Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway

EdwardHeisler · 2018-07-19 07:49:56

Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway
China plans to focus its activities on a surface science station.
Eric Berger - 7/17/2018
ARS Technica

This week, the European and Chinese space agencies held a workshop in Amsterdam to discuss cooperation between Europe and China on lunar science missions. The meeting comes as Europe seems increasingly content to work with China on spaceflight programs.

Although the meeting is not being streamed online, space systems designer and lunar exploration enthusiast Angeliki Kapoglou has been providing some coverage of the meeting via Twitter. Among the most interesting things she has shared are slides from a presentation by Pei Zhaoyu, who is deputy director of the Lunar Exploration and Space Program Center of the China National Space Administration.

Overall, Pei does not appear to be a fan of NASA's plan to build a deep space gateway, formally known as the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway, at a near-rectilinear halo orbit. Whereas NASA will focus its activities on this gateway away from the Moon, Pei said China will focus on a "lunar scientific research station."

Another slide from Pei offered some thoughts on the gateway concept, which NASA intends to build out during the 2020s, delaying a human landing on the Moon until the end of the decade at the earliest. Pei does not appear to be certain about the scientific objectives of such a station, and the deputy director concludes that, from a cost-benefit standpoint, the gateway would have "lost cost-effectiveness."

The Trump administration and the US aerospace contractor community has generally fallen in line behind the gateway concept, stating that it will help NASA prove out the technologies it needs for a long-term, sustainable deep space exploration program for humans that would eventually include landings on the Moon and Mars.

However, some critics have suggested that the gateway will only serve to delay NASA astronaut activity on the Moon. Moreover, they're concerned that the gateway, situated in its distant orbit around the Moon, was specifically engineered to give NASA's Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft a place to go. (This rocket, with a limited upper stage, and spacecraft, with a meager service module, can't actually fly into a significant gravity well and return to Earth.)

So far, NASA has yet to finalize commitments with Europe, Russia, or other International Space Station partners on contributions to the gateway. While European officials are interested, it seems like they may also be willing to go along with China if that country has a more direct plan to land humans on the Moon.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07 … r-gateway/

SpaceNut · 2018-07-19 18:43:31

Nasa does not really care if China likes or dislikes as they have not been invited and probably will not be anytime soon until they are will to take part in delivering new modules to the iss and seeing how that works out first.

EdwardHeisler · 2018-07-28 19:52:13

SpaceNut wrote:

Nasa does not really care if China likes or dislikes as they have not been invited and probably will not be anytime soon until they are will to take part in delivering new modules to the iss and seeing how that works out first.

NASA is rapidly becoming irrelevant. China does not need the NASA space station. ISS will be abandoned in six year or less unless Congress wants to spend tens of billions of dollars more for the ISS urine collector and theirr decades old rocket technology, the SLS.

While NASA fiddles around with a Moon Gateway that will never be built the Chinese National Space Administration along with the European Space Agency and perhaps Russia will explore the surface of the Moon and will have boots on the ground long before NASA.

And SpaceX will send human explorers (an international crew that includes Chinese) to Mars while NASA will continue to consider sending another rover to Mars.

The Trump government is far more interested in achieving "domination" and empire in outer space with his "Space Force Warriors"!

Yahoooo!

And the Trump government clearly has no interest in science and space exploration research unless it has a war application.

Trump doubles record for longest time without science adviser
By Aris Folley - 07/27/18
The Hill

President Trump this week broke the record for going the longest time without a science adviser among modern presidents.

According to The Washington Post, Trump this week reached double the length of time any modern president has gone without selecting a science adviser.

Former President George W. Bush previously held the record, serving as president for nine months and four days without selecting someone for the role.
Former Presidents Obama, Kennedy, Nixon and Clinton selected their science adviser picks prior to assuming office.

A Post analysis found that every president since Eisenhower filled the role by the first October of their administration, excluding Trump.

“There are many things about the Trump presidency that are historic, and the disregard for science will be seen as high on the list,” said Kumar Garg, a member of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) under Obama.

OSTP was first established by Congress in 1976 to provide the president with advice on the scientific, engineering and technological aspects of “the economy, national security, homeland security, health, foreign relations, the environment, and the technological recovery and use of resources, among other topics,” according to the office’s website.

“If you had asked somebody at the start of the administration if we would be approaching this sort of marker, they would have been shocked,” Garg continued. “The science community should want the position filled and should want the position filled with someone who is qualified and capable.”

The Post's analysis comes a day after Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.) urged Trump to fill the role.

“Currently, nine out of ten key OSTP staff positions remain vacant,” Coons said Monday in a letter to the president.

“I remain quite concerned that, when it comes to science, America is falling behind its major competitors. China, for example, is ramping up its science and technology innovation efforts significantly,” Coons continued.

Coons added that to ensure the U.S. is able to compete with China science and technology innovation, Trump should “strongly prioritize science and technology innovation and invest in OSTP by filling vacancies in key positions, ensuring that your administration has access to science and technology advice.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- … ut-science

Last edited by EdwardHeisler (2018-07-28 20:06:55)

SpaceNut · 2018-07-29 08:09:28

If it does not make money as profit he will not care...There is no profit in spending money for humanity and you see that with rich get all they want for taxation shelters and the poor are getting less for help....

kbd512 · 2018-07-29 18:00:59

SpaceNut,

Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Paul Allen, and Robert Bigelow aren't exactly paupers and they're the visionaries driving the new space movement forward. I think the anger / envy toward people with more money than the average person is misplaced at best. The poor people get more money than before every single year, year after year, yet it hasn't had the desired effect. If poverty was merely a matter of providing more money, then the poverty problem should've been solved decades ago. In any event, the poorest people living in America have probably never seen what true poverty looks like. There's no shortage of "things" in this world, only a shortage of people with enough good sense to know what to do with them.

EdwardHeisler,

The very first time SpaceX or Blue Origin sends anyone into orbit, we can have a discussion about how irrelevant NASA has become. The last time I checked, no other space agency on the planet, or any billionaires for that matter, has sent anyone to the moon, let alone anywhere farther out. The Russians had one of the most advanced space agencies in existence in the Cold War, yet they failed to get anyone near the moon. All talk is cheap, but real progress is very complicated and expensive.

Whether our President has science advisors or not, I assure you that no aspect of Chinese aerospace technology is any more advanced than anything else fielded by any other nation. We haven't fielded a human rated space launch vehicle and capsule system in some time because NASA is far more concerned with whether or not the vehicle returns its crew to Earth alive and in good physical condition than they are with superficial political appearances or gamesmanship. ROSCOSMOS has similarly become more interested in how well something works, rather than whether or not it can be made to work at all. People like you value your political ideology and appearances more than human life. Meanwhile, NASA and ROSCOSMOS take lemons and do their best to make lemonade.

Void · 2018-07-29 21:28:23

I really tend to like your arguments kbd512, and I don't have to struggle to do so.

Quote:

Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway

I don't care that much about what they might be impressed with. Do they have some impressive credential we should salute?

LOP-G Lunar Orbital Platform - Gateway

Would you just get over it? The word Lunar is included. So what? It is a generalist plan. It points in many directions. The Moon is only a piece of it.

Now, Lions are specialists. Cattle are specialists.

Humans are generalists. We appear to control this planet, and may have hopes of influencing other planets. Does it seem logical that we should adopt a generalist plan or a specialist method? Obviously I say generalist.

And I have to say that I really think your falsie lefties protest too much. You hate American success, and western success. And I have a very deep suspicion that you act as a fifth column in our cultures, to attempt to misdirect our space programs to futility.

And I call you falsie lefties because you don't appear to be concerned in the least with American needs or western needs, but rather as often as possible wish to trash us, and to take the side of those who in reality represent pathways to archaic types of historical failures.

China prospers because of the system that the west set up. America is starting to opt out of that. China will be in very deep economic trouble which also equals "How in the world are they going to function without our coddling them?".

Done

Last edited by Void (2018-07-29 21:42:40)

EdwardHeisler · 2018-07-29 21:41:42

When Trumpeter trolls write or speak their political comments simply repeat uninformed nonsense and personal attacks that don't deserve a response. And some of these know nothing "commentators" on this forum are obvious trolls repeating the anti-SpaceX propaganda campaign talking points of the United Launch Alliance.

The ULA clearly has a few anti-SpaceX trolls on our board. Perhaps just one.

Last edited by EdwardHeisler (2018-07-29 21:42:18)

Void · 2018-07-29 21:57:46

Quote:

When Trumpeter trolls write or speak their political comments simply repeat uninformed nonsense and personal attacks that don't deserve a response. And some of these know nothing "commentators" on this forum are obvious trolls repeating the anti-SpaceX propaganda campaign talking points of the United Launch Alliance.
The ULA clearly has a few anti-SpaceX trolls on our board. Perhaps just one.

Have I been promoted to "Troll"? I want a pay raise from ULA!

I want to give anybody who has a spaceship or intends to have a spaceship a hug. I adore them.

But, I am not just a one space outfit groupie.

I really want giant spaceships like Elon Musk said would eventually happen. Can't land those. Not practical, and if they exploded, good heavens what a mess!

So, the LOP-G is a precursor for such, and is also a precursor for a gateway space station. I love it. I also want

SpaceX to pull off all of their intentions, but Mars by itself is not enough. Not at all.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-07-29 22:01:41)

EdwardHeisler · 2018-07-30 07:31:17

I wasn't replying to your post.

It was a response to the Trumpeter ULA troll post.

RGClark · 2018-07-30 09:19:11

EdwardHeisler wrote:

Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway
China plans to focus its activities on a surface science station.
Eric Berger - 7/17/2018
ARS Technica
This week, the European and Chinese space agencies held a workshop in Amsterdam to discuss cooperation between Europe and China on lunar science missions. The meeting comes as Europe seems increasingly content to work with China on spaceflight programs.
Although the meeting is not being streamed online, space systems designer and lunar exploration enthusiast Angeliki Kapoglou has been providing some coverage of the meeting via Twitter. Among the most interesting things she has shared are slides from a presentation by Pei Zhaoyu, who is deputy director of the Lunar Exploration and Space Program Center of the China National Space Administration.
Overall, Pei does not appear to be a fan of NASA's plan to build a deep space gateway, formally known as the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway, at a near-rectilinear halo orbit. Whereas NASA will focus its activities on this gateway away from the Moon, Pei said China will focus on a "lunar scientific research station."
...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07 … r-gateway/

If by "lunar scientific research station" they mean a manned station, then I agree.

Bob Clark

Void · 2018-07-30 11:22:03

I guess the Chinese space official or others can have the opinion they want.

However, do note that the LOP-G is not a Lunar program. It just overlaps on such at the edges. It is a program to develop and test deep space structures with Electric Rocket capabilities. It overlaps on a potential Mars program, but is not itself a Mars program.

Now, if you want Lunar, then see at least two USA associated outfits. Blue Origins, and strangely enough SpaceX.

Comparisons of LOP-G to a lunar base are Apples to Oranges.

Instead if you want to do a competition, do Blue Origins & SpaceX <> China. They all have work to do.

kbd512 · 2018-07-30 14:18:33

EdwardHeisler,

The only responses you've provided to anyone who disagrees with your political opinions, which are clearly not universally held, have been personal attacks better suited to a high school gym class than a forum dedicated to discussing space exploration and colonization. You've pretty well demonstrated your inability to support your ideation with math and logic, but that's about it. If you have any arguments of technical merit, feel free to sprinkle in a few of those with your favorite collection of insults directed against those of us who don't support your political ideology.

Adults,

One company, no matter how brilliantly staffed, won't provide the solution to every imaginable problem related to space exploration and colonization. I admire Mr. Musk's enthusiasm, determination, and willingness to experiment, but every person and organization has its limits. When SpaceX starts flying this Saturn V class rocket, we'll begin to see that. I sincerely hope that SpaceX has better quality control than the Tesla factory does or the Soviets did, but there's a reason why NASA's chosen rocketry solution for our lunar landings wasn't to strap dozens of smaller engines to the bottom of a bigger gas tank. The complexity of the N-1 concept is what doomed it to failure, even when funding wasn't a major impediment. BFR is N-1 on steroids, in terms of the performance requirements.

If SpaceX demonstrates that they can routinely launch a Saturn V class rocket with 30+ engines and a truly reusable interplanetary Space Shuttle as the upper stage, then I'll have a drink of that Kool-Aid, too. Until that happens, I remain skeptical that their plan will work well or at all. Assuming the rocket works, then SpaceX has to overcome a basic physics problem for BFS to reliably land on anything but a perfectly flat concrete or steel pad. When landing a pair of M1 Abrams tanks (that's just the payload, rather than the mass of the ship itself) suspended 25m over uneven and/or shifting ground works well enough, then they need a multi-megawatt LOX/LCH4 plant that fits in a CONEX box or two to make enough fuel to return their ship to Earth. If they don't simply blow themselves up whilst living inside or near a cryogenic propellant plant for a couple of years, then they have to launch their rocket back to Earth without an engine overhaul. Whereupon all of that works as advertised, they have to repeat the process multiple times with the same hardware for their business model to work at all.

There hasn't been a stampede of venture capitalists throwing money at the numerous and varied problems for what should be obvious reasons. The basic technologies required for the plan to work have never been demonstrated at the scale required or never used at all, nobody has ever built a vehicle bigger than the Space Shuttle that requires little to no refurbishment between uses, even NASA only has a vague idea of where all the ice is located on Mars, nobody has developed the technology to mine it because nobody knows what it's mixed with, nobody has a multi-megawatt LOX/LCH4 plant that fits in a CONEX box, and nobody has demonstrated the robotic technology required to build a multi-megawatt solar array on another planet. None of those problems are unsolvable, but they haven't been solved and there's probably more than a few technical reasons involved. Taken together, they represent a problem a bit beyond our current technical capabilities, which typically improve slowly over extended periods of time.

If they don't kill everyone on the first few attempts using that sort of colonization plan, it'll be a miracle of epic proportions. The more I review the plan, or lack thereof, the more it looks like a kamikaze plan. SpaceX hasn't bothered to release any details about how they intend to refuel their spaceship to reuse it, yet that's a core characteristic of their business plan. Unfortunately, none of the SpaceX Kool-Aid drinkers bothered asking any pertinent questions about that aspect of the plan. If SpaceX or their contractors were worried about IP infringement, then they or someone else would've patented the requisite LOX/LCH4 plant technology. Since no such patents can be found, that's a very good indicator that the basic technology required doesn't exist in the format required for transport and use on another planet.

* no super heavy lift launch vehicle anywhere in the world, although SLS is supposedly approaching its first flight
* no fully reusable interplanetary spaceship
* no multi-megawatt LOX/LCH4 plant, outside of a few desktop lab experiments or pilot plants that cover the better part of a football field
* no robotically constructed multi-megawatt solar array to power the multi-megawatt LOX/LCH4 plant
* no closed loop life support
* no artificial gravity for interplanetary transits
* no long duration storage of cryogenic propellants in orbit
* no orbital transfer of cryogenic propellants
* no precision landing capability demonstrated without using a nonexistent Mars GPS system
* no landing over 1,000kg demonstrated
* no landing on rough terrain demonstrated
* no ascent from another planetary surface and return to Earth demonstrated, except by NASA during the lunar program

That's just objective reality raining on our Mars colonization parade. The politically-motivated amongst us can choose to ignore that or attribute my restatement of objective reality to politics, but doing so won't change what hardware is presently available for use. I guess I'm just unfamiliar with the politics of PowerPoint presentations. Right now, virtually nothing is ready for use on the moon or Mars and I've seen nothing from any other nation's space agency beyond bold claims backed by PowerPoint presentations.

If the Chinese finally manage to accomplish what NASA achieved before most of the people involved with their space program were born, then I'll congratulate them on a job well done. With more natural resources and manpower than the US will ever have, along with that all-important "feature" of communism, a centrally-planned economy that never seems to work very well, they managed to send someone into space in 2003. America and the Soviet Union sent humans into space in 1961 with lots of help from Nazi rocket scientists and 8 years later, NASA put humans on the moon. The Chinese are talking about sending someone to the moon in 2025 and I think that's great, but stop talking about it and start doing it. As previously stated, all talk is cheap and PowerPoint presentations don't count as flight-rated hardware in the real world. Maybe they need some Nazi rocket scientists. We might have to dig them up though, because I think they're all dead.

EdwardHeisler · 2018-07-30 19:12:22

kbd512 repeats the old and discredited extreme right-wing talking points attacking Elon Musk.

Is he trying to get a propaganda. job with ULA with his trolling or is he already on their payroll getting paid by the word for his posts attacking Musk, SpaceX, Tesla, etc.,?

Elon Musk vs. the Trolls
Are business rivals behind online attacks on the Tesla CEO?
By Paul Barrett
Bloomberg Businessweek

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … the-trolls

Right-wing group led by Trump propagandist launches campaign against Elon Musk, Tesla and SpaceX
by Fred Lambert
Electrek

https://electrek.co/2016/11/22/elon-mus … la-spacex/

The War on Tesla, Musk, and the Fight for the Future
May 29, 2018
Daily Kos

Void · 2018-07-30 20:54:45

I want to be fair on this one.

As soon as falcon heavy flew, this appeared in a way that I noticed. On the surface it does not seem to be only the right, but they tried the feminist cards, the race cards, and other things.

