Author Topic: Gateway Discussion Thread  (Read 48863 times)

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35697
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19844
  • Likes Given: 10351
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #200 on: 07/27/2022 05:27 pm »
Gateway is actually essentially a prototype of the Deep Space Transfer Vehicle.
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 deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1051
  • USA
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 1295
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #201 on: 07/27/2022 06:22 pm »
Gateway is actually essentially a prototype of the Deep Space Transfer Vehicle.
Gateway is many things, of which this is one.

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
  • Liked: 3212
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #202 on: 07/28/2022 12:21 am »
Gateway is actually essentially a prototype of the Deep Space Transfer Vehicle.

NASA has made statements to this effect, but itís really not.  Both the scale of the propulsion and the duration of astronaut stays are off by an order of magnitude (10x).  Itís like saying a riding lawnmower is a prototype for an SUV.  Just not true.

Offline shintoo

  • Member
  • Posts: 43
  • Kennedy Space Center, FL
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 380
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #203 on: 07/28/2022 12:41 am »
Regarding DST, I had always thought of Gateway more as "the place where maybe one day hopefully the DST could be assembled at". The only reason I can think of for DST being assembled at Gateway is that the space the DST elements provide there would be useful in the years building up to disembarking. It also lends itself to a shakedown cruise, and/or a Mars simulated mission using the DST at Gateway and a lunar surface sortie as a "pretend" Mars landing simulation.

It will be interesting to see the capabilities and intentions evolve over the years as deployment nears and construction progresses.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35697
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19844
  • Likes Given: 10351
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #204 on: 07/28/2022 02:43 pm »
Gateway is actually essentially a prototype of the Deep Space Transfer Vehicle.

NASA has made statements to this effect, but itís really not.  Both the scale of the propulsion and the duration of astronaut stays are off by an order of magnitude (10x).  Itís like saying a riding lawnmower is a prototype for an SUV.  Just not true.
Prototypes are often a pale shadow of what the final product would be, sometimes little more than a proof of concept. But it has everything the DST/MTV would have, just at smaller scale. Hence why I called it a prototype of DST, not a full up DST.

(IMHO, though, DST for Mars doesnít make senseÖ itís a bad architectureÖ but thatís another topic.)
« Last Edit: 07/28/2022 02:43 pm by Robotbeat »
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

Online VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
  • Liked: 3212
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #205 on: 07/28/2022 03:53 pm »
Prototypes are often a pale shadow of what the final product would be, sometimes little more than a proof of concept. But it has everything the DST/MTV would have, just at smaller scale. Hence why I called it a prototype of DST, not a full up DST.

Confuses prototyping with scale model testing.  Gateway is neither with respect to DST.  Itís not a scale model to put in a wind tunnel or other testing chamber.  And both its propulsion (6kW Hall thrusters) and its life support (60-day stays) are an order of magnitude or more smaller than what DST requires (~300kW propulsion and ~1000-day stays).

Gateway is to DST what early lawnmowers and motorbikes are to later automobile manufacturers.  Honda, for example, built motorized bicycles for a decade or two before they built cars, but Honda never prototyped a new line of cars by building a motorized bike.
« Last Edit: 07/28/2022 03:56 pm by VSECOTSPE »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7753
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 9040
  • Likes Given: 10811
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #206 on: 07/28/2022 04:01 pm »
Gateway is actually essentially a prototype of the Deep Space Transfer Vehicle.

NASA has made statements to this effect, but itís really not.  Both the scale of the propulsion and the duration of astronaut stays are off by an order of magnitude (10x).  Itís like saying a riding lawnmower is a prototype for an SUV.  Just not true.
Prototypes are often a pale shadow of what the final product would be, sometimes little more than a proof of concept. But it has everything the DST/MTV would have, just at smaller scale. Hence why I called it a prototype of DST, not a full up DST.

(IMHO, though, DST for Mars doesnít make senseÖ itís a bad architectureÖ but thatís another topic.)

In the world of manufacturing a prototype demonstrates the final product, but may not use the components the final product will have.

The Gateway can't demonstrate what a Deep Space Transfer Vehicle can do, either wholly or in part. Gateway is more of a scale model of what a DST needs to be, but even that would be a generous description...  ;)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline shintoo

  • Member
  • Posts: 43
  • Kennedy Space Center, FL
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 380
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #207 on: 07/28/2022 04:09 pm »
I think it's hard to say this early what aspects Gateway can prototype regarding DST, outside of the very little we already know. Technology is one thing, processes are another. For example, we haven't ever rehoused operational payloads from a station to a lander or surface hab. A crop growth rack on Gateway that's been operational for years - what is the process like transferring that to a permanent home on the surface?

When going to Mars, these payloads will either need to live their entire operational lives in the same vehicle, during transit and on the surface, or considerations will need to be made when designing and integrating their on-orbit/in-transit environments and their on-surface environments. For example, will our lander/surface hab have the same EXPRESS racks or analog used on Gateway? Resources available to payloads could change between those environments as well. All this is just scratching the surface, and can be ironed out with integrated Gateway + lunar surface missions.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35697
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19844
  • Likes Given: 10351
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #208 on: 07/28/2022 04:21 pm »
Gateway is actually essentially a prototype of the Deep Space Transfer Vehicle.

NASA has made statements to this effect, but itís really not.  Both the scale of the propulsion and the duration of astronaut stays are off by an order of magnitude (10x).  Itís like saying a riding lawnmower is a prototype for an SUV.  Just not true.
Prototypes are often a pale shadow of what the final product would be, sometimes little more than a proof of concept. But it has everything the DST/MTV would have, just at smaller scale. Hence why I called it a prototype of DST, not a full up DST.

(IMHO, though, DST for Mars doesnít make senseÖ itís a bad architectureÖ but thatís another topic.)

In the world of manufacturing a prototype demonstrates the final product, but may not use the components the final product will have.

The Gateway can't demonstrate what a Deep Space Transfer Vehicle can do, either wholly or in part. Gateway is more of a scale model of what a DST needs to be, but even that would be a generous description...  ;)
Nah, I know thereís a lot of hate for Gateway, but thatís just not true. It has high power electric propulsion, which I think has never been used on crewed vehicles before, and more than any other single vehicle. It will operate in deep space and will use that propulsion to move from Earth orbit to lunar orbit, demonstrating some of what the DST was supposed to do. Itíll be used as a basing point for landers, like what DST is supposed to do for Mars. It has habitation modules and will operate with human crew for moderate periods of time at first but could be more eventually (but what purpose would that serve, really, unless youíre doing a dry run for a Mars or asteroid mission?).

It actually is comparable to DST. The propulsion system is smaller, much smaller than pure SEP based DST, but about the same order of magnitude for the minimum size needed for a hybrid chemical/electric propulsion system (which has often been studied).

Itís just thatÖ thereís no real need for the job the DST does, at least for Mars. Thatís the main thing.
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

Online Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4249
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1266
  • Likes Given: 1132
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #209 on: 07/28/2022 07:06 pm »
<snip>
Itís just thatÖ thereís no real need for the job the DST does, at least for Mars. Thatís the main thing.
A full scale DST could do the job for a flag and footprint mission to Mars, if there was nothing better available. However there is something available.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7753
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 9040
  • Likes Given: 10811
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #210 on: 07/28/2022 08:59 pm »
In the world of manufacturing a prototype demonstrates the final product, but may not use the components the final product will have.

The Gateway can't demonstrate what a Deep Space Transfer Vehicle can do, either wholly or in part. Gateway is more of a scale model of what a DST needs to be, but even that would be a generous description...  ;)
Nah, I know thereís a lot of hate for Gateway, but thatís just not true. It has high power electric propulsion, which I think has never been used on crewed vehicles before, and more than any other single vehicle. It will operate in deep space and will use that propulsion to move from Earth orbit to lunar orbit, demonstrating some of what the DST was supposed to do. Itíll be used as a basing point for landers, like what DST is supposed to do for Mars. It has habitation modules and will operate with human crew for moderate periods of time at first but could be more eventually (but what purpose would that serve, really, unless youíre doing a dry run for a Mars or asteroid mission?).

It actually is comparable to DST. The propulsion system is smaller, much smaller than pure SEP based DST, but about the same order of magnitude for the minimum size needed for a hybrid chemical/electric propulsion system (which has often been studied).

Itís just thatÖ thereís no real need for the job the DST does, at least for Mars. Thatís the main thing.

Remember the Nautilus-X? The Non-Atmospheric Universal Transport Intended for Lengthy United States Exploration (Nautilus-X) was first proposed back in 2011, and its intent was to support long-duration space journeys (1 to 24 months) with a six-person crew.

Reusable, was projected to cost ~$4B back in 2011, and was an actual spaceship, not a repurposed space station.

Gateway may be a fine little space station, but let's not kid ourselves here, the Gateway is not breaking any ground for getting people to Mars.

And if the goal is to get to Mars, then NASA should focus on building an interplanetary spaceship, not a lunar space station. And any first generation interplanetary spaceship should start out making progressively longer and longer trips before taking off for distant destinations like Mars. Plus there should be more than one, ala like the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria.

NASA focusing on figuring out (again) how to get to the surface of our Moon is a fine goal, but it is COMPLETELY separate from a Journey To Mars. Especially since no journey to Mars is worthwhile until you can land, and return from Mars. We won't learn that on a lunar-focused program.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6433
  • ďWith peace and hope for all mankind.Ē
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1388
  • Likes Given: 1312
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #211 on: 07/28/2022 09:21 pm »
Gateway may be a fine little space station, but let's not kid ourselves here, the Gateway is not breaking any ground for getting people to Mars.

Gateway will provide an opportunity for long duration human spaceflight missions in deep space. That's not been accomplished before, and doing it is certainly a step on the way towards NASA's Mars ambitions.
ó 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 ó

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2319
  • Liked: 1515
  • Likes Given: 520
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #212 on: 07/28/2022 10:14 pm »
Gateway is actually essentially a prototype of the Deep Space Transfer Vehicle.
Lunar Gateway: Prototype for Mars Transfer Vehicle or New Purpose for Asteroid Redirect Spacecraft?

Maybe a little of both?

The PPE wasn't even powerful enough to accommodate HALO being co-manifested on its launch, requiring a significant redesign that's apparently ongoing and not without struggles. If this a prototype for an MTV spacecraft bus, it's a very very subscale prototype. Especially if the Mars lander is Starship-sized, the MTV would need some serious SEP muscle, probably not directly derived from PPE technology. We'd need something more like what Ad Astra is working on with the VASIMR plasma engine.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35697
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19844
  • Likes Given: 10351
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #213 on: 07/28/2022 10:31 pm »
The redirect craft was itself an iteration of the DST.
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

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35697
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19844
  • Likes Given: 10351
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #214 on: 07/28/2022 10:34 pm »
Gateway is actually essentially a prototype of the Deep Space Transfer Vehicle.
Lunar Gateway: Prototype for Mars Transfer Vehicle or New Purpose for Asteroid Redirect Spacecraft?

Maybe a little of both?

The PPE wasn't even powerful enough to accommodate HALO being co-manifested on its launch, requiring a significant redesign that's apparently ongoing and not without struggles. If this a prototype for an MTV spacecraft bus, it's a very very subscale prototype. Especially if the Mars lander is Starship-sized, the MTV would need some serious SEP muscle, probably not directly derived from PPE technology. We'd need something more like what Ad Astra is working on with the VASIMR plasma engine.
The step from uncrewed SEP systems to a full MTV SEP system was deemed one of the biggest technical risks for SEP MTV. The PPE is, from a logarithmic perspective, right in between a full SEP MTV and the previous robotic SEP systems.

VASIMR is a hype engine, and anyone in the electric propulsion field for more than a couple years thinks so. No, we need nothing like VASIMR.
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

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35697
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19844
  • Likes Given: 10351
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #215 on: 07/28/2022 10:36 pm »
In the world of manufacturing a prototype demonstrates the final product, but may not use the components the final product will have.

The Gateway can't demonstrate what a Deep Space Transfer Vehicle can do, either wholly or in part. Gateway is more of a scale model of what a DST needs to be, but even that would be a generous description...  ;)
Nah, I know there’s a lot of hate for Gateway, but that’s just not true. It has high power electric propulsion, which I think has never been used on crewed vehicles before, and more than any other single vehicle. It will operate in deep space and will use that propulsion to move from Earth orbit to lunar orbit, demonstrating some of what the DST was supposed to do. It’ll be used as a basing point for landers, like what DST is supposed to do for Mars. It has habitation modules and will operate with human crew for moderate periods of time at first but could be more eventually (but what purpose would that serve, really, unless you’re doing a dry run for a Mars or asteroid mission?).

It actually is comparable to DST. The propulsion system is smaller, much smaller than pure SEP based DST, but about the same order of magnitude for the minimum size needed for a hybrid chemical/electric propulsion system (which has often been studied).

It’s just that… there’s no real need for the job the DST does, at least for Mars. That’s the main thing.

Remember the Nautilus-X? The Non-Atmospheric Universal Transport Intended for Lengthy United States Exploration (Nautilus-X) was first proposed back in 2011, and its intent was to support long-duration space journeys (1 to 24 months) with a six-person crew.

Reusable, was projected to cost ~$4B back in 2011, and was an actual spaceship, not a repurposed space station.

Gateway may be a fine little space station, but let's not kid ourselves here, the Gateway is not breaking any ground for getting people to Mars.

And if the goal is to get to Mars, then NASA should focus on building an interplanetary spaceship, not a lunar space station. And any first generation interplanetary spaceship should start out making progressively longer and longer trips before taking off for distant destinations like Mars. Plus there should be more than one, ala like the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria.

NASA focusing on figuring out (again) how to get to the surface of our Moon is a fine goal, but it is COMPLETELY separate from a Journey To Mars. Especially since no journey to Mars is worthwhile until you can land, and return from Mars. We won't learn that on a lunar-focused program.
Nautilus X was a niche concept, not ever very serious. Look at DST or MTV concepts developed by NASA Langley for more serious designs. They’re somewhat similar to Gateway.

I think using a Mars Transfer Vehicle like that is an architecturally bad decision, tho.
« Last Edit: 07/28/2022 10:36 pm by Robotbeat »
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 Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7753
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 9040
  • Likes Given: 10811
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #216 on: 07/28/2022 10:45 pm »
Gateway may be a fine little space station, but let's not kid ourselves here, the Gateway is not breaking any ground for getting people to Mars.

Gateway will provide an opportunity for long duration human spaceflight missions in deep space.

How? It never leaves lunar orbit.

And we are already doing long-duration human spaceflight missions on the ISS (up to a year), whereas due to the limitation of the Artemis missions, the Gateway is not intended for full-time occupancy.

Quote
That's not been accomplished before...

Partial testing has been done on the ISS, and the Gateway is not going to exceed what the ISS testing has done.

Quote
...and doing it is certainly a step on the way towards NASA's Mars ambitions.

That is NASA PR, not reality. We won't be taking a step towards Mars until we leave Earth-local space - BEO (beyond Earth orbit).

Unless Gateway is going to be staffed for a year or more, and take a journey outside of Earth-local space, it is not doing anything important for getting humans to Mars. That doesn't mean its not a nice little space station, but it won't be "critical" for the journey to Mars. Heck, NASA can't even go to Mars for a long time since it is so focused on the Moon right now, and there is a good chance the return-to-Moon flights won't even get there till the end of this decade due to delays in a whole host of important hardware.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6433
  • ďWith peace and hope for all mankind.Ē
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1388
  • Likes Given: 1312
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #217 on: 07/28/2022 10:58 pm »
Gateway will provide an opportunity for long duration human spaceflight missions in deep space.

How? It never leaves lunar orbit.

And we are already doing long-duration human spaceflight missions on the ISS

Apparently I failed to emphasize the deep space part of my observation. LEO and beyond-LEO are very different environments. There's plenty of discussion of this here at NSF and at other reputable sites for anyone who cares to look.
ó 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 ó

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35697
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19844
  • Likes Given: 10351
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #218 on: 07/28/2022 11:19 pm »
There is no technical reason Gateway couldn’t host 6-12 month long human missions. It’d be cramped, potentially, but a small crew could be used. No different than stuff Salyut did.

But I don’t think it’s necessary.
« Last Edit: 07/29/2022 12:38 am by Robotbeat »
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 lykos

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • Greece
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #219 on: 07/30/2022 02:40 pm »
Exactly!
It won't be necessary at all!
There is nothing between earth, moon and mars what a Starship couldn't do better than any Gateway (or spaceship!)

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1