Deep Space Gateway; a bad joke by NASA?

SpaceNut · 2019-10-26 20:06:37

RUAG Space and TTTech aim to provide fast TTEthernet for NASA Lunar Gateway

Fast ethernet wow...not

tahanson43206 · 2019-10-26 21:01:12

For SpaceNut re #151

Thanks for finding this report on (what I perceive to be) important standardization for space communications.

It's easy to be distracted by the gateway as an application arena, but (in my opinion) what is far more important is the development of robust computer mediated packet communications for situations where there is significant time delay for transmission.

The reliability of the Internet on Earth is possible because (in normal operation) packets are sequenced and verified and acknowledged.

Apparently (in the absence of the full specification) the new Internet protocol is able to handle delays characteristic of space communications.

(th)

Time-Triggered Technology
Time-Triggered Technology was invented by TTTech. The essence of this technology is to create networks that are fully deterministic, meaning each sender and receiver in a network knows when to send or expect a message. This brings several advantages: Not only are all failures that result in some latency in the network eliminated, it also allows to use the entire bandwidth of the links within the networks.
These advantages make the technology superior in terms of safety and reliability. Moreover, the implementation of the TTEthernet protocol is compatible with ordinary Ethernet traffic.
Based on IASIS, Deterministic Ethernet is becoming the de facto standard for avionics in the space industry. This makes the testing of space electronics much easier. Once in orbit, Time-Triggered Ethernet ensures the reliable data transfer among the computers used on board spacecraft or station - all with unparalleled speed and safety.

SpaceNut · 2019-10-27 09:46:26

Robertdyck would know more than I of the open industry standard i.e. SAE AS6802 which is geared at the windows 10 upgrade to the old 802 protocol...

SpaceNut · 2019-10-27 20:43:08

Nasa was advertizing the station for the moon with hopes opf space partners to join in and here is Japan to join Artemis program

They are one of the current parterns in the ISS so it makes sense to continue with vested interests.

The Japanese statement said Japan would work with NASA and other partners to coordinate its participation in several ways. That includes offering technologies that could support the early lunar Gateway, providing logistics services with its next-generation HTV-X cargo vehicle, sharing data used for the selection of lunar landing sites and other lunar transportation services.

Next investor in the ISS is drum roll

In February, Canada announced it would develop a robotic arm for the Gateway, spending about $1.5 billion over the next 24 years.

Not all that surprizing to see.

SpaceNut · 2019-11-20 20:57:20

NASA adds 5 more companies to bid for work on moon mission

SpaceX, Blue Origin, Ceres Robotics, Sierra Nevada Corp. and Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems are all working to design and build lunar landers capable of delivering science and technology payloads, including rovers and science experiments, to the moon's surface
The five new companies will compete for contracts with nine previously announced CLPS vendors, including Astrobotic Technology, Deep Space Systems, Draper Laboratory, Firefly Aerospace, Intuitive Machines, Lockheed Martin Space, Masten Space Systems, Moon Express and OrbitBeyond.

SpaceNut · 2019-11-30 20:24:14

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Europ … s_999.html

esa-nasa-jaxa-russia-canada-lunar-gateway-concept-diagram-modules-hg.jpg

The budget is split, with 12.5 billion euros ($14.1 billion) committed for three years and the full 14.4 billion euros over five, representing an increase of some four billion euros on the previous spending plan. Germany made the largest contribution to the budget, at some 3.3 billion euros, followed by France on 2.7 billion euros, Italy 2.3 billion euros and Britain with 1.7 billion euros.

SpaceNut · 2020-01-03 15:59:04

Just running through the topic from start nd got to post #62 before seeing that nasa is way behind on sls development flights and trial runs to be give building the Gateway....

SpaceNut · 2020-01-05 20:09:46

Article is indicating even 2 years a new piece is put into orbit to make up this beast....

This is way to slow and has to many pieces...

SpaceNut · 2020-01-05 21:20:16

Lockheed was using the existing protyes that were left over from the ISS which were just hanging around and these were built by the same Italian company that makes the cygnus for ATK that is now Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems... NASA Awards Contract to Northrop Grumman for Lunar Gateway Habitat Module

I sure would change horses as well since how slow Boeing and Lockheed are going with SLS to a proven performer....

NASA Awards Contract to Northrop Grumman for Lunar Gateway Habitat Module with production and tooling resources capable of meeting the 2024 deadline.
two habitation module prototypes: one seven meters long and 4.4 meters in diameter, and the other six meters long and three meters in diameter.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file … _Orbit.pdf
Cygnus Beyond Low-Earth Orbit – Logistics and Habitation in Cis-Lunar Space

pg 14 shows the standard unit sizes

SpaceNut · 2020-01-12 19:55:23

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file … 6-ADD2.pdf
Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.0 – Addendum #2

image of habitat on pg 391
Metallic, cylindrical habitat: 7.2 m diameter
2.5 m barrel length for reasonable ceiling height
~25 m3/person habitable volume
Secondary structure 2.46 km/m2 of habitat surf area
Four 0.5 m diameter windows
1 exterior hatch
3 docking mechanisms, 2 docking tunnels
Atmospheric pressure = 70.3 kPa (10.2 psi)
5.8 cm water-wall on crew quarters for SPE protect
2 photovoltaic (3 junction GaAs) arrays
~20 kWe end of life power
120 V DC power management (92% efficient)
3 Li-ion batteries (200 W-hr/kg) ~40 kW-hr storage

SpaceNut · 2020-01-14 18:51:36

This gives more about the lunar orbital station timeline, the moon landings and then a final reload of cargo before setting out on a loop around mars.

https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/pub … 10510.ashx
Evaluation of a Human Mission to Mars by 2033

SpaceNut · 2020-02-01 21:51:34

Another step forward for station modules being more commercial has happened in Axiom Space to build commercial space station segment first module launching in the second half of 2024.

Axiom Space, an American company headquartered in Houston, Texas, to design, build and launch three large pressurized modules and a large Earth observation window to the International Space Station (ISS).

These are seemingly designed to work with the Gateway as well as the missions for mars and not just for the ISS to tryout first.

“NASA and Axiom will next begin negotiations on the terms and price of a fixed-price contract with a five-year base performance period and a two-year option” which indicates that these details have not been completely ironed out yet

What you order something before you know what its going to cost?

Axiom has a dream of there own space station

SpaceNut · 2020-02-29 12:10:00

You are correct and here is that other topic for the post

tahanson43206 wrote:

For SpaceNut ... the link below leads to an article about space architecture.
The specific article is about Axiom and ideas for a consumer space hotel for the ISS or independent operation.
It could go into several topics as you see fit.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nasas-space- … 00304.html
(th)

It is in hope that space tourism will flourish but that needs cheap flight costs so as for many to part take of the vacation away from earth. Just hoping that it will become more for business ventures as there are limited people whom can afford currently to go. The other part of this will drive further launcher companies to begin and for others to build more stations. The control of these are an issue for the future as the population that can go and will change the future for all by creating the frontier in which we dream of going too.

Oldfart1939 · 2020-03-14 20:32:00

According to this Space News article and statement from NASA, the Gateway (tollbooth!) has been eliminated from the Artemis project.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-takes-gatewa … ar-return/

kbd512 · 2020-03-14 20:34:26

Oldfart1939,

Does this mean that we can now focus on actually landing on something and doing important stuff there, or have we already made-up some other nonsensical BS activity to replace the last nonsensical BS activity we just eliminated?

Edit:

All I wanna do is land some stuff. I gotta feeling I'm not the only one.

Apologies in advance to Sheryl Crow.

Last edited by kbd512 (2020-03-14 20:37:25)

SpaceNut · 2020-03-14 20:45:10

Does that mean we can actually get there in a single rocket and not a 2 pack of expensive sls.....like we did with Apollo....

SpaceNut · 2020-03-30 19:34:13

GW hinted of a Dragon XL for the gateway in the COTS topic so went to find data on it.

The Gateway Logistics Services contract enables NASA to order missions for as long as 12 years with a 15-year performance period and provides the ability to add new competitive providers.

SpaceX Will Send Moon Astronauts Crucial Cargo For Lunar Landings

Looks like a modified cygnus.

SpaceX will use a more advanced version of its Dragon spacecraft, called Dragon XL, to send science experiments, supplies, food and other crucial materials astronauts need at Gateway or on the moon’s surface.
While SpaceX's share of the business was not disclosed in a press release, NASA stated it has allocated a maximum of $7 billion across all contracts to supply Gateway. Each cargo spacecraft will stay docked to Gateway for six to 12 months at a time.

Gwynne Shotwell, president of SpaceX sure knows how to go after contracts.

SpaceNut · 2020-05-24 18:05:54

Typical mission time NASA wants you: 8-month social isolation study for future Mars trips

NASA requirements: NASA needs you to be aged between 30 and 55 years old, and you'll need to be fluent in both English and Russian. You'll also need M.S., PhD., M.D. or have completed military officer training. NASA will consider you if you happen to hold a bachelor's degree, or another high caliber qualification such as military or professional experience.
◾Where you'll need to go: Approved participants will need to relocate to Moscow, Russia for the 8-month social isolation study, where you will need to experience environmental aspects that are "similar to those astronauts are expected to experience on future missions to Mars".
◾What you need to do: NASA says: "A small international crew will live together in isolation for eight months conducting scientific research, using virtual reality and performing robotic operations among a number of other tasks during the lunar mission. The research will be conducted to study the effects of isolation and confinement as participants work to successfully complete their simulated space mission. Results from ground-based missions like this help NASA prepare for the real-life challenges of space exploration and provide important scientific data to solve some of these problems and to develop countermeasures".
◾What NASA wants to see: NASA will be actively monitoring and hoping to learn from the "physiological and psychological effects of isolation and confinement on humans in preparation for Artemis exploration missions to the Moon and future long-duration missions to Mars".

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-seeki … -missions/

SpaceNut · 2020-06-07 09:30:03

Not surprising for the contract awarding https://www.moondaily.com/reports/NASA_ … n_999.html
since they bought up ATK which used the Italian company to make Cygnus of course they made the modules on the ISS from that company...

Trolling the old posts found a link that still worked and has not really changed all that much in what we need to stay in space...

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/arti … tats.shtml

Void · 2020-06-07 09:57:11

I think this makes the Moon important.

NASA is not interested in synthetic gravity. It probably does not serve our national interests at this time.

SpaceX might eventually delve into it, but there are few indications of it. Can you imagine chain reaction vomiting of 100 people in a Starship?

The Gateway Foundation with their https://voyagerstation.com/#!, appear to be all there is for it at this time.

I cannot tell how real that effort will be. One thing I am concerned about for it is that they better put it in a sufficiently high orbit, so that if it disassembles itself, it will not imperil space efforts of other kinds with a cloud of space junk.

NASA and others are interested in the Moon, and soon. (A song needed with those lyrics).

So, then that will by itself be an asset for the Mars effort, as with human and animal exposures to Lunar gravity. Health issues will be partially determined for low gravity worlds. Gestation in particular being important.

With that knowledge, then it can be decided how to proceed to Mar/Phobos/Demos, and also what might work for synthetic gravity machines.

For instance, if Lunar gravity does not give sufficient health, then it would be very important to analyze what real or simulated Mars gravity will result in. So, then you know where to invest efforts.

If it were to turn out that animal and human gestation went wrong in Martian gravity, then, if we want to inhabit Mars/Phobos/Demos in any serious way, it will likely be needed to try synthetic gravity. Eventually such machines might be possible somewhere on or under the surface of Mars, but that would be very hard at first. A more sensible first instance would perhaps be under the surface of Demos or Phobos.

Reality will provoke response, but we need to determine what reality is. The Moon is an easy way to start the process of determining reality, since it is proposed to go there anyway.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2020-06-07 10:06:42)

GW Johnson · 2020-06-07 11:23:00

You all simply have to understand where this Lunar Gateway station is really coming from. There are two sources: one political, one technical.

The political thing is easily understood since Congress has micromanaged NASA ever since the end of Apollo, and made pork-barrel politics out of where NASA facilities are located since before there was an Apollo program.

The series of efforts toward a giant space rocket (Ares, Constellation, now SLS) are all aimed at keeping shuttle-era facilities employed, by trying to reprise Saturn-5 with shuttle technology. Nothing more than that, and yet it dominates the funding picture. Same as with shuttle being arranged to keep Saturn-era facilities employed before it.

So, why would anyone be surprised to see NASA's biggest efforts as anything but one giant pork-barrel boondoggle after another? Since that is EXACTLY what they have been! NASA can only afford one boondoggle at a time, which is why Mars is effectively shelved to go back to a station around the moon. Without a lander yet, I might add. Or radiation protection for the Gateway crew.

And that unflattering assessment is EXACTLY correct, no matter how much any of you might want to disbelieve it, and no matter what government officials say about all this. Talk is cheap, action is expensive. Look at what they do, not what they say.

The technical part of this derives directly from the charateristics of the Block 1 SLS rocket, and the Orion capsule-and-service-module that we have ended up with. Bear in mind that Block 1B and Block 2B may never actually fly. Bear also in mind that Orion is way too heavy (limiting what delta-vee Block 1 can give), and its service module too underpowered to give it Apollo-class delta-vee. This boondoggle was sold as for going to Mars, and it cannot even return to the moon.

Then note that even NASA cannot afford to use its own rocket, which is why they hired Spacex to shoot some Gateway modules to the moon with Falcon-Heavy, and also why they had to include a variant of the Spacex Starship as a possible moon lander for the Gateway basing concept. The other launchers are SLS Block 1 (which has yet to fly), and ULA's new Vulcan, which also has yet to fly. We don't have the landers, nor are the rockets we need flying yet. This is not a picture which evokes confidence in the mission.

SLS Block1 with the Orion/service module has insufficient delta-vee to get into, and back out of, the low lunar orbit that Apollo used. If you make that orbit highly elliptical with a high perilune velocity, then SLS Block1/Orion can reach that. (The only advantage of that eccentric orbit is a low apolune velocity, which makes plane changes easier, and so opens up more lunar surface for landers to visit.)

Rather than have folks wonder why we spent tens of billions on a rocket that cannot actually reprise Apollo-8, much less Apollo-11, we have Gateway in a highly-elliptical orbit that the SLS/Orion rocket and capsule can just barely reach. And from which the delta-vee requirements on any lander design are very significantly increased (by about 40%). And THAT is the ugly little truth about this.

Block1B and Block 2B could likely reach low lunar orbit, but as I already said, it is looking more and more unlikely that they will ever be built. Because at $1.5B+ per launch, no one, not even NASA, can afford to use it. And that price is a quote from Jim Bridenstine himself about how much a Block 1 launch will likely cost.

They bill this thing as a future stagepoint for going to Mars, but that is utter BS! The delta-vee requirements to reach Gateway, and then depart from it for Mars, are higher than the delta-vee requirements to depart straight from Earth to Mars. And that's true whether you launch straight from the surface, or stop in low Earth orbit on the way. Those two Earth departure options have the same requirements, but stopping briefly in LEO widens your window for departure to Mars, just like it did going to the moon with Apollo.

Add to that the lack of crew radiation protection in the Gateway modules. The risk is a solar flare event, not so much galactic cosmic rays. There was a very-lethal event between two Apollo moon missions in 1972. We are heading into high solar activity again. Keep crews in Gateway for months at a time, and you WILL kill a crew with radiation poisoning. This happens in hours. Once the event starts, it is too late to run for home. Even from Gateway, home is 3 days away.

Again, don't look at what they say. Look at what they do, and be aware of the actual technical truths about this. Without that technical truth, you cannot judge how egregiously you have been lied to.

It really is that ugly!

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2020-06-07 11:36:22)

Oldfart1939 · 2020-06-09 23:08:09

AS usual. GW has nailed it. SLS was, until the Gateway concept, the proverbial "rocket to nowhere." It was created out of the performance (?) envelope of the Block 1. The Orion spacecraft became so bloated and overweight that SLS can't boost it to the intended lunar orbit, as GW has pointed out. Why NASA didn't do the "smart thing," and simply skip the Block 1 vehicles for a better performing Block 2 is beyond my comprehension. As Bob Zubrin points out--SLS is a project to spend money--not go to the moon or Mars.

elderflower · 2020-06-13 03:57:08

Congress/NASA are still clinging to technology that Musk has rendered obsolete. Why? Follow the money!

SpaceNut · 2020-07-12 18:12:50

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon … on-launch/

Not sure that nasa making any pieces to ride on this cheaper lift....

SpaceNut · 2020-07-19 17:10:01

Looks like we are going to need a different partner for getting to the moon.
Russia rejects joining NASA's Artemis moon program in favor of China

Bridenstine signed a Joint Exploration Declaration of Intent (JEDI) with Japan regarding Artemis as well as the International Space Station (ISS). Other countries being wooed as part of the Artemis Coalition include Canada, member states of the European Union, Great Britain, Israel, India and Australia.

Have the partners build instead of having Nasa contractors as we can not afford the bloated costs from them...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2019-10-26 20:06:37

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

#152 2019-10-26 21:01:12

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

#153 2019-10-27 09:46:26

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

#154 2019-10-27 20:43:08

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

#155 2019-11-20 20:57:20

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

#156 2019-11-30 20:24:14

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

#157 2020-01-03 15:59:04

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

#158 2020-01-05 20:09:46

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

#159 2020-01-05 21:20:16

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

#160 2020-01-12 19:55:23

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

#161 2020-01-14 18:51:36

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

#162 2020-02-01 21:51:34

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

#163 2020-02-29 12:10:00

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

#164 2020-03-14 20:32:00

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

#165 2020-03-14 20:34:26

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

#166 2020-03-14 20:45:10

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

#167 2020-03-30 19:34:13

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

#168 2020-05-24 18:05:54

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

#169 2020-06-07 09:30:03

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

#170 2020-06-07 09:57:11

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

#171 2020-06-07 11:23:00

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

#172 2020-06-09 23:08:09

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

#173 2020-06-13 03:57:08

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

#174 2020-07-12 18:12:50

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

#175 2020-07-19 17:10:01

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

Board footer