NASA And Russia Are Only Studying Deep Space Gateway – Not Building It
NASA, Roscosmos Sign Joint Statement on Researching, Exploring Deep Space
“This joint statement reflects the common vision for human exploration that NASA and Roscosmos share. Both agencies, as well as other International Space Station partners, see the gateway as a strategic component of human space exploration architecture that warrants additional study. NASA has already engaged industry partners in gateway concept studies. Roscosmos and other space station partner agencies are preparing to do the same.”
Keith’s note: Despite a flurry of news stories claiming that NASA and Roscomos have agreed to build a space station orbiting the Moon the agreement they signed only talks about exploration studies. No one has committed any funding to a specific architecture. Besides, NASA has no funding for the Deep Space Gateway. Congress is not all that supportive of the Deep Space Gateway and wants to see continued suport of LEO infrastructure like ISS while stimulating private sector development of cis-lunar space.
And, let’s thank the stars they have not yet decided to proceed with it but only to study it. NASA, in another 5 years, will present the US taxpayer with the most expensive capsule and rocket ever devised, and they have utterly no idea what to do with them. In the meantime the same organization, in many instances the same people, have succeeded in wasting much of the capability of the $150 billion ISS, so maybe we need a smaller ISS out at a lunar distance and with no actual need except to give the capsule a place to go.
Is that actually true? Nobody beats on SLS/ISS more than yours truly, but is it the case that nothing has been gained? Nothing learned? No technical ball has been moved forward?
I’ve read articles elsewhere which say the 2nd and 3rd manned SLS flights will be used to start delivering modules into lunar orbit for the “deep space gateway”. The SLS team is hoping this is real, otherwise what are they going to do with their “launch vehicle to nowhere”?
the primary mission of the gateway (which at first glance is about the size of an ISS Node and Airlock so hard to call it a full fledge station given the small space and you have to bring all your ECLSS supplies and food with you) is to continue justifying SLS. I would not be surprised if the powerpoint engineering was explicit to design such that only SLS could handle the parts.
I disagree, if congress doesn’t screw it up a whole host of commercial activities can be done. Spiral out with commercial cargo, commercial crew, commercial habitat infrastructure etc. You can have a space based reusable commmercial lunar lander based there also for servicing and refueling.
How dare you try to take all those pork projects from NASA Districts 🙂
Musk may not have mentioned SLS to maintain comity with NASA and CongressCritters, but he certainly did put a garotte around its neck.
Hey, it worked for the Shuttle after the Challenger accident. Since they weren’t going to replace ELVs with it anymore they needed something to do to justify its existence – building Space Station Freedom which later become ISS worked. 🙂
What better way to justify a rocket to no where than to use it to build a gateway station to no where.
I told Wilbur and I told Orville, and I’m telling you…it’ll never get off the ground! And to paraphrase the late, great Sen. Edward Mckinnley Dirskon, a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you are talking real money… And pretty soon Congress will see this as a great way to save money…cancel the danged thing!
Go Falcon Heavy!
Unless the Gateway Station eventually, DEFINITELY has a re-usable Lunar Lander – crew and cargo versions – then I would have to agree with Bob Zubrin and say that exposing Astronauts to long term microgravity and multiple flavors of radiation without actually landing anywhere smacks a little of unethical medical experiments on the Astronauts. The Lunar Lander could come from two sources: either a competed contract for a Commercial Spacecraft system, or a cooperative effort between a NASA-chosen contractor and the International partners.
And I do like aspects of the Boeing Mars strategic plan. Astronauts launch to the Gateway Station for a long duration stay, then go down to the Lunar surface for about 30-to-40 days, go back up to the Gateway for another long stay – then return to Earth. By that stage, I reckon mankind would be mature enough in complex, planetary space operations to go directly to Mars for a short term surface stay at first – moving to long duration, 500 plus days stays in the follow-ups.
But my stronger preference would be to do Lunar missions of a month or more first, then go direct to Phobos/Mars after that. If you’re going to send humans long duration through hazardous, radiation-filled space; send them somewhere amazing first without making endless spirals in cislunar space…
And no one has explained exactly what humans would be doing on the moon anyway. They all just keep using the magical catch word – science. I have lunar samples I am working with and I cant make a rational argument as to why and how we can sustainability go back to the moon just to study rocks. And I love rocks.
A lot of geology gets done by being around commercial mining operations as they open up new ground. It will be the same on Luna .. digging for ice and or regolith it would be wise to have a lunar geologist on standby to look at the cuts being made.
Only if the government will pick up the expenses including paying for any schedule delays caused by their geologist.
Well ya ,, most PHD field work is paid through the taxpayers and corporate grants anyway ,,, if we have been doing for the last century, I don’t see it going away just because are are poking around on a different rock.
Ha! You haven’t tried to find funding for a PhD lately, I’d imagine! 🙂
I said field work not the degree funding.
I have to say, Dr. M., that the SLS v SX thing is making me see the right-wing argument about government inefficiency in an entirely new way.
(I’m writing this after the SX presentation in Australia).
Thanks for your positive comments, Vladislaw. It’s amazing – and not in a good way – how every interesting sign of progress in human spaceflight posted to this website is typically met by a flurry of negativity. Geez guys, lets push past all the SLS-hating and “rocket to nowhere” whining and consider the upsides here. We are actually beginning serious discussions about establishing a semi-permanent and eventually permanent human presence at the Moon! Some commentors here seem unable to see how the DSG could be a useful first step in achieving that goal. Use your imaginations for just a second or two. Space exploration is one of the most interesting, exciting, and uplifting things the human race is doing these days. Why not dial back the cynicism and try to focus the cut and thrust of these discussions on constructive ideas instead of just bitter and superficial armchair QB whining. Wouldn’t we rather accomplish something epic inefficiently, than sit around debating the imperfect methodology ad infinitum and never actually do a damned thing?
The reason DSG is disparaged is simple: NASA hasn’t made the case.
Yes, I concur that we have not heard NASA make a compelling case for it, or anything else really…..yet. Let’s give them a chance. Perhaps after we get a confirmed NASA administrator and Pence’s Space Council makes its first utterances, the picture will come into focus. However, having just now watched the SpaceX IAC presentation, it makes anything NASA might come up with – eventually – seem a bit stodgy. I know it’s all ‘paper rockets’ from Elon now, but it is certainly a compelling vision. Refreshing!
Humans on the lunar surface would be doing a LOT more than just gathering more rocks! First of all, we KNOW that zero-g for more than six months is very bad for the human body. Is 1/6g sufficient to ameliorate some of these problems? If so, then 3/8g on Mars will be okay. If not, we may have to resort to a lunar-based centrifuge to increase the g-load to a good level. Second, the Moon will be the ideal place to develop the infrastructure necessary to do ISRU both on the Moon and later on Mars. So far as protecting astronauts from cosmic radiation is concerned, burrowing into the lunar regolith can shield from solar radiation, and there is already research under way to develop shielding to reduce the damage from that. The Moon is <3 days away from Earth in case of emergencies. That is a much better setup than either the Gateway Station or (Mars Direct) or some other program.
Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!
And I’ve read suggestions of using mass driver from the moon to lift “moon soil” into space to be used to shield an interplanetary craft.
A space based, reusable lunar lander based at the gateway so it can be fueled and serviced there.
It should be done COTS style with FIXED price and milestone based.
I would like to have TWO commercial service providers so there isn’t any single string fault systems. Mutual support from multiple suppliers. No more space shuttle one system fits all BS where one bad hair day and the Nations’s entire space transportation grinds to a halt.
Last week at ESA’s Lunar Exploration day (in Noordwijk, The Netherlands) there was a full day dedicated to European participation in the DSG, with plenty of the speakers from Airbus, TAS and OHB (the large system integrators) seriously convinced that Europe will be a full partner in its’ construction (service module, habitats, ascent vehicle from the Lunar surface…). Maybe they know something the public doesn’t?
Yes, it is rather sad to see how this kind of information propagates out into the ether these days and how so many people immediately believe it is truth, and argue about it, just because it is written on a web page. NASA does the public a great disservice in not being very, very clear on just what it is doing regarding these announcements. It would also be nice to know how much money they are spending on these “white paper” studies, and just what the probability is that they may come to fruition.
Good news is we have other people talking about the Moon besides Spudis and Wingo. My gripe is Mars attached to this program, which will focus work on going there (which will always be 20 years into the future) instead of sustainable cislunar infrastructure.
Unlike all other artwork, this shows habitat modules derived from ISS. Obviously no lunar landing as no lander, which I think is deliberate of so many other BEO concepts that omit landers so noboby has to put money to build it. As Keith said zero money for DSG and no plans to budget any.
Agreed. SLS has been looking for a problem to solve since it’s creation. So far suggestions like Asteroid Retrieval Mission have fallen flat when presented to Congress. Perhaps NASA is hoping that with an agreement with Russia to study this lunar orbiting deep space habitat that it won’t fall on deaf ears like ARM.
Guess who has a plan for landing cargo at a moon base?
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
I don’t know why we can’t start with robots on the Moon and/or Mars. That way it’s not spending a gigantic chunk of money or nothing. We can spend the same as a HSF effort and have a crapload of robots exploring, gathering materials, building and preparing for humans, or we can start a little smaller. Evolve abilities, iterate, cumulative accomplishments. And it seems like a lot of the developments would benefit stuff on Earth. Send humans at any points as well, tend the robots, finish off a few things the robots start, etc.
I honestly thing that demonstrating propulsive landing for spacecraft landing on Earth with the Dragon would be more useful in the long run than developing a space habitat in lunar orbit. It is difficult to understand the resistance to allowing SpaceX to test propulsive landing with the ISS cargo return flights. Propulsive landing developed for Earth will also be useful for the Moon, Mars and other relatively airless bodies, and will reduce the cost of access to LEO, which is the gateway to both near and far destinations in space.