Author Topic: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA  (Read 5329 times)

Online eeergo

  • Phystronaut
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4739
  • Milan, Italy; Spain; Virginia
  • Liked: 428
  • 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-

Offline 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.


Online sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3835
  • Liked: 484
  • 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?

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3803
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 734
  • 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.

Online eeergo

  • Phystronaut
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4739
  • Milan, Italy; Spain; Virginia
  • Liked: 428
  • 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: 667
  • Liked: 413
  • 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.

Offline eric z

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 244
  • Liked: 117
  • 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 »

Offline 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: 2420
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2299
  • Likes Given: 1671
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

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2068
  • Liked: 255
  • Likes Given: 309
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: 8173
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 254
  • 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: 8160
  • UK
  • Liked: 1317
  • 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: 8160
  • UK
  • Liked: 1317
  • 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 »

Offline TrevorMonty

DSG is political compromise as much as technical. NASA can't afford to do Mars on its own and its international partners aren't interested in funding a 15-20yr Mars development program while being stuck in LEO.

For lunar missions Orion can't reach LLO, so it has stage at a HLO. Apollo style missions are not possible with 1x  SLS 1B which means 2xSLS a few months apart.  Have problems with 2nd launch and whole mission could be a writeoff, especially the already flown 1st launch.

Without lunar surface refuelling any reusable lunar architecture will need HLO staging point for storing lander, DSG NRO is a good as any.

In end it is DSG or nowhere BLEO.



Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8160
  • UK
  • Liked: 1317
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #21 on: 09/30/2017 05:14 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?

He steered clear of any commentary on such publicly owned systems such SLS and the political realm entirely.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8173
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #22 on: 09/30/2017 05:29 PM »
{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.
Trevor Monty answered that question in reply #20
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43834.msg1729525#msg1729525

Quote
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.

It is standard practice to design things out without writing them down. For example skis are a traditional method of moving across ice but I doubt any launch vehicle's requirements documents say that skis have been designed out because that they are not needed.

Offline redliox

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1720
  • Arizona USA
  • Liked: 323
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #23 on: 10/02/2017 02:42 AM »
The politics behind ISS, DSG, as well as Roscosmos-NASA are fairly well known.  Everybody's compromising in hopes of doing something new beyond LEO in general.  Ambitions within a budget.

More specifically, I'm curious about what the various agencies will bring to the table.  NASA is bringing in at least the first two pieces of DSG: the power and habitat modules.  There could be additional modules, but those are the ones officially noted for in EM-1 through EM-3.  The last I heard Roscosmos was considering an airlock module.  I also heard there's a half-finished module that's a delayed piece of their half of the ISS; depending on negotiations they could repurpose it or whatever ISS hardware that's under-wraps or in stowage to serve DSG.  Of course there's ESA and JAXA too; I thought I heard a rumor JAXA wanted to contribute a habitat but I am uncertain.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #24 on: 10/02/2017 10:40 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?

He steered clear of any commentary on such publicly owned systems such SLS and the political realm entirely.

Agreed, he steered clear of those things.  It seems to me that the most natural conclusion is that he simply sees them as irrelevant.

Offline eric z

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 244
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #25 on: 10/02/2017 11:42 PM »
 Could I throw something out, if someone hasn't said it already- I think Mr. Musk is just laying low, laying back on referring too much to NASA-led stuff so it doesn't seem like he is too openly seeking their $$$. If his ability to offer ready-made synergistic support to them becomes a bit clearer over next few years, then they will be There with our tax dollars; if not he at least protects SpaceX's independence. IMHO, slightly premature at the moment too, maybe after ISS crew flights get rolling.
 One good effect they might have on NASA is for NASA to be able to get a LOT more ambitious in their own dreams: The long-suppressed Moon Bases, and going to Mars in a much more robust fashion. Sending a proper Von Braun/Bova-type dozens-crewed "Expedition" instead of a few guys and gals in a glorified can or two that can't get anywhere as much done at first. This makes, to me, much more sense for both parties long-range goals in outer-space, rather than going straight into "Colonization" or "F&F"[much as I detest that term!].
  All condolences to the victims of today's senseless massacre. An Awful day.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #26 on: 10/03/2017 01:29 PM »
DSG is political compromise as much as technical. NASA can't afford to do Mars on its own and its international partners aren't interested in funding a 15-20yr Mars development program while being stuck in LEO.

For lunar missions Orion can't reach LLO, so it has stage at a HLO. Apollo style missions are not possible with 1x  SLS 1B which means 2xSLS a few months apart.  Have problems with 2nd launch and whole mission could be a writeoff, especially the already flown 1st launch.

Without lunar surface refuelling any reusable lunar architecture will need HLO staging point for storing lander, DSG NRO is a good as any.

In end it is DSG or nowhere BLEO.

I certainly agree that this is largely about doing something -- anything -- that is politically possible.  But it's not clear that a crewed outpost in HLO is desirable for supporting lunar-surface operations, and, in any case, such operations are far in the future.  It could easily be that the cost of maintaining the DSG makes going back to the moon itself harder, not easier.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #27 on: 10/03/2017 01:35 PM »
{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.
Trevor Monty answered that question in reply #20
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43834.msg1729525#msg1729525

Quote
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.

It is standard practice to design things out without writing them down. For example skis are a traditional method of moving across ice but I doubt any launch vehicle's requirements documents say that skis have been designed out because that they are not needed.

Sure, the documents describing a design may very likely not discuss options that the engineers considered and discarded.  But if you look through the literature, you may find the designs that were considered and discarded.  So where are the plans from the past where the path to the lunar surface when through a crewed gateway in high lunar orbit?
« Last Edit: 10/03/2017 03:18 PM by Proponent »

Offline TrevorMonty

DSG is political compromise as much as technical. NASA can't afford to do Mars on its own and its international partners aren't interested in funding a 15-20yr Mars development program while being stuck in LEO.

For lunar missions Orion can't reach LLO, so it has stage at a HLO. Apollo style missions are not possible with 1x  SLS 1B which means 2xSLS a few months apart.  Have problems with 2nd launch and whole mission could be a writeoff, especially the already flown 1st launch.

Without lunar surface refuelling any reusable lunar architecture will need HLO staging point for storing lander, DSG NRO is a good as any.

In end it is DSG or nowhere BLEO.

I certainly agree that this is largely about doing something -- anything -- that is politically possible.  But it's not clear that a crewed outpost in HLO is desirable for supporting lunar-surface operations, and, in any case, such operations are far in the future.  It could easily be that the cost of maintaining the DSG makes going back to the moon itself harder, not easier.
NASA have learnt lot from ISS, biggest is they don't want another expensive hole in space that needs lots of money poured into it annually. Operationally DSG will be closer to large GEO satellite than ISS, especially as it will be unmanned most of time.


Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #29 on: 10/03/2017 04:06 PM »
Just sending one Orion/SLS to DSG every year probably costs $3-ish billion -- that's not too different from the ISS budget.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4800
  • Liked: 2885
  • Likes Given: 4045
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #30 on: 10/05/2017 01:16 PM »
Just sending one Orion/SLS to DSG every year probably costs $3-ish billion -- that's not too different from the ISS budget.

And that would accomplish what?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4800
  • Liked: 2885
  • Likes Given: 4045
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #31 on: 10/05/2017 01:25 PM »
ArsTechnica:

Quote
"We will refocus America's space program toward human exploration and discovery," Pence wrote. "That means launching American astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit for the first time since 1972. It means establishing a renewed American presence on the Moon, a vital strategic goal. And from the foundation of the Moon, America will be the first nation to bring mankind to Mars."

There are several notable phrases in there. The first, "on the Moon," is fairly obvious. In recent years NASA has talked about sending humans to a space station near the Moon but not landing astronauts there.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/its-official-trump-administration-turns-nasa-back-toward-the-moon/
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8173
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #32 on: 10/05/2017 02:20 PM »
ArsTechnica:

Quote
"We will refocus America's space program toward human exploration and discovery," Pence wrote. "That means launching American astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit for the first time since 1972. It means establishing a renewed American presence on the Moon, a vital strategic goal. And from the foundation of the Moon, America will be the first nation to bring mankind to Mars."

