Slashdot Mirror
Chinese Space Official Seems Unimpressed With NASA's Lunar Gateway (arstechnica.com)
schwit1 shares a report from Behind The Black: At a science workshop in Europe this week, Chinese space officials made it clear that they found the concept of NASA Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway (LOP-G) to be unimpressive and uninteresting. Moreover, they said that while it appears we will be delaying our landings on the Moon for at least a decade because of LOP-G, they will be focused on getting and building a research station on the surface, right off the bat.
[From a report via Ars Technica:] "Overall, [Pei Zhaoyu, who is deputy director of the Lunar Exploration and Space Program Center of the China National Space Administration], does not appear to be a fan of NASA's plan to build a deep space gateway, formally known as the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway, at a near-rectilinear halo orbit. Whereas NASA will focus its activities on this gateway away from the Moon, Pei said China will focus on a 'lunar scientific research station.' Another slide from Pei offered some thoughts on the gateway concept, which NASA intends to build out during the 2020s, delaying a human landing on the Moon until the end of the decade at the earliest. Pei does not appear to be certain about the scientific objectives of such a station, and the deputy director concludes that, from a cost-benefit standpoint, the gateway would have 'lost cost-effectiveness.'"
[From a report via Ars Technica:] "Overall, [Pei Zhaoyu, who is deputy director of the Lunar Exploration and Space Program Center of the China National Space Administration], does not appear to be a fan of NASA's plan to build a deep space gateway, formally known as the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway, at a near-rectilinear halo orbit. Whereas NASA will focus its activities on this gateway away from the Moon, Pei said China will focus on a 'lunar scientific research station.' Another slide from Pei offered some thoughts on the gateway concept, which NASA intends to build out during the 2020s, delaying a human landing on the Moon until the end of the decade at the earliest. Pei does not appear to be certain about the scientific objectives of such a station, and the deputy director concludes that, from a cost-benefit standpoint, the gateway would have 'lost cost-effectiveness.'"
Their longest manned flight was only 21 hours.
Call me when China puts people on the moon with 1960's rocket tech.
...they're kinda right, the LOP-G is just ISS in orbit around the moon, the real action is on and below the surface. NASA are looking at the Moon as simply a fuel station for their headlong rush to Mars, which, when you think about it, is simply a larger version of the moon wrapped in a toxic atmosphere of CO2. The Moon is the first stepping stone. We learn how to live there, we can live just about anywhere.
To pochuye ke inyalowda?
The U.S. Congress and NASA are dragged down by boondoggling and political favoritism, instead of focusing on putting men on the Moon. By the time the Lunar Gateway is finished the Chinese will be walking on the Moon and broadcasting their feats in Digital 4K UHD for all the world to see. This will be a huge blow to western morale and people will openly question our democratic system.
Yes, keep telling yourself that. Doesn't make it and more true
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
I'm not much of a China fan..
Anything which doesn't put "boots or bots on the ground" is superfluous unless absolutely needed for transit.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
I have to agree - I really don't even seen the point of a lunar gateway at all, at least not before there's a thriving lunar outpost getting lots of traffic. Exactly what value does a lunar space station offer? If there's a lunar outpost producing fuel or whatever, then yeah, an orbital station starts to be useful, you don't want to have to land to refuel for an interplanetary flight. But before then?
It's not going to help with building a lunar outpost - there's precious little to be gained by stopping in orbit on your way to/from the surface. At most you might want a refueling depot for the trip home, or just a BFR tanker ship. But even that's probably overkill - getting to the moon is the hard part, the return trip is almost all down hill.
A space station isn't that great for surveying - satellites are far superior and far cheaper. And there's no point in keeping supplies in orbit when they're only useful on the ground. And microgravity research doesn't care what it's orbiting, and the ISS has that covered. So what's a lunar gateway for?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
i am not a fan of the CHinese gov either.
However, I think that China has this right and that LOP-G is another boondoggle and is a huge waste of our money.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
NASA has to be excessively cautious in planning any manned program because of the political fallout they get after any accident. JFK was canny in making Apollo a quasi-military Cold War effort within which it was possible to take elevated levels of risk. Washington would be totally unable to repeat anything like this in today's political climate.
If we want a lunar base we will have to call in a certain South African entrepreneur or whichever commercial competitor can take the risks necessary do the job.
They are also the best way to develop the expertise to get all of our eggs out of one celestial basket.
So no, manned space programs are not obsolete.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
You've got to wonder what the motive is. I mean sure, the SLS is a boondoggle in progress with existing contracts (aka pork flow) that would have to be cut off. And in fairness, it's not actually obsolete until the BFR proves itself - SpaceX has done incredible things, but that's no guarantee of future successes.
But a "lunar gateway"? A lunar outpost would create at least as much pork, and actually involve doing something useful while they were at it. We've already got a space station, building another one around the moon doesn't seem to serve any purpose whatsoever.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Where's the profit? That's always the downfall of privatization. Lots of demand for launch services, so it's not surprising we have several private enterprises developing launch capability. But a lunar outpost? That's going to cost billions, and there'll probably be no return on investment whatsoever for decades - not until there's enough space activity to fuel demand for lots of raw materials in orbit, and enough industrial capability is established on the moon to provide it.
Plus there's not really much guarantee that there will be any first-mover advantage - the first attempts are going to be extremely dangerous and expensive, and nothing stops the next guy from poaching some of your experts and leapfrogging your capability once the path forward becomes clear.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Unfortunately you need the vision to care about the our species separate from yourself for that to matter. All the space colonies in the world won't do a damned thing for Earth, except offer inspiration and a route for a tiny percentage of the the best and brightest to jump ship.
Though I suppose if you consider yourself to be among the best and brightest, and think you can avoid being decrepit and useless by the time such colonies are established, then maybe you might imagine you'd benefit.
Heck, I'm hopeful that there'll be a demand for smart, hardworking old folks in the early years - it seems reasonable to assume most manual work will be done by telepresence robots anyway (what can't be automated completely), while the operators are safe inside, but close enough to eliminate light speed lag. So it shouldn't much matter how strong you are. And there's value in people with wisdom and experience under their belt - especially if they've already accepted their remaining life will be short, and don't mind shortening it further by being on the front lines of space colonization. Heck, a dismaying number of people die shortly after retiring - the sense of purpose in helping to build a dream might actually extend your life beyond what it would be in a safe and pointless retirement on Earth.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
In the United States, we are bogged down by scientists at the expense of engineers. Even too many of our engineers are acting like scientists--telling of why we can't do this or that. If they were acting like engineers, they'd be focused on how we can. Scientists are necessarily skeptical, by profession. Engineers need heed the findings of scientists but remain optimistic, regardless. An engineer will work with what is known and around what is not to achieve objectives. The more time an engineer has, the better the solution he/she can derive.
There is plenty to criticize China's space program on but they are right that a lunar orbiter does nothing toward establishment of a lunar station. It can be helpful in testing of methods for mining asteroids, as proposed. It is great for miscellaneous NASA science projects. But overall, it's a financial sinkhole..
On the other hand, the Moon is also going to be a financial sinkhole in most ways. There are very few resources for survival on the Moon, much less exploitable profit. Perhaps, helium 3 if we can develop nuclear reactors for it. That is something China claims to be after. The costs of a Moon base are going to be difficult to justify. The regolith is extremely abrasive, quickly tearing through fabrics in space suites. The lack of dust makes working in the light/dark but no grey in between very difficult. And there is very scant water ice.. There is really nothing on the Moon that could assist man's movement farther into space.
In contrast, is very rich in water and other resources like CO2, nitrogen, argon, and many easily accessible metals. Kilometers deep fresh water glaciers strip just north and south of the equatorial region. The regolith is soft--not abrasive. There is both wind and solar power available. You can easily make oxygen, work outside, collect iron, nickel, and various other metal ores. You can make methane or pvc plastics (CO2, water, and salts in the regolith). And the salts in the regolith of both plentiful and oxygen rich, useful for welding, explosives, or rocket fuel. Start with an inflatable habitat, cover it with regolith. Then melt out a castle in the kilometers deep glacier below..
The Moon holds the advantage of being close, so we can provide assistance when necessary. Mars is far but assistance is far less likely to be necessary. The Moon will require everything continuously resupplied. Mars only needs a foothold but resupply of various technologies could be good business. For example, sending rockets into orbit from Mars with various materials would be far easier than from Earth -- metals, plastics, water, even food.
That's one of the biggest draws to a Mars or Moon colony - all the radiation shielding you could want is just lying around on the surface, you just have to scoop it up and pour it over your habitat. Or dig down into it. Or maybe get lucky and find some old lava tubes that you just have to make airtight.
The Moon is small and close enough that a colony, once it's reached sustainability, could start exporting fuel and radiation shielding to orbit for a tiny fraction of the cost to get it from Earth.
Meanwhile, there's no particular need for serious radiation shielding in short-range ships, nor for propulsion in long range ships on regular transportation routes such as between Earth and Mars. Thanks to the "Interplanetary Transport Network" (essentially gravitational slingshot navigation) once you're in space you can get pretty much anywhere in the solar system while spending almost no energy - just a little bit of navigation thrust to fine-tune your path. Find a small, resource-rich asteroid, and start mining it while nudging it into a Mars Cycler orbit. Turn the mining tunnels into habitats behind you, and use short-range ships to get from it to either planet when you're passing by. Even something relatively tiny, like 1km across could contain a truly huge amount of space - 300 times the size of Disneyland with generous 5m ceilings, and without gravity there's no difference between walls, floors, and ceilings, so the useful space would actually be quite a bit larger than that.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Nobody thought there was a large market for launch services either, until the private sector came in and slashed cost below the wildest expectations of economists, as competition tends to do in every line of business. Each lowering of the price level has caused new demand to magically appear.
The purpose of LOP-G is to give SLS a reason to exist. Remember this is the "rocket to nowhere" we are talking about. In my opinion LOP-G can be built with the Falcon Heavy.