Author Topic: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA  (Read 5487 times)

Offline eeergo

  • Phystronaut
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4740
  • Milan, Italy; Spain; Virginia
  • Liked: 429
  • Likes Given: 342
Starting a new topic from these posts in the ESA Moon architecture thread, since it is much more far-reaching and definitely not led solely by ESA as the other thread's title suggests.


Directly from NASA:https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-roscosmos-sign-joint-statement-on-researching-exploring-deep-space

Quote
NASA, Roscosmos Sign Joint Statement on Researching, Exploring Deep SpaceBuilding a strategic capability for advancing and sustaining human space exploration in the vicinity of the Moon will require the best from NASA, interested international partners, and U.S. industry. As NASA continues formulating the deep space gateway concept, the agency signed a joint statement with the Russian Space Agency, Roscosmos, on Wednesday, Sept. 27 at the 68th International Astronautical Congress in Adelaide, Australia.This joint statement reflects the common vision for human exploration that NASA and Roscosmos share. Both agencies, as well as other International Space Station partners, see the gateway as a strategic component of human space exploration architecture that warrants additional study. NASA has already engaged industry partners in gateway concept studies. Roscosmos and other space station partner agencies are preparing to do the same."While the deep space gateway is still in concept formulation, NASA is pleased to see growing international interest in moving into cislunar space as the next step for advancing human space exploration," said Robert Lightfoot, NASA's acting administrator at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "Statements such as this one signed with Roscosmos show the gateway concept as an enabler to the kind of exploration architecture that is affordable and sustainable."NASA plans to expand human presence into the solar system starting in the vicinity of the Moon using its new deep space exploration transportation systems, the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft. This plan challenges our current capabilities in human spaceflight and will benefit from engagement by multiple countries and U.S. industry.Studies of the gateway concept will provide technical information to inform future decisions about potential collaborations. These domestic and international studies are being used to shape the capabilities and partnering options for implementing the deep space gateway.The space station partners are working to identify common exploration objectives and possible missions for the 2020s, including the gateway concept. A key element of their study is to ensure that future deep space exploration missions take full advantage of technology development and demonstration enabled by the International Space Station, as well as lessons learned from its assembly and operations.During the same time period and in parallel, NASA has been engaging U.S. industry to evaluate habitation concepts for the gateway and for the deep space transport that would be needed for Mars exploration. NASA has competitively awarded a series of study and risk reduction contracts under the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP) Broad Agency Announcement to advance habitation concepts, technologies, and prototypes of the required capabilities needed for deep space missions. The most recent awards included six U.S. companies; Bigelow Aerospace, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Orbital ATK, Sierra Nevada Corporation, and Nanoracks. Five of the six firms were selected to develop full-sized ground-based engineering prototypes of habitation systems, expected to be complete in 2018. NASA has also solicited industry proposals for studies on concept development of a power and propulsion element, which would be the first piece of a gateway architecture.[/size]
[/quote]




Also from TASS: http://tass.com/science/967781


Quote
"Weíve agreed to jointly participate in the project for creating a new international lunar station Deep Space Gateway. In the first phase we will create the orbital component with a view to eventually use well-tested technologies on the surface of the Moon and, in the longer term, Mars. The first modules may be put in space in 2024-2026," Komarov said.So far the participating countries have held a preliminary discussion on their likely contributions."We may provide one to three modules and the standards for a unified docking mechanism for all spacecraft that would be approaching the station. Also, Russia offers to use its future super-heavy space rocket, currently in the development phase, for taking parts and components to the Moonís orbit," Komarov said. Roscosmosís manned programs director, Sergey Krikalyov, said that alongside the airlock unit Russia might provide a residential module for a future station.Komarov said individual countriesí technological contribution and the financial aspect of a future project would be the subject matter of the next phase of the talks."For now weíve signed a joint statement on the intention to work on a lunar space station project and to eventually work on missions on the surfaces of the Moon and Mars. A future treaty will require fundamental research and examination at the inter-state level," Komarov said.Participation in a project of the BRICS member-countries was approved."Our initiative was taken into account of expanding the number of countries that might take part in discussing this project. It was decided that China, India and other BRICS countries would be involved in the joint work on the lunar station," Komarov said.
« Last Edit: 09/27/2017 06:18 PM by Carl G »
-DaviD-

Online TrevorMonty

The Russians maybe a partner but NASA is designing DSG so critcal sections are provided by more friendly partners. One of those lessions learnt from ISS.

Still good to have Russians involved and maybe China.


Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3850
  • Liked: 485
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #2 on: 09/28/2017 12:35 AM »
Is this likely to remain purely NASA-Roskosmos all the way, or will others be invited, as with the International Space Station? If others, then which others?

In what important ways will this DSG differ from the ISS?

What missions will it enable? Will all of those missions likewise be multi-national, or could it enable some private ones, too?

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3805
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 736
  • Likes Given: 448
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #3 on: 09/28/2017 04:00 AM »
Is this likely to remain purely NASA-Roskosmos all the way, or will others be invited, as with the International Space Station? If others, then which others?

In what important ways will this DSG differ from the ISS?

What missions will it enable? Will all of those missions likewise be multi-national, or could it enable some private ones, too?
All nations in the ISS MCB are part of DSG. Foreign nations outside of the must pay/barter NASA for an SLS launch or use their own rockets and delivery tugs to directly dock with DSG or loiter a safe distance and wait for Orion to fetch it.

Offline eeergo

  • Phystronaut
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4740
  • Milan, Italy; Spain; Virginia
  • Liked: 429
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #4 on: 09/28/2017 09:13 AM »
Is this likely to remain purely NASA-Roskosmos all the way, or will others be invited, as with the International Space Station? If others, then which others?

In what important ways will this DSG differ from the ISS?

What missions will it enable? Will all of those missions likewise be multi-national, or could it enable some private ones, too?

Apart from the bartering details russianhalo has provided, in the TASS release there's also Komarov's declarations about the desire to include BRICS countries:

Quote
Our initiative was taken into account of expanding the number of countries that might take part in discussing this project. It was decided that China, India and other BRICS countries would be involved in the joint work on the lunar station

Hopefully it won't remain just a declaration of intentions.
-DaviD-

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 416
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #5 on: 09/28/2017 11:34 AM »
http://spacenews.com/nasa-and-roscosmos-to-study-deep-space-gateway/

Quote
ADELAIDE, Australia ó NASA and its Russian counterpart signed a joint statement Sept. 27 supporting research that could lead to a cislunar habitat, but the two are far from a final agreement to cooperate on developing it.

Quote
Lightfoot, in an interview at the conference Sept. 28, confirmed that there is no final deal with Roscosmos to cooperate on the gateway. ďWhat we really said in our discussion is, as we move out from ISS, we want to take advantage of that with all our partners, and whatever we do, we do it in a global way,Ē he said. ďThereís no commitment of resources or commitment to a program. Itís all conceptual at this point.Ē

Offline WellingtonEast

  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #6 on: 09/28/2017 06:03 PM »
All nations in the ISS MCB are part of DSG. Foreign nations outside of the must pay/barter NASA for an SLS launch or use their own rockets and delivery tugs to directly dock with DSG or loiter a safe distance and wait for Orion to fetch it.

To me this is the most exciting part about the potential design is that the modules will be launched by rockets other than the space shuttle.   I understand the single launch Skylab had a similar internal volume to ISS for which many (not all) modules were launched by the shuttle.  I am thinking this can aid manufacturing and design.

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 147
  • Home
  • Liked: 61
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #7 on: 09/28/2017 07:46 PM »
While a lot of the press is positive here is a negative op-ed from a former ISS astronaut.. It raises some solid objections:

Quote
Investigators wrote the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report, which revealed some serious cultural flaws at the agency. An axiom that came out of that difficult time was the need to ďseparate crew from cargo.Ē

NASA is choosing to abandon this safety dictum and launch its astronauts on the heaviest rocket ever, SLS, which will simultaneously be carrying payloads. I will use the adjective ďunwiseĒ to describe this new plan. It is dangerous and violates the basic post-Columbia accident principle. It is also expensive, as each SLS launch will cost on the order of $2 billion. And finally, the massive Orion capsule eats up about 25 tons of capacity that could otherwise be occupied with payloads such as habitation modules or landers.

Launching DSG modules together with Orion severely limits the size of those modules and doesn't make use of SLS capabilities. It would be much better if Orion could be shifted to an alternative launcher like New Glenn or (if slimmed down) Falcon Heavy. Unfortunately this is politically very difficult.

Building space tugs designed to continuously move cargo modules between LEO and NRHO would also be extremely useful. This would make it possible for other space agencies to launch on their own rockets.

Online eric z

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #8 on: 09/28/2017 08:13 PM »
 Thanks, Dreamy, for linking that very important article, coincidentally by one of my favorite late-era astros! It is a very clear "Time-Out" before we go too-far down an expensive and silly road. I will support DSG if the option is nothing; but we need to start doing things that get us to a robust moon base, or two! This thing could cost us another 10, or 15 years of slow-burn results. His point about the goal-instead of which trick-plays get you a few yards, is priceless. Everyone at NSF should check it out, so thanks again for the link.
« Last Edit: 09/28/2017 08:19 PM by eric z »

Online ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 613
  • Liked: 262
  • Likes Given: 212
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #9 on: 09/28/2017 09:25 PM »
I would not hold my breath.  Roscosmos and Energia publish all sorts of paper plans for things they "intend" to do, but somehow the money to execute them never shows up.
"If you want to build a ship, donít drum up people to collect wood and donít assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea" - Antoine de Saint-Exupťry

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2418
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2302
  • Likes Given: 1674
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #10 on: 09/29/2017 02:25 AM »
We've come full circle, back to the beginning of HSF. We'd launch manned/unmanned vehicles, and had them dock/function (Gemini/Agena comes to mind).

Doesn't it seem "sensible" to have cargo arrive from cargo vehicles, in scale to their capability/frequency ... as well as human vehicles that functioned at a greater frequency, for human/autonomous explore/prospect/"experience" to use the accumulated cargo/human/"robot" assets with, at surface/"transit point".

There are multiple buses as well as ISS qualified "visiting vehicles" that can deliver/dock/connect station components.

They could be adapted to deliver / assemble modules into a DSG, for a tiny fraction of payload.

But then we wouldn't have the HSF spectacular of wasting crews/missions assembling it, to feed to the admiring masses. Without much to show of actual "exploration", something that the "H" in HSF excels at. Rather, all those mission in space hours go to  assembly that can be done better by automatic/robotic means, at a fraction of the cost - work better suited for such, not human.

(If those "construction payloads" can use the full vehicle with autonomous/teleoperated assembly, fewer missions of any vehicle can be used to more rapidly, efficiently get the whole, as their full deigned capability allows.)

(We need the human component to use all of that equipment assembled, for the purpose it was intended for. Riding the most frequently flown means of transport, for the safest means.)

Time to grow up and face reality.


Offline allhumanbeings07

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #11 on: 09/29/2017 07:53 AM »
So, with every major ISS partner now on board the DSG (and the potential to add newcomers as well), will we be eventually be calling this station ISS 2?
I love Star Trek more than anyone, but we don't (and shouldn't) spend tens of billions of dollars on space programs for fun

Online Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2073
  • Liked: 257
  • Likes Given: 310
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #12 on: 09/29/2017 07:56 AM »
So, with every major ISS partner now on board the DSG (and the potential to add newcomers as well), will we be eventually be calling this station ISS 2?

IDSS?
"There is nobody who is a bigger fan of sending robots to Mars than me... But I believe firmly that the best, the most comprehensive, the most successful exploration will be done by humans" Steve Squyres

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #13 on: 09/29/2017 09:31 PM »
So, with every major ISS partner now on board the DSG (and the potential to add newcomers as well), will we be eventually be calling this station ISS 2?

Indeed, it seems to me that DSG fulfills the needs of the world's space agencies very nicely.  It gives NASA something to do with Orion/SLS that might be affordable, and it gives other agencies something to do beyond LEO that they may be able to afford (the International Moon Village that ESA's been talking about is something straight out of budgetary fantasy land).

That's not all bad.  It might provide some opportunities for expanding the commercial sphere through arrangements along the lines of the commercial cargo and crew programs for iSS.
 
But it has plenty of drawbacks, as our former-astronaut friend has pointed out.  For one thing, it will be expensive to maintain, especially since Orion and SLS at $3+ billion annually will, of political necessity, be part of it.  That means less money for actually going to the moon, Mars or an asteroid.  If it happens, it will take on a life of its own and will probably anchor NASA to cis-lunar (excluding the moon's surface) for decades.

But the thing that bugs me most is how the goalposts have been moved.  I invite the people who are now saying that DSG is a great idea to ask themselves why they weren't advocating it years ago.  While I'm at it, let me just mention a few other people who did not advocate a crewed cis-lunar station as a gateway to the moon or beyond:  Wernher von Braun, Sergey Korolev, Mike Griffin and Elon Musk*.

Did all of these very intelligent people miss something?  Have the facts changed in some fundamental way, so that a DSG now makes sense, when it didn't in the past?



* I omit NASA's technical leadership during the 1960's space race from this list, because that was a rare moment when time was more valuable than money:  there may have been other reasons for avoiding a cis-lunar gateway at that time.

EDIT:  "advocating" ->"advocating it" in 1st sentence of penultimate paragraph of main body.
« Last Edit: 09/30/2017 12:36 PM by Proponent »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8174
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 255
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #14 on: 09/30/2017 03:53 AM »
{snip}
But the thing that bugs me most is how the goalposts have been moved.  I invite the people who are now saying that DSG is a great idea to ask themselves why they weren't advocating years ago.  While I'm at it, let me just mention a few other people who did not advocate a crewed cis-lunar station as a gateway to the moon or beyond:  Wernher von Braun, Sergey Korolev, Mike Griffin and Elon Musk*.

Did all of these very intelligent people miss something?  Have the facts changed in some fundamental way, so that a DSG now makes sense, when it didn't in the past?

{snip}

The lunar lander in '2001 A Space odyssey' was nuclear powered and commuted between the lunar surface and the big wheel spacestation in LEO orbit. None of our proposed landers use high thrust nuclear propulsion so they need lower ISP chemical propellants. To increase the payload, by reducing the lander's delta-V, the staging has to occur nearer the Moon.

One of the DSG jobs is acting as the return point for a solar electric propulsion Mars transfer vehicle. A high Earth orbit staging removes the need for the vehicle to have a heat shield and the months required to slow down to LEO velocity.

I suspect the brains trust did not expect to get the money for a cis-lunar spacestation so designed it out. This may have changed.

Apollo staged in lunar orbit by using expendable landers and the command modules as short term disposable space stations. This worked but was very expensive.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #15 on: 09/30/2017 10:42 AM »
{snip}
But the thing that bugs me most is how the goalposts have been moved.  I invite the people who are now saying that DSG is a great idea to ask themselves why they weren't advocating years ago.  While I'm at it, let me just mention a few other people who did not advocate a crewed cis-lunar station as a gateway to the moon or beyond:  Wernher von Braun, Sergey Korolev, Mike Griffin and Elon Musk*.

Did all of these very intelligent people miss something?  Have the facts changed in some fundamental way, so that a DSG now makes sense, when it didn't in the past?

{snip}

The lunar lander in '2001 A Space odyssey' was nuclear powered and commuted between the lunar surface and the big wheel spacestation in LEO orbit. None of our proposed landers use high thrust nuclear propulsion so they need lower ISP chemical propellants. To increase the payload, by reducing the lander's delta-V, the staging has to occur nearer the Moon.

One of the DSG jobs is acting as the return point for a solar electric propulsion Mars transfer vehicle. A high Earth orbit staging removes the need for the vehicle to have a heat shield and the months required to slow down to LEO velocity.

The need or desirability of a station, much less a station with a long-term crew at the "return point" has not been established.

Quote
I suspect the brains trust did not expect to get the money for a cis-lunar spacestation so designed it out. This may have changed.
(emphasis added by proponent)

The amount of money available has not suddenly increased.  CxP was projecting huge budgets but did not envision a crewed DSG.  My key question boils down to: is there any evidence that a DSG was designed in in the first place?

EDIT:  Added emphasis to to final quote and added final sentence.
« Last Edit: 09/30/2017 12:43 PM by Proponent »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8180
  • UK
  • Liked: 1322
  • Likes Given: 168
DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #16 on: 09/30/2017 11:18 AM »
So, with every major ISS partner now on board the DSG (and the potential to add newcomers as well), will we be eventually be calling this station ISS 2?

Indeed, it seems to me that DSG fulfills the needs of the world's space agencies very nicely.  It gives NASA something to do with Orion/SLS that might be affordable, and it gives other agencies something to do beyond LEO that they may be able to afford (the International Moon Village that ESA's been talking about is something straight out of budgetary fantasy land).

