2000-01-2330 An Interdisciplinary Engineering/Architectural Approach to the Conceptual Design of Space Stations

Full text

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2000-01-2330
An Interdisciplinary Engineering/Architectural
Approach to the Conceptual Design
of Space Stations
Jan Osburg and Johannes Uhl
University of Stuttgart
Ernst Messerschmid
European Astronaut Centre, Cologne
30th International Conference
on Environmental Systems
Toulouse, France
July 10-13, 2000

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a $7.00 per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Operations Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sec-
tions 107 or 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as
copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works,
or for resale.
SAE routinely stocks printed papers for a period of three years following date of publication. Direct your
orders to SAE Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.
Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.
To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.
No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.
ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2000 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.
Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.
Printed in USA
All SAE papers, standards, and selected
books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

1
2000-01-2330
An Interdisciplinary Engineering/Architectural Approach to
the Conceptual Design of Space Stations
Jan Osburg and Johannes Uhl
University of Stuttgart
Ernst Messerschmid
European Astronaut Centre, Cologne
Copyright © 2000 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
ABSTRACT
This paper describes an interdisciplinary approach to the
conceptual design of space stations. Two key ingredients
define it: a human-centered design approach, and a
habitat attitude towards inhabited space structures. Both
have their roots in terrestrial architecture, which
represents centuries of experience in the design of
human-centered habitats. The paper documents how an
interdisciplinary conceptual design process was
developed by improving an existing validated engineering
methodology for the conceptual design of space stations
by adding elements from architectural practice. An initial
space station design project using this approach shows
promising results.
INTRODUCTION
The conceptual design (project phase 0/A) of long-
duration human-rated space missions poses significant
challenges to the traditional design approach used for
uninhabited or short-duration crewed missions [4]. Yet,
the success of planned expeditions to Mars and beyond
depends on the ability of mission designers to create an
overall mission concept that maximizes crew efficiency
and minimizes mission cost and risk of catastrophic
failure, while at the same time integrating a wide array of
technological, budgetary, political, and societal boundary
conditions [30].
Space stations in low Earth orbit play a key role in the
preparation of humankind’s next “big step” toward other
planets. They provide an ideal test bed for the final space
qualification of new technologies and materials [20]. They
also offer a close approximation of the environment that
future planetary explorers will encounter during the long
transfer flight to their destination, making them ideal
training grounds for the crews of future interplanetary
missions [28].
To maximize the value of such a space station for this
type of utilization, the main design driver, implemented
from the earliest stages of the design process, should be
the most efficient integration of the crew and the
adaptation of the mission to the crew’s needs and
limitations [5]. Thus, it is advantageous to see human-
rated space structures – be they orbital or planetary
stations or crew compartments of interplanetary transfer
vehicles – not as “machinery-with-attached-crew” like
earlier spacecraft [7], but primarily as habitats. This puts
the focus on designing space stations as habitats, not on
designing habitats for space stations – under the
assumption that increased habitability leads to increased
crew productivity, and thus mission success.
Due to the cost, complexity, and long program schedules
of human-rated space missions, additional factors come
into play that should be addressed as early as possible,
i.e. during the conceptual design stage. As showcased by
current scheduling problems in the International Space
Station (ISS) program and by the project history of its
predecessor “Freedom” [14], more often than not, the
success or failure of complex technological undertakings
depends rather on the vagaries of the political
environment than on the engineering competence of the
designers involved [6]. Thus, mission elements to
consider include not only flight hardware, crew selection
and training, and direct operational issues, but also
program risk management, integration of political issues,
addressing cultural boundary conditions, etc.
These elements, as well as the actual technical
subsystems of a planned station, are closely interrelated,
thus creating a “wicked” problem [24]. To help obtain an
optimized overall solution, a collaborative, iterative
approach appears promising. Collaboration, in this
context, refers to a process of “shared creation”, where
disciplinary experts interact “to create a shared
understanding that none had previously possessed or
could have come to on their own” [25]. For this task, the
concept of systems architecture ([23], [19]) seems
especially well suited.

2
Figure 1. Space Station Design Workshop Methodology and Associated Tools [20]
The inclusion of technical boundary conditions is a
prerequisite for successful human-oriented
engineering [8]. Therefore, the approach described in
this paper is based on an engineering methodology
specifically created for the conceptual design of space
stations [4]. In the following, this engineering
methodology and elements from terrestrial architectural
heritage are presented before the integrated human-
centered habitat design approach is outlined and its
application to a design example is demonstrated.
BASELINE ENGINEERING METHODOLOGY
The designer of complex space systems is faced with a
set of challenges stemming in part from the general
“wickedness” of such design problems, and also in part
from the special environment of space and the boundary
conditions which it imposes. These include [20]:
• “Fuzzy” problem formulation
• Strong interdependencies between system elements
• Adverse relationship between available information
and consequences of conceptual design decisions
• Extreme environment
• Extreme loads
• Minimized weights
• Limited access after deployment
To help a design team deal with those challenges, a step-
by-step systems engineering approach has been
developed at the Institute of Space Systems that relies on
a quasi-linear, iterative design flow and the use of
supporting dedicated software tools [4].
Table 1 summarizes the design steps; Figure 1 gives an
overview of the associated software tools. The
methodology specifically addresses the following issues:
• attitude and orbit stability and performance
assessment
• life support system analysis
• power and thermal subsystems sizing
• determination of resupply requirements
• determination of microgravity quality
• assessment of synergistic linkages between
subsystems
• launch, assembly and utilization issues
Table 1. Space Station Design Workshop Methodology
Steps
Step Details
Define
Objectives A. Develop Broad Objectives
B. Develop a Preliminary List of
Requirements and Constraints
Characterize the
System C. Develop Alternative System
Concepts
D. Characterize System Elements
Evaluate the
System E. Prepare System Budgets
F. Evaluate Mission Utility
G. Select System Baseline
Define
Requirements H. Define System Requirements
I. Allocate Requirements to System
Elements

3
This approach enables a team of design engineers (or
even graduate-level engineering students) to conduct the
conceptual design of a space station within one week, as
demonstrated by the highly successful Space Station
Design Workshops (SSDW) that have taken place over
the past several years at the University of Stuttgart [26].
CONTRIBUTIONS OF ARCHITECTURE
Adding select elements from architectural practice to the
engineering-centered methodology outlined above will
improve the design process and thus its outcome
([1], [19]). As Rechtin [23] states:
“Architecting, the planning and building of
structures, is as old as human societies and as
modern as planning the exploration of the solar
system. It arose in response to problems too
complex to be solved by preestablished rules and
procedures.”
The design and construction of space stations like ISS
represents one of the most complex technological
endeavors ever undertaken [16]. At the same time, a
space station is an icon of the cultural significance of
pushing the space frontier, a tangible expression of
humankind’s indomitable spirit. This calls for appropriate
expression both in the static shape and in the operation
of a space station. These issues are addressed by the
proper inclusion of architecture into the design process:
on one hand, by emphasizing the architect’s role in the
design process; on the other, by making use of
architectural tools of the trade which have applications in
space habitat design.
The systems architect directs and accompanies the
designed system throughout its life cycle, from
conception to development to construction to operation.
That person keeps an eye on “reducing complexity and
selecting workability”, guiding the work of the design
engineers tasked with the implementation of the selected
workable design [23]. Preservation of the original
designer’s intent throughout the design process serves
as a safeguard against requirements creep and
increases design consistency and simplicity. An
experienced design engineer with the appropriate
mindset can fill this role as well as an architect who is
equipped with a thorough understanding of engineering
and an open mind to interdisciplinary cooperation.
Terrestrial architectural practice provides several useful
methods that were incorporated into the interdisciplinary
space station conceptual design approach presented in
this paper. These are:
• Extensive use of hand sketches
• Emphasis on important details starting from the
earliest design phase
• Deliberate development of alternative design
solutions and their variations
• Optimization of creative potential of the designer or
design team
Other elements that can be made use of include
structured lists of construction materials [9], or the
utilization of design experience gained from the
construction of earth-based analogs [21].
HAND SKETCHES – Why use hand sketches instead of
computerized drawings? There still is a place for manual
sketches in conceptual design beyond the “back-of-the-
envelope drawing” commonly associated with this issue.
Hand sketches are usually accomplished more quickly
than similar computer-generated drawings. When
sketching, exploring solutions and reflecting on the task
are in the foreground, as opposed to mere computer-
aided documenting of preconceived concepts.
Figure 2. Configuration Sketches – Communication and Creativity Tool as well as Documentation Aid

4
Figure 3. Development/Documentation of Growth
Phase Variants [18]
Sketches as visualized language communicate and
document the designer’s/drawer’s intent in a condensed,
concrete form. On the other hand, unlike the
streamlined, interchangeable lines of a CAD drawing,
their appearance often fosters the creative process
through ambiguity: the same sketch appears different if
examined with increased knowledge, or by different
persons, or even at a different time (Figure 2), as long as
the viewer has sufficient practice [18]. Ambiguity in a
design sketch corresponds to ambiguous design
requirements and relates to the varying uses and
configurations of a space station during its life cycle.
At the same time, hand sketches provide a constant
reality check for the designer (“only what can be sketched
can be built”, [29]), thus guiding the thought process
towards feasibility.
IMPORTANT DETAILS – Including the detailed design of
certain elements in the conceptual design phase of the
overall system stands in contrast to the traditional top-
down engineering approach. Nevertheless, key details
sometimes determine the overall system layout, or affect
project feasibility. To provide an example, the EVA system
(suit/airlock) represents just such a key detail for a space
station project with an EVA-intensive assembly
phase [12].
Pre-designing significant details offers guidance to
designers in subsequent steps, thus preserving the
system architect’s intent and focus. Looking at important
details early in the design process also satisfies the
inquisitive nature of human thinking, promoting the
creative flow.
ALTERNATIVES – Especially during the early stages of
conceptual design, generation of a number of alternative
system designs that are feasible (and able to be
analyzed) is vital in order to increase the chances of
finding a viable solution that will satisfy all requirements
and constraints. The development of variants is therefore
forced even if one solution seems to be workable from
the beginning (cf. Figure 3) [18]. The systematic search
for configurational alternatives can be aided e.g. by
geometric typologies [11].
After careful analysis, the decision among equally rated
alternatives is often made as a personal decision of the
architect, weighing numerical analysis results against
experience and qualitative results. Alternatives that are
not selected at this stage are nevertheless taken
seriously and kept for future reference.
OPTIMIZING CREATIVITY – Generating workable
alternatives, communicating with sketches, as well as
identifying and designing important details all require a
large amount of creativity on the part of the architect or
design team. To optimize the creative process, a
maximum amount of information is made available at the
beginning of the conceptual design phase through
thorough background research [13].
This research, and the thorough comprehension of the
gathered knowledge, is the prerequisite for the
successful creation of alternatives and variants. Few
things endanger the creative process more than the
precocious “brilliant idea” that becomes a favorite before
the task and the background information are fully
analyzed and understood. Such ideas will linger in
everyone’s mind, biasing incoming new information
(through the forming of patterns of perception, [13]),
pushing towards their realization, and discounting all
alternatives.
INTEGRATION: HUMAN-CENTERED HABITAT
DESIGN
Just as the design result has to accommodate the
capabilities and limitations of the human crew, the design
process must also be adapted to the limitations and
capabilities of the designers. Since, historically speaking,
terrestrial architects have gathered significantly more
design experience than have space station engineers,
the inclusion of the time-honored elements of
architectural practice outlined in the preceding section
promises to result in an improved space station design
process. The main elements of such a process, given
below, address design flow, human-specific issues, and
design team composition, supplying specific guidelines to
the designer(s) in each of these areas.

5
Figure 4. Design Example Station Configuration [15]
DESIGN FLOW – The improved methodology generally
follows the design flow summarized in Table 1, but stays
flexible by allowing for temporarily “jumping ahead” or
iterating back if such deviations help the creative process
or the understanding of the design problem. The
workflow is further guided by the following principles:
• Design team members realize that the early phase of
the design effort (task analysis, gathering and
understanding background information, collecting
ideas, generating multiple design alternatives) is
crucial and should extend far into the design process
• Alternatives not selected are not discarded, but kept
for future reference, as sources of ideas, or as a
fallback option in case of changing requirements or
design impasses
• Important details are identified early in the design
process; they are developed as soon as relevant
boundary conditions have sufficiently evolved; and
from the beginning, they help to provide focus on and
continuity for the designer’s intent
• Variants are created by applying task-derived rules to
existing patterns, thus opening the path for new
thoughts and new solutions
HUMAN-SPECIFIC ISSUES – The addressing of
human-specific elements by the design team is
emphasized. For each step, the designers are
encouraged to adhere to the following conventions:
• The “human element”, i.e. the crew, is not treated as
a subsystem among many, but is singled out as the
overall design driver: the design objective is the
creation of a habitat
• Human needs determine the types of modules to be
used and their internal layout (“Archetypes”, [2]) as
well as the dynamic linking of these modules to the
overall habitat (“Choreography”, [2])
As a cautionary note, however, the design team should
realize that the Human Factors (HF) contribution to
human-rated space exploration missions should not be
exaggerated. While it is certainly wise to optimize a
mission with respect to crew efficiency and habitat
comfort, history shows that expedition participants have
frequently been able to withstand extreme levels of
discomfort [27]. Fear of the “Human Factors Dragon” [30]
and the resulting tendency to over-design for HF carries
the risk of jeopardizing overall mission feasibility. As with
subsystem issues, the integration of key requirements
into the overall system concept is preferable to
subsystem-specific local optimizations with limited scope.
DESIGN TEAM – The third central element is the
composition of the design team and their mode of
collaboration:
• The design team is comprised of members who see
themselves as cooperation-oriented disciplinary
experts instead of as isolated subsystem specialists
and who are aware of – and can make use of – the
nuts and bolts of creativity-fostering processes
• Design team members have different disciplinary
backgrounds, but speak a common language; this
suggests that they share joint design experience
gained through participation in previous design
projects or hands-on training workshops
• Design team members look for solutions based on
their disciplinary experience, but their ideas are
triggered by interdisciplinary interaction and
exchange; they are aware of the design process also
being a learning process [10]
• The use of hand sketches is encouraged for the
communication and generation of ideas among
design team members as well as for documentation
purposes and as a constant reality check
• The design team sees itself as an agent and
advocate of the customer, assuring fulfillment of
customer needs – which might even differ from the
written requirements – and interfacing with the
builder/detailed designer of the system throughout
the design process

6
Figure 5. Significant Detail: Crew Quarters Design [15]
• Designers must be on the lookout for the usual
hazards of requirements creep, fuzzy mission
statements, departmental or disciplinary infighting,
and marginal performers
APPLICATION: SPACE STATION DESIGN
EXAMPLE
To develop and validate the design approach described
above by applying it to “real problems in the real
world” [10], a graduate-level interdisciplinary space
station design project was started in 1998. In its first
phase, the participating architecture and aerospace
engineering students were tasked with conceptually
designing a space station dedicated both to commercial
utilization and to the preparation of human-rated
exploration missions to Mars.
In accordance with the improved SSDW approach
specified in the preceding section, the design process
was executed and documented. Figure 3 shows some
assembly sequence options that were analyzed. The
three most promising alternative configurations were
modeled using the SSDW software, and AOCS
simulations were performed to determine attitude stability
and resupply requirements [17]. The optimum
configuration was then developed in greater detail [18].
The second phase of the design project started with a
new design team tasked to optimize the internal
configuration of the station concept developed during
phase one. The emphasis was on human-centered
design, from module allocation and layout to interior
translation paths. The second phase also permitted to
perform another iteration on the overall configuration,
leading to mass savings (more compact modules) and
reduced technology development risk (the solar dynamic
EPS was replaced by a photovoltaic EPS). Figure 4
depicts the computer model of the final configuration
after design phase two. Documentation included detailed
level-by-level cross-sections of the interior station
configuration (similar to floor plans of terrestrial buildings)
and renewed AOCS and assembly sequence simulations
based on the modified configuration [15].
In concurrence with the methodology, key details were
also conceptualized during the second phase. This
includes innovative crew quarters, a human-powered-
centrifuge/exercise module, and a combination table/seat
rack.
The proposed crew quarters provide ample living and
working space for crewmembers, while maintaining rack
standardization and full rack exchangeability. Each crew
quarter consists of two connected full racks (ISPRs, as
used on the International Space Station, [20]), and two
connected rack halves, oriented at a 90° angle. When in
use, the rack fronts are swiveled outwards into the
module corridor and connected there, thus increasing the
habitable space for each crewmember to about 7 m3.
Figure 5 shows an isometric view of two such crew
quarters (with the rack-front divider walls between the
two quarters and the end covers removed for clarity).
Figure 6 is the corresponding cross-section. The
remaining quarter-circle-shaped area of the module
corridor still provides ample translation space. When the
rack walls are not deployed into the corridor, the full racks
can nevertheless be used as makeshift sleeping quarters
and the rack halves for storage.
Detailed design of such crew quarters, including the
manufacturing of a full-scale mockup and subsequent
microgravity testing, is the subject of an ongoing design
project.
Figure 6. Crew Quarters (CQ) Cross-Section

