The planned Gateway lunar orbiting platform is critical for staging human explorationmissions to the lunar surface by 2024 as mandated by Vice President Pence, Chairman ofthe National Space Council. The Gateway platform will include a pressurized habitationmodule with environmental control and life support systems to house astronauts duringlunar missions. To accomplish a lunar landing, astronauts aboard an Orion Spacecraft willlaunch toward the moon on an SLS rocket, rendezvous with Gateway (with the MHM) in alunar orbit, and descend to the lunar surface via a crewed lander by 2024.In order to meet NASA’s 2024 human lunar landing deadline, NASA examined the existingNextSTEP-2 contractors’ concepts for deep space habitation modules. As stated in thesynopsis (80JSC019GTWYHAB), not all contractors currently performing services via theNextSTEP-2 BAA Appendix A, would be selected to receive an award for this next phaseand additional phases. Each contractor's proposed approach, progress, and capabilities werereviewed and assessed by NASA for potential use as a MHM. In order to meet the GatewayProgram’s schedule and support the Vice President’s 2024 human lunar landing mandate,NASA determined it was necessary to continue to work with NGIS for these highlyspecialized services. NGIS was the only NextSTEP-2 contractor with a module design andthe production and tooling resources capable of meeting the 2024 deadline.
Really happy about the quick movement on this. So are the PPE and the Mini-Hab on contract at this point? Also, since the Phase1 Mini-Hab is launching on a commercial launch vehicle, does the CLV put it on a TLI trajectory and Mini-Hab does the rest (including rendezvous with the PPE in NHRO)?
Does a "minimal" hab mean we will see a "full" hab on the Gateway later? Kinda wanted to see an expandable module on it (Bigelow or Sierra Nevada).
Does the Canada Arm-2 need to be ready for 2023-4 on the Gateway? Or will Orion and Lander be capable of autonomous Docking to the Hab module? I'm assuming they'll be using the IDA?
Really happy about the quick movement on this. So are the PPE and the Mini-Hab on contract at this point?
Generally speaking, it sounds like one of the key pieces for the lunar return is well underway. How about the lander? Who's building that?
Quote from: rcoppola on 07/23/2019 09:54 pmDoes the Canada Arm-2 need to be ready for 2023-4 on the Gateway? Or will Orion and Lander be capable of autonomous Docking to the Hab module? I'm assuming they'll be using the IDA?I am not sure if Canadarm 3 would be required for grabbing the lander, but at the very least it would probably be a nice-to-have on station to allow for Gateway resupply. The Canadian space agency did say a couple of months ago that they were looking into accelerating the schedule for the built for Canadarm 3 so it would be ready by 2024.
Does NASA intend to use the optional enhancement to the International Docking Standard System (IDSS) allowing transfer of water, fuel and lox?
For those that know, how does this get sent to the gateway? Is it "flatpacked" with some onsite assembly required, or is it mounted on something already assembled and set in a way that it fits inside a fairing?Once in place, is it thought that it can walk to different locations as on ISS?
Quote from: Lar on 07/24/2019 02:59 pmFor those that know, how does this get sent to the gateway? Is it "flatpacked" with some onsite assembly required, or is it mounted on something already assembled and set in a way that it fits inside a fairing?Once in place, is it thought that it can walk to different locations as on ISS? It'll be mounted to the exterior of a cargo vehicle and then walk off from a grapple fixture on that vehicle to the Gateway. Totally unmanned. This would be under CLN-2 of Gateway Logistics Services. Each Gateway module will have grapple fixtures (not the same design as ISS, but the interface is still in work I think) so it can walk around and potentially relocate modules
No, he was asking about Canadarm3
Quote from: Markstark on 07/23/2019 07:53 pmReally happy about the quick movement on this. So are the PPE and the Mini-Hab on contract at this point? One of the recent articles clarified this. Apparently, they are not officially on-contract yet, but unless they seriously screw-up negotiations, they will be very soon.Also, congrats OP! As far as I can tell, you publicized this before anyone else on the internet did.
A gateway certainly seems more likely to materialize than a moon landing.
Quote from: Proponent on 07/26/2019 05:52 amA gateway certainly seems more likely to materialize than a moon landing.The money is being contracted right now. I think the vendors are capable of delivering quickly.Will we be arguing about Gateway orbiting the moon while SLS is delayed to 2020-whatever?
Quote from: rcoppola on 07/23/2019 09:54 pmDoes the Canada Arm-2 need to be ready for 2023-4 on the Gateway? Or will Orion and Lander be capable of autonomous Docking to the Hab module? I'm assuming they'll be using the IDA?Seems to me that the one no-brainer use for the Gateway is to assemble the 3-stage lander. Building autonomous docking into all 3 modules sounds kinda hard, especially if they're docking nose-to-tail. It's hard to imagine doing that assembly without some kind of an arm.
For un-crewed Gateway operations, docking or berthing is an option. The Gateway is not planned to have a robotic arm during the initial capability phase. An arm may be available for the sustainable operations phase.
Does NASA intend to use the optional enhancement to the International Docking Standard System (IDSS) allowing transfer of water, fuel and lox?The importance of the question is that the mini-hab will need to have the connecting pipes installed before launch. This high level decision on in-flight refuelling needs taking within weeks before say the end of August 2019.This is a high level architecture decision because it effects the design of the landers, PPE, MHM, other Gateway modules and resupply vehicles.
From HLS Draft BAA, Attachment_A1_HLS_Con_Ops_v.9.pdf, page 7:QuoteFor un-crewed Gateway operations, docking or berthing is an option. The Gateway is not planned to have a robotic arm during the initial capability phase. An arm may be available for the sustainable operations phase.
The pipes will also need to be temperature controlled. Pipes carrying cryogenic propellants need to be kept cold in the sun light. Space storable propellants (and water) need to be kept warm when in the shadows or they may freeze.
Is this a valid or likely scenario?1) Gateway is made of a habitat(cyrus) and PPI(power and propulsion) Hab has at least 2 radial IDA's. 2) Descent and ascent stages are delivered either together or separate. If separate they are put together at the hab. Their final config will be: hanging off the HAB on an IDA in order - the ascent stage docked, then the descent stage attached (it is not a habitable space just a rocket "stage")3) Orion arrives with crew, and docks at (the) other IDA and crew have use of the hab as well as Orion.4) Any transfers of supplies and propellant etc are completed, and if not done in 2) above the descent and ascent stages are joined, possibly with EVA or Canada arm etc to solve problems.5) Crew transfer to ascent stage with descent stage attached and descend to lunar surface.6) later they ascend in the ascent stage abandoning the descent stage on the lunar surface. The ascent stage docks back at (the same) IDA.7) Crew transfers to the hab.8 ) Crew transfers to Orion nd heads back to Earth. - (I don't know the fuel situation.... for the return)(maybe Dragon2 plus a PPE or F9S2 could take the place of Orion.
Quote from: DistantTemple on 07/28/2019 03:10 amIs this a valid or likely scenario?1) Gateway is made of a habitat(cyrus) and PPI(power and propulsion) Hab has at least 2 radial IDA's. 2) Descent and ascent stages are delivered either together or separate. If separate they are put together at the hab. Their final config will be: hanging off the HAB on an IDA in order - the ascent stage docked, then the descent stage attached (it is not a habitable space just a rocket "stage")3) Orion arrives with crew, and docks at (the) other IDA and crew have use of the hab as well as Orion.4) Any transfers of supplies and propellant etc are completed, and if not done in 2) above the descent and ascent stages are joined, possibly with EVA or Canada arm etc to solve problems.5) Crew transfer to ascent stage with descent stage attached and descend to lunar surface.6) later they ascend in the ascent stage abandoning the descent stage on the lunar surface. The ascent stage docks back at (the same) IDA.7) Crew transfers to the hab.8 ) Crew transfers to Orion nd heads back to Earth. - (I don't know the fuel situation.... for the return)(maybe Dragon2 plus a PPE or F9S2 could take the place of Orion.You've left out the tug.
We sort of need a documentation, notices and announcements only thread for this subject so it is easier to look up details or get up to speed.
Speculation:What if the PPE is docked to a radial port on the modified Cygnus?The benefit I see is that no changes are needed to Cygnus' propulsion system. Three radial ports and an axial port allow sufficient docking spaces for the PPE, Orion, the lander, and a cargo module. The area where a fourth radial port could go is set up to allow for a robotic arm. Alternatively, four radial ports with a docking adapter that can support an arm.
Quote from: Joseph Peterson on 07/29/2019 04:34 amSpeculation:What if the PPE is docked to a radial port on the modified Cygnus?The benefit I see is that no changes are needed to Cygnus' propulsion system. Three radial ports and an axial port allow sufficient docking spaces for the PPE, Orion, the lander, and a cargo module. The area where a fourth radial port could go is set up to allow for a robotic arm. Alternatively, four radial ports with a docking adapter that can support an arm.There is no room in the Cygnus pressure vessel for 4 radial ports. This was why OATK/NG proposed a 4.5 meter diameter module for the habitat/node, it wasn't selected for this though. There will be exactly two axial ports and either 0, 1, or 2 radial ports, pending decision by NASA. Probably 2. Hypothetically if there were 4 ports, and if the phase 1 Gateway had an arm, there is no reason one of those ports would be consumed by the arm either for launch or operations
The advantage of an arm attached to a NASA Docking Port is simple retro fitting. Satellites not designed to operate an arm can have one fitted in minutes. The IDSS docking system is a strong point and has power, data and command connectors built in.This is not needed for the Gateway since connectors for the arm have been designed in.
HALO will be based on the company’s Cygnus spacecraft used for International Space Station cargo missions; the company used that design in earlier work under NASA’s Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships program. Hartman said HALO will have an extra section, or bay, compared to the current three-bay Cygnus used on cargo missions. That stretched version will provide more volume, he said, and also ensure adequate clearance for its docking ports.
It is obvious NASA will not finish negotiations (price and specs) with NG until 1 october. That is the final date for offering commercial cargo to Gateway. Obviously, in case of NG, is clearly related because of common parts of their Gateway-Cygnus and HALO Cygnus-derived module.Smart move from NASA to wait a couple of weeks. Also for knowing all the offers of the contrators. It lets NASA to have a clearer and global picture of Artemis and Gateway architecture costs.
There are now quite a few HALO renders and diagrams floating about
Most like Omega US which has 2x RL10.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 11/03/2019 08:30 amMost like Omega US which has 2x RL10.The Omega renders show a dual tank stage with an x-frame, like DCSS. That looks like Centaur 5.
Looks like Northrop Grumman is providing the phase 1 Gateway habitation system.QuoteThe planned Gateway lunar orbiting platform is critical for staging human explorationmissions to the lunar surface by 2024 as mandated by Vice President Pence, Chairman ofthe National Space Council. The Gateway platform will include a pressurized habitationmodule with environmental control and life support systems to house astronauts duringlunar missions. To accomplish a lunar landing, astronauts aboard an Orion Spacecraft willlaunch toward the moon on an SLS rocket, rendezvous with Gateway (with the MHM) in alunar orbit, and descend to the lunar surface via a crewed lander by 2024.In order to meet NASA’s 2024 human lunar landing deadline, NASA examined the existingNextSTEP-2 contractors’ concepts for deep space habitation modules. As stated in thesynopsis (80JSC019GTWYHAB), not all contractors currently performing services via theNextSTEP-2 BAA Appendix A, would be selected to receive an award for this next phaseand additional phases. Each contractor's proposed approach, progress, and capabilities werereviewed and assessed by NASA for potential use as a MHM. In order to meet the GatewayProgram’s schedule and support the Vice President’s 2024 human lunar landing mandate,NASA determined it was necessary to continue to work with NGIS for these highlyspecialized services. NGIS was the only NextSTEP-2 contractor with a module design andthe production and tooling resources capable of meeting the 2024 deadline.https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?tab=documents&tabmode=form&subtab=core&tabid=d4e9e11d78e9dd0b8bd05395b3d82c7f
On the other hand, you will not be able to separate PPE and HALO in the future (for exemple, for replacing the PPE with a more advanced version).
Gateway back on critical path for 2024...https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/lunar-gateway-on-again-for-2023/
Quote from: pochimax on 05/07/2020 07:07 pmOn the other hand, you will not be able to separate PPE and HALO in the future (for exemple, for replacing the PPE with a more advanced version). It might make sense to replace both in the future. HALO seemed kind of temporary anyways.
Quote from: VSECOTSPE on 05/08/2020 05:57 amGateway back on critical path for 2024...https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/lunar-gateway-on-again-for-2023/I think the article establishes a correlation between two independent events and then makes deductions. It remains perfectly possible that the Gateway is targeted for launch in 2023 and not used for Artemis III.
He explained the changes were to reduce costs “so I don’t get into a struggle between I can pay for a human lander or I can pay for Gateway because that struggle was upon us in the budget. … I was going to have to cancel Gateway because I couldn’t afford it. But by simplifying it and taking it out of the critical path I can now keep it on track.”
JB promised last year to deliver a budget plan for Artemis by April 2019. Over a year later, Congress is understandably antsy about its absence. Delaying funding of the 2024 plan only increases the peak funding needed. Why on Earth (or on Luna) would Loverro think that now is the time to re-accelerate the Gateway?
Even if the Gateway remains off the critical path, the difficulty of funding it for a pre-Artemis III launch remains. In talking the gateway off the critical path in March, Loverro cited as a reason the advantage of deferring its funding:Quote from: Marcia SmithHe explained the changes were to reduce costs “so I don’t get into a struggle between I can pay for a human lander or I can pay for Gateway because that struggle was upon us in the budget. … I was going to have to cancel Gateway because I couldn’t afford it. But by simplifying it and taking it out of the critical path I can now keep it on track.”JB promised last year to deliver a budget plan for Artemis by April 2019. Over a year later, Congress is understandably antsy about its absence. Delaying funding of the 2024 plan only increases the peak funding needed. Why on Earth (or on Luna) would Loverro think that now is the time to re-accelerate the Gateway?
Is it re-accelerating though? I think PPE was originally planned to launch in 2022, now it's launched with HALO in 2023, that seems to be a delay to me. And this delay should allow them to reduce the funding to PPE for this year. Additional cost saving can come from:1. Saving one FH launch2. Remove some docking hardware from PPE and HALO
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 05/07/2020 08:58 pmThe plan is to add a bigger habitat later for testing for Mars like missions. Gateway is essentially a prototype for that, the small size is a good thing.But the PPE is the limiter on how big Gateway can grow. Limited power production (well under half ISS's capacity), limited attitude control authority, limited maneuverability. And that has to support not just the station itself, but a docked Orion and at least one HLS and some cargo vehicles.Even disregarding the lunar Starship variant, the requirements originally set out for the PPE, in terms of maximum station mass especially, are starting to look really constraining. These requirements predate the lunar surface program (especially the idea of multiple commercial landers), and predate the overall growth in Gateway capabilities to now support a multi-year expedition. Shaving a couple tons of PPE-HALO interfaces and redundancy off helps, but not nearly enough.
The plan is to add a bigger habitat later for testing for Mars like missions. Gateway is essentially a prototype for that, the small size is a good thing.
Quote from: hektor on 05/08/2020 06:45 amQuote from: VSECOTSPE on 05/08/2020 05:57 amGateway back on critical path for 2024...https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/lunar-gateway-on-again-for-2023/I think the article establishes a correlation between two independent events and then makes deductions. It remains perfectly possible that the Gateway is targeted for launch in 2023 and not used for Artemis III.Even if the Gateway remains off the critical path, the difficulty of funding it for a pre-Artemis III launch remains. In talking the gateway off the critical path in March, Loverro cited as a reason the advantage of deferring its funding:Quote from: Marcia SmithHe explained the changes were to reduce costs “so I don’t get into a struggle between I can pay for a human lander or I can pay for Gateway because that struggle was upon us in the budget. … I was going to have to cancel Gateway because I couldn’t afford it. But by simplifying it and taking it out of the critical path I can now keep it on track.”JB promised last year to deliver a budget plan for Artemis by April 2019. Over a year later, Congress is understandably antsy about its absence. Delaying funding of the 2024 plan only increases the peak funding needed. Why on Earth (or on Luna) would Loverro think that now is the time to re-accelerate the Gateway?
JB promised last year to deliver a budget plan for Artemis by April 2019. Over a year later, Congress is understandably antsy about its absence. Delaying funding of the 2024 plan only increases the peak funding needed. Why on Earth (or on Luna) would Loverro think that now is the time to re-accelerate the Gateway?This is just an excuse by House members that do not want to fund commercial landers.
Quote from: hektor on 05/08/2020 06:45 amQuote from: VSECOTSPE on 05/08/2020 05:57 amGateway back on critical path for 2024...https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/lunar-gateway-on-again-for-2023/I think the article establishes a correlation between two independent events and then makes deductions. It remains perfectly possible that the Gateway is targeted for launch in 2023 and not used for Artemis III.Loverro confirmshttps://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1260587594976550913?s=20
Are the other two modules connected to the PPE/minimal hab notional or planned?
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1269016822185185280Quote from: Marcia SmithNASA has signed a $187 M contract with Northrop Grumman for the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) for the Gateway. The money is only for DESIGN of the module.
NASA has signed a $187 M contract with Northrop Grumman for the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) for the Gateway. The money is only for DESIGN of the module.
Cost-plus contract for $187M for a PDR level. How much is this going to cost in total? I am guessing that it will be at least another $187M to complete.
