Deep Space Gateway - joint Russian-American project?

[Skroe]

I get it. Just was almost hoping someone had figured out wormhole tech. I'd say go for it get it done in 3 to 5 yrs not 15 to 20. I want to see us in another star system before I die

Not happening. We'll probably have about a dozen people on Mars permanently by the 2060s and less than 50 by 2100.

The space of the real world is very different from the space of science fiction. It's huge. Truly huge. I know that's like "well duh"... but I'm not sure it comes across how huge. Our own Solar System, through science fiction we've been kind of conditioned to thing of Jupiter and Saturn as relatively access to us... not too far, but not close. Kind of middle ground, with things getting "Cold" with Uranus and Neptune. That's not the case. In comparison to most other observed star systems, Jupiter (and the outer planets in general) is/are very far away from the Sun. And it's very far away from Earth too. They're very remote locales in the real world. Cold, dark and distant. Earth hugs the sun comparatively closely to those worlds that are really in "deep space" as far as we're concerned. Of our solar system, only Venus and Mars are pretty easy to get to. Mercury is incredibly difficult to get to (due to the Sun's gravity, you have to carefully spiral down to it). Jupiter is so much further than mars.

Humanity lucked out with Earth, the Moon and Mars. But the rest of the Solar system is going to be very difficult to do anything with ever. And sadly, for where we are in time now, the Solar System is somewhat removed from many of the more interesting Star Systems that have planets. Were kind of floating through an expanse of nothing for the next few tens of thousands of years.

[Yvaelle]

Ignoring FTL for a minute though, there is still a lot we can do in the next couple centuries in our own solar system, with foreseeable tech and an infinite budget (from today's perspective).

We could industrialize both the Moon and Mars. We could build robots, gather resources, build some very impressive capabilities on both of these locations.

We could build Space Elevators, significantly reducing our cost to put things in orbit - making it accessible.

We could build solar arrays and fusion generators and etc, massively increasing our space-based power capabilities.

We could mine asteroids, getting us access to rare metals and minerals that dwarf all the present wealth on Earth in terms of current market value (of course, flooding the market changes things).

When you remove the cost barriers, on the assumptions of the rapidly increasing wealth of our planet (both access to natural resources and human labour, where both population and skill are rising exponentially), and the almost immeasurable wealth available from asteroid mining - what we can accomplish in space even in our own neighbourhood (Inner Solar System) is still extremely impressive. If money was no object, and space elevators become reality, our capabilities go from a few dozens of Martian colonists by 2100 to potentially a new frontier, a new 'gold rush' in space by 2150, and full-on sci-fi cities on Mars before 2200.

Given the present course, at the present rate, the future may look boring. But if the convergence of all these exponential factors collides, the outcome is we're entirely on course for a sci-fi future.

[Logwyn]

Not happening. We'll probably have about a dozen people on Mars permanently by the 2060s and less than 50 by 2100.

The space of the real world is very different from the space of science fiction. It's huge. Truly huge. I know that's like "well duh"... but I'm not sure it comes across how huge. Our own Solar System, through science fiction we've been kind of conditioned to thing of Jupiter and Saturn as relatively access to us... not too far, but not close. Kind of middle ground, with things getting "Cold" with Uranus and Neptune. That's not the case. In comparison to most other observed star systems, Jupiter (and the outer planets in general) is/are very far away from the Sun. And it's very far away from Earth too. They're very remote locales in the real world. Cold, dark and distant. Earth hugs the sun comparatively closely to those worlds that are really in "deep space" as far as we're concerned. Of our solar system, only Venus and Mars are pretty easy to get to. Mercury is incredibly difficult to get to (due to the Sun's gravity, you have to carefully spiral down to it). Jupiter is so much further than mars.

Humanity lucked out with Earth, the Moon and Mars. But the rest of the Solar system is going to be very difficult to do anything with ever. And sadly, for where we are in time now, the Solar System is somewhat removed from many of the more interesting Star Systems that have planets. Were kind of floating through an expanse of nothing for the next few tens of thousands of years.

Bah too slow!!! Too few!!! We need to get our act in gear!

[Deleted]

So the article below sure took my by surprise.

NASA, Roscosmos Sign Joint Statement on Researching, Exploring Deep Space

Given the rather toxic atmosphere of East-West relations lately, I'm a little skeptical of how far this would go. Sure, Soyuz-Apollo happened smack dab in the middle of the Cold War, but that was a one-time stunt. An important one, of course, but this one sounds like it could be the foundation of all we do in deep space for a loooong time. I'm especially perplexed about what Roscosmos could bring to the table - I was under the impression lately that even private firms are catching up to government agencies in capability and even more so in cost-efficiency.

@Skroe, would you mind chiming in? We have not one but two of your favourite topics.

NASA seriously?

- - - Updated - - -

Why is it surprising? Both countries surely have plenty of people in them that would rather live on a planet where the USA and Russia can't go to war and they are caught in it. This is how they might can someday!

How about theydon't want to see the other claim it first? Seems more logical

- - - Updated - - -

I get it. Just was almost hoping someone had figured out wormhole tech. I'd say go for it get it done in 3 to 5 yrs not 15 to 20. I want to see us in another star system before I die

Thatis a high expectation! We only been to the moon and you want this?

[Tierbook]

This is what the 5th time at least that we've signed agreements to put out a deep space station?

[Logwyn]

Thatis a high expectation! We only been to the moon and you want this?

Go big or go home. Kennedy should have said put a man on the moon before I get shot in Dallas.

[Zeta333]

Well its a little bit more complicated than that. The Current SLS Manifest has EM-1 launching about a year from now (unmanned, though thats mostly to save money on human rating the Delta Interim Upper-stage), followed by the Europa Clipper probably around 2021/2022. The first manned mission, EM-2, will launch in 2022, and Astronauts will do annual trips around the moon for 3-5 weeks from 2022-2026. The Gateway Platorm will take 4 launches and 4 years to build, as the launch capacity of the SLS Block 1B, at 105 tons, can easily carry the Orion Capsule, it's service module and a payload. That's actually kind of the thing with the SLS... it's amazing for payloads but overkill for crewed capsule missions.

There will likely be a several more Deep Space science and National Security missions using the SLS around this, but that the present the plan is to launch SLS Block IB+Orion once a year through the 2020s.

The problem is fundamentally one of economics and industrial capacity. The SLS core stage is a good more complicated to manufacture than the old Shuttle External tank on which it is based. Program engineers had to invent this enormous weilding device the size of a building in order to weild the tank in any kind of cost-effective manner. The SLS is projected to cost $550 million a mission. Throw in program cost and support, it'll probably be over $1 billion for the 105t to LEO "workhorse" model. 105t sounds like a lot, but here's the horrifying thing: it's $550m per flight to launch 105t, when a C-5 Galaxy can fly nearly the same amount of payload (its full load) at a cost of $78,000 per flight hour.

Space is hard, space is expensive, and everything sucks.

Add that to the fact that the NASA Mars reference design has the Mars Transit Vehicle taking between 9 and 11 flights, which would have to be launched within a construction period of around 2-3 years sometime after 2030, and you see the problem. And that doesn't include all the SLS flights to Mars around the same time to send habitation modules, support equipment, Mars landers and everything else.

If the SLS can establish economies of scale to drive down cost of building and launching at a high tempo, is it possible? Sure. But its never been done. 11 SLS flights in three years is mindbogglingly aggressive. And it's not even a matter of money (because people LOVE to throw Money at NASA to fulfill their dreams). Can Orbital ATK build 22 SRBs for those missions? Can the facilities safely process all 11 SLSs? Big question.

You menttion off-planet manufacturing. While for some things that is certainly a solution (fuel, concrete-like building materials on Mars), there is no known way we can manufacture essential things like rubber, or plastics (petroleum derivities). Ideally, using the low-gravity moon as a staging ground for exploration into the Solar system would be ideal, but any kind of offplanet manufacturing for more than fuels has a serious question of how do they turn the raw materials at one or several locations, into something useful and safe to use. That kind of infrastructure could take a century or more to build. Hell, the US space program gets raw materials from all over the world from countless suppliers. A lunar factory of any type would not have nearly that kind of supply chain.

Which is to say, while orbital facities have their usage (particularly refueling for the launch of larger payloads), missions anywhere into the solar system will remain tethered to Earth for centuries to come because the process or the infrastructure to create useful raw materials beyond fuels is still far beyond us.

This is why SpaceX's model is probably the best for now. It just wins on economics. But even SpaceX's largest, most capable vehicles on the drawing board pale in comparison to the economics of a C-5 Galaxy. However, the second they can get a 105t launch vehicle flying for about $2 a pound, space infrastructure will take off very quickly. The Falcon Heavy's cost per pound for reference, is about $850. That sounds a lot, but here's the good news: the Space Shuttle's cost was $10,000 per pound, and the Delta IV Heavy's cost is $9000 per pound, and the Falcon Heavy can launch over twice the payload of either of them. So cost savings on the scale we're talking about have actually happened in the last 30 years.

The problem i see is we will keep spending heaps of money, developmental time and effort on things that can fit in or on one of our rockets, and then hope there isnt a random failure putting it into orbit. We need to capture somthing with ore, put it in a stable orbit or L point, and then use it to manufacture in space. more than half the design of our space shit is dedicated to surviving and making it into orbit rather than 100% focusing on it existing in space.

As for fuel i see somthing pretty close to the movie of MOON, without the slave labor.