Jump to content

NASA's Deep Space Gateway


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Scotius said:

All of us, most likely. But i'm reserving my enthusiasm for the day first module of lunar station will be placed on a launch pad.

Im reserving my enthusiasm for the SLS crewed launch.

Im betting that 90% of the station will be cancelled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not me.... LOPG is a useless pork project that's being made to give SLS/Orion a purpose. Seriously, if NASA wants to go to the moon they should just cancel LOPG and go straight to the lunar surface.

And before you tell me LOPG permits a reusable lunar lander.... how does it do that? Without a propellant depot the lander can't refuel, and if the lander can ISRU it doesn't need LOPG.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, _Augustus_ said:

Not me.... LOPG is a useless pork project that's being made to give SLS/Orion a purpose. Seriously, if NASA wants to go to the moon they should just cancel LOPG and go straight to the lunar surface.

And before you tell me LOPG permits a reusable lunar lander.... how does it do that? Without a propellant depot the lander can't refuel, and if the lander can ISRU it doesn't need LOPG.

Probably once reusable. :P (That's not what reusable means NASA) And I agree they should just go straight to the moon. But they also think that it will help with going to Mars.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
  Hide contents

Only the Russian docking/EVA module will be hanging out in tLOP-G orbit, so lonely.

 

Other way around, it seems the russian airlock isn‘t going to fly.

Personally i am excited that we will have human activity beyond LEO again and for the gateway too even if it would only be a destination for private companys to supply.

Edited by Canopus
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, _Augustus_ said:

Not me.... LOPG is a useless pork project that's being made to give SLS/Orion a purpose. Seriously, if NASA wants to go to the moon they should just cancel LOPG and go straight to the lunar surface.

And before you tell me LOPG permits a reusable lunar lander.... how does it do that? Without a propellant depot the lander can't refuel, and if the lander can ISRU it doesn't need LOPG.

It may actually work out pretty well for providing contracts that develop greater commercial capability, like the ISS has done and is continuing to do. Like Commercial Resupply and Commercial Crew but for LOP-G.

While I'd much rather they have loftier goals, they have to start somewhere to get Congress to even think about it. I wouldn't be suprised if this leads to lander contracts and station expansion contracts. So it may work out. Then again, it may not.

This station concept has been around for a good while. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xd the great said:

I wipl be surprised that LOP-G actually receives continuous funding from the Congress. There is space force incoming.

Why would NASA funding for manned missions go to a hypothetical Space Force that supposedly combines already existing entities, each with their own funding?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends. If LOP-G ends up being a replacement for the ISS, I will decry it as a mistake almost as bad as the Shuttle program. The amount of research that's done on the ISS makes it a frankly invaluable resource, and its loss would represent a backslide in our capability to investigate the universe. LOP-G is, compared to the ISS, worthless for research.

If we maintain a permanent lab in LEO, be it ISS or something else, then I suppose LOP-G is okay. A grossly inefficient use of funding, but okay. There are worse things to use as a jobs program.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, razark said:

Going to lunar orbit?

As I've heard around here: "Let me know when we're doing something we didn't do fifty years ago." and "It wasn't this hard to go to the moon back then.".

We didn’t build a space station in lunar orbit 50 years ago.

(though we should’ve)

Also, it was actually pretty hard to get to the Moon back then. The main difference is the level of government support.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, IncongruousGoat said:

If LOP-G ends up being a replacement for the ISS

Probably it will be just a fake piece of a Martian ship.

I would add a mannequin crew inside. Anyway, absolutely same purpose.

Spoiler

mannequins_dinner.jpgimages?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYlYtxPL2QU1BCptXP_2Oimages?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3c3TeGEM3vfqPr1EJxRQimages?q=tbn:ANd9GcQh0OXRMDtmF6CBCQheQPz

 

10 hours ago, razark said:

As I've heard around here: "Let me know when we're doing something we didn't do fifty years ago."

On one hand, there is no more Kubrick.
On another hand, Kubrick didn't have 3dMax.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2018 at 5:13 PM, kerbiloid said:

They can draw a military decal.
And a spotty camouflage.

Throw in a Nerva for decent combat acceleration, and they’ll be in.

On 11/4/2018 at 1:59 PM, Xd the great said:

I wipl be surprised that LOP-G actually receives continuous funding from the Congress. There is space force incoming.

There is no need for the Space Force to leech off of NASA.

Not to mention, if Mattis is to be believed, its ambitions will quickly eclipse NASA’s entire budgetary capabilities. What’s with the necessity for offensive space capability.

*coughs in Russian*

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45734.0

Edited by DDE
Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm not really excited for the Gateway, this thread might be a good place (if re-titled by @Xemina) to be the discussion area for the Gateway. Currently, those discussions are in the SLS/Orion/Payloads thread, but with more and more movement along the commercial front WRT Gateway, it tends to derail the SLS/Orion love (OK, mostly hate).

On that note:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought lunar orbit was inherently unstable. Is this thing going to have active stationkeeping? How will that work? ISS gets boosted by the visiting spacecraft, but how often would we be sending ships out to lunar orbit?

OK, nevermind. It seems that in 2001 they found some "frozen orbits" -- particular orbital inclinations around the moon that are long-term stable.

Quote

Study of the mascons' effect on lunar spacecraft led to the discovery in 2001 of "frozen orbits" occurring at four orbital inclinations: 27°, 50°, 76°, and 86°, in which a spacecraft can stay in a low orbit indefinitely.

 

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

I thought lunar orbit was inherently unstable. Is this thing going to have active stationkeeping? How will that work? ISS gets boosted by the visiting spacecraft, but how often would we be sending ships out to lunar orbit?

OK, nevermind. It seems that in 2001 they found some "frozen orbits" -- particular orbital inclinations around the moon that are long-term stable.

 

The gateway won‘t use frozen orbits rather a so called near rectilinear halo orbit.

https://engineering.purdue.edu/people/kathleen.howell.1/Publications/Conferences/2017_IAA_ZimHowDav.pdf

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150019648.pdf

Additionaly the first component will have Hall effect thrusters.

Edited by Canopus
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
21 hours ago, Ozymandias_the_Goat said:

That’s 10% more optimism than I have

Seeing as the 10% of the station are about one half of the propulsion module, yeah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...