There are several notable phrases in there. The first, "on the Moon," is fairly obvious. In recent years NASA has talked about sending humans to a space station near the Moon but not landing astronauts there.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/its-official-trump-administration-turns-nasa-back-toward-the-moon/

The Lunar CATALYST program will put cargo landers on the Moon within the next 2-3 years. However even the larger landers like XEUS from ULA/Masten and Blue Moon from Blue Origin appear to be unmanned. Since NASA did not specify man rating I suspect that the engines and structure would have to be redesigned from scratch. Hopefully most of this will just be paperwork and extra testing at about ten times the price.

One of the environmental control and life support systems (ECLSS) being developed under NextSTEP may fit in the cabin of a lander. Reuse would simplify both development and support of a manned lander.

Offline TrevorMonty

Looks like DSG will get go ahead, if they planning on a return to moon and then mars.

When comes to commercial robotic landers NASA is spoilt for choices.  The question is human lander, we might see another COTS contract for this. Could be commercial lander with NASA handling crew cabin and life support.

Given they have SLS and Orion I doubt NASA do another COTS contract for HSF to DSG. Commercial companies may have to go it alone here when it comes to development funding.

Good news is robotic landings could start from 2018, starting with MX1E, with more capable landers in pipe line.


Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8173
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 254
  • Likes Given: 106
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #34 on: 10/06/2017 03:48 AM »
A propellant depot may be needed in LEO to refuel the upper stages of Vulcan and Falcon 9 launch vehicles so they can deliver larger items, like habitats, to lunar orbit.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #35 on: 10/06/2017 06:15 PM »
Just sending one Orion/SLS to DSG every year probably costs $3-ish billion -- that's not too different from the ISS budget.

And that would accomplish what?

Well, my own view is that the best thing about a DSG might be that it would make use of some commercial supply services, stimulating the market.  And I'm sure that astronauts hanging out a DSG could do some experiments.  And they could tele-operate lunar rovers, if somebody found the money for such (more likely than finding the money for crewed landers).  And you could get some data on what happens when human bodies marinate in the BEO radiation field, though probably only for rather short periods of time, rather less than the duration of a Hohmann transfer to Mars, for example.  So a DSG isn't useless.

But I'm not advocating for a DSG.  I was just pointing out that it would be just as much of a money pit as ISS, and, for that reason, in my view probably makes NASA crewed missions to the surface of the moon or Mars even more remote.

Offline fregate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 878
  • Space Association of Australia
  • Melbourne Australia
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #36 on: 10/18/2017 04:38 AM »
According to article in IZVESTIA newspaper article published on 18 Oct 2017 by Дмитрий Струговец
http://www.pressreader.com/russia/izvestia/20171018/281505046451450, Russian "Specialised module" with docking port and airlock would be delivered to Lunar orbit and docked to Deep Space Gateway (DSG) in 2026 according to NASA/Roskosmos preliminary DSG deployment schedule. Module design would be derived from either PIRS or UZLOVOY ISS Modules. Module mass is 4.6 tones and it planned to be launched on Russian Angara-A5M Heavy Launch Vehicle (or as a backup as secondary payload on American SLS Super-heavy vehicle).   
In the future according to Executive Director Sergey Krikalev, Roscosmos would be able to send heavier DSG Modules (up to 10 tones) launched on Angara-A5V and manned spacecraft Federation (20 tones) launched on Russian Super-Heavy lift Launch Vehicle.

Specialised module technical specification (according to RSC Energia Magazine KTT, N1, 2017)
Gross lift-off mass 4,650 kg;
Volume of cylindrical compartment 9 cub. meters;
Volume of spherical compartment 9 cub. meters;
Egress hatch diameter 1,000 мм;
Diameter of cylindrical  compartment 2,200 мм;
Diameter of of spherical compartment 3,300 мм;
Number of compartments for EVA preparation 2;
Module lifespan 15 years.
« Last Edit: 10/18/2017 04:59 AM by fregate »
"Selene, the Moon. Selenginsk, an old town in Siberia: moon-rocket  town" Vladimir Nabokov

Offline fregate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 878
  • Space Association of Australia
  • Melbourne Australia
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #37 on: 10/22/2017 11:01 AM »
According to TSNiiMAsh (Roscosmos lead think tank institute) article
M.V. Ivanov, I.I. Kuznetsov, A.A. Medvedev, M.Zh. Mukhamedzhanov, G.V. Shokhov, V.P. Borzenko.
Innovation Approaches to Formation of the Space Rocket Complex of a Super-Heavy Class Launch Vehicle Appearance in Modern Conditions, that summarises system studies made in 2013-2016, Russian manned space program would have the following capabilities:

On initial stage:
- New Generation Middle Class man-rated Launch Vehicle (aka Soyuz-5) with ground-based infrastructure on Baikonur spaceport;
- Heavy Class man-rated Launch Vehicle with extended payload capability (aka Angara A5V) with ground-based infrastructure on Vostochny spaceport;
- Un-Manned and manned new generation transportation spacecraft for LEO (aka Federation, mass 14.5 tones), flight test program to include autonomous mission as well as docking with ISS.   
- Lunar flyby mission by unmanned Federation spacecraft (LEO version, mass 14.5 tones) launched by Angara A5V.

On second stage (deployment of Lunar DSG outpost on Near Rectilinear Orbit):
- Specialised module (mass 4.6 tones) launched by Angara A5M
- Heavy modules (mass up to 10 tones) launched by Angara A5V
- Transportation spacecraft Federation (Lunar version, mass 20 tones) launched by SHLV

During stage III (deployment and maintenance of lunar base, from 2035):
- Manned Federation missions to Lunar DSG, (Lunar version, mass 20 tones) launched by SHLV 
- Light Manned Lunar Module (mass 27 tones, dimensions m 6.5 x 8 m)
- Standard Manned Lunar Module (mass 35 tones, dimensions m 7.5 x 14 m)
- Standard Cargo Lunar Module (mass 35 tones, dimensions m 7.5 x 14 m)
- DSG and Lunar Base Modules (25-30 tones on Lunar orbit) launched by Angara A5V and transported by space tug with 1 MW nuclear propulsion 

Stage IV - delivery to stage orbit modules of Martian assembly stack (40-60 tones on destination orbit) launched by SHLV
« Last Edit: 10/22/2017 11:34 AM by fregate »
"Selene, the Moon. Selenginsk, an old town in Siberia: moon-rocket  town" Vladimir Nabokov

Offline TaurusLittrow

  • Member
  • Posts: 76
  • Pennsylvania, USA
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA
« Reply #38 on: 10/29/2017 06:53 PM »
ESA seems highly interested in participating in DSG according to recent reports. Specifically, "Airbus Defence and Space and its European partners expect to build a habitat and a logistics module, which would form the European segment of the Deep Space Gateway."

http://spacenews.com/european-space-officials-outline-desired-contribution-to-deep-space-gateway/

Oliver JuckenhŲfel, head of Airbus Defence and Space's Bremen, has stated that "the experience we have gained when developing and operating Europeís Columbus module on the International Space Station...could be another potential European contribution...[while] we...hope that our electric-propulsion technology could come handy."

http://spacenews.com/qa-airbus-oliver-juckenhofel-gung-ho-on-deep-space-gateway/

Thus, it seems that Europe is interested in playing an integral role in the development and construction of a significant fraction of DSG modules possibly including the Hab and Logistics modules and conceivably the PPE. JAXA and Roscosmos are also interested parties.

Furthermore, according to Detlef Wilde, head of robotics projects at Airbus Defence and Space, "Ariane 6 and its [solar electric] space tugs would...be needed for additional logistics."

Whether ESA's ambition will be constrained by limited budgets remains to be seen. However, it is not hard to imagine a Lunar-COTS-type arrangement in which ESA and private companies like BO and SpX provide logistical support to DSG using Ariane 6, NG, mini-BFR, etc.

However, the larger questions remain. For NASA, the DSG appears to be a waystation on the path to the Mars system using the DST whereas ESA appears more focused on the moon's surface as a destination. At some point, there will be a "fork in the road" and it will be interesting to witness the literal direction of human spaceflight at that time.

The other big question, IMO, is the potential role of SpX in NASA's plans, if any. EM is focused on Mars, and SpX itself was created as a means to that end, which is why the company has not gone public and issued shares on stock exchanges. However, NASA's and SpX's Mars plans are on parallel tracks with little overlap. It will be interesting to see if areas of cooperation can be found to expedite and facilitate missions to the Mars system by either party.








Tags: