New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#176 2020-10-15 17:51:25

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 21,887

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

UK and NASA sign international agreement ahead of mission to the Moon, along with other spacefaring nations including Japan, Australia, Canada, Italy and the UAE, to develop the Artemis Accords

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

The UK has worked with international partners to ensure the Artemis Accords are clear that any such resource extraction in space should be carried out in a manner that complies with the Outer Space Treaty.

Offline

#177 2020-10-18 16:25:52

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 21,887

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

Nokia wins NASA contract to put a 4G network on the moon

Nokia's plan is to build a 4G/LTE network, and eventually transition to 5G (just like the rest of us). It will be "the first LTE/4G communications system in space," according to NASA's announcement.

Nokia wins NASA contract to put 4G network on the moon NASA has awarded Nokia of the US $14.1 million to deploy a 4G cellular network on the moon. The grant is part of $370 million worth of contracts signed under NASA's "Tipping Point" selections, meant to advance research and development for space exploration.

Offline

#178 2020-10-19 09:14:26

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 4,366
Website

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

What you are seeing is the beginning of the next decades-long boondoggle project by NASA.  This is one they know can be done,  because they've been to the moon before,  although not within the lives of anyone working there.  This is what porkbarrel politics forces upon them,  instead of doing what makes sense to go where we have not been before.  We've seen this show before:  both shuttle and ISS,  and now SLS.

This project will sop up all available cash (and then some),  stifling any NASA attempt to go to Mars for about 2 decades,  at least. 

Returning to the moon is indeed a worthy thing to do,  but not the way they plan to do it. 

That crazy halo orbit for Gateway may make it easier for SLS to reach that station with useful payloads,  but it greatly increases the demands upon any landers operating between the station and the surface (by about 50% delta vee one-way). Low polar (!!!) lunar orbit makes more sense for routine lander trips (by far !!!) to absolutely anywhere on the surface,  but the porkbarrel-derived SLS is too incapable (and far too expensive) to deliver what they want to polar LLO. 

You will eventually see that the estimated per-launch cost for SLS block 1 of $1-2B is too optimistic.  It will be above $2B,  and if the improved models (block 1B and block 2) ever do fly,  probably above $3B per launch for them.  And I'd bet all of them fail to deliver the advertised payload numbers,  too.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2020-10-19 09:23:46)


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#179 2020-10-19 20:04:56

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 21,887

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

It makes 2 side shows going on and that doubles the need for not only the commercial deliverers but puts the requirement to boost the amount of funds for Nasa to buy those services. This also allows for expansion since that funding is now freed up by Nasa using the cheaper commercial providers rather than the SLS. One could only hope that a space x funding model for those that provide would fire them up to do things on their own from the profits that they would earn from providing paid services.
If Nasa needs a full sized 100t payload then they can do it but if the chunks are smaller then use to others as its a cost savings.

Offline

#180 2020-12-17 19:08:16

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 21,887

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

A Canadian astronaut will join Moon mission for first time in 2023

The mission, Artemis II, will see a crewed test flight sent into orbit in 2023 but will not involve an actual landing on the Moon, according to the US space agency. Eight nations -- Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates, Britain and the United States -- have signed a treaty to participate in NASA's Artemis program, which aims to return humans to Earth's nearest neighbor by 2024.

It also plans to establish an space station in lunar orbit, called Gateway.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said that Canada's participation in the Artemis program is part of the country's new space strategy, which includes an investment of CAN$2.05 billion (US$1.6 billion) over 24 years.

NASA hopes to build Gateway by 2026. It would serve as a landing point for missions to the Moon.

Artemis III is to send astronauts, including the first woman, to the Moon in 2024.


nasa-human-lunar-lander-companies-complete-key-artemis-milestone-hg.jpg


NASA, Canadian Space Agency formalize Gateway Partnership for Artemis Program

lunar-gateway-concept-hg.jpg

CSA will be responsible for end-to-end external robotics, including engineering and operations. Canadarm3 will move end-over-end to reach many parts of the Gateway's exterior, where its anchoring "hand" will plug into specially designed interfaces. Delivery to the lunar outpost is targeted in 2026 via a U.S. commercial logistics supply flight.

"Gateway will enable a robust, sustainable, and eventually permanent human presence on the lunar surface where we can prove out many of the skills, operations, and technologies that will be key for future human Mars missions,"

Approximately one-sixth the size of the International Space Station, the Gateway will function as a way station located tens of thousands of miles at its farthest distance from the lunar surface, in a near-rectilinear halo orbit.

https://nasa.gov/gateway

The arm is a big deal for the ISS for some of the vehicles docking and handling of cargo that is not internal to the ship that docks to the station and since the gateway is of the same modular design its a good fit to have....

Offline

#181 2020-12-18 09:01:28

Terraformer
Member
From: Logres
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,356
Website

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

Are they going to learn from the ISS in how to build space stations? Like the point that GW (?) has made about not covering up the pressure vessel walls with equipment, so you can easily monitor it for damage.

I wonder if surrounding space stations in mylar sheeting with constant illuminations would extend their lifespan, by preventing thermal cycling?


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#182 2020-12-18 09:35:18

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 5,808

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

For Terraformer re #181

That is an interesting idea!

Please consider following up on it!

The example that comes to mind is Skylab, which used a plastic tarp (or something similar) to protect the station after a failure of some kind.

Your idea would go beyond that, of course.

A benefit of your idea is that the spherical (or similar) shape you create around a station could take on additional responsibilities beyond the thermal protection, which is certainly important in its own right.

You could (for example) mount solar cells, or embed them in the fabric/material of the wall.

If your idea has merit (which I certainly hope is the case) then someone should be willing to pay for it, and that includes funding the engineering that would make it practical.

The idea started with you (to the best of my knowledge anyway) so it's yours to run with as far as you can take it.

(th)

Offline

#183 2020-12-18 18:18:14

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 21,887

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

I went back to check where the station would orbit and found that GW had talked about three body problem of orbital mechanics?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewatlas-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Farchive%2Fgateway-orbit-1.png

According the ESOC, what Gateway will do is orbit this point on a trajectory that will bring it to within 3,000 km (1,864 mi) of the Moon's surface and out to a distance of 70,000 km (43,496 mi). Seen from the Earth, this path will look as if it's tracing a lopsided halo over the Moon once every seven days.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration … on/Gateway

The Gateway’s first module is set for launch on the second Artemis mission with Orion. The service module will fly on its own to the outpost’s planned orbit and wait for the next module from the third Artemis mission.

Facts and figures

Mass: 40 tonnes
Orbit: near rectilinear halo
Modules:
Power and Propulsion Element
Communications module and connecting module (ESPRIT)
Science and airlock module
Habitat with robotic arm
Logistics module

https://spaceflightnow.com/2020/05/06/n … me-rocket/

March that the Gateway will be capable of supporting a crew of four astronauts for up to 30 days. With a pre-positioned logistics module, that mission duration could be doubled to 60 days.

DlsvVKSUwAA1wVG?format=jpg&name=small

Why SLS?

To send a crew of astronauts all the way to the Gateway, SLS is going to need a rocket capable of sending 37 metric tons (81,000 lbs) of cargo into orbit around the Moon. Right now, we don’t have a rocket that can tow that much — SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy’s max payload to the Moon is estimated to be around 18 to 22 metric tons. Engineers are going to have to figure out how to double that capacity to make the SLS happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Orb … rm-Gateway

Offline

#184 2020-12-19 12:54:43

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 4,366
Website

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

There is something inconsistent about these numbers that supposedly justify SLS for a Gateway-based return of astronauts to the moon (project Artemis). 

Falcon-Heavy is rated at 63 metric tons payload deliverable to LEO,  per Spacex,  if flown expendably.  Presuming that the "18-22 tons to the moon" value is correct (and it is reasonable),  flown expendably,  then Falcon-Heavy can deliver 28-34% of its rated LEO payload to the moon.  I also presume this means to the Gateway halo orbit.

Those same percentages apply to any rocket.  It's the same orbital mechanics,  no matter the vehicle. 

NASA rates SLS Block 1 at 70 metric tons to LEO.  That's the smaller upper stage and solid strap-on boosters.  Applying the percentages,  that's 19-23 tons to the moon,  very little different from Falcon-Heavy flown expendably.  Precisely because it's also very little different payload capability to LEO!

There is just no way in hell that SLS Block 1 can do the Gateway based mission jobs,  if those jobs really require 37 ton modules be delivered to the halo orbit about the moon!  To claim otherwise is a lie. Pure and simple!

NASA rates SLS Block 1B at 100 tons to LEO.  That's the bigger upper stage with the solid strap-ons.  Applying the percentages,  that's 28-34 tons to the moon.  And that's still short of a 37 ton job requirement.  Plus,  that bigger upper stage is still some years away from being ready to fly. 

There is just no way in hell SLS Block 1B is going to support a 2022-2024 moon mission,  even if they reduce the job requirement well below 37 tons,  because it will NOT be flying that soon!

NASA rates SLS Block 2B at 130 tons to LEO.  That's the bigger upper stage (some years away from flying) plus the more powerful liquid strap-on boosters (many,  many years away from flying).  Applying the percentages,  that's 36-44 tons to the moon. 

That one actually could do the job requiring 37 ton modules to the moon,  but it will NOT be flying for about a decade,  maybe two!

