Deep Space Gateway - joint Russian-American project?

[Flarelaine]

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.

[Deleted]

I suppose Congress will be pleased to know SLS has a mission they can point at to justify the expense. Their support for the rocket is resilient.

[Puupi]

Deep space research has about zero implications on politics or practical applications so I don't find this odd at all. It's a purely scientific venture.

[Total Crica]

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!

[Deleted]

Deep space research has about zero implications on politics or practical applications so I don't find this odd at all. It's a purely scientific venture.

Well... There was the ISS issue where two parts from each nation had to be docked, and that is usually done in a male into female docking method, but neither nation wanted to be the female part, so they had to come up with a more convoluted mechanism for docking them together

Even science has some weird notions of nationalism and politics

[cubby]

Deep space research has about zero implications on politics or practical applications so I don't find this odd at all. It's a purely scientific venture.

If we're talking science, unless Russia can repurpose their Soyuz launch vehicle to upper-atmosphere cargo lifting and/or moon shots, it's unclear what Russia would bring to the table scientifically. NASA and SpaceX have the lift capability and the science/materials to get-to and build-on the moon. Russia can't pay their people, much less add $$$ to building a moon base.

Maybe a new Trump Tower on the moon? Hopefully @Skroe will chime in and clarify. Although his recent activity in his militant group might be keeping him occupied. I kid, I kid.

[Skroe]

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.

Lol it is a convergence!

Unfortunately there is much less to this than meets the eye.

We talk often of bubbles. Politicians. People. But the NASA Bubble is perhaps the most rigidly defined one. It's not so much "bubble" as it is "dyson sphere". And they're very very content on living on the inside of it.

Since the early 1990s, harkening back to the Apollo-era really, NASA as an agency, and it's members have been enormously invested in international cooperation, with pretty much anybody. The lofty idealism about political matters being Earthbound and humanity exploring space as one actual finds a very real expression at the agency and always has. There is of course, a political motive to this too: international partners means spreading costs and GREATLY complicates cancelling (or changing) programs . But NASA and it's workers have been relentless of their pursuit of internationalizing programs since the 1990s, with pretty much anybody. And I do mean anybody. The last NASA Administration, Charlie Bolden, signed similar agreements with Middle Eastern countries (who as we all know, are known for their space programs, right?)

How relentless is NASA-types at this? China has spent the better part of 15 years systematically harvesting Western technology in an attempt to keep up. They've engaged in active industrial espionage against the US defense-industrial complex, which includes most of NASA's major contractors. Congress has banned China and NASA from cooperation by law for years because of this, but NASA has been arguing to repeal that law and bring China into the ISS (and every other program) for years. This is of course, insanity. China is decades behind on space matters. Working with them, China will demand, as they always do, technological transfers. And NASA will give them. But NASA really doesn't care because the philosophical ends justify the means, no matter the repercussions for "earthly concerns".

And let's be clear, this is PRIMARILY philosophical.

Congress will never get rid of that law. And they've moved to "Westernize" increasing parts of the space program. Russia offered early on, to join the SLS program. The US declined. The ESA offered to join it... Congress decided to make them responsible for the service module of the Orion capsule by repourposing the ESA's ATV, but not have a role in the larger rocket. Russia has approached the US about Mars missions repeatedly over the last decade, and Congress forbade it.

But NASA still tries. My other "hang out" is in a major online space-community. And people there do not care about Trump-Russia, Russia hacking last year, China espionage over the years, and all that, because those things happening directly undercuts their "we're all in this together" narrative. Their solution, rather than confront the world we are actually living in, is wave it off and double down on promoting the one they'd like to live in. That's not to say they're Trump fans (oh they so aren't). They see international cooperation as worthy of any cost and we should just eat the bad things that happen in pursuit of that goal.

It's worth reminding ourselves how we got here and why, with respect to this proposal, it will be different this time. The Soviet Union planned Mir-2 in the late 1980s, as the US was planning Space Station Freedom. When the Soviet Union fell, two things happened. First, the US became deeply concerned (and rightfully so) that potentially or newly unemployed Soviet scientists, particularly rocket engineers, but also space scientists, would end up on the free market, and be hired by China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Cuba, Vietnam (this was 1993) or terrorist groups. Secondly, the feeling was that with the end of the Cold War, the need for ongoing displays of American technological superiority wasn't worth the budget. The ISS was conceived as a way to kill two birds with one stone. It's extreme costs made it a target for budget cuts (as the Superconducting Supercollider, which was several times the size of the later Large Hadron Collider, was canceled). Bringing in aspects of Mir-II to Space Station Freedom, and Russian space station expertise, was rather brilliant at the time. The US saved billions on developing certain modules for Mir II the Russians had constructed (but also basically subsidized the Russian space program for over a decade). But most of all it kept a lot of skilled Russians off the free market. Some did end up going to North Korea, China, Syria, Iran and Iraq, but not many. It was as successful as could be hoped.

But the situation is very different right now. The US, not Russia, largely build the ISS. The US, not Russia, accomplished the most technically challenging missions involving its construction and maintenance. Aside from what amounts to the station's "Service Module", the most significant components of the ISS are American, European and Japanese. If the Western partners wanted to, they could drop a few billion, build a new service module, and send the Russian segment on its way. To put it simply, in 1993, Russia had a lot to offer NASA for the ISS, but in 2017, it has almost nothing to offer.


With respect to "Exploring Deep Space", even that is something of a hoot to involve Russia in. Russia has never launched anything past Mars, and it's Mars missions since the early 1970s (Phobos 1-/2, Mars-96/Mars-8, Phobos-Grunt) have been failures. Russia does not technologically have the rocket or the capsule to send human beings beyond low Earth orbit and to Lunar orbit. In less than a year, the US will have two means (SLS+Orion, Falcon 9/Heavy + Dragon2) and one more on the way (Starliner + Atlas V) the year after. This is significant because the Exploration Gateway Platform discussed in the press release, basically a simple space station / staging ground in lunar orbit (where a Mars-bound ship would be constructed in one mission model) would need such a rocket. Soyuz rockets cannot send mass that far and Soyuz capsules do not have a heat shield designed for lunar re-entry, which means Russia has no way of actually getting people there or back.

So I would not see much in this other than it's another NASA "look, we're international!" stunt, just as when they tried to weasel their way around the RD-180 ban related to Russia sanctions. If NASA could have signed a similar agreement with China, they would have years ago. On paper, sure, Russia and NASA "are talking". As a practical matter, the ISS relationship was highly transactional - Russia does X, so NASA does Y in return - and without something to offer, which it simply does not have, Russia won't play much of a role, if any, in NASA's Deep Space designs.

- - - Updated - - -

If we're talking science, unless Russia can repurpose their Soyuz launch vehicle to upper-atmosphere cargo lifting and/or moon shots, it's unclear what Russia would bring to the table scientifically. NASA and SpaceX have the lift capability and the science/materials to get-to and build-on the moon. Russia can't pay their people, much less add $$$ to building a moon base.

Maybe a new Trump Tower on the moon? Hopefully @Skroe will chime in and clarify. Although his recent activity in his militant group might be keeping him occupied. I kid, I kid.

Shhhhhhhh don't mention anything about the Elizabeth Warren Militant Training Camp!

You correct identified the hole in this. Soyuz isn't a capable enough lifter. Proton is getting there, but they're blowing up all the time now because the decline of the Russian industrial base is no making its rockets unreliable. And it's old. Angara in its largest configurations would be suitable, but Angara has flown twice, is probably too expensive for Russia to launch on a regular basis, and would require a whole new capsule / service module stack (basically a new Russian manned space vehicle). Russians have been promising such a vehicle since I was in high school. They are no closer to actually building it because they can't afford it.

The most likely fate of the Russian space program over the next two decades is that as the US and ESA construct the Exploration Gateway Platform and then move out to Mars, Russia keeps building Soyuzes and sends them to Low Earth Orbit in "show the flag" missions, and eventually a Chinese Space Station (which, to be clear, will be at best, about the size and complexity of Mir, not the ISS). Because building and modestly improving Soyuzes, as they have since the 1960s, is relatively affordable for them. But the design of the capsule and the rocket is totally inadequate for missions beyond LEO. This is one reason, for example, SpaceX plans to totally retire the Dragon capsule used on ISS missions once the Dragon 2 is proven. It'll simplify industrial costs for them, but most of all, the Dragon capsule is not designed for beyond LEO missions, while Dragon 2 is (Dragon 2 having both manned and cargo internal arrangements).

- - - Updated - - -

Well... There was the ISS issue where two parts from each nation had to be docked, and that is usually done in a male into female docking method, but neither nation wanted to be the female part, so they had to come up with a more convoluted mechanism for docking them together

Even science has some weird notions of nationalism and politics

Having an androgynous mating adapter is also smarter and better than the 1960s-era male/female design that was common place. It allowed the ISS program to move segments and visiting vehicles around as needed to make room for expansion. If they utilized a male/female design, it would be more limiting.

With respect to the aims of the 1960s-era programs, a male-female design was more practical. But for ISS through modern programs, it was limiting. They're also heavier, and an emphasis on the androgynous designs is to make them as light as possible.

[Daedius]

Would be great if there was a universal space exploration program, just like how there's WHO under the UN for health.

[Skroe]

Deep space research has about zero implications on politics or practical applications so I don't find this odd at all. It's a purely scientific venture.

Not entirely true.

The optics packages used on on Mars orbiters since the 1990s are based on on US Spy Satellite Earth-observing optics.

The thrusters and control mechanisms used on most modern deep space probes are directly lifted from defense satellites, and although routine for us, well beyond what China, and even Russia, are capable of manufacturing. By working with them, they could make better spy satellites.

And, in my favorite story ever, let's recall that the Hubble Space Telescope is actually a National Reconnaissance Office KH-11 KENNEN spy sattelite, with a different optics package, and pointed out, rather than down. But aside from modifications for human serviceability (and upgrades) and the shape of the mirror, KH-11 and Hubble are believed to be largely identical. The new Solar arrays that have replaced Hubbles twice? Yeah... not a NASA-funded upgrade.

The US launched Hubble once, in 1990. THe US has launched 16 KH-11 since 1979, including most recently in 2013. There are four in space right now, along with 2 related
KH-12 Misty ("Stealthy KH-11"), and one KH-13 Misty 2.

In 2012 the NRO gave NASA two and a half nearly completed KH-11s to use for whatever purpose they wanted. One of them will be launched in 2022 as the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_N...nation_to_NASA

[Logwyn]

When I hear gateway I think like worm hole gate way or Star Gate.

[Skroe]

Would be great if there was a universal space exploration program, just like how there's WHO under the UN for health.

No. The US and ESA have invested significant resources, and have an enormous technological lead.

What does the rest of the world have to offer? What do they tangibly bring to the table? Does Argentina have secret expertise in thrusters? Does Turkey posses a secret means of energy generation?

This mostly comes down to investment. If other countries want to partner with NASA, the offers always been there. They just need to put down the cold, hard cash to do so, and it is an enormous amount of cash for something that, make no mistake is certainly well beyond the scope of the responsibility of meat-and-potatoes government. It is late 2017. The ISS was originally supposed to be deorbited next year (now it will be 2024 or 2028... it should really be 2024). And the Russians STILL have not launched their major scientific segment, Nauka.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauka_(ISS_module)

Maybe it'll launch in mid 2018. It probably won't. The only reason it even has a space station to fly to is because the ISS got a stay of execution. Meanwhile the US segement has been finished for years, and that's with the Shuttles being grounded for years after Columbia, and a major recession.

The ISS program has been deeply complicated in itself, in no small part because Russia can't afford to follow through on its own promises in a timely manner.

- - - Updated - - -

When I hear gateway I think like worm hole gate way or Star Gate.

It would look something like this (actual name now is Deep Space Gateway)


And it would be built like this:



What is the purpose of this? Look at that schedule image above. How many flights do you see? 4... EM-2, EM-3, EM-4 and EM-5 all build it. For comparison a non-nuclear Mars Transit Vehicle would take 11 flights to construct. A nuclear vehicle would take 9. The SLS is big, but a Mars Transit Vehicle is enormous (though still, smaller than the ISS in terms of mass).

The Mars Transit Vehicle to be economical would need to be partially reusable. It ferries a crew there and back, then gets refueled, refurbished, and sent back with a new crew. This means that systems would need to operate for a very long period of time, without easy access to Earth, and in a higher radiation environment. This is why the Gateway platform exists. To be a proof of concept and prototype of sorts, of the Mars Transit Vehicle. The actual MTV would be roughly three times the size, with a large propulsion module.

Also one proposed part of the Gateway platform, if it is put in lunar orbit (as opposed to L-2), is that it could perhaps have a reusable simple lunar lander, that would function essentially, as a no frills elevator to a permanent base on the Moon. However putting it in Lunar orbit, rather than L-2, makes it less useful for a potential Mars mission.

Space makes you choose.

[Tiwack]

When I hear gateway I think like worm hole gate way or Star Gate.

Which is what baited me here. Besides, yay spaaace!

In reality it's about establishing a joint presence in moon-orbit for research and as staging point for future missions fx. to the surface of the moon.

Roscosmos still command the Sojuz which keeps the ISS manned at all times. It will still be a while before someone makes a rocket that is as reliable, efficient and safe to carry lives back and forth.

Hard to stop those who want to fight fire with fire and hate with hate but it is comforting to know those fighting hate with love aren't forgotten just because they don't make for easy clickbait-sensationalism though the PR-department certainly tries to spice it up for consumption

[Auxora]

The relations between the Russian and US space agencies have usually been fairly good (although off and on) overall for at least 30 years, regardless of how good or bad political relations have been. The ISS was a big step in that direction.

I'm glad to see it, the more we can offset the artificial biases and animosity between our 2 countries created by media and politics the better.

[PACOX]

Might as well partner with China.

US-Russian relations dont really impact their space relations, Im more concerned with what Russia could bring to the table. They basically played groundsmen to the ISS lately, thats about it. Having made and human spaceflight advances while also doing nothing in deep space exploration. At least China is trying to get into probes and robotics.

Hell lets partner with India, they are looking for a come up as well.

The only thing I think Russia can offer is that their manned equipment has been cheaper than the US's.

[Flarelaine]

Well since it is announced by Russian government agency, I think it is safe to say that it is bullshit.

Edit: wtf its by NASA? O.o

I know, right? Most of the reports quoted RT so I almost laughed it away... then it came up on the NASA site.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol it is a convergence!

...

Because building and modestly improving Soyuzes, as they have since the 1960s, is relatively affordable for them. But the design of the capsule and the rocket is totally inadequate for missions beyond LEO.

Thanks for confirming my... dunno... WTFs about this thing.

So, in short, Soyuz is useless until they upgrade it to this:



(Sovietskii Soyuz-class heavy cruiser)

[Zeta333]

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2017/slschart1.jpg
.

Just looking at that method makes me realize how utterly insane it is we dont have manufacturing capabiltiies in orbit yet, Taking almost 10 years and 6 launches to put such a small structure in place vs building in orbit and just boosting it over into place. My god when we start giving a fuck about shit outside our atmosphere as a planet we will get amazing things done, but untill then, back to skylab level assembling.

[Deleted]

I guess they need to take steps like these to compete with the commercial space flight sector, which will have the future anyway.

[Deleted]

Having an androgynous mating adapter is also smarter and better than the 1960s-era male/female design that was common place. It allowed the ISS program to move segments and visiting vehicles around as needed to make room for expansion. If they utilized a male/female design, it would be more limiting.

With respect to the aims of the 1960s-era programs, a male-female design was more practical. But for ISS through modern programs, it was limiting. They're also heavier, and an emphasis on the androgynous designs is to make them as light as possible.

Stop throwing facts at funny stories, it ruins them

[Skroe]

Just looking at that method makes me realize how utterly insane it is we dont have manufacturing capabiltiies in orbit yet, Taking almost 10 years and 6 launches to put such a small structure in place vs building in orbit and just boosting it over into place. My god when we start giving a fuck about shit outside our atmosphere as a planet we will get amazing things done, but untill then, back to skylab level assembling.

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.

- - - Updated - - -

I know, right? Most of the reports quoted RT so I almost laughed it away... then it came up on the NASA site.

- - - Updated - - -



Thanks for confirming my... dunno... WTFs about this thing.

So, in short, Soyuz is useless until they upgrade it to this:



(Sovietskii Soyuz-class heavy cruiser)

It's worth noting also that NASA is delegated, by Congress to be able to enter these deals and do many other things (like any other agency, so Congress doesn't have to micromanage), but Congress can and does put limits on cooperation, funding and write a law against anything they don't want NASA to do.

NASA has its head so far up its ass about international cooperation, particularly with regards to the US and China and the US and Russia, that trying to talk sense into them that *gasp*, Earthly concerns DO matter, is a futile effort. They're institutionally predisposed to international cooperation, and while that's often a good thing, how NASA has tried for years to weasel around the RD-180 ban shows how single minded parts of it can be about its agenda.

If this were ever to progress beyond mere talk, Congress would undoubtedly intervene. Congress has been suprisingly enthusastic at trying to end the US's RD-180 dependency and kill the Atlas V as we know it, only for that program to be protected by King Pork, Senator Richard Shelby, and NASA interests that trust the RD-180 and ULA (Boeing/Lockheed) who makes it, and until recently, had little trust for Elon Musk and SpaceX. However Congress has written into law the end RD-180 procurement, so NASA is now, grudgingly, coming around.

Congress despises Russia. I really do mean that. They're unflinchingly hostile and "Vladmir Putin" might as well be a four letter word. He's probably the most despised Russian leader since Stalin.

Putin will have to die and Russia will have to see immense reform, before the US will ever seriously consider partnering with Russia like it did in the 1990s. That was, not joking, a once in a century opportunity Russia squandered.

So don't be freaked out about a NASA press release. NASA loves their press releases almost as much as they love their CGI concept art. Congress will simply not allow US dollars to go to anything that benefits Russia, and that is especially true with its space / rocket program.

- - - Updated - - -

Might as well partner with China.

US-Russian relations dont really impact their space relations, Im more concerned with what Russia could bring to the table. They basically played groundsmen to the ISS lately, thats about it. Having made and human spaceflight advances while also doing nothing in deep space exploration. At least China is trying to get into probes and robotics.

Hell lets partner with India, they are looking for a come up as well.

The only thing I think Russia can offer is that their manned equipment has been cheaper than the US's.

Congress will be a pile of ash and the US back to the barter systems before it ever allows NASA to partner with China. I'm 100% serious. Every year for a decade, NASA goes to war for that. Every year, for a decade, Congress nukes them from orbit. Last time, it actually got caustic in the "oh, this shit again?" kind of way. It is carved in stone because China's ripping off of our technology has basically made a ban on space-military tech transfers, for ever, a requirement.

Russia hasn't made any advances in human spaceflight since the 1980s. Their biggest contribution to the ISS at this point is the regular progress resupply vehicles, which are dwarfed by the ESA's ATV and NASA Commercial Resupply services (SpaceX, Orbital). Russia simply has nothing to bring to the table. The Soyuz would need a fundamental redesign to get to the moon, and a return trip, without a tougher heat shield and likely different shaped capsule, would cause it to burn up. It's a non-starter. There's a good reason the concepts for Russia's next generation capsule (which it has been promising for many years), looks like Apollo.

The US is very enthusiastic with partnership with India. It's mostly interested in cost savings.

The only real peer of NASA though is the ESA, and the Orion reflects that. THey bring tangible things to the table.



In this case, they turned the ATV into the Service Module for Orion, saving the US billions of dollars. Also the ATV was always envisioned as a service module for an eventual European launch vehicle, so in a way, it is fulfilling its long intended purpose.




Oh and just to put things to scale:



Soyuz (and Shenzhou) are pip-squeaks compared to Orion. Hell the currently serving SpaceX Dragon while not man-rated (though in theory, if we taped somebody to a wall, they'd be fine) dwarf them. Russia and China's space vehicles are simply not big enough for beyond LEO missions.

[Logwyn]

No. The US and ESA have invested significant resources, and have an enormous technological lead.

What does the rest of the world have to offer? What do they tangibly bring to the table? Does Argentina have secret expertise in thrusters? Does Turkey posses a secret means of energy generation?

This mostly comes down to investment. If other countries want to partner with NASA, the offers always been there. They just need to put down the cold, hard cash to do so, and it is an enormous amount of cash for something that, make no mistake is certainly well beyond the scope of the responsibility of meat-and-potatoes government. It is late 2017. The ISS was originally supposed to be deorbited next year (now it will be 2024 or 2028... it should really be 2024). And the Russians STILL have not launched their major scientific segment, Nauka.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauka_(ISS_module)

Maybe it'll launch in mid 2018. It probably won't. The only reason it even has a space station to fly to is because the ISS got a stay of execution. Meanwhile the US segement has been finished for years, and that's with the Shuttles being grounded for years after Columbia, and a major recession.

The ISS program has been deeply complicated in itself, in no small part because Russia can't afford to follow through on its own promises in a timely manner.

- - - Updated - - -



It would look something like this (actual name now is Deep Space Gateway)


And it would be built like this:



What is the purpose of this? Look at that schedule image above. How many flights do you see? 4... EM-2, EM-3, EM-4 and EM-5 all build it. For comparison a non-nuclear Mars Transit Vehicle would take 11 flights to construct. A nuclear vehicle would take 9. The SLS is big, but a Mars Transit Vehicle is enormous (though still, smaller than the ISS in terms of mass).

The Mars Transit Vehicle to be economical would need to be partially reusable. It ferries a crew there and back, then gets refueled, refurbished, and sent back with a new crew. This means that systems would need to operate for a very long period of time, without easy access to Earth, and in a higher radiation environment. This is why the Gateway platform exists. To be a proof of concept and prototype of sorts, of the Mars Transit Vehicle. The actual MTV would be roughly three times the size, with a large propulsion module.

Also one proposed part of the Gateway platform, if it is put in lunar orbit (as opposed to L-2), is that it could perhaps have a reusable simple lunar lander, that would function essentially, as a no frills elevator to a permanent base on the Moon. However putting it in Lunar orbit, rather than L-2, makes it less useful for a potential Mars mission.

Space makes you choose.

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