New Problem for NASA's 'Lunar Gateway': Corrosion in Two Modules Caused by Supplier (arstechnica.com) 34
In March, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman announced that the moon-orbiting "Lunar Gateway" space station was being "paused" to focus instead of missions to the moon's surface. And Ars Technica agrees that the project was essentially "spending billions of dollars to make it more difficult to reach the lunar surface and faced the prospect of watching Chinese astronauts wander around on the Moon from orbit instead of being there themselves."
"But this week, we learned another reason that Gateway is going away, and it's pretty shocking." During testimony before the US House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Isaacman faced questions about NASA's budget... He then publicly confirmed rumors (reported last month by Ars) that there is corrosion in both the HALO [Habitation and Logistics Outpost] and I-HAB modules of the Gateway. "The only two habitable volumes that were delivered — both were corroded," Isaacman said. "And that's unfortunate because it would have delayed, probably beyond 2030, the application of Gateway...."
In a statement, Northrop confirmed the issue as well. "Using NASA-approved processes, Northrop Grumman is completing repairs to HALO after a manufacturing irregularity," a company spokesperson told Ars. "We expect to complete repairs by the end of the third quarter. HALO can still be repurposed for any mission, and it's the most mature technology to support a deep space or lunar habitat." By referring to a "manufacturing irregularity," Northrop answered the central mystery here: how corrosion could appear in both modules. This is because a French-Italian space and defense company, Thales Alenia Space, built the primary structure of HALO for Northrop Grumman. The module was delivered from Italy to the United States about a year ago
Thales is a powerhouse of the European space industry. It built several pressurized modules of the International Space Station, and it's working with Axiom Space to build its commercial space station. The company also had a big piece of the Lunar Gateway in addition to HALO, developing the I-HAB module and a future communications and refueling module known as ESPRIT... After the issue was discovered, the European Space Agency established a "tiger team" to investigate. "Based on the investigation and available data, the corrosion issue was understood to be technically manageable and did not constitute a showstopper for I-HAB, which was, in any case, in better conditions than HALO from [a] corrosion point of view," the spokesperson said...
After publication of this story on Friday, Axiom Space confirmed that it has also experienced corrosion issues. In a statement, the company said: "Axiom Space has experienced a similar phenomenon with the first module; we are leveraging the expertise of NASA and Thales Alenia Space to address the issue. Module 1 is on track to launch in 2028."
"But this week, we learned another reason that Gateway is going away, and it's pretty shocking." During testimony before the US House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Isaacman faced questions about NASA's budget... He then publicly confirmed rumors (reported last month by Ars) that there is corrosion in both the HALO [Habitation and Logistics Outpost] and I-HAB modules of the Gateway. "The only two habitable volumes that were delivered — both were corroded," Isaacman said. "And that's unfortunate because it would have delayed, probably beyond 2030, the application of Gateway...."
In a statement, Northrop confirmed the issue as well. "Using NASA-approved processes, Northrop Grumman is completing repairs to HALO after a manufacturing irregularity," a company spokesperson told Ars. "We expect to complete repairs by the end of the third quarter. HALO can still be repurposed for any mission, and it's the most mature technology to support a deep space or lunar habitat." By referring to a "manufacturing irregularity," Northrop answered the central mystery here: how corrosion could appear in both modules. This is because a French-Italian space and defense company, Thales Alenia Space, built the primary structure of HALO for Northrop Grumman. The module was delivered from Italy to the United States about a year ago
Thales is a powerhouse of the European space industry. It built several pressurized modules of the International Space Station, and it's working with Axiom Space to build its commercial space station. The company also had a big piece of the Lunar Gateway in addition to HALO, developing the I-HAB module and a future communications and refueling module known as ESPRIT... After the issue was discovered, the European Space Agency established a "tiger team" to investigate. "Based on the investigation and available data, the corrosion issue was understood to be technically manageable and did not constitute a showstopper for I-HAB, which was, in any case, in better conditions than HALO from [a] corrosion point of view," the spokesperson said...
After publication of this story on Friday, Axiom Space confirmed that it has also experienced corrosion issues. In a statement, the company said: "Axiom Space has experienced a similar phenomenon with the first module; we are leveraging the expertise of NASA and Thales Alenia Space to address the issue. Module 1 is on track to launch in 2028."
