If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).
Here is the problem with commercial using DSG for Lunar surface operations:1-Using SLS/Orion to get there is way too expensive. Meaning Commercial cargo and Commerceal Crew to the DSG would be required at the normal significant reduction in costs/prices.2-If CRS to DSG and CC to DSG occurs then the SLS and Orion become superfluous where the DSG is concerned.3-Hopping for commercial Lunar ops using DSG is hopping to obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/16/2017 09:10 amIf NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).NASA can't make any commitments like that
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/16/2017 09:10 amIf NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).Here is the problem with commercial using DSG for Lunar surface operations:1-Using SLS/Orion to get there is way too expensive. Meaning Commercial cargo and Commerceal Crew to the DSG would be required at the normal significant reduction in costs/prices.2-If CRS to DSG and CC to DSG occurs then the SLS and Orion become superfluous where the DSG is concerned.3-Hopping for commercial Lunar ops using DSG is hopping to obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion.
Quote from: Jim on 07/16/2017 10:46 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/16/2017 09:10 amIf NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).NASA can't make any commitments like thatIs that why the Lunar CATALYST web page has not been updated in 2 year?https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst
Quote from: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/16/2017 10:42 pmHere is the problem with commercial using DSG for Lunar surface operations:1-Using SLS/Orion to get there is way too expensive. Meaning Commercial cargo and Commerceal Crew to the DSG would be required at the normal significant reduction in costs/prices.2-If CRS to DSG and CC to DSG occurs then the SLS and Orion become superfluous where the DSG is concerned.3-Hopping for commercial Lunar ops using DSG is hopping to obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion.But NASA already talked about using Commercial Cargo of some sort for supply in their DSG mission diagrams as a way of reducing costs, which kind of implies that 2 is not a given. 3 goes back to that in that why would that have that effect? If a commercial company wants to dock an autonomous lander at the gateway, how does that obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion? The whole point of this is to have a platform that has advantages for a variety of interests international and commercial and is doable within the flat budgets projected for the next decade.
For a commercial service based at the DSG they would need cheaper and often crew and cargo services than just using the expensive and limited mission rate of SLS/Orion. SLS may still have some payloads of 40mt BLEO but current commercial developments may overrun that as well. Remember regular missions by SLS using new RS25 engines will not start until NET 2026. Prior to that the max number of missions no matter what is limited to 4. 2 of those are the EC flights and the other 2 are EM-1 and EM-2. DSG deployment is something that will not happen until second half of 2020s. Meaning any commercial usage of the DSG would be ~3 years after it is deployed or almost 2030. A lot can happen in 13 years.
Lastly, NASA is a tool that our government uses to solve peaceful problems that happen to be in space. So if we don't have a problem in space that we need solved, and Congress isn't willing to fund going beyond LEO with humans in the name of "science", then we should not be surprised that Congress won't fund a use for the SLS and Orion. With the advances in our private sector, this may be the natural point in history for us to shift our focus from government efforts in space to the private sector - which to me should be the ultimate goal anyways.My $0.02
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/15/2017 02:12 amLastly, NASA is a tool that our government uses to solve peaceful problems that happen to be in space. So if we don't have a problem in space that we need solved, and Congress isn't willing to fund going beyond LEO with humans in the name of "science", then we should not be surprised that Congress won't fund a use for the SLS and Orion. With the advances in our private sector, this may be the natural point in history for us to shift our focus from government efforts in space to the private sector - which to me should be the ultimate goal anyways.My $0.02I do feel the need to address this. Debates over SLS vs commerical launchers aside, I think the questioning as to whether there are "problems" that need solving in space is an artificial one. There are no problems in space unless we are actually doing things in space.
And a desire to expand our footprint in space automatically expands our problems there. So far, all of our problems are in LEO because that's where we are. But that has nothing to do with where we want to be. If we want to move into deeper space, then the lack of a deep space habitat is certainly a problem that needs to be solved.If you don't have a problem there, it simply means you don't want to be there -- which is fine, but declaring the absence of a "need" is no more valid than to claim Columbus had no "need" to sail west.
If we want to enhance stability by broadening international support for productive and stable norms of behavior in space, then we need to establish and lead space initiatives in which other nations can participate.If we want to shape the values and norms of the new frontier, then we must ourselves be on that frontier. New societies are shaped by those who are there, not by those who stay home.
Debates over SLS vs commerical launchers aside, I think the questioning as to whether there are "problems" that need solving in space is an artificial one.
There are no problems in space unless we are actually doing things in space.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/17/2017 06:16 amQuote from: Jim on 07/16/2017 10:46 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/16/2017 09:10 amIf NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).NASA can't make any commitments like thatIs that why the Lunar CATALYST web page has not been updated in 2 year?https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalystCatchy acronym does not equal leadership.
If Lunar CATALYST gets some of its hardware to the Moon within the next 2 years the USA would have caught up with Japan and China. I see that it is being added to/named in NASA's budget.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/18/2017 04:01 pmIf Lunar CATALYST gets some of its hardware to the Moon within the next 2 years the USA would have caught up with Japan and China. I see that it is being added to/named in NASA's budget.Study money and not enough to produce hardware. And anyways, even if there was hardware, it is too late. A launch vehicle would have to been procured already.
No one has caught up with us, even though we haven't been to the moon in 50 years. And no one does else does what we have done with Robotic exploration of the solar system.