Author Topic: Gateway Discussion Thread  (Read 48866 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15305
  • Liked: 5748
  • Likes Given: 2549
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #180 on: 05/02/2022 08:46 pm »
This is strangely enough related to Gateway:
https://twitter.com/ninjaneergirl/status/1521140828759986177

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1051
  • USA
  • Liked: 924
  • Likes Given: 1295
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #181 on: 05/03/2022 02:23 pm »
This is strangely enough related to Gateway:
https://twitter.com/ninjaneergirl/status/1521140828759986177
Are they positioning the mounties to become the galactic police?

Offline yg1968

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

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
  • Liked: 3212
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #183 on: 05/23/2022 09:14 pm »
https://twitter.com/JimFree/status/1528824091360350216

Quote
When we looked for the proper orbit for @NASA_Gateway, we were fortunate to have options. We could go high or low, but what if we could have the best of both, where we had both easy surface access and fuel efficiency? Enter the near-rectilinear halo orbit...

Misleading again from Free.  A low lunar orbit was never an option.  Orion lacks the dV.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15305
  • Liked: 5748
  • Likes Given: 2549
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #184 on: 05/24/2022 12:21 am »
I think that NASA's argument is that they didn't want to put Gateway in LLO anyways because it would require too much propellant to maintain it there.

Quote from: NASA
A spacecraft in low lunar orbit follows a circular or elliptical path very close to the lunar surface, completing an orbit every two hours. Transit between Gateway and the lunar surface would be quite simple in a low lunar orbit given their proximity, but because of the Moon’s gravity, more propellant is required to maintain the orbit. Therefore, low lunar orbit is not very efficient for Gateway’s planned long-term presence at the Moon – at least 15 years.
« Last Edit: 05/24/2022 12:23 am by yg1968 »

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
  • Liked: 3212
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #185 on: 05/24/2022 11:51 pm »
I think that NASA's argument is that they didn't want to put Gateway in LLO anyways because it would require too much propellant to maintain it there.

The mascon issue becomes negligible above 100km, vice the 3000km to 70000km Gateway altitude on its NRHO.  Even below 100km, there are frozen lunar orbits at four inclinations where mascon and other effects cancel each other out.  IIRC, there is even one around 85 degrees that passes over the poles.

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3090
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2174
  • Likes Given: 1805
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #186 on: 05/25/2022 04:58 am »
I think that NASA's argument is that they didn't want to put Gateway in LLO anyways because it would require too much propellant to maintain it there.
The mascon issue becomes negligible above 100km, vice the 3000km to 70000km Gateway altitude on its NRHO.  Even below 100km, there are frozen lunar orbits at four inclinations where mascon and other effects cancel each other out.  IIRC, there is even one around 85 degrees that passes over the poles.

And before we reflexively go through the predictable next objections in this oft-repeated chain, let's jump straight to the predictable responses: No, communications wasn't the issue either. The cost of a relay sat or two in the same orbit as the station would be trivial on the scale of the rest of Artemis, and would be more useful for other surface instruments. And no, it isn't emergency return-to-station, because a lower orbit would be so much easier for ascent stages that there'd be more capacity for fast return.

(Can't remember the next step in the chain.)
Huh. Ironically, the aim of utilising cheap-launch is to make launch costs significant again.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5812
  • Liked: 8329
  • Likes Given: 786
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #187 on: 06/30/2022 03:19 am »
https://twitter.com/RussianSpaceWeb/status/1542120761611231234

Quote
What struck me most about this strange presentation of the Lunar Gateway is that Northrop Grumman decided to copy my rendering of an internal Russian lunar lander concept that I created for Popular Mechanics around 2015. Try find differences: https://russianspaceweb.com/lvpk.html

Online redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2389
  • Arizona USA
  • Liked: 607
  • Likes Given: 90
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #188 on: 07/05/2022 07:04 pm »
The Capstone mission might be in jeopardy after launch.  Communication died not long after separating from its launcher.  I hope for the best, but I bring this up here because the mission was largely meant to test the orbit Gateway might occupy.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Online Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4249
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1266
  • Likes Given: 1132
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #189 on: 07/07/2022 10:59 pm »
The Capstone mission might be in jeopardy after launch.  Communication died not long after separating from its launcher.  I hope for the best, but I bring this up here because the mission was largely meant to test the orbit Gateway might occupy.
Update for CAPSTONE. Apparently communication is restored, although the cause of the outage hasn't been determined yet.

Offline Kiwi53

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #190 on: 07/11/2022 10:40 pm »
The Capstone mission might be in jeopardy after launch.  Communication died not long after separating from its launcher.  I hope for the best, but I bring this up here because the mission was largely meant to test the orbit Gateway might occupy.
Update for CAPSTONE. Apparently communication is restored, although the cause of the outage hasn't been determined yet.

The cause was established on 7th July, see https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50152.msg2384072#msg2384072
Quote
the spacecraft operations team attempted to access diagnostic data on the spacecraft’s radio and sent an improperly formatted command that made the radio inoperable. The spacecraft fault detection system should have immediately rebooted the radio but did not because of a fault in the spacecraft flight software.
CAPSTONE’s autonomous flight software system eventually cleared the fault and brought the spacecraft back into communication with the ground, allowing the team to implement recovery procedures and begin commanding the spacecraft again. 

Offline eeergo

Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #191 on: 07/19/2022 08:47 pm »
Another day at the office, this time looking at the structure for HALO getting welded with NASA's Jim Free, including a look through the CBM hatches... I've tapped it now a couple dozen times when clocking in every morning :)

https://mobile.twitter.com/NASA_Gateway/status/1549490404697014275


https://mobile.twitter.com/JimFree/status/1549460016402276353
« Last Edit: 07/19/2022 08:49 pm by eeergo »
-DaviD-

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7948
  • Liked: 3773
  • Likes Given: 746
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #192 on: 07/19/2022 09:28 pm »
Another day at the office, this time looking at the structure for HALO getting welded with NASA's Jim Free, including a look through the CBM hatches... I've tapped it now a couple dozen times when clocking in every morning :)

https://mobile.twitter.com/NASA_Gateway/status/1549490404697014275


https://mobile.twitter.com/JimFree/status/1549460016402276353
Scaled down CBM tunnel taken from Cygnus hatch dimensions for IDSS compliant NDS docking/GERS active-active Robotic berthing. NDS will be bolted on after module  ground outfitting and potentially welded for increased module lifetime (depends on decision during the next DAC).
« Last Edit: 07/19/2022 09:37 pm by russianhalo117 »

Offline pochimax

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • spain
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #193 on: 07/22/2022 09:43 am »
Another day at the office, this time looking at the structure for HALO getting welded with NASA's Jim Free, including a look through the CBM hatches... I've tapped it now a couple dozen times when clocking in every morning :)

So, what is this? I thought this was HALO module. Is that a Cygnus, instead? This tweet is unclear.

"...mostrandogli i primi elementi del futuro ecosistema #lunare."

https://twitter.com/Thales_Alenia_S/status/1547516628874760194

Is it possible this other images are from i-Hab, instead of HALO?

"...as I-HAB’s structure takes shape."

https://twitter.com/JimFree/status/1549460359387365377

Thanks

« Last Edit: 07/22/2022 09:47 am by pochimax »

Offline ar1978

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #194 on: 07/26/2022 07:06 pm »
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/26/world/russia-quit-iss-scn/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/26/world/russia-quit-iss-scn/index.html



Given the news today of the Russians leaving the ISS and the more recent articles stating that an ISS replacement won't be ready by 2030, would it be time to re-evaluate whether the Lunar Gateway in a NRHO orbit makes sense?

Instead could you just put it into LEO, and have it be a staging point for Lunar missions from there? That way we could use the Crew Dragon and Starliner to get astronauts there. I searched around on this forum before asking this and a lot of the posts on the Gateway are hostile. Also included a link to a debate b/w Robert Zubrin and Greg Autry which is an interesting watch. I'm just wondering the Gateway in LEO if this is a viable alternative or if keeping it in NHRO is still a better option. Or would another option be to just ad more modules to the Gateway in NRHO and have people there full time starting around 2030 when the ISS reaches its end of life?

