Will Gateway Be Killed Before It Is Built?
Some NASA contractors appear to be trying to kill the Lunar Gateway, Ars Technica
“These members, including Oklahoma Democratic representative and committee chair Kendra Horn, as well as Alabama Republican representative Mo Brooks, were particularly skeptical of private rockets in their comments and questions during the hearing. They also pressed NASA on why the agency is not moving more quickly with development of a powerful second stage upgrade for the agency’s Space Launch System rocket. This “Exploration Upper Stage” would increase the amount of mass the rocket could send to the Moon from 26 tons to 37 tons. Wednesday’s hearing was notable because it appears to mark an escalation in an intense lobbying battle going on behind the scenes by some contractors–most likely led by Boeing–to kill NASA’s proposed Lunar Gateway and instead accelerate funding for the Exploration Upper Stage …
… What was surprising is that Horn and others at the hearing also appeared to be swayed by Cooke’s view that bypassing commercial rockets and the Gateway would lead to a simpler and faster lunar mission. “I believe there is value in developing commercial capabilities,” she said toward the end of the hearing. However, she added, “I am concerned that the decisions are not being driven by what is most efficient or effective and what is most cost efficient.”
Keith’s note: Yesterday Doug Cooke was pushing for the Exploration Upper Stage – something Boeing has been trying to get NASA to fund for years. Cooke has worked for Boeing for years. I thought it was a little odd that no one brought up that fact in the hearing – especially when you can see from his Truth in Testimony Disclosure Form that he as been paid $466,250 between 2017 and today. The bio at the end of his prepared testimony makes zero mention of “Boeing” but pushes the EUS. Just sayin’
This not so subtle campaign to eliminate Gateway has been underway for months.
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. #Moon2024 pic.twitter.com/js7neVRfVB
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) June 20, 2019
Maybe Boeing can develop EUS (stupid name) on its own dime? They certainly blew through billions of citizens’ money with not much to show for it.
I don’t have any special love for the Gateway but NASA never considered it an either/or between EUS and Gateway.
Boeing’s worried about commercial rockets getting a foothold in exploration, especially Starship and New Glenn/Armstrong, so they get on the phone to Mo Brooks and Cooke.
Exactly!
Yes, NASA needs to learn that if Alabama is not happy it’s not going to happen. Maybe NASA should move it’s headquarters out of Washington D.C. to Huntsville to make it official that Alabama runs space.
For now. Eventually though the stink of the launch vehicle to nowhere will become so bad that it can’t be ignored any longer. Just like the “Bridge to Nowhere” and the Superconducting Supercollider there are limits to how much pork you can get away with before the rest of Congress rebels.
The “North Alabama Space Agency.”
If you scrap gateway does the plan become lander and Orion still go to nrho given the paltry prop load of Orion can’t go in and out of low lunar even if Boeing pulls off the eus miracle for comanifesting Orion with lander in 2024? Or did that half a million dollars from Boeing make Doug forget constellation cratered because Altair became huge as all the shortfalls from Orion got pushed over to the lander like lunar orbit insertion burn and more. Given how overweight Orion has become how capable will a lander be if gateway goes away and they have to ride together on SLS?
Really sad that Congress allowed such blatant shilling and testimony not based on reality.
The lander wouldn’t be co-manifested with Orion, no SLS can lift both in one launch. What they’re proposing is launch two SLS in short succession, a SLS Block 1 (or 1B) send Orion to NRHO, then a SLS Block 1B send lander to NRHO where it meet up with Orion.
Of course the problem is they can barely build 3 SLS cores by 2024, and NASA doesn’t think EUS can be ready by 2024, so there’s no way this architecture could meet the 2024 deadline, which is why NASA is not considering it.
Unfortunately the block 1b only allows 37 tons to TLI. NASA clearly thinks Orion requires a lander of 50 tons. Nothing could get it there in one shot, it’s almost the entire reason they broke up the lander into three pieces.
Everything they are doing in the cislunar area is to paper over the shortcomings of SLS/Orion.
Don’t forget, they only have enough engines salvaged from the Shuttle to build 4 SLS. Then they have to build, test, and certify new ones. Probably only take a few more years at the speed of NASA.
This bit shouldn’t be too bad. Aerojet Rocketdyne already has a contract to do just that, develop the RS-25E (E for expendable).
https://www.rocket.com/arti…
Don’t worry they bought six more engines at a cost of $2 billion.
I don’t think either Cooke or Boeing take the deadline very seriously.
No, the focus in the hearing was on risk, not on time. And Boeing’s stance is that the only way to reduce that risk is to throw lots and lots more money at Boeing.
I’m not sure about Congress (in many ways), but NASA uses “risk” to mean more than just the risk of failing to achieve mission goals. It also includes risk of going over budget or not staying on schedule. Tracking budget and schedule risks doesn’t seem to help in all cases, but it is a type of risk they track.
It’s a fair point.
That said, there’s little evidence that the schedule aspect of risk, properly understood, is a component of high concern for Boeing or its, er advocates like Doug.
It would be interesting to see the original risk assessment of budget and schedule for SLS.
Taking Cooke’s risk reduction argument to the max, the least riskiest mission is to build everything on Earth, launch it to the Moon (or wherever) and bring everything back. That sounds like Starship to me.
You’ve only missed one requirement: Boeing has to build all of it.
Neither are worth the money.
Cheers
Neil
My confidence in NASAs ability to accomplish anything in the next 5 years is zero. Gateway was a kluge because Orion did not have the delta v to perform a lunar mission, and besides the IPs need a role. Orion’s SM was a kluge to give ESA a role and to reduce Boeing costs, but it never worked. Now 15 years and $25 billion into it and they still don’t have a clue. If we hope to see Americans on the Moon in 2025, you better hope Mr. Musk’s project gets us there. He is the only one who has a hope.