Author Topic: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans  (Read 20033 times)

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11340
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8379
  • Likes Given: 6712
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #100 on: 10/30/2018 09:21 pm »
I might be confused but I think talking about the debt, GDP, etc is maybe not exactly on topic for this thread. And maybe kind of a little bit political. So maybe not so much of that and more lunar gateway[1]?

1 - That is consultantese[2] for "you're off topic, stop now"
2 - I'm a consultant...
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6250
  • Liked: 4115
  • Likes Given: 5628
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #101 on: 11/15/2018 10:54 pm »
Quote
Mike Griffin was highly critical of NASA's proposed Gateway today. Almost shockingly so, from a senior administration official. Full comments within:
Quote
Former NASA administrator says Lunar Gateway is “a stupid architecture”
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1063192808113270785

Full article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/former-nasa-administrator-says-lunar-gateway-is-a-stupid-architecture/

I don't normally agree with "Apollo on Steroids" Griffin, but what he and others 'advisors' said was pretty spot on.
« Last Edit: 11/15/2018 10:55 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Hog

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1306
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 356
  • Likes Given: 1130
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #102 on: 11/15/2018 11:31 pm »
Quote
Mike Griffin was highly critical of NASA's proposed Gateway today. Almost shockingly so, from a senior administration official. Full comments within:
Quote
Former NASA administrator says Lunar Gateway is “a stupid architecture”
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1063192808113270785

Full article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/former-nasa-administrator-says-lunar-gateway-is-a-stupid-architecture/

I don't normally agree with "Apollo on Steroids" Griffin, but what he and others 'advisors' said was pretty spot on.
I thought the pivot to the "Moon First" policy is to develop and practice methods/hardware for Mars, it sure seems that LOP/G really hurts the quick return to Luna. 
From the article
Griffin says,
"China could strike a geopolitical blow by landing humans on the Moon before the United States gets back there—a large and visible accomplishment that would signal Chinese ascendance in the eyes of non-aligned countries."

Nothing like a little competition to stoke the fires.
Paul

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8781
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3786
  • Likes Given: 892
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #103 on: 11/16/2018 12:54 am »
I thought the pivot to the "Moon First" policy is to develop and practice methods/hardware for Mars, it sure seems that LOP/G really hurts the quick return to Luna. 

Which should really tell ya about the methods/hardware they intend to use for Mars.

i.e., whatever costs the most and takes the longest :(
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Liked: 1166
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #104 on: 11/16/2018 01:44 am »
Quote
Mike Griffin was highly critical of NASA's proposed Gateway today. Almost shockingly so, from a senior administration official. Full comments within:
Quote
Former NASA administrator says Lunar Gateway is “a stupid architecture”
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1063192808113270785

Full article:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/former-nasa-administrator-says-lunar-gateway-is-a-stupid-architecture/

I don't normally agree with "Apollo on Steroids" Griffin, but what he and others 'advisors' said was pretty spot on.

It could be worse though, I bet Griffin's alternative to LOP-G would be ditching the ISS and pay the usual suspects $4B per year for a cost-plus lunar lander. So, while LOP-G is a "stupid architecture", it's not the worst plan out there...

In retrospect, I wish ARM had survived, a lot of people didn't like it, but comparing to LOP-G it would have less baggage and make it easier for NASA to transition to commercial cis-lunar transportation in the 2020s.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17832
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 494
  • Likes Given: 4883
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #105 on: 11/16/2018 01:48 am »
NASA wants Canadian boots on the moon as first step in deep space exploration

"The head of the U.S. space agency said today he wants to see Canadian astronauts walking on the moon before long — part of a first step toward the farther reaches of space.

Jim Bridenstine, administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, said he wants Canada's decades-long space partnership with the U.S. to continue as NASA embarks on the creation of its new Lunar Gateway."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nasa-canada-moon-orbit-1.4905039

Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8593
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #106 on: 11/16/2018 05:33 am »
Is there any difference in the payload mass an SLS can land on the Moon if the lander is based at EML-1 rather than NRHO?

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18638
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 6665
  • Likes Given: 913
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #107 on: 11/16/2018 06:06 am »
Griffin also says the schedule of a landing of 2028 is too slow. I thought 2028 was very optimistic, considering the convoluted method of getting there using the Gateway and limited fixed yearly funding. If NASA ditches the Gateway and just uses Block IB, it might be possible to put boots on the Moon by 2028.

