# Boeing suggests Deep Space Gateway for Mars missions



## Brian G Turner (Apr 4, 2017)

Boeing has suggested building a manned station which it names the Deep Space Gateway, on the other side of the moon, for staging missions to Mars:

Boeing details 'Deep Space Gateway' for Mars mission staging



> First, the “Deep Space Gateway”, a space station it's envisioned will be positioned in Cislunar space, which is to say in or beyond the orbit of the Moon rather than in Earth orbit. Boeing's developed a design for that facility it says could be hauled into place with just four SLS missions. NASA's fact sheet (PDF) for the SLS explains its cargo-carrying variants should have sufficient capacity to launch “a small deep-space habitat module” so we're guessing Boeing's singing from that hymn sheet with variation or two of its own.
> 
> ...
> 
> The Gateway would also be the staging point for the “Deep Space Transport vehicle” that would make the trek to Mars.









The cynic in me thinks this is more of a sales & marketing pitch than a serious science project. Still, it's an interesting concept to note.


----------



## Alexa (Apr 8, 2017)

Or they may have some fans of Star Trek among their staff and they really want to do it.


----------



## Cathbad (Apr 8, 2017)

I don't believe the science would be a problem. But the cost...!


----------



## REBerg (Apr 8, 2017)

Cathbad said:


> I don't believe the science would be a problem. But the cost...!


The cost is immaterial, Number One. Make it so!


----------



## Cathbad (Apr 8, 2017)

We'll see how much Boeing wants from the US to build it.  Perhaps an independent company will beat them to it, and merely charge for usage.


----------



## REBerg (Apr 8, 2017)

Cathbad said:


> We'll see how much Boeing wants from the US to build it.  Perhaps an independent company will beat them to it, and merely charge for usage.


Any means justifies the ends when it comes to getting off this planet.


----------



## Lumens (Apr 8, 2017)

I believe the biggest problem is dealing with radiation, at least it should be close to the top of their list. People getting sick and dying is not great for your reputation. Surely they must be aware of this...


----------



## Cathbad (Apr 8, 2017)

I think that may be why the art looks like it's behind the moon.


----------



## Alexa (Apr 8, 2017)

Oh, they will find the money. Don't forget there are others interested to be the first to explore whatever minerals could be found on Mars. Human on Mars is tomorrow's reality.


----------



## Parson (Apr 8, 2017)

At the very least this is the right track for solar system exploration. With the cost of getting out of earth's gravity well, any ship with today's technology is doomed to an incredibly long flight to Mars. Building and flying from outer space is the way to go!  (I would bet there's at least one Fredrick Pohl fan in the group.... "Gateway." I love the name.)


----------



## Overread (Apr 8, 2017)

It wouldn't surprise me if a private company or association of linked companies got there "first". Private international companies have a vast pool of wealth and resources and are not bound by the same needs to support things like education, infrastructure etc... that drains government budgets. 

Also whilst they have accountability they don't have to think in election year stretches; although if they've shareholders they do end up often thinking in shareholder meeting stretches. 

Space travel will happen, its more a case of when than if - although the if is still sort of there as it will only happen during periods of relative stability. Whilst conflict advances science its unlikely that any major war would accelerate development in that direction. The reward might be there, but it might take decades to realise.


----------



## Alexa (Apr 8, 2017)

Right now, the goal is to send astronauts on Mars in early 2030's, which means we all be alive to witness it. 



> NASA is on a journey to Mars, with a goal of sending humans to the Red Planet in the 2030s. That journey is already well under way.
> 
> For decades, the agency and its partners have sent orbiters, landers and rovers, dramatically increasing our knowledge about the Red Planet and paving the way for future human explorers. The Curiosity rover has gathered radiation data to help us protect future astronauts, and the upcoming Mars 2020 rover will study the availability of Martian resources, including oxygen.



Journey to Mars Overview


----------



## Overread (Apr 8, 2017)

Whilst I'd like to believe that, we've not been to the moon in a very very long time. One would think a prelude to going to Mars would have been multiple more lunar landings.


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 8, 2017)

Cathbad said:


> But the cost...


...will, in the final reckoning, not be borne by Boeing....


----------



## Alexa (Apr 8, 2017)

This was taken by Curiosity in OC 2016. It's a confirmed iron-nickel meteorite rock






Same image, closer this time


----------



## Alexa (Apr 8, 2017)

Overread said:


> Whilst I'd like to believe that, we've not been to the moon in a very very long time. One would think a prelude to going to Mars would have been multiple more lunar landings.



I don't think they found anything worth exploring on the Moon. No reason to go back and spend so much money and energy, if you cannot get anything in exchange.

The photos below were taken on the Moon by China in Feb, 2016.


----------



## Overread (Apr 8, 2017)

There might not be resources there, but there's an alien world and ample space to practice landing and take-off. A chance to collect data and build up more reliable models for spacecraft design for landings; plus give astronauts more expensive on another world not just in the dead of space. Currently there are no astronauts of fit and able body who have ever walked on anything but the Earth.

It would make sense to me to practice even if the moon is a very different environment.


----------



## Lumens (Apr 8, 2017)

The way I understand it, the Moon is a great outpost for further exploration, there is ice there, which can be split into hydrogen and oxygen, and will be useful for fuelling rockets. It is also a sixth of Earth's gravity with no atmosphere so it is easy to launch from there.

Everything is still quite theoretical in my head though, I am not convinced from what I read.

Edit: @Overread you beat me to the punch.


----------



## Overread (Apr 8, 2017)

Here's the thing, even if you launch from there you've still got to get all the raw resources for construction there. So you've still got to launch a lot of rockets - potentially even more than if you launched the actual mars mission from Earth. The bonus is really in launching many smaller packages instead of fewer bigger ones. 

We've already enough smaller packages in space that there's a whole legal system that has arisen to govern and sue each other for when satellites bump into each other.


----------



## Cathbad (Apr 8, 2017)

NASA made a very strange statement 7 or 8 years ago, when they were talking about "going back" to the moon.  The statesman said, "It'll take some time; we'll have to develop the technology."

???


----------



## Alexa (Apr 8, 2017)

The Moon looks just like a huge empty rock. I don't think it's proper for any kind of training.

Nevertheless, I'm sure we will have some independent entrepreneur offering Moon's trips for those who can aford this kind of voyage.


----------



## Overread (Apr 8, 2017)

Cathbad said:


> The statesman said, "It'll take some time; we'll have to develop the technology."
> 
> ???



Wouldn't surprise me if that quote got hacked out and taken out of context by whoever reported it. 
Even if genuine in that context its not unrealistic. Technology has come on a huge way since the first lunar landings so they'd likely have to start from the ground up again to develop a new landing program. Plus I'm sure some of their earlier methods wouldn't pass modern safety checks or might prove to be unreliable after repeat testing.


----------



## Lumens (Apr 8, 2017)

Alexa said:


> Nevertheless, I'm sure we will have some independent entrepreneur offering Moon's trips for those who can aford this kind of voyage.



Considering that people are willing to pay £50k to climb Everest, I have no doubt of this.


----------



## Cathbad (Apr 8, 2017)

Overread said:


> Wouldn't surprise me if that quote got hacked out and taken out of context by whoever reported it.



No, I saw it live.



Overread said:


> Technology has come on a huge way since the first lunar landings so they'd likely have to start from the ground up again to develop a new landing program. Plus I'm sure some of their earlier methods wouldn't pass modern safety checks or might prove to be unreliable after repeat testing.



Most likely. It's just that the way he said it, it made one rethink poo-pooing the "fake moon landing" theories.


----------



## REBerg (Apr 8, 2017)

Cathbad said:


> NASA made a very strange statement 7 or 8 years ago, when they were talking about "going back" to the moon.  The statesman said, "It'll take some time; we'll have to develop the technology."
> 
> ???


Was the statesman winking when the statement was made?


----------



## Cathbad (Apr 8, 2017)

I wish!


----------



## Alexa (Apr 8, 2017)

Rumors said NASA will return on the Moon next year. 

NASA Will Return to the Moon in Preparation for Human Mars Mission


----------



## Parson (Apr 8, 2017)

Alexa said:


> Right now, the goal is to send astronauts on Mars in early 2030's, which means we all be alive to witness it.



Which puts me in my 80's, so... even if it's as early as this there's no guarantee that "we all" will be alive to witness it. 

**Cool plan for a past the moon mission next year. I hadn't heard that yet.


----------



## Cathbad (Apr 8, 2017)

I've decided I'm not leaving until we land people on Mars.


----------



## Alexa (Apr 8, 2017)

Or witness some alien landing before.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 9, 2017)

And Boeing is one of five companies now given funding via NASA to help develop the Deep Space Gateway: Five firms aim to power moon-orbiting way station to deep space


----------



## Parson (Nov 9, 2017)

As we slowly wind up the possibilities to make interplanetary travel possible. --- in my lifetime? dubious.


----------



## LordOfWizards (Nov 9, 2017)

Reminds me of one of my favourites - "A Fall of Moondust" A.C. Clarke


----------



## Lumens (Nov 9, 2017)

Parson said:


> As we slowly wind up the possibilities to make interplanetary travel possible. --- in my lifetime? dubious.



It is absolutely possible, just very dangerous (and expensive). Probably the hardest thing we will have done, so far in history.

If you liken it to the first ancient explorers who set out to cross oceans, they never seemed to make it to Antarctica, for good reason. This is many times as hostile an environment as that. Still, I believe we can do it, if everything falls into place for it. In our lifetime.

I believe it will cost lives though. A certain percentage will most likely die from exposure to radiation and gamma rays. Probably in transit, but also on Mars itself. I don't know if this will be seen as acceptable by any company or government...


