Author Topic: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans  (Read 7148 times)

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 594
  • Istanbul turkey
  • Liked: 252
  • Likes Given: 1025
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #40 on: 09/13/2018 03:18 PM »
Quote
The two Hab modules, one provided by the United States and one provided internationally, would now provide at least 125 cubic meters of habitable volume. Those would be launched with Orion on separate SLS flights following the ESPRIT and Utilization modules on EM-3.

It seems from this that NASA is basically designing the hab modules and then getting someone to build this. And 2 hab modules risks this becoming like the ISS - an expensive observatory to watch BFS zooming by.

Can't they just ask for "at least 125 cubic metres, launched on whatever, fit for X people for long stay, and docking to .... (OK - maybe a dozen pages of requirements)"

Wouldn't this be the sort of requirement that a BA-330 could fulfill, perhaps with some extra storage and radiation shielding for high Earth orbit?

it would be more than a dozen pages, but yes they could do exactly as you asked, except thats not really their point.

the point is to crank back up the NASA build machine

Offline freddo411

  • Member
  • Posts: 48
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #41 on: 09/13/2018 04:19 PM »
Looks like "Flags and Floating", or "Flags and no Footprints".

Very little propulsion, very little volume, very little life support,  refueling to the PPE only.

The PPE envisioned is "basically... a commercial satellite bus augmented with electric propulsion”.   Sounds like a pretty ordinary piece of kit.   https://spacenews.com/largest-all-electric-satellite-to-date-completes-orbit-raising-in-record-time/

Can anyone articulate a reason to fly a very small, very expensive and quite complicated camper to a high lunar orbit?
Why would you go there repeated, for not very long, and not very frequently?   Why would you go to that location, at all? Even once?

I thought that SLS being a very big rocket would allow for large structures, negating the need for assembly of modules.  Huh, guess that argument was specious.

I really hate this type of phrasing of a space program.  Calling anything in lunar orbit that can house humans a camper is a gross understatement of the nth degree.  Simply because you don't find it interesting or worth while doesn't mean its not.

Tell me, what is happening at the gateway exactly?   This is a serious question.   


Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8456
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #42 on: 09/13/2018 04:57 PM »
Looks like "Flags and Floating", or "Flags and no Footprints".

Very little propulsion, very little volume, very little life support,  refueling to the PPE only.

The PPE envisioned is "basically... a commercial satellite bus augmented with electric propulsion”.   Sounds like a pretty ordinary piece of kit.   https://spacenews.com/largest-all-electric-satellite-to-date-completes-orbit-raising-in-record-time/

Can anyone articulate a reason to fly a very small, very expensive and quite complicated camper to a high lunar orbit?
Why would you go there repeated, for not very long, and not very frequently?   Why would you go to that location, at all? Even once?

I thought that SLS being a very big rocket would allow for large structures, negating the need for assembly of modules.  Huh, guess that argument was specious.

I really hate this type of phrasing of a space program.  Calling anything in lunar orbit that can house humans a camper is a gross understatement of the nth degree.  Simply because you don't find it interesting or worth while doesn't mean its not.

A space camper is what the LOP-G is. At least when the spacestation is upgraded with a toilet, washing facilities, galley and life support.

Campers are used when you have people staying in the open spaces away where there are no hotels. The movie industry is a big user of them. The stars each have their own trailer with vans to carry the cameras, lights, sound equipment, generator and field kitchen. The extras and crew are brought in on coaches and taxis.

Since NASA is doing more than making a film what is the function of the world's most expensive camper?

When its function is know what additional modules are needed to permit the LOP-G to perform that function?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9669
  • Liked: 1385
  • Likes Given: 875
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #43 on: 09/13/2018 11:46 PM »
Quote
The two Hab modules, one provided by the United States and one provided internationally, would now provide at least 125 cubic meters of habitable volume. Those would be launched with Orion on separate SLS flights following the ESPRIT and Utilization modules on EM-3.

It seems from this that NASA is basically designing the hab modules and then getting someone to build this. And 2 hab modules risks this becoming like the ISS - an expensive observatory to watch BFS zooming by.

Can't they just ask for "at least 125 cubic metres, launched on whatever, fit for X people for long stay, and docking to .... (OK - maybe a dozen pages of requirements)"

Wouldn't this be the sort of requirement that a BA-330 could fulfill, perhaps with some extra storage and radiation shielding for high Earth orbit?

Most of the cost of ISS is actually commercial crew and cargo. That is why gateway will not permanently be crewed, doing so would increase its cost tremendously.
« Last Edit: 09/13/2018 11:47 PM by yg1968 »

Online Eric Hedman

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 929
  • Liked: 288
  • Likes Given: 239
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #44 on: 09/14/2018 12:32 AM »
Most of the cost of ISS is actually commercial crew and cargo. That is why gateway will not permanently be crewed, doing so would increase its cost tremendously.
Which is why bringing down the cost of spaceflight is still the biggest driver for any significant presence in space regardless of where we go.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #45 on: 09/14/2018 04:23 AM »


Most of the cost of ISS is actually commercial crew and cargo. That is why gateway will not permanently be crewed, doing so would increase its cost tremendously.

While most of the cost of any station would be cargo and crew, the reason here is because SLS is unable to launch with enough frequency for a station to be permanently crewed. The current launch rate is projected to be 2 per year at best. Unless NASA wants six month stays the system can not support a permanent presence.

Offline freddo411

  • Member
  • Posts: 48
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #46 on: 09/14/2018 05:49 AM »

Most of the cost of ISS is actually commercial crew and cargo. That is why gateway will not permanently be crewed, doing so would increase its cost tremendously.

Sure, that's a logical syllogism.   Manned spacecraft are so expensive when we launch men and supplies to them.
LOPG would be cheapest of all if we only launched the PPE and let it take pictures.

To me this paints the absurdity of LOPG; it isn't even important enough to want to spend the effort to man it more than a few days.

I'm not even sure your premise is true.   How heavy would 12 months of food/water/O2 and such be?  Compare that to the costs associated with launching Orion and the LOPG.   

Online ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
  • Liked: 386
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #47 on: 09/14/2018 06:22 AM »

I'm not even sure your premise is true.   How heavy would 12 months of food/water/O2 and such be?  Compare that to the costs associated with launching Orion and the LOPG.

Most of the upmass(and by correlation, upmass cost) in the CRS program is not stuff related to keeping the crew alive, but is instead stuff related to the research activities on board. For instance, this was the CRS-14 manifest:

Quote
Science investigations: 1,070 kg (2,359 lb)
Crew supplies: 344 kg (758 lb)
Vehicle hardware: 148 kg (326 lb)
Spacewalk equipment: 99 kg (218 lb)
Computer resources: 49 kg (108 lb)
Russian hardware: 11 kg (24 lb)
External payloads: 926 kg (2,041 lb)
Atmosphere-Space Interactions Monitor (ASIM)
Materials ISS Experiment Flight Facility (MISSE-FF)
Pump and Flow Control Subassembly (PFCS)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-14

Only 13% of the manifest was crew supplies. A single Cygnus launched and docked could provide crew supplies for about a year. And you will notice the crew stay times at LOP-G have tended to increase over time. At first, they were talking about 26-42 days. Now they are talking about 30-90 days. There is no hard limit.

Quote
Unless NASA wants six month stays the system can not support a permanent presence.

6 months isn't exactly unheard of.





« Last Edit: 09/14/2018 06:30 AM by ncb1397 »

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
  • Liked: 804
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #48 on: 09/14/2018 07:48 AM »
Most of the cost of ISS is actually commercial crew and cargo.

Incorrect. From FY2020 onward, ISS annual maintenance and research budget is $1.4B, while cargo/crew transportation annual budget is $1.8B, so 43% vs 57%, the latter hardly qualifies as "most".

Quote
That is why gateway will not permanently be crewed, doing so would increase its cost tremendously.

If you couldn't afford to use it, why do you build it in the first place?

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8379
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 4735
  • Likes Given: 1500
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #49 on: 09/14/2018 08:09 AM »
If you couldn't afford to use it, why do you build it in the first place?

Because of this:

the point is to crank back up the NASA build machine

The very same reason why SLS and Orion are (still) being built.

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1623
  • Germany
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #50 on: 09/14/2018 08:51 AM »
If you couldn't afford to use it, why do you build it in the first place?

Because of this:

the point is to crank back up the NASA build machine

The very same reason why SLS and Orion are (still) being built.
... and that is the reason why the benefit of these projects is questionable. NASA builds then so that NASA can build them.

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 594
  • Istanbul turkey
  • Liked: 252
  • Likes Given: 1025
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #51 on: 09/14/2018 09:05 AM »
If you couldn't afford to use it, why do you build it in the first place?

Because of this:

the point is to crank back up the NASA build machine

The very same reason why SLS and Orion are (still) being built.
... and that is the reason why the benefit of these projects is questionable. NASA builds then so that NASA can build them.

the only reason space "Places" have value is if they enable something past 1) building them and 2) occupying them

the problem with this design is that it does neither

the only time it can be visited is on construction efforts and those take about hwat 5-10 years.  in the meantime there is really nothing done at the statiton of any value but simply building it

there is no "private" hardware built which will allow "modification" of that hardware to a lander. 

so really what you have is a 1) build 2) construct and then at some point in the long future "do something whatever that is with" phase.  in the meantime what it accomplishes is nothing that a good relay satellite could not do

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9669
  • Liked: 1385
  • Likes Given: 875
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #52 on: 09/14/2018 07:49 PM »

Most of the cost of ISS is actually commercial crew and cargo. That is why gateway will not permanently be crewed, doing so would increase its cost tremendously.

Sure, that's a logical syllogism.   Manned spacecraft are so expensive when we launch men and supplies to them.
LOPG would be cheapest of all if we only launched the PPE and let it take pictures.

To me this paints the absurdity of LOPG; it isn't even important enough to want to spend the effort to man it more than a few days.

I'm not even sure your premise is true.   How heavy would 12 months of food/water/O2 and such be?  Compare that to the costs associated with launching Orion and the LOPG.

At a NAC meeting, Gerst said that missions to the Gateway could be longer in the future.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9669
  • Liked: 1385
  • Likes Given: 875
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #53 on: 09/14/2018 07:52 PM »
Most of the cost of ISS is actually commercial crew and cargo.

Incorrect. From FY2020 onward, ISS annual maintenance and research budget is $1.4B, while cargo/crew transportation annual budget is $1.8B, so 43% vs 57%, the latter hardly qualifies as "most".

That is what I meant by most. I meant most as in the majority of the cost. I knew that it was slightly more than half. In hindsight, perhaps I should have used the words "the majority of the cost" in order to be clearer.
« Last Edit: 09/14/2018 07:56 PM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9669
  • Liked: 1385
  • Likes Given: 875
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #54 on: 09/14/2018 07:59 PM »
If you couldn't afford to use it, why do you build it in the first place?

Because of this:

the point is to crank back up the NASA build machine

The very same reason why SLS and Orion are (still) being built.
... and that is the reason why the benefit of these projects is questionable. NASA builds then so that NASA can build them.

That is why they call it the "proving ground". It will eventually "evolve" into a Mars transportation system.

Offline TripleSeven

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 594
  • Istanbul turkey
  • Liked: 252
  • Likes Given: 1025
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #55 on: 09/14/2018 08:00 PM »
If you couldn't afford to use it, why do you build it in the first place?

Because of this:

the point is to crank back up the NASA build machine

The very same reason why SLS and Orion are (still) being built.
... and that is the reason why the benefit of these projects is questionable. NASA builds then so that NASA can build them.

That is why they call it the "proving ground". It will eventually "evolve" into a Mars transportation system.

based on what? why would the gateway evolve and ISS not?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9669
  • Liked: 1385
  • Likes Given: 875
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #56 on: 09/14/2018 08:02 PM »
If you couldn't afford to use it, why do you build it in the first place?

Because of this:

the point is to crank back up the NASA build machine

The very same reason why SLS and Orion are (still) being built.
... and that is the reason why the benefit of these projects is questionable. NASA builds then so that NASA can build them.

That is why they call it the "proving ground". It will eventually "evolve" into a Mars transportation system.

based on what? why would the gateway evolve and ISS not?

Based on prior NAC presentations, the Mars transportation system ressembled the gateway.

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
  • Long Beach, California
  • Liked: 203
  • Likes Given: 590
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #57 on: 09/15/2018 01:17 AM »
I find it astounding the way the comments continue to be on here.  I understand that most everyone is beyond cynical at this point, and for some good reasons for sure.  But listening to everyone state that what is essentially a mini ISS in lunar orbit that involves multiple space agencies has zero value?  I don't get it, even if you are not for government funded launch vehicles.


Online ncb1397

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
  • Liked: 386
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #58 on: 09/15/2018 01:40 AM »
If you couldn't afford to use it, why do you build it in the first place?

Because of this:

the point is to crank back up the NASA build machine

The very same reason why SLS and Orion are (still) being built.
... and that is the reason why the benefit of these projects is questionable. NASA builds then so that NASA can build them.

That is why they call it the "proving ground". It will eventually "evolve" into a Mars transportation system.

based on what? why would the gateway evolve and ISS not?

Based on prior NAC presentations, the Mars transportation system ressembled the gateway.

It isn't just a passing resemblance. The 320 KW Mars crew vehicle used the 40 KW system's subsystems and structures (just more of them).

Quote
In Section IV.C, a Block 1a SEP concept is described that extends the performance of the 40-kW Block 1 SEP stage described in Section IV.B while minimizing the number of systems that would need to be newly space qualified. Taking that approach one step further, a Block 2 SEP system concept was developed that uses the Block 1a structures and subsystems to provide 320 kW of power to the electric thrusters and integrates chemical thrusters to provide sufficient capability to transport four astronauts during a conjunction-class mission to the Mars surface
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160003683.pdf

Online Lemurion

Re: NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans
« Reply #59 on: 09/15/2018 03:05 AM »
I find it astounding the way the comments continue to be on here.  I understand that most everyone is beyond cynical at this point, and for some good reasons for sure.  But listening to everyone state that what is essentially a mini ISS in lunar orbit that involves multiple space agencies has zero value?  I don't get it, even if you are not for government funded launch vehicles.



I think the problem with the Gateway is that while it may offer certain benefits, it has enough drawbacks that offset its benefits that it may well end up with a net zero value.

It makes a return to the Moon objectively harder by increasing the delta-V requirements, and the argument has been made that it will take up enough of NASA's HSF budget that the agency won't really be able to afford to do anything else of any significance during its lifetime.

Tags: