Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

SpaceNut · 2018-05-29 17:11:20

The document from louis provided links
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file … tagged.pdf
Slide 3:

timeline shows why nasa is using the timid approach to near neighborhood as we are looking at just a single days return to earth after a near years time in space with the larger unit called a habitat for mars to have longer durations but just 3 months to return not the normal 6 to 8 which means a change in ropulsion is needed between each timeline that nasa does not have....

Void · 2018-05-29 19:34:32

I have been nervous about the Deep Space Gateway, because I did not see a strong reason to expose people to the radiation, but thinking about it further, if the objective was to discover methods to handle the radiation, by special clothing, mass for shielding, and magnetic fields for shielding, then I support it, as it would further the notion of deep space crewed space vessels.

I have discovered as well that there seems to be quite a possibility of making the activities centered around the Moon, NEO's, and Synthetic gravity habitats appears to be actually real and present.

As evidence of that, I present these:

Moon:
https://www.space.com/40709-nasa-commer … -plan.html
https://mashable.com/2018/05/28/jeff-be … gTzcq.qPqq

This next item especially: Quote:

(Professor O'Neill was very formative for me," Bezos said. "I read 'The High Frontier' in high school.)

https://www.space.com/40722-jeff-bezos- … rigin.html

https://www.cnet.com/news/jeff-bezos-bl … -the-moon/
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/05/ … earth.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/technolog … pace_.html

I don't think it is a Mars only space process now, at all. And Richard Branson appears to have much more aggressive intentions than just lofting to sub-orbital for experiments, and space tourism.

I am quite sure that SpaceX won't miss the chance either.

The "Hail Mary to Mars" was always a almost hopeless proposition I think anyway. This in my opinion will much more guarantee that humans will populate, Mars, Orbital and Callisto Jupiter, and even places like Pluto-Charon ultimately. I have been looking into Pluto-Charon. I think under the solar system space effort, it would indeed hold some very interesting possibilities. I am going to post about it elsewhere.

I am very happy.

Last edited by Void (2018-05-29 19:37:10)

louis · 2018-05-29 19:40:46

If this was the way forward Musk would have grabbed at it...he hasn't so it ain't. NASA, though they do lots of good things, are guided by embedded interests, for whom alacrity is almost a dirty word.

Void · 2018-05-29 20:29:36

That's very rigid Louis.

SpaceX is planning to use BFR to go to the Moon. And you can expect that they will foster activities to NEO's if those opportunities show up, and I believe they certainly will.

I think things are going to be way more big time than Mars.

This indicates what a fantastic tool BFR/BFS would be for accessing the Moon.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/01/s … ation.html

And Elon Musk has definitely talked about a Moon Base, and also a orbital space station such as in the movie 2001.
So, I would not rule it out.

Elon Musk calls for a Moon base:
https://www.space.com/37549-elon-musk-m … -mars.html
Quote:

Downsizing the ITS spaceship a bit — the originally unveiled version would carry at least 100 people — and using it for some profit-generating "Earth-orbit activity" could help make Mars colonization economically feasible, Musk said at the ISSR&D conference today.

He really should have said: "Downsizing the ITS spaceship a bit — the originally unveiled version would carry at least 100 people — and using it for some profit-generating "Earth/Moon activity" could help make Mars colonization economically feasible, Musk said at the ISSR&D conference today."

Further, there are international customers who would pay money to get experiments to the Moon. A payoff.
A business likes to have profit.

Last edited by Void (2018-05-29 20:36:34)

SpaceNut · 2018-07-18 18:08:12

This belongs here more thanm in the other topics as they are more about the politics.

Russia may use ISS Modules in Lunar Gateway Project

Russia may decide to stop the construction of its segment of the International Space Station (ISS) and to use the ordered modules for the Lunar Orbital Platform - Gateway (LOP-G) project, a source in Russia's rocket and space industry told Sputnik on Wednesday. "Due to the fact that the ISS operation is planned to be terminated in 2024, and the Russian segment is still not completed, there are proposals to complete its [ISS] creation in the current configuration, and the [Russian] ordered module

The date is actually 2028 but that is if its still certifiable....

Void · 2018-08-20 10:14:16

Something more about the gateway.
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-lockheed- … -deep.html

Just information.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-08-25 06:59:04

Here's a YouTube of the panel discussion at the 21st. Annual Mars Conference, regarding the LOP-G, what they're now calling the gateway.

Needless to say, Dr. Zubrin is in fine form: https://youtu.be/5f6fMI5DiOA

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2018-08-25 06:59:51)

SpaceNut · 2018-09-12 17:38:05

NASA updates Lunar Gateway plans

Separate modules of the lunar gateway are planned to be launched to the Moon beginning in 2022, and NASA provided the latest look at the pieces and a forecast of their launch schedule.
A commitment of funding for the gateway project is still forthcoming, but the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) is the module that would launch first. Now just referred to as “The Gateway,” the spacecraft formerly known as the “Deep Space Gateway” and referred to in this year’s budget request as the “Lunar Orbital Platform – Gateway” (LOP-G) is planned to orbit high above the poles of the Moon in support of crew visits and science experiments.
“Our very first flight to the Gateway we expect to have an expedition length of about 30 days from launch to landing,” Jason Crusan, Advanced Exploration Systems Director and Gateway Formulation Lead for NASA, said. “We have a twenty-some day capacity on Orion [and] we have the ability to be on Gateway.”
“As we get into the mission design we’ll figure out the total length, but we’ll have the full duration Orion plus anywhere from six to thirteen days on the actual Gateway on the very first mission.”
The Gateway is also now expected to need two habitation modules rather than one, as the earlier minimum of 55 cubic meters of habitable volume wouldn’t meet the requirements developed between NASA and several of its international partners working on the International Space Station (ISS).

ppe_nac_heo.PPE-Overview.Page-7.jpg

“The PPE Flight System shall utilize an electric propulsion system with the capability to operate over a thrust-to-power ratio range of at least 43 – 52 mN/kW (millinewtons per kilowatt).”

GW Johnson · 2018-09-13 15:17:40

I second Oldfart1939's motion.

GW

SpaceNut · 2018-09-22 14:53:43

The political rhetoric is creeping into whether we will down one partner in going to the moon with a deep space station. Relations between Moscow and Washington have soured since 2014 after Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine and was accused of meddling in the U.S. 2016 presidential election.

Russia throws doubt on joint lunar space station with U.S.: RIA because it does not want a "second fiddle role.

So if Russia needs a heavy lift its going to need lots more money being put into a program with china it would seem....

Belter · 2018-09-23 19:58:19

"But nothing is certain, and space stations and human spaceflight in general have long had powerful critics. One of the most outspoken is Dr. Steven Weinberg, the Nobel-winning theoretical physicist. He's called the ISS an “orbital turkey” and said that “human beings don’t serve any useful function in space.”"

Belter · 2018-09-23 20:42:08

Though I think there should be some sort of space station, potentially at a Lagrange point *just because*, I think this kind of thing is just a waste of time. It's busy work, nothing more. There seems to be nothing pioneering or interesting about it. Not even artificial gravity. It's more like a big life pod and for what? Without a desire to land and settle a south pole crater, what good is it? It would hardly be of much value. Maybe a good place to exchange people or supplies for a moon base. Now if we build it as a space craft and just want to test it for a year at a distant orbit, fine.

SpaceNut · 2018-09-23 20:52:48

I am thinking that Nasa believes that the Deep Space Gateway would be a better safe haven than being on the lunar surface.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-09-23 21:46:12

The lunar surface is at least 50% shielded from GCR exposure by the planet itself. There is also available regolith for shielding from Solar flare activity. Build structures and heap lunar regolith on them to a depth of several meters. End of that problem.

Added in edit: And yes, there's also gravity.

Next problem?

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2018-09-23 22:06:04)

spacetechsforum · 2018-09-24 04:08:39

My personal opinion on the state of different subject related to the space exploration:

1. Lifting cargo into orbit - with current technology we can actually do it quite "simply" - some efficiency boost would be welcome (like BFR - more payload, less costs) but I do not think like there is a strong need to pursue better designs in this field.

2. Space travel and payload transportation - we are capable of constructing "spacecrafts" that can carry all necessary resources to achieve all other tasks in this list. It is very expensive, and very troublesome but the work is progressing (BFR). Still i think that a lot more effort should be directed into designing and creating a better and more efficient solutions. Currently, this subject needs a strong advertising, promotion and consequently investors. Also better society awareness of the benefits of the space exploration could bring more funds from the governments (like USA - military/NASA funding balance)

3. Space stations (anywhere) - critical problem: sun flares - not solved.

4. Mars colony - in theory - technology allows but solutions not yet developed. No agreement on "how we should do it" - underground?

problems: habitats - not solved, Mars-Earth transportation (and long term colony resupply) - in progress (BFR), mining insitu resources - not solved, creating new constructions from available materials - not solved. There is a lot more problems here, but since there are many proposed approaches, each one creates new challenges. No point on dwelling here until there is no agreement on the pursued solution.

5. Mun base - now this is interesting. A very low interest in pursuing this goal is somehow difficult to understand. Challenges similar to the ones in Mars Colony, but no fame from this achievement. Still much easier and cheaper, provides a lot of engeeniering experience, may be supplied from earth - and a magnitudes better for space turism than the Mars. Quick arrival and return, plus lower gravity (a lot of fun). Transmitting soccer match (or any sport event) played in those conditions would surly be a something to look forward in TV. Health issues due to low gravity may require workers rotation but it would be much easier to develop the solution to the whole "gravity" problem in test ground in place.

tahanson43206 · 2018-10-02 08:37:02

Regarding GCR ...
https://www.engadget.com/2018/10/02/dee … -gut-tumor

Oldfart1939 · 2018-10-02 13:57:15

tahanson43206 wrote:

Regarding GCR ...
https://www.engadget.com/2018/10/02/dee … -gut-tumor

'

Another "scare-type article" that ignores quite a bit of on-hand data. It' always the "could alter," not a definitive statement. Commercial airline pilots accumulate a significantly higher exposure level to GCR than those of us taking our meals here on the surface of Earth. There is also substantial data accumulated from the ISS astronauts disproving this "we can't go to Mars because ___________." Another fill in the blanks statement.

kbd512 · 2018-10-02 14:30:16

Oldfart1939,

The boffins are working overtime to try to find reasons why we're not doing great things with billions of dollars of tax payer money. The longer this nonsense goes on, the more I'm in favor of giving our tax money to SpaceX since that company's overriding concern seems to be getting things done, rather than making excuses about why things haven't been done yet.

Good grief. What's next?

spacetechsforum · 2018-10-04 03:16:51

"Follow the money" - i have no idea what you meant by that but that was a good advice. I searched internet for the grant number and here it is, the study in question:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903607/

It seems legit - i am not a biologist to dispute it and prove the claim on radiation effects is wrong. On the other hand I do not know how did NASA obtain data on REM values away from earth? I mean this value depends on the radiation type so you cannot just scale x-ray effects.

This does not mean we cannot fly to Mars, just adequate protection is needed. There seems to be a lot of support for protecting craft with water shield. I think it is a good idea, since you need to take the water anyway, but is the irradiated water suitable for drinking?

Last edited by spacetechsforum (2018-10-04 03:37:22)

SpaceNut · 2018-10-04 21:52:12

Comments that have been moved are related to the new topic Radiation amount type risk mitigation with regards to any journey that stays in space long term.

SpaceNut · 2018-11-29 21:10:45

Will the partner number 1 please step up... Roscosmos, NASA to work together on concept of Lunar orbital station

SpaceNut · 2018-12-02 16:36:22

Possible parts to make use of for the lunar station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_ … st#Block_5

How much fuel is remaining in the second stage of the Falcon 9 Heavy launch for a Dragon of either version?

Is that enough to send a capsule to the moon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon

Falcon 9 block 5 with crewed flight capsule

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_spacecraft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_(spacecraft)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-II_Transfer_Vehicle

Modules
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati … ce_Station

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_(ISS_module)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmony_(ISS_module)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_Joint_Airlock
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_(ISS_module)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zvezda_(ISS_module)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarya

SpaceNut · 2018-12-30 21:57:54

Breathing is important and so is the scrubbers and systems that go with it to keep the air we breath safe on a long duration journey...

Clearing the air for deep space travel

astronaut-randy-bresnik-hatch-iss-bigelow-expandable-aerospace-module-beam-hg.jpg

Occupational Safety and Health Administration considers any atmosphere with an oxygen level below 19.5 percent to be oxygen-deficient and immediately dangerous to human life and health.

SpaceNut · 2019-02-02 18:42:45

Whether large or small way stations seem to be the only way many think we can go beyond LO to explore.
Waystation to the Solar System

iss-fully-docked-soyuz-soyuz-progress-dragon-cygnus-beam-dec-2019-hg.jpg

deal for Earth-LEO operations - for going outwards the ISS is next to useless due to it's orbital inclination. An equatorial spaceport could operate a daily shuttle service to and from the waystation. Since the equatorial location offers simple ascent and reentry operations with minimal propellant expenditures and a low-radiation in-orbit environment for humans, this solution could really catch on. As it turns out, there are other neat things that can be done in orbits over the equator. So, this waystation may fit well into a multifunctional space ecosystem.

So why are we not persuing the making of another much cheaper station. Can we use ION tugs to move pieces that are needed to the new location?

So, what is the easiest way to go anywhere in the Solar System? Well, most people don't know this, but the answer is to do it in stages. One smart way is to first go from the Earth's surface to a low-orbiting waystation.
Then transfer to a solar system transport vehicle. Such transporters would be designed to travel only in space and do not have the ability to depart from the Earth's surface or to land on the moon on Mars.
For a Mars mission, this transporter would take you from low-Earth orbit on a heliocentric path to an orbit about the Red Planet. In the case of a lunar vacation, your transfer vehicle would take you on a near-escape Earth transfer trajectory that ends as an orbit about the Moon. In either case, you then transfer to a local reusable launch/reentry vehicle that can take you to the surface of your desired planet or moon.

Of course its a bit more complex than what is outlined but its what we need for safe haven....

GW Johnson · 2019-02-03 15:07:05

Generally speaking, you get about the same half-sky radiation shielding effect in low orbit, as you do standing on a planetary surface. You do not get that much shielding effect in a higher orbit, or especially one as far away as a Lagrange point.

Factor 2 reduction is a big help with GCR. You just have to shield against solar flare events, no way around that. There is also no way around the fact that solar flare shielding is somewhere around 10-20 cm of water or equivalent, and the threat is omnidirectional. If such is not in the lunar gateway design (and it is not), then quite frankly, you have a design that is guaranteed to kill a crew, sooner or later.

So how is THAT a step on the way to the moon, or Mars, or anywhere else? Looks more like big-corporate welfare, to me.

GW

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2018-05-29 17:11:20

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

#77 2018-05-29 19:34:32

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

#78 2018-05-29 19:40:46

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

#79 2018-05-29 20:29:36

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

#80 2018-07-18 18:08:12

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

#81 2018-08-20 10:14:16

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

#82 2018-08-25 06:59:04

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

#83 2018-09-12 17:38:05

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

#84 2018-09-13 15:17:40

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

#85 2018-09-22 14:53:43

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

#86 2018-09-23 19:58:19

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

#87 2018-09-23 20:42:08

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

#88 2018-09-23 20:52:48

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

#89 2018-09-23 21:46:12

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

#90 2018-09-24 04:08:39

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

#91 2018-10-02 08:37:02

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

#92 2018-10-02 13:57:15

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

#93 2018-10-02 14:30:16

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

#94 2018-10-04 03:16:51

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

#95 2018-10-04 21:52:12

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

#96 2018-11-29 21:10:45

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

#97 2018-12-02 16:36:22

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

#98 2018-12-30 21:57:54

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

#99 2019-02-02 18:42:45

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

#100 2019-02-03 15:07:05

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

Board footer