----------



## Alexa (Nov 9, 2017)

Some didn't believe humans can land on the Moon either. That was 48 years ago.


----------



## Parson (Nov 9, 2017)

Lumens said:


> Still, I believe we can do it, if everything falls into place for it. In our lifetime.



Dude, I'm old. My lifetime is likely not much more than 2 decades.


----------



## Lumens (Nov 10, 2017)

Parson said:


> Dude, I'm old. My lifetime is likely not much more than 2 decades.


Well, as I said - I believe it is possible, as do others. But only if we accept loss of life as part of the cost, and that is probably what will prevent it from actually happening. Probably for the best... Until we have a solution.


----------



## Parson (Nov 10, 2017)

Lumens said:


> Well, as I said - I believe it is possible, as do others. But only if we accept loss of life as part of the cost, and that is probably what will prevent it from actually happening. Probably for the best... Until we have a solution.



I would agree. The question is "Will we have a solution to the radiation problem that doesn't destroy any potential for a trip of under 3 years.


----------



## Cathbad (Nov 10, 2017)

Lumens said:


> Well, as I said - I believe it is possible, as do others. But only if we accept loss of life as part of the cost, and that is probably what will prevent it from actually happening. Probably for the best... Until we have a solution.



Why would that prevent it?  You really think corporations would care?


----------



## mosaix (Nov 10, 2017)

Lumens said:


> Well, as I said - I believe it is possible, as do others. But only if we accept loss of life as part of the cost, and that is probably what will prevent it from actually happening. Probably for the best... Until we have a solution.



We already accept loss of life as part of space exploration. The Apollo missions, the shuttle program and similar Russian projects saw astronaughts die. I may be wrong but I don’t recall any of those tragedies raise a discussion to abandon space exploration rather efforts to examine what went wrong and fix it.


----------



## Cathbad (Nov 10, 2017)

Actually, after the space shuttle disaster, the space missions went on hiatus, and there was much discussion whether to abandon space exploration all together, and shut down NASA.


----------



## Lumens (Nov 10, 2017)

Cathbad said:


> Why would that prevent it?  You really think corporations would care?



If enough people die, it may at least be bad publicity. 



mosaix said:


> We already accept loss of life as part of space exploration.



Yes, but this is different. There is a high probability that some people will die from radiation sickness. We already have this information, so we will knowingly be sending people to die. If that is seen as acceptable by everybody involved, including those in charge of the money flow, then fine, but I doubt it.


----------



## Mike Donoghue (Nov 12, 2017)

Lumens said:


> If enough people die, it may at least be bad publicity.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but this is different. There is a high probability that some people will die from radiation sickness. We already have this information, so we will knowingly be sending people to die. If that is seen as acceptable by everybody involved, including those in charge of the money flow, then fine, but I doubt it.



That depends on how much shielding is available. NASA says that an "estimated Mars mission" of 3 years will expose an astronaut to 1,200 mSv of radiation**. That's a dose rate of 0.5 mSv per hour. The Mayo Clinic on their website states that mild radiation sickness is avoided if the total dose across a person's entire body is under 1000 mSv in a 6 hour period. In other words, if the dose rate is under 167 mSv per hour.

Where are you getting that any astronauts living on a space station, which I presume would be vastly more shielded than an Earth-Mars interplanetary craft, would die from radiation sickness ? Our atmosphere, for instance, is equivalent to ~30 feet of water worth of space radiation shielding. That can be achieve with 4 inches of steel, not including the station's structure and other materials.

**This comes from NASA's presentation, "Space Faring: The Radiation Challenge"


----------



## Cathbad (Nov 12, 2017)

Mike Donoghue said:


> That depends on how much shielding is available. NASA says that an "estimated Mars mission" of 3 years will expose an astronaut to 1,200 mSv of radiation**. That's a dose rate of 0.5 mSv per hour. The Mayo Clinic on their website states that mild radiation sickness is avoided if the total dose across a person's entire body is under 1000 mSv in a 6 hour period. In other words, if the dose rate is under 167 mSv per hour.
> 
> Where are you getting that any astronauts living on a space station, which I presume would be vastly more shielded than an Earth-Mars interplanetary craft, would die from radiation sickness ? Our atmosphere, for instance, is equivalent to ~30 feet of water worth of space radiation shielding. That can be achieve with 4 inches of steel, not including the station's structure and other materials.
> 
> **This comes from NASA's presentation, "Space Faring: The Radiation Challenge"



Thanks.  I thought it was all sounding a bit suspicious.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 2, 2019)

It seems like this project is pushing ahead, as Canada promises $1.4 billion to join the project: Canada joins Moon station project


----------



## Parson (Mar 3, 2019)

Brian G Turner said:


> It seems like this project is pushing ahead, as Canada promises $1.4 billion to join the project: Canada joins Moon station project


 This isn't just Science Fantasy? 

But, I'll still see it before I believe it. Supplying it, especially in the first years would be a major hurdle.


----------

