I think you are making my point for me. The specific costs of the LOP-G should be separate from SLS/Orion.
As you correctly point out SLS/Orion are only the transportation system. If commercial alternatives with similar or greater lift/crew capacity are available then they should be able to launch/service the LOP-G in the same way SLS/Orion would.
So when determining whether to go with the LOP-G architecture its specific costs (modules, propulsion, ECLSS, etc.) are what counts. The fixed transportation costs will be the same regardless of the endpoint architecture. In other words LOP-G isn't necessarily married to SLS/Orion.
In other words LOP-G isn't necessarily married to SLS/Orion.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 06/30/2018 07:55 pmThink instead if the SLS and Orion did not exist, and NASA contracted with the commercial sector for EXISTING transportation systems. QuoteFor the SLS and Orion, they were not built specifically for the LOP-G. They are general transportation systems that COULD be used for the LOP-G, but could be used for many other uses too. So of course it makes sense to account for SLS and Orion costs when looking at the overall cost of the LOP-G program, especially since there are other alternatives that could cost far less.I think you are making my point for me. The specific costs of the LOP-G should be separate from SLS/Orion. As you correctly point out SLS/Orion are only the transportation system. If commercial alternatives with similar or greater lift/crew capacity are available then they should be able to launch/service the LOP-G in the same way SLS/Orion would. So when determining whether to go with the LOP-G architecture its specific costs (modules, propulsion, ECLSS, etc.) are what counts. The fixed transportation costs will be the same regardless of the endpoint architecture. In other words LOP-G isn't necessarily married to SLS/Orion.
Think instead if the SLS and Orion did not exist, and NASA contracted with the commercial sector for EXISTING transportation systems.
For the SLS and Orion, they were not built specifically for the LOP-G. They are general transportation systems that COULD be used for the LOP-G, but could be used for many other uses too. So of course it makes sense to account for SLS and Orion costs when looking at the overall cost of the LOP-G program, especially since there are other alternatives that could cost far less.
Quote from: Proponent on 06/21/2018 07:01 pmGiven that LOP-G would be a piece of infrastructure that NASA might be supporting to the tune of $3+ billion annuallyHonest question Proponent. Where are you getting the $3 Billion annual number for LOP-G? ISS requires over $3 Billion a year but LOP-G should be smaller and (at least initially) not be crewed for a significant period of time.
Given that LOP-G would be a piece of infrastructure that NASA might be supporting to the tune of $3+ billion annually
Quote from: Endeavour_01 on 06/28/2018 03:56 amQuote from: Proponent on 06/21/2018 07:01 pmGiven that LOP-G would be a piece of infrastructure that NASA might be supporting to the tune of $3+ billion annuallyHonest question Proponent. Where are you getting the $3 Billion annual number for LOP-G? ISS requires over $3 Billion a year but LOP-G should be smaller and (at least initially) not be crewed for a significant period of time. I think it's pretty clear that some people expect ISS to be shut down and the funds released used to fund other things, Moon initially, ultimately Mars.This may explain the long slow roll out of Commercial Crew.
I think it's pretty clear that some people expect ISS to be shut down and the funds released used to fund other things, Moon initially, ultimately Mars.
This may explain the long slow roll out of Commercial Crew.
The specific costs of the LOP-G should be separate from SLS/Orion.
LOP-G is married to SLS/Orion... it was conceived and designed to give the launch system something to justify its existence. The co-manifested payloads limitations confines this architecture arbitrarily, as does the SLS/Orion inability to get anywhere but DRO.
I am going to repeat this one more time. SLS+Orion are NOT A FUNCTIONING SYSTEM AT THIS TIME. They DO NOT EXIST in terms of lift capability.
Their true cost per flight is UNKNOWN and will likely be highly variable even if they ever reach operational status since there are multi year stand downs between each flight that seem to be getting longer not shorter.
You keep repeating the same talking points over and over where you talk like SLS Orion is either already operational or will somehow have the same availability and flight rate as pre-existing EELVs do right now.
ACES will exist shortly and ULA could bring a full proposal online very very rapidly.
Your arguments have absolutely no basis in reality. LOP-G if it ever gets built will not launch on SLS because SLS will not be available to launch it, and if it is it will cost $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ more than vehicles which exist right now and could also launch it.
It is almost as much of a paper rocket right now as Ares 1 was.
Also stop acting like the flight rate is going to compete with any other vehicle on planet earth meaningfully. It won't. This vehicle will fly so little you won't have the thing when you need it.
Do you separate the cost of commercial cargo and crew from ISS? I'll answer that for you using your own post, no.
Quote from: Joseph Peterson on 07/02/2018 02:46 amDo you separate the cost of commercial cargo and crew from ISS? I'll answer that for you using your own post, no.I did separate commercial crew, but not commercial cargo and Russian crew launches. You are correct that I should have discounted them in my post. If I am reading the budget numbers correctly ISS minus crew and cargo transportation costs around $1.4 Billion a year. Still, I think it is important to separate "transportation" like SLS/Orion and commercial alternatives from "infrastructure" like LOP-G. If a piece of infrastructure can be served by say two equally reliable transportation options, whose only difference is cost, then the cheaper transportation option should be chosen. That is a separate decision from whether to have the piece of infrastructure in the first place.Let me use an analogy. Lets say you and your family want to go to Disney World. You have researched the options for where to stay and have come up with the best solution. Then you have to decide which car to take, a vehicle that has 9 MPG or a vehicle with 29 MPG. Assuming all other variables are negligible you would pick the car with the higher MPG. Notice, however, that this is a separate decision from deciding whether or not to go to Disney World. Transportation costs are most definitely a consideration, and can not be ignored.Now, some here seem to be arguing that LOP-G shouldn't be pursued because SLS/Orion are involved in transportation of crew/cargo. It seems as if the LOP-G is the only thing keeping SLS/Orion alive according to some of the posts here. The thing is if SLS/Orion are still around in the 2020s it won't matter if LOP-G is pursued or not. The reasons for their existence (at least in the minds of the politicians) will still be there even if LOP-G isn't pursued. So in essence if SLS/Orion remain to the point where they can service the LOP-G they would have been there anyway without the LOP-G. The "transportation costs" are the same regardless of LOP-G's existence.If on the other hand SLS/Orion are doomed like many here believe (and I admit to believing that their survival in the 2020s is suspect) it will be because the commercial sector can match most anything SLS/Orion can do. Therefore the LOP-G can be serviced with transportation costs that are lower than what is being considered by Proponent and others.So the real question is are LOP-G's specific costs low enough and the reward high enough to pursue it?
Quote from: Proponent on 06/28/2018 12:07 pmTo my knowledge, the only figures we've ever seen on the operating costs of Orion/SLS are ESD's "Budget Availability Scenarios." Just launching Orion once a every other year on a Block 1 SLS (Case 1) is projected to cost about $3 billion annually. Annual launches of the same (Case 2) come in at about $3.6 billion.Expenditures for LOP-G itself would be in addition.Okay so you are counting SLS/Orion costs against the LOP-G rather than saying LOP-G itself will cost $3+ Billion. I get your point but since SLS/Orion would be around regardless I don't think their costs should be counted when deciding whether LOP-G is a viable way forward.
To my knowledge, the only figures we've ever seen on the operating costs of Orion/SLS are ESD's "Budget Availability Scenarios." Just launching Orion once a every other year on a Block 1 SLS (Case 1) is projected to cost about $3 billion annually. Annual launches of the same (Case 2) come in at about $3.6 billion.Expenditures for LOP-G itself would be in addition.
Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway
Overall, Pei does not appear to be a fan of NASA's plan to build a deep space gateway, formally known as the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway, at a near-rectilinear halo orbit. Whereas NASA will focus its activities on this gateway away from the Moon, Pei said China will focus on a "lunar scientific research station."Another slide from Pei offered some thoughts on the gateway concept, which NASA intends to build out during the 2020s, delaying a human landing on the Moon until the end of the decade at the earliest. Pei does not appear to be certain about the scientific objectives of such a station, and the deputy director concludes that, from a cost-benefit standpoint, the gateway would have "lost cost-effectiveness."
Other important missions where Canada has opportunities to participate include the lunar Gateway, lunar rovers and the Mars Sample Return mission.
Consequently, Member States supported the Director General’s plan to start:-negotiating agreements covering the elements of potential ESA contributions to the Lunar gateway, including both transportation and infrastructure;-negotiating agreement(s) covering potential European contributions to an international Mars Sample Return mission or other sample return missions;-examining scenarios and mission concepts for lunar exploration missions supporting the objectives of the European scientific community; with the aim of finalising the agreements in time for their eventual approval at the Ministerial Council in 2019.
Full video from May 24th presentation at Marshall Space Flight Center about the Gateway.youtube.com/watch?v=KBa26DqcH24
Quote from: Yxalag on 06/04/2018 04:30 pmFull video from May 24th presentation at Marshall Space Flight Center about the Gateway.It's a pity the video cuts out mid sentence at the end, at the one hour, 45 minute mark: when the second part of the presentation was still well underway!
Full video from May 24th presentation at Marshall Space Flight Center about the Gateway.
The Gateway will not be human-rated (only Orion will).
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/28/2018 03:48 amThe Gateway will not be human-rated (only Orion will).That doesn't seem to make sense if humans are supposed to enter and/or occupy the LOP-G.Was a reason given?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/28/2018 04:28 amQuote from: yg1968 on 07/28/2018 03:48 amThe Gateway will not be human-rated (only Orion will).That doesn't seem to make sense if humans are supposed to enter and/or occupy the LOP-G.Was a reason given?I think that they said that if necessary, the crew could retreat Orion. But I suppose that it is similar to Dragon1 or Cygnus, it isn't human rated but astronauts can enter it. The question was concerning human-rated standards for lunar gateway.