4 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.