Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

SpaceNut · 2019-02-03 17:36:00

I removed my other post and put it where it belonged...

Searched for data on the 20 cm water need for mars and here are some links for information.

https://space.nss.org/media/Access-To-Mars.pdf
look out its 109 pages long

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/740785main_Fly … m_2013.pdf

240 day mission deep space mission with 150 mSv career dose limit
solar radiation protection is all that is required a 20 cm thick water wall in an ISS sized element will require more than 25,000 Kgs of water
the larger ISS derived cylindrical habitat 130,000 Kg will be required.
6 person crew producing 15 l/person-day of wastewater with a 80% recovery ratio will produce 6500 Kg/year of wastewater.

The images of transhab with bags of water in the layers, proposed simular efforts for ISS with a final twist to use biology to clean the water for reuse.

From Donald Rapp
http://www.marsjournal.org/contents/200 … 6_0004.pdf

SpaceNut · 2019-02-03 18:02:39

From the acess to mars link

A 400 km circular orbit requires the least amount of propellant to reach from the surface of Mars, so that additional useful payloads can be brought down.

Which would be for a fuel depot or staging for a station or for the return vehicle location, Low Mars Orbit..

A near-equatorial orbit will maximize the equatorial eastward speed of 240 meters per second to reduce fuel use for landings and takeoffs. This is 6% of takeoff delta-V and about 25% or more of powered landing delta-V requirements.

ok so location there is a trade off...

Mars Science Lab: < 1 ton, Needs a Heat Shield that is 15 feet in Diameter Entry Mass – 3.25 mt – Landed Mass 0.85 mt

Some think the shield scaling up is a possible away to get more to the surface.

Page 56 talks about the various methods to slow a payload down for mars.

Page 61 talks about reusability of a mars lander to ascent vehicle.

page 72 talks about the orbit to landing versus surface to orbit again for fuel and structure in tons.

Page 73 gives a perspective on fuel type used

SpaceNut · 2019-02-17 18:53:11

Some how Nasa has been able to convince others that support is a good thing for the Lunar orbiting way station.

Russia mulls offering US upgraded space vehicle for lunar orbit station supplies

Well that give them a chance to resurrect the heavy lifter of the past.

elderflower · 2019-02-19 07:49:37

The logic behind a deep space station still escapes me. What is it going to do for us, apart from severely shortening the lives of its crew?

RobertDyck · 2019-02-19 09:04:46

elderflower wrote:

The logic behind a deep space station still escapes me. What is it going to do for us, apart from severely shortening the lives of its crew?

Create manifest for SLS. So it justifies the big rocket and spends lots of money, while accomplishing nothing.

Oldfart1939 · 2019-02-19 15:13:50

RobertDyck wrote:

elderflower wrote:
The logic behind a deep space station still escapes me. What is it going to do for us, apart from severely shortening the lives of its crew?
Create manifest for SLS. So it justifies the big rocket and spends lots of money, while accomplishing nothing.

Sad, but true!

SpaceNut · 2019-02-19 19:09:13

They need to go even further in the sls manifest plus missions to show what it can do as it needs the timeline plus mission count that needed to complete those missions

Oldfart1939 · 2019-02-19 22:13:49

The obvious problem of the SLS is the cost of each throwaway vehicle, and resulting low launch cadence. This will meet a fate similar to the Constellation project after another political upheaval the new House would undoubtedly spend the funds currently earmarked for this project elsewhere--like on Green Energy and retiring all aircraft from the skies.

Void · 2019-02-20 14:02:18

I fear what you fear O.F. The idiot ecotopians may try to strangle the baby in the crib. They love terminating young individuals, so no surprise.

But I think a lot of people are going to be concerned and repulsed by them, as by now there have been significant examples of utopian failures that make the masses have many tears. So, there may be a hope.

In the end these ecotopian/utopian political projections must be feared to be jobs programs for the word projectors that formulate them. Guess who is going to walk away with the goods, while we get xxxx….ed.

For my part I can reasoned with, if I sense reason. That is, I have misgivings about the LOP-G.
Yet, there is a tide rising, which in part does point to the Moon. Perhaps with effort, a more reasonable alignment of purpose and potential could be realized.

I am most interested in the potential material goods of the Moon. Oxygen to orbit, water to orbit, metals and silicates to orbit. And also things on the Moon itself.

I do feel that both of the Mars programs that I am aware of are less than what I want.

In the case of SpaceX, we have an enormously long chain of required accomplishments requiring success in order to achieve the objective.

Very noble, but ya, we all might die from lack of success. It's a hard hurtle, for even them. But they also have magnificent potential for lesser tasks as well, I think.

Blue Origin? Not defined yet.

In the case of the Nipple dependent succubus types NASA else may sponsor I am not really sure that they don't mind waiting 2 centuries, or until hell freezes over, or until all humans are in chains, and obedient. Not so sure about them.

Don't get me wrong, I think NASA is doing what they can with what is possible, but maybe this needs some more re-work?

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-02-20 14:14:51)

SpaceNut · 2019-02-20 18:31:24

So far the Utopia of the NASA dream is relying on to many partners and un built hardware to make it possible.

Oldfart1939 · 2019-02-20 21:14:09

As we here have said about when NASA finally gets to Mars--Elon will be there to greet them; now it seems to be "Moon First, then Mars."
The NASA proposal violates my first order rule: KISS. Make it as complicated and expensive as possible; great jobs program. Not good science or engineering. That's the new NASA model. I can hear Von Braun spinning in his grave...

Void · 2019-03-05 16:29:47

Here, I am not intending to take a side, rather mention Heracles.
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Huma … e_Heracles
Quote:

ESA is working with the Canadian and Japanese space agencies to prepare the Heracles robotic mission to the Moon in the mid-to-late-2020s. Using the Deep Space Gateway as a halfway point, a robotic rover will scout the terrain in preparation for the future arrival of astronauts, and deliver lunar samples to Earth.
This mission offers the best and earliest chance to deliver Moon samples to Earth on NASA’s Orion spacecraft as early as its fourth or fifth mission.
Goals also include testing new hardware, demonstrating technology and gaining experience in operations while strengthening international partnerships in exploration.
A small lander with a rover inside weighing around 1800 kg in total will land and be monitored by astronauts from the space gateway. An ascent module will take off from the surface and return to the gateway with samples taken by the rover.
Heracles will demonstrate these technologies and prove their value for humans. Later missions will include a pressurised rover driven by astronauts and an ascent module for the crew to return home.
Communications are key, with satellites providing high-speed networks to operate rovers from orbit, including feeding visuals from cameras, control signals to move the cameras, arms and wheels, and transmitting scientific data.
When the ascent module carrying the sample container arrives, the gateway’s robotic arm will capture and berth it with the outpost’s airlock for unpacking and transfer of the container to Orion and subsequent flight to Earth with returning astronauts.
Heracles is an international programme to use the Deep Space Gateway to the fullest and deliver samples to scientists on Earth using new technology that is more capable and lighter than previous missions.

At least some further understanding of what the thinking is.

But yes, maybe activities from SpaceX and/or Blue Origins will cause a revision of plans. Heracles itself or something of it's kind may be useful regardless, in the future. And the "ESA is working with the Canadian and Japanese space agencies", are doing the work it would seem. I don't mind that at all.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-03-05 16:34:09)

Void · 2019-03-12 20:31:59

I feel that this article could be of interest, at least concerning SLS vs. private launch providers, and other things.
https://spacenews.com/budget-proposal-i … r-gateway/
And this related one:
https://spacenews.com/nasa-budget-proposal-targets-sls/
Quote:

Updated 8:30 p.m. Eastern.
WASHINGTON — The White House’s fiscal year 2020 budget request for NASA proposes to delay work on an upgraded version of the Space Launch System and would transfer some of that vehicle’s payloads to other rockets.
The proposal, released by the Office of Management and Budget March 11, offers a total of $21.02 billion for the space agency, a decrease of $480 million over what Congress appropriated in the final fiscal year 2019 spending bill signed into law Feb. 15.
A major element of the proposal is to defer work on the Block 1B version of the SLS, which would increase the rocket’s performance by replacing its existing Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage with the more powerful Exploration Upper Stage. The budget “instead focuses the program on the completion of the initial version of the SLS and supporting a reliable SLS and Orion annual flight cadence,” the OMB budget stated. The first SLS/Orion mission, without a crew, is now planned for the “early 2020s,” according to the budget, an apparent slip from the planned 2020 launch of Exploration Mission (EM) 1.
NASA had previously planned to use the Block 1B version of SLS to launch elements of its lunar Gateway, using a “co-manifesting” capability enabled by the rocket’s greater performance. Instead, according to the budget document, those components will be launched on “competitively procured vehicles, complementing crew transport flights on the SLS and Orion.”
“This approach would accelerate commercial lunar delivery capabilities critical to U.S. exploration objectives and speed up the timeline for lunar surface exploration,” the budget document stated. Overall, the budget seeks $1.78 billion for SLS, about $375 million less than what the program received in 2019.
In a briefing with reporters later March 11, Andrew Hunter, the deputy chief financial officer at NASA, said that the date of the EM-1 mission was under review. “We’ve had schedule challenges with the core stage,” he said. “We’re having an assessment underway to get to a realistic launch readiness date,” which he said would be done in the spring.
“Getting EM-1 and EM-2 launched as fast as technically possible is a prime objective of this budget, something that more money will not accelerate,” he said.
The decision to defer work on the SLS Block 1B would also appear to imperil plans to build a second mobile launch platform intended for use with that version of the rocket. Hunter said that, for now, work on that platform will continue since funding was specified for it in the fiscal year 2019 appropriations bill. “That is a recognized disconnect,” he said. “We’ll have conversations with Congress about that.”
The budget proposal would also remove one non-exploration payload from the SLS manifest. The proposal offers nearly $600 million for the Europa Clipper mission, enabling a launch in 2023. However, NASA would instead seek to launch the mission on a commercial launch vehicle rather than SLS, a move it claims “would save over $700 million, allowing multiple new activities to be funded across the Agency.” The fiscal year 2019 budget request also proposed a commercial launch of Europa Clipper, but Congress placed into law in the final funding bill the requirement to use SLS for that mission.
NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine made no mention of the proposed deferral of the SLS Block 1B in remarks March 11 at the Kennedy Space Center to discuss the agency’s budget request. “It is a critical piece of the architecture that enables us to deliver reusability to the moon,” he said of SLS. “This is a transformational strategic capability for the United States of America.”
Other cuts and new programs
The budget proposal includes another effort to cancel other agency programs. The budget proposal seeks no funding for the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), the next flagship astronomy mission after the James Webb Space Telescope. That mission was also proposed for cancellation in the 2019 budget proposal but funded by Congress.
The budget requests to end funding for the Office of STEM Engagement, the new name of the Office of Education. The White House sought to close NASA’s education office in the 2018 and 2019 budget requests, and both times faced strong bipartisan criticism of the move. The proposal seeks to cancel two unnamed Earth science missions, again paralleling proposals in the 2018 and 2019 budget requests ultimately rejected by Congress. NASA budget documents identified those Earth science missions as CLARREO Pathfinder and PACE, which were also targeted for cancellation in the 2018 and 2019 requests.
NASA officials said that cancelling WFIRST would save $383 million, while cancelling the CLARREO Pathfinder and PACE would save $127 million. The Office of STEM Engagement received $110 million in the fiscal year 2019 spending bill.
Bridenstine didn’t discuss those proposed cuts, emphasizing instead the continued support for the James Webb Space Telescope and Earth science programs. “It has been a challenge for me as your NASA administrator to go up to the Hill and talk about the James Webb Space Telescope,” he said, because of its cost and schedule overruns. “This administration is committed to the James Webb Space Telescope and we have bipartisan support for the James Webb Space Telescope.”
The budget does include some new initiatives. One seeks $363 million to start development of large lunar landers that would deliver cargo, and ultimately crews, to the surface of the moon. NASA recently requested proposals for studies from industry on the development of such landers.
The proposal makes no reference to ending direct federal funding of the International Space Station, as proposed in the 2019 request. “By 2025, the Budget envisions commercial capabilities on the International Space Station as well as new commercial facilities and platforms to continue the American presence in Earth orbit,” the document states.
“We’re obviously not going to shut down the space station, but the intent is that the federal government does not continue operating it and that we are building this commercial program to look at opportunities for commercial industry and partners to take over the operations,” Hunter said.
The proposal does include funding for a new Communications Services Program that would purchase commercial communications services to return data from NASA science missions, but start at only $3 million in 2020.
The budget proposal also includes funding for a Mars sample return mission that would collect the sample cached by the Mars 2020 rover and return them to Earth. That mission would launch as soon as 2026, according to a fact sheet issued by NASA. Hunter said that the budget proposal includes $109 million for future Mars mission formulation work, which would primarily go to planning for Mars sample return. That funding wedge would grow to about $400 million a year by 2023 and 2024.
“I want everybody to know that NASA’s budget request is very good,” Bridenstine said near the end of his speech, citing bipartisan support in Congress. “We’re going to be able to accomplish more than we’ve ever been able to accomplish before because of the administration’s support.”

I am somewhat encouraged myself by this drift of things.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-03-12 20:36:37)

SpaceNut · 2019-03-12 21:52:29

Upping launch cadence but how when its the newer upper stage that is required for manned use beyond LEO to which is required?

Unless contracts are upping the production and not dollars there will not be any savings???

Cancelling projects that are over spent but nearly finished does not make much sense as investment is not returneable if not completed?

Void · 2019-03-12 22:42:10

Well, perhaps this can help:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/11/nasa-bu … pacex.html
I had read it earlier, and so had some other notions about what the budget might represent.
Quote:

NASA budget reveals even more reliance on private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin
NASA's 2020 budget request is a boon to companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin, space industry experts told CNBC.
Administrator Jim Bridenstine plans to "increase the use of commercial partnerships" to accelerate the White House plans, the budget said.
"I think SpaceX certainly are going to be big winners as a result of this budget," Chad Anderson, CEO of Space Angels, told CNBC.

If I am reading this right and understand SLS blocks 1, and blocks 2, then delaying block 2, can indicate they are going to see how well then can get what they want from SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others when dealing with the Moon. I took a look at the Wiki for SLS, and found this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
Block 2 is apparently for Mars, and I believe if one searches this article and my just previous post's links, you may find reference for the provision of parts for LOP-G and the Moon by private industry as a desire.

So, I think they are giving private industry a chance to partially replace SLS Block 1 and perhaps even Block 2. A perceived delay of Block 2 implies that the NASA plan for Mars will be delayed, but as we know SpaceX intends to beat them there anyway. I am not a vast fan actually of the SpaceX to Mars direct plan, where it takes a long time, except, that if they want to do it and then do it, then I will be happy.

1) However I see that in the LOP-G there are plans for an advance ion drive. I also suspect that they will eventually include a magnetic radiation shield.

2) As for the Starship, I have seen an article that claims that it can get to Mars in 30-40 days by starting in high Earth orbit fully fueled.

So, what I see in the LOP-G, is perhaps a way to place fueling depots in high Earth orbit, for Starship to refuel from, using efficient ion propulsion developed (We might hope). Then if Starship could go to Mars in 30-40 days, so much of the space medicine issues can be somewhat ignored.

And if you have an efficient ion drive, then you can efficiently deliver cargo to Mar orbit using Ballistic Capture.

And then a Starship there refueling could bring that cargo down to the surface of Mars. For this however the heatshield of Starship will have to be better rated for multiple passes into the atmosphere from Low Martian Orbit perhaps. This would be efficient use of Starship at Mars, if it can be done.

As for the use of Starship as an interplanetary vehicle, it seems adorable to me to be able to do that especially if you can do a 30-40 day trip to Mars with it. However Dr. Zubrin has indicated that Starship is better used to lift stuff up from Earth orbit. And then the notion would be I suppose to send that stuff to Mars. But in the future good sense may eventually say:
1) Make a Starship specialized for Earth activities surface <> LEO.
2) Make a Ion drive ship with synthetic gravity and a radiation shield, to transport people to Mars orbit.
3) Have an ion drive ship to deliver cargo to Mars orbit via Ballistic Capture.
4) Make a Starship specialized for Mars surface <> Mars Low Orbit.

For item #4, I think it may be necessary for the Mars specialized ship to still be capable to go between Earth and Mars on occasion, so that the ship can have major maintenance on the Earth surface. Perhaps later there will be space garages in orbits where such a Mars Starship could be serviced, but not at first.

So, lots of speculation, but from the three articles in the two of my latest posts here, I see a potential for a drift somewhat in that direction.

That is where we might eventually like to be.

But it does not stop SpaceX from doing their stated plans for Mars at first. It also does not stop SpaceX from launching Starship from high Earth orbit (LOP-G???), and if possible having a much shorter mission time to Mars.

I can't help liking the notion.

Now I am going to be short on sleep, but I am retired, I can recover. Good Night SpaceNut.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-03-12 23:04:53)

Void · 2019-03-13 16:05:30

Here is some more, amazingly: (Putting it under LOP-G, as it is centered around the current interests of NASA).
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/13/spacex- … ssion.html
Quote:

Elon Musk's SpaceX appears to be the front-runner to win a valuable NASA moon mission
NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine says the agency will consider using commercial rockets for its lunar crew test flight.
United Launch Alliance and SpaceX are the U.S. rocket builders that could win the NASA mission.
But SpaceX is more likely to win the mission because of its lower costs and rapid availability.
Michael Sheetz | @thesheetztweetz
Published 5 Hours Ago Updated 1 Hour Ago
CNBC.com
NASA | Kim Shiflett
NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine, left, and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk at the Kennedy Space Center following the March 2, 2:49 a.m. EST launch of the SpaceX spacecraft mission to the International Space Station.
NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine told a Senate committee on Wednesday the agency will consider using commercial rockets for its lunar crew test flight, opening the door for SpaceX to win a pair of potentially lucrative launch contracts.
"I think we should launch around the moon in June of 2020, and I think it can be done. We need to consider as an agency all options to accomplish that objective," Bridenstine said. "Some of those options would include launching the Orion crew capsule and the European service module on a commercial rocket."
Instead of the space agency's own SLS rocket, Bridenstine said NASA "could use two heavy-lift rockets" to send the two spacecrafts into orbit. Bridenstine also mentioned the "amazing capability that exists right now" in the U.S., and that means only two commercial possibilities: SpaceX and United Launch Alliance.
ULA, the joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, launched the first test flight of the Orion program on its Delta IV Heavy rocket in December 2014. Bridenstine pointed to that mission as an example of how NASA has leveraged commercial rockets successfully. But Delta IV Heavy comes at a steep price, at more than $350 million per launch. Additionally, ULA says Delta IV rockets require two to three years from order to launch. Whether or not the mission could launch on Delta IV Heavy is a "question of whether ULA has one ready," space policy consultant Jim Muncy told CNBC.
SpaceX and Blue Origin face growing competition from China in the new global space race
8:35 AM ET Thu, 21 Feb 2019 | 04:38
That makes SpaceX the more likely option for Bridenstine's suggestion, because of its lower costs and a high volume of launches. With SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket priced at $150 million per launch at most, NASA could purchase two for less than the list price of one Delta IV Heavy rocket.
Bridenstine also said he wants the moon mission to launch by 2020, making SpaceX's rapid launch preparations another potentially enticing factor to NASA. For the last two years, Elon Musk's SpaceX has made the majority of U.S. rocket launches.
"If speed is of the utmost importance, then they may be willing to pay more than SpaceX's stated price," Chad Anderson, CEO of investment firm Space Angels, told CNBC. "SpaceX is clearly the front-runner given this time frame"
Originally, NASA wanted to launch this lunar mission, called EM-1, on the Space Launch System. The SLS is a new rocket that NASA wants to use to send astronauts back to the moon. The rocket, which is being built primarily by Boeing, would launch Orion — the lunar capsule built by Lockheed Martin that would carry the crew. As of NASA's budget request on Monday, the administration planned to use the SLS rocket for the EM-1 mission.
But the SLS program has been beset with years of delays and has billions of dollars in cost overruns. Bridenstine admitted that "SLS is struggling to meet its schedule," and he said NASA is now considering alternatives.
The end goal, Bridenstine said, is "to get back on track" for the EM-2 crewed mission and to "maintain the SLS program."

Well, very unexpected. Falcon Heavy, has to be crew rated then I expect. I presume because they won't have a lander, they will not actually go to the Moon, but be pointed at future activities for the LOP-G, and the Lunar surface.

ULA I expect will be asked to give a better deal.??? And I guess Blue Origin is going to supply "Blue Moon". Lots of other contenders for Moon landers. Maybe ULA will do a Moon lander.

????????

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-03-13 16:10:16)

SpaceNut · 2019-03-13 17:28:23

Nasa is trying to find money in an ever tightening budget versus cost to produce cutting edge or not. Some of this is due to Nasa contractor gravy train partly in due to military needs must be met. The other is the way these select few contractors see and conduct themselves as just the extension of Nasa with how things are done. Nasa as the source of seed money is not how the US should foster but should come from an increased line for such activity as needed and not from the bottomline budget of Nasa.

Delays of flight cost money even on all of the missions that are on the plate and even thou Nasa has not finished its first flight it important to get it right at any cost but not from future budgets. Looking to Spacex and others to switch possible money saving efforts is only prudent to free up moneys conditionally needed for the expansion of going back to the moon and then onto Mars.

Both EM-1 and EM-2 missions are shake out runs for a rocket that still needs a better upper stage to achive anything beyond LEO. Sure the rocket in the 70 plus ton is great but its the much higher level for a non refueling mission to the moon that is needed.
.

SpaceNut · 2019-03-13 20:07:47

Orion's first test flight around the moon — Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1) — which is currently scheduled to launch in June 2020.
Bridenstine assured the committee that he and NASA are committed to keeping EM-1 on schedule, even if that means the agency will have to buy a commercial rocket.

Bridenstine did not name any specific launch providers at the hearing, but considering how powerful the rocket will have to be, NASA has two options: SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket or a Delta IV Heavy rocket built by the United Launch Alliance. Exactly how much it will cost NASA to hire a commercial launch provider is not clear at this point, but Bridenstine said the agency "might require some help from Congress" to fund it.

SpaceNut · 2019-03-13 20:57:04

Goddard prepares for a new era of human exploration

SpaceNut · 2019-03-19 22:05:15

Returning Astronauts to the Moon: Lockheed Martin Finalizes Full-Scale Cislunar Habitat Prototype

lockheed-martin-habitat-ground-test-article-hgta-lunar-habitat-prototype-hg.jpg

The full-scale prototype, or Habitat Ground Test Article (HGTA), is built inside of a repurposed shuttle-era cargo container, called a Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM), at Kennedy Space Center. Using rapid prototyping and modern design tools like virtual and augmented reality, the team customized the interior making full use of the entire volume of the module to accommodate a variety of tasks like science missions and personal needs of future astronauts.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/ … xploration

SpaceNut · 2019-03-20 20:07:10

Repost as it relates to gaining experience for the station use.
Simulation for the LOP-G moon station but this could be mars as well.

Space simulation sees Americans and Russians sealed in isolation for 4 months

A group of American and Russian volunteers this week were sealed into a collection of mock space modules in Moscow at the start of a four-month isolation experiment intended to simulate a mission to the moon. There, they will be confined to a collection of cramped tubular constructions inside a hangar-like hall at the institute for 120 days. The modules are hermetically sealed, meaning they have their own atmosphere, and the crew will not leave or see any other human beings for the duration of the mission.
The simulation, called SIRIUS-19, is an unusually lengthy isolation experiment organized jointly by the Russian Institute and NASA. It one of a number of international experiments underway that's intended to help inform plans for future deep space travel by studying the physical and psychological effect of months-long isolation.
The modules are linked by metal tunnels that have to be crawled through, sealed off by hatches modeled on those from Russia’s Soyuz spacecrafts. The living quarters are roughly about 40 meters squared -- a long corridor with submarine-like cabins that contain a tiny desk, a cupboard and a bed. A kitchen area is furnished with just a microwave and hot water. A common area for relaxation has some beanbags and a large television.

The team’s mission is multi-stage. First, they must make the 10-day flight to the moon, where they will simulate docking with an orbital station. Two of them will then leave the living modules, landing to the “surface” of the moon -- another enclosed area where the two explorers will wear virtual-reality goggles as they collect samples and fix a damaged moon rover. New modules will open to the crew as they progress.
Now sealed inside, the team will receive food and supplies through an airlock. Intelligent lighting will mimic daylight on Earth, dimming and brightening as its follows sunrise and sunset. The living areas are clad entirely in light wood, a surrounding found to be more soothing for crews than the metal of spacecraft.

GW Johnson · 2019-03-22 11:55:26

I still see no solar flare radiation shield. Depending upon strength and how direct a hit it is, such exposure can range from a couple of hundred REM to tens-of-thousands of REM, accumulated over perhaps a dozen hours at most. 500 REM over a "short" time interval is lethal to 100% of people so exposed.

GW

SpaceNut · 2019-05-02 15:41:21

NASA Aids Testing of Boeing Deep Space Habitat Ground Prototype in Alabama

boeing-exploration-habitat-demonstrator-interior-nextstep-hg.jpg

five habitat prototypes

NASA will assess the overall habitation design, with astronauts conducting simulations inside to evaluate the internal layout and ergonomics, to support efficient work-life balance aboard a deep space ship.
The series of five habitat tests will help NASA prepare for the upcoming procurement of a U.S. provided habitation module for the lunar Gateway, the first spacecraft designed to stay in orbit around the Moon.

SpaceNut · 2019-05-04 19:32:15

A gateway to the Moon, Mars or asteriods as many are champion but can Nasa do it alone or is it only possible with partners?

Space requires peaceful use there in and cooperation with all that go.

Its not the partnership but it is towards peaceful use of space.

100th space sharing agreement signed Romania Space Agency joins as the 20th nation

Australia, Japan, Italy, Canada, France, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Germany, Israel, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Brazil, the Netherlands, Thailand, New Zealand and Poland; two intergovernmental organizations, the European Space Agency and the European Organization

The agreement is on Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites; and 78 commercial satellite owner/operator/launchers already participating in SSA data-sharing agreements with USSTRATCOM.

SpaceNut · 2019-05-31 19:45:05

The game for the moon seems to be moving along NASA taps 3 companies for commercial moon missions awarded $253.5 million, split between three companies, to develop robotic landers that will carry science and technology payloads to the moon's surface as commercial enterprises, a a key element in the agency's Artemis program to return astronauts to the moon by 2024.

The core of the Gateway station is a power and propulsion module equipped with a high-tech 50-kilowatt solar electric propulsion system and large solar arrays to provide the necessary power. It will weigh about 11,000 pounds at launch, half of that propellant.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2019-02-03 17:36:00

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

#102 2019-02-03 18:02:39

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

#103 2019-02-17 18:53:11

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

#104 2019-02-19 07:49:37

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

#105 2019-02-19 09:04:46

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

#106 2019-02-19 15:13:50

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

#107 2019-02-19 19:09:13

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

#108 2019-02-19 22:13:49

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

#109 2019-02-20 14:02:18

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

#110 2019-02-20 18:31:24

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

#111 2019-02-20 21:14:09

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

#112 2019-03-05 16:29:47

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

#113 2019-03-12 20:31:59

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

#114 2019-03-12 21:52:29

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

#115 2019-03-12 22:42:10

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

#116 2019-03-13 16:05:30

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

#117 2019-03-13 17:28:23

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

#118 2019-03-13 20:07:47

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

#119 2019-03-13 20:57:04

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

#120 2019-03-19 22:05:15

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

#121 2019-03-20 20:07:10

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

#122 2019-03-22 11:55:26

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

#123 2019-05-02 15:41:21

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

#124 2019-05-04 19:32:15

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

#125 2019-05-31 19:45:05

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

Board footer