An Evaluation of Composite Primary Structure for Habitat Modules
Boeing studied the use of composite structures in deep space habitats. Compared to metallic modules, composite structures offer increased strength and stiffness with reduced mass. The study evaluated the design considerations and the mass benefits of an all composite primary stru
Selection note: Curated for primary-structure trade work on composite habitats, relevant to pressure-shell mass, joining, damage tolerance, inspection, and maintainability.
Evidence boundary: The record provides design-study context, but this pass did not validate material allowables, pressure testing, long-duration degradation, or repair methods. It is precursor context, not flight-qualification evidence.
Stable record
ntrs-20240011787
Topic
structures-shielding
Type
Conference Paper
Publisher
Marshall Space Flight Center
Authors
Matthew T Ziglar; Tin A Luu
Year
2024
Editorial state
metadata curated editorial draft
Reviewer
GShips Project editorial synthesis
Official link checked
2026-07-25
Source-supplied abstract
Boeing studied the use of composite structures in deep space habitats. Compared to metallic modules, composite structures offer increased strength and stiffness with reduced mass. The study evaluated the design considerations and the mass benefits of an all composite primary structure. The composite module design included a continuous pressure shell, composite longerons, and circumferential ring frames. The composite material selected was a high strength carbon fiber and epoxy slit tape prepreg. The manufacturing involved automated fiber placement and utilizing existing facilities and autoclaves. Analysis showed a 33% reduction in primary structure mass and an overall net reduction of nearly 1900 kg compared to metallic modules. The composite module demonstrated improved mass efficiency and opens new possibilities for mission performance in deep space exploration.
Abstract text has not been adopted as a GShips conclusion.
What would change this record?
A newer or corrected version, a retraction, a verified duplicate, a material topic mismatch, a changed access state, or claim-level review would trigger a dated editorial update.
The record provides design-study context, but this pass did not validate material allowables, pressure testing, long-duration degradation, or repair methods. It is precursor context, not flight-qualification evidence.
Source-supplied titles, abstracts, authors, and dates may require correction against the canonical full text.
What would change this page?
A newer or corrected version, retraction, verified duplicate, material topic mismatch, changed access state, or claim-level assessment would change this record.
People, review, and conflicts
Prepared by
GShips Project
Editorial status
metadata-curated-editorial-draft
Editorial reviewer
GShips Project editorial synthesis
Last editorial review
No editorial-review date recorded
Independent review
pending
Independent reviewer
No independent reviewer assigned
Last independent review
No independent-review date exists
Last content edit
Not recorded separately
Official source or link verified
2026-07-25
Declared conflicts
The maintainer intends to explore a commercial venture based on some GShips work. No entity, outside funding, customer, sponsor, or indexed-organization relationship currently exists.