Author Topic: Gateway Discussion Thread  (Read 48865 times)

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11316
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 14973
  • Likes Given: 9159
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #160 on: 11/12/2021 08:54 am »
None of which answers Cohberg's original question.

But perhaps it suggests that the mystery module is a generic stand-in for something else, such as the proposed airlock module?

You're spot on.
See my reply #159 immediately above this one.
« Last Edit: 11/12/2021 11:15 am by woods170 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11316
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 14973
  • Likes Given: 9159
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #161 on: 11/12/2021 06:17 pm »
That is the newly proposed non-Russian docking-and-airlock module.

This is not the LEIA (Lightweight External Inflatable Airlock) inflatable concept, correct?
Any public literature about it?

(Assuming it is an airlock and iHab based)

I believe that iHab is still currently planned as a comanifest on Aremis 4 ($2+ billion launch cost). It is amazing to think that there are still people who think that its a good deal to pay another $2+ billion to ship an airlock (use the coupon code FREEORIONSHIPPING to also add transport for crew) when something starship sized / capable will be sitting right there docked to gateway. /s


Correct. This is not LEIA.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35965
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18346
  • Likes Given: 397
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #162 on: 11/12/2021 08:34 pm »

I believe that iHab is still currently planned as a comanifest on Aremis 4 ($2+ billion launch cost). It is amazing to think that there are still people who think that its a good deal to pay another $2+ billion to ship an airlock (use the coupon code FREEORIONSHIPPING to also add transport for crew) when something starship sized / capable will be sitting right there docked to gateway


A "cargo" Starship does not exist at this time
There is nothing to plan to for Starship.  What are the payload interfaces or accommodations?  What are the payload environments?
A launch site on the east coast is TBD. 

Offline fthomassy

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Austin, Texas, Earth, Sol, Orion, Milky-Way, Virgo, Bang 42
  • Liked: 170
  • Likes Given: 2934
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #163 on: 11/12/2021 09:15 pm »
NASA Johnson released some additional renders of gateway.

Love how the lander shown isn't the one actually selected.
No lander has been selected for the “sustainable” presence missions with Gateway. What you see is NASA reference HLS.
gyatm . . . Fern

Online AS_501

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 414
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #164 on: 11/12/2021 09:32 pm »
Several renders show modules with unused CBMs.  Is this done in accordance with proposed plans for expansion?  Or are CBMs provided even if there are no such plans?
Thx
Launches/Scrubs attended:  Apollo 11, ASTP*, STS-31**, STS-41G, STS-125, EFT-1 (*@KSC, not Baikonur! **scrub)
Notable Spacecraft Observed:  Echo 1, Skylab/S-II, Salyuts 6&7, Mir Core/Complete, HST, ISS Zarya/Present, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, Dragon Demo-2, Starlink G4-14 (8 hrs. post-launch)

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3090
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2174
  • Likes Given: 1805
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #165 on: 11/13/2021 11:31 am »
It is amazing to think that there are still people who think that its a good deal to pay another $2+ billion to ship an airlock [...] when something starship sized / capable will be sitting right there docked to gateway
A "cargo" Starship does not exist at this time

Cohberg was referring to the HLS-Starship, which is to be equipped with airlocks and up to four EVA suits, and docked with Gateway between missions.
Huh. Ironically, the aim of utilising cheap-launch is to make launch costs significant again.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2451
  • California
  • Liked: 1883
  • Likes Given: 732
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #166 on: 11/13/2021 02:35 pm »
It is amazing to think that there are still people who think that its a good deal to pay another $2+ billion to ship an airlock [...] when something starship sized / capable will be sitting right there docked to gateway
A "cargo" Starship does not exist at this time

Cohberg was referring to the HLS-Starship, which is to be equipped with airlocks and up to four EVA suits, and docked with Gateway between missions.
I have seen no indication that each Starship HLS will have more than a single mission. That would require refueling in NRHO, which has not been discussed. Did I miss something?  Of course, the nominal end-of-mission for the uncrewed Starship HLS will leave it in NRHO, so it will already be there when the Gateway components arrive or when the HLS and Orion for Artemis 3 arrive. If they keep it up, the HLSs will begin to stack up to form a very large Gateway, so I assume they will either land them on the Moon (if enough fuel) or crash them on the Moon.

Which is easier, sending fuel to NRHO, or sending the Starship HLS back to an Earth orbit for refueling?

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5061
  • Florida
  • Liked: 4594
  • Likes Given: 906
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #167 on: 11/13/2021 08:11 pm »
It is amazing to think that there are still people who think that its a good deal to pay another $2+ billion to ship an airlock [...] when something starship sized / capable will be sitting right there docked to gateway
A "cargo" Starship does not exist at this time

Cohberg was referring to the HLS-Starship, which is to be equipped with airlocks and up to four EVA suits, and docked with Gateway between missions.
I have seen no indication that each Starship HLS will have more than a single mission. That would require refueling in NRHO, which has not been discussed. Did I miss something?  Of course, the nominal end-of-mission for the uncrewed Starship HLS will leave it in NRHO, so it will already be there when the Gateway components arrive or when the HLS and Orion for Artemis 3 arrive. If they keep it up, the HLSs will begin to stack up to form a very large Gateway, so I assume they will either land them on the Moon (if enough fuel) or crash them on the Moon.

Which is easier, sending fuel to NRHO, or sending the Starship HLS back to an Earth orbit for refueling?
You need practically the same amount of prop for either round trip to surface and back or a return to LEO. So it does not matter other than to resupply the LSS (HLS) cargo and supplies such that the going back to LEO works out better. You need a Tanker to go to NRHO transfer prop and then do a hot direct reentry back to Earth. A Tanker can be sent to NRHO for which it would have ~400t of prop. Almost enough to fuel 2 LSS returns to LEO. Add a depot and the tanker arrives transfers it's excess prop and promptly returns. Such that for every 2 Tanker trips an LSS can do not only it's initial trip to the surface but a second one as well then fuel up for a return to LEO. Such that for overall costs are lowered by 25% per Lunar landing.

In the case where passengers ride to and from LEO in the LSS you would only need to decouple the on orbit refueling ops until such time they become ironed out from having humans onboard by having them wait in the Gateway while the LSS is refueling. There would be a lot of backup safty considerations in the operations so that the ability to get crews back to LEO is lower risk in that having 2 LSS at the Gateway. One refueled and ready to return to Earth and has been that way for the last 200 days. And the other that is returning from the surface, docks and transfers off it crews, then goes to the depot to fuel up, then returns back to the Gateway prior to the other LSS departure from the Gateway. In this way the Gateway continuous occupancy as well as 2 Surface landings a year can be supported with the same costs as that of just the surface Landings. It just needs the LSS to stay at or around the Moon, surface then at the Gateway, for 6 months to a year before returning to LEO. In 3 years 6 LSS trips from LEO and 4 Tanker's from Earth to the NRHO depot.

NOTE is that the above paragraph is highly speculative and may have very little to do with how things actually end up evolving. It is just to show how the effect of a NRHO depot could make on Gateway and surface ops.

Online Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4249
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1266
  • Likes Given: 1132
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #168 on: 11/14/2021 01:08 pm »
<snip>
I have seen no indication that each Starship HLS will have more than a single mission. That would require refueling in NRHO, which has not been discussed. Did I miss something?  Of course, the nominal end-of-mission for the uncrewed Starship HLS will leave it in NRHO, so it will already be there when the Gateway components arrive or when the HLS and Orion for Artemis 3 arrive. If they keep it up, the HLSs will begin to stack up to form a very large Gateway, so I assume they will either land them on the Moon (if enough fuel) or crash them on the Moon.

Which is easier, sending fuel to NRHO, or sending the Starship HLS back to an Earth orbit for refueling?


AIUI NASA is buying two HLS Moonship landing missions to the Lunar surface. The hardware stills belongs to SpaceX . Who might decide to continue operating the Moonships for paying customers.


In theory the HLS Moonship could be use as a space tug to transfer modules/cargo to various Lunar orbits from LEO. SpaceX might build additional variant Moonships without landing hardware for cislunar logistics (retiring the Falcon Heavy).


Eventually SpaceX will have propellant depots at the various cislunar destinations. Presuming there is customer demand.


Tanker Starships will be cheap and useful for testing hardware and operational techniques.


Offline ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 755
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Calhoun, LA
  • Liked: 1262
  • Likes Given: 318
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #169 on: 11/25/2021 03:39 pm »
My google-fu is lacking as I cannot find out the answer to this question....

Does anyone know the total wet weight of the PPE/HALO module?

Online Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31475
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 19699
  • Likes Given: 3248
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #170 on: 11/27/2021 06:09 am »
I don't believe that number has been published. Someone was estimating 12-13 t total mass in a reply to this Spacenews article [1], but I think that is too low. The PPE mass is 8.6 t [2]. I estimate an expendable FH can deliver 20.8 t to TLI. HALO is pretty large and could easily mass 9 t as well. So my guess is 18 t total.

[1] https://spacenews.com/nasa-issues-contract-to-northrop-grumman-for-gateway-module/
[2] https://www.americaspace.com/2021/03/31/maxar-busek-conclude-end-to-end-testing-of-sep-system-for-lunar-gateway-element/
« Last Edit: 11/27/2021 06:17 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline lykos

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Greece
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #171 on: 11/27/2021 01:02 pm »
HALO is directly based on Cygnus cargo module (weight 3.4 t), with some extras (docking port, batteries and others) maybe 4,5 - 5 t

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11316
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 14973
  • Likes Given: 9159
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #172 on: 11/27/2021 03:50 pm »
HALO is directly based on Cygnus cargo module (weight 3.4 t), with some extras (docking port, batteries and others) maybe 4,5 - 5 t
More like 7 t to 7.5 t with all the internal fittings.

Offline lrk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 692
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 1020
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #173 on: 11/29/2021 06:34 pm »
HALO is directly based on Cygnus cargo module (weight 3.4 t), with some extras (docking port, batteries and others) maybe 4,5 - 5 t

But also minus the solar arrays and propulsion systems.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15305
  • Liked: 5748
  • Likes Given: 2549

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15305
  • Liked: 5748
  • Likes Given: 2549
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #175 on: 03/23/2022 01:45 pm »
In his 2018 Space Symposium speech, VP Pence spoke about a fuel depot at Gateway. More specifically, he said the following at 17 minutes of the video:

Quote from: VP Pence
NASA will lead the way back to the Moon, starting with the construction of a lunar orbital platform, the Gateway, which will provide a scientific outpost/supply center and eventually a fuel depot and will give our nation a strategic presence in the lunar domain.

youtu.be/FoXdLGmf9-A

I wonder if that is still part of the plan. It should be, especially for the landers.
« Last Edit: 03/23/2022 01:46 pm by yg1968 »

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1051
  • USA
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 1295
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #176 on: 03/23/2022 03:38 pm »
I'm not a fan of the way some journalists push the gateway as being a waste. Yes, its not a full moon base, but it ignores the fact that a real moon base isn't gonna happen in the near future.

There are ZERO countries capable of doing this currently. Can it happen in the future?, sure eventually. Right now we have ZERO human landing capabilities on the moon and will probably only have 1 before the decade ends. However, human landing capabilities ARE NOT the same as base building capabilities (or the huge financial backing to do so).


The Gateway will stimulate Europe and Japan to develop the capabilities to LEAVE earth orbit and everything that goes along with it. While the Gateway is less sexy than a moonbase, its also alot more real.

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4793
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 2520
  • Likes Given: 3224
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #177 on: 03/23/2022 03:44 pm »
I'm not a fan of the way some journalists push the gateway as being a waste. Yes, its not a full moon base, but it ignores the fact that a real moon base isn't gonna happen in the near future.

There are ZERO countries capable of doing this currently. Can it happen in the future?, sure eventually. Right now we have ZERO human landing capabilities on the moon and will probably only have 1 before the decade ends. However, human landing capabilities ARE NOT the same as base building capabilities (or the huge financial backing to do so).


The Gateway will stimulate Europe and Japan to develop the capabilities to LEAVE earth orbit and everything that goes along with it. While the Gateway is less sexy than a moonbase, its also alot more real.

Having a deep space Space Station is cool in itself.  My take on the way NASA has been developing things since the Columbia disaster is they build a piece at a time.  Apollo they had the funds and mandate to do everything at once.

It took them decades to adapt to not having those funds, so now they have done Orion, then SLS, then Gateway, then HLS.  (excluding the fact that 10-20 years ago no one could have seen reuseable commercial rockets as a cheaper alternative).

Maybe the Gateway becomes a permanent fixture, maybe it's a step to a permanent base then abandoned.  Time will tell, but if it gets us beyond LEO, I support it.

I look forward to having crews orbiting the moon.
Superheavy + Starship the final push to launch commit!

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2526
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1410
  • Likes Given: 4962
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #178 on: 03/23/2022 04:42 pm »
I'm not a fan of the way some journalists push the gateway as being a waste. Yes, its not a full moon base, but it ignores the fact that a real moon base isn't gonna happen in the near future.

There are ZERO countries capable of doing this currently. Can it happen in the future?, sure eventually. Right now we have ZERO human landing capabilities on the moon and will probably only have 1 before the decade ends. However, human landing capabilities ARE NOT the same as base building capabilities (or the huge financial backing to do so).


The Gateway will stimulate Europe and Japan to develop the capabilities to LEAVE earth orbit and everything that goes along with it. While the Gateway is less sexy than a moonbase, its also alot more real.

Having a deep space Space Station is cool in itself.  My take on the way NASA has been developing things since the Columbia disaster is they build a piece at a time.  Apollo they had the funds and mandate to do everything at once.

It took them decades to adapt to not having those funds, so now they have done Orion, then SLS, then Gateway, then HLS.  (excluding the fact that 10-20 years ago no one could have seen reuseable commercial rockets as a cheaper alternative).

Maybe the Gateway becomes a permanent fixture, maybe it's a step to a permanent base then abandoned.  Time will tell, but if it gets us beyond LEO, I support it.

I look forward to having crews orbiting the moon.
10 years ago is 2012.
I want Gateway to stimulate Beyond Earth Orbit activities, just like NASA was and is selling, "Moon First" then......
Paul

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1051
  • USA
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 1295
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #179 on: 03/23/2022 05:22 pm »

10 years ago is 2012.
I want Gateway to stimulate Beyond Earth Orbit activities, just like NASA was and is selling, "Moon First" then......
honestly, thats all NASA can say until congress changes its tune. The cost to actually send people to Mars is SUPER high, and with things like SLS chained to NASA, they simply cannot afford it ever.

Tags:
 

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