3 ms·
"Stopping at lunar orbit, effectively halfway, just costs a huge amount of extra fuel to stop and then start again. " Wait, what? The standard "go straight to
by PeterisP 6y ago
"Stopping at lunar orbit, effectively halfway, just costs a huge amount of extra fuel to stop and then start again. "
Wait, what? The standard "go straight to the moon" mission plan (e.g. Apollo 11) has a required point where you are at a lunar orbit. There's no extra fuel cost to "stop" there; as you're spending fuel to slow down between lunar insertion and lunar landing, at some speed you inevitably are in a lunar orbit and can spend some time there at no fuel cost.
- iso1210 6y agoIt does limit your flight profiles significantly though, as you have to use the same Lunar injection orbit What's the actual benefit?
- ncmncm 6y agoThe "Lunar Gateway" is not planned to be in an orbit that would be optimal for any particular, expected lunar landing site, nor as rendesvous for a launch from the lunar surface. IOW, a different staging orbit would be better for any given descent and rendesvous. Stopping at a "gateway" first, too, costs more. The only useful place for a "gateway" would be in low Earth orbit, with minimal cost to deliver fuel to, and useful for any destination except highly-inclined Earth orbit. Its value there is a result of the radically different character of Earth-launch vs. deep-space transport vehicles, being the natural point to transition between the two. Getting between Earth orbit and lunar orbit is, relatively, trivial, even for a crewed mission in an all-fired hurry. Finally, the moon is a very specialized destination. There is no value in going or being there, beyond curiosity. Everything of practical interest or value is elsewhere, and a "Lunar Gateway" is useless for those.