NASA Halts Work On Gateway To Develop a Lunar Base (spacenews.com) 73
NASA is reportedly halting work on the lunar Gateway in favor of a more direct push to build a lunar base. The new plan would cost tens of billions over the next decade, though the change could face hurdles because Congress previously funded Gateway specifically. SpaceNews reports: "Starting today, we're building humanity's first deep space outpost," said Carlos Garcia-Galan, program executive for NASA's moon base effort. The lunar base will take place in three phases. Phase 1, running from 2026 to 2028, "is all about getting to the moon reliably," he said. That includes a significant increase in the cadence of lander missions through the Commercial Lunar Payload Services and other programs. It will also focus on developing enabling technologies and getting "ground truth" for potential base locations at the lunar south pole.
Phase 2, from 2029 through 2031, starts building the base, he said. That would include building out communications, navigation, power and other infrastructure, developing larges CLPS cargo landers and supporting two crewed missions a year. Phase 3, beginning 2032, will enable "long distance and long duration human exploration" on the moon, he said, with routine logistics missions to the moon and uncrewed cargo return missions from the moon. Garcia-Galan said NASA foresees spending $10 billion each on Phases 1 and 2. Phase 3, lasting to at least 2036, would cost an additional $10 billion or more.
The base would leverage existing programs, although with some changes. NASA is planning to revamp the Lunar Terrain Vehicle program after concluding the current approach would take too long to get a crew-capable rover to the moon. "We were projecting a delivery on the lunar surface by 2030," he said. The agency is instead issuing a draft request for proposals for simplified rovers that could be quicker and easier to develop but could be upgraded later. The base, though, would include some new capabilities and technologies. One example Garcia-Galan provided was MoonFall, a drone that would be able to hop from one location to another on the lunar surface. The drones will be "built on the legacy" of Ingenuity, the small Mars helicopter. "We're going to take everything that we learned from Ingenuity's systems, the avionics, all of that, to build this."
Phase 2, from 2029 through 2031, starts building the base, he said. That would include building out communications, navigation, power and other infrastructure, developing larges CLPS cargo landers and supporting two crewed missions a year. Phase 3, beginning 2032, will enable "long distance and long duration human exploration" on the moon, he said, with routine logistics missions to the moon and uncrewed cargo return missions from the moon. Garcia-Galan said NASA foresees spending $10 billion each on Phases 1 and 2. Phase 3, lasting to at least 2036, would cost an additional $10 billion or more.
The base would leverage existing programs, although with some changes. NASA is planning to revamp the Lunar Terrain Vehicle program after concluding the current approach would take too long to get a crew-capable rover to the moon. "We were projecting a delivery on the lunar surface by 2030," he said. The agency is instead issuing a draft request for proposals for simplified rovers that could be quicker and easier to develop but could be upgraded later. The base, though, would include some new capabilities and technologies. One example Garcia-Galan provided was MoonFall, a drone that would be able to hop from one location to another on the lunar surface. The drones will be "built on the legacy" of Ingenuity, the small Mars helicopter. "We're going to take everything that we learned from Ingenuity's systems, the avionics, all of that, to build this."
Ingenuity? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm gonna assume they're aware that Mars has an atmosphere and the Moon doesn't...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably they mean the stuff for navigation, selecting landing sites, and so forth. Then it can hop in low gravity, and take photos while up in the... I almost said air... And use them to plan the next hop.
At least I hope that's what they meant.
Re:Ingenuity? (Score:4, Interesting)
The first steps to real human space usage are: (1) building a prototype centrifugal habitat in low Earth orbit, and (2) building remote operated vehicles to mostly replace EVAs. (1) is necessary to determine what gravity is needed for humans to be able to live off-Earth for longer than a year without debilitating health consequences. It's unlikely that the moon's gravity will be enough for this, but maybe mars is, or maybe not. The cheapest way to figure this out is not to build a moon or mars colony first. Seems like it would make a lot more sense to know the health effects of moon gravity before planning the structure of a long-term moon installation. As for (2), using EVA for essentially all external maintenance, as is done on the space station, is not viable for accomplishing large amounts of work in space. Having humans present locally to operate the ROV is a big plus, however putting those humans in space suits just doesn't make sense. Just to have gloves that a human can squeeze without excessive fatigue, the person has to go through a lengthy decompression-recompression protocol. This is not viable for efficient and effective everyday work. Suited humans likely have their place, but most maintenance should be done by ROVs, just like it is done on deepwater installations on Earth.
Until these two things are on the agenda, manned spaceflight seems to be just a vanity project targeted at space tourism (short-term visits) or showing up other nations. (Note that the push for effective, affordable heavy lift is separate and has many other benefits outside manned spaceflight.)
Re: (Score:2)
Centrifugal gravity doesn't really work. The Soviets experimented a lot with it, and the US did a little bit too.
Mars is the place to go. Decent amount of gravity for humans to live on, resources to live off.
Illegal (Score:5, Informative)
In case anyone is curious, this is illegal. The executive branch can't suddenly decide to reappropriate funds for a new project. Under the constitution, *congress* decides how public money will be used, and the executive branch carries that out.
Re: Illegal (Score:2, Insightful)
It is however entirely sensible. I rarely agree with trumps lackeys, but Jesus, I have no idea what gateway was meant to be for. This on the other hand will actually be useful.
Re: Illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not sensible to steal money that people have paid in with their taxes, and which the people's representatives have decided for a different project. It may be a shitty project, but the people all had at least an indirect say in it. Only a dictator takes the money and uses it how he pleases.
Re: (Score:3)
> It may be a shitty project, but the people all had at least an indirect say in it.
No we didn't. Nobody votes for what NASA does, not even indirectly through their choice of congress critters. More often than not even Congress barely gives more than a passing thought to NASA's budget, and even then all that matters is how much of that budget will be spent in their jurisdiction and not what it will be spent on.
I do not approve of congressional (or presidential) meddling in NASA's projects, but not becau
Re: (Score:2)
How will it be useful except as a new grift opportunity for el Bunko and his friends? It's expensive moving shit between the Moon and Earth so we can forget about manufacturing anything up there. Maybe we can test how much radiation astronauts can handle before conking out so that we'll know how stupid it is to plan to send them to Mars. Or we can test how much the lost of gravity affects their bodies before they totally collapse on return to Earth.
On the other hand, maybe we can set up a prison for Elmo on
Re: Illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
> It is however entirely sensible...
This is a very slippery slope.
Re: (Score:2)
> It is however entirely sensible...
This is a very slippery slope.
Indeed. A pragmatic government decision is exactly equivalent to Nazi level thinking. There’s no other possible result.
Re: (Score:3)
I have no idea what gateway was meant to be for.
I suppose you could argue that it was kind of like how the original Apollo worked. The capsule that brings you back to Earth for re-entry stays in lunar orbit and you just descend in the lander and go back up to lunar orbit. Plus you can maintain a much larger living environment at the gateway station. But it certainly made the whole thing seem like a Rube Goldberg affair. Assuming Starship gets the bugs worked out, then you should be able to do the whol
Re: (Score:2)
Since you haven't even begun to think about it, let me cut to the chase: it's STUPID, in space, to have a ship from Earth to the Moon. Do you fly to another city, and have the jetliner land at your hotel downtown?
*SPACE*ships should go from station to station, and shuttles/landers from planet to station.
Re: (Score:2)
In case anyone is curious, this is illegal. The executive branch can't suddenly decide to reappropriate funds for a new project. Under the constitution, *congress* decides how public money will be used, and the executive branch carries that out.
Agreed, but, unfortunately, that kind of quaint thinking will only really matter (again) in about 2.5 years -- maybe starting in 8 months, if we're lucky. /cynical
Re: (Score:2)
No, it actually is illegal. Congressional approval is given through legislation. Legislation == written laws. No approval == no law allowing it == illegal.
Re:Illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it's knee-jerk to hate on the executive branch and Trump, but using terms like "illegal" becomes hyperbolic and meaningless if its overused and used in a factually incorrect way.
Re:Illegal (Score:4, Informative)
Not yet it's not. At this point they have a plan and a policy shift. They still need congress's approval, but this is literally the normal way projects are changed:
1. Come up with a plan based on policy (executive branch).
2. Go to congress to get funding approval.
Given that Gateway was funded by the OBBB - a purely republican and Trump led legislation there's very little reason to believe that they won't approve the change in direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Not yet it's not. At this point they have a plan and a policy shift. They still need congress's approval, but this is literally the normal way projects are changed: 1. Come up with a plan based on policy (executive branch). 2. Go to congress to get funding approval.
Given that Gateway was funded by the OBBB - a purely republican and Trump led legislation there's very little reason to believe that they won't approve the change in direction.
We've had plan/policy shifts before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] In place until the next policy shift. It's pretty silly that some are blaming he who will not be named.
The process just works this way.
Now leaving the political wackiness, I do have questions about some things, drones on the airless moon are kind of hard to envision having much to do with the Mars Helicopter. Other than that, it is possible to do this - my estimate is that it will cost a huge amount more.
Finally, going back to th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's also illegal to not release the Epstein files. Whatcha Gonna Do?
If Congress has no balls. and The Supreme court is corrupt. The executive branch very much can do those things.
Re:Illegal (Score:5, Informative)
In case anyone is curious, this is illegal.
So is launching a war in Iran without Congressional approval. So is cancelling funding mandated by Congress. So are foreign gifts, emoluments, and self-dealing. So is federalizing the National Guard on false pretenses. So is putting a sitting president's mug on a coin. And yet...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's illegal but laws aren't currently enforced, so I don't know why you're bringing the law up.
Let's perform a natural experiment [wikipedia.org]: keep saying reappropriation is illegal, and then wait for the executive to do it anyway. Then watch to see if Congress gives a fuck, by impeaching the executive (or credibly threatening to impeach if the embezzled funds aren't returned in n hours).
My hypothesis is that Congress won't do anything about it, and is fine with whatever new powers that the president decides he wants.
Re: (Score:2)
In case anyone is curious, this is illegal.
Those are just words on paper. There is no objective law anymore. Legal and illegal are purely in the eyes of the beholder who has a very big gun.
You already know they are going to alter the deal again, I am unsure why you want to play that game.
Re: (Score:2)
It will only be occupied for a couple of weeks at a time maximum. It will be small and mostly a platform for developing technologies and doing science.
They may try to locate it near resources. China seems to be aiming for near the poles where there is ice, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
I could see having a spaceport on the moon that's used as a launch off point for other missions, but it's a terrible place for humans to spend any time. Space exploration is going to be done with drones, advanced robotics and yes, AI. The distances are to far and humans poorly designed for space travel. Maybe with enough advancements in science and technology it could be done but probably not a good use of resources.
Also, living in tight quarters where you can't get away from each other sounds like a nightm
Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or, if they do, they aren't articulating it well. Without that driving purpose, this moonbase or Lunar Gateway or whatever just simply won't happen.
Re: (Score:1)
It may be enough to treat the moon as the metaphorical high ground. Now that Earth's orbit is getting crowded with spacecraft from many different nations, perhaps having a base on the moon has some strategic value.
Re: (Score:3)
NASA still needs to explain why. Never in history did we do science or major projects like this for no reason. Even Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about this; the original effort to go to the moon had geopolitical context of surpassing the Soviet Union and the dual-purpose military use of rockets-turned ICBMs.
You are right. The present driver is US/Chinese competition. China plans to put a crew on the moon in 2030
Re:Too costly? (Score:4, Informative)
The administration is asking for $200 billion to continue a war that they claimed they had already won. Take 10% of that and give it to NASA instead. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
Columbus did What?
That was Ferdinand Magellan who sailed around the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
My understanding (just going from memory, this might not be exactly right) is that Columbus didn't believe that ancient Greek calculation. He did his own calculation and concluded the circumference of the earth was only about 10,000 miles, making it practical to reach India by sailing west. Everyone who knew what they were talking about told him he was crazy and it was much too far. They were right, but fortunately for him there turned out to be another continent along the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does this change make sense? Because you can't plant a flag and wave your dick if you're up there in zero G orbiting a planetoid.
You have to be standing on the surface, and that is what China is on track to do in a few years.
Re: (Score:1)
There IS a compelling military argument: there are precisely 2 places on the moon that have a) 24/7 solar power, b) more-or-less constant line of sight to earth (as well as ideal positioning for surveilling the entire side of the ecliptic) as well as c) potential reserves of water ice locally.
The advantages of polar locations are many and abundant; I believe the S pole is significantly more likely to have water ice and large quantities, meaning "first" to build a base is going to have a major advantage.
And
Just think if they had started this 40 years ago.. (Score:3)
Funding (Score:2)
Trump has at most 2.75 years left in power.
Next January there will be a new bunch of people in charge of congress.
Pork will need to be reallocated.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one reason the private companies have been able to surpass NASA in spaceflight
NASA plans for big, long term, missions. Then every 4 years (or really 2 years with new Representatives installed) the plans get changed even after development and build has started. Can you imagine if this was a office building...every 2-4 years new architect comes in and scraps parts already built, or tries to repurpose. "Instead of a 30 story office building we will be making a 7 story hospital." The structure w
Mars still a better choice (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, actually getting to Mars is not that much harder than getting to the moon.
You can get to the moon in a few days. Mars takes months at best, and even that is only possible once every couple of years. People sent to Mars will be subjected to massive amounts of radiation during the trip. If something goes wrong, an emergency return home is impossible.
Energy is not the only measure of "hard". Proximity is a really big advantage.
A self-sustaining colony on the Moon is essentially impossible.
I don't think that shows up anywhere on their list of goals.
Re: (Score:2)
You can get to the moon in a few days. Mars takes months at best, and even that is only possible once every couple of years. People sent to Mars will be subjected to massive amounts of radiation during the trip. If something goes wrong, an emergency return home is impossible.
Trip time is a valid concern and ability to get home quickly in an emergency is also valid. Another issue with distance is the ability to send emergency supplies is very limited. Radiation issues are not really that bad though (and that seems like more of a problem). The radiation level is high https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11814067/ [nih.gov] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20240009831/downloads/NAS%20BPS%20Simonsen%20v4%20strives.pdf [nasa.gov] but manageable. A 6 month (comparably long) trip to Mars adds aroun
Re: (Score:2)
If there's no goal of making an eventually long-term self-sustaining colony, it isn't clear what goals there are here that are a reasonable use of resources on this scale.
Long term settlement, yes. Self-sustaining, no. There's no realistic prospect for a Mars settlement becoming self-sustaining either. Either one will require ongoing support from Earth for the foreseeable future.
Here are some valid goals for a settlement on the moon. It can serve as a gateway for missions to more distant places. Once you're out of the Earth's gravity well, a lot of things become easier. It can mine resources from the moon that will be useful for anything we want to build in space (tita
Re: (Score:2)
Here are some valid goals for a settlement on the moon. It can serve as a gateway for missions to more distant places. Once you're out of the Earth's gravity well, a lot of things become easier. It can mine resources from the moon that will be useful for anything we want to build in space (titanium, aluminum, etc.). Construction in space will become a lot more practical if you don't have to launch all your raw materials from Earth. It can do science. The far side of the moon is a great place for telescopes. It can perform a lot of the same functions we currently do with satelites (observation, communication), but much easier to maintain and service.
Ok.. This is a reasonable list in part. The gravity well point is a pretty reasonable one; if
Re: (Score:2)
Thing with taking humans to Mars is that these humans need to be confined in a small space for quite a while. Messages to Earth take longer and longer, so that takes phoning home on a whim out of the picture. On top of that, vacuum packed food even has a certain amount of time it can be kept. Also, drinking your own pee is not particularly a nice prospect, but a requirement on such missions.
