Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Moon NASA

NASA Announces First Commercial Partner For A Space Station Orbiting The Moon (arstechnica.com) 36

Posted by EditorDavid from the we-choose-to-go-to-the-moon dept.
"NASA has chosen its first commercial partner for a proposed space station, known as the Lunar Gateway, to be built near the Moon," reports Ars Technica: On Thursday, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said Maxar Technologies would build the first component of the Gateway -- the power and propulsion element. Like the name suggests, it will provide electricity to the Gateway and help move it around. "This time when we go to the Moon, we're actually going to stay," Bridenstine said in making the announcement... Under NASA's current plans to land humans on the Moon by 2024, this is where astronauts will launch to from Earth before climbing aboard pre-positioned landers to take them down to the lunar surface....

The contract announced Thursday is worth a maximum of $375 million. Intriguingly, Maxar said Blue Origin and Draper will join the team in designing, building, and operating the spacecraft. Such a partnership raises the possibility that the power and propulsion element, which will weigh about 5 tons fully fueled, could be launched on Blue Origin's New Glenn rocket. During a teleconference with media, Maxar's Mike Gold said the company would choose a commercial rocket for the power and propulsion element launch in the next 12 to 18 months...

The station will use solar electric propulsion to maintain its orbit and have the ability to maneuver into other orbits around the Moon. Before humans visit the Gateway in 2024, the space agency plans to add a small "habitat" module.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Announces First Commercial Partner For A Space Station Orbiting The Moon More

NASA Announces First Commercial Partner For A Space Station Orbiting The Moon

Comments Filter:
  • what ? they still need fuel, right ?

    • what ? they still need fuel, right ?

      No, they need reaction mass. Not quite the same thing, since you can design a solar electric system that uses rocks for reaction mass, if you wanted to.

      • Yes, but you need the rocks. If its an orbital station, you would need to bring the rocks up from the moon - which is possible, but pretty tricky. You would need some sort of rail gun on the moon, then some sort of catcher craft to circularize the orbit. Ion drive sounds a lot easier for the low delta-V required for station keeping.

    • Why are so many people unable to comprehend that electricity = energy = fuel?

      It isn't actually difficult or complicated.

      Let me guess, when you talk about "science" you use the word impossible a lot, right?

      Did you know the explosions make sound in space, because an explosion is a localized expansion of gas, which will continue expanding?

      • Because its not that simple.
        The momentum transferred to a rocket goes as M*V where V is the exhaust velocity of the rocket. The energy required goes as 0.5 * M * V^2 , so the energy per momentum ratio is 0.5*V.

        Higher exhaust velocity rockets are less efficient in energy use. (this is why jet propelled cars would be very inefficient). OTOH, the ration of momentum to mass goes as V, so higher exhaust velocity rockets use less propellant mass.

        You could collect sunlight and create a laser beam to propel

        • This is exactly the idiocy I was talking about.

          You're confused. The rocket equation applies to rockets, don't conflate it with the conservation of energy. There is no natural law that says the "you can only convert energy to motion using the rocket equation." That's not a real thing, it is just an idiocy that neckbeards fall into over and over again even when NASA scolds them and starts using a real drive that doesn't use the rocket equation at all.

          You blather about exhaust, but that formula is only useful

          • What mechanism are you thinking of? NASA did some work with currents reacting against the earth's magnetic field, but it wasn't practial. EM drive was debunked

            • If by "debunked" you mean, built and currently in operation.

              The shit show over whatever the mechanism actually is does not matter here. It is clearly not a rocket, and it clearly functions to create motion without any sort of rocket equation.

              The non-disputed facts about the device: It isn't a rocket. And it works.

              • EM drive: Its a very easy measurement to get wrong because you are looking at tiny forces with very large power changes, even micro-radian tilts to the laboratory floor would mimic this. Was eventually tracked to RF cables heating. I can't find the reference right now (i'm out of the country and don't have access to journals right now).

                If it had worked the drive would have violated conservation of momentum and energy: Imagine a thought experiment building a pinwheel of these devices rotating at near the s

                • Complete bullshit, the device works, "conservation of momentum and energy" isn't invoked because it doesn't use the rocket equation, so stop trying to wave it around.

                  It is not rational to continue to disbelieve that the device works simply because some people dispute the theoretical mechanism. People who have a hypothesis and build a working device don't need a "justification" at all, it is the people who dispute the mechanism that need to prove a better answer as to why the experiment succeeds. Simply repe

                  • See for example
                    https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]
                    (though there is a typeo,, the 40dB attenuator is 4 order of magnitude not 5 in power and 2 in voltage. There are other papers as well, but I'm too lazy to find them.

                    Conservation of energy - this is the key:. Imagine that I put any sort of force producing device on a pinwheel, and spin the pinwheel so that the edge is moving near C. The power produced will be roughly F * C. So if you can produce force without expending fuel, with less power than that yo

  • This is just the station keeping motor. No life supports, no crew habitat, no docking port for ships. You definately want somewhere to tie up your reusable lunar lander, to prevent it being lost or colliding with your station. With the light gravity you can easily build a single stage to orbit reusable lander and really drive down the cost of getting to the moon. You could also add an orbital ring to the moon and eliminate most of the cost of landing and launch from the moon. Can't wait to see what the

  • As in, no money for this.

  • The airline industry has solved this with Hub to Hub models. Why does Nasa want to give up a perfectly good hub in NEO - the ISS and build a remote hub around the moon. Why not use both hubs?
    Have Astronauts fly up to the ISS in Crew Dragon capsules.
    Than send up the Earth-Moon Spaceship (this can be reusable as there is very little stress in flying from Eart to Moon and Back)
    Have the astronauts transfer at the ISS hub from the puddle Jumper Crew Dragon to the Long haul Spaceship .
    Fly this spaceship to the Mo

    • Probably a reluctance to have Russia in particular involved in Moon and Mars projects in any way. Additionally ISS is getting on in years. I don't believe it was slated for a service life past about 2020 anyway (haven't looked it up, remember a few things). With systems like FH and BFR, it's entirely unnecessary to pause in LEO, when there will be a station in a much shallower gravity well just as available.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        That and they have to find a use for Orion.

        Since the plan is rushed they won't start this way, but it might be a good idea to build a two of everything that's going to form the Lunar Gateway. The duplicate modules will be much cheaper, and they could be assembled in LEO to create an ISS replacement.

        There are a lot of advantages to having station-to-station transfers. Plus the ship you're spending a few days getting to the moon in could be bigger, and it would be an actual spaceship!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ghoul ( 157158 )

        If ISS is old a replacement can be built. Trying to keep the Russians out of it is silly. If the Russians are kept out of the US project they will join the Chines one.

  • I realize he's not an actual scientist, but Bridenstine created a very solid plan titled American Space Renaissance Act [congress.gov] back in 2015. The idea of the Lunar Gateway comes from Next Generation Space Stations [nss.org], and is part of the plan to eventually decommission the ISS before it falls apart. I wish I could find his original PDF on the ASRA, it was pretty awesome.

    He's a young(ish) guy who has a really tight and amazing vision for future space. Honestly, reading over his ASRA pdf made me feel like I was readin

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close