7
CONCLUSION
An interdisciplinary process for the conceptual design of
long-duration, human-rated space missions has been
developed, incorporating a human-centered, habitat-
oriented approach. It is based on an existing, validated
systems engineering methodology and includes
elements from the domain of terrestrial architecture. An
interdisciplinary space station design project using this
new process demonstrated the validity of the chosen
approach. Further development is underway to improve
modeling, simulation and visualization capabilities.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank their graduate students
M. Gerum, C. Holmig, M. Jolk and A. Schindler for their
contributions to the space station design project.
REFERENCES
1. Adams, C.: Defin(Design)ing the Human Domain:
The Process of Architectural Integration in Long-
Duration Space Facilities. SAE-981789, 28th
International Conference on Environmental Systems,
Danvers, MA, USA, July 1998.
2. Adams, C.: Four Legs in the Morning: Issues in
Crew-Quarter Design for Long-Duration Space
Facilities. SAE-981794, 28th International
Conference on Environmental Systems, Danvers,
MA, USA, July 1998.
3. Adams, C.; McCurdy, M.: Habitability as a Tier One
Criterion in Advanced Space Vehicle Design: Part
One – Habitability. SAE-1999-01-2137, 29th
International Conference on Environmental Systems,
Denver, CO, USA, July 1999.
4. Bertrand, R.: Conceptual Design and Flight
Simulation of Space Stations. ISBN 3-89675-500-5.
Herbert Utz Verlag, München, Germany, 1999.
5. Bishop, S.L.; Eckart, P.: Humans Living and Working
in Space – The Interrelated Aspects of Physiology,
Psychology, Human Factors and Life Support. SAE-
1999-01-2100, 29th International Conference on
Environmental Systems, Denver, CO, USA, July
1999.
6. Bizony, P.: Island in the Sky – Building the
International Space Station. ISBN 1-85410-436-5,
Aurum Press, London, UK, 1996.
7. Cohen, M.: Designing Space Habitats for Human
Productivity. SAE-901204, 20th Intersociety
Conference on Environmental Systems,
Williamsburg, VA, USA, July 1990.
8. Cohen, M.: Human Factors in Space Station
Architecture I – Space Station Program Implications
for Human Factors Research. NASATM 86702,
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA,
USA, 1985.
9. Cohen, M.: Space Habitat Design Integration Issues.
SAE-981800, 28th International Conference on
Environmental Systems, Danvers, MA, USA, July
1998.
10. Cohen, M.: Problem Definition in a Participatory
Design Process. Dissertation, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1995.
11. Cohen, M.: Space Station Human Factors Research
Review, Volume III – Space Station Habitability and
Function: Architectural Research. NASA CP 2426,
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA,
USA, 1987.
12. Cohen, M.: The Suitport’s Progress. AIAA-95-1062,
Life Sciences and Space Medicine Conference,
Houston, TX, USA, April 1995.
13. DeBono, E.: DeBono’s Thinking Course. ISBN 0-
8160-3178-9, Facts on File Publishers, New York, NY,
USA, 1994.
14. A History of US Space Stations. NASA Facts IS-
1997-06-ISS009JSC, NASA Johnson Space Center,
Houston, TX, USA, 1997.
15. Holmig, C.; Schindler, A.: Interdisziplinärer
Vorentwurf modularer Lebensräume für eine
bemannte Raumstation (Interdisciplinary Conceptual
Design of Modular Habitat Structures for a Space
Station). IRS-99-S-27, Institut für Raumfahrtsysteme,
Universität Stuttgart, Germany, November 1999.
16. The International Space Station: An Overview. NASA
Facts IS-1999-06-ISS022, NASA Johnson Space
Center, Houston, TX, USA, 1999.
17. Jolk, M.: Preliminary Design and Flight Simulation of
a Space Station Using an Interdisciplinary Approach.
ST-99-W.1.07, 50th Congress of the International
Astronautical Federation, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 1999.
18. Jolk, M.; Gerum, M.: Interdisziplinärer Vorentwurf
einer Raumstation unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Bedürfnisse der Besatzung
(Interdisciplinary Conceptual Design of a Space
Station with Special Emphasis on Crew Needs). IRS-
99-S-3, Institut für Raumfahrtsysteme, Universität
Stuttgart, Germany, January 1999.
19. Maier, M.W.: Systems Architecting: An Emergent
Discipline? 1996 IEEE Aerospace Applications
Conference. ISBN 0-7803-3196-6. IEEE,
Washington, DC, USA, 1996.
20. Messerschmid, E.; Bertrand, R.: Space Stations –
Systems and Utilization. ISBN 3-540-65464-X.
Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 1999.
21. Micheels, K.A.: The Mars Surface Habitat: Issues
Derived from Design of a Terrestrial Polar Analog.
SAE-1999-01-2140, 29th International Conference
on Environmental Systems, Denver, CO, USA, July
1999.
22. Osburg, J.; Bertrand, R.; Messerschmid, E.: Melissa -
A Modular Environment for Life-Support Systems
Simulation and Analysis. SAE-981754. 1998
Transactions, Society of Automotive Engineers,
Warrendale, PA, USA.

