4 ms·

As a space enthusiast and an European citizen, I can't help but agree. The lunar gateway is the only mission target that I find appealing. The support for LEO

As a space enthusiast and an European citizen, I can't help but agree. The lunar gateway is the only mission target that I find appealing. The support for LEO economy is nice, but there is no concrete plan for it, our launchers just cost too much right now for it to develop to an acceptable level.

nordsieck 4y ago
> The lunar gateway is the only mission target that I find appealing. What about the lunar gateway is appealing to you? IMO, it's a complete waste of time and money. Even the overt justification is basically that it'll help to politically stabilize Artemis, not that there's some sort of engineering or scientific reason for its existence. And if Artemis is even marginally successful, there'll be lunar ground facilities that will quickly supplant the importance of the gateway - making it more of an albatross than an asset.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- imglorp 4y ago
  Not only wasteful of opportunity cost but also inhumane. There's no window, the space is severely claustrophobic, and worst of all, it's pointless considering Starship will be the lander. Why stop at a gateway instead of simply landing? Congress. And if mass and diameter are launch constrained [1], why not chose an inflatable tech? Again, congress, because the defense contractors don't like inflatables. If we wanted a true lunar station, it should be large enough to live in long term, not suffer in for pork spending's sake. There are plenty of vocal, inside critics [2,3]. 1. https://www.space.com/lunar-gateway-station-claustrophobic-architect-says https://www.space.com/lunar-gateway-station-claustrophobic-a... 2. https://spacenews.com/former-astronaut-criticizes-lunar-gateway-plans/ https://spacenews.com/former-astronaut-criticizes-lunar-gate... 3. https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/former-nasa-administrator-says-lunar-gateway-is-a-stupid-architecture/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/former-nasa-administ...
  - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
    This seems like a pretty dramatic use of the word "inhumane" to me. Not having a window is very disappointing, I agree, but whether it is inhumane or not probably depends on the duration of the stay.
    - imglorp 4y ago
      Yup. 8 cubic meters for 3 people, that's 2x2x2. With roughly 1 SLS launch per year (?), nobody is actually going to live there except to check a PR box during a mission, if ever. So really, what is the purpose? I chose the drama not to underscore making astronauts endure those conditions but for the political reasons they are doing it. If we're going to set up a lunar orbital habitat for actual work and habitation, great for humanity, but chucking a billion dollar can for maybe a week to satisfy a congressional spend is beyond pointless.
panick21_ 4y ago
Lunar gateway is basically a bone the US threw to its partners so they can pretend to do something that matters. While in effect it being a mostly irrelevant legacy thing with no future. The only reason it exist it because it allies a bunch of different interest in NASA and its partner, those people who believe electric propulsion for Mars, space station people and the micro-gratify biology mafia. Everybody know that the Gateway and the SLS/Orion are just political buyoffs for congress, so they can funnel money into an actually innovate and revolutionary solution, Starship. The goal is to get Starship going and then do an end-run around congress and sell them on more Moon/Mars missions, finally killing all these terrible projects like Orion, SLS and Gateway. Since the development money for those projects will have largely been spent by then, the politically usefulness is mostly gone, so they will let them go in exchange for some bullshit new bullshit contracts.
- Ankaios 4y ago
  The microgravity biology community is so small that it's more like a coffee klatch than a mafia.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    I should have mentioned, medical more then just biology. They had an outside influence on NASA policy. Partly because they are in alliance with astronauts, as studying astronauts has always been one of the many things done in space and since you can always learn more you always need people in space.

nordsieck 4y ago

> The lunar gateway is the only mission target that I find appealing. What about the lunar gateway is appealing to you? IMO, it's a complete waste of time and money. Even the overt justification is basically that it'll help to politically stabilize Artemis, not that there's some sort of engineering or scientific reason for its existence. And if Artemis is even marginally successful, there'll be lunar ground facilities that will quickly supplant the importance of the gateway - making it more of an albatross than an asset.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
imglorp 4y ago
Not only wasteful of opportunity cost but also inhumane. There's no window, the space is severely claustrophobic, and worst of all, it's pointless considering Starship will be the lander. Why stop at a gateway instead of simply landing? Congress. And if mass and diameter are launch constrained [1], why not chose an inflatable tech? Again, congress, because the defense contractors don't like inflatables. If we wanted a true lunar station, it should be large enough to live in long term, not suffer in for pork spending's sake. There are plenty of vocal, inside critics [2,3]. 1. https://www.space.com/lunar-gateway-station-claustrophobic-architect-says https://www.space.com/lunar-gateway-station-claustrophobic-a... 2. https://spacenews.com/former-astronaut-criticizes-lunar-gateway-plans/ https://spacenews.com/former-astronaut-criticizes-lunar-gate... 3. https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/former-nasa-administrator-says-lunar-gateway-is-a-stupid-architecture/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/11/former-nasa-administ...
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  This seems like a pretty dramatic use of the word "inhumane" to me. Not having a window is very disappointing, I agree, but whether it is inhumane or not probably depends on the duration of the stay.
  - imglorp 4y ago
    Yup. 8 cubic meters for 3 people, that's 2x2x2. With roughly 1 SLS launch per year (?), nobody is actually going to live there except to check a PR box during a mission, if ever. So really, what is the purpose? I chose the drama not to underscore making astronauts endure those conditions but for the political reasons they are doing it. If we're going to set up a lunar orbital habitat for actual work and habitation, great for humanity, but chucking a billion dollar can for maybe a week to satisfy a congressional spend is beyond pointless.

panick21_ 4y ago

Lunar gateway is basically a bone the US threw to its partners so they can pretend to do something that matters. While in effect it being a mostly irrelevant legacy thing with no future. The only reason it exist it because it allies a bunch of different interest in NASA and its partner, those people who believe electric propulsion for Mars, space station people and the micro-gratify biology mafia. Everybody know that the Gateway and the SLS/Orion are just political buyoffs for congress, so they can funnel money into an actually innovate and revolutionary solution, Starship. The goal is to get Starship going and then do an end-run around congress and sell them on more Moon/Mars missions, finally killing all these terrible projects like Orion, SLS and Gateway. Since the development money for those projects will have largely been spent by then, the politically usefulness is mostly gone, so they will let them go in exchange for some bullshit new bullshit contracts.

Ankaios 4y ago
The microgravity biology community is so small that it's more like a coffee klatch than a mafia.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  I should have mentioned, medical more then just biology. They had an outside influence on NASA policy. Partly because they are in alliance with astronauts, as studying astronauts has always been one of the many things done in space and since you can always learn more you always need people in space.