“It would include a power and propulsion bus and a habitat, and would incorporate a logistics strategy that could involve cargo resupply or crew transportation flights by industry or international partners, such as what is done now for the ISS.”
The 'killer app' for the DSG is sending people to Mars on the Deep Space Transport.
IMHO The DSG day job will be sending people and cargo to the lunar surface. Reusable lunar landers will need to be parked and refuelled somewhere between missions.
Reusable LEO to DSG and back transfer vehicles will be useful. SEP for cargo and chemical rocket engines for people. Providing the LEO spacestation, DSG and transfer vehicle have NASA Docking Ports then NASA can simply buy tickets for the 3-4 day journey rather than pay for the vehicle's development.
All great stuff, but we shouldn't conflate personal desire with U.S. Government needs - because the USG doesn't have a current "need" to do any of that (as defined by USG policy and funding).One way to look at the situation with the DSG/DST is whether this proposal would have been made regardless if the SLS & Orion existed or not? In other words, is the goal what's important, of the use of the SLS & Orion? And would the U.S. Government be willing to give up the SLS and Orion in order to pursue the DSG/DST effort if needed?
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 06/09/2017 10:29 pmThe 'killer app' for the DSG is sending people to Mars on the Deep Space Transport.OK. Although at the funding level NASA has today industry experts don't think NASA will ever get to Mars, so at best this is a use case that is far in the future. Something more near-term is needed...QuoteIMHO The DSG day job will be sending people and cargo to the lunar surface. Reusable lunar landers will need to be parked and refuelled somewhere between missions.OK. So the near-term "killer app" for the Deep Space Gateway is a U.S. Government program to return humans to the surface of the Moon? Why hasn't this been made an explicit goal then?{snip}
I don't generally like to rain on space parades, and mods can pull this if they think it doesn't belong. I just feel this entire direction is a waste of time and money, it isn't going to get us to Mars, at least not anytime soon, and wouldn't even do that much to facilitate a moon base or missions that can't be done in other ways. I have trouble seeing the advantages, all this does is add another layer of unnecessary complexity. It sounds like something created to eat budgets. Sorry to be cynical.
Quote from: northenarc on 06/10/2017 02:16 am I don't generally like to rain on space parades, and mods can pull this if they think it doesn't belong. I just feel this entire direction is a waste of time and money, it isn't going to get us to Mars, at least not anytime soon, and wouldn't even do that much to facilitate a moon base or missions that can't be done in other ways. I have trouble seeing the advantages, all this does is add another layer of unnecessary complexity. It sounds like something created to eat budgets. Sorry to be cynical. NASA has a long term problem. It takes about a decade to develop a major machine. Unlike the Apollo days it can only afford to develop one major machine at a time. Going to Mars will require several new machines. It has chosen to work on an important component - long term life support. ECLSS are needed in capsules, transfer vehicles, spacestations, landers, spacesuits, planetary buildings and manned rovers. It has decided to flight test the ECLSS in a spacestation's habitat.
I do not deny your points, NASA is doing the best they feel they can with the current circumstances, doing something different with the same money might well require unpopular things. We can blame the last decade of conflicted and uncertain direction from all quarters for the current state of affairs. I think a small lunar base would better serve all of our long term exploration goals for getting to Mars, a cislunar stations' only advantage is not needing to be landed or landed at, we could always send out smaller modules for fueling if we decided to go that direction. And we really don't want to hire the military industrial complex as the only gas station for interplanetary missions, and it sounds like they'd love to have that monopoly.
I think a small lunar base would better serve all of our long term exploration goals for getting to Mars, a cislunar stations' only advantage is not needing to be landed or landed at, we could always send out smaller modules for fueling if we decided to go that direction. And we really don't want to hire the military industrial complex as the only gas station for interplanetary missions, and it sounds like they'd love to have that monopoly.
{snip}We also don't want to have the only gas station held by corporate space interests instead of the military industrial complex if thats what you're implying.
Finally content where I can use some of Nathan's amazing L2 renders on the DSG! ASAP being positive about something!https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/asap-nasas-dsg-stepping-stone-mars/
Quote from: northenarc on 06/10/2017 02:16 am I don't generally like to rain on space parades, and mods can pull this if they think it doesn't belong. I just feel this entire direction is a waste of time and money, it isn't going to get us to Mars, at least not anytime soon, and wouldn't even do that much to facilitate a moon base or missions that can't be done in other ways. I have trouble seeing the advantages, all this does is add another layer of unnecessary complexity. It sounds like something created to eat budgets. Sorry to be cynical.I disagree. Regardless of where we go, we need habitats. I don't think that we are going to Mars any time soon. So this is what we get in the mean time. But this has to be done cheaply. If it's expensive, I agree that it then becomes a distraction.
To quote the article "“In terms of basic functionality, the DSG is being planned to support multiple NASA, commercial, and international objectives,” added the overview. “It would be designed for the deep space environment and would support a crew of 4 for total mission durations of up to 42 days with the Orion vehicle attached."Please explain how is a 42 days ECLSS qualifies as long term life support?
Quote from: su27k on 06/10/2017 04:21 amTo quote the article "“In terms of basic functionality, the DSG is being planned to support multiple NASA, commercial, and international objectives,” added the overview. “It would be designed for the deep space environment and would support a crew of 4 for total mission durations of up to 42 days with the Orion vehicle attached."Please explain how is a 42 days ECLSS qualifies as long term life support?After 10 visits that is 10 * 42 = 420 days. More than a year.The ECLSS in capsules can be serviced every time they return to Earth but the DSG's ECLSS can only expect its consumables to be replaced. NASA hopes to use the same design of ECLSS on its Mars trips.