Gateway Updates Thread

[yg1968]

NASA Podcast on Gateway:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/audio/ep207_gateway_to_partnerships.mp3

https://twitter.com/NASA_Johnson/status/1423682570554806274

[yg1968]

NASA Podcast on Gateway:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/audio/ep207_gateway_to_partnerships.mp3

https://twitter.com/NASA_Johnson/status/1423682570554806274

Some of the highlights of the interview with Sean Fuller of NASA:

-Gateway started around 2014, international partners were thinking of what to do next after ISS.
-PPE and HALO launch in November 2024. It takes about 10 months to get to NRHO.
-ihab will be delivered by SLS (co-manifested payload).

[yg1968]

Gateway has been delayed to 2025 according to the IG Report:

Funding instability has forced various mission changes and delays within the Program, which ultimately impact the overall cost and schedule.  Early estimates for the Gateway Program required $3.7 billion over 5 years in order to deploy a configuration of Gateway in lunar orbit by 2024.  However, the FY 2021 President's Budget Request for Gateway was $2.7 billion and reflected the elimination of the U.S. Habitation Module, which would have provided additional living and working space on the Gateway; a delayed Authority to Proceed for the Gateway Logistics Services contract; a schedule slip into at least 2025 for PPE and HALO initial operating capability in Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit; and a strong reliance on international partners for full system capability.[37]  Between FY 2021 appropriations and the FY 2022 President's Budget Request, though, Gateway funding projections are now back to $3.7 billion.[38]   

35  NASA OIG, NASA’s Management of the Gateway Program for Artemis Missions (IG-21-004, November 10, 2020).   
36  IG-21-004.   
37  NASA plans to procure logistics services—for delivery of cargo, science experiments, and supplies—for the Gateway that will
be provided under the Gateway Logistics Services contract.   
38  In 2020, the Gateway Program projected a funding estimate of approximately $892 million for FY 2021; however, the Program only received $699 million, or 22 percent less than estimated.

[Vultur]

Gateway has been delayed to 2025 according to the IG Report:

Is this actually a delay vs. what was known a few months ago? If it takes 10 months to get to NRHO, then a Nov 2024 launch means "initial operating capability in Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit" in about Sep 2025.

[yg1968]

Gateway has been delayed to 2025 according to the IG Report:

Is this actually a delay vs. what was known a few months ago? If it takes 10 months to get to NRHO, then a Nov 2024 launch means "initial operating capability in Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit" in about Sep 2025.

Initially, Gateway was supposed to be ready for 2024 but you are right that we have know for a while that it wouldn't be ready until 2025 at the earliest.

[pochimax]

This week @NASAGateway team leaders met with international partner @ESA and concluded a successful preliminary design review for Gateway’s I-HAB. This review is an important step in the development phase of the module.

https://twitter.com/NASA_Gateway/status/1461793904022343681

[eeergo]

HALO doing well:

https://twitter.com/NASA_Gateway/status/1463220816858865665

[spacenut]

HALO doing well:

https://twitter.com/NASA_Gateway/status/1463220816858865665

Who is going to launch this?  SLS (to expensive), SpaceX Falcon Heavy with new larger fairing?, Vulcan Heavy? (When it comes on line), or Blue Origin (New Glenn when it comes on line)? 

[whitelancer64]

HALO doing well:

*edit* yeeted the tweet

Who is going to launch this?  SLS (to expensive), SpaceX Falcon Heavy with new larger fairing?, Vulcan Heavy? (When it comes on line), or Blue Origin (New Glenn when it comes on line)?

"NASA awarded a contract to SpaceX Feb. 9 for the launch of the first two elements of its lunar Gateway on a Falcon Heavy in 2024.

NASA will use a Falcon Heavy rocket to launch the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) modules of the Gateway, destined for the near-rectilinear halo orbit around moon."

https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-falcon-heavy-to-launch-first-gateway-elements/

With the extended fairing, yes.

[DanClemmensen]

HALO doing well:

*edit* yeeted the tweet

Who is going to launch this?  SLS (to expensive), SpaceX Falcon Heavy with new larger fairing?, Vulcan Heavy? (When it comes on line), or Blue Origin (New Glenn when it comes on line)?

"NASA awarded a contract to SpaceX Feb. 9 for the launch of the first two elements of its lunar Gateway on a Falcon Heavy in 2024.

NASA will use a Falcon Heavy rocket to launch the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) modules of the Gateway, destined for the near-rectilinear halo orbit around moon."

https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-falcon-heavy-to-launch-first-gateway-elements/

With the extended fairing, yes.

Note also that PPE and HALO will be mated before they are launched, which avoids the need for a docking maneuver in NRHO. Such a maneuver would have been "interesting", since it would need to be at least semi-autonomous (no crew available). The third Gateway component will be I-HAB, which will be delivered by the same SLS block 1B that delivers the Orion for Artemis 4. Presumably it will be docked under supervision of the Orion crew. All of this assumes the Artemis program in general and Gateway in particular will not be scrapped in favor of a better and cheaper program.

[lrk]

HALO doing well:

*edit* yeeted the tweet

Who is going to launch this?  SLS (to expensive), SpaceX Falcon Heavy with new larger fairing?, Vulcan Heavy? (When it comes on line), or Blue Origin (New Glenn when it comes on line)?

"NASA awarded a contract to SpaceX Feb. 9 for the launch of the first two elements of its lunar Gateway on a Falcon Heavy in 2024.

NASA will use a Falcon Heavy rocket to launch the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) modules of the Gateway, destined for the near-rectilinear halo orbit around moon."

https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-falcon-heavy-to-launch-first-gateway-elements/

With the extended fairing, yes.

Note also that PPE and HALO will be mated before they are launched, which avoids the need for a docking maneuver in NRHO. Such a maneuver would have been "interesting", since it would need to be at least semi-autonomous (no crew available). The third Gateway component will be I-HAB, which will be delivered by the same SLS block 1B that delivers the Orion for Artemis 4. Presumably it will be docked under supervision of the Orion crew. All of this assumes the Artemis program in general and Gateway in particular will not be scrapped in favor of a better and cheaper program.

Northrop Grumman does have experience with semi-autonomous dockings in deep space, see the MEVs.  It's not really that much harder than autonomous docking in LEO.  NG was confident they could do it anyway - they were also responsible for rendezvous and docking between elements in the National Team lander proposal. 

But co-manifesting on a single launch does retire some risk, saves the cost of an extra launch, and eliminates redundant power, propulsion and communication systems on HALO.  As far as I can tell the only significant drawback is that HALO was initially planned to launch with a significant amount of cargo onboard, but they will be more mass-constrained flying on a single vehicle. 

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
But co-manifesting on a single launch does retire some risk, saves the cost of an extra launch, and eliminates redundant power, propulsion and communication systems on HALO.  As far as I can tell the only significant drawback is that HALO was initially planned to launch with a significant amount of cargo onboard, but they will be more mass-constrained flying on a single vehicle.

Think Doug Loverro choose poorly to combined the PPE & the HALO modules when he did. The decision was make late in the program. So both modules have to be redesign and rebuild, which is both time consuming and expensive.


The cost of an extra Falcon Heavy launch appears to be cheaper than stretching out the program schedule by a couple of years for hardware revision.

[woods170]

<snip>
But co-manifesting on a single launch does retire some risk, saves the cost of an extra launch, and eliminates redundant power, propulsion and communication systems on HALO.  As far as I can tell the only significant drawback is that HALO was initially planned to launch with a significant amount of cargo onboard, but they will be more mass-constrained flying on a single vehicle.

Think Doug Loverro choose poorly to combined the PPE & the HALO modules when he did. The decision was make late in the program. So both modules have to be redesign and rebuild, which is both time consuming and expensive.


The cost of an extra Falcon Heavy launch appears to be cheaper than stretching out the program schedule by a couple of years for hardware revision.

Wrong.

Combining PPE & HALO was the smart thing to do:
- It removed the cost and risk of an additonal launch (for HALO).
- It removed the cost for a Cygnus-based tug module for HALO.
- It simplified the interface between PPE & HALO by removing the docking system and associated one-time use systems for automated docking.
- It removed risk by eliminating the deep-space automated docking between PPE and HALO.
- It removed risk by eliminating the need for automated establishing of electrical connections between PPE and HALO.
- It removed risk by eliminating the need for automated undocking & disposal of the Cygnus tug module.

All the activities and risks mentioned above involve the spending of money. And quite a bit of it as well. By eliminating all those activities and risks a lot of money was saved.

On the other hand, additional money has to be spent on:
- redesigning the orbital control and attitude control logic implemented on the PPE, because it now tags along the HALO as well.
- redesigning (actually: simplifying) the interface between PPE and HALO from an automated docking system to that of a hard connection.
- Beefing up the HALO structure to carry the weight of the PPE sitting on top of it during launch.

But those aspects were determined to cost substantially LESS than the amount of money that would have to be spent on sending up HALO and PPE on separate missions.

Launching PPE and HALO on one mission does create a new risk:
- the risk of losing BOTH modules in case the launch fails.

The only other drawback is that HALO is now sent up without it being pre-packed with cargo. But that will be fixed by just one Dragon XL mission, the cost of which is covered under a separate contract, not tied to the one for the PPE-HALO launch.

[eeergo]

New FSW unit (joining the previous one used for Cygnus' pressurized modules) just inaugurated here in Turin:

https://twitter.com/Thales_Alenia_S/status/1463836871943983107

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/space/press-release/thales-alenia-space-invests-advanced-technology-human-space-flight

Thales Alenia Space, thanks to this new investment, will improve the production of the pressurized modules, in particular the supply of the three key components of the Lunar Gateway: I-HAB, ESPRIT and HALO, the two modules of the first commercial space station designed by Axiom Space, and the Cygnus [pressurized] modules

[Jim]

Think Doug Loverro choose poorly to combined the PPE & the HALO modules when he did. The decision was make late in the program. So both modules have to be redesign and rebuild, which is both time consuming and expensive.

They weren't built and designs were still conceptual.  The "redesign" actually puts more capability into them.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Think Doug Loverro choose poorly to combined the PPE & the HALO modules when he did. The decision was make late in the program. So both modules have to be redesign and rebuild, which is both time consuming and expensive.

They weren't built and designs were still conceptual.  The "redesign" actually puts more capability into them.

Mainly because the total dry mass of the the two together is less. With the same prop load in the PPE and the total mass lower which upped the acceleration from the Electric thrusters so the DV capability of the pair increased significantly. Which increased their operation life prior to the need for refueling the PPE. The other item is because the structure is now hard permanently mated. Many of the flexing concerns caused by larger than Orion craft docking with the Gateway has been for now mitigated. 

[Paul451]

On the other hand, additional money has to be spent on:
- redesigning the orbital control and attitude control logic implemented on the PPE, because it now tags along the HALO as well.

Is that required? PPE under the old configuration still needed to handle station-control after assembly, so would already be designed around the anticipated combined and changing rotational moments of the various configurations of the station and docked modules?

[woods170]

On the other hand, additional money has to be spent on:
- redesigning the orbital control and attitude control logic implemented on the PPE, because it now tags along the HALO as well.

Is that required? PPE under the old configuration still needed to handle station-control after assembly, so would already be designed around the anticipated combined and changing rotational moments of the various configurations of the station and docked modules?

I was referring to the orbital control and attitude control logic for the 10-month lunar transit phase. Station keeping is quite a bit less demanding than the transit from Earth to HALO orbit. PPE was originally designed to handle only its own transition to lunar HALO orbit. But now it is taking HALO along for the ride. Which changes the overall mass, CoG, CoM, etc. That required changing the orbital control and attitude control logic.

[yg1968]

Think Doug Loverro choose poorly to combined the PPE & the HALO modules when he did. The decision was make late in the program. So both modules have to be redesign and rebuild, which is both time consuming and expensive.

They weren't built and designs were still conceptual.  The "redesign" actually puts more capability into them.

Yes, the companies are using the "redesign" as an excuse for being late. The IG seems to have bought that excuse but it is an excuse.

[woods170]

Think Doug Loverro choose poorly to combined the PPE & the HALO modules when he did. The decision was make late in the program. So both modules have to be redesign and rebuild, which is both time consuming and expensive.

They weren't built and designs were still conceptual.  The "redesign" actually puts more capability into them.

Yes, the companies are using the "redesign" as an excuse for being late. The IG seems to have bought that excuse but it is an excuse.

Tell me: when was the last time a major spaceflight program came in on time?