Lunar Gateway - What's the Story?

[@bbgun061]

Lunar Gateway is like a flying car. Sounds like a great idea, but actually is a lousy car and a terrible airplane, that is way too expensive and not at all practical. It’s trying too hard. Here’s my prediction: Artemis three will proceed as planned with the astronauts transferring from Orion to Starship and back. Sometime after SpaceX has that lunar landing experience, they will launch a Polaris mission direct to the Moon on Starship. The first two modules of Gateway will be in place and used for Artemis four. This might be before or after Polaris. After the first Polaris moon mission, everyone will recognize that the SLS/Orion/Gateway architecture is pointless. But, the agencies who are invested in it will be unable to admit this, and will continue using it. The countries that aren’t invested in it will start sending astronauts to the Moon on Polaris missions, for less money per seat.

[@danwhiffen9235]

I have a funny feeling that Artemis 3 won’t even happen due to overruns and budgets not being expanded to complete

[@thearpox7873]

I really really really really want a space motorcycle though. It may even turn out to be a practical idea for distances of up to a couple km/s or so! Perfectly fine personal transportation for travelling in between space stations or to visit some satellite. You don't really need a capsule if you're not doing reentry and you get back inside the airlock within a day or so.

[@EagerSpace]

They have pretty much all the artemis 3 hardware in the pipeline, and I think they are probably set there. I'm *really* concerned about the Orion heat shield. We are coming up on 2 years since the flight of Artemis 1 and NASA has pointedly resisted giving any updates on the results of the "expert team" investigation that was supposed to be done at the end of June. I don't think there's good news there.

[@thearpox7873]

@@EagerSpace Perhaps they're trying to keep it out of the news cycle so the delays can be attributed to Starship? So long as SpaceX is visibly not ready for the Artemis 3 mission, most people won't call out the SLS, and the project managers probably like this state of affairs..

[@javaman4584]

@@thearpox7873 That could be, because the FAA delaying Starship by months seems to be political punishment of Elon Musk for allowing free speech on Twitter. Thing is, if Starship doesn't fly, Artemis doesn't have a moon lander. Then China beats the US to the moon in this unofficial space race, and politicians lose face.

[@ahgflyguy]

The last time I took a serious-ish look at gateway was like 8 years ago, and it seemed stupid then, even though the architecture was different in some ways I think. There just didn’t seem to be a reason to have it, and lots of reasons to never go there even if you did have it. The explanation of “jobs in Houston” is a pretty good reason for why such a silly thing would be shoehorned in. It sounds like NASA was relying on members of Congress not knowing what Delta-V is. You know, the naïveté of people who say we should throw our trash into the sun. Like, that’s the single most expensive place in the solar system (on the surface of any body) we could put our trash. Just because it is bright and front-of-mind doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

[@donjones4719]

Unfortunately, even if Congress understood delta-v they would still support Gateway. As you note, it helps keep the Johnson Mission Control in existence. It also justifies the use of SLS and the Exploration Upper Stage.

[@saltboi6374]

Commenting to boost algorithm engagement because you really deserve it

[@dirtypure2023]

Really appreciate your approach to explaining this. Breaking down the complex history in a way that someone who hasn't been following NASA for 20 years can understand, well, it's great

[@dirtypure2023]

For example I'm a longtime aerospace and military history enthusiast but got really into spaceflight because of Starship in 2020. So topics like this are very interesting to me now, but I don't know the full history of Artemis. The history I think is one of the most interesting parts of the story.

[@alansnyder8448]

100%

[@EagerSpace]

Thanks.

[@frodo4627]

This is the best space news analysis anywhere on the internet. You’re doing a true service to space enthusiasts everywhere.

[@EagerSpace]

Thanks.

[@Brautman]

The perfect video to watch before bed!

[@EagerSpace]

I might be offended if I didn't agree with you. A great video to help you fall asleep.

[@Brautman]

@@EagerSpace Don’t think of it like that! You explain complicated information in a straightforward manner. Easy to listen to.

[@cube2fox]

Did you dream of moon rockets? :)

[@Astrolavey]

Did you get a new mic? You sound different. Not bad, but different.

[@NoobtooberMan]

Its an ai bro. He prolly adjusted the settings 😂

[@WasatchWind]

​​@@NoobtooberMan I hate that AI has led to people like you accusing others of using AI just because they have a certain type of voice - and the basis for this accusation? Purely "feels like".

[@NoobtooberMan]

@@WasatchWind its not an accusation because its not really an insult, these channels use ai, same with great spacex. Why were you mad?

[@WasatchWind]

@@NoobtooberMan It's rude to people who literally just have a calm voice. Again, you're making this accusation without any evidence.

[@NoobtooberMan]

​@@WasatchWind actually it does sound real. My bad lol the ai used on that great spacex channel is pretty similar sounding, although breathes very weirdly

[@NomenNescio99]

Politics destroys everything.

[@kekbartosz6365]

imagine how the world would look like if NASA and other nations space agencies got all budget from military

[@longshot7601]

Compare the projected costs of the new space station, and Artemis program to the amount of aid given for the Ukrainian war.

[@ryantyznar2247]

Eager to watch this Space video

[@robnobert]

Dude. NASA and politics can't be separated. But you keep it about the FACTS! and how NASA responded -- instead of getting into a debate quagmire about whether or not such and such president should or shouldn't have done a thing. Maybe asking the question very rarely. But not getting distracted by it. Respect!!! This kind of technical analysis of why NASA chooses to respond the way it does based on the practical realities of what actually happened, instead of what should or shouldn't have happened is SO rare!!! You probably know that though haha -- the software world is the same in that way in my experience. Thanks for the videos!

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

debate quagmire? What part of the video did he talk about what president should have done what or shouldn't have done something?

[@josephmoore4764]

It's a shame that we've had to build this program around an under-powered launch system and crew capsule. Who knows how easy it would have been to actually develop Ares V, but there were real possibilities. SLS+Orion gives you so little delta-V to work with. All the programs you describe sound more like missions to justify the hardware we have instead of furthering science and human exploration.

[@saxus]

This is why we need Block 1B/Block 2.

[@mathewferstl7042]

Ares v is why Constellation failed. Orion is so under powered because of the Ares 1. Again, the Constellation program was ruined, ultimately by the decision to stick to the extremely under powered Ares 1 which meant the Orion had to be striped down, which meant the altair had to be beefed up to compensate, which meant Ares v had to become massive and extremely expensive LV, more so than SLS. Another classically informed Space enthusiast opinion

[@placeholdername0000]

Heck, just imagine an enlarged refuelable Orion service module. SLS launches into LEO, carrying an Orion and a lunar lander. A tanker filled with hypergolics, with the propellant launched on Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Vulcan, Vega, Ariane 6, H3, GLSV mk3, or whatever, docks and refuels it. It flies into a lunar orbit. It docks with a second refueling vehicle, which has been moved there by a SEP tug, and fills the lander, allowing the heavy lander to carry a load of cargo to the lunar surface. A 70 ton to orbit SLS, would be capable of carrying the stuff needed to go to the moon. With some extra refueling missions, and a habitat launched together with the Orion capsule, you could imagine doing a Mars mission.

[@saxus]

@@placeholdername0000 SLS Block 1 is already 95t. 70t was just an early conservative estimation. And I don't know why everyone is try to solve already solved problems (like launcher and crew capsule), when we need landers, suits, transfer vehicles, habitats, rovers, etc. etc. etc.

[@TheProky]

The biggest thing I dislike about Gateway is them saying it's a steppingstone to Mars, but getting to NRHO is so annoying and costly, it's better to make Gateway in LEO...

[@judet2992]

Not really. Low Lunar Orbit instead, the cost of a moon injection+circularization is pretty close to mars injection with some free aero braking. It’s way better to fill up your tank when it’s close to empty than full.

[@garypelkey3161]

Robert Zubrin has it exactly right: Gateway is simply a toll booth in space.

[@Eternal-Farewell]

Former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin and Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin have it right as well. Sad nobody listens to them.

[@EagerSpace]

Griffin complaining about Gateway is a bit rich given that he's one of the reasons that we have an SLS that is shuttle-derived and a heavy Orion capsule.

[@joeker1013]

It is amazing how money Griffin sent to boeing. It's almost like he owns stock in it.

[@grzegorzkapica7930]

Now I understand why politicians hate SpaceX.

[@danwhiffen9235]

14:55 correction. You watch the game on tv from inside a porta-potty

[@andrewsandford3635]

Seeing Starship docked to the Lunar Gateway makes me think it would just be easier to use a modified Starship as the station itself. Its definitely big enough, it would have its own thrusters, and it could be powered with solar panels. It could even use its fuel tanks to refuel other spacecraft going to the Moon/ Mars.

[@EagerSpace]

Shame. Remember that the goal is to make SLS block 1B and block 2 useful. I do think that's likely to be a useful model. Assuming starship is reusable, it makes more sense to launch it as a space station and then just land it when you are done with it.

[@robmacl7]

I know, let's use SLS to fly the gateway components to Stennis in Mississippi, then have Starship hop over from Texas and launch the gateway to the moon or Mars or whatever.

[@brodym661]

Love the Iron Maiden font for Lunar Gateway 😂 Another great video!

[@EagerSpace]

True type font metal lord.

[@Scania770V8]

The Artemis lunar landing architecture seems fiercely complicated. Thank you for a strong video with solid reasoning

[@You_Could_Be_Next]

Eager space.

[@unflexian]

eager Space.

[@personzorz]

Eager spaaaaace

[@ASAVSP]

eager spaceeeeeeee

[@erikkrutoi]

eager spaaaaaceeeeeeee

[@trapsarentgay4195]

eager spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace

[@joeker1013]

The one really good reason for Gateway I can think of is if you want to do long-term missions on the moon, 3 months to a year. I think Orion can do a max of six months by itself, but for NASA safety standards it would be three. So if you want to do long-term missions you need a place to park Orion and that would be Gateway. So while not needed for the first landing missions after the third or forth it will be.

[@EagerSpace]

Orion can do 6 months unoccupied, but not with people.

[@Hailfire08]

My cousin is an aerospace guy working for ESA and he told me that the US military is very interested in having control over cislunar space. So that's probably another less-mentioned political element behind getting all of this up and running

[@EagerSpace]

I think that's certainly true. The problem I've seen is that the military generally thinks in surface terms, where you control the ground and the air above that ground, and it's fairly straightforward to move forces around. Space isn't at all like that - there's no ground to control, it's hugely expensive to move from place to place and fairly trivial to take out big targets like space stations. Thanks for the note; there's probably a video on that topic...

[@douginorlando6260]

The Mars mission needs two things before it makes reasonable sense: 1… propellent from the moon at lower cost than from earth. 2… a remote controlled semi-autonomous base on a moon of Mars (much easier to get there and back, better environment for solar power, ice and carbon deposits for creating propellent, water, oxygen, growing food, safe jump off point to Mars surface & return point & launching a rescue mission to the surface if necessary, )

[@judet2992]

So probably something equatorial

[@regolith1350]

Agree 100%. Nobody wants to go to lunar orbit. Everybody wants to land on the surface. If we want to go to the moon, we should go TO the moon, not AROUND the moon. If international partners have to pony up hardware to participate, let them build surface habitats, power stations, rovers, orbiting communication relays. I have this horrible fear. With the Space Shuttle, we were stuck in LEO for 30 years. With the ISS, we will have been stuck at the space station for 30 years. Will we be stuck at this cramped FrankenStation, in a worse-than-useless HALO orbit for the next 30 years? And with no money or political will left for a full-blown surface outpost, much less a Mars mission? Are we about to cede leadership to China, allowing them to land first? The only hope I have that is even marginally realistic is that Jared Isaacman will do an end-run around NASA. It's almost guaranteed that Polaris 3 will be a lunar orbit mission (especially since Dear Moon is canceled, and there's no fear of stepping on toes), and it feels unthinkable that Isaacman would simply call it quits after that. I predict/hope that after NASA lands Artemis 3 (he'll let them claim the "humans back on the moon for the first time since Apollo" mantle), he will land with Polaris 4 in a low/mid latitude, far from NASA/China activities. From there, we can have totally separate, parallel programs. Even if China beats NASA to that first landing, it will soon be eclipsed by the novelty and excitement of commercial/private lunar spaceflight. At least that's my hope. One can dream.

[@Xylos144]

14:46 God Bless Michael Collins

[@noahdoyle6780]

Michael Collins on the far side of the Moon: "Finally, some peace and quiet."

[@aaaaa5272]

In which way should a blessing help Michael Collins?

[@Xylos144]

@@aaaaa5272 He was the third astronaut on the Apollo 11 mission alongside Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. He was tasked with remaining in the command module orbiting the Moon while Neil and Buzz went down to the surface in the lander.

[@JoinTheNoob]

Great as always!

[@Voulltapher]

Such well done content, love it.

[@EagerSpace]

Glad you enjoy it!

[@alansnyder8448]

Just curious. How does the radiation environment on the Lunar Gateway compare to the ISS? Are there any safety concerns for the Lunar Gateway astronauts if the sun sends a CME in the Earth's direction?

[@debott4538]

AFAIK, Orion is being equipped with some radiation shielding as well as emergency procedures for the astronauts to take shelter in such an event (basically, they would bunk inside a cocoon of the their food and water supply bags.) This is one reason why Orion is actually such a big deal: no other human-rated vehicle (not even Apollo) had this capability for medium duration deep space flight. And precisely that is a field of study that astronautics desperately need to engage in before we go anywhere beyond Earth for any reasonable amount of time.

[@EagerSpace]

Definitely worse - the three science experiments they are planning are all to measure solar radiation. I don't know how much worse.

[@donjones4719]

I love the Vizzini - Inigo Montoya reference. 13:22

[@EagerSpace]

I've written a small amount of comedy as a hobby over the years, and it's really hard to make it work. I appreciate that movie so much because of the writing.

[@canaldohector]

Wouldn't a lunar ground village also require ground control while no one is there?

[@EagerSpace]

Interesting question. Maybe so, though it's mostly just sitting there and as long as you remember to clean out the fridge and take the garbage with you it might be fine.

[@SeannMedicina11-11]

They should be testing technologies on the lunar surface: Mining, power generation, materials processing, construction, etc. These same technologies could be used to enhance Lunar private sector industry and even tourism and yes, also be adapted for a Mars mission.

[@badrinair]

THank you for sharing alll the details. it definitely is a very complicated affair

[@kingfisherb90]

@eagerapace can we get an update about what moving gateway to LEO as the foundation for CLDS would look like? Maybe even combined with a Starship HLS depot, and a BO ZBO depot.

[@trignals]

@18:00 is like the sunken cost fallacy playing out with hardware that hasn't even been built. On the other hand, the Moon, not Gateway, can be a steppingstone to Mars. In terms of learning at least. It's the step after ISS. A habitat in another gravity well. Longer resupply, more radiation, extended coordination across processing day/night cycles etc. etc. all of which is Moon orientated and Gateway will be significant for Earth Moon communication as I understand it. Most importantly: Gateway will need station keeping. This keeps all the partners oriented towards the Moon, and by extension a moon base. Gateway can deliver this far earlier than the start of permanent moon occupation. It will serve to constrain future plans. This video highlighted how significant an issue this already was domestically in the US. In a nutshell Gateway gets skin in the game, and that might be the most important first step.

[@thearpox7873]

The Moon environment is so radically different to Mars that I am not sure the lessons will be transferable, and the difference between a resupply of one week and six months... no, just no. Gravity