Ars Technica ha pubblicato un documento che attribuisce alla NASA (ma che non riporta firme, né loghi) in cui viene spiegata la logica del Gateway e forniti un po’ di dettagli.
Secondo una fonte NASA di Ars Technica “the fact that it was released anonymously means someone expected blowback”. In pratica il rapporto sarebbe un modo per difendere la costruzione del Gateway nella fase 1, rispetto a una soluzione che vedrebbe uno sbarco diretto sulla Luna.
Nel documento si parla anche dei tempi di missione.
During Phase 1 operations, without a U.S. or international habitat module at the Gateway, the crew is limited to surface expeditions of no more than four days (assuming a 21-day mission that includes a five-day crew transit to Gateway in Orion, 2 days transit from Gateway to the Moon, 3-4 days on the surface, 2 days transit back to Gateway, and five days transit from the Gateway back to Earth).
During Phase 2, with a U.S. or international habitat module at the Gateway that includes
its own substantial ECLS systems, total mission durations in the lunar vicinity can be
extended from 21 to beyond 30 days, allowing for longer surface expeditions of up to
two weeks (assuming supporting assets on the lunar surface). Longer stays at the
Gateway in Phase 2 also will enhance human and robotic missions on the surfaceand
support deep space science activities.
Il documento:
L’articolo di commento di Ars Technica: