3 ms·

For long time NASA announced a space program after space program only to be canceled at an unfortunate moment. We have to understand that our problems with adv

by avmich 7y ago

For long time NASA announced a space program after space program only to be canceled at an unfortunate moment. We have to understand that our problems with advancing manned spaceflight are mainly organizational. And because of that, it's beneficial to focus efforts not on a grand goal, which may not survive the next budgetary fight in Congress, but instead on capabilities which can mostly be used for whatever goal we'll have in mind at any particular moment. We're well on the way along this idea already. Whatever payload can be used for on LEO, we already have means to get some 20 metric tons there reliably. This, as Heinlein put, is already half-way to anywhere in the Solar system. We also work on manned spacecrafts, which, while useful for getting to ISS and back, can also be used - mostly - for much more distant trips, to near-lunar space and more. We're growing a network of automatic stations, which can provide early reconnaissance for various sky bodies, navigational beacons and relays. A bunch of companies have growing experience with controlled landing and launching of one-stage rocket devices. Gateway has a good property in that it's another component on the way to the Moon - and elsewhere - which has higher chances to survive another organizational shakeup because it's easier to build Gateway than to mount a sizable manned program to the Moon surface. Gateway is an ISS on steroids - in terms of getting to a much higher point - but not much more in terms of complexity, and we became pretty good with building and maintaining ISS. A smaller ISS in Moon vicinity can be less risky and less expensive than many other projects. As for usefulness - given that Gateway is in place, it's much easier to manage risks for more bold manned and unmanned projects on the Moon. Here I disagree with Griffin - he doesn't seem to recognize organizational challenges which Gateway allows to solve. Gateway has benefits in easier construction (you don't need to land heavy modules on the Moon), better understanding of international cooperation (e.g., ESA will get experience launching modules towards the Moon), uses other than Moon (for later stages, when we might have some flow of materials from the Moo surface), easier return to Earth (so less risks), better coverage of Moon surface in terms of accessibility etc. IMO, not bad for something which actually has a better chance to get funded to completion than existing alternatives.

cheeko1234 7y ago
Finally, a sensical comment. You're exactly right. Given the constraints of politics/funding, NASA can't pull off long-term & ambitious goals like they used to in the 60s-70s, and the administrator of NASA, Jim Bridenstine, knows that. Using your term: ISS on steroids, the next stepping stone would be the Gateway on steroids: an orbiting station around Mars. Here's a cool pdf from NASA that goes into details: https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019-Why-Gateway-v5.pdf https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019-Why-...
- aeternus 7y ago
  There are multiple launch systems that will have the payload capacity to go straight to the moon within the next few years. Why not just use those? No one will care about a Lunar space station, it's not enough of a step forward to capture the public's attention. It's sad that NASA's 'futuristic' new proposal is to do half of what we were able to do 50 years ago. People will quickly vote to cut funding for it, and maybe they should.
  - avmich 7y ago
    > There are multiple launch systems that will have the payload capacity to go straight to the moon within the next few years. Why not just use those? Maybe SLS and BFR - but those are not nearly ready, and SLS may not be able to launch directly to the Moon what we may require to launch this time. Remember that one of the problems of today is significantly lower risk tolerances. We'll want system to be much safer, and that will translate into more mass of the system for all kinds of backups. So Saturn-V or similar payload throwers won't cut it this time. BFR may - but this is much less visible on the horizon. > No one will care about a Lunar space station... People will quickly vote to cut funding... I doubt. ISS may be seen as a giant step back from Apollo (even if it has a pile of its own benefits). Comparing to ISS Gateway is a significant step forward. Just imagine: deep space instead of "just" 400 km up, Moon vicinity, flights measured in days and not because one need to synchronize orbits; platform for telescopes which are much more stationary and aren't obscured with Earth every hour... And launching expedition to the Moon from Gateway can be that much more convenient.
corebit 7y ago
You mean... agile?
- avmich 7y ago
  Sort of. Gateway looks like an example of how could we try to get to the Moon, but to do that not in a single Apollo-sized project, but splitting the task in easier chunks - and yes, incurring some overhead, but also opening up new opportunities. See, for Gateway we have much better TRL (technology readiness level) than for, say, short trips to the Moon surface, not to say about longer term Moon-surface activities like maintaining a base there. For Gateway we need technologies which are similar to ISS, with main changes being: 1) the modules need to be transported to Moon vicinity. That means that in practice, for example, each module needs to be pushed there - so the module should include its own booster (I think it's not very good, as that spent booster won't be used afterwards) or each module should be mated to a booster temporarily. Then modules should be assembled in Moon vicinity similarly to how they are assembled into ISS. 2) we have worse radioactive environment for Gateway than we have for ISS. That means all habitat modules have to additionally include means of protection - be that extra layer of passive material, or active external plasma generators which would reduce radiation by getting it through a weak layer of particles around the module, or something else. A new and a challenging problem, for sure, but with certain payouts in the future if we will ever want to venture from Earth. There are other differences, like navigation, space debris environment, communications, ways of getting there-and-back etc. but that all seem to be much more attainable than direct Moon missions. And after having Gateway in such a shape, subsequent Moon missions can obviously employ those existing capabilities - i.e. missions would start from Gateway, which is much closer to the Moon, not from Earth, as the path to Gateway would be already well developed. And we have better hopes of actually having that built before critical changes will happen - so we'll have taken at least some steps forward.
  - corebit 7y ago
    I agree entirely!
DataGata 7y ago
The idea of NASA becoming smart enough that it reroutes its plans around administrations is a nice idea. It's pretty hopeful. It also seems wrong: if it were true, NASA would've gotten us somewhere by now.

by avmich 7y ago

cheeko1234 7y ago

Finally, a sensical comment. You're exactly right. Given the constraints of politics/funding, NASA can't pull off long-term & ambitious goals like they used to in the 60s-70s, and the administrator of NASA, Jim Bridenstine, knows that. Using your term: ISS on steroids, the next stepping stone would be the Gateway on steroids: an orbiting station around Mars. Here's a cool pdf from NASA that goes into details: https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019-Why-Gateway-v5.pdf https://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019-Why-...

aeternus 7y ago
There are multiple launch systems that will have the payload capacity to go straight to the moon within the next few years. Why not just use those? No one will care about a Lunar space station, it's not enough of a step forward to capture the public's attention. It's sad that NASA's 'futuristic' new proposal is to do half of what we were able to do 50 years ago. People will quickly vote to cut funding for it, and maybe they should.
- avmich 7y ago
  > There are multiple launch systems that will have the payload capacity to go straight to the moon within the next few years. Why not just use those? Maybe SLS and BFR - but those are not nearly ready, and SLS may not be able to launch directly to the Moon what we may require to launch this time. Remember that one of the problems of today is significantly lower risk tolerances. We'll want system to be much safer, and that will translate into more mass of the system for all kinds of backups. So Saturn-V or similar payload throwers won't cut it this time. BFR may - but this is much less visible on the horizon. > No one will care about a Lunar space station... People will quickly vote to cut funding... I doubt. ISS may be seen as a giant step back from Apollo (even if it has a pile of its own benefits). Comparing to ISS Gateway is a significant step forward. Just imagine: deep space instead of "just" 400 km up, Moon vicinity, flights measured in days and not because one need to synchronize orbits; platform for telescopes which are much more stationary and aren't obscured with Earth every hour... And launching expedition to the Moon from Gateway can be that much more convenient.

corebit 7y ago

You mean... agile?

avmich 7y ago
Sort of. Gateway looks like an example of how could we try to get to the Moon, but to do that not in a single Apollo-sized project, but splitting the task in easier chunks - and yes, incurring some overhead, but also opening up new opportunities. See, for Gateway we have much better TRL (technology readiness level) than for, say, short trips to the Moon surface, not to say about longer term Moon-surface activities like maintaining a base there. For Gateway we need technologies which are similar to ISS, with main changes being: 1) the modules need to be transported to Moon vicinity. That means that in practice, for example, each module needs to be pushed there - so the module should include its own booster (I think it's not very good, as that spent booster won't be used afterwards) or each module should be mated to a booster temporarily. Then modules should be assembled in Moon vicinity similarly to how they are assembled into ISS. 2) we have worse radioactive environment for Gateway than we have for ISS. That means all habitat modules have to additionally include means of protection - be that extra layer of passive material, or active external plasma generators which would reduce radiation by getting it through a weak layer of particles around the module, or something else. A new and a challenging problem, for sure, but with certain payouts in the future if we will ever want to venture from Earth. There are other differences, like navigation, space debris environment, communications, ways of getting there-and-back etc. but that all seem to be much more attainable than direct Moon missions. And after having Gateway in such a shape, subsequent Moon missions can obviously employ those existing capabilities - i.e. missions would start from Gateway, which is much closer to the Moon, not from Earth, as the path to Gateway would be already well developed. And we have better hopes of actually having that built before critical changes will happen - so we'll have taken at least some steps forward.
- corebit 7y ago
  I agree entirely!

DataGata 7y ago

The idea of NASA becoming smart enough that it reroutes its plans around administrations is a nice idea. It's pretty hopeful. It also seems wrong: if it were true, NASA would've gotten us somewhere by now.