Peter Zeihan actually at one point took the time to suggest that Tesla might go under and that would somehow take SpaceX as well.

I do also know that the big guy does not like Jeff Bezos or Amazon either.

So this could be an attack on new technological entities, which they might hope to loot, if they could bring them down.

However, so far Tesla is surviving. And I still don't know how they pull down Tesla, and then get SpaceX pulled down as well.

It appears to be more of a desire than a conquering power so far.

kbd512 · 2018-07-30 23:20:41

EdwardHeisler,

Nobody is attacking your personal Jesus. I couldn't care less if you lack the maturity to figure that out. Stop having a religious experience whenever someone points out all the unsolved problems and lack of available solutions. I don't personally care if Elon Musk himself, the Chinese, Russians, or Egyptians land on Mars first. It's not a competition and you don't win anything if you get there first. Americans set foot on the moon first, but nothing tangible was "won" as a result. We spent a lot of money and left with a few interesting rocks.

I just want humans to go to Mars, rather than talking about going there or believing their own hubris about what they clearly don’t know anything about. A successful space exploration program won't be built on any amount of political propaganda or talking points. I want the people we send to return alive in order to produce the desired result, which would be eventual colonization, or so I hope. I don't want the funding or regulatory rug yanked by the governments because everyone recoils in horror after we kill a dozen irreplaceable astronauts / cosmonauts / taikonauts on our first attempt because our technology and/or understanding of the nature of the problems was grossly inadequate to the task. That's exactly what all the worthless little yippy yappy talking heads on TV will say about this endeavor if that happens. Anyone who doesn't believe that is living in their own little world.

The technology simply doesn't exist, here in America or anywhere else on our little rock. That's why nobody has ever been to Mars. It's not a vast NASA conspiracy to spend money while they twiddle their thumbs. ISS was built and is being used to teach us about all the aspects of the space environment that we're laughably ignorant about. It clearly upsets you that ISS isn't orbiting Jupiter as I write this, but technological advancements move at a glacially slow pace. There's no clear "direction" because there are so many and so varied a set of problems to solve that attempting to ignore even one of them is foolish in the extreme and likely fatal to anyone arrogant enough to ignore it.

If you have any actual solution to the obvious problems I and so many others have pointed out, then enlighten everyone else. Hand waving technical problems doesn't solve them and calling people names never solved anything. If it makes you feel better, that's fine with me, but this mission won't happen for at least another decade because nothing required is ready to fly.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-08-07 08:40:35

China space station: What is the Tiangong?
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/china-space-s … 02974.html

What to Know About Lunar Gateway, NASA’s Future Moon-Orbiting Space Station
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2022/07/what … e-station/

The upcoming Artemis era has given NASA an excuse for finally building such a thing. Well, excuse is probably not the right word; the construction of a lunar space station is more of a necessity, given NASA’s stated goal of building a sustained human presence at and around the Moon. The space agency is seeking to land a man and woman on the lunar surface no earlier than 2025, but this, the Artemis 3 mission, represents the tip of the iceberg.
Plans are in the works for an Artemis base camp that would consist of a surface habitat, a pressurised rover, and an agile lunar terrain vehicle. The ensuing infrastructure will further enable our exploration of the Moon, but the experience and technology gained during these missions are meant to enable the next giant leap for humankind: a crewed mission to Mars. None of this will be possible, however, without a lunar space station.

NASA video reveals complexity of Lunar Gateway plan
https://www.digitaltrends.com/space/nas … eway-plan/

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-08-07 08:41:28)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2018-07-19 07:49:56

Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway

#2 2018-07-19 18:43:31

Re: Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway

#3 2018-07-28 19:52:13

Re: Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway

#4 2018-07-29 08:09:28

Re: Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway

#5 2018-07-29 18:00:59

Re: Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway

#6 2018-07-29 21:28:23

Re: Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway

#7 2018-07-29 21:41:42

Re: Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway

#8 2018-07-29 21:57:46

Re: Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway

#9 2018-07-30 07:31:17

Re: Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway

#10 2018-07-30 09:19:11

Re: Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway

#11 2018-07-30 11:22:03

Re: Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway

#12 2018-07-30 14:18:33

Re: Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway

#13 2018-07-30 19:12:22

Re: Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway

#14 2018-07-30 20:54:45

Re: Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway

#15 2018-07-30 23:20:41

Re: Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway

#16 2022-08-07 08:40:35

Re: Chinese space official seems unimpressed with NASA’s lunar gateway

Board footer