Author Topic: DSG joint agreement signed between Roscosmos and NASA  (Read 5482 times)

Online 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: 8178
  • UK
  • Liked: 1322
  • 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.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8174
  • 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.

Online eric z

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • Liked: 118
  • 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 »

Online 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: 4816
  • Liked: 2887
  • Likes Given: 4063
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: 4816
  • Liked: 2887
  • Likes Given: 4063
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

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8174
  • 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.

Online 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.


Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8174
  • 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: 879
  • 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: 879
  • 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: 53
  • 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 Juckenhöfel, head of Airbus Defence and Space's Bremen, has stated that "the experience we have gained when developing and operating Europe’s 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: