Modular "Universally" Adaptable Support Craft

Concepts Development, Organisation, Operations Specialist

As a tentative proposal for a near- to mid- term project, I suggest the development of a Modular Universally Adaptable Support Craft. This would be composed of a plug-in command/control module, attached to a modular support frame. Other modular components would be attached as necessary for a given mission. Conceptually, this would be similar to the Sky Crane helicopter (or, the fictional Eagle Transport from Space:1999); except that the basic structure would only include the frame with a detachable capsul. As with the Sky Crane, functional modules (either standardised or irregular) could be attached to the frame, possibly docked to the capsul (as extended habitational space). An approriate propulsion system would then be attached, along with required provisions and equipment to operate that propulsion system (power, fuel, propellant, etc). The frame can be extended as necessary, both lengthwise and laterally. All components would be structured around a standardised array of connector points.

The benefit of this adaptable system would be that the structure could then be near-optimised for any given mission, and then quickly reconfigured for the next mission. With the adaptable structure, selected components could support any flight regime, whether aeronautic, astronautic, oceanic, terrestrial, or off-world (etc). The propulsion system would be selected for the appropriate regime, components would be selected for the mission, numbers and types of tanks (whether for propellant or crew provisions, etc) would be selected according to the required mission endurance parametres. On the one hand, this means that you would not have to settle with a compromised configuration that is not particularly ideal for any mission. On the other hand, you would not have to have a completely different craft for every mission type. While you would be carrying extra mass (on the host operator) that is not required for certain missions, many of the components would be common to most, if not all missions (notably, the command module and basic support frame). Many elements would normally be distributed amongst a fleet of craft that would be able to operate simultaneously; or, the components could be stripped from some craft in order to configure a single craft for a mission requiring greater endurance.

These craft would be intended to perform a number of functions, within and/or across a number of missions. These would include transport (vessel to vessel, same body orbit to orbit, different body orbit to orbit, surface to orbit, etc), exploration, operational support (for mining, construction, etc), inspection, training, etc. For the near term, the craft would be used for surface and oceanic operations. This would allow for proof-of-concept development and testing; as well as simultaneous practical (real-world) infrastructural development, through actual mission operations. Once established, these would be made available to other agencies and organisations, including terrestrial, aeronautic, and space-targeted.

Eventually, the craft would be used for our own space-based operations.

While I already have the basic concept figured out, and can produce a CAD render myself, I could use the help of an actual architect, a qualified engineer, and any other interested parties who would be willing to do some troubleshooting, brainstorming, and reality-checking.

The concept is based on standardised modular construction. I envision five basic categories of component modules (although actual modules might belong to multiple categories):
Command (or Control)- responsible for the integration and coordination of the overall collection of modules, or any subgroup;
Operations- modules responsible for specific or general mission functions, conducting actual manipulations (these are the arms & legs of the craft);
Intelligence- modules responsible for the collection and analysis of information (these are essentially the eyes & ears of the craft);
Systems- responsible or assuring the actual operability of the craft, including propulsion units, flight actuators, life support / environmental control equipment, computer systems, etc (this essentially includes all integrated hardware, as well as maintenance support activity);
Services- responsible for the storage and distribution of provisions for the craft (propellant, fuel, etc), passengers & crew (atmosphere supply, nutrients, etc, and mission support (ammunitions/ordnance, probes, etc) --(this includes, but is not necessarily limited to, all expendables, as well as support activity).

Responses

You must log in or sign up to reply

Suzana Bianco

Space Architect

I really like this idea Mikkel, will you submit it to the SMAP?
If I understood right, you want to launch a support spacecraft that can attach to other spacecrafts and provide some basic capabilities? Kind of like a human-rated spacetug?

I don't quite understand how you would adapt the same craft for oceanic, air, surface and space use... What do you have in mind?

Mikkel R HAAHEIM

Concepts Development, Organisation, Operations Specialist

Hello!

First, sorry I have been out of contact for awhile. I have been busy putting a cognitive sciences website online. As it is still in its infancy, it ill probably take up much of my time for awhile.

Second, that said: yes, I do intend to make a formal submission. However, as I am essentially a tech lay-person, I was hoping to get some more professional assistance, first. It appears I will have to go on, though, with my conceptual approach, for the moment.

Third, the concept is more like a plug&play; spacecraft. There are standardised modules that can be assembled according to the mission requirements. Some configurations will allow it to act as a space tug. Other configurations allow it to act as a personnel transport, emergency response craft, work-bee (think Star Trek and Babylon 5), scientific research/survey craft, etc. Some configurations will allow it to be used in aquatic environments (Europa, perhaps), while others would (hopefully) allow it to be used in sustained atmospheric flight (at the very least, atmospheric insertion/landing).

The design is modular, beginning with a series of standardised command/control modules (CM). Normally, these would be crewed, but there would be some automated modules available for fully robotic missions. At the most basic level, the selected CM would be mated to a support frame. This support frame would serve as an interface, supporting appropriate propulsion/power source systems, propellant/fuel systems, habitation, scientific equipment, payload, and other mission defined modules. Other standardised modular components would include things like heat shields, atmospheric entry packages, etc.

So, let's say we start off with a two-pilot module. We might choose a fairly adaptable ellipsoidal or fully spherical design, with a fairly thick shell. This form is minimally aerodynamic, so not a hugely efficient flight unit, but it is suitable enough to getyou where you are going, and even better at hovering manoeuvres and other low velocity tasks. It could easily stand up to common wear&tear; in space, but the hull could equally handle fairly deep oceanic pressures. This CM would be mated to a simple, rugged, versatile frame.

In space, you would mate this basic assembly with an appropriate thruster. Chemical propulsion for fairly rapid manoeuvres, perhaps solar electric (or even nuclear electric) for slower manoeuvres, such as using it as a space tug to lift stations to a higher orbit, or to transfer construction supplies, etc. Of course, you would also attach appropriate energy modules and fuel/propellant modules, with large/numerous enough modules to support the mission profile (with some reserve,of course). You might add a habitation module for longer duration flights, with a docked accessway connecting the CM to the habitat.

On a mission to Europa, you would configure modules suitable for de-orbit and landing, with a payload module. Many of the specific modules used might be exactly the same as those used for the tug mission... although the chemical thrusters would be the mostlikely selection, to best enable return from surface (assuming the flight is not intended to be a one-way transfer, leaving the module on Europa for later surface/suburface missions). Other modules and modular components would be added for specific surface operations... importantly equipment allowing a reconfiguration of the craft.

For surface mission (once on the ground), the thrusters would probably be removed to save mass, and replaced by a treaded or wheeled chassis. Propellant tanks might be replaced by rechargeable batteries, and charging equipment. Again, you might decide to include the habitat...or perhaps a lighter, inflatable unit with a docking ring, for temporary accomodations (space tents). A home base could be established, and this new configuration would be outfitted with mission defined components for individual excursions.

For submersive missions, the home-base kit might include equiment to remove a section of upper crust. The previous propulsion systems would be swapped out for a set of propulsive screws (underwater fan/propeller blades), probably powered by a rechargeable battery, similar to mini-subs on Earth. Remember that the CM shell is designed to support high pressure environments.

Suzana Bianco

Space Architect

Hi Mikkel, did you get a chance to read our latest article? We sent out summaries of the first ideas for SMAP, and included yours! If you didn´t see it, check it out here: https://medium.com/spacedecentral/initial-mission-ideas-for-space-decentrals-smap-from-the-moon-mars-to-vertical-earth-farms-d52e9ac05ef8

Have you seen Faz's forum post about on orbit servicing? I feel like his idea and yours have some overlap. Maybe you two can work together on a joint-proposal?
https://spacedecentral.net/forum/posts/on-orbot-servicing-robotic-payloads

Mikkel R HAAHEIM

Concepts Development, Organisation, Operations Specialist

Hello!

Yes, I saw the artical, and noticed the inclusion. Thank you!

I have not seen the post you mention (in the second paragraph), but I will check it out. I would be more than happy to work on a collaborative effort. I am not oo surprised that there might be some overlap (I would like to think this would be rather common). From the title, it sounds like the overlap would be with the possibility of automated or romote operation modules.

Modular "Universally" Adaptable Support Craft

Responses

Delete Comment

Delete Post