Gateway Discussion Thread

[pochimax]

That's not what's being reported by Spaceflight Now:

Perhaps you have forgotten important details that appear in the article and that reinforce what I have commented, such as:

Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for human exploration and operations, said the space station's demand for propellant will decrease in the next few years, curtailing the program's need for a large fuel-carrying freighter like the ATV.

"That's allowed us to essentially fill up the propellant tanks aboard the space station, so at this point, the unique capability of the Automated Transfer Vehicle to carry propellant is not needed," Gerstenmaier said in March 28 testimony to the House Science Committee.

Commercial flights by U.S. spacecraft will make up the rest of the lost capacity with the end of the ATV program.

And:

ESA managers are consulting the agency's member states on the alternatives to pay their share of the station's operating costs. Officials expect representatives of the member states to decide on an option, or barter element, at a ministerial council meeting in November.

One option, tentatively favored by Germany but dismissed by Italian and French space officials, is to sign an agreement with NASA to supply a service module to the Orion crew capsule, or multipurpose crew vehicle. The service module would be based on the ATV's propulsion section.

Engineers in the United States and Europe are studying the scenario. Lockheed Martin Corp., the Orion spacecraft's manufacturer, is currently on contract to build the vehicle's service module.

I think it's very clear

[Robotbeat]

Using two alternating Starships would be cheaper.

I don't think so.

You think a Dragon XL mission will be cheaper than a Starship mission? Dragon XL is expendable and would be launched on a Falcon Heavy with an expended core and US.

A expendable Dragon XL—how could it be more expensive than an expendable cargo HLS Starship?
The costs of the Falcon Heavy's expendable upper stages, given the pace of manufacturing, should be low.

I find no arguments that a Dragon XL mission could be more expensive than one with a dozen launches and refuelings.

On the other hand, we know the cost per Dragon XL mission, per contract, and we know the cost of the second HLS mission, and it is objectively more expensive (1 billion versus 470 million => 7 billion / 15 years).
Finally, the Falcon Heavy exists, and its costs are known. Starship, on the other hand, still has a large number of development milestones to demonstrate, whose costs are unknown, as are their operating costs.

You don’t need a dozen refuelings just to do a DragonXL like mission, maybe just like 3. Also, you’re using the price for a crewed mission. DragonXL has itself a bunch of development milestones, and Starship will need to do almost all of what DragonXL needs to on an Artemis mission except with more than 10 times the capacity.

[DanClemmensen]

Using two alternating Starships would be cheaper.

I don't think so.

You think a Dragon XL mission will be cheaper than a Starship mission? Dragon XL is expendable and would be launched on a Falcon Heavy with an expended core and US.

A expendable Dragon XL—how could it be more expensive than an expendable cargo HLS Starship?
The costs of the Falcon Heavy's expendable upper stages, given the pace of manufacturing, should be low.

I find no arguments that a Dragon XL mission could be more expensive than one with a dozen launches and refuelings.

On the other hand, we know the cost per Dragon XL mission, per contract, and we know the cost of the second HLS mission, and it is objectively more expensive (1 billion versus 470 million => 7 billion / 15 years).
Finally, the Falcon Heavy exists, and its costs are known. Starship, on the other hand, still has a large number of development milestones to demonstrate, whose costs are unknown, as are their operating costs.

You don’t need a dozen refuelings just to do a DragonXL like mission, maybe just like 3. Also, you’re using the price for a crewed mission. DragonXL has itself a bunch of development milestones, and Starship will need to do almost all of what DragonXL needs to on an Artemis mission except with more than 10 times the capacity.

For this discussion, its not an expendable HLS Starship. It's two reusable crewed EDL Starships doing alternate Earth-NRHO-Earth missions. They replace SLS/Orion, and act as the Gateway in NRHO, and act to replace Dragon XL. Yes, this requires development of crewed EDL Starship. This is a near-term goal for SpaceX as part of the Mars program. It will almost certainly be available before Gateway would be in place based on the Gateway PoR.

[VSECOTSPE]

Europe, on its own, doesn't care about the Moon.

Not really accurate:

https://blogs.esa.int/janwoerner/2016/11/23/moon-village/

https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Ministerial_Council_2016/Moon_Village

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/strategies/ESA-ESTEC_2020_MoonVillageLunarHabitatStudy.pdf

https://www.som.com/research/moon-village/

[nethegauner_reloaded]

Sure, you can start by stopping flying astronauts on Crew Dragon, see where it gets you.

Exactly!

I am aware of the status quo. Actually, it is the status quo that informs my opinion. True, if You want to go to LEO these days and have no intention of using Soyuz, then You need to buy a ticket from that Hugo Drax of Boca Chica. But going forward and discussing Gateway or an alternative, thinking about yet another SpaceX-dominated scenario hardly gets me excited.

Jim Bridenstine recently described Gateway as an enabler of more commercial activities, particularly after initial lunar landing missions. He expected it to open up a lot of opportunities. And, interestingly, he added that Isaacman was already thinking about that. See here:

https://spacenews.com/bridenstine-urges-senate-to-quickly-confirm-isaacman-as-nasa-administrator/

So if Gateway or a Gateway-derived station gets a chance at fulfilling that enabling role in the future, then hopefully it attracts other businesses than just SpaceX. That's the point I was trying to make.

[Robotbeat]

Not everyone decides their ideal scenario by how much it spites Elon Musk.

[marcus79]

I think we would team up with the Japanese.

Who is "we"? At this point, nobody with any sense will "team up" with NASA or any other part of the US government. since they have proven that they do not honor their commitments. Any transaction will need to be immediate (e.g. transfer of existing hardware) and not involve promised future NASA or US activity.

Sorry, it doesn't give my location, I mean 'we' as ESA member states. It makes sense to cooperate with the Japanese and others to repurpose those gateway elements they presumably now own for a (human-tended?) LEO platform. Ideally, this would involve other countries too, South Korea, I saw ESA is talking with India now too.

[pochimax]

Europe, on its own, doesn't care about the Moon.

Not really accurate:

https://blogs.esa.int/janwoerner/2016/11/23/moon-village/

https://www.esa.int/About_Us/Ministerial_Council_2016/Moon_Village

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/strategies/ESA-ESTEC_2020_MoonVillageLunarHabitatStudy.pdf

https://www.som.com/research/moon-village/

Moon Village never made it past the PowerPoint stage and emerged at a time when a manned lunar landing was thought to be close at hand.

ESA has never selected a lunar mission for either the Medium-class or L-class probes (Cornerstone).
During the M4 mission selection, one proposal (Farside) was a finalist, but Ariel ultimately won.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19694.msg1320898#msg1320898

There is no lunar probe planned for the M7 selection or within the major Voyage 2050 themes.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Voyage_2050_sets_sail_ESA_chooses_future_science_mission_themes

[pochimax]

You don’t need a dozen refuelings just to do a DragonXL like mission, maybe just like 3. Also, you’re using the price for a crewed mission. DragonXL has itself a bunch of development milestones, and Starship will need to do almost all of what DragonXL needs to on an Artemis mission except with more than 10 times the capacity.
[/quote]

Too many unknowns. The Falcon Heavy already exists, and its price is known. Yes, developments for the Dragon XL are needed, but this ship is a derivative of the Dragon, so it should be a relatively quick and not too expensive transformation.

On the other hand, everything related to Starship and the HLS Starship... I think stating that its cost will be very low is more a matter of faith than based on data. It has a long succession of milestones yet to be demonstrated and developed.

[Robotbeat]

Falcon Heavy still existing in the future is also unknown, as SpaceX will want to focus on Starship.

[Vultur]

FH's launch rate is not that high, I imagine it will stop being offered if/when Starship becomes reliable enough to satisfy the US government customers that would currently use FH.

That may not be soon, depending on Starship development pace, but it's also possible that Starship development will accelerate.

And I don't think there is any near term prospect of SpaceX not being the "800 pound gorilla" of US/Western spaceflight.

 New Glenn has now flown, but Blue Origin has a very long way for go to catch up (if catching up is even possible when you are behind and have a slower development pace...); Vulcan probably has no prospect of ever having a competitive flight rate; Neutron has not yet flown.

*not* treating SpaceX as Plan A is just not practical, and probably won't be for at least a decade* and maybe not for a generation. I'm not sure we can even rule out the possibility that the first mover advantage/economies of scale are so significant that there really is no space for a competitive second provider outside of geopolitically separate markets (e.g. China).

*Even if New Glenn launch rate ramps up as fast as Falcon 9's (extremely optimistic IMO) F9's launch rate 10 years after first launch (2020) was significantly lower than today's.

[thespacecow]

Europe, on its own, doesn't care about the Moon.

Well if you don't care about the Moon, why are you upset that some Moon hardware get cancelled?

Europe would never have embarked on this architecture if NASA hadn't pushed it.

I see no evidence of NASA "pushing" it, ESA joined the program willingly, they could have chosen to do something else as shown by the Spaceflight Now article, which stated that at the time Orion SM is just one of the options for contribution: "One option, tentatively favored by Germany but dismissed by Italian and French space officials"

That's not what's being reported by Spaceflight Now:

Perhaps you have forgotten important details that appear in the article and that reinforce what I have commented, such as:

Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for human exploration and operations, said the space station's demand for propellant will decrease in the next few years, curtailing the program's need for a large fuel-carrying freighter like the ATV.

"That's allowed us to essentially fill up the propellant tanks aboard the space station, so at this point, the unique capability of the Automated Transfer Vehicle to carry propellant is not needed," Gerstenmaier said in March 28 testimony to the House Science Committee.

Commercial flights by U.S. spacecraft will make up the rest of the lost capacity with the end of the ATV program.

This doesn't support your claim that "NASA requested to cancel ATV". Gerstenmaier said the unique ability of ATV to carry propellant is not needed, not that ATV itself should be cancelled, nor did he say NASA asked for ATV to be cancelled.

It's pretty clear from the article that the decision to end ATV was made by ESA, not NASA.

[hektor]

There are numerous inaccuracies in this thread regarding Europe, the history of the ATV, and the European contributions to U.S. space architecture, to the point where I’m unsure where to begin addressing them.

Let’s start by debunking this claim: Europe, on its own, does not care about the Moon.

Argonaut: Europe's lunar lander programme

The European Space Agency (ESA) has established a human and robotic exploration strategy, with the Moon as one of its four key pillars. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that Europe does not care about the Moon.

Explore2040

[pochimax]

This doesn't support your claim that "NASA requested to cancel ATV". Gerstenmaier said the unique ability of ATV to carry propellant is not needed, not that ATV itself should be cancelled, nor did he say NASA asked for ATV to be cancelled.

It's pretty clear from the article that the decision to end ATV was made by ESA, not NASA.

Do your own homework, please

https://spacenews.com/france-germany-hold-key-deal-space-station-barter-element/

NASA has proposed that Europe instead provide a propulsion module for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle that the U.S. agency is building for missions beyond low Earth orbit.

Also this was ESA plan, in 2008

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/ATV/ATV_the_next_step

ESA is working on a proposed programme to develop new versions of the Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV). The projects ESA is considering are essentially based on a re-use of the ATV's service module and the replacement of the integrated cargo carrier with a re-entry capsule. This would allow for atmospheric re-entry, bringing down to the Earth first some cargo and then in the future a complete crew. ESA and its industrial partners will have to develop new technologies to satisfy other crucial requirements, such as the ejection system to ensure the absolute safety of a space capsule’s crew in case of an anomaly on the launch pad or during its ascent phase.

[pochimax]

There are numerous inaccuracies in this thread regarding Europe, the history of the ATV, and the European contributions to U.S. space architecture, to the point where I’m unsure where to begin addressing them.

Let’s start by debunking this claim: Europe, on its own, does not care about the Moon.

Argonaut: Europe's lunar lander programme

The European Space Agency (ESA) has established a human and robotic exploration strategy, with the Moon as one of its four key pillars. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that Europe does not care about the Moon.

Explore2040

I think you haven't fully understood the nuances of the discussion. I see this often happening when a debate is underway and someone else jumps in, but hasn't fully grasped what was said before.

I'm starting to find it frustrating.

The ESA was and is, surprisingly, interested in a manned lunar program. Hence the decision to abandon the ATV in favor of solving NASA's problem with the Orion service module. Furthermore, they agreed to collaborate, with a significant role, unprecedented in Europe, in the Gateway program.

All of this could be undone by a unilateral decision by NASA, not agreed upon with the ESA. And, most amusing of all, it has been stated here that:

Besides, the partners are not entirely free of blame, many of us have recognized Gateway as useless boondoggle from a mile away and said so from the beginning. ESA could have structured their participation in more meaningful ways such as providing cargo landers or surface payloads.

To that statement, I responded that it sounds great to me, but that for that to happen, NASA would have to be able to put astronauts on the lunar surface, which is not at all clear given the current trend, which is betting everything on Starship and leaving aside everything that already works.

I'm familiar with the Argonaut program. The point is that Argonaut made some sense before, when NASA seemed feasible to take astronauts to the Moon, whereas with the new proposals, it's unclear whether that will happen or, if so, when. Argonaut doesn't make sense for ESA without NASA boots on the ground, nor can it evolve into a Gateway -surface system, without a Gateway.

The surface payload doesn't have to be dependent on crew, there're a lot of things people want to do on the Moon that doesn't require crew presence but could contribute to future crew activities. For example prospecting for water, testing ISRU, etc.

Me: as I've already said, ESA will not have a lunar surface payload program until NASA demonstrates its capability to land astronauts there.

And, on the other hand, I have argued that Europe has never been truly interested in conducting science on the lunar surface, as I have demonstrated by not only not having approved probes for this purpose, but also by not having reached the final decision-making stages for M-type probes, for example.

[pochimax]

Europe, on its own, doesn't care about the Moon.

Well if you don't care about the Moon, why are you upset that some Moon hardware get cancelled?

You misunderstood.

The Moon has never been a major scientific priority for ESA.
However, and very surprisingly, European countries did agree, or even showed more enthusiasm than usual, in favor of a manned lunar program. First to lunar orbit, presumably later to the surface.

As a result of this situation, NASA has made requests to ESA, with the ESM modules and Gateway modules. Many of these agreements are well advanced, ESA has fulfilled its obligations very well, and the hardware is beginning to accumulate in Europe.
However, now, NASA unilaterally decides that none of this makes sense, and on top of that, the argument here is that the Europeans are also to blame?

[Robotbeat]

Moon isn’t a scientific priority for the US, either.


But yeah, we all know that international cooperation is often used as a trick to try to force different mission elements to continue in spite of changing priorities from the US.

[hektor]

Europe, on its own, doesn't care about the Moon.

Well if you don't care about the Moon, why are you upset that some Moon hardware get cancelled?

You misunderstood.

The Moon has never been a major scientific priority for ESA.
However, and very surprisingly, European countries did agree, or even showed more enthusiasm than usual, in favor of a manned lunar program. First to lunar orbit, presumably later to the surface.

As a result of this situation, NASA has made requests to ESA, with the ESM modules and Gateway modules. Many of these agreements are well advanced, ESA has fulfilled its obligations very well, and the hardware is beginning to accumulate in Europe.
However, now, NASA unilaterally decides that none of this makes sense, and on top of that, the argument here is that the Europeans are also to blame?

Totally wrong. Moon is a priority for ESA as stated in the Explore 2040 plan. I provided the strategic plan so please read it instead of spreadng nonsense. Argonaut will happen and continue whatever NASA does, why do you think you can speak for ESA ?

[pochimax]

Moon isn’t a scientific priority for the US, either.

Well,... but NASA has CLPS and has or had VIPER, for example.

[pochimax]

Totally wrong. Moon is a priority for ESA as stated in the Explore 2040 plan. I provided the strategic plan so please read it instead of spreadng nonsense. Argonaut will happen and continue whatever NASA does, why do you think you can speak for ESA ?

How will NASA's budget affect that 2040 program if the budget is implemented as planned? Do you think Argonaut will go ahead at the November meeting, as planned? Or perhaps without the Gateway, without ESMs, and with a very complex NASA lunar lander, the project will be canceled or will it simply advance at a slower pace, waiting for events to actually unfold?

On the other hand, you know that ESA has chosen its priority scientific objectives within the Voyage 2050 program, and that the Moon doesn't appear among them. Even among the finalists for the next M mission call, there are no lunar missions planned.

Don't you think all this data fits with my opinion that the Moon is not a scientific priority for ESA, within the robotic missions section?

I agree that for ESA, the manned lunar program was important. What will become of this entire program and subsequent developments if NASA unilaterally cancels everything we've been working on together over the years?

In conclusion, I believe that the idea put forward by some commentators here that ESA should never have participated in the Gateway programme and should have opted for a surface science probe programme does not hold water.