8
23. Rechtin, E.: Systems Architecting – Creating and
Building Complex Systems. ISBN 0-13-880345-5,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1991.
24. Rittel, H.W.J.: On the Planning Crisis: Systems
Analysis of the ‘First and Second Generations’”. In:
Rittel, H.W.J.: Planen Entwerfen Designen. ISBN 3-
17-012358-0, Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart,
Germany, 1992.
25. Schrage, M.: Shared Minds... The New Technologies
of Collaboration. Random House, New York, NY,
USA, 1990 (as quoted in [10])
26. Space Station Design Workshop Website: http://
www.irs.uni-stuttgart.de/SSDW
27. Stuster, J.: Bold Endeavors – Lessons from Polar and
Space Exploration. ISBN 1-55750-749-X. Naval
Institute Press, Annapolis, MD, USA, 1996.
28. The TransHab Module: An Inflatable Home in Space.
NASA Facts IS-1999-05-ISS027JSC, NASA Johnson
Space Center, Houston, TX, USA, 1999.
29. Uhl, J.: Zeichnen und Entwerfen – Eine
Kompositionslehre in Strichfolgen (Drawing and
Designing – Composing Through Sketches). ISBN 3-
7643-5926-9, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland,
1998.
30. Zubrin, R.: The Case for Mars – The Plan to Settle
the Red Planet and Why We Must. ISBN 0-684-
83550-9, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY, USA,
1996.
CONTACT
Jan Osburg (osburg@irs.uni-stuttgart.de) is a research
engineer at the Institute of Space Systems, University of
Stuttgart, Germany. He is a member of AIAA and DGLR.
For information on his background and current activities,
see http://www.irs.uni-stuttgart.de/JO
ACRONYMS
AOCS Attitude and Orbit Control System
CAD Computer-Aided Design
CQ Crew Quarters
EPS Electrical Power Supply System
EVA Extravehicular Activity
HF Human Factors
ISPR International Standard Payload Rack
ISS International Space Station
MELISSA Modular Environment for Linked Subsystems
Simulation and Analysis
SSDW Space Station Design Workshop