OMB Has Its Sights Set On Gateway

1. Good for OMB. The first crewed landing mission isn’t going to be on the surface for long anyways, and technology has advanced – we can do remotely-operated station-keeping on the spacecraft in orbit around the Moon without having to leave an astronaut or two up there (meaning we don’t need the Gateway).

   Although of course I’d feel more comfortable if we sent them up with an extended-stay module on the lunar surface plus a power source that could get them through the lunar night, because then they could stay for months if something did go wrong – we could just keep landing supplies until we can send a new ship over to lunar orbit for them.

   1. I’m not sure about that extended-stay module. If the point is safety, in case something happens to the orbital element, I’d like to know what the odds of it being needed are. And how much it would cost, and how long to develop. I wouldn’t want protection from a low probability risk to drive the whole program.

   2. Might be quicker and easier to just have a second lander on standby for a rapid launch given the proxmity of the Moon. And if its not used it becomes the prime lander for the next flight.

2. Moving the Gateway to the surface would make more sense than keeping it in a 1000 mile orbit above the Moon’s surface. Requiring the astronauts and ascent stage to get to a 1000 mile high orbit makes the entire system much more dangerous. Apollo just needed to get into an orbit that cleared the mountains-10 miles was enough.

3. About time! First dump the Gateway, then the SLS/Orion since they won’t be ready in time. Go with the FH. One launch to send a 2 stage lander to lunar orbit, a second to send a modified Dragon2 with the crew for it. Simple, quick and inexpensive, even if the 1st generation lander is left behind in lunar orbit/on the surface like Apollo.

   1. It’s a very long way from here to there- not so much in kit, but in politics. This is just a new, small step, building consensus.

      When the Administrator came out with his estimate of the cost I was fearful it would shut down the program. But now I am thinking it was a smart move, forcing folks not to abandon the idea, but to wonder if there’s a cheaper wy.

4. Getting rid of gateway requires putting gerst and others out to pasture. Gateway is their back up plan/foothold for when the winds of politics change again whether it is 2020 election or the pendulum swings from lunar surface to Mars missions. But how do you do lunar direct given Orion can’t get in and out of low lunar orbit so unless OMB is ready to clean the full deck of human Spaceflight then I don’t see how you pull off lunar direct with the current pieces in place. Now if they fund appendix H for full lunar lander and also put out an appendix for cislunar transit vehicle to get crew from LEO (using dragon2 or cst-100 for KSC to leo) to low Lunar rendezvous with lander.

   1. Gateway is needed for SLS/Orion because Orion’s service module has insufficient deltaV to get to LLO. Gateway at HRO is easier, and the lander stack is there waiting.

      Moon Direct? Cocoa Florida, June 22…

      https://twitter.com/austinb…

5. Sometime in the future a logistic supply station in orbit around the Moon will be a necessity. However putting up the Gateway first seems like the cart before the horse. Lets get a facility on the Moon and as the need for a orbit logistic point becomes clear we can build it. The Falcon Heavy, New Glenn and Starship should provide the capacity at a lower price to get to the Moon direct to develop economically exploitable resources particularly water ice.

6. Gateway only ever made sense if it was to be a small propellant depot to refuel a reusable Lander. Use commercial launchers to place a semi-reusable Lander in medium altitude lunar orbit and the Orion could bring a co-manifested ‘Tanker Module’ to refill the Lander’s Ascent Stage with each crew. Another commercial launcher could send a fresh descent stage to rendezvous and dock with the Ascent Stage between crewed missions.

   All the above is of course assuming the Orion/SLS system ‘must’ be used. Alternatives using Dragons, Falcons, Vulcans and New Glenn’s could be drawn up.

7. I don’t think this is an indication that Mick Mulvaney and OMB favors something like Moon Direct. I think this is an indication that they don’t favor any moon landing at all. The poison pill of taking money from Pell Grants has them written all over it. OMB has had it out for NASA for years

8. The Gateway was dreamed up to give SLS/Orion a place to go (ala ARM) because NASA was too cheap to build a lander to go to the moon.

9. Lander partners could decide the future of the Gateway. Lander partners will come in at certain sizes, propellants, and especially capabilities for the landers to go direct to lunar orbit. Could go Apollo style as a stack or meet the crew over there. Lander business plans all open the door to NASA space exploration plan B. Many a Plan B.

   Watch out for NASA to try and gag order the selected partners against flipping up alternate non-SLS, non-Orion, non-Gateway powerpoints for the same landers. Alternately, you’ll hear about NASA internal arguing over choosing hobbled landers that must link fates with NASA Gateway or Orion (by imposed scale/delta-v limitations).

   Time to see if 50/50 partnerships mean lander partners have sway over the lander they stake their future in, vs. making an alliance they may regret, one mostly benefitting others – SLS/Boeing, ATK, Aerojet, Orion/Lockheed, and JSC/Gateway. We will soon find out how big a wave Amazon can make in this world.

10. I guess I just don’t understand why NASA wants to spend $40 to $60 billion on the Gateway when that same money could probably cover a reusable lander, suits and launches.

    1. Entire cost of Gateway from now until 2033 is $6.6 billion including all Manned Lunar surface and Manned Mars related Gateway operations. According to the independent report by the IDA Science & Technology Policy Institute.

11. Reminds of the one-legged stool argument (moon, Mars, or asteroid),
    http://hopsblog-hop.blogspo…

Comments are closed.