I am supportive of Gateway as long as it's not too expensive.
From:https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc› Deep Space Gateway and Concept Status - Mr. Dan Hartman (35 MB PDF)Are the other two modules connected to the PPE/minimal hab notional or planned?
Quote from: BrightLight on 05/13/2020 11:24 pmFrom:https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc› Deep Space Gateway and Concept Status - Mr. Dan Hartman (35 MB PDF)Are the other two modules connected to the PPE/minimal hab notional or planned?Given the size of the combined elements, I have a strong suspicion that the Falcon fairing would be too small. I am guessing it will go on either Atlas V 551 or a Delta IV Heavy, as The launch will be procured under the NLS program and none of the other new rockets emerging will be certified by the contract award.Worst case would be a dedicated SLS flight.....
A look inside the Gateway’s HALO module, from a presentation at the #Glenn2020 symposium this morning. Looks cozy, but Dave Oberg of Northrop Grumman says the majority of the interior is available for astronaut use.
If more than one person is supposed to live in that thing, for more than a few days, then it's WAY too small. I've felt for a long time that such a small amount of personal space was the wrong way to go, but of course NASA cheaped out. Sigh.
If more than one person is supposed to live in that thing, for more than a few days, then it's WAY too small.
Quote from: the_other_Doug on 07/17/2020 04:51 amIf more than one person is supposed to live in that thing, for more than a few days, then it's WAY too small. I've felt for a long time that such a small amount of personal space was the wrong way to go, but of course NASA cheaped out. Sigh.Remember Orion will also be docked to the HALO module. The two combined is plenty for up to a month stay.
The real shame is, there were many Gateway designs since 1999 that were far larger than this tiny cramped thing.
Don't forget that in addition to Orion present during a crew rotation, there will also be a GLS freighter present. Extra closet space and stowage for supplies and consumables.
Here is a dimensional comparison between a tent by Core advertised to sleep 9 and HALO.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 07/29/2020 01:25 amHere is a dimensional comparison between a tent by Core advertised to sleep 9 and HALO. A tent that sleeps nine doesn't en force that none of the nine can leave the tent. You can fit 43 people into a phone booth (or could, back when live people attended colleges, and when there were still phone booths), but you'd go insane if you had to stay in there for more than a few minutes.There are any number of studies that define a human being's minimum amount of personal space for maintaining ongoing mental health, and this design ignores them. To the danger of the program, IMHO.
What's the minimum personal space volume needed for long-term mental health?
The first pieces of flight hardware for the #Artemis Gateway Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) arrived! These forgings are the base metal for some of the fundamental structures for HALO, the initial crew cabin for astronauts visiting the Gateway.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 07/31/2020 05:55 pmWhat's the minimum personal space volume needed for long-term mental health?That hugely varies by person. You want people who can handle the space available.
Quote from: the_other_Doug on 07/31/2020 05:28 pmQuote from: ncb1397 on 07/29/2020 01:25 amHere is a dimensional comparison between a tent by Core advertised to sleep 9 and HALO. A tent that sleeps nine doesn't en force that none of the nine can leave the tent. You can fit 43 people into a phone booth (or could, back when live people attended colleges, and when there were still phone booths), but you'd go insane if you had to stay in there for more than a few minutes.There are any number of studies that define a human being's minimum amount of personal space for maintaining ongoing mental health, and this design ignores them. To the danger of the program, IMHO.Orion's habitable pressurized volume is 9 cubic meters. Plus however much habitable pressurized volume the HALO module will have. The stretched Cygnus has a pressurized volume of 27 m3 so I presume the available, habitable volume will be around half that much, say 13.5 m3. Combined total of that is 22.5 m3. Plus the available volume of a supply vehicle. Plus the volume of the lunar lander. What's the minimum personal space volume needed for long-term mental health?
https://twitter.com/xploredeepspace/status/1289347180583505920Quote Go #Artemis! The first pieces of flight hardware for Gateway’s Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) have arrived at Thales Alenia Space Italy, which will build the HALO's pressure shell. The hardware was sent by #CDSE member @northropgrumman, @NASA’s HALO contractor.
Go #Artemis! The first pieces of flight hardware for Gateway’s Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) have arrived at Thales Alenia Space Italy, which will build the HALO's pressure shell. The hardware was sent by #CDSE member @northropgrumman, @NASA’s HALO contractor.
Quote from: the_other_Doug on 07/31/2020 05:28 pmQuote from: ncb1397 on 07/29/2020 01:25 amHere is a dimensional comparison between a tent by Core advertised to sleep 9 and HALO. A tent that sleeps nine doesn't en force that none of the nine can leave the tent. You can fit 43 people into a phone booth (or could, back when live people attended colleges, and when there were still phone booths), but you'd go insane if you had to stay in there for more than a few minutes.There are any number of studies that define a human being's minimum amount of personal space for maintaining ongoing mental health, and this design ignores them. To the danger of the program, IMHO.Uncalled for and false, as that is taken into account by the program.2 astronauts spent 14 days in a Gemini capsule. *That* is cramped.This is 1 month with what, around 22 cubic meters of volume total? Or are we including Dragon XL volume, too, as that may also be attached?That's well above both the "performance limit" and "tolerable limit" for 4 people for a month (which is about 15 cubic meters).You might not "feel" this is enough, but don't accuse NASA of not studying this or including these constraints in the design as that's plain false.https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Habitable-volume-requirements-for-a-single-person-as-function-of-mission-duration-dt_fig4_319122341
Quote from: Mark KirasichThe first pieces of flight hardware for the #Artemis Gateway Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) arrived! These forgings are the base metal for some of the fundamental structures for HALO, the initial crew cabin for astronauts visiting the Gateway. https://go.nasa.gov/3iv7hp8https://twitter.com/MarkKirasich/status/1289337685769957376
Each of the round, greenish structures is a solid piece of aluminum, from which one flight structure ring will be machined. So the green structures you see are not really containers, the color is a protective treatment to the aluminum that will ultimately be machined off.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/02/2020 03:59 amQuote from: the_other_Doug on 07/31/2020 05:28 pmQuote from: ncb1397 on 07/29/2020 01:25 amHere is a dimensional comparison between a tent by Core advertised to sleep 9 and HALO. A tent that sleeps nine doesn't en force that none of the nine can leave the tent. You can fit 43 people into a phone booth (or could, back when live people attended colleges, and when there were still phone booths), but you'd go insane if you had to stay in there for more than a few minutes.There are any number of studies that define a human being's minimum amount of personal space for maintaining ongoing mental health, and this design ignores them. To the danger of the program, IMHO.Uncalled for and false, as that is taken into account by the program.2 astronauts spent 14 days in a Gemini capsule. *That* is cramped.This is 1 month with what, around 22 cubic meters of volume total? Or are we including Dragon XL volume, too, as that may also be attached?That's well above both the "performance limit" and "tolerable limit" for 4 people for a month (which is about 15 cubic meters).You might not "feel" this is enough, but don't accuse NASA of not studying this or including these constraints in the design as that's plain false.https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Habitable-volume-requirements-for-a-single-person-as-function-of-mission-duration-dt_fig4_319122341The two astronauts who spent 14 days aboard Gemini were Frank Borman and Jim Lovell. They spoke about it at the EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh in 2017. They said they needed to make sure that they could handle the time needed to accomplish an Apollo mission in such tight quarters. They said they had to find a way to make do with the volume available. If they could handle such a tight space for two weeks, I see no reason why an Orion crew couldn't handle the space available on the Gateway for a month. As Frank Borman put it to the audience, "Imagine spending two weeks in the front seat of a Volkswagen Beetle with a sailor." The way he said it got a big laugh from the audience.
Unless someone one day writes a "tell all" account we'll likely never know what motivated much of the decision making. Right now though what's clear is that the CMV approach really does make the HALO side into a "minimal" habitat, with no GNC, propulsion or power generation. Apparently no space to ground communications either, which frankly seems curious.In any event it's the current path forward, and right now having NASA use FH to launch something big to a cis-lunar location seems like a no-brainer.
Quote from: sdsds on 11/15/2020 07:04 pmUnless someone one day writes a "tell all" account we'll likely never know what motivated much of the decision making. Right now though what's clear is that the CMV approach really does make the HALO side into a "minimal" habitat, with no GNC, propulsion or power generation. Apparently no space to ground communications either, which frankly seems curious.In any event it's the current path forward, and right now having NASA use FH to launch something big to a cis-lunar location seems like a no-brainer.GNC, propulsion, power and comms are all provided by the physically attached PPE. They are not missing.
Yup. Ought to make the overall Gateway cheaper and lighter for the same capability. Means it should be easier to move around to different orbits and require less stationkeeping propellant.In fact, you might be able to move Gateway into the vicinity of the James Webb Space Telescope. Something like 300-500m/s delta-v I think.