I must therefore conclude that Gateway as planned is simply not a feasible way to support an Artemis program moon landing in the 2022-2024 time period!  This is because the SLS configuration that is required to support such a Gateway will not be flying before about 2030,  if it ever flies at all.

Yet NASA has committed to building Gateway to support Artemis in the 2022-2024 time period,  out of 37 ton modules that it is already contracting-out,  without a rocket flying any time soon that could actually do the job!  Now,  just how idiotically and bureaucratically STUPID is that?

You are literally looking at what happens when Congress micromanages NASA to meet porkbarrel politics needs,  instead of its own management running NASA!

The only saving grace here would be Spacex and its Starship/Superheavy,  which might be capable of delivering near-100-ton lots to the moon.  IF Spacex can get it working.  Whether they can do that by 2024 is the real question. They have big problems to solve,  and a very short time to get that done. So I do NOT consider that a probable outcome!

Otherwise,  what I think you are looking at from NASA,  with its SLS,  Gateway,  and Artemis programs,  is actually just a rather thin and poorly-disguised excuse for continuing a Congressionally-mandated corporate welfare program (SLS) for Boeing and Lockheed-Martin.

I must conclude that NASA cannot send anybody to the moon in the 2022-2024 time period via Gateway.  Because they do NOT have a rocket big enough to do the 37-ton module job,  not in anywhere close to that time frame.  Unless Spacex succeeds,  which is not likely in that time frame,  either.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2020-12-19 12:58:28)


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#185 2020-12-19 21:23:11

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 21,887

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

Terraformer wrote:

Are they going to learn from the ISS in how to build space stations? Like the point that GW (?) has made about not covering up the pressure vessel walls with equipment, so you can easily monitor it for damage.

I wonder if surrounding space stations in mylar sheeting with constant illuminations would extend their lifespan, by preventing thermal cycling?

The sun shield will be hard to place with this circling ship as its a solar powered collection system so we will need to add them below where the direct light must hit them.
The next issue is for if they ever do AG then we will be needing to rethink how solar will be effected by the direction of motion of the station.
The more complex this ship gets the harder it will be to make sure we do keep the shell with a constant temperature to stop the metal fatique that we are seeing on the ISS.The again Nasa tends to throw everything away after a period of time....

GW I am thinking that if its that heavy its go fuel on board for station keeping as that will be something its going to need to do as well as server as a lander transfer of fuel tank...

Offline

#186 2020-12-20 10:36:21

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 4,366
Website

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

Spacenut:

I've seen some things recently where NASA is now claiming slightly-larger payloads for the SLS configurations.  I'm unsure what might justify those increases,  because the figures I used are what NASA published for some years now.  The revised,  higher figures make building Gateway possible sooner with SLS Block1B.  It's still out of reach with Block 1 as long as the modules are in the 37 ton class.

I've also seen some things that indicate NASA will conduct Artemis without Gateway in place.  Although,  they are still committed to building Gateway.  Artemis 1 is the old EM-1 SLS mission,  which is an unmanned Block 1 SLS flinging an Orion/service module into cis-lunar space for 20-40 days. 

Artemis 2 is the first manned Orion flung around the moon (no landing,  sort of an Apollo-8 reprise),  again using SLS Block 1.  They seem to think they can get into and back out of lunar orbit with that configuration. 

Artemis 3 is the landing attempt in 2024,  also using SLS Block 1,  with the lander that is yet to be settled,  and which will require its own rocket to take it to the moon. 

SLS Block 1B with the bigger upper stage won't fly until Artemis 4-7.  Those missions have yet to be defined,  as near as I can tell.  Or when they will fly. 

Bear in mind that NASA never before intended to fly more than one SLS in any given year.  So how they will conduct Artemis,  and also build Gateway,  is a wide open question,  as near as I can tell.  Especially since the estimated per-launch cost of an SLS now exceeds $1B.

As for Gateway,  there is no intent to ever add artificial gravity  to it,  as near as I can tell,  so that crews may not occupy it for more than a year without a severe risk of microgravity disease crippling and maiming them.   It also has no radiation protection means that I can see for solar flare events. 

As long as there is only GCR exposure,  it's about like a Mars mission in any given year:  an increase in the risk of cancer later in life.  But a big solar flare,  like the 1972 event between two Apollo missions,  would be fatal in a matter of hours.  And it's an ugly death.

NASA already knows what level of shielding is required to survive an event like the 1972 flare.  It's on their radiation website,  along with the exposure limits.  15-20 g/sq.cm of low molecular weight material is enough.  That's widely-different thicknesses,  depending upon density.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2020-12-20 10:54:17)


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#187 2021-02-09 19:03:22

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 21,887

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

Offline

#188 2021-02-15 18:14:14

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 21,887

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB