NASA Awards 6 NextSTEP-2 Contracts for Deep Space Habitats
Orion and the NextSTEP habitat in the cis-lunar proving ground – the next step from low Earth orbit on the way to Mars. (Credit; Lockheed Martin)
WASHINGTON (NASA PR) — NASA has selected six U.S. companies to help advance the Journey to Mars by developing ground prototypes and concepts for deep space habitats.
Through the public-private partnerships enabled by the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships-2 (NextSTEP-2) Broad Agency Announcement, Appendix A, NASA and industry partners will expand commercial development of space in low-Earth orbit while also improving deep space exploration capabilities to support more extensive human spaceflight missions.
The selected companies are:
- Bigelow Aerospace of Las Vegas
- Boeing of Pasadena, Texas
- Lockheed Martin of Denver
- Orbital ATK of Dulles, Virginia
- Sierra Nevada Corporation’s Space Systems of Louisville, Colorado
- NanoRacks of Webster, Texas
Habitation systems provide a safe place for humans to live as we move beyond Earth on our Journey to Mars.
“NASA is on an ambitious expansion of human spaceflight, including the Journey to Mars, and we’re utilizing the innovation, skill and knowledge of both the government and private sectors,” said Jason Crusan, director of NASA’s Advanced Exploration Systems. “The next human exploration capabilities needed beyond the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion capsule are deep space, long duration habitation and in-space propulsion. We are now adding focus and specifics on the deep space habitats where humans will live and work independently for months or years at a time, without cargo supply deliveries from Earth.”
The six partners will have up to approximately 24 months to develop ground prototypes and/or conduct concept studies for deep space habitats. The contract award amounts are dependent on contract negotiations, and NASA has estimated the combined total of all the awards, covering work in 2016 and 2017, will be approximately $65 million, with additional efforts and funding continuing into 2018. Selected partners are required to contribute at least 30 percent of the cost of the overall proposed effort.
The ground prototypes will be used for three primary purposes: supporting integrated systems testing, human factors and operations testing, and to help define overall system functionality. These are important activities as they help define the design standards, common interfaces, and requirements while reducing risks for the final flight systems that will come after this phase.
NASA made the first NextSTEP selections in 2015, which include deep space habitation concept studies that also advance low-Earth orbit commercial capabilities. Four companies were selected under that solicitation: Bigelow Aerospace LLC, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Orbital ATK.
This round of NextSTEP selections are part of a phased approach that will catalyze commercial investment in low-Earth orbit and lead to an operational deep space habitation capability for missions in the area of space near the moon, which will serve as the proving ground for Mars during the 2020s. These missions will demonstrate human, robotic and spacecraft operations in a true deep space environment that’s still relatively close to Earth and validate technologies for the longer journey to Mars.
The activities of these NextSTEP awards will inform the acquisition and deployment approach for the next phase of flight systems for deep space including important aspects, such as standards and interfaces, module configurations, and options for deployment using SLS and Orion and commercial vehicles. In addition to U.S. industry, NASA is in discussions on collaborative opportunities with our international partners to enable fully operational deep space habitation capability.
NextSTEP is managed by the Advanced Exploration Systems Division (AES) in NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. AES is pioneering innovative approaches and public-private partnerships to rapidly develop prototype systems, advance key capabilities, and validate operational concepts for future human missions beyond Earth orbit.
For additional information about this round of NextSTEP habitation selections, visit:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nextstep-partnerships-develop-ground-prototypes
To learn more about NextSTEP, visit:
30 responses to “NASA Awards 6 NextSTEP-2 Contracts for Deep Space Habitats”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Somewhere else to visit when you want a change from the ISS. Possibly to assemble a spacecraft to Mars.
My predictions for the various participants’ submissions:
Bigelow Aerospace – an BA-330 derived inflatable hab
Boeing – an ISS module derivative (or possibly a repurposed current ISS module?)
Lockheed Martin — The World’s Most Expensive Module?
Orbital ATK – a Spacelab/Columbus/MPLM/Cygnus-derived module
Sierra Nevada Corporation – a DreamChaser (TM) Habitation Module version?
NanoRacks – a little tiny habitation module?
“NanoRacks of Webster, Texas in conjunction with its partners, Space Systems Loral and the United Launch Alliance, referred to collectively as the Ixion Team, will conduct a comprehensive feasibility study regarding the conversion of an existing launch vehicle’s upper stage, or propellant segment, into a pressurized habitable volume in space. The feasibility study will provide insight into this innovative and low-cost approach that can be used for any rocket system, including SLS.”
My God, it’s Gary Church’s wet workshops!
Haven’t heard much from Gary lately. I miss him.
He’s upset Space X is not performing like Orbital ATK. And he’s fuming that the landings are, for the most part, successful.
yeah, he and GM absolutely HATE SX. I have not understood why GC hated SX.
I understood GM. He wants Russia and Europe to be funded by America and therefor wanted America to fail.
But GC’s hatred for new space is something else. The only thing I could think of, is that he was invested big time into old space and cared more for his personal money than the nation, space, or humanity.
There are other investments, he might have worked in the field, or had a great emotional attachment to the Apollo (Government vanguard) model of space development. He did use an atomic bomb as his photo, so maybe that said something about his personality? His complaints were not without merit, but history is passing him by now, and instead of being the “raging old sage” chiding us young kids about how stupid we are, he’s being made into a grumpy old man. There’s a fine line between the two. I like to think of him as a meaner version of the two old grumpy men always saying something rude about the performances on “The Muppet Show”. If you’re old enough to have watched that on TV.
SSSSHHHHH. You will bring him back. He and gaetano are the cockroaches in the wall cracks just listening to come ou.
Lol!
Interesting — thanks for posting that. I was wondering what their approach was gonna be
BA-330 is HUGE, don’t you think they’ll go with something smaller, more along the lines of a Genesis module, or something slightly bigger than the module that’s on ISS now?
Derived. One of the good things about an inflatable module is that you can size it to pretty much any dimension without having to completely redesign it because it uses the same hub ends and fabric/insulation system. Of course the “NASA way” will require it to be studied and tested like it was a brand new concept….
But why not a BA-330 if you are going to ask your crew to spend 6 months to a year out in it chasing rocks?
For month long or greater excursions. Yes, I agree then you really want a Skylab sized module. I guess I keep thinking in terms of more reasonable excursions of a week or less, going to and from the Moon. I’m stuck on the notion that once we really decide to start reaching out again, we’re going to play it safe and affordable at first, and I think super Soyuz for Near Earth Space makes more sense than a rehash of the Apollo Applications Project. If we can sustain an Apollo Applications Project as a fleet of hardware that we operate, I’m all for it. I just don’t see us affording that for now. But we could afford a super Soyuz approach with everything scaled down using common heritage from systems that are flying now.
Derived. I meant something custom designed but derived from the various inflatable Habs they have either going or in the works. I doubt they’ll submit a full sized space station, but rather something appropriately sized for the mission.
i would think that the real weight on that, are the 2 ends, along with life support, solar, batteries, etc.
As such, adding volume to that is dirt cheap. And to be fair, if I was spending 3-6 months in space, I would rather have more volume not less.
But a sundancer might work if only 3-4 ppl.
I’d like bigger too. Frankly, I’m surprised/a bit dismayed at how small these proposed hab vehicles are coming in at.
I guess it all comes down to the purpose/mission (well, plus physics, engineering and budget!). But I assumed these were the same habitation modules that would be used to and from Mars, journeys each longer than a standard tour at the ISS? Some of the proposal artwork shows some pretty small add on modules to the Orion, however. Pretty cramped quarters for 4 people for over a year enroute.
However, the eventual Mars vehicle could always be a new design, with these as an intermediate step/cislunar shelter (which is what they’re more looking like). Otherwise, that’s gonna be a sadly cramped trip. Regarding Bigelow’s submission, I’m assuming they’ll be pretty much in line size-wise with the other submissions. Might not be though…
For travel to the moon and back, what is wrong with using a BA-330? The weight is not that huge and if done as a cycler, it would be cheap.
The Moon doesn’t have stable cycler orbits (and very few long-term stable orbits), due to lunar mass concentrations and gravitational perturbation from the Sun. At less than 3 days of travel time from Earth, there’s little need for a cycler anyway.
Boeing – a paper study of an ISS module derivative (or possibly a repurposed current ISS module?)
Lockheed Martin — a paper study of The World’s Most Expensive Module?
fixed that for your! 😀
I would think that all depends on how much money was awarded 🙂
Of course at ~65$ million overall funding, probably nobody will provide anything more than concepts.
I just could not resist to make a stab at Boeing and LM – who I see as a) the most expensive space contractors that have b) the least amount of motivation to build any kind of hardware (even sub scale prototypes) out of their own pocket. 😉
SNC’s design, developed in partnership with Aerojet Rocketdyne, is based on the cargo module the company is developing for its Dream Chaser vehicle for cargo missions to and from the International Space Station. In this concept, the cargo module would be left in orbit at the end of an ISS mission and serve as the core of the habitat, which would also include an expandable module and a solar electric propulsion system to transport it into cislunar space. – See more at: http://spacenews.com/nasa-a…
Interesting
I know hugdoug will differ on this, but I continue to hope that any of these that are to go to the moon/mars, will be tested in Antarctica. Any space suit has to be able to withstand that cold, so, it would be ideal to put these there at Amundsen–Scott, and then test equipment.
Likewise, we can and SHOULD set-up a small nuclear system there to provide power for the main base, as well as these small systems. Per treaties, we are still allowed to set up nuclear reactors there and it makes sense for both poles, as well as for the moon/mars.
Oh, well if you’re going to invite me to comment…
There’s no point to testing in Antarctica. It’s so much easier to just build a big walk-in freezer and do your cold temp spacesuit testing there – which is basically how it’s done now. The cost and logistics involved in going to Antarctica make it totally uneconomical and impractical.
yeah, but when I speak of putting something there, I am speaking of putting it there for a year and having a team simulate mars.
With the cold and lack of sun for a couple of months, it is perfect for simulation of worst situation.
So, if they can survive there for a year or so, then things are good.
But why?? There’s no point in going to Antarctica for that, simulating a Mars mission can be done – and has been done – more easily and much more cheaply elsewhere.
You’re adding an enormous layer of expense and complexity that doesn’t need to be there, for no reason other than you think simulating a Mars mission in Antarctica sounds cool. It doesn’t add any benefit at all to testing out the technology, since Antarctica is not very much like Mars or the Moon. A better simulation for either would be in a very dry and rocky area.
Like a dry or rocky area in Antarctica?:
You’re still adding an enormous layer of expense and complexity that doesn’t need to be there, for no reason other than you think simulating a Mars mission in Antarctica sounds cool.