The Trump Administration Is Fighting Its Own Space Policy
Here’s a reality check on NASA’s Artemis Moon landing program, Ars Technica
“OMB is definitely trying to kill Gateway,” a senior spaceflight source told Ars. “OMB looks at what the Vice President said about getting to the Moon by 2024, and says you could do it cheaper if you didn’t have Gateway, and probably faster. They are fighting tooth and nail to nix the Gateway.” Bridenstine, a White House appointee, is caught in the crossfire between OMB on one side and industry and NASA human spaceflight managers on the other side. The industry supports Gateway because it offers another source of potentially lucrative contracts during the coming decade, and NASA managers view the Gateway as a sustainable project. With the Gateway, they argue, Artemis won’t turn into another flags-and-footprints program like Apollo.”
OMB Has Its Sights Set On Gateway, earlier post
“Just as NASA was directed to speed up lunar landing plans for Artemis by VP Pence sources report that OMB is trying to find ways to kill Gateway. That would suggest a more direct lunar architecture is preferred by the White House – or at least some people there.”
Back To The Moon – By Any Means Necessary, earlier post
“After months of being shy about how much it will cost to send Americans back to the lunar surface by 2024, NASA Administrator Bridenstine has finally started to get specific. Upon hearing the numbers no one is really experiencing sticker shock. We all knew it would be a large number range that is beyond anything NASA could be expected to get. But Bridenstine is undeterred and is marching forth trying to make this whole thing work.”
Pretty much everyone who cares outside of NASA (and probably a good portion inside NASA) is wondering why the Gateway is needed. Shoveling money to the big aerospace companies doesn’t seem to be a valid enough reason.
Why not build a reusable lander or two instead?
Perhaps the target is the cost of using SLS for the Gateway, without really mentioning it. Especially now that NASA has shown a path to using FH to launch Orion, and with Starship clearly cutting metal. It’d also be interesting to see if Vulcan Heavy Centaur 5+ Long could launch Orion.
Yes – Reusable Crew and Cargo Landers. ‘Gateway’ doesn’t need to be anything other than a small Propellant Depot that can station-keep itself and an Airlock/Hub connection anchored to the Depot for the crew to transfer into the Lander.
But wasn’t the Gateway basically only this, a way to make it possible for the Orion based architecture being more efficient with reusability?
My understanding is that it was suppose to co-orbit with asteroid boulder from the ARM mission. Basically a workshop to study the boulder from. It terms of reusability it’s cheaper to just use an ion tug to transfer the lander between the ISS and low lunar orbit.
Agree, but this have to be developed too and ISS will need more investiment and will not be here for much longer, so for the program’s sustainability, another station/port/airlock/gateway will be needed in LEO then. The 2024 goal is constraining the system’s design, the same way that the “before the end of the decade” doomed Apollo and will provoque another flag planting and an ulterior costly effort to adapt the Artemis for reusability or its abandonment. The rational sustainable solution of course is going commercial, with a more flexible time frame, but of course is not where we are going.
SLS = bad
Commercial = good
SLS – Gateway = worse
SLS + Gateway = less worse
SLS + LEO ion tug = lesser worse, if developed now, even risking being late for 2024.
Gateway’s genealogy goes back further than ARM, into the NEXT architecture. It was integrated into ARM ad hoc, but now its primary functionality as a transportation node (and not just to the lunar surface) has come back up to the top.
Try to follow the Pork train.
The Gateway (ex LOP-G) in a NRHO orbit was created to replaced the ARM mission. Since the 2 missions is doable by the SLS Orion stack with the currently unfunded EUS stage. Otherwise there is no payload that needs the SLS and it’s 1.5B+ price tag per flight minus the Orion.
Guess which NASA center is heavily involved with the SLS and Orion. It is the one East of Mississippi. And is the Congressional district of Senator Richard Shelby, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
There is not as much money involved with any landers as the SLS.
Actual history contradicts your opening sentence. Gateway goes back to the NEXT studies and has survived various programmatic twists & turns.
I’m not sure if I’d say that. There have been concepts, ideas and proposals for a station in such an orbit for that long. Actually, longer, if you count Bob Farquhar work on halo orbits and their applications for lunar missions. And those concepts have been incorporated into various viewgraph-level architectures for human spaceflight programs (lunar and asteroidal.) But does that really mean Gateway goes back that far?
