A Tool for the Automated Design and Evaluation of Habitat Interior Layouts

Abstract

The objective of space habitat design is to minimize mass and system size while providing adequate space for all necessary equipment and a functional layout that supports crew health and productivity. Unfortunately, development and evaluation of interior layouts is often ignored during conceptual design because of the subjectivity and long times required using current evaluation methods (e.g., human-in-the-loop mockup tests and in-depth CAD evaluations). Early, more objective assessment could prevent expensive design changes that may increase vehicle mass and compromise functionality. This paper describes a new interior design evaluation method to enable early, structured consideration of habitat interior layouts. This interior layout evaluation method features a comprehensive list of quantifiable habitat layout evaluation criteria, automatic methods to measure these criteria from a geometry model, and application of systems engineering tools and numerical methods to construct a multi-objective value function measuring the overall habitat layout performance. In addition to a detailed description of this method, a C++/OpenGL software tool which has been developed to implement this method is also discussed. This tool leverages geometry modeling coupled with collision detection techniques to identify favorable layouts subject to multiple constraints and objectives (e.g., minimize mass, maximize contiguous habitable volume, maximize task performance, and minimize crew safety risks). Finally, a few habitat layout evaluation examples are described to demonstrate the effectiveness of this method and tool to influence habitat design.

Innovation in Deep Space Habitat Interior Design: Lessons Learned from Small Space Design in Terrestrial Architecture

“…These include mass sizing and layout analysis models similar to those proposed in Ref. 6. Second, several small space layouts should be assessed with these tools to derive formalized guidance on layout measurements.…”

“…-reduced mass 5,6,8 -reduced complexity -increased open and accessible volume/floor areas (or habitable volume) 5,6,7,8,9 -reduction of wasted or unusable volume 5,6,9 -increased stowage and stowage access 5,6,8,9 -increased surface area access 8,9 -improved control over the environment 7 -increased visible volume and lengths of lines of sight 5,6,7,8,9 -improved circulation (translation efficiency) 5,6,7,8,9 -improved private and personal space 5,6,7 -multifunctional use of space and equipment 5,6,8,9 -improved workspace utility 5,7 -reduced perceived crowdedness 5,6,7,8 -improved sensory variability 5,7 -decreased social monotony 7 -improved auditory and hygiene isolation 5,6,7,9 -improved utilities efficacy 5,6,8 -improved comfort 5,…”

“…While "hot bunking" has been deemed an unattractive psychological solution in spacecraft applications due to "its lack of privacy and personal space" 14 , consideration of the schedule and time spent in public, work, and common areas should play into the degree of multi-functionality of a space and the relative arrangement of adjacent spaces. 5,6,7 Additionally, ensuring that frequently used items are readily accessible and colocated with their task areas creates a feel of intentionality that improves occupant productivity and contentment. 7,15,16 Similarly, sequentially used functions, highly related functions, and functions sharing utility runs should also be colocated to simplify translations and design complexity.…”

“…7,15,16 Similarly, sequentially used functions, highly related functions, and functions sharing utility runs should also be colocated to simplify translations and design complexity. 6,16…”

Human exploration of Phobos

“…Habitat and logistics masses, volumes, and configurations for a range of mission durations and locations (orbital versus fixed surface versus mobile surface) were developed as a part of a broader study of EMC habitation sizing, modularity, and commonality [21,22] and these habitat concepts were incorporated into different Phobos mission architectures as described later in this section. However, an analysis was first conducted to compare and down-select from the large number of potential locations for an orbital habitat.…”