. What could be the layout for a human outpost in LEO with lessons learnt from ISS? What are the use cases and applications of such an outpost in the future? The System Analysis Space Segment group of the German Aerospace Center investigated these and other questions and developed the Orbital Hub concept. In this paper an overview is presented of how the overall concept has been derived and its properties and layouts are described. Starting with a workshop involving the science community, the scientific requirements have been derived and Strawman payloads have been defined for use in further design activities. These design activities focused on Concurrent Engineering studies, where besides DLR employees participants from the industry and astronauts were involved. The result is an expandable concept that is composed of two main parts, the Base Platform, home for a permanent crew of up to three astronauts, and the Free Flyer, an uncrewed autonomous research platform. This modular approach provides one major advantage: the decoupling of the habitat and payload leading to increased quality of the micro-gravity environment. The former provides an environment for human physiology experiments, while the latter allows science without the perturbations caused by a crew, e.g. material experiments or Earth observation. The Free Flyer is designed to operate for up to 3 months on its own, but can dock with the space station for maintenance and experiment servicing. It also has a hybrid propulsion system, chemical and electrical, for different applications. The hub’s design allows launch with just three launches, as the total mass of all the hub parts is about 60,000 kg. The main focus of the design is on autonomy and reducing crew maintenance and repair efforts, and reducing the need for extravehicular activities. Following a description of the design approach and technical details, cost estimation and a detailed discussion of the use cases for such a station concept, along with the possible scenarios of international cooperation, are also presented in this paper.

Keywords

Human spaceflight LEO Post-ISS Free Flyer Orbital Hub 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the overall design team of the CE studies and workshops. Special thanks go to Hans Schlegel, whose detailed insight into space station operations and its environment helped us immensely in setting up a credible station concept. We also thank our partners from Bigelow Aerospace for supporting us with vital data about the habitat and the possibilities of an expandable module, as well as Airbus DS for their valuable contributions during the study phase. We also thank the DLR board for funding this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Philpot, C., Seboldt, W., Quantius, D., Romberg, O.: Project Report: DLR-RY-Post-ISS AP1000 ISS-Analyse und Lessons Learnt (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ISECG: The Global Exploration Roadmap. National Aeronautics and Space Administration Headquarters, Washington. http://www.globalspaceexploration.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GER_2013.pdf (2013). Accessed 01 Mar 2017
  3. 3.
    ISS Program Science Forum: International Space Station Benefits for Humanity, 2nd Edition (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vrakking, V., Quantius, D., Zeidler, C., Philpot, C.,  Romberg, O.: Project Report: DLR-RY-Post-ISS AP2000 Post-ISS: Konzeptbewertung (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saaty, T.L., Alexander, J.M.: Conflict Resolution: The Analytic Hierarchy Approach. Praeger Publishers, US (1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.G.: Models, methods, concepts and applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Kluwer Academics Publishers Group, Dordrecht (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Quantius, D., Romberg, O., Maiwald, V. Schubert, D., Schlotterer, D.M., Peter, H.: The Concurrent Engineering Approach Applied on The Solar magnetism eXplorer (SolmeX) Concept. 62nd International Astronautical Congress (IAC) 2011, 3–7 Oct. 2011, Cape Town, South Africa (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Braukhane, A., Maiwald, V., Martelo, A., Quantius, D., Romberg, O.: Be Aware of the Squad: Lessons Learnt from 50 Concurrent Engineering Studies for space systems. 66th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), 11–16 Oct. 2015, Jerusalem, Israel (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fischer, P.M., Deshmukh, M., Maiwald, V., Quantius, D., Martelo Gomez, A., Gerndt, A.: Conceptual Data Model—a Foundation for successful Concurrent Engineering. 7th International Systems and Concurrent Engineering for Space Applications Conference (SECESA), 5–7 Oct. 2016, Madrid, Spain (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wertz, J.R., Larson, W.L.: Space Mission Analysis and Design, 3rd edn. Space Technology Library, Microcosm Press, El Segundo (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    GAO-United States General Accounting Office: International Space Station—US Life-Cycle Funding Requirements (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Romberg, O., Quantius, D., Philpot, C., et al.: The Orbital-Hub: Low Cost Platform for Human Spaceflight after ISS. 67th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), 26–30 Sep. 2016, Guadalajara, Mexico (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lovrinovic, B.: Manoeuvre Estimation and Analysis of the Attitude and Propulsion System for Free Flying Modules of a Low Earth Orbit Space Station. RWTH Aachen/Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt, Bremen (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Erickson, L.K.: Space Flight: History, Technology and Operations. The Scarecrow Press, New Jersey (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rank, P., Mühlbauer, Q., et al.: The DEOS Automation And Robotics Payload. 11th Symposium on Advanced Space Technologies in Robotics and Automation, ESA ESTEC, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 12–14 April 2011 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Friedrich, H., Baune, M., Baune, J.: Man Systems Aspects in the Design Concept Of the Columbus Man-tended Free Flyer Acta Astronautica, vol. 20. Pergamon Press, Great Britian (1989)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Azure Space: 30% Triple Junction GaAs Solar Cell Datasheet. http://www.azurspace.com/images/0003429-01-01_DB_3G30C-Advanced.pdf (2017). Accessed 28 Feb 2017
  18. 18.
    Orbital ATK-Goleta: UltraFlex Solar Array Systems. https://www.orbitalatk.com/space-systems/space-components/solar-arrays/docs/FS007_15_OA_3862%20UltraFlex.pdf (2017). Accessed 28 Feb 2017
  19. 19.
    Neubauer, J., et al.: Progress on the Space Qualification of the High Energy ABSL 18650NL Cell. https://batteryworkshop.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations/Progress_Space_Qual_High_Ener_18650NL_Cell_JNeubauer.pdf (2017). Accessed 01 Mar 2017
  20. 20.
    Strandmoe, S., et al.: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) Flight Control Achievements. 7th International ESA Conference on Guidance, Navigation and Control Systems. Tralee, 2–5 June 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Airbus Safran Launchers: Chemical Bi-Propellant Thruster Family. http://www.space-propulsion.com/brochures/bipropellant-thrusters/bipropellant-thrusters.pdf (2017). Accessed 08 Nov 2017
  22. 22.
    Bundesmann, C., et al.: In-situ Temperature, Grid Curvature, Erosion, Beam and Plasma Characterization of a Gridded Ion Thruster RIT-22. 31st International Electric Propulsion Conference. Michigan, 20–24, September 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seedhouse, E.: SpaceX’s Dragon: America’s Next Generation Spacecraft. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jahnke, S., Philpot, C., Maiwald, V., Romberg, O.: Recent Developments on DLR’s Post ISS Concept. 68th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), 25–29 Sep. 2017, Adelaide, Australia (2017)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Murray, C.D., Dermott, S.F.: Solar System Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Messerschmid, E., Bertrand, R.: Space Stations: Systems and Utilization. Springer, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    European Space Agency: ESA Budget for 2017: by domain”, Space in Images. http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2017/01/ESA_budget_2017_by_domain (2017). Accessed 27 Mar 2017
  28. 28.
    European Space Agency: Exploring Together: ESA Space Exploration Strategy. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/strategies/ESA_Exploration_Strategy_2015.pdf (2017). Accessed 27 Mar 2017

Copyright information

© CEAS 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephan S. Jahnke
    • 1
  • Volker Maiwald
    • 1
  • Claudia Philpot
    • 1
  • Dominik Quantius
    • 1
  • Oliver Romberg
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Seboldt
    • 1
  • Vincent Vrakking
    • 1
  • Conrad Zeidler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of System Analysis Space SegmentGerman Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Space SystemsBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations