US plans to build and man a Lunar Gateway Platform by 2024

VP Pence announced the plan to put a manned crew on a Lunar Gateway Platform by 2024.

VP Pence repeated of US policy to return the moon and explore Mars.

VP Pence still supports the wasteful Space Launch System.

The early concept for the LOP-G is still evolving, and includes at least the following component modules:

The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) will be used to generate electricity for the space station and its solar electric propulsion. It is targeting launch on a commercial vehicle in 2022.
The Cislunar Habitation Module can be used for a maximum 21 days habitation. It features a docking port for the Orion spacecraft. This module will be sent on the Exploration Mission 3 (EM3).
The Gateway Logistics Module will be used for experiments and logistics on board the space station. The equipment includes a robotic arm, which will be built by the Canadian Space Agency. It will be sent during Exploration Mission 4 (EM4).
The Gateway Airlock Module will be used for performing extravehicular activities outside the space station and will be the berth for the Deep Space Transport. It will be sent on the Exploration Mission 5 (EM5)

Vice President Mike Pence visited NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston on Aug. 23, 2018, to discuss the future of space exploration and other elements of human spaceflight. During his trip to the Johnson Space Center, the Vice President also toured the laboratory housing the moon rocks retrieved during the Apollo program’s lunar missions and extraterrestrial samples from other uncrewed sample return missions, as well as the Sonny Carter Training Facility (Neutral Buoyancy Lab) where astronauts practice spacewalking techniques they will employ when they fly in space.

30 thoughts on “US plans to build and man a Lunar Gateway Platform by 2024”

  1. Could have sworn I already left this comment. If they really want a manned station orbiting the Moon, they should just offer prize money, and remove the bureaucratic obstacles. (Such as BS refusals to man rate the Dragon capsule if it has capabilities NASA doesn’t want.) Given cash on delivery, I’m quite confident SpaceX and Bigelow could deliver a manned Lunar station by 2020, not 2024. I doubt they’d even break into a sweat doing it.

    Reply
  2. Could have sworn I already left this comment.If they really want a manned station orbiting the Moon they should just offer prize money and remove the bureaucratic obstacles. (Such as BS refusals to man rate the Dragon capsule if it has capabilities NASA doesn’t want.) Given cash on delivery I’m quite confident SpaceX and Bigelow could deliver a manned Lunar station by 2020 not 2024. I doubt they’d even break into a sweat doing it.

    Reply
  3. This is essentially business as usuall. NASA is doing nonsense and wasets money, there is no will to do antyhing of significance; and given politics of NASA and US perhaps that is…. the only logical solution. Continue with the direction once taken, even if it doesn’t make sense, because any attempt at stirring the water will create backlash and will be stopped by next administration. Instead steady direction is maintained,, and in the meantime private business will do exciting and useful things, hopefully by 2024 complately overtaking NASA goals and rendering its plan obsolete, allowing its engineers to be laid off to private companies where their talents will be put to use, not wasted on futility. Of course many would say it would be better if NASA was doing something useful, not wasteful. But every time this was tried-dream was killed with even bigger stone. Its perhaps wise to allow this dinosaur to die finally, run its course. It should have died at the end of Moon missions, when it outlived its purpose. The way it is build, this entire institution-is wired to moon race and nothing else. Thus it requires unlimited resources, fixed goal that is not practical, and uses solutions optimized for winning the race-not actually being sustainable or achieving you know, anything of substance. Its like demanding NASCAR or MMA federation to teach people how to live healthy lives and drive safely.

    Reply
  4. This is essentially business as usuall. NASA is doing nonsense and wasets money there is no will to do antyhing of significance; and given politics of NASA and US perhaps that is…. the only logical solution. Continue with the direction once taken even if it doesn’t make sense because any attempt at stirring the water will create backlash and will be stopped by next administration. Instead steady direction is maintained and in the meantime private business will do exciting and useful things hopefully by 2024 complately overtaking NASA goals and rendering its plan obsolete allowing its engineers to be laid off to private companies where their talents will be put to use not wasted on futility. Of course many would say it would be better if NASA was doing something useful not wasteful. But every time this was tried-dream was killed with even bigger stone. Its perhaps wise to allow this dinosaur to die finally run its course. It should have died at the end of Moon missions when it outlived its purpose. The way it is build this entire institution-is wired to moon race and nothing else. Thus it requires unlimited resources fixed goal that is not practical and uses solutions optimized for winning the race-not actually being sustainable or achieving you know anything of substance. Its like demanding NASCAR or MMA federation to teach people how to live healthy lives and drive safely.

    Reply
  5. Sulfur12 – You are clearly not from the US and haven’t a clue what you are talking about. I suspect you are being subversive for either personal or nationalistic reasons.

    Reply
  6. Sulfur12 – You are clearly not from the US and haven’t a clue what you are talking about. I suspect you are being subversive for either personal or nationalistic reasons.

    Reply
  7. Unless you’re planning to do something on the Moon, like mining or at least scientific study, there’s no point in landing. It takes extra delta-v, and doesn’t add any advantages. “covering your living quarters with a couple of meters of handy regolith” requires heavy dirt-moving equipment, which isn’t going to happen in a NASA program anytime soon. They’ll have to make do with the shielding the hull provides. On the contrary, landing adds *dis*advantages (or rather, staying in orbit adds advantages): – It’s much easier to land and return a small lander if you do need to get to the surface, than to land a large habitat. – Doing that, the lander can access many different points on the surface, whereas a landed habitat is stuck where it landed. – Similarly, an orbital station can observe and study a much larger section of the Moon. – 14 day darkness on the surface, ~1 hour in orbit. – Any future missions that go through the Lunar station can dock in orbit. Landing and relaunching would be much less practical (extra delta-v etc). But I agree that this adds little beyond ISS. A closer view of the Moon for various measurements, publicity, and little else. Without a fuel depot I see little point to stop by the Moon.

    Reply
  8. If you are going to expend the delta-v to put a multi-ton facility into lunar orbit, why, for the love of all things sane, not go the extra increment and actually soft-land the package on the Moon? It seems to me that there is remarkably little you get for going to lunar orbit that you can’t do on the ISS already. Plus, once you are beyond the Van Allen Belts, you have to worry about stuff like cosmic ray exposure more, where if you land on the Moon, covering your living quarters with a couple of meters of handy regolith will address that problem quite nicely. This seems an exercise in pointless incoherence that, unfortunately, is all too characteristic of NASA in its current incarnation.

    Reply
  9. Unless you’re planning to do something on the Moon like mining or at least scientific study there’s no point in landing. It takes extra delta-v and doesn’t add any advantages. covering your living quarters with a couple of meters of handy regolith”” requires heavy dirt-moving equipment”” which isn’t going to happen in a NASA program anytime soon. They’ll have to make do with the shielding the hull provides.On the contrary landing adds *dis*advantages (or rather staying in orbit adds advantages):- It’s much easier to land and return a small lander if you do need to get to the surface than to land a large habitat.- Doing that the lander can access many different points on the surface whereas a landed habitat is stuck where it landed.- Similarly an orbital station can observe and study a much larger section of the Moon.- 14 day darkness on the surface ~1 hour in orbit.- Any future missions that go through the Lunar station can dock in orbit. Landing and relaunching would be much less practical (extra delta-v etc).But I agree that this adds little beyond ISS. A closer view of the Moon for various measurements publicity”” and little else. Without a fuel depot I see little point to stop by the Moon.”””

    Reply
  10. If you are going to expend the delta-v to put a multi-ton facility into lunar orbit why for the love of all things sane not go the extra increment and actually soft-land the package on the Moon? It seems to me that there is remarkably little you get for going to lunar orbit that you can’t do on the ISS already. Plus once you are beyond the Van Allen Belts you have to worry about stuff like cosmic ray exposure more where if you land on the Moon covering your living quarters with a couple of meters of handy regolith will address that problem quite nicely. This seems an exercise in pointless incoherence that unfortunately is all too characteristic of NASA in its current incarnation.

    Reply
  11. and where did you come out from. I dont remember you being here 8 years ago. My views did not changed since then and many NBF old timers agree with me.

    Reply
  12. and where did you come out from. I dont remember you being here 8 years ago. My views did not changed since then and many NBF old timers agree with me.

    Reply
  13. If all goes well, the swan song of big government space projects, soon to be transitioned to paying for using just what commercial providers will have, using rockers and ships which will soon surpass any government cost-plus boondoggle. Oh, and it will also work as a source of funding for the next generation of launchers and interplanetary transportation. So it’s all good.

    Reply
  14. If all goes well the swan song of big government space projects soon to be transitioned to paying for using just what commercial providers will have using rockers and ships which will soon surpass any government cost-plus boondoggle.Oh and it will also work as a source of funding for the next generation of launchers and interplanetary transportation. So it’s all good.

    Reply
  15. Unless you’re planning to do something on the Moon, like mining or at least scientific study, there’s no point in landing. It takes extra delta-v, and doesn’t add any advantages. “covering your living quarters with a couple of meters of handy regolith” requires heavy dirt-moving equipment, which isn’t going to happen in a NASA program anytime soon. They’ll have to make do with the shielding the hull provides.

    On the contrary, landing adds *dis*advantages (or rather, staying in orbit adds advantages):
    – It’s much easier to land and return a small lander if you do need to get to the surface, than to land a large habitat.
    – Doing that, the lander can access many different points on the surface, whereas a landed habitat is stuck where it landed.
    – Similarly, an orbital station can observe and study a much larger section of the Moon.
    – 14 day darkness on the surface, ~1 hour in orbit.
    – Any future missions that go through the Lunar station can dock in orbit. Landing and relaunching would be much less practical (extra delta-v etc).

    But I agree that this adds little beyond ISS. A closer view of the Moon for various measurements, publicity, and little else. Without a fuel depot I see little point to stop by the Moon.

    Reply
  16. If you are going to expend the delta-v to put a multi-ton facility into lunar orbit, why, for the love of all things sane, not go the extra increment and actually soft-land the package on the Moon? It seems to me that there is remarkably little you get for going to lunar orbit that you can’t do on the ISS already. Plus, once you are beyond the Van Allen Belts, you have to worry about stuff like cosmic ray exposure more, where if you land on the Moon, covering your living quarters with a couple of meters of handy regolith will address that problem quite nicely. This seems an exercise in pointless incoherence that, unfortunately, is all too characteristic of NASA in its current incarnation.

    Reply
  17. Sulfur12 – You are clearly not from the US and haven’t a clue what you are talking about. I suspect you are being subversive for either personal or nationalistic reasons.

    Reply
  18. This is essentially business as usuall. NASA is doing nonsense and wasets money, there is no will to do antyhing of significance; and given politics of NASA and US perhaps that is…. the only logical solution. Continue with the direction once taken, even if it doesn’t make sense, because any attempt at stirring the water will create backlash and will be stopped by next administration. Instead steady direction is maintained,, and in the meantime private business will do exciting and useful things, hopefully by 2024 complately overtaking NASA goals and rendering its plan obsolete, allowing its engineers to be laid off to private companies where their talents will be put to use, not wasted on futility. Of course many would say it would be better if NASA was doing something useful, not wasteful. But every time this was tried-dream was killed with even bigger stone. Its perhaps wise to allow this dinosaur to die finally, run its course. It should have died at the end of Moon missions, when it outlived its purpose. The way it is build, this entire institution-is wired to moon race and nothing else. Thus it requires unlimited resources, fixed goal that is not practical, and uses solutions optimized for winning the race-not actually being sustainable or achieving you know, anything of substance. Its like demanding NASCAR or MMA federation to teach people how to live healthy lives and drive safely.

    Reply
  19. Could have sworn I already left this comment.

    If they really want a manned station orbiting the Moon, they should just offer prize money, and remove the bureaucratic obstacles. (Such as BS refusals to man rate the Dragon capsule if it has capabilities NASA doesn’t want.)

    Given cash on delivery, I’m quite confident SpaceX and Bigelow could deliver a manned Lunar station by 2020, not 2024. I doubt they’d even break into a sweat doing it.

    Reply
  20. If all goes well, the swan song of big government space projects, soon to be transitioned to paying for using just what commercial providers will have, using rockers and ships which will soon surpass any government cost-plus boondoggle.

    Oh, and it will also work as a source of funding for the next generation of launchers and interplanetary transportation. So it’s all good.

    Reply

Leave a Comment