Structural Definition and Mass Estimation of Lunar Surface Habitats for the Lunar Architecture Team Phase 2 (LAT-2) Study

• Main Authors: Smith, Russell W., Wu, K, Chauncey, Dorsey, John T.
• Format: Other/Unknown Material
• Language: unknown
• Published: 2008
• Subjects: Lunar and Planetary Science and Exploration; South Pole; South pole
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20080013395

The Lunar Architecture Team Phase 2 study defined and assessed architecture options for a Lunar Outpost at the Moon's South Pole. The Habitation Focus Element Team was responsible for developing concepts for all of the Habitats and pressurized logistics modules particular to each of the architectures, and defined the shapes, volumes and internal layouts considering human factors, surface operations and safety requirements, as well as Lander mass and volume constraints. The Structures Subsystem Team developed structural concepts, sizing estimates and mass estimates for the primary Habitat structure. In these studies, the primary structure was decomposed into a more detailed list of components to be sized to gain greater insight into concept mass contributors. Structural mass estimates were developed that captured the effect of major design parameters such as internal pressure load. Analytical and empirical equations were developed for each structural component identified. Over 20 different hard-shell, hybrid expandable and inflatable soft-shell Habitat and pressurized logistics module concepts were sized and compared to assess structural performance and efficiency during the study. Habitats were developed in three categories; Mini Habs that are removed from the Lander and placed on the Lunar surface, Monolithic habitats that remain on the Lander, and Habitats that are part of the Mobile Lander system. Each category of Habitat resulted in structural concepts with advantages and disadvantages. The same modular shell components could be used for the Mini Hab concept, maximizing commonality and minimizing development costs. Larger Habitats had higher volumetric mass efficiency and floor area than smaller Habitats (whose mass was dominated by fixed items such as domes and frames). Hybrid and pure expandable Habitat structures were very mass-efficient, but the structures technology is less mature, and the ability to efficiently package and deploy internal subsystems remains an open issue.