I know this is applying the standards of robotic missions, but would you say the Juno mission at Jupiter goes back to the 1970s? There have been concepts and ideas for a Jovian polar orbiter with a similar orbit going back to the 1970s. And Juno shares many of its mission goals with those early concepts. Similarly, there have been concept studies for a Europa mission since the 1990s. That didn’t gel into its current form and an actual mission until early 2015. Personally, I’d start the clock when the project gets into Phase A. Some people might even wait until end of Phase B (where Clipper currently is). For reference, that’s where Dragonfly just got to the start of Phase B being selected as the next New Frontiers mission.
Yes, the idea of lunar-associated stations goes way back (thank you for mentioning Farquhar’s proposal) but the combo of the name Gateway (used alongside the term Outpost) with a Lagrangian-attached location and stepping-stone functionality (to both the lunar surface & beyond) has been the programmatic through-line (even with the silly ARM detour) since NEXT.
So I do say that.
I’d have to go back and look at the NEXT study, but the current Gateway has some defining characteristics. Like substantial, independent maneuvering capabilities using electric propulsion and no facilities for storing a significant amount of propellent (except for xenon for the ion thruster and a vague mention of maybe adding tankage later.) If that doesn’t describe the concept from the NEXT study, I’d call them different ideas.
The current Gateway is using hardware from the ARM program. The Gateway PPE module is a rehashed spacecraft bus design for the ARM.
The NEXT studies have very little to do with the current Gateway program, IMO. More to do with giving the SLS something to do after the ARM program got canceled.
Many today interpret things that way but the language supporting the current Gateway has been there since NEXT, even through the twists & turns of DST/DSP & ARM.
Regarding the PPE, I won’t deny that the PPE module development advanced some under the ARM detour but it was there from the beginning, originally conceived (partly) as a ‘Solar Electric Propulsion Stage’, i.e., a space tug, considered primarily for accessing/delivering science platforms/telescopes at/to Sun-Earth Lagrange points. See
https://history.nasa.gov/DP…
On page 11 you’ll find this statement:
“For initial delivery from LEO
to Lunar L1, the use of the Solar Electric Propulsion Stage has been baselined.”
Components & specific configurations have been shuffled around as the studies advanced, but the genealogy is evident in the many papers & studies down through the years.
Does NASA (and certain folks in Congress) want to justify SLS & Orion? Yes. Is that Gateway’s primary function? Obviously this is open to interpretation, but I do not think that history justifies that interpretation.
I guess we aren’t talking about the same thing. Is the “language supporting the current Gateway” similar to what was in the NExT report? Sure. But we are talking about the current hardware configuration, not the high level justification. Or at least some us are.
The NExT study’s L1 Outpost was supposed to accomplish a number of other things as well. That L1 Outpost was at L1 (I assume they really mean a low-amplitude halo orbit, staying close to L1), while the current Gateway would be on a very high amplitude halo orbit, taking it quite far from L1 at times. The L1 Outpost did not have any propulsion capability (other than station keeping.) The current Gateway will have substantial _independent_ electric propulsion capability after reaching its halo orbit. In the NExT study, the electric propulsion was a completely separate vehicle used as a LEO to L1 tug. Oh, and the L1 Outpost was described as being launched in one piece, not assembled from modules.
That’s not the same hardware. That’s not the same combination of elements (Gateway doesn’t currently have a LEO to L1 tug.) To me, that means the current Gateway is not just a modified version of what the NExT study described. It’s a fundamentally different way of putting parts together, some similar parts and some different, to achieve a subset of the NExT high level goals. That’s very different from saying Gateway is just a modified or evolved version of the NExT L1 Outpost.
It would appear that we’re just going to have to disagree. I see you missing the forest for the trees.
I guess so. I’d say you’re confusing the Amazon and the Congo, both rainforests with similar climate and vegetation, but definitely not the same thing.
Standard Operating Procedure.
I’m pretty well tied into this topic from an interest standpoint and don’t even know what NASA/Bridenstine/Pence/Trump are shooting for at this point with Artemis. Depending on the scope outlined to OMB, they could come back with many different answers.
Gateway is just a distraction that is not needed for a lunar return especially if you use a commercial approach. It’s only needed to justify the SLS/Orion so getting rid of it just pulls another leg out from under the SLS/Orion making it easier to get rid of.
“With the Gateway, (NASA managers) argue, Artemis won’t turn into another flags-and-footprints program like Apollo.”
Space stations were originally seen as being a gateway to destinations beyond low Earth orbit. ISS has proved that isn’t necessarily the case.
ISS was not designed AS a gateway. ISS does not prove this point at all. ISS provides many lessons (both positive & negative) but it does not discount the potential value of way-stations.
And, the rationales supporting a gateway in a cis-lunar-stable orbit are complementary but different than one in LEO. Yes, you can get people to the surface of the Moon without a gateway infrastructure, but what is best for ultimately establishing a broad, evolving, sustainable Solar System exploration & development effort? Another crash program like Apollo or something that builds supportive infrastructure along the way?
I was referring to the space station as originally envisioned, as reflected in the January 1998 memorandum of understanding between NASA and Roscosmos for ISS. The memorandum, signed by Dan Goldin and the head of Roscomsos, cited several long term potential uses for ISS, which besides science and Earth observation included:
“a transportation node where payloads and vehicles are stationed, assembled, processed and deployed to their destination”
“a servicing capability from which payloads and vehicles are maintained, repaired, replenished and refurbished”
“a staging base for possible future missions, such as a permanent lunar base, a human mission to Mars, robotic planetary probes, a human mission to survey the asteroids, and a scientific and communications facility in geosynchronous orbit”
The initial modules in the design of course were science based, but as the memorandum stated:
“NASA, RSA and the other partners intend that the Space Station will evolve through the addition of capability and will strive to maximize the likelihood that such evolution will be effected through contributions from all the partners.
The Gateway project if it ever gets built could just as easily end up as just a lunar orbiting space station and not have any role in establishing a long term presence on the Moon which is the current selling point.
The problem is, despite the words, ISS wasn’t built that way. That may be inherent to NASA’s approach of defining goals, writing down requirements which flow from those goals, designing something which satisfies those requirements, and only then building it. That is not an open ended process.
It isn’t like Mir, which had two axial ports for resupply and crew docking and four radial ports for additional modules and expansion. When they designed it that way, they have very little idea what they would actually use the radial ports for. Yes, they were planning to build them as TKS/FGB modules. But exactly what they’d put inside was pretty much open. In other words, they didn’t have a clue about the final goals or requirements. That was something that could be based on experience from the initial years of operations.
And that’s something I see missing from the plans for Gateway. I don’t see much room for flexibility and future, and currently unknown, changes, modifications, or enhancements. It’s too much of a predefined spacecraft. So I’m not confident it will be useful as support infrastructure for sustainable, lunar surface operations.
What plans for Gateway do you see (& where do you see them?) as inflexible toward future assets & capabilities?
We haven’t seen very much in detail, and some of what we’ve seen is inconsistent (probably reflecting earlier and later versions of the concept.) But I don’t like the linear configuration and the lack of radial ports which could be used to dock additional modules. That makes it harder to add modules. You’d have to either take apart the existing station to insert a module in the middle, or each new module would need docking adaptors, etc. if you stuck it on the end. But given the lack of detailed information, I could be wrong about that.
There is also the question of space and power. A fuel depot could be physically large, and would probably move the center of mass quite a bit. There is only so much you can do to compensate for that when you need to fire station keep rockets. If it’s cryogenic fuel you’re storing, you’d probably want to provide power for a cryocooler. Where would you put the tanks and extra solar arrays? Without shadowing the original solar arrays, that is. Those aren’t unsolvable problems, but it’s much easier to do if you’re building in that capability from the start.
But, since we don’t know what capabilities will be desirable, that’s hard to do. Maybe it won’t be a fuel depot. Maybe it will be construction and maintenance for landers. Or living space for people in transit from the Earth to the lunar surface. Building in the ability to expand, when you have no clue what sort of expansion that might be, isn’t easy.
What really concerns me is how it is presented as having a final configuration. To me, that implies the requirements they are designing to lack “make sure there is room, power, etc. to tack on TBD additional modules.” That’s something you need to design for, otherwise it will be harder than necessary when you decide to do so. In fact, the whole concept of final configuration implies they aren’t even thinking of adding capabilities based on what we learn about lunar operations.
I think you’re reading too much into the published viewgraphs.
The original proposal for a modern space station, called the “Space Operations Center” was focused primarily not on science but on fueling and servicing payloads for co-orbiting, HEO and lunar and planetary missions, and included pressurized and unpressurized “hangar” modules for servicing and maintenance of spacecraft.
The problem, as I see it, is that we aren’t really in a position to design a good way station, or transportation and maintenance hub, or fuel depot, or whatever. It isn’t even clear what facilities would be best placed on the surface rather than on orbit. (Or, if on the surface, where on the surface.) All that depends on what in situ resources are available, how easy or hard they are to exploit, and the support requirements for as-yet-undefined surface infrastructure. We won’t know how to answer those questions until we’ve done a fair amount of surface exploration, prospecting, and maybe some exploratory mining.
So I think the question is how to support that initial exploration and prospecting. That might be easiest without any semi-permanent infrastructure on orbit. It might be easiest if we have a minimalist, but flexibly designed, orbital facility. Not one that would any good at supporting a sustainable, long-term presence, or further exploration of the solar system. Just enough to support the exploration to discover what sort of long-term facilities we actually want and need. But I’m afraid the planned Gateway does not fit that bill.
SLS = bad
Commercial = good
SLS – Gateway = worse
SLS + Gateway = less worse
I think a gateway is a good investment for future expansion into space, for reasonably well explained reasons (as Steve has posted). I think it’ll also teach us some things about orbiting planets whilst being “bathed” in cosmic radiation.
Should it be Earth orbiting or Lunar ? I can see that an earth orbiting gateway would be seen as “been there, done that”, although it probably isn’t. I can see a Lunar gateway is an opportunity to expand our experience of doing things in space. Possibly station keeping is easier/cheaper at the L2 point, rather than simply orbiting the moon … don’t know, open to informed opinions.
Is it Required for a return to the moon … IMUO (In My Uninformed Opinion) no. For 2024 we could “redo” Apollo … but learn little new stuff, no new experience, and design a bunch of “single” use equipment (Landers, etc) that are incompatible with a long term future.
So if a gateway is part of the future expansion into space then it either is then part of 2024 (sounds like a lot of work to be done), or whatever we do for 2024 is “maximally” compatible with the future gateway. For example we could make the lander with an ascent stage that could return to LOP-G, maybe by reserving space for extra fuel tanks, etc. We could design a “Service Module” or “Tug” that can travel between Earth orbit and LOP-G … maybe it’d need extra fuel to go directly to lunar orbit (for 2024) … maybe “CST-100” ?? Maybe use ISS as a way-station and have a separate vehicle for earth return … to save carrying the heat shield to the moon.
You probably shouldn’t say “gateway.” You are describing a particular sort of space station or orbital facility. You are not talking about NASA’s planned “Gateway.” That’s different sort of space station and one, as planned, isn’t very suitable for the things you describe. Let’s not muddy the waters by using the same word for both.
And, by the way, the draft RFP for the LEO to Gateway tug is already out. (Along the lines of commercial crew, but with some terms that make it a bit closer to a conventional, NASA-managed project.) Also we already know quite a bit about orbiting planets while being bathed in cosmic radiation. Unless you’re talking about experimenting with living organisms. If you are, I think this is one good occasion to send a monkey rather than an astronaut.
I use “gateway” is a general sense, and “LOP-G” to refer to the specific NASA planned gateway.
Call it what you will, but an orbiting platform is part of our expansion in space. We have some experience with LEO platforms, getting more experience in a different environment seems a natural next step.
In general the study of radiation effects in human spaceflight can be divided into measurements of the radiation environment at the location of interest, which does not require living organisms, and studies of the effects of equivalent forms of radiation on living organisms, which can be ground-based. Because of the statistical nature of radiation effects the cost of gathering meaningful data with actual humans in lunar orbit would be daunting.
Yes. I don’t think the terrestrial side of this is as easy as you suggest. I have real doubts about the linear no threshold models (for just about anything) and low dose rate work is challenging. Also appropriate sources aren’t easy (you need beam time at a particle accelerator to get cosmic rays right.) But that’s still much easier than doing studies in lunar orbit.
I don’t suggest it is easy, science seldom is. But we have a number of accelerators that are no longer at the point of the spear but are perfectly capable of generating high energy (and high Z) particulate radiation, and since the flux needed is not high, a small fraction of the beam would be enough. Ironically primary cosmic rays have so much energy they often cause cell death rather than mutations, so they carry a low risk of cancer, while dead cells can easily be replaced in most tissues. However the brain, which is very resistant to radiation induced cancer as neurons do not divide, is susceptible to cell death induced by high Z particles as the nondividing neurons cannot easily be replaced.
AI faces similar problems due to radiation induced momentary and permanent faults, but for high radiation environments I suspect the problems of AI will ultimately prove easier to overcome.
The proposed NRHO offers a more stable ‘location’ (along with other attributes) than L2 proper. It has some negatives but current dynamics thinking is that the positives outweigh the negatives. Plus, Gateway will include the PPE which will allow it to be moved if developments merit such a move.
yes I’ve seen the proposed halo orbit. but I’m wondering about the internal g’s, or possibly the outside view, being disorienting to the “occupants” ?
What internal g’s. And why would the outside view (which one need not look at all the time) be disorienting?
It’s a purely gravitational orbit. The station and everything in it accelerate at the same rate, so there are no internal g’s. In terms of the outside view, the orbital period of a halo is about 14 days (half that of the Moon.) So the view isn’t changing too rapidly. Much less so that, for example, the view the Apollo astronauts had approaching the Moon or the Earth.
I’m not sure that the Gateway would prove any more sustainable than direct lunar landings. Getting there will cost an arm and leg every launch and then you have maintenance costs for little scientific returns.
A little off topic: does anyone know what the status of the 2nd SLS and orion are? NASA keeps showing the first article, but where in the production line is the 2nd or maybe even the 3rd?
I tried to look that up, and I couldn’t find anything. But there isn’t a production line, in any real sense. From what I could find, I’m now wondering if they can build two SLS at the same time. Not to state the obvious, but an SLS core is big. The facilities at Michoud are also big. But are is there actually room to start work on a second core before the first ships?
I believe some of the tanks for the second rocket are manufactured. Hard to find information on it. I know all the engines for the first three or four rockets are ready (as they have been modified and tested). Also the SRB’s for EM-1 and EM-2 are ready or almost ready.
There is a helpful little YouTube video from the SLS crew about all the parts that are “GO!”. Unfortunately that video was done in 2018.
One of the things it seems all this arguing over NASA projects forgets is how much NASA has clearly shown a tendency for both the random walk and acting like the drunk looking for their keys under the lamp post. Once a narrative begins everyone responds to the thing NASA happened upon. We totally forget to ask why the drunk’s looking there.
We never like the answer anyway. No one ever finds the report comparing all the options. It’s trust us, well, here’s a pretty PowerPoint chart. And all the cute kittens go for the shiny object. Worse, NASA floods the airwaves and says it’s this huge bunch of reports since 1933 or something – and (again) trust us, put it all together and they add up to where we are.
The end result of the most recent drunk walk was NASA ended up under some dimly lit lamp post that has nothing to do with where the keys were lost, but hey, we won’t find them anywhere else anyway some say, right? We decide on a big Shuttle derived rocket to keep costs low. How convenient. It also keeps everyone around who only knew boosters and tank and those engines and all. All those expensive boosters and tanks and engines and all. (They become magically inexpensive, in the future). We end up with an Orion. How convenient. We can keep every penny of all the money we had under Orbiter project, only more expensive per year. Even better. Inflation! Now let’s do a Gateway thingy. How convenient. This even sets us up to keep everyone from ISS around after the ISS ends. How convenient.
Technically, a random walk does get you somewhere. Flip a coin. If it’s heads, take a step to the left; if it’s tails, take a step to the right. Repeat. The odds of ending up ten steps to the left after ten steps are very low. But the odds of still being where you started after ten steps are also low. The odds of ending up at least two step from where you started are around 50%.
Not bad, true. If the intention is to point out that trying anything is better than not trying, also true. Statistically though, the people long after declare success for the random walk that succeeded only if you tried many, many paths all the way through, most forgotten to obscurity. We lack the luxury of many chances.
I was actually trying to suggest NASA’s human spaceflight progress seems slower than a random walk.
^^ROTFL
Yep. Also true. A verrryyy slow random walk…makes sense when cost plus everything gets paid by the hour LOL.
I hear monkeys throwing darts at a stock listing make better investments than stock investors. Perhaps we should have them throw darts at a board with different NASA projects.