Used this opportunity with Gaia to mention the Gateway again (not that there's been any notable movement on it):http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/01/eml2-gaia-destination-future-possibilities/
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 01/15/2014 04:34 pmUsed this opportunity with Gaia to mention the Gateway again (not that there's been any notable movement on it):http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/01/eml2-gaia-destination-future-possibilities/Chris, that was a great article, and I'm glad you took the opportunity to bump the Gateway concept; while I don't expect to see it in my lifetime, before 2040, I do think that it is the logical progression from the ISS / LEO / Cis-Lunar Stations on a road map to Mars and the Outer Planets. These are early days, so not surprised there is no movement. Just give it time. Man-kind is still taking baby steps.CheersGramps
Thank you for a great article about something that may be useful in 2050 or 2060 after Lunar ISRU propellant is in full production.A stable low Lunar polar orbit is the lowest risk, lowest cost, and shortest mission flight time staging orbit for human Lunar missions. Put a gateway station in a stable low polar Lunar orbit and it could be quite useful.
Quote from: HappyMartian on 01/16/2014 01:40 pmThank you for a great article about something that may be useful in 2050 or 2060 after Lunar ISRU propellant is in full production.A stable low Lunar polar orbit is the lowest risk, lowest cost, and shortest mission flight time staging orbit for human Lunar missions. Put a gateway station in a stable low polar Lunar orbit and it could be quite useful.Not really. You would only have two launch windows from Earth (surface or LEO) every month. And as a gateway to Mars and beyond it would be disastrous, with years or more between efficient launch windows at times.
I like the idea of using existing & proven ISS elements to build other exploration systems, since it keeps development costs down to a minimum. And considering that what has been holding us back from leaving LEO has been a lack of money, and not any technical reasons, low cost exploration systems are more likely to be funded. Plus they would show results much faster too.Back in 2010 before the Boeing Gateway study was released I had been working on my own estimate of how much an EML station would cost. Since I am not an engineer I chose existing hardware systems for my "design", and it was not too different in concept from what Boeing came up with.Using public figures for costs from the ISS and other programs, and a few educated guesses for near-term technology needs like space tugs and fuel tankers, I came up with a total hardware cost of about $5B, which covered the initial construction and two six-month crew rotations (3 people/crew). That assumed using Falcon Heavy for the non-crew payloads, but substituting Delta IV Heavy only increased the total cost by $1B, so using a mix of both would still result in an overall hardware cost below $6B.I'm sure there are a lot of holes that can be poked in my assumptions, especially the transportation and logistics costs, but since I assumed using ISS hardware for the station itself I feel pretty good about that part. My assumptions also included in-space refueling and in-space docking of crew vehicles to tugs, which eliminates the need for an HLV, but if we can't get competent at doing things like that we're not going far in space anyways.Were there any cost estimates for the Boeing proposal?
http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=2189Update on developing RLIP 76 as a radiation countermeasure drug. Dr. Curt Bilby.