Commercial space's role in Exploration Gateway station

[Political Hack Wannabe]

So, in the recent thread about Commercial Crew downselect, there was a short discussion about what role commercial should play in BEO spaceflight.

I am curious as to what people think are the possibles, and what are the desirables. 

As I see it there are the following options to consider (and these are not all mutually exclusive, although some are)

Traditional NASA structure, with Traditional NASA resuppply
COTS/CRS style resupply
Mixed Structure (some traditional NASA, some commercial pieces)
Non-NASA operator (NASA starts development of it, but also starts from day 1 to finding another party, who will do the operations of most of it)
Pure prize options (NASA puts up a prize for deployment and 1 year operations of it)
 
Other thoughts/ideas/comments? 

[tigerade]

Lets assume 3 things:

1. The CRS program is successful
2. The commercial crew program is successful
3. The exploration gateway is approved and built in a 10-20 year timeframe.

Ok, so we have commercial crew and cargo both online.  However the exploration gateway would very likely be built by NASA, as they have the most experience with this sort of thing.  If Bigelow does well, I could see maybe some sort of Bigelow module being added on.  Anyway, yes if commercial crew and cargo were both available, NASA would be crazy not to use it.  I am not sure about the orbital mechanics of getting something out to L1 or L2 or wherever this gateway will be.  But I'm sure that commercial companies could probably do something to compensate... I think.

So my answer is COTS/CRS resupply, with commercial crew missions, and traditional NASA structure and operation, with possibility of an additional commercial pieces added on.  This is fun to imagine, but it's really too far away to know for sure. 

[Political Hack Wannabe]

Tigerade - Why would you want to, for lack of a better phrase, tack commercial on at the end?  Why not try and find a way to integrate commercial from day one? 

[tigerade]

Well, I could see it going in either direction.  The whole structure could be built by NASA or other governmental hands.  Or, they could plan to integrate a commercial module in the plan.  It is up to them on what they want to do.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

I understand its up to them. 

I am asking what you think about that - is it a good idea or bad idea, and why?

[baldusi]

On the Dragon's return press conference Alan Lindenmoyer did say something along the lines that they where considering SpaceX's help on explorations. It has been discussed here to death, if a Falcon Heavy could push a Dragon to EML2. And Dragon is going to get BEO upgrades. So it is possible for Dragon, to offer something along the lines of COTS for an EML2 Cargo Resupply. I'm not sure about Crew, because transit times might get too long for Crewed Dragon. But Cargo Dragon shouldn't be that far fetched. If they use ISS legacy modules and ops, the ISS Cargo Dragon would be a lot similar, so it would be ridiculous not to take advantage of all the work done. If they don't use CBM, and use NDS also for cargo, they could demonstrate an Robotic Orion/Cargo Dragon on EML2 even before the first module is there.
I do wonder, if this is a strategy that NASA will follow, if it won't impact on the Commercial Crew selection. I mean, it's quite clear that Dragon/Falcon Heavy is very close be able to do cargo to EML2. It's not very clear if they can do crew, but it is possible with some evolution. Since CST-100 evolved from the competition with Orion, I'm sure it could be upgraded to do cargo and/or crew with relatively little risk, but it would need a new launcher. Either a human rated Delta IV Heavy, an Atlas V Heavy or an Atlas Phase 2. Could obviously use Falcon Heavy, too, but I guess the idea would be not to have to rely on a single supplier, if possible.
Dream Chaser isn't designed for BEO, and I doubt it could be upgraded to tolerate a lunar reentry, so, in that sense, it would seem like a dead end to LEO.
I ignore the Blue Origin entry, but if they use the biconic side for reentry, it won't tolerate lunar reentry.
Liberty capsule could obviously do BEO very well, but I don't believe Liberty rocket can send it to EML2. So, in that sense, it could be a good candidate for the capsule's future, but the LV has not many growth options. Plus, the Vulcain 2 can't restart, which is probably a worse problem. And it's going to be a very thorny legal problem for LM to actually develop a BEO SM for Liberty without using Orion's systems, which require special legislation to be able to compete.
I do want to add, that given a powerful enough LV, Cygnus is probably able to do a cargo mission to EML2.
the problem with international partners, is that Ariane 5 and H-IIB can't push ATV and HTV beyond LEO, so it would mean a new capsule development or a new LV.
I don't know what the Angara 5 will be able to do, but I'm sure Soyuz LV can't be increased significantly, and to evolve Soyuz for EML2 would need something like launching an EDS on a Proton or Angara 5. Plus, they might want to use the PPTS.
In other words, the ISS partners are all very far from being able to do any logistics role to EML2.
In other words, from my perspective, if NASA expects to evolve commercial to EML2, Dragon, CST-100 and possibly Cygnus are the most likely candidates to support now.

[MikeAtkinson]

Potentially it is a good idea to use CRS and commercial crew spacecraft for gateway support.

But: commercial crew vehicles do not have sufficient delta-v, and would need an upgrade of all their systems. CRS vehicles probably have too little payload capacity (even with a FH launch) and Dragon does not have the delta-v to return cargo to earth.

[Edit: I would love to be proved wrong here!]

The main reason it is potentially a good idea is that it might be cheaper as there would be synergies with ISS support.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

But why limit commercial involvement to JUST resupply, or crew transportation?

[rklaehn]

Potentially it is a good idea to use CRS and commercial crew spacecraft for gateway support.

But: commercial crew vehicles do not have sufficient delta-v, and would need an upgrade of all their systems. CRS vehicles probably have too little payload capacity (even with a FH launch) and Dragon does not have the delta-v to return cargo to earth.

[Edit: I would love to be proved wrong here!]

The main reason it is potentially a good idea is that it might be cheaper as there would be synergies with ISS support.

Assuming a delta-v from LEO to EML2 of 3.43 km/s, a falcon heavy should be able to get a dragon with a weight of 10t to EML2. The GTO payload of falcon heavy is supposed to be 19t, and EML2 is less than 1km/s from GTO.

On the way back you would have to rely on the dragon propulsion system to get the dragon on an intercept with the earth atmosphere. But getting from EML2 back to a highly elliptical orbit that intercepts the earth atmosphere just requires ~1km/s if you do it in one burn, and even less if you do a powered moon flyby.

So getting back from EML2 to earth is well within the capability of the dragon.

Arguably, flying a dragon to EML2 and back would be a good way to spend the initial falcon heavy launch. They will have many used dragons by the time falcon heavy lauches. It would prove multiple things like deep space operations and return from almost hyberbolic velocity. And it would be a first.

edit:

getting the dragon to and from EML2 would probably be easiest doing a three impulse transfer: an initial burn from LEO to the lunar vicinity of 3.142km/s, which would be done by the falcon heavy upper stage, a burn close to the moon of 0.184km/s, and a burn to enter EML2 of 0.148km/s. The latter two would have to be done by the dragon. On the way back you do everything in reverse.

So the total delta-v from LEO is 3.142km/s for the falcon heavy upper stage, and 0.664km/s for the dragon.

To get a station to EML2 you would probably use a weak stability boundary trajectory. That takes about 3.1km/s in a single burn at the beginning of the mission So you should be able to launch a pretty reasonable space station module (~16t) directly to EML2 using a falcon heavy.

[MikeAtkinson]

But why limit commercial involvement to JUST resupply, or crew transportation?

Resupply and crew rotation is probably 70% of the total cost, and they are the places were big savings are possible.

The three other major costs are I think:

    - building the gateway module(s).
    - transporting them from LEO to L2.
    - operating the gateway.

Building the gateway module(s) based on ISS module designs is probably the cheapest solution, it is probably easiest for ISS like contracting arrangements to be used.

There does not seem to be a method of getting them from LEO to L2. Integration in LEO (possibly attached to ISS) followed by a SEP tug is one way that has been suggested. But whatever the method I think it unlikely that a COTS style program would lead to cost savings.

NASA is really good at ops, and would want control and oversight anyway. I would not think there are great cost savings possible from anyone else than NASA doing it.

[All IMHO naturally]

[muomega0]

On the Dragon's return press conference Alan Lindenmoyer did say something along the lines that they where considering SpaceX's help on explorations. It has been discussed here to death, if a Falcon Heavy could push a Dragon to EML2. And Dragon is going to get BEO upgrades. So it is possible for Dragon, to offer something along the lines of COTS for an EML2 Cargo Resupply. I'm not sure about Crew, because transit times might get too long for Crewed Dragon. But Cargo Dragon shouldn't be that far fetched. If they use ISS legacy modules and ops, the ISS Cargo Dragon would be a lot similar, so it would be ridiculous not to take advantage of all the work done. If they don't use CBM, and use NDS also for cargo, they could demonstrate an Robotic Orion/Cargo Dragon on EML2 even before the first module is there.
I do wonder, if this is a strategy that NASA will follow, if it won't impact on the Commercial Crew selection. I mean, it's quite clear that Dragon/Falcon Heavy is very close be able to do cargo to EML2. It's not very clear if they can do crew, but it is possible with some evolution. Since CST-100 evolved from the competition with Orion, I'm sure it could be upgraded to do cargo and/or crew with relatively little risk, but it would need a new launcher. Either a human rated Delta IV Heavy, an Atlas V Heavy or an Atlas Phase 2. Could obviously use Falcon Heavy, too, but I guess the idea would be not to have to rely on a single supplier, if possible.
Dream Chaser isn't designed for BEO, and I doubt it could be upgraded to tolerate a lunar reentry, so, in that sense, it would seem like a dead end to LEO.
I ignore the Blue Origin entry, but if they use the biconic side for reentry, it won't tolerate lunar reentry.
Liberty capsule could obviously do BEO very well, but I don't believe Liberty rocket can send it to EML2. So, in that sense, it could be a good candidate for the capsule's future, but the LV has not many growth options. Plus, the Vulcain 2 can't restart, which is probably a worse problem. And it's going to be a very thorny legal problem for LM to actually develop a BEO SM for Liberty without using Orion's systems, which require special legislation to be able to compete.
I do want to add, that given a powerful enough LV, Cygnus is probably able to do a cargo mission to EML2.
the problem with international partners, is that Ariane 5 and H-IIB can't push ATV and HTV beyond LEO, so it would mean a new capsule development or a new LV.
I don't know what the Angara 5 will be able to do, but I'm sure Soyuz LV can't be increased significantly, and to evolve Soyuz for EML2 would need something like launching an EDS on a Proton or Angara 5. Plus, they might want to use the PPTS.
In other words, the ISS partners are all very far from being able to do any logistics role to EML2.
In other words, from my perspective, if NASA expects to evolve commercial to EML2, Dragon, CST-100 and possibly Cygnus are the most likely candidates to support now.

Forcing any of the current capsule configurations or LVs, individually, to head directly to the Exploration Gateway at L2 will be very inefficient.  Just look what happened to Orion trying to be multipurpose.

IOW, as you point out, nothing really fits the current inflexible HLV Gateway architecture as everything must be modified as equipment is moved to an environment and life duration other than its original design intent.

Further, ISS partners have launch vehicles that could launch supplies or fuel to LEO.

Staging mass or prop in LEO provides a significant amplification factor for the transfer to BEO, and using high ISP prop, reduces IMLEO. 

Since the missions are greater than 70% fuel, a LEO depot would enable staging of prop and hardware to fit the "existing" fleet and offers significant advantages.

So with 3B (?) piece of hardware, a LEO depot could provide all the prop and supplies for the BEO transfer stage launched empty on, i guess, the SLS, or  since it would be so light, a smaller LV.

One could also attach one the Cots capsules as the "life boat" for direct return to earth, or simply return to ISS with say the  transhab first, then to earth.

So if one wants cost savings.....

Vast number of potential opportunities.....

[Political Hack Wannabe]

Building the gateway module(s) based on ISS module designs is probably the cheapest solution, it is probably easiest for ISS like contracting arrangements to be used.

I'll tend to agree with you in general. HOWEVER, I would submit that you have a node with 6 ports, and currently only 2 of those ports are formally assigned (with a 3rd one potentially assigned to International partners, and if you insist, one assigned to Orion).  So we have somewhere between 2 and 4 ports that are unused.  Why not reach out to commercial companies, and see what they might use them for?

There does not seem to be a method of getting them from LEO to L2. Integration in LEO (possibly attached to ISS) followed by a SEP tug is one way that has been suggested. But whatever the method I think it unlikely that a COTS style program would lead to cost savings.

Let me offer one integration plan that would at least lend itself to being more commercial - instead of using SEP tug to transfer it out, use a CPS/depot option.  Then, the depot you have in LEO can potentially facilitate more resupply missions at lower cost as well. 

NASA is really good at ops, and would want control and oversight anyway. I would not think there are great cost savings possible from anyone else than NASA doing it.

[All IMHO naturally]

You've missed a vital part in all of this - utilization.  What is the utilization plan, and what about commercial playing a part in the utilization?  (Yes, this will have an impact on ops)

[FinalFrontier]

So, in the recent thread about Commercial Crew downselect, there was a short discussion about what role commercial should play in BEO spaceflight.

I am curious as to what people think are the possibles, and what are the desirables. 

As I see it there are the following options to consider (and these are not all mutually exclusive, although some are)

Traditional NASA structure, with Traditional NASA resuppply
COTS/CRS style resupply
Mixed Structure (some traditional NASA, some commercial pieces)
Non-NASA operator (NASA starts development of it, but also starts from day 1 to finding another party, who will do the operations of most of it)
Pure prize options (NASA puts up a prize for deployment and 1 year operations of it)
 
Other thoughts/ideas/comments? 

Actually rather glad to see you bring this up.

About two years ago we discussed this in depth during the Space Policy battles. The "flexible path" concept was a big deal on here and it involved either all commercial or heavily EELV based paths.

BEO stations maintained by commercial providers were a very large part of that path. I will see if I can dig up some of the old threads for reference on this discussion.


IMO its about time it be brought up again with recent success's in the commercial field.

[rklaehn]

Forcing any of the current capsule configurations or LVs, individually, to head directly to the Exploration Gateway at L2 will be very inefficient.  Just look what happened to Orion trying to be multipurpose.

Dragon is designed for beyond LEO. The heat shield can survive a reentry from hyperbolic velocity, according to elon musk.

Falcon heavy has sufficient delta-v to send a dragon to EML2. So assuming falcon heavy flies there is a commercial off the shelf system for resupply of an EML2 gateway.

Whether you can fly crew depends on if you can man-rate the falcon heavy.

[MikeAtkinson]

You've missed a vital part in all of this - utilization.  What is the utilization plan, and what about commercial playing a part in the utilization?  (Yes, this will have an impact on ops)

I really can't see significant commercial utilization. Even if the gateway enabled significant business the percentage of revenue that would go to the  gateway would be small. I think that most (>90%) of the gateway costs will have to be paid by NASA and the other space agencies.

I assume utilization will be mostly support for human exploration (moon, NEA, Mars) with a bit of science and teleoperation of lunar rovers. Commercial operation would be the occasional tourist and maybe commercial asteroid mining support (Planetary Resources).

[Lar]

I assume utilization will be mostly support for human exploration (moon, NEA, Mars) with a bit of science and teleoperation of lunar rovers. Commercial operation would be the occasional tourist and maybe commercial asteroid mining support (Planetary Resources).

If Planetary Resources plans come to fruition won't there be an increasing amount of utlization over time as they ramp up their operations (each successfully exploited asteroid funds another set of hardware while the first hardware goes off and starts exploiting the next one)? That's the hope anyway.

Also would ACES have a role to play here? A reusable upper stage that's mostly tankage with the ability to transfer propellant both to, and from it, seems pretty useful. Especially once PRI starts supplying propellant in orbit from the water side of their operations.

Can F9H launch ACES? Would Elon want to? Or would SpaceX make a reusable stage of their own? (probably!)

[MikeAtkinson]

Assume Planetary Resources are spending $1B/year, most of that would go on bringing back the asteroids. Some might be used to send astronauts to set up the processing plant, say maybe $250M, but most of that would be on launch, spacecraft, ops at the processing plant, etc. Maybe $20M would be spent on gateway services.

Similarly of a tourist spending $50M for a trip to the Moon, maybe a few million would be spent on gateway services.

I would be very surprised if commercial income exceeded $100M/year before 2030, I would estimate costs of maybe $1B/year (including amortized development) for a man-tended (i.e. not permanently manned) gateway.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

You've missed a vital part in all of this - utilization.  What is the utilization plan, and what about commercial playing a part in the utilization?  (Yes, this will have an impact on ops)

I really can't see significant commercial utilization. Even if the gateway enabled significant business the percentage of revenue that would go to the  gateway would be small. I think that most (>90%) of the gateway costs will have to be paid by NASA and the other space agencies.

I assume utilization will be mostly support for human exploration (moon, NEA, Mars) with a bit of science and teleoperation of lunar rovers. Commercial operation would be the occasional tourist and maybe commercial asteroid mining support (Planetary Resources).

You may not be able to, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.  I could forsee a few private rovers on the moon, so having a presence at Waypoint may be preferable for them.  Or maybe there will be interest in pursuing some SBSP work (I tend to be more pessimistic about this). 

The point is, you have space station, lets try some experiments with it, that aren't just science. 

Additionally, there is a longer term issue, which is coming to a head with ISS and may very well be an issue for Waypoint.  And that is, how do we avoid the trap of building infrastructure, and then having to abandon it to go and do the next thing (like we did with Apollo, like we talked about doing for ISS and Constellation).  This is especially bad when we want to use it, but don't have the budget for it. 

To get out of that Catch-22 situation, we need to find someway to transition that infrastructure to a cost neutral situation.  Commercialization is one way to address this. 

An example of the other side of this is of course what we've done with Comm sats and launch vehicles (to a degree).

[Political Hack Wannabe]

I would be very surprised if commercial income exceeded $100M/year before 2030, I would estimate costs of maybe $1B/year (including amortized development) for a man-tended (i.e. not permanently manned) gateway.

How does that not put us back into the same situation we are in with ISS?

[PeterAlt]

Lets assume 3 things:

1. The CRS program is successful
2. The commercial crew program is successful
3. The exploration gateway is approved and built in a 10-20 year timeframe.

Ok, so we have commercial crew and cargo both online.  However the exploration gateway would very likely be built by NASA, as they have the most experience with this sort of thing.  If Bigelow does well, I could see maybe some sort of Bigelow module being added on.  Anyway, yes if commercial crew and cargo were both available, NASA would be crazy not to use it.  I am not sure about the orbital mechanics of getting something out to L1 or L2 or wherever this gateway will be.  But I'm sure that commercial companies could probably do something to compensate... I think.

So my answer is COTS/CRS resupply, with commercial crew missions, and traditional NASA structure and operation, with possibility of an additional commercial pieces added on.  This is fun to imagine, but it's really too far away to know for sure. 

I have no problems assuming the first two. It's the third one that I am uneasy about happening until I see something that there's at least a desire to make this possible. As of now, the Exploration Gateway is nothing but talk by a few contractors and some visionaries Within NASA. If this would seriously happen, there would be the precursor cost and budget studies before an official presidential request. It's not there yet. And with NASA's tight budget with everything currently on its plate, I don't see this happening any time soon, unless the politicians show some backbone to pull the strings to make this happen.

That said, commercial space can get things started ahead of EG by sending their own hardware to ISS. That hardware could eventually be moved to the EG. ISS and LEO is an obvious starting point and staging area for all operations, including commercial, that could eventually migrate into BEO.