Boldly Going: A History of an American Space Station

While an interesting idea, it runs into the problem that the front of Kepler capsule, and it's OTL antecedent the MRC, have their radar and main propulsion on the nose. This means that such a configuration would have to duplicate not only the docking port, but also all of the other systems. This would get very expensive very quickly. A much more likely solution would be to use use a 'caboose' made out of a SYLDA, that remains attached to the Kepler-C until the later is docked to the station. At that point, the cargo vehicle would be removed and berthed to either Space Station Enterprise or MIR-II. The upside is that we've got a nice side-access path for late-load on the pad. The downside is that the capsule is in a new place on the rocket, and the ground infrastructure would have to change.
They did consider a layout like this for some of the European CSTS proposals, but they incorporated the engines into an SM and had duplicate or primary radar on the orbital module, which doesn't fit with TTL Kepler:

1280px-Euro-CTS-2008.jpg
 
the problem that the front of Kepler capsule, and it's OTL antecedent the MRC, have their radar and main propulsion on the nose.
Once you dock are Kepler radar and MRC blocked !
What about this solution?
Kepler capsule is enlarged so Heat-shield and adapter has diameter of Ariane 5 (20tons payload vs 8tons Ariane 44L)
like "Big-G" version of Gemini spacecraft
 
Once you dock are Kepler radar and MRC blocked !
What about this solution?
Kepler capsule is enlarged so Heat-shield and adapter has diameter of Ariane 5 (20tons payload vs 8tons Ariane 44L)
like "Big-G" version of Gemini spacecraft
The issue with making a "big Kepler" (as with "Big G") are that by the time you get done stretching the capsule, the only thing left common are a few structural members--a jump as major as going from Mercury to Gemini (which was originally supposed to be a "simple" Mercury Mk II). New thrusters, new seats, new life support, new computers, displays, and software, and a lot more. Sticking the payload into an aft cargo "caboose" (especially if that volume is only accessed at station instead of adding an aft heat shield door) is much easier, and more within European budgets. Frankly, just getting (and keeping) Kepler flying on European launchers instead of just Kepler-L to the moon and Kepler-E to Enterprise for lifeboats (via Shuttle) is a pretty big success by OTL European standards, especially with other irons they have in the fire which we haven't discussed yet...
 
Part 26: Minerva 3 builds a cabin on the moon with Habitank, Conestogas, and mules.
Boldly Going Part 26

Minerva 3’s month-long trip to the moon in 2001 would be the first demonstration of the Habitank concept in-situ on the lunar surface, extending the legacy of Enterprise’s wet lab design to the moon. As a Class-B outpost mission, Minerva 3 required a total of four Shuttle-C launches, with each pair being used to send a separate LSAM lander to the lunar surface. The first lander was pre-positioned in Tsiolkovsky Crater in the late summer of 2000. Freed from the need to carry an ascent vehicle, this vehicle - only the second LSAM to land on the lunar surface - carried another 16.5 metric tons of surface payload. Though also including various power systems and surface exploration gear, the primary payload was the massive Service Core, a lunar equivalent to Enterprise’s node modules. The module offered an 8 meter long, 4.27m diameter core unit filled with consumables and life support systems. It was fitted to act as the nexus of the Class-B outpost while offering the potential to expand into a Class-C lunar base. To this end, it housed six deployable inflatable passageways, with one on each end and two along each side of the module. The side passageways were positioned so that when the core was positioned properly, the two inflatable passageways on a side of the module could be connected to ports on the end of the two Habitank modules on an LSAM, tying the core to the LSAM’s pressurized volume in two places. A second LSAM could then be attached on the other side, forming the Class-B configuration. In this “figure-8” layout, the outpost would consist of two airlocks (one on each LSAM), one sortie hab, the ascent module cabin, four Habitanks, and the core module--nine rooms totaling more than 1,200 square feet of floor space. Though called a “cabin,” even this early outpost would be a spacious base for exploration. The two end passages on a Lunar Core Module could be connected in series, allowing the expansion from the two-LSAM medium-duration outpost into a full lunar base of nearly arbitrary size.



The second major payload carried by Minerva 3B’s LSAM was one of the program’s most controversial decisions: the use of a nuclear reactor for outpost power generation, providing all the power a base could require through the two-week lunar night. The TOPAZ-II reactor would constitute the main Russian contribution to the lunar program, providing 5 kW of electrical power from just 12 kg of Uranium contained within the 1,000 kilogram reactor system. The political benefits of using a Soviet-derived nuclear reactor and avoiding Soviet space scientists and nuclear engineers seeking alternative employment was a powerful cudgel used to help overwhelm Congressional opposition to the application of nuclear power in space.The benefits of a powerful and consistent energy source for future outposts helped ensure its selection by NASA. However, even given the successful demonstration of TOPAZ-II for eight months on the lunar surface prior to the arrival of the Minerva 3 crew in 2001, opposition by anti-nuclear advocates was strong--though often mistaken, as the peak of protests came during the launch of the Minerva 3B mission on STS-127, when the reactor had already been delivered and operational on the lunar surface for more than eight months.



In an echo of the STS-38R Enterprise commissioning flight, when the crew of Minerva 3 arrived on the lunar surface thanks to another pair of Shuttle-C launches in early 2001, their first task was the assembly of the outpost they would occupy, a project which would consume most of the six Earth days remaining before lunar night. Thus, bare hours after landing, the crew of Minerva 3 deployed the main cargo of their LSAM: four of the golf-cart-sized lunar rovers which were the utility vehicles of the Minerva surface architecture. Officially the Multi-Utility Lunar Exploration System, these “mules” were the packbeasts of the Minerva architecture. Each had four wheels: two large 1.5m diameter forward wheels, and two smaller trailing wheels, with steering somewhat like a tricycle provided by a hinge between the front axle and the main chassis. Two “mules” could be coupled together, providing supplemental carrying capacity and redundant batteries and motors in the event of any failure. This redundancy was key to allow a more safety-conscious NASA to qualify the system for extended traverses well beyond walk-back distance. A single mule pair could carry the entire expedition, and thus a full-crew traverse was protected against the complete failure of even two of their four mule prime movers. The mule’s awkward wheel arrangement was a legacy of their secondary role: bolt-on casters for the moving of hardware on the lunar surface. A capture system on each MULE rover allowed it to attach to a trunnion on the leg of the LSAM or one of the footpads of the Minerva core module and lift it off the ground, leaving the smaller rear wheels in the air and the weight of the leg balanced on the two large forward wheels. With all four MULEs attached, the LSAM or Minerva core was essentially putting on roller skates, and could be transported at as many as two kilometers per hour.

After landing, the crew’s first EVA was spent deploying and guiding the four mules to attach to the legs of their Minerva 3B LSAM. Thus, their LSAM was converted into a massive pressurized rover. That afternoon and evening, the crew used the mules to tow their LSAM along the first few hundred meters of the traverse to the landing site of the Minerva 3A cargo LSAM. The Conestoga lander’s program name was once again apt, a massive vehicle bound for a frontier pulled by mules. This legacy yielded the crew’s name for their Minerva 3B LSAM: the Prairie Schooner. The next day, the Schooner completed the traverse to Minerva 3A’s LSAM landing site, and the crew set to work in an afternoon EVA configuring the outpost. The first task was using a remote-controlled mule to drive the TOPAZ-II reactor to its final emplaced potion at the end of a 300 meter long power cable. Next, the crew used the Minerva 3A LSAM’s onboard crane to lower the core module to the surface, then used the mules to position both the core module and the Prairie Schooner into their proper placement relative to the LSAM 3B lander. The third day on the surface was spent attaching the four pressurized tunnels and coupling the base’s three modules together. Overnight, the ground crew carried out tasks to fill the four Habitanks with breathable atmosphere mixtures. Day four on the surface marked the first day without an EVA, as the crew worked all day inside to open up hatches from the airlock into Schooner's two Habitanks, gain access to the Core Module from there, then repeat the process to open up the LSAM 3A Habitanks. With all five major modules linked into the same pressurized volume, life support systems, and power grid, the crew was able to spend the final days of lunar dusk on a series of short-range EVAs, conducting local site science and emplacing several small experiment packages in the long lunar dusk.

Over the course of the two-week lunar night, Minerva 3’s crew settled into their new base. They finished outfitting the four Habitanks into a short-duration outpost. The two Habitanks aboard Schooner were fitted out as bunkrooms, ensuring that should a problem arise during the night all four expedition crew would already be aboard the LSAM carrying an ascent stage. The two Habitanks aboard the Minerva 3B cargo lander became a geology lab and an EVA preparation area, while the core module contained the small galley, wardroom, and outpost control center. With the modules outfitted, the crew moved from engineering into focusing on science. In cooperation with selenologists in backrooms on the ground, the commander and science mission specialists reviewed the samples gathered on their initial traverses and made detailed plans for the exploration to follow once the sun rose again. In addition to the outfitting tasks and geology review, the long lunar night offered the chance for long-duration exploration of the human body in lunar gravity. The downtime meant precisely calculated exercise routines on the outpost’s folding treadmill and weight bench went uninterrupted by the strenuous activities of near-daily EVAs.

By the time the sun rose in March of 2001 and the Minerva 3 crew could go about the final two weeks of their month on the lunar surface, the legacy of Enterprise had been well and truly extended to the moon. The Minerva crew made use of in-space conversion experience developed on Enterprise and Enterprise-heritage EVA suits, exercise equipment, and biomedical expertise. When the Minerva 3’s crew departed the lunar farside, they left behind a powerful outpost for any future explorers to further develop. Within the ten-year lifespan of the cabin’s TOPAZ-II reactor, the base could be easily repressurized and reactivated for expansion. Thus, the four Class-B outpost missions would each lay the groundwork for a full lunar base at multiple sites around the moon. For those who doubted such a capability, a fresh explosion of applications for platforms in Earth orbit provided a model to examine closely.










Artwork by: @norangepeel (Cass Gibson on Twitter), @nixonshead (AEB Digital on Twitter), & DylanSemrau[/I]
 
Last edited:
Interesting design choice to move the lander with the ascent station. If there is just a slight hiccup with one of the mules during transport that could end up bad especially if you need to use all four of the available mules so no backup for that operation. Also how reusable are the habitats after the ascent stage blasted of from the lander?
 
Elegantly done! I particularly like the part where TOPAZ is used on the Moon--could open the way for more TOPAZ reactor use in future flights (NEP probes, in particular). And wonderful artwork, as usual--though I wonder whether the habitank hatches could really have windows like that, or whether thermal stresses on glass or polycarbonate would be too much. And using the long lunar night for biosciences and engineering work is a very clever approach--I had been thinking that only two-week or six-week lunar missions made any real sense.
 
Interesting design choice to move the lander with the ascent station. If there is just a slight hiccup with one of the mules during transport that could end up bad especially if you need to use all four of the available mules so no backup for that operation. Also how reusable are the habitats after the ascent stage blasted of from the lander?
The other option is for the crew to use all four mules to get to the hab, then move the hab (none of which has been configured for human habitation yet) and run the risk of multiple mule failures stranding the crew farther from the ascent vehicle than they can walk. A single mule failure is always a LOM risk before you get the outpost assembled, but if you move the ascent element it's never a LOC risk.
 
Amazing art and at 1,200 sqf you have a very good start on a lunar base. Have NASA given any thought to developing a lighter single launch lunar transporter that can take just a crew and some supplies to an already outfitted base so as to make fuller use of what they are leaving behind. It seems a waste to leave such a capable outpost to deteriorate.
 
That afternoon and evening, the crew used the mules to tow their LSAM along the first few hundred meters of the traverse to the landing site of the Minerva 3A cargo LSAM.
Oh neat, I was wondering how you'd get the two halves of the 'cabin in the woods' together without some truly precision landing. Those MULES are a fantastic bit of kit, is there an OTL equivalent design or were they invented for the timeline?
 
Was that really a mission to the farside? And if so, why hasn't there been more mention of that detail before? It seems like something that's important enough to deserve more than a single reference ...
Yes, it was:

The first lander was pre-positioned in Tsiolkovsky Crater in the late summer of 2000.

Tsiolkovsky is located on the far side. There was also mention of how they were setting up a communications relay system for far side missions earlier. By the 2000s, a far side mission wasn't really all that big a deal any more.
 
Elegantly done! I particularly like the part where TOPAZ is used on the Moon--could open the way for more TOPAZ reactor use in future flights (NEP probes, in particular). And wonderful artwork, as usual--though I wonder whether the habitank hatches could really have windows like that, or whether thermal stresses on glass or polycarbonate would be too much. And using the long lunar night for biosciences and engineering work is a very clever approach--I had been thinking that only two-week or six-week lunar missions made any real sense.

Betting it's just using the same 'door' segment again in the art. The HabiTank study had a 'panel' door there but no window.

Wonderful post and great art as usual folks!

Randy
 
It really is an ugly launcher. I understand the logic of trying to use the same MLP but those connectors just make the entire thing look really weird. Also how confident were they they that they actually would work and the entire thing wouldn't just fly apart.
 
Was that really a mission to the farside? And if so, why hasn't there been more mention of that detail before? It seems like something that's important enough to deserve more than a single reference ...
Yeah, it was, we didn't really play that aspect up a lot but we did note it. As Workable Goblin pointed out, Tsiolkovsky Crater is on the Lunar far-side, and the missions to deploy LDRS (Lunar Data Relay System) to Earth-Moon L1 and L2 were a part of the Heimdall risk-reduction program prior to USAF use of the vehicles. As for importance, I am sure that media of the time is playing up the importance quite a bit, but for us, it's just another lunar landing.

One interesting note is that this is a lunar far-side mission that lasts 4-5 weeks on the surface. This has the interesting result that at the end of Minerva 3, each of the four crew members (including NASA LM pilot Commander Susan Kilrain and French Kepler Pilot Brigadier General [?] Jean-Pierre Haigneré) has more time on the surface of the moon than everyone that came before them (Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, & Minerva 2) combined.
Oh neat, I was wondering how you'd get the two halves of the 'cabin in the woods' together without some truly precision landing. Those MULES are a fantastic bit of kit, is there an OTL equivalent design or were they invented for the timeline?
Was the MULE a real design? I'd like to see what that would have looked like.
The MULEs were a real design that came out of the Marshall Space Flight Center Lunar Lander Preparatory Study Phase II Concept, which is described in After LM: NASA Lunar Lander Concepts Beyond Apollo by John F. Connolly.
20190031985_After_LM_MULE.png


Interesting design choice to move the lander with the ascent station. If there is just a slight hiccup with one of the mules during transport that could end up bad especially if you need to use all four of the available mules so no backup for that operation.
It's a relatively short drive, and the way I'd suggest designing it is with redundant drive motors on each MULE and also that any single MULE failure can be "dragged along" by the other three good ones (turning the failed MULE into an "unpowered" caster). The benefit is once it's done, the ascent stage can be accessed directly from the assembled base, with no EVA needed in the event of emergency evacuation requirements, and the base can be precisely assembled without a large separate crane unit--you just grab landing gear that already has to be primary structure.

Also how reusable are the habitats after the ascent stage blasted of from the lander?
Very. You may note the shielding that is visible on the cargo lander that protects the LOX tanks above the former hydrogen tanks. Similar shielding would be around all of the critical paths.
Wow, that Habitank art is so cool.

It really is! I'm incredibly pleased by the work our art team did on this. It's also probably some of the highest fidelity artwork of the concept ever done.

Elegantly done! I particularly like the part where TOPAZ is used on the Moon--could open the way for more TOPAZ reactor use in future flights (NEP probes, in particular). And wonderful artwork, as usual--though I wonder whether the habitank hatches could really have windows like that, or whether thermal stresses on glass or polycarbonate would be too much.
Betting it's just using the same 'door' segment again in the art. The HabiTank study had a 'panel' door there but no window.
We figure a small porthole as shown is included, as it is on all the CBMs on ISS--it's very useful to have a small 3-4" port to look into any vestibules, and similar to on ISS, any exterior ones can be covered with insulation or padding as needed for protection and thermal isolation:

1200px-ISS-21_Frank_De_Winne_HTV-1_unberth_preparation.jpg

This architecture really does look very clever, I wish one of the current Artemis proposals had such modular potential but is this based off a particular study, sorry if it is and I've missed it.
This is based on a specific set of studies! As we mentioned in Part 20's notes, this Habitank is mostly drawn off the version from this PDF report from late in the design cycle, but you can read about the idea and some of its antecedents and other configurations considered for applying it in the section about them in the fantastic After LM: NASA Lunar Lander Concepts Beyond Apollo by John F. Connolly. There was even a real mockup made OTL!
 
Last edited:
Top