Corrected from 2018 to 2028.
« Last Edit: 11/16/2018 04:34 pm by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8828
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5888
  • Likes Given: 1990
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #108 on: 11/16/2018 08:50 am »
Griffin also says the schedule of a landing of 2018 is too slow. I thought 2018 was very optimistic, considering the convoluted method of getting there using the Gateway and limited fixed yearly funding. If NASA ditches the Gateway and just uses Block IB, it might be possible to put boots on the Moon by 2018.

You do know that 2018 is this year right? As in, the year that is already mostly over?


Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2634
  • Canada
  • Liked: 429
  • Likes Given: 649
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #109 on: 11/16/2018 10:02 am »
Griffin also says the schedule of a landing of 2018 is too slow. I thought 2018 was very optimistic, considering the convoluted method of getting there using the Gateway and limited fixed yearly funding. If NASA ditches the Gateway and just uses Block IB, it might be possible to put boots on the Moon by 2018.

You do know that 2018 is this year right? As in, the year that is already mostly over?

2028 was stated in the Ars Techica article.

But using the Block 1B for an Apollo like mission profile is still about $3B to $5B per flight if you include Orion, SLS Block 1B & some sort of lander. Never mind the development cost of the EUS upper stage and the unspecified lander.

IMO think it is too late for NASA to field any sort of large manned Moon lander by 2028, if NASA is running the development.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6250
  • Liked: 4115
  • Likes Given: 5628
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #110 on: 11/16/2018 12:17 pm »
With the mentioned 5% budget cut in FY2020, the Admin says we're not going at all.  Time to drop the lead boots model we are using and get on with existing and newly-developing rocketry.  Take a direct-to-the-surface approach. 

The gateway is a great place to start cutting.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5647
  • Liked: 1173
  • Likes Given: 710
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #111 on: 11/16/2018 03:03 pm »
Quote
Mike Griffin was highly critical of NASA's proposed Gateway today. Almost shockingly so, from a senior administration official. Full comments within:

Griffin, who was speaking as a guest of the Space Council's Users' Advisory Group got the headlines, but members of the Group themselves criticized the gateway as well.
« Last Edit: 11/16/2018 03:03 pm by Proponent »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18638
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 6665
  • Likes Given: 913
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #112 on: 11/16/2018 04:35 pm »
You do know that 2018 is this year right? As in, the year that is already mostly over?

Oops, I meant 2028!
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1298
  • Liked: 558
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #113 on: 11/16/2018 05:13 pm »

IMO think it is too late for NASA to field any sort of large manned Moon lander by 2028, if NASA is running the development.

ESA service module was signed in late 2012 and delivered in later 2018. And it is actually super close to what a lunar lander would be. In fact, if you put a 4700 kg mass equivalent to a LEM ascent stage on top of it, technically the delta-v would be ~2200 m/s. LEM was also 6 years from funding to deployment. 6 years appears to be the average for similar types of equipment. SLS is tracking for delivery in 9 years, which was a bit harder task.
« Last Edit: 11/16/2018 05:18 pm by ncb1397 »

Online freddo411

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 414
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #114 on: 11/16/2018 05:28 pm »
Quote
"The architecture that has been put in play, putting a Gateway before boots on the Moon is, from a space-systems engineer's standpoint, a stupid architecture," he said. "Gateway is useful when, but not before, we are manufacturing propellant on the Moon and shipping it up to a depot in lunar orbit. We should be, with all deliberate speed, returning to the Moon and learning how to utilize the resources of our nearest Earth-orbit object."

Wow.  I never anticipated hearing such clarity out of anyone in the upper echelons of Space Policy.   That is fantastic.

A surface base is a worthy goal.   The usual partners can and will come along excitedly.   

Commercial resupply can be had.   It's time to stop ignoring the soon to be reality of BFR and New Armstrong.

It's time to stop stupid, and work on worthy goals.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #115 on: 11/16/2018 05:49 pm »
There is lot be said for focusing on ISRU. Exploration and pilot plant van be done with existing commercial LVs and landers.

The other thing that needs work is in orbit refuelling of cryo fuels, plus their storage and transport. ISRU is useless without these technologies


Tags: