NASA teams evaluating ISS-built Exploration Platform roadmap

[Ben the Space Brit]

I really like this concept but I am concerned about funding.

To me, the simplest way to amortorise costs is to make it as similar as possible to the DSH.  That way you get the advantage of testing the systems near to Earth before having to trust them out into deep space.

I don't know that an EML 2 Gateway necessarily needs to be manned all the time.

I don't think that continual presence is possible or even desirable given the current state of technology and the uncertainty about the incidence relatavistic heavy nucleus GCRs.  Probably three or four ~60-day missions per year initially.

Later, once the lander is available, you can go to hybrid missions where the crew stays on the station for the first four or five weeks then flies down to join a cargo lander at the excursion site for the remaining two weeks.  That way you get to use the lab as both a staging post and as an experimental platform in the same mission.

[MP99]

I really like this concept but I am concerned about funding.  Maybe they will go with a scaled down version to begin with consisting just of Node4 with an airlock and an FGB.

In a worse case scenario just buy an FGB and throw it out to EML2 with SLS.  At least you have a docking target for Orion flight tests and a life boat for the crew if there is a problem with Orion.  You also have a starting point for additional modules and landers.

Those are depicted as berthed rather than docked. As I understand it, this is a more robust form of connection, so you'd want to do that if you could. Would require adding an arm to the concept.

I don't know that an EML 2 Gateway necessarily needs to be manned all the time.

Agree with Ben that it wouldn't be. Think of it more like Apollo 13's "lifeboat"  - a safe harbour in a remote location.

cheers, Martin

[kkattula]

Agree with Ben that it wouldn't be. Think of it more like Apollo 13's "lifeboat"  - a safe harbour in a remote location.

cheers, Martin

Not to mention:

A handy communications relay for Farside operations

A staging point for pre-positioned (and eventually reusable) landers

A propellant depot

A safe place to leave the Earth re-entry vehicle while the crew descend to the lunar surface

An assembly/departure/return point for Mars and asteroid missions.

[Rocket Science]

Olando Sentinel with breaking news (when it isn't) from last night...

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-09-22/news/os-nasa-space-outpost-20120922_1_moon-rocks-space-launch-system-nasa-chief-charlie-bolden

[A_M_Swallow]

Olando Sentinel with breaking news from last night...

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-09-22/news/os-nasa-space-outpost-20120922_1_moon-rocks-space-launch-system-nasa-chief-charlie-bolden

A proposal to build a spacestation on the far side of the Moon.

In practice the EML-2 spacestation and the Mars Transfer Vehicle are likely to be different machines.  Although tough cost control will permit entire rooms in both vehicles to use the same design.

[Archibald]

It sounds logical, and a good mission for SLS. Throwing a gateway, then Orion(s), to L2 is a plausible mission for the HLV (more realistic than backup to commercial to ISS, for which the SLS is oversized).
Then, since there's no money for a lunar lander - for another, different manned ship beside Orion - the "outpost" can't be located on the lunar surface. So it will go to EML-2.
It's a plan that makes some sense; once provided with the L2 outpost NASA will still be free to pick the next destination, either NEO or Moon (+ISRU eventually) or Mars. The Gateway doesn't shut any of these options. As I said a long time ago - in the actual situation, the best NASA can hope for is to set a foot on the door. What matters in to jail break from LEO - even if the initial destination / goal sounds modest.

[Chris Bergin]

Merge, seen as people have memory loss when a paper runs something as "OMG, Exclusive".

We've been covering this for over a year.

[Ben the Space Brit]

FWIW, SLS Block-I's ability to launch an Orion to one of the EML points with a single launch and the lack of obvious funding for a lander means that, to me at least, the EML space-lab was always the most likely short-term mission to emerge for SLS.  I just hope that it doesn't turn into a cul-de-sac and they also develop the mobile variant and also use it as a staging post for lunar surface excursions in between the (1 year+ length) asteroid missions.

[jtrame]

I don't remember the meeting/ briefing being reported, is that new information?

[PeterAlt]

If NASA gets approval and funding to go ahead with the "gateway", could this eventually allow for the ISS to eventually be phased out, as its replacement? Would the future SLS crewed Orion (and possibly Dragon carried by the F9H) go directly to Gateway, without having to stop at a station like ISS in LEO? Of course, this would also assume that our international partners, who may join in with us on Gateway, also have a way of reaching Gateway directly.

So, what I'm thinking, basically, is that ISS would serve its expected life cycle. Gateway assembly would overlap with ISS operations. As ISS reaches its end of life, any ISS module that could be detached that is in good health could be salvaged and sent to gateway for continued use. What remains of the the station thereafter would be de-orbited, while station research continues at Gateway.

(10-4, Carl.)

[Jim]

If NASA gets approval and funding to go ahead with the "gateway", could this eventually allow for the ISS to eventually be phased out, as its replacement? Would the future SLS crewed Orion (and possibly Dragon carried by the F9H) go directly to Gateway, without having to stop at a station like ISS in LEO? Of course, this would also assume that our international partners, who may join in with us on Gateway, also have a way of reaching Gateway directly.

So, what I'm thinking, basically, is that ISS would serve its expected life cycle. Gateway assembly would overlap with ISS operations. As ISS reaches its end of life, any ISS module that could be detached that is in good health could be salvaged and sent to gateway for continued use. What remains of the the station thereafter would be de-orbited, while station research continues at Gateway.

(10-4, Carl.)

No, the Gateway is not for microgravity research.  The Gateway does not replace the ISS.

[Robotbeat]

It sounds logical, and a good mission for SLS. Throwing a gateway, then Orion(s), to L2 is a plausible mission for the HLV (more realistic than backup to commercial to ISS, for which the SLS is oversized).
Then, since there's no money for a lunar lander - for another, different manned ship beside Orion - the "outpost" can't be located on the lunar surface. So it will go to EML-2.
It's a plan that makes some sense; once provided with the L2 outpost NASA will still be free to pick the next destination, either NEO or Moon (+ISRU eventually) or Mars. The Gateway doesn't shut any of these options. As I said a long time ago - in the actual situation, the best NASA can hope for is to set a foot on the door. What matters in to jail break from LEO - even if the initial destination / goal sounds modest.

SLS isn't even necessarily needed to build the gateway, especially if the gateway is built first at ISS then pushed to the Lagrange point later. It's also possible for the SLS launch to be just for the boost-stage to put the gateway (already assembled at/near ISS) at EML2.

It's also possible to move the gateway between EML2 and EML1 with minimal fuel. Or heck, high Earth orbit, where there is usually a temporary moon hanging out (http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=earth-usually-has-second-tiny-tempo-11-12-27) or even Earth-escape.

Even so, SLS would be useful for single-shot missions to the Lagrange Point gateway, so it provides SLS/Orion with something worthwhile to do without being totally tied to the fate of SLS/Orion... That is an ideal combo, IMHO.

[Ben the Space Brit]

At the risk of sounding cynical, it is this SLS agnosticism that is the exploration platform's biggest weakness and the most likely reason it will face opposition, both from politicians and possibly some in NASA.  Because it doesn't strictly need SLS, it may be perceived as 'de-justifying' SLS.  It could then sidelined in favour of some other program that is perceived as guaranteeing the future of SLS, irrespective of how likely it is to be achievable.

[Robotbeat]

At the risk of sounding cynical, it is this SLS agnosticism that is the exploration platform's biggest weakness and the most likely reason it will face opposition, both from politicians and possibly some in NASA.  Because it doesn't strictly need SLS, it may be perceived as 'de-justifying' SLS.  It could then sidelined in favour of some other program that is perceived as guaranteeing the future of SLS, irrespective of how likely it is to be achievable.

It's also it's biggest strength.

Look. Having an exploration program is the whole point.

[A_M_Swallow]

At the risk of sounding cynical, it is this SLS agnosticism that is the exploration platform's biggest weakness and the most likely reason it will face opposition, both from politicians and possibly some in NASA.  Because it doesn't strictly need SLS, it may be perceived as 'de-justifying' SLS.  It could then sidelined in favour of some other program that is perceived as guaranteeing the future of SLS, irrespective of how likely it is to be achievable.

The SLS has to do something nothing else can do or do it cheaper.

SpaceX is quoting $54M for 13,150 kg to LEO using Falcon 9s.

The Block 0 SLS is being advertised at 70 mT to LEO.

If the launch costs less than (70/13.15)*54M = $287M then SLS is viable.

[Chris Bergin]

I've tagged our Gateway articles up into one page here:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/gateway/

[kirghizstan]

At the risk of sounding cynical, it is this SLS agnosticism that is the exploration platform's biggest weakness and the most likely reason it will face opposition, both from politicians and possibly some in NASA.  Because it doesn't strictly need SLS, it may be perceived as 'de-justifying' SLS.  It could then sidelined in favour of some other program that is perceived as guaranteeing the future of SLS, irrespective of how likely it is to be achievable.

The SLS has to do something nothing else can do or do it cheaper.

SpaceX is quoting $54M for 13,150 kg to LEO using Falcon 9s.

The Block 0 SLS is being advertised at 70 mT to LEO.

If the launch costs less than (70/13.15)*54M = $287M then SLS is viable.

Well lets just put it out it there tht is a very simplistic way of coming up with the figures completely ignoring the costs of assembly (crewed flights and training) & additional hardware necessary for assembly let alone the increase in weight because you need the additional hardware to connect pieces in space

[clongton]

I've tagged our Gateway articles up into one page here:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/gateway/

I really appreciate the way you manage these topics Chris.

[A_M_Swallow]

At the risk of sounding cynical, it is this SLS agnosticism that is the exploration platform's biggest weakness and the most likely reason it will face opposition, both from politicians and possibly some in NASA.  Because it doesn't strictly need SLS, it may be perceived as 'de-justifying' SLS.  It could then sidelined in favour of some other program that is perceived as guaranteeing the future of SLS, irrespective of how likely it is to be achievable.

The SLS has to do something nothing else can do or do it cheaper.

SpaceX is quoting $54M for 13,150 kg to LEO using Falcon 9s.

The Block 0 SLS is being advertised at 70 mT to LEO.

If the launch costs less than (70/13.15)*54M = $287M then SLS is viable.

Well lets jut put it it there tht is a very simplistic way of coming up with the figures completely ignoring the costs of assembly (crewed flights and training) & additional hardware necessary for assembly let alone the increase in weight because you need the additional hardware to connect pieces in space

True ground assembly is cheaper than space assembly but even if you double the costs the SLS still has a tight cost limit.

[Robert Thompson]

I've tagged our Gateway articles up into one page here:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/gateway/

"This will be a day long remembered."