Author Topic: Gateway Discussion Thread  (Read 49029 times)

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7948
  • Liked: 3771
  • Likes Given: 746
Gateway Discussion Thread
« on: 09/01/2020 05:57 pm »
Russia all but withdraws from NASA-led Gateway (Subscription required): http://russianspaceweb.com/protected/imp-2020.html#0831

Summary: US Congress apparently forces NASA's hand regarding ROSCOSMOS involvement in Gateway programme.

Mods if not in the correct place please relocate.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35721
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19878
  • Likes Given: 10362
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #1 on: 09/02/2020 12:28 am »
It's sad, really.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline lrk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 693
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 498
  • Likes Given: 1020
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #2 on: 09/03/2020 10:42 pm »
Russia all but withdraws from NASA-led Gateway (Subscription required): http://russianspaceweb.com/protected/imp-2020.html#0831

Summary: US Congress apparently forces NASA's hand regarding ROSCOSMOS involvement in Gateway programme.

Mods if not in the correct place please relocate.

That page asks me to sign in.  Any more details possible? 

If Russia will no longer be providing an airlock, then who will? 

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15308
  • Liked: 5750
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #3 on: 09/03/2020 11:21 pm »
« Last Edit: 09/03/2020 11:22 pm by yg1968 »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7948
  • Liked: 3771
  • Likes Given: 746
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #4 on: 09/04/2020 12:52 am »
It's probably based on what Rogozin said in August:

https://www.urdupoint.com/en/technology/russia-not-planning-on-participating-in-us-lu-995656.html
Nope based on a May 16th statement that is not from Rogozin and is confirmed via independent sources within the industry. The Russian government has yet to officially withdraw in writing but as a result to the US providing cold hands Russia hasn't attended any meetings or conferences since the conclusion of IAC-3.


Further discussions need to move to the discussions thread as this appears to be an updates only thread.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15308
  • Liked: 5750
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #5 on: 09/05/2020 03:59 am »
I am not aware of any actions by Congress that prevent cooperation with Russia in respect of Gateway or Artemis. I am not sure what you mean by NASA giving the cold shoulder to Russia.

It is difficult for the U.S. to cooperate with China because of the Wolf amendment but that is a different story.
« Last Edit: 09/05/2020 04:15 am by yg1968 »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7948
  • Liked: 3771
  • Likes Given: 746
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #6 on: 09/05/2020 04:36 am »
Since there is an Updates only thread and I can't locate the corresponding discussions thread here is the first Artemis Gateway Station Specific Discussion Thread.

Thread Rules:
1) Blatant Politics are off limits as such only brief references may be cited with no further comment and reply.
2) Unwarranted rocket comparisons and mine is better than yours and here why insults are unwelcome as they are off topic.
3) Off topicness is not allowed.
4) All posters should stay classy and polite to one another.
5) further rules may be imposed by mods inline with forums rules.
 
For Updates visit the Gateway Updates Thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51452.0
« Last Edit: 09/05/2020 04:23 pm by russianhalo117 »

Offline klod

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 418
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #7 on: 09/05/2020 08:27 am »
Russia withdraw from this project by themselves.

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1776
  • Liked: 1155
  • Likes Given: 2283
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #8 on: 09/05/2020 11:42 am »
Maybe - all the Gateway studies done since June 1999 - damn, 21 years ago ? Some years ago I packed my HD with a load of that stuff.


Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7948
  • Liked: 3771
  • Likes Given: 746
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #9 on: 09/05/2020 04:24 pm »
Since there is an Updates only thread and I can't locate the corresponding discussions thread here is the first non-Artemis Gateway Station Specific Discussion Thread.

In the quote above I changed to bold face a portion of the post that might benefit from some clarification. What is a "non-Artemis Gateway?"
typo

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11327
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 14990
  • Likes Given: 9182
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #10 on: 09/05/2020 07:06 pm »
I am not aware of any actions by Congress that prevent cooperation with Russia in respect of Gateway or Artemis. I am not sure what you mean by NASA giving the cold shoulder to Russia.

It is difficult for the U.S. to cooperate with China because of the Wolf amendment but that is a different story.

Emphasis mine. Two things that are considered "a cold shoulder" by the Russians:

1. Contents of the Artemis accords. That is a MAJOR mistake by NASA there. You do NOT prescribe to the Russians how they should act morally.
2. Russia was allowed to build an airlock. I mean: seriously? Just an airlock? Nothing else? That is very much a less than nice way to acknowledge the Russians for their critical contribution to the ISS.

I can very much understand why the Russians are less than enthusiastic about Gateway as it is proposed now.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7948
  • Liked: 3771
  • Likes Given: 746
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #11 on: 09/05/2020 08:25 pm »
I am not aware of any actions by Congress that prevent cooperation with Russia in respect of Gateway or Artemis. I am not sure what you mean by NASA giving the cold shoulder to Russia.

It is difficult for the U.S. to cooperate with China because of the Wolf amendment but that is a different story.

Emphasis mine. Two things that are considered "a cold shoulder" by the Russians:

1. Contents of the Artemis accords. That is a MAJOR mistake by NASA there. You do NOT prescribe to the Russians how they should act morally.
2. Russia was allowed to build an airlock. I mean: seriously? Just an airlock? Nothing else? That is very much a less than nice way to acknowledge the Russians for their critical contribution to the ISS.

I can very much understand why the Russians are less than enthusiastic about Gateway as it is proposed now.
Discussion thread this thread is an updates only thread

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51878.0

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15308
  • Liked: 5750
  • Likes Given: 2553
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #12 on: 09/05/2020 09:06 pm »
I am not aware of any actions by Congress that prevent cooperation with Russia in respect of Gateway or Artemis. I am not sure what you mean by NASA giving the cold shoulder to Russia.

It is difficult for the U.S. to cooperate with China because of the Wolf amendment but that is a different story.

Emphasis mine. Two things that are considered "a cold shoulder" by the Russians:

1. Contents of the Artemis accords. That is a MAJOR mistake by NASA there. You do NOT prescribe to the Russians how they should act morally.
2. Russia was allowed to build an airlock. I mean: seriously? Just an airlock? Nothing else? That is very much a less than nice way to acknowledge the Russians for their critical contribution to the ISS.

I can very much understand why the Russians are less than enthusiastic about Gateway as it is proposed now.

1. Most of the Artemis Accords simply repeats what is contained in other international agreements. Even China agrees with most of the content in the Artemis Accords. Although I don't expect China to be part of the Artemis Accords because of the Wolf amendment and other political reasons.

2. The Gateway is not that important anyways, what is more important is what you build on the Moon and Mars. Russia's commitments must be proportional to its current budget, which is now roughly the same as JAXA's budget.
« Last Edit: 09/05/2020 09:58 pm by yg1968 »

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5824
  • Liked: 8348
  • Likes Given: 793
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #13 on: 09/06/2020 04:01 am »
I am not aware of any actions by Congress that prevent cooperation with Russia in respect of Gateway or Artemis. I am not sure what you mean by NASA giving the cold shoulder to Russia.

It is difficult for the U.S. to cooperate with China because of the Wolf amendment but that is a different story.

Emphasis mine. Two things that are considered "a cold shoulder" by the Russians:

1. Contents of the Artemis accords. That is a MAJOR mistake by NASA there. You do NOT prescribe to the Russians how they should act morally.
2. Russia was allowed to build an airlock. I mean: seriously? Just an airlock? Nothing else? That is very much a less than nice way to acknowledge the Russians for their critical contribution to the ISS.

I can very much understand why the Russians are less than enthusiastic about Gateway as it is proposed now.

1. But Gateway is not governed by Artemis Accords, it's governed by the same inter-governmental agreement as ISS

2. If Russia wants to build a battlestar galactica module for Gateway, I don't see why NASA would object, the question is can they do it?

Offline jadebenn

  • Professional Lurker
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1046
  • Orbiting the Mun
  • Liked: 1025
  • Likes Given: 2902
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #14 on: 09/06/2020 06:40 am »
2. If Russia wants to build a battlestar galactica module for Gateway, I don't see why NASA would object, the question is can they do it?
This. Russia had a privileged position in the ISS coalition because brought a lot to the table. The same can't really be said of Gateway. They don't have unique capabilities, hardware, or experience, and they don't have the financial largess of the US.

Personally, it sounds to me like Russia wanted to be treated as a first-tier partner when they had second-tier capabilities, and got upset when the US called them out on it. I don't think being on the same level as JAXA or the ESA is a bad thing, but perhaps it wounded their pride.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2020 06:41 am by jadebenn »

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8111
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 4784
  • Likes Given: 41109
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #15 on: 09/06/2020 05:57 pm »
Moderator: I moved some posts from the update thread to this discussion thread.  Carry on!
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.)
My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!"

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2054
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1668
  • Likes Given: 916
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #16 on: 09/06/2020 06:13 pm »
2. If Russia wants to build a battlestar galactica module for Gateway, I don't see why NASA would object, the question is can they do it?
This. Russia had a privileged position in the ISS coalition because brought a lot to the table. The same can't really be said of Gateway. They don't have unique capabilities, hardware, or experience, and they don't have the financial largess of the US.

Personally, it sounds to me like Russia wanted to be treated as a first-tier partner when they had second-tier capabilities, and got upset when the US called them out on it. I don't think being on the same level as JAXA or the ESA is a bad thing, but perhaps it wounded their pride.
I think this is the most likely closest to the truth.  It also might be possible they don't have the budget to even build the airlock.  Exiting might be their way of saving face.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11327
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 14990
  • Likes Given: 9182
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #17 on: 09/07/2020 12:00 pm »
I am not aware of any actions by Congress that prevent cooperation with Russia in respect of Gateway or Artemis. I am not sure what you mean by NASA giving the cold shoulder to Russia.

It is difficult for the U.S. to cooperate with China because of the Wolf amendment but that is a different story.

Emphasis mine. Two things that are considered "a cold shoulder" by the Russians:

1. Contents of the Artemis accords. That is a MAJOR mistake by NASA there. You do NOT prescribe to the Russians how they should act morally.
2. Russia was allowed to build an airlock. I mean: seriously? Just an airlock? Nothing else? That is very much a less than nice way to acknowledge the Russians for their critical contribution to the ISS.

I can very much understand why the Russians are less than enthusiastic about Gateway as it is proposed now.

1. But Gateway is not governed by Artemis Accords, it's governed by the same inter-governmental agreement as ISS
Ahem. Even NASA disagrees with you: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis-accords/index.html
Quote from: NASA
International space agencies that join NASA in the Artemis program will do so by executing bilateral Artemis Accords agreements.



2. If Russia wants to build a battlestar galactica module for Gateway, I don't see why NASA would object, the question is can they do it?
Russia being able or not, is not the thing at hand here. Countries are invited by NASA to join Artemis. And Russia being invited to build a mere airlock does not do justice (from the Russian perspective) to Russia's substantial achievements in manned spaceflight.
What particularly irks them is that ESA, which is much less experienced in building stuff for human spaceflight, is building more substantial elements of the Gateway.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11327
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 14990
  • Likes Given: 9182
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #18 on: 09/07/2020 12:10 pm »
2. If Russia wants to build a battlestar galactica module for Gateway, I don't see why NASA would object, the question is can they do it?
This. Russia had a privileged position in the ISS coalition because brought a lot to the table. The same can't really be said of Gateway. They don't have unique capabilities, hardware, or experience, and they don't have the financial largess of the US.

Personally, it sounds to me like Russia wanted to be treated as a first-tier partner when they had second-tier capabilities, and got upset when the US called them out on it. I don't think being on the same level as JAXA or the ESA is a bad thing, but perhaps it wounded their pride.
I think this is the most likely closest to the truth.  It also might be possible they don't have the budget to even build the airlock.  Exiting might be their way of saving face.

Emphasis mine.

It is not NASA's job to determine whether the Russians have the budget or not. You see, Russia also supposedly didn't have the budget to get Zvezda into orbit, let alone support the early ISS with Progress flights. Yet NASA still asked them to have Zvezda become the cornerstone of the ISS. Don't forget: without Zvezda there is no ISS. It fullfills critical functions that are not present in the US section of the ISS.

But now NASA has relegated one of their most trusted partners in the ISS to a supporting role in Artemis. You bet that Russian pride was hurt when NASA did that. "America First" at its worst. NASA cannot do Artemis on its own and needs international partners to share the cost. Yet NASA won't forget to rub it in that Artemis is first and foremost an American endeavour (despite apparently needing international partners).
« Last Edit: 09/07/2020 12:12 pm by woods170 »

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2307
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #19 on: 09/07/2020 03:44 pm »
NASA cannot do Artemis on its own and needs international partners to share the cost.

Sort of. The biggest contribution is the European Service Module, which NASA is actually paying for. The airlock, we don't actually need as the ascent module provides for EVA intrinsically. Then you have the canadarm and I-HAB, which frankly wouldn't be that difficult to get by without and/or replace.

Mainly it comes down to we want to partner with countries so they don't partner with others. This sucks up their limited budgets and helps them fulfill whatever aspirations they might have, so they aren't forced/coaxed into partnerships with some countries we will rather not progress (the same logic applied to buying RD-180 engines from Russia) under potential technology sharing agreements that could apply to their military.

But I wouldn't misjudge that as the inability to go it alone. Russia pulling out doesn't kill Artemis, not even close. What does worry us is Russia replacing the Artemis partnership with a partnership with China. But stopping that partnership may not be within our agency to stop. So be it.
« Last Edit: 09/07/2020 04:16 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0