Is The Gateway Really The Key To The Moon?
Is the Lunar Gateway really the key to returning to the Moon to stay, as NASA claims? What, if any, utility is offered by another space station, this time around the Moon instead?
Lunar Orbital Platform - Gateway (src)
The LOP-G aka Lunar Gateway aka Deep Space Gateway has definitely been controversial. NASA touts it as a means of making human return to the Moon sustainable, and to make it an international endeavor, to do more than plant flags and footprints on the surface. But how?
What NASA Says
NASA calls it a spaceship, rather than a space station. In the picture above, the foil-covered cube at the right with the solar panels on it is the Propulsion Module, using solar electric propulsion to move the whole thing. The idea is that this leads into what used to be called the Deep Space Transport, a similar version designed to actually carry astronauts to Mars in about 9 months. However, this one will probably just stay around the Moon and move only a little bit. It's much smaller than the ISS, and will only be used part-time, when astronauts are on a Moon mission. It gives the astronauts somewhere to live instead of just the Orion capsule, which only last 21 days by itself. It can be used as a command center for Moon operations, and be used to control robotic rovers on the surface. NASA also wants to use it as a refueling station for Moon landers, or ships going to Mars. It's purpose is to serve as a waystation for astronauts traveling throughout the solar system, without having to go back to Earth first.
Concept of Deep Space Transport, carrying Orion and hab module beyond Earth (1)
The Naysayers
Of course, there are a lot of holes in that argument. Why not just go to the surface, like in the Moon Direct plan? If you go back to refuel at the station, the fuel still has to come from somewhere, doesn't it? And why can't astronauts just stay on the surface, in a lunar base, rather in the space station doing nothing?
One version of the Moon Direct plan
The LOP-G is not very popular among the space community. Buzz Aldrin, one of the first two humans on the Moon, thinks the whole concept is ridiculous. Other former astronauts say it will hold back humanity's exploration of the Moon and beyond. Even from a budget perspective, it will not be cheap, and NASA hasn't really done anything while it's been paying for the ISS, so it's hard to believe we'll progress towards a Moon base or Mars trip while sustaining another space station.
Other cons have to do with space hazards. The Gateway is outside of the Earth's Van Allen belts, directly exposing the astronauts to heavier radiation than the ISS. It also continues to expose them to zero gravity, with well-known negative effects on the body. A surface base would have at least some gravity, and you can shield your shelters with lunar dirt.
ESA Moon Village concept, using lunar soil to shield against harmful radiation (1)
Another negative for the LOP-G is how complicated it is. It requires several heavy-lift rockets (right now, only the SLS can do it, and it will cost $2 billion per launch) to build, and the landers will have to be sent in three trips! All-in-all, the first Moon landing will require 4 launches to get the Orion and the three parts of the lander into orbit around the Moon, plus however many it takes to build the station. Part of this is because the Orion wasn't designed with enough fuel to go all the way there. This hardly seems like a sustainable way to return to the Moon, as NASA claims.
After the initial wave, parts of the lander will be reusable and it'll be a little less expensive and complicated to go back down each time.
After all this, how could the Gateway possibly be a good idea?
The History
NASA's human spaceflight plans are complicated. First of all, NASA has always had a strange attraction to space stations. They wanted one before going to the Moon, they wanted several after the Moon, they wanted to build an American ISS for decades before we joined our idea with Russia's leftover Mir parts and got the ISS. And now they want another around the Moon, one around Mars, and one to connect the two. Sometimes it seems like NASA is willing to sacrifice our dreams of the Moon and Mars and the stars just so they can do more camping in tin cans.
The Gateway was born in the 2000's, then became almost a necessity when Orion was designed. Orion is like an oversized Apollo capsule - it weighs 2.5 times as much, and the service module isn't designed for long-distance travel. The Gateway really became a plan when the Asteroid Redirect Mission, under President Obama, was hatched. This plan to find an asteroid and bring it home to study was downgraded when the Orion was found wanting. They decided to just take a piece of an asteroid back to lunar orbit for Orion to study, and built a space station there to study it at. Then in the end they cancelled it because they couldn't find an asteroid. This idea meshed with the long-term NASA concept of an electric propulsion spaceship to go to Mars: the Deep Space Transport.
Basically the Gateway, but with a rock attached instead of an Orion capsule
So ultimately, the Lunar Gateway is a relic of a time of confused policymaking at NASA. Of course, Boeing loves it because it needs the Orion and other parts that only SLS can launch. All the other big aerospace contractors love it for the same reasons, and all want a piece of the pie. No astronauts or American citizens are a huge fan though.
How It Could Be A Good Thing
There is a silver lining though. While others, notably Robert Zubrin of the Moon Direct plan, say we should go the surface instead and make a moon base there, that relies on making fuel on the surface of the Moon. Conceptually, it seems simple, but it hasn't actually been done yet. And while we've successfully landed on the Moon before, India and Israel just recently crashed landers on the Moon. It's not easy, and rushing ahead can lead to problems or even death.
Second, we don't currently have the technology for long-duration high-reliability life support. Part of NASA's purpose for the Gateway is to develop that, in preparation for the long trek to Mars. An orbital station provides an easy abort back to Earth, as well as an easy resupply. As stated before, the Gateway would be a proving ground for the Mars transport ship and other Mars exploration technologies.
The Gateway seems like the slow route to Moon exploration and colonization, and it probably is. But it's safer in a lot of ways, even if it is maddeningly cautious. Ideally the Lunar Gateway can become the Deep Space Transport that carries astronauts to Mars, with minimal modification.
On the other hand, NASA's rush to return to the Moon, however imperfectly planned, has started an international race. Many private companies are excitingly building and designing lunar landers, habitats, and other equipment which will be needed. Many other countries, particularly the ESA, Russia and China, are very interested in building surface bases. Even some companies, like Bigelow Aerospace, are thinking about building bases on the Moon. While NASA way waffle in orbit with the Gateway, they may have started a popular cascade of private individuals and competing countries to return to the Moon in force.
Finally, the SLS's own weaknesses could be a strength. The excessive cost and slow production rate of SLS could leave the Gateway uninhabited by Artemis astronauts for most of the year, during which time private users or other countries could use the station for other purposes. If this happens frequently, it could truly become a waystation for a variety of surface operations. NASA actually plans for it to be used in that way, and with all the commercial interest, hopefully it does.
Bigelow Moon Base concept
Lunar Orbital Platform - Gateway (src)
The LOP-G aka Lunar Gateway aka Deep Space Gateway has definitely been controversial. NASA touts it as a means of making human return to the Moon sustainable, and to make it an international endeavor, to do more than plant flags and footprints on the surface. But how?
What NASA Says
NASA calls it a spaceship, rather than a space station. In the picture above, the foil-covered cube at the right with the solar panels on it is the Propulsion Module, using solar electric propulsion to move the whole thing. The idea is that this leads into what used to be called the Deep Space Transport, a similar version designed to actually carry astronauts to Mars in about 9 months. However, this one will probably just stay around the Moon and move only a little bit. It's much smaller than the ISS, and will only be used part-time, when astronauts are on a Moon mission. It gives the astronauts somewhere to live instead of just the Orion capsule, which only last 21 days by itself. It can be used as a command center for Moon operations, and be used to control robotic rovers on the surface. NASA also wants to use it as a refueling station for Moon landers, or ships going to Mars. It's purpose is to serve as a waystation for astronauts traveling throughout the solar system, without having to go back to Earth first.
Concept of Deep Space Transport, carrying Orion and hab module beyond Earth (1)
The Naysayers
Of course, there are a lot of holes in that argument. Why not just go to the surface, like in the Moon Direct plan? If you go back to refuel at the station, the fuel still has to come from somewhere, doesn't it? And why can't astronauts just stay on the surface, in a lunar base, rather in the space station doing nothing?
One version of the Moon Direct plan
The LOP-G is not very popular among the space community. Buzz Aldrin, one of the first two humans on the Moon, thinks the whole concept is ridiculous. Other former astronauts say it will hold back humanity's exploration of the Moon and beyond. Even from a budget perspective, it will not be cheap, and NASA hasn't really done anything while it's been paying for the ISS, so it's hard to believe we'll progress towards a Moon base or Mars trip while sustaining another space station.
Other cons have to do with space hazards. The Gateway is outside of the Earth's Van Allen belts, directly exposing the astronauts to heavier radiation than the ISS. It also continues to expose them to zero gravity, with well-known negative effects on the body. A surface base would have at least some gravity, and you can shield your shelters with lunar dirt.
ESA Moon Village concept, using lunar soil to shield against harmful radiation (1)
Another negative for the LOP-G is how complicated it is. It requires several heavy-lift rockets (right now, only the SLS can do it, and it will cost $2 billion per launch) to build, and the landers will have to be sent in three trips! All-in-all, the first Moon landing will require 4 launches to get the Orion and the three parts of the lander into orbit around the Moon, plus however many it takes to build the station. Part of this is because the Orion wasn't designed with enough fuel to go all the way there. This hardly seems like a sustainable way to return to the Moon, as NASA claims.
After the initial wave, parts of the lander will be reusable and it'll be a little less expensive and complicated to go back down each time.
After all this, how could the Gateway possibly be a good idea?
The History
NASA's human spaceflight plans are complicated. First of all, NASA has always had a strange attraction to space stations. They wanted one before going to the Moon, they wanted several after the Moon, they wanted to build an American ISS for decades before we joined our idea with Russia's leftover Mir parts and got the ISS. And now they want another around the Moon, one around Mars, and one to connect the two. Sometimes it seems like NASA is willing to sacrifice our dreams of the Moon and Mars and the stars just so they can do more camping in tin cans.
The Gateway was born in the 2000's, then became almost a necessity when Orion was designed. Orion is like an oversized Apollo capsule - it weighs 2.5 times as much, and the service module isn't designed for long-distance travel. The Gateway really became a plan when the Asteroid Redirect Mission, under President Obama, was hatched. This plan to find an asteroid and bring it home to study was downgraded when the Orion was found wanting. They decided to just take a piece of an asteroid back to lunar orbit for Orion to study, and built a space station there to study it at. Then in the end they cancelled it because they couldn't find an asteroid. This idea meshed with the long-term NASA concept of an electric propulsion spaceship to go to Mars: the Deep Space Transport.
Basically the Gateway, but with a rock attached instead of an Orion capsule
So ultimately, the Lunar Gateway is a relic of a time of confused policymaking at NASA. Of course, Boeing loves it because it needs the Orion and other parts that only SLS can launch. All the other big aerospace contractors love it for the same reasons, and all want a piece of the pie. No astronauts or American citizens are a huge fan though.
How It Could Be A Good Thing
There is a silver lining though. While others, notably Robert Zubrin of the Moon Direct plan, say we should go the surface instead and make a moon base there, that relies on making fuel on the surface of the Moon. Conceptually, it seems simple, but it hasn't actually been done yet. And while we've successfully landed on the Moon before, India and Israel just recently crashed landers on the Moon. It's not easy, and rushing ahead can lead to problems or even death.
Second, we don't currently have the technology for long-duration high-reliability life support. Part of NASA's purpose for the Gateway is to develop that, in preparation for the long trek to Mars. An orbital station provides an easy abort back to Earth, as well as an easy resupply. As stated before, the Gateway would be a proving ground for the Mars transport ship and other Mars exploration technologies.
The Gateway seems like the slow route to Moon exploration and colonization, and it probably is. But it's safer in a lot of ways, even if it is maddeningly cautious. Ideally the Lunar Gateway can become the Deep Space Transport that carries astronauts to Mars, with minimal modification.
On the other hand, NASA's rush to return to the Moon, however imperfectly planned, has started an international race. Many private companies are excitingly building and designing lunar landers, habitats, and other equipment which will be needed. Many other countries, particularly the ESA, Russia and China, are very interested in building surface bases. Even some companies, like Bigelow Aerospace, are thinking about building bases on the Moon. While NASA way waffle in orbit with the Gateway, they may have started a popular cascade of private individuals and competing countries to return to the Moon in force.
Finally, the SLS's own weaknesses could be a strength. The excessive cost and slow production rate of SLS could leave the Gateway uninhabited by Artemis astronauts for most of the year, during which time private users or other countries could use the station for other purposes. If this happens frequently, it could truly become a waystation for a variety of surface operations. NASA actually plans for it to be used in that way, and with all the commercial interest, hopefully it does.
Bigelow Moon Base concept
Comments
Post a Comment