That's not all bad.  It might provide some opportunities for expanding the commercial sphere through arrangements along the lines of the commercial cargo and crew programs for iSS.
 
But it has plenty of drawbacks, as our former-astronaut friend has pointed out.  For one thing, it will be expensive to maintain, especially since Orion and SLS at $3+ billion annually will, of political necessity, be part of it.  That means less money for actually going to the moon, Mars or an asteroid.  If it happens, it will take on a life of its own and will probably anchor NASA to cis-lunar (excluding the moon's surface) for decades.

But the thing that bugs me most is how the goalposts have been moved.  I invite the people who are now saying that DSG is a great idea to ask themselves why they weren't advocating years ago.  While I'm at it, let me just mention a few other people who did not advocate a crewed cis-lunar station as a gateway to the moon or beyond:  Wernher von Braun, Sergey Korolev, Mike Griffin and Elon Musk*.

Did all of these very intelligent people miss something?  Have the facts changed in some fundamental way, so that a DSG now makes sense, when it didn't in the past?



* I omit NASA's technical leadership during the 1960's space race from this list, because that was a rare moment when time was more valuable than money:  there may have been other reasons for avoiding a cis-lunar gateway at that time.

It seems that some in favour of a more commercialised space sector always seek to frame this discussion in terms of running down the public sector or empathising the negative. After all itís very easy to have hindsight and say well why didnít this happen then, or why didnít they think of this. But generally this is both unhelpful and nonconstructive. Especially when it comes to politics, itís better to just say it is what it is and move on. Political short termism is a well known and accepted state of affairs by now and is anything ever gained by restating it at this point. Mr Musk one of the smart people mentioned here knows it isnít a zero sum game, you donít get anywhere by pursuing this course as we saw in his most recent speech.
« Last Edit: 09/30/2017 11:27 AM by Star One »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #17 on: 09/30/2017 12:53 PM »
It seems that some in favour of a more commercialised space sector always seek to frame this discussion in terms of running down the public sector or empathising the negative. After all itís very easy to have hindsight and say well why didnít this happen then, or why didnít they think of this. But generally this is both unhelpful and nonconstructive. Especially when it comes to politics, itís better to just say it is what it is and move on. Political short termism is a well known and accepted state of affairs by now and is anything ever gained by restating it at this point. Mr Musk one of the smart people mentioned here knows it isnít a zero sum game, you donít get anywhere by pursuing this course as we saw in his most recent speech.

I presume I'm being regarded as one of those "in favour of a more commercialised space sector."  While I am excited about what the commercial sector is doing, I would like to see healthy government efforts too.  But when it comes to DSG, the principal benefit, it seems to me, is that it may stimulate commercial efforts.  I don't that it contributes much to government BEO efforts, and in that I seem to be in the company of von Braun, Korolev, Griffin and Musk.  So, in noting the DSG's potential as a stimulus for commercial efforts, I'm trying to look at the bright side.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8180
  • UK
  • Liked: 1322
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #18 on: 09/30/2017 12:57 PM »
It seems that some in favour of a more commercialised space sector always seek to frame this discussion in terms of running down the public sector or empathising the negative. After all itís very easy to have hindsight and say well why didnít this happen then, or why didnít they think of this. But generally this is both unhelpful and nonconstructive. Especially when it comes to politics, itís better to just say it is what it is and move on. Political short termism is a well known and accepted state of affairs by now and is anything ever gained by restating it at this point. Mr Musk one of the smart people mentioned here knows it isnít a zero sum game, you donít get anywhere by pursuing this course as we saw in his most recent speech.

I presume I'm being regarded as one of those "in favour of a more commercialised space sector."  While I am excited about what the commercial sector is doing, I would like to see healthy government efforts too.  But when it comes to DSG, the principal benefit, it seems to me, is that it may stimulate commercial efforts.  I don't that it contributes much to government BEO efforts, and in that I seem to be in the company of von Braun, Korolev, Griffin and Musk.  So, in noting the DSG's potential as a stimulus for commercial efforts, I'm trying to look at the bright side.

But donít you think it told us something that EM steered well clear of this area in his speech?

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #19 on: 09/30/2017 01:35 PM »
In a word, no.  Musk said his system could go to the moon or Mars, with no mention of a DSG.  What do you infer?
« Last Edit: 09/30/2017 03:36 PM by Proponent »

Tags: