Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

Oldfart1939 · 2017-12-10 00:44:22

All SpaceX has to do is continue having a string of successes. The very positive PR will do the rest. Most important will be for Falcon Heavy to have a good demonstration flight.

SpaceNut · 2017-12-10 16:17:21

I think that its more than that as its not going to be easy once falcon 9 stops and heavy as well long before BFR is flying.

So how do we get Space x to ignore Nasa and to keep going forward with this mission and others on its own. Forcing old guard to catch up.

First step to appease Nasa and the Military would to keep a production of Falcon 9's going to support LEO missions ect....this keeps Space x from becoming a workfare company.

Next step is to really make use of Falcon 9 heavy not just as a test but as a means to push man back to the moon which means we need a lunar lander and base modules for added crew materials to be used in. Buy a Cygnus to learn from its design to make module building possible.

Continue growth of the next BFR with methane engines toward 10 meters and greater lift for what is needed as a larger core than the 3.7m size of a falcon with adapter collar that brings the size up to something less than 10 meters for payload as we want more tonnage at the 10 meter diameter.

kbd512 · 2017-12-10 17:53:54

NASA could achieve 100% of its Mars exploration goals using Falcon 9 and Falcon 9 Heavy. The New Glenn and Vulcan / Vulcan Heavy rockets can provide competition to keep launch services costs sane. Blue Origin and NASA want to go back to the moon. Maybe we should, just to appease them, and actually gain experience with deep space operations. Boeing and SpaceX are dead set on going to Mars. Right now, the only rockets with significant flight heritage are Atlas V and Falcon 9. Surely it would've been cheaper and faster to develop those systems than it would be to build brand new rockets like SLS.

All companies involved want to use LOX/LCH4 for propellants, so there has to be some sort of practical reason why those propellants look more attactive to launch services providers than LOX/RP1, LOX/LH2, or solids. NASA is still stuck on using LOX/LH2 and solids. The military is still stuck on using LOX/RP1. We spent billions to develop J2X and then shelved it. Maybe it's time to put more government R&D money behind these new LOX/LCH4 engines, propellant pressurization using the propellants themselves instead of He, integrated vehicle fluids, and composite tankage. That would simplify booster design and lower costs.

For a 10m core design to make sense, a MLP has to be modified to use it, but we've already spent hundreds of millions to modify them for SLS. I think the commodity rockets will have to do for now. With any luck, Congress will cancel SLS in a year or two.

Lake Matthew Team - Cole · 2017-12-11 12:57:43

kbd512 wrote:

Any plan to fill BFS with 130t of water from an asteroid is an unnecessary and expensive diversion for something that's not an actual problem for the colonists and a problem that we just ignore for astronauts who repeatedly go to ISS. The accumulated doses are no different, given their frequent missions to ISS...
Passive shielding is required for every space craft, but lighter passive shielding solutions exist right now (HDPE)...

Moon, not asteroid. And Deimos is en route.

Water would be the easiest Deimos ISRU product, and easily transferred between Deimos and LEO. Notably, unlike plastics or other fixed shielding, the water shield would not be lifted from a planetary surface, or lowered down to one. The rocket equation really likes that. Hence the given Omaha Trail flight efficiencies, which are not possible with a comparable fixed shield that's lugged from one planetary surface to another.

Big efficiencies translate into big cost savings, which grow with the fleet; so the "expensive diversion" is actually status-quo thinking.

--

Speaking of status quo, yes, this is nominally a DSG thread. And of course one can do a DSG one-off without water shielding, and just suffer per usual. Why one would bother with that -- why one would spend far more than SpaceX to achieve far, far less -- is a question that needs asking.

Likewise, the corollary question: Why build an ITS infrastructure without first examining the efficiencies, cost savings etc. of the Omaha Trail?

RobertDyck · 2017-12-11 13:21:05

Locating an ice resource on Deimos will take time and resources. It has to be found, mined, purified, and stored. All that takes infrastructure. I agree that eventually Phobos and/or Deimos could be a source of propellant. But it certainly isn't for the first mission.

DSG, Deimos, Mars orbit only missions. How many distractions? When will someone get off their ass and get the job done?!?!

Terraformer · 2017-12-11 14:44:57

How much would it cost to send a robot to locate and mine ice from Deimos, and then send it back to Terra for the manned ship? How does that compare with 1-2 launches of the ITS to send up that water?

SpaceNut · 2017-12-11 20:33:02

Designing a ship for artificial gravity is about a diameter of spin about a non moving point to equalize the effects all the way around. Inflatables that are only partially ridgid via pressure really does not make you feel all that well when we are to do spin up and down possibly multiple times as we make the journey. Stringing several Cygnus would seem to be the answer even if they are empty and just are for cargo with the water passive shield where the ends are for crew to get into when we are experiencing a solar flare and for sleeping. This can stay in use for the moon missions to gain the ability to do the spin up and down. The really problem still to work out for mars is still large mass landings....and then to be able to return back to mars orbit after the surface stay.

kbd512 · 2017-12-11 21:05:48

Lake Matthew Team - Cole,

In the sense that I take no issue with your team's concepts, I don't care about whatever other special missions other special interest groups want to run once the first humans set foot on Mars. The fact of the matter is that absolutely no one is going to Mars until everyone stops messing around with these diversionary projects and commits to designing the simplest and most reliable basic exploration missions achievable with current technology. Do we want to go to Mars or do we want to go to Mars? It's a simple question. My opinion of your project is that I think it's awesome, but it's a project to undertake AFTER we simply send explorers to Mars and bring them back alive.

There are real fundamental problems to solution before we can send anyone to Mars. As long as you have smart people working for you, you may as well direct their research efforts towards the most immediate problems that have been show stoppers up to this point. We always crawl / walk / run / train like hell / run a marathon for a reason. It's the natural progression of steps required to run a marathon. There are no solutions or technologies that we have available to us that we can use to hand wave the staggering complexity, reliability, and protection problems. Anyone who thinks there is has bought into magical thinking. Choosing an exploration solution that requires an unnecessarily sophisticated and therefore complicated, protracted, and expensive development program to solution problems that are not immediate problems is not a good way to get NASA and FAA to sign off on a mission. Whether you believe it or not, you have to get their sign off to do any such mission. NASA and FAA are the gatekeepers for a reason and that reason is not to simply irritate people who want to try something new that might work.

This is what we absolutely must have:

1. Reliable electrical power systems
2. Reliable avionics with exceptionally accurate sensor input for precise determination of spacecraft position and attitude
3. Reliable closed-loop life support
4. Reliable propulsion systems adequate for the intended task
5. Acceptable radiation protection
6. Something other than zero-G transit, since we all know how rapidly zero-G negatively affects human physiology
7. Tested contingency plans and operations to deal with the inevitable equipment failures and human errors

Flying a DSG in lunar orbit with systems adequate to the tasks required for Mars exploration is an important first step. Those things listed above will ultimately make or break any deep space mission to anywhere. Whatever we develop above and beyond those basic requirements is gravy. Let's put the meat and potatoes on the plate first. Any attempt to "go for the gold" at this point is just introducing another unnecessary and counter-productive delay to doing something worthwhile. To reiterate, the ideas your team have are still great ideas, but they require technological development that's not immediately necessary to the task of sending humans to Mars and returning them to Earth in good physical condition. I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade here.

Basically, would you be willing to use some of your team's time to adequately solution (in other words, using that old aerospace design adage that the airplane is built to be as strong as it needs to be to withstand flight loads and no stronger) the basic problems in the simplest, most reliable, and most cost-effective way possible so we can get to the point where we can implement your team's more advanced concepts for colonization?

Oldfart1939 · 2017-12-16 12:33:12

Dragging this thread back to the original topic/question:

Who, or which group within NASA have somehow made this cockamamie idea something like "official policy." It's such a stupid and pointless project that it boggles my imagination. Not even the engineers at Boeing or Lockheed Martin have come close to such a concept. It's basically "a rocket (SLS) in search of some justification (mission)."

As others posting on this forum have stated elsewhere, NASA will not get us back to the moon nor will NASA get us to Mars. Only SpaceX and Blue Origin have the necessary drive and intellectual potential to undertake such missions.

kbd512 · 2017-12-16 16:13:35

Oldfart1939,

In order to actually test systems for deep space exploration, you have to actually go to deep space and do that. DSG was designed to do that. The avionics, life support, power, and propulsion systems require a deep space test. The fact that all the concepts from old and new space include all those features in their DSG concepts says to me that whether or not NASA is serious about this, the contractors are serious about wanting to pull this off.

Boeing / Lockheed Martin / SpaceX all want to use serious radiation shielding that stops SPE's and minimizes penetration of light ion GCR's. Boeing also wants spin gravity and active radiation shielding to stop everything, for example. It's hard for me to believe that the people at Blue Origin / Boeing / Lockheed Martin / SpaceX who have been dreaming about this since they watched the Apollo missions as kids are all insincere in their desire to actually do this. NASA is a government agency that's nearly choked itself to death with internal bureaucracy, but that doesn't mean their contractors are just sticking their thumbs up their butts.

NASA keeps moving the goal post for Orion, so Lockheed Martin dutifully changed the design of Orion with every new request they received from NASA to appease the agency. It's to the point now that they have satisfied every request received thus far, no matter how antithetical to the original design the request was, so now NASA can fly it. It's obvious that Boeing's Starliner and SpaceX's Dragon 2 were not designed with deep space transit in mind. Modifications could obviously be made, but then those mods have to be developed and tested. Commercial crew capsules will undergo flight tests in 2018 at the earliest and the first manned flight is likely to occur in 2019.

SLS won't fly in a man rated configuration until 2023 at the earliest, so it'll be in development longer than the Saturn V program existed and this was supposed to be the "cheaper" solution based on existing STS hardware. There's something fundamentally wrong with that and that's why both Orion and SLS should be cancelled. SLS was and is a colossal waste of time and money with no forethought given to what it would actually launch. No development funding has been allocated to payloads that would require SLS since Orion and SLS are consuming all available funding. The technologies created for Orion should be applied to a DSG design that has the features that make DSG useful for deep space transits.

SpaceNut · 2017-12-16 20:12:53

The older topic Deep space habitat has some of the images of these with in it. Old space is in a rut.....but hopefully they can climb out of it soon.

SpaceNut · 2018-01-17 17:04:07

From March 28, 2017 NASA's Deep Space Gateway near the moon, where astronauts will build and begin testing the systems needed for challenging missions to deep space destinations including Mars.

This first phase of exploration near the moon will use current technologies and allow us to gain experience with extended operations farther from Earth than previously completed. The area of space near the moon offers a true deep space environment to gain experience for human missions that push farther into the solar system, access the lunar surface for robotic missions but with the ability to return to Earth if needed in days rather than weeks or months. Missions in the vicinity of the moon will span multiple phases as part of NASA's framework to build a flexible, reusable and sustainable infrastructure that will last multiple decades and support missions of increasing complexity.

Nothing like going slowly....

This deep space gateway would have a power bus, a small habitat to extend crew time, docking capability, an airlock, and serviced by logistics modules to enable research. The propulsion system on the gateway mainly uses high power electric propulsion for station keeping and the ability to transfer among a family of orbits in the lunar vicinity. The three primary elements of the gateway, the power and propulsion bus and habitat module, and a small logistics module(s).

So developing technology for its construction....

The second phase of missions will confirm that the agency's capabilities built for humans can perform long duration missions beyond the moon. For those destinations farther into the solar system, including Mars, NASA envisions a deep space transport spacecraft. This spacecraft would be a reusable vehicle that uses electric and chemical propulsion and would be specifically designed for crewed missions to destinations such as Mars. The transport would take crew out to their destination, return them back to the gateway, where it can be serviced and sent out again. This second phase will culminate at the end of the 2020s with a one year mission in the lunar vicinity to validate the readiness of the system to travel beyond the Earth-moon system to Mars and other destinations, and build confidence that long-duration, distant human missions can be safely conducted with independence from Earth.

still kicking the can down the road. This needs to have a new timeline the is not 2 decades from now....

lots of video at the pageNASA's Deep Space Gateway is Humanity's Ticket to Mars

April 2017 article NASA’s human spaceflight plans come into focus with announcement of Deep Space Gateway

Article closes with the "No bucks, no Buck Rogers" to which stop cost plus contracting...

Oldfart1939 · 2018-01-17 20:51:19

This entire program is a slow boat to nowhere! This is another workfare program for the OldSpace cartel that "keeps on giving." My estimate for all this malarkey is around $30 Billion. Not adjusted for dollar devaluation, sometimes referred to as "inflation."

SpaceNut · 2018-01-17 21:07:24

The list of new tech to which a protype of the habitation is in lockheeds hands, Ion Drive in the 40kw size must be some sort of adapted design, Logistics is a redu of the ISS modules and so is the air lock but what I find interesting is the final assembled station in 2026 as it resembles skylab on steriods, oh to soon...sort of the same promised for Orion...Then there are the 2 additional uses for launch large probes to jupiter and saturn in the early stages.....To which this is all happening in just 8 years.

Void · 2018-01-19 20:01:56

My dream space program(s):
I see three space programs actively seeking to reach fulfillment.
1) NASA wants this Lunar space station. And then I think it has been said a future focus on Phobos and/or Demos, then Mars.
2) Jeff Bezos, and other Moon bugs what to focus on the Earth/Moon system, for the benefit of the Earth.
3) Elon Musk simply wants BFR to go from Earth orbit to Mars surface.
I want them all, and I think I can explain a logical method to sequence them in a manner which is not wasteful.
*Let me mention the major item I want to alter in this. As I see it the gateway should be planned as an eventual possible space station around Mars. It should be planned to start small but be upgradable to become a device with synthetic gravity, if future information supports the investment.
#1 and #2 can work together to develop automation/robots on the surface of the Moon. If that works out, and there will eventually be enough automation/robotics on the Moon, run by Telepresence from Earth and more precise and real time Telepresence from the Gateway, then it will make sense to put organic test subjects into the Lunar gravity field on the surface to test, how much the Lunar gravity field is more habitable than Microgravity. These test subjects can be microbes, plants, animals, and yes humans who choose to participate. They likely will not just be guinea pigs, but will also explore the human soul, and indeed they will eventually be the most real time telepresence operators local to a particular area on the Moon.
The curve generated by the relative habitability of Microgravity vs. Lunar Gravity should suggest how the biology of Earth, and most importantly that of humans reacts to a particular level of gravity. There is even a chance that Lunar gravity is sufficiently healthy, but historically it is thought to be too low.
With that information an estimate of needs can be done, and the Gateway upgraded to a synthetic gravity device of 1/6 or 1/3 ...... 1 gee, as is estimated to be most useful.
If that is done then synthetic gravity can be tested as to its equivalancy to true gravitation.
If the testing on humans on synthetic gravity proves out, then the next upgrade would be to give the spinning space station a pedistal with a bearing so that it could be placed on the surface of either Phobos or Demos, if either one of those moons was shown to have resources worth having. Also added would be a "Dome" or "Umbrella" to be above it to protect from orbital objects, and to allow the placement of radiation shielding upon it. Perhaps blocks of solar melted brick, or maybe encapsulated ice blocks.
The thing I most want from Phobos and/or Demos is water ice. We don't know if it exists, but we do know that the density of the moons may suggest that voids exist in the materials. So, if it were found if ice is indeed in one or both of these objects, or perhaps even hydrated materials, it will be of interest. Both for refueling BFR's in orbit, and to Terraform Mars.
So, now enter Elon Musk and the BFR. (Maybe Alternate BFR).
Alternate BFR suggests how prior missions could evaluate Phobos and/or Demos. I would want core samples, Radar Soundings, and Sonar Soundings. BFR may be massive enough that if it were landed on those moons (And had specially modified very wide legs), it could stick to the surface with the feeble gravity of those moons, and still get these scientific items. That is my hope at least.
If he goes ahead and just does the most recent plan he recently announced, (And is allowed to), then the probing of the moons could be an afterthought.
As I have stated I want to see to possibility of BFR refueling from Phobos and/or Demos. At least a partial refueling. Maybe Carbon will not be available in those moons. We don't know.
What else I want is the possiblity that water from these moons, if it exists, can be injected into the Martian upper atmosphere, to tap the solar power supply which the U.V. spectrum represents, to split the H20 into Oxygen which may prefferentially stay with the planet Mars, and Hydrogen which may prefferentially depart from the planets atmosphere into space.
Remember that extremely unpressurized water vapor in the upper atmosphere will likely have a hard time condensing into snowfall, if there is very little nucleation dust for the condensation to start with. And even then if in the sunlight, it would be very hard for ice nucleations to survive at extremely low pressures of atmosphere.
And of course I would hope to use this tool to alter the nature of Mars. Ideally generating a more significant amount of Oxygen in the atmosphere, but even somehow, hopefully at some altitude generating an Ozone layer for Mars. (Not sure that can be stable) Maybe.
So, I want to waste nothing of the human efforts towards space activities. It just needs a bit of planning and associated co-operation from the various parties, and an attitude of lets keep seeing what we can progress to.
If it turns out that there is Natural Gas/Methane Clathrate under the surface of Mars, and you generate Oxygen, using water and U.V. light, then you have a chemical power supply for Mars.

So, for me what is going on just might end up being woven together into a master plan.
But you have to test and re-assess as you go along.

Last edited by Void (2018-01-19 20:07:03)

SpaceNut · 2018-01-19 20:41:01

Using the deep space gateway as a mars station means nasa would need to develope even more stuff to which they seem to be horibly slow at and costs tons to build...Could we just ask for a knockoff instead....

The dream does seem appealing for sure...the player count that needs to work together is the only issue

Void · 2018-01-19 20:46:47

I share some of your frustrations. However giving up won't get it done. Just have to try some more when you catch your breath.

Maybe they would be willing to contract some of these features out down the road. To the young and bold?

Last edited by Void (2018-01-19 20:47:54)

Oldfart1939 · 2018-01-20 10:08:00

Void-

In response to your above post #101, see my post # 79 on the Alternate BFR thread. I suggested the possibility of a von Braun-style bicycle wheel space station around Mars as the permanent in-space outpost. Maybe at low Mars orbit, or alternatively at Mars Geo stationary altitude over the first colony? The Mars geostationary orbit would undoubtedly be more energy intensive for use and establishment.

Void · 2018-01-20 10:41:42

Yes O.F. Here it is:
Quote:

Void-
The external fuel tank option was actually hidden in my proposal of shipping fully fueled "modules" to Mars orbit. Using an ion propulsion unit would be ideal for these. I then propose mating these "fuel modules" with propulsion units attached to the Earth return vehicles. So yeah, I'm proposing a lander/ascender stage which would be left in Mars orbit upon return to Earth. Yes, there is a lot of orbital assembly involved, but nobody said this would be a piece of cake to accomplish. Maybe--just maybe--we should consider building a von Braun "bicycle wheel" space station in Mars orbit so there would be a chance of getting some gravitational reconditioning prior to a Mars landing? And before a return Hohmann transfer ballistic orbit back to Earth?

I think it is odd that we converge this much, but its a good surprise.

My view is to work with the positive forces which seem to exist, and in some cases try to gently persuade them a bit to modify slightly so that the various options can be explored, and hopefully made to connect together in a bigger system of activities.

Ion propulsion
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … d-ISS.html
Quote:

Radical ion rocket engine that could 'get to Mars and back on one tank of fuel' set to be tested on the ISS
......
The Neumann ion drive works by bombarding the fuel source with electric arcs, which causes ions be discarded.
These ions then move through a magnetic nozzle, resulting in forward propulsion.
The innovative part of Neumann's drive is the type of fuel that was used.
While HiPEP system runs on xenon gas, Neumann's ion drive can instead run on various metals many of which can be found in space junk.
This type of technology wouldn’t be used to launch a spacecraft, could be used to optimize the success of long-term missions.
Neumann Space has signed a contract with Airbus Defence & Space to bring their record-shattering technology to the ISS.
This ion space drive was developed by Paddy Neumann, formerly a PhD student at the University of Sydney, and can achieve more than 11,000 seconds of specific impulse.
This is a measure of thruster efficiency, and far exceeds that achieved by Nasa’s High Power Electric Propulsion (HiPEP) system, which allows for about 9,600 seconds of impulse.
A paper on the Neumann Drive technology, co-authored by University of Sydney professors Marcela Bilek and David McKenzie, was published recently

So here is a very useful service, mining larger chunks of space junk before it is broken into smaller and more pieces. A really needed item.

I also suspect that if the metal propulsion mass were brought up from Earth it might be easier because it will be a relatively dense material and more easily contained than Xenon Gas, not to mention most likely much less expensive in the first place. And eventually metal propulsion mass should be available from the Moon, Phobos, Demos, Mars, and Other, as options.

The use of robotic electric propulsion and Ballistic Capture, should really be desirable for the repositioning of bulk non-living objects.

As far as synthetic gravity, there is nothing wrong with what you propose, but the device I want to place on one or both Martian moons, would serve multiple purposes, and would offer some greater protections at those locations.

I also not only want to eventually see those moons mined for whatever they offer, but to hollow them out in a manner similar to what other members suggest for small objects. Antius comes to mind.

I would like to see the smallest possible mining base start-up. Then eventually build metal walled hollows inside the moon as materials are mined out. Inside the first "Shell", I would want smaller shells. This will allow the creation of alternate layers of pressurization and vacuum. (Actually only one layer of vacuum).

The intent would be to create a spinning metal bubble which would be pressurized inside for humans. That would be inside of a vacuum bubble which would surround it. That would be inside another bubble which would not spin and would be pressurized for humans. The volume of the vacuum chamber would be small, so that if a breach occurred in either pressurized zone, it would not pull the air pressure down to lethal levels. I think that this would be as very healthy environment for humans and other biological organisms in Martian orbit.

So, eventually it is a three-ferr. Three worlds in the Martian system. Mars, Phobos, and Demos. The two later being hollowed out "Shell" worlds.

But no-one is stopping SpaceX from doing their standard BFR mission, not yet anyway.

Nice to have options, if some force does interfere with SpaceX.

That's plenty for now.

Last edited by Void (2018-01-20 11:08:28)

Oldfart1939 · 2018-01-21 10:34:36

GW-
My major issue is the long term stability of polymeric products undergoing long exposure to Ultraviolet light, which degrades most polymers. That's the primary reason I included an Aluminum-Lithium alloy skin in my suggestion. I'm all on board with the Bigelow ideas otherwise.

SpaceNut · 2018-03-16 20:06:24

The Nasa bad joke if they get out of the way and actually build something will prove and enable going back to the moon.
Cislunar station gets thumbs up, new name in President’s budget request

he Trump Administration is proposing to formally start a cislunar space station program and begin assembly early in the next decade with launch of the first element. The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) is the core module of the station, now named the “Lunar Orbital Platform – Gateway” (LOP-G).
As a part of commercial space industry initiatives for human exploration, the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 NASA budget request submitted by the President to Congress in February also proposed an accelerated, dedicated commercial launch of the PPE in 2022.
The administration is requesting LOP-G funding of US $504.2 million in FY 2019, along with a projected “out-year” funding profile of $662.2 million in FY 2020, $540 million in FY 2021, $558.9 million in FY 2022, and $459.1 million in FY 2023. New government programs like LOP-G need to be approved by both the President and Congress, but negotiations on funding and especially amounts of funding are usually slow and contentious.

SpaceNut · 2018-05-08 18:28:16

https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.spacere … 18_Web.pdf

Lots of reference to the modular build of a Deep space station

The document does talk about the risk to man and what it will take to make it safe for the missions to the moon

Oldfart1939 · 2018-05-12 11:00:48

All these comments don't really add to the discussion as to whether or not NASA should even CONSIDER, building a station now as a lunar orbiter. It's just another workfare program that in my mind, which will waste yet another $20 Billion to maybe $30 Billion in the same manner as they've blown around $20 Billion on the Orion and SLS projects--without anything yet to show for the taxpayer dollars so "invested."

I'll summarize my position:

SLS = waste of taxpayer money.

Orion = waste of taxpayer money

Proposed Lunar Orbital Station (or whatever they're calling it this week) = a delaying tactic and workfare program for ULA/Boeing/Lockheed Martin. Hence = waste of taxpayer money. Accomplishes nothing other than exposing astronauts to probable death and/or serious illnesses later in life.

SpaceNut · 2018-05-12 17:02:16

The ISS could seen as the same workfare program but now that we have a commercial industry started we are going to need more places for them to keep making money from by providing a neccessary service and hopefully they will once they are man flight registered give more flight to man to these other places. The switch over to commercial versus Nasa needs a timeline of key events to allow for handing over the keys to those other places. I also think there needs to be a key agreement that they are to keep the stations and places in good shape as well to allow for a continued population of people to venture out to the new locations that have been created. Man will only achieve the goal of colonization when the costs are little more than a flight across country on a plane as you will be paying for the balance of the trip through work.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-05-29 13:06:50

I see that others share my concerns. In this week's Space reviews, edited by Jeff Foust of SpaceNews.com, there is another article pertaining to this question I posed earlier.

Article titled: Deep Space Gateway; Does in Make Sense?

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3502/1

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2018-05-29 13:33:24)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2017-12-10 00:44:22

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#52 2017-12-10 16:17:21

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#53 2017-12-10 17:53:54

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#54 2017-12-11 12:57:43

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#55 2017-12-11 13:21:05

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#56 2017-12-11 14:44:57

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#57 2017-12-11 20:33:02

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#58 2017-12-11 21:05:48

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#59 2017-12-16 12:33:12

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#60 2017-12-16 16:13:35

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#61 2017-12-16 20:12:53

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#62 2018-01-17 17:04:07

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#63 2018-01-17 20:51:19

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#64 2018-01-17 21:07:24

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#65 2018-01-19 20:01:56

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#66 2018-01-19 20:41:01

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#67 2018-01-19 20:46:47

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#68 2018-01-20 10:08:00

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#69 2018-01-20 10:41:42

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#70 2018-01-21 10:34:36

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#71 2018-03-16 20:06:24

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#72 2018-05-08 18:28:16

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#73 2018-05-12 11:00:48

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#74 2018-05-12 17:02:16

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

#75 2018-05-29 13:06:50

Re: Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

Board footer