« Last Edit: 07/26/2022 07:15 pm by ar1978 »

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35697
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19844
  • Likes Given: 10351
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #195 on: 07/26/2022 07:48 pm »
I’d rather be stuck in lunar orbit than LEO again.
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 yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15305
  • Liked: 5748
  • Likes Given: 2549
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #196 on: 07/26/2022 07:57 pm »
Given the news today of the Russians leaving the ISS and the more recent articles stating that an ISS replacement won't be ready by 2030, would it be time to re-evaluate whether the Lunar Gateway in a NRHO orbit makes sense?

Instead could you just put it into LEO, and have it be a staging point for Lunar missions from there? That way we could use the Crew Dragon and Starliner to get astronauts there. I searched around on this forum before asking this and a lot of the posts on the Gateway are hostile. Also included a link to a debate b/w Robert Zubrin and Greg Autry which is an interesting watch. I'm just wondering the Gateway in LEO if this is a viable alternative or if keeping it in NHRO is still a better option. Or would another option be to just ad more modules to the Gateway in NRHO and have people there full time starting around 2030 when the ISS reaches its end of life?

The Russians say that they are leaving ISS after 2024. Jeff Foust says that the after in this sentence is key here, it may not be in 2024.

In any event, it would make more sense to accelerate the Commercial Lunar Destinations program than use Gateway.

Offline jstrotha0975

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 416
  • United States
  • Liked: 256
  • Likes Given: 1960
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #197 on: 07/26/2022 08:23 pm »
One of these decades NASA is going to have to learn how to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.

Offline shintoo

  • Member
  • Posts: 43
  • Kennedy Space Center, FL
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 380
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #198 on: 07/26/2022 10:21 pm »
Gateway assembly animation newly uploaded to the NASA Johnson YouTube channel. Shows PPE+Halo arrival, Orion delivering I-Hab, ESPRIT, and airlock, and multiple HLS and GLS dockings, including one delivering Canadarm3.

(2m49s)
« Last Edit: 07/28/2022 02:30 pm by shintoo »

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2451
  • California
  • Liked: 1883
  • Likes Given: 732
Re: Gateway Discussion Thread
« Reply #199 on: 07/27/2022 04:25 pm »

Given the news today of the Russians leaving the ISS and the more recent articles stating that an ISS replacement won't be ready by 2030, would it be time to re-evaluate whether the Lunar Gateway in a NRHO orbit makes sense?

Instead could you just put it into LEO, and have it be a staging point for Lunar missions from there? That way we could use the Crew Dragon and Starliner to get astronauts there. I searched around on this forum before asking this and a lot of the posts on the Gateway are hostile. Also included a link to a debate b/w Robert Zubrin and Greg Autry which is an interesting watch. I'm just wondering the Gateway in LEO if this is a viable alternative or if keeping it in NHRO is still a better option. Or would another option be to just ad more modules to the Gateway in NRHO and have people there full time starting around 2030 when the ISS reaches its end of life?
Welcome to the forum. I see you are new here. A brief, cynical, incomplete, and  biased history:
Gateway is part of the Artemis program. Artemis is a fairly late iteration of a series of programs intended to provide job security for the work that started with the Space shuttle program. The US congress mandated that SLS be built to use parts from the Space Shuttle system. SLS needed a destination, and after several earlier ideas, the programs evolve to make Lunar gateway the destination for SLS/Orion. It is needed because SLS/Orion cannot actually land a crew on the Moon, or even get a crew to a low lunar orbit, so Gateway is the place where crew will transfer to the HLS. In the mean time, the components of what became Gateway are repurposed from several other cancelled programs.

If NASA transferred crew to HLS in LEO, then SLS, Orion, and Gateway would not be needed, and this wrecks the ongoing job security program.

For further study, look at :
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program
and
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Gateway
As always with Wikipedia (or any other information source), check the references, but I think the articles are reasonably balanced.

Tags:
 

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