Northrop answered the central mystery here: (Score:2)
"By referring to a "manufacturing irregularity," Northrop answered the central mystery here: how corrosion could appear in both modules. This is because a French-Italian space and defense company, Thales Alenia Space, built the primary structure of HALO for Northrop Grumman."
But then I am sure everyone has already been paid so who cares why defective products were delivered.
Sometimes the subcontracting is political (Score:1)
Who knew cutting corners due to reduced budgets would have consequences? This is exactly why doors were falling out of Boeing planes. Sub contracting out to save a buck.
Sometimes the subcontracting is political. The project must be an International effort.
Re: Northrop answered the central mystery here: (Score:2)
Not just paid, paid time and a half. But don't worry they'll keep writing invoices since they need to work on it well into Q3.
Re:Northrop answered the central mystery here: (Score:5, Informative)
While you had to read further on and also between the lines, they did answer the question of how both modules had corrosion.
The structure element of both the HALO and I-HAB modules were built by one sub-contractor: Thales Alenia Space. And the source of the corrosion came from that one sub contractor.
Agreed that at first I thought the "central question" was how did it happen, but apparently the "central question" in this context was how more than one piece of hardware have corrosion. By identifying the single source for the corrosion on both modules, then can then figure out the how it came about and why it wasn't uncovered in the manufacturing process.
I have fairly low standards for journalism, and this one is, sadly, below what I'd expect. I wouldn't rule out this being written mostly by a LLM. I did watch the part of the hearing where Isaacman mentioned the corrosion, and it didn't seem to a big deal during the hearing, as in "stop the press!" type revelation. And the fact that its being repaired seems to indicate it didn't compromise the entire structure where it would need to be thrown onto the scrap heap. This could be just the tip of the iceberg of issues with Gateway that would have pushed it well past 2030.
I would say though that removing the Gateway element from the moon landing goal actually makes things simpler by removing the "rest stop" if you will from the picture. Apollo didn't need something like Gateway to land on the moon. Just skip the rest stop and go directly to your destination. And if you don't need to stop at the rest stop, don't build the rest stop at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Turns out, blaming stuff on the dirty foreigners is quite trendy in America as of late.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems this may have been built in Italy.
Anyone who owned a 20th century Fiat knows all about corrosion from the factory.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you also compare the construction quality of the Space Shuttle with a Ford Pinto? Because that's what you just did.
Be prepared (Score:1)
This is why NASA always packs a tin of Bondo with the mission supplies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait... (Score:1)
Alloy exposed to salty, humid sea air (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your research. I was in the process of looking up more info when I came across your comment. I'll criticize the Slashdot editors a bit here because TFS has ZERO technical details on the corrosion problem. But to be fair to them, even the Ars article is uncharacteristically light on technical detail.
is it just my perception, or is there a striking trend even in the tech press toward dumbing things down instead of giving readers an opportunity to learn more and to extend their grasp of technical an
Re: (Score:2)
is it just my perception, or is there a striking trend even in the tech press toward dumbing things down instead of giving readers an opportunity to learn more and to extend their grasp of technical and scientific matters? Stretching our minds is good, and details are important, dammit!
it is not your imagination. I think it's that this article like many of its ilk are basically a summary of a press release or a few competing ones and a quick smattering of context from a web search, but without much independent further investigation.
Probably it's a throughput and tight turnaround. Definitely nothing like old school Scientific American or Nat Geo articles, but those were magazines on monthly scale and even economist, etc were weekly whereas even these secondary articles are just a few
Re:Alloy exposed to salty, humid sea air (Score:5, Insightful)
Once upon a time a science journalist would have some background in science, a business journalist would have some background (or at least education) in business, a technology journalist etc. Those days are long gone, in the modern era having done any honest work for a living is seen as a 'resume stain' (the same is true of corporate executives).
Re: (Score:2)
One has to wonder why nobody saw this coming. Everywhere this thing is going to be before it's in space (Florida or South Texas) is humid and salty.
I'm going to call bullshit (Score:1)
Claim: "The alloy at the center of the Gateway controversy is Aluminum-Lithium 2195"
True: 2195 is sometimes used in space hardware.
WTF: A web search ("habitation and logistics outpost" "2195") turns up nothing.
Claim: "Exposure to salty, humid sea air is a worst-case scenario for this alloy."
True: Salt spray induces corrosion in many metals, aluminum alloys included. 2195 has poor corrosion resistance.
WTF:
* It's not like they left this thing sitting out on deck while crossing the ocean.
* Here's a picture of [arstechnica.com]
Re: Alloy exposed to salty, humid sea air (Score:2)
"Jobs Program" (Score:2)
"Don't worry about NASA spending," they say, "it's a jobs program and all the money goes back to Congressional districts."
> French-Italian space and defense company
What total horseshit this whole thing is. The only district getting paid is the place where the MIC C-suites have their McMansions.
They can't even seal their shipping containers as well as Chinese consumer goods manufacturers loading up container ships.
Next time get Walmart to handle shipping. I haven't seen corroded goods since I got a $9 to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Be interesting to see what some actual reporting finds out here because it just seems so silly if this is true. I would imagine considering the cost and time it takes to make these things that it would be shipped in atmosphere controlled environment.
If you can afford to build it you can afford to make a shipping enclosure for it, something that is not at all uncommon for high value goods. If you are relying on the shipper to maintain the condition of your goods then you've kinda already lost.
Re: (Score:2)
TFA has a paragraph buried in the middle that suggests it's more complicated than that..
“Following the identification of corrosion on HALO, a comprehensive investigation was promptly initiated,” a European Space Agency spokesperson said. “Preliminary findings indicate that the issue likely results from a combination of factors, including aspects of the forging process, surface treatment, and material properties.”
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh ok thank you, that tracks a lot more. About what I would expect but not nearly as salacious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
aye-talian (Score:2)
I-talian fancy vehicles are known to spend most of their time in the shop.
Easy solution (Score:2)
Corrosion resistant components are extra-cost option, but come standard on the HALO Pro and I-HAB Pro (and up) models, a NGC spokesperson noted. The Touring and Sport models also come with wood and leather interior trim.
The bigger problem was the Gateway idea itself (Score:4, Informative)
The Apollo program had no need for a moon-orbiting space station. The Saturn V launch vehicle, and the CSM and LM were properly designed and sized for the planned missions, and those planned missions were scoped to be what was possible with the tech of the day. Three people were going, so the CSM was sized for three. Two people were landing, so the LM was sized for two. The tech of the day could not withstand an approx 340 hour lunar night, so all landings would be etirely during lunar day. Fuel requirements were too high (thus would have driven a need for larger launcher) for big orbital plane changes, so all landings were in the lunar equatorial regions. The list of requirements and constraints was insane, but the systems were properly aligned with them.
The post-shuttle space program had NONE of that. It was primarily driven by the Bush[43] admin running back to space capsules under parachutes (forgetting that NASA did shuttles in-part as a running-away-from-parachutes play after Apollo13 and Apollio15) out of political fear post-Columbia while being unwilling to spend the money for a 2nd generation re-usable space plane. The Orion capsule was set to both support deep space ops AND replace shuttle for servicing ISS crew rotations, so it's sized for four on extended missions, but SEVEN people for short low Earth orbit ops. People forget that one of its jobs was to replace the seven-person shuttles - this latter option will never happen because we now use commercial Dragons (also initially sized for 7, but only used for 4) for that purpose. This made Orion big and HEAVY. Orion's weight was a huge driver in the Ares I debacle, which contributed to the downfall of the Bush era "Constellation" program. When the Obama admin tried to kill the Bush program and shift NASA manned spaceflight money to "education", a bi-partisan revolt in congress wrote the SLS into LAW in 2010 (which is why the giant orange rocket is nick-named the "Senate Launch System"). The rocket design spec was specified in that law! The congress basically mandated a jobs program for people in certain districts who'd worked on the shuttle program. Note: at this point, neither the SLS launcher nor the Orion capsule was scaled for any particular use. As part of the Constellation-to-SLS transition, the very-capable upper-stage powered by two new derivatives of the Apollo J-2 engines was cancelled (thereby crippling the launcher) with the function slightly replaced by a modified Delta-IV upper-stage (sized to boost unmanned satellites) called the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage. Then the US-built service module for Orion was cancelled, and a deal was worked with Europe to have them provide a service module (partly as compensation for their discontinuation of cargo service to the ISS and partly as buy-in for their participation in future exploration missions). The Euro service module is derived from their old ISS cargo hauler (the ATV) and uses one Space Shuttle OMS engine from the US as its big engine; this is NOT a huge, capable, SM like the one of the Apollo era with their big fuel tanks and giant SPS engines. The result is that the SLS-SM-Orion combo is not capable of an Apollo-style mission. There's simply no ability to put Orion into LLO (low-lunar-orbit) and then get it home from there. The solution was a hack... send Orion to a very elliptical NRHO (Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit) where a lander is pre-positioned, and have the lander return there. This requires a far better lander than Apollo had, but happily it's been decades and we have much better tech now. The Gateway is the glue in that scheme, becoming a hub where landers can be stationed and maintained (solar power works in lunar orbits, but not on the surface where there are those long lunar nights). The whole scheme would be a joke as a band-aid for an improperly-scaled rocket and spacecraft, but it was able to provide one significant benefit that was a good sales point: unlike Apollo, a super-capable lander and a NRHO rendezvous made lunar orbit plane changes reasonable, and thus access to the full lunar surface (particularly polar regions) possible.
As long as nobody came along and upset the political and public relations applecart, the Gateway seemed in the minds of many to be a critical enabling tech for that new lunar polar activity, making a permanent lunar base plausible with current tech (Spots on crater rims at the lunar south pole never see sunset). Then came the new NASA admin, who's VERY unusual - a young computers and aviation entrepreneur, NOT a career politician/bureaucrat, who paid Musk to send him into space, TWICE (trusts "newspace" without the traditional "only government way work" attitude). He's apparently asked some basic questions as part of an effort to re-ignite the old NASA attitude of risk-taking and exploration, and one of those was this: If the moon return depends on Earth-orbit re-fuelling of either a lander or an Earth departure stage (which the current plans DO) then we're already dependent upon that working no matter what... so if THAT's the case, why not dock Orion to the Starship lander (for example) in Earth orbit rather than lunar orbit, then have all the energy required (Starship being HUGE and sized for Mars missions) to get Orion into any low lunar orbit at any lunar lattitude, with Orion's mini SM reserved solely for the return home from LLO? Oh, and the crew gets the benefit of all that space in the lander on the out-bound trip too. POOF! There goes the "need" for Gateway.
Gateway was simply a stop-gap enabler/relic of a poorly designed and scaled POLITICAL launch vehicle and capsule. It was the "self-licking ice cream cone" of what would eventually become the Artemis program out of the ashes of Constellation+Obama. With the introduction of TWO new commercial super-heavy launch systems (SpaceX's SuperHeavy+Starship and Blue Origin's New-Glenn, particularly with the newly-announced size-up) and the future options for supplementation from all the other new rockets coming along, the need for things like Gateway is simply likely to evaporate.
Happily, the power and propulsion module is apparently being re-purposed to be both a useful mission and a demonstration of a nuclear-electric spacecraft concept - The module WAS designed to provide super-efficient thrust from an electric Zenon thruster powered by solar panels, but will go to Mars with an enhancement: a nuclear generator for the electricity after departing Earth orbit. It'll be a great tech demonstrator mission, while carrying newer helicopters to Mars.
Let me guess (Score:2)
They don't say *what* the manufacturing irregularity was.
My late ex, who was an engineer at the Cape for 17 years, told me about the Italian module for Station that showed up, and had to be returned to be fixed. Her degree was as a metalurgist, and the connections where a different metal than the base module, and the two metals linked would corrode.
This is why you make schedules for your project (Score:2)
For all the nitwits who say just release things when they are doe, this is what happens when you just release things when they are done.
Deadlines are not when someone literally falls dead, but they are coordination points. They align dependencies, and identify not only when things are coming in late but also when they are early. If your inputs are available early, you have wasted resources to get them done and risk having those inputs degrade.
Nothing says schedules can't be changed, but the changes MUST be