What if there's a mechanical problem somewhere? Sorry, you can't quickly ask for a replacement part from Earth, and yo
Re: (Score:2)
Thing with taking humans to Mars is that these humans need to be confined in a small space for quite a while. Messages to Earth take longer and longer, so that takes phoning home on a whim out of the picture. On top of that, vacuum packed food even has a certain amount of time it can be kept. Also, drinking your own pee is not particularly a nice prospect, but a requirement on such missions.
These issues are all very minor. Submarines are cramped and people can remain incommunicado for months. Messages to Earth is essentially just means one will be relying on email equivalent. And vacuum packed food can keep for years. Drinking water that is reclaimed from pee isn't fun, but isn't a big deal.
What if there's a mechanical problem somewhere? Sorry, you can't quickly ask for a replacement part from Earth, and you still need to poop and piss. So you need to carry all of those parts along as well. Don't forget about the human body deteriorating in various ways, simply because there's almost no gravity.
Mechanical problems are a big issue. That's why for example even today submarines carry some replacement parts, and why big surface ships historically had machine shops. Some things will need to be carried.
Deep Space Outpost? (Score:3)
Really? Deep space outpost? What would an outpost on Mars be? How about Jupiter? By the time we get to Neptune we'll be in another universe, and we're not even out of our own solar system yet. Hyperbolic much??
the original plan was stupid (Score:2)
The original gateway plan was ill conceived, ridiculously complicated, and not even (apparently) thought-through before torrents of funding were dumped toward it.
It hand-waved technologies that don't exist and I'm not sure why anyone aside from government contractors thought it was feasible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Fully agree re l4/l5. I don't have anything against a mid-route station, there are some compelling arguments.
That they hand-waved "orbital refueling" as if it's no more complicated than topping off your car otw to the WI Dells bothered me; I am fairly certain - even to this day, for a moon landing that was supposed to be 2 launches away - they STILL don't know how many loads of fuel need to be in orbit, how they get it there, how they store it there.
This was from 2 years ago, and I applaud his bravery http [youtube.com]
And nuclear propulsion (Score:4, Informative)
So, a nuclear-electric tug between Earth and Mars, and more helicopters on the red planet. That seems 1) much more likely to happen than the lunar base plans, and 2) very exciting technologically.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, best we can do is a blank check for ICE and Israel. Could you imagine if the president spent $200 billion on improving the lives of the citizens instead?
Re: (Score:2)
We do spend $200 billion improving the lives of our citizens. We spend even more in fact. Every single year! A huge portion of our budget is social security and medicare. Neither one is part of the Constitution.
What we really need is a budget that has us not adding to the debt while also paying it down. I'm totally cool with 100% abandoning the Middle East in all ways, shapes and forms. If we wanted, we could position ourselves as completely self sustaining in food, energy and healthcare but since money is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, a nuclear-electric tug between Earth and Mars, and more helicopters on the red planet. That seems 1) much more likely to happen than the lunar base plans, and 2) very exciting technologically.
There will be no more significant technological challenges defeated until the parasites are lifted from our shoulders. It looks like the parasites will ride us into death, so we are at the zenith of human technological advancement. It is all downhill from here if we are unable to get rid of the parasites who are so desperate for control.
Could have named it Moonbase Alpha : ) (Score:2)
This is fascism! (Score:2)
Bring back Artemis space shuttle technology! VAX/VMS forever!
Mars is still the goal (Score:2)
The Moon is target practice. We need to get away from innovative bespoke engineering, into industrial mass production with continuous improvement. To do that we need to fly often. Mars just doesn't have the launch window availability. The biggest part of the challenge is that we were born in the bottom of a deep well. To toss enough stuff out of the well for a long journey is critical. Boosters that reliably fly on time often and cheaply enough to get ships and fuel out of the well. Ships that carry fuel in