Proposed Space Station Aims for the Moon

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Proposed Space Station Aims for the Moon and Beyond

The ambitious plan to send astronauts to lunar orbit has drawn skepticism 

Quote

The next chapter in cosmic exploration is starting to take shape: NASA engineers have proposed a space station that—if Congress approves its funding—would begin orbiting the moon in about a decade. A primary goal is to develop the infrastructure and experience to one day land humans on Mars.

The Deep Space Gateway (DSG) project would likely be a collaboration among the U.S., Russia and other international partners. It would sit in a lunar orbit about 240,000 miles from Earth—1,000 times farther than the International Space Station (ISS).

  Read More: Scientific American

 

[Jon the frog]

Wow they wanna try to beat Musk and gain back some laurels. They need to do something big because they will look bad if a private do it before them. But it would be so awesome that a private beat them ! 

[Waspie_Dwarf]

46 minutes ago, Jon the frog said:

Wow they wanna try to beat Musk and gain back some laurels. They need to do something big because they will look bad if a private do it before them. But it would be so awesome that a private beat them ! 

It's not all about Musk.

NASA was exploring space before Musk was born,

[Derek Willis]

1 hour ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

It's not all about Musk.

NASA was exploring space before Musk was born,

Yes, but in just ten years Musk and his colleagues have come a long way. Who knows, in another ten years Space-X might be putting commercial space stations in Earth orbit and then in orbit around the Moon. If he can demonstrate the commercial sense in scientists renting his space stations rather than NASA building them, Congress will have to look carefully at what he has to say. That said, there is never going to be a space program without NASA.

[Jon the frog]

3 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

It's not all about Musk.

NASA was exploring space before Musk was born,

Yeah but private company are doing quite a lot lately, doing lot of launches and building new giant rocket that make NASA look lost a little bit... They are going to launch stuff in Mars orbit and do a flyby of the moon with tourist soon. It's not all about Musk but their ego is quite hurt by him. It's good competition and if it start a race, it will be good for space exploration.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Jon the frog

[Mr Supertypo]

NASA is a governmental agency and it answers to the congress. It cannot be compared to a private business who need profit to survive.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

18 hours ago, Mr Supertypo said:

NASA is a governmental agency and it answers to the congress. It cannot be compared to a private business who need profit to survive.

Exactly.

And for all it's achievements what exploration has SpaceX actually achieved... a big fat zero. It is, at the moment, a launch company, the same as ULA or Arianespace (but not quite as reliable).

Musk and SpaceX makes big promises for the future but in the meantime can't even get the Falcon Heavy off the ground. Musk claimed SpaceX would put a Dragon on Mars by 2022 but has abandoned that since it found it too hard to get the powered landing system to work. It is behind schedule with it's programme to launch astronauts to the ISS and is raising safety concerns about the use of the Falcon 9 to do so (see here: Safety Concerns About SpaceX Crew Missions). Musk has claimed it will send humans around the moon by the end of this year but has yet to even do the ground test of the rocket that will do it nor send an astronaut into low earth orbit.

Don't think that I am in the anti-SpaceX brigade, I think they are doing a fantastic job in lowering the cost of launching to space, which will have important knock on effects for space exploration (including NASAs). However I am also not one of those that thinks that, where it comes to space, Elon Musk is the new messiah. I am a realist. He promises far more than he actually delivers.

There are those that think that because SpaceX is a private company not a government it must automatically be better. These people generally have a hatred of ULA because it has received a lot of it's funding through government contracts (ignoring the fact that so has SpaceX albeit to a far lesser degree). This shows a profound ignorance of how capitalism works. It is not being a private company that is good and being a government agency that is bad... it is competition that is good and monopolies that are bad. The USA need ULA as well as SpaceX, the competition will drive both forward.

The USA also needs NASA, NASA, as a government agency, is accountable to the US electorate, Elon Musk is not. Hand over space exploration to SpaceX and there is no democratic accountability for the future of US space exploration. I don't think that would be a good thing no matter how sincere Musk is in his goals.

However allowing the likes of Musk to explore space whilst maintaining NASA (and as a non-American I can tell you that Americans are not nearly as proud of that organisation as they should be) then the future for US exploration is indeed rosy.

But it's still not (and never should be) all about Musk.

[Derek Willis]

2 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Exactly.

And for all it's achievements what exploration has SpaceX actually achieved... a big fat zero. It is, at the moment, a launch company, the same as ULA or Arianespace (but not quite as reliable).

Musk and SpaceX makes big promises for the future but in the meantime can't even get the Falcon Heavy off the ground. Musk claimed SpaceX would put a Dragon on Mars by 2022 but has abandoned that since it found it too hard to get the powered landing system to work. It is behind schedule with it's programme to launch astronauts to the ISS and is raising safety concerns about the use of the Falcon 9 to do so (see here: Safety Concerns About SpaceX Crew Missions). Musk has claimed it will send humans around the moon by the end of this year but has yet to even do the ground test of the rocket that will do it nor send an astronaut into low earth orbit.

Don't think that I am in the anti-SpaceX brigade, I think they are doing a fantastic job in lowering the cost of launching to space, which will have important knock on effects for space exploration (including NASAs). However I am also not one of those that thinks that, where it comes to space, Elon Musk is the new messiah. I am a realist. He promises far more than he actually delivers.

There are those that think that because SpaceX is a private company not a government it must automatically be better. These people generally have a hatred of ULA because it has received a lot of it's funding through government contracts (ignoring the fact that so has SpaceX albeit to a far lesser degree). This shows a profound ignorance of how capitalism works. It is not being a private company that is good and being a government agency that is bad... it is competition that is good and monopolies that are bad. The USA need ULA as well as SpaceX, the competition will drive both forward.

The USA also needs NASA, NASA, as a government agency, is accountable to the US electorate, Elon Musk is not. Hand over space exploration to SpaceX and there is no democratic accountability for the future of US space exploration. I don't think that would be a good thing no matter how sincere Musk is in his goals.

However allowing the likes of Musk to explore space whilst maintaining NASA (and as a non-American I can tell you that Americans are not nearly as proud of that organisation as they should be) then the future for US exploration is indeed rosy.

But it's still not (and never should be) all about Musk.

I think Elon Musk's big achievement has been to end the monopoly of the old "cost plus" contractors who dominated the space industry for decades. These companies - Lockheed, Martin, Boeing and so on - have now coalesced into the United Launch Alliance. They now have to operate on purely commercial terms, and not on the pseudo-commercial terms that companies like Arianespace used to operate on. This is driving down prices, and opening up space to a whole new era.

Musk is undoubtedly a showman - like a modern Howard Hughes. In 1938, after returning from his record-breaking around-the-world flight, Hughes claimed that air travel would cheap enough for every American by 1950. That didn't happen quite so fast, but it did happen. Musk is using exactly the same marketing strategy - he creates headlines by making big claims. Some of his claims are over the top, like sending people to the Moon by the end of this year. He knew that was never going to happen, as did anyone with even a cursory knowledge of spaceflight.

Also, you mention the democratic accountability of space exploration. I am not sure what you mean by that. During the time of the Soviet Union there was no democratic accountability, yet Soviet scientists made some fantastic achievements in space and carried out pioneering scientific research. Is there any democratic accountability in the current Chinese exploration of space?

Surely what matters is scientific integrity. Say in a decade or so America wants to put a rover on Titan. Would it matter whether the usual process is followed - i.e. NASA asks JPL to design and operate the rover, and NASA pays for a commercial launch from ULA - or if Space-X designed and operated the rover, and provided the launch? What matters is that scientists get to send instruments to Titan, and are allowed to carry out their science without interference.

I am sure Elon Musk is the last person to claim he can "replace" NASA - certainly I have never read anything like that. And as far as I can see, it has never been "all about Musk". He is is an entrepreneur who has shaken up the old "club" of launch providers, and has employed thousands of people in the process.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

21 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

I think Elon Musk's big achievement has been to end the monopoly of the old "cost plus" contractors who dominated the space industry for decades. These companies - Lockheed, Martin, Boeing and so on - have now coalesced into the United Launch Alliance. They now have to operate on purely commercial terms, and not on the pseudo-commercial terms that companies like Arianespace used to operate on. This is driving down prices, and opening up space to a whole new era.

This was entirely my point about the real issue being competition and monopolies.

21 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

Also, you mention the democratic accountability of space exploration. I am not sure what you mean by that. During the time of the Soviet Union there was no democratic accountability, yet Soviet scientists made some fantastic achievements in space and carried out pioneering scientific research. Is there any democratic accountability in the current Chinese exploration of space?

I was talking specifically about the USA and NASA, The USA is a democracy and NASA is democratically accountable. The argument for the Soviet Union and China achieving great things is an argument for government organisations being in charge of space exploration (my argument) not against it. However the Soviet Union/China weren't/aren't democracies, there was no loss of accountability. The case in the USA is different, the more that the direction of the USA's space policy is allowed to be determined by individuals with no accountability to the voter, the more of a backward step in the democratic process that incurs.

I am not saying that Musk shouldn't be allowed to explore space at his own cost, if that is what he wants, what I am saying is that NASA should take precedence. His plans must be complementary to, not at odds with NASA,

I'll give you an example of what I mean. NASA is slowly working towards determining, once and for all, whether life exists on Mars. This would be one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. Musk, on the other hand, is rushing to colonise Mars... an action which would likely contaminate the planet and make it difficult, if not impossible to determine if there is native life on the red planet. In a case like this NASA must be able to stop Musk if they think his actions are detrimental to their work. Colonisation can occur at any time (once the technology is mature) the discovery of life on Mars can occur only once, it would be a shame to mess up the chance because of one man's dream.

21 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

I am sure Elon Musk is the last person to claim he can "replace" NASA - certainly I have never read anything like that. And as far as I can see, it has never been "all about Musk".

You aren't reading the right forums.

There is almost a SpaceX/Musk cult out there that DO think it is all about Musk. Take a look at Jon the Frog's post, it shows what I mean (but is very mild in comparison to some). He talks about NASA having it's ego hurt by Musk (simultaneous demonstrating a lack of understanding of Musk, SpaceX, NASA and egos), It was too him that I was pointing out that it is not "all about Musk". His attitude is not unique, you will find it on just about every comment on every space related website. There is a feeling amongst many that Musk can do no wrong and that ULA is the tool of Satan.

There is another equally annoying and idiotic group that think it is all about ULA and that SpaceX is the work of Satan.

There are also many in the USA that distrust any and all government organisations. They think that private is automatically superior. These people would happily see NASA cut or disbanded all together and the likes of SpaceX allowed to lead US space exploration (and that would really end democratic accountability). They miss the point that SpaceX repeatedly misses deadlines, suffers cost over runs, cuts projects because they proved too difficult. How is this different from government run projects?

What is changing is the way that NASA does business. The Commercial Resupply Services Program and the Commercial Crew Program are the beginning of a new era where NASA uses private companies to provide services at a fixed cost. With multiple companies bidding it should lower costs, providing more funds for NASA to do what it does best... science and exploration.

My point is that the USA needs NASA more than it needs Musk. If SpaceX disappears in a flash of bankruptcy tomorrow something else will take its place, however if the USA loses NASA then it loses it's lead in space exploration.

 

 

Edited January 19, 2018 by Waspie_Dwarf
typo.

[Derek Willis]

32 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

I was talking specifically about the USA and NASA

In a case like this NASA must be able to stop Musk if they think his actions are detrimental to their work.

There is almost a SpaceX/Musk cult out there that DO think it is all about Musk. 

They miss the point that SpaceX repeatedly misses deadlines, suffers cost over runs, cuts projects because they proved too difficult. How is this different from government run projects?

My point is that the USA needs NASA more than it needs Musk. If SpaceX disappears in a flash of bankruptcy tomorrow something else will take its place, however if the USA loses NASA then it loses it's lead in space exploration.

What makes you believe a science mission mounted by Space-X wouldn't be democratically accountable? If public funds are used, then accountability would be one of the terms of the contract.

You know fine well that if NASA - an agency of the US government - wanted to stop Musk doing anything that contravened the Outer Space Treaty, then the US government would not issue the company with a launch licence.

Who cares what the Space-X/Musk "cult" says. Has the man himself ever said he wants to replace NASA?

Everyone involved in the space industry is prone to delays - including NASA.  

Contrary to what you seem to be implying, I have never suggested NASA should stop doing their brilliant work. All I am saying is that there is an argument for commercial companies doing scientific research in space - just like they do here on Earth!

Edited January 19, 2018 by Derek Willis

[Jon the frog]

1 hour ago, Derek Willis said:

Contrary to what you seem to be implying, I have never suggested NASA should stop doing their brilliant work. All I am saying is that there is an argument for commercial companies doing scientific research in space - just like they do here on Earth!

Exactly and the fact that commercial companies are starting to do that, probably that the US government  will think about giving NASA more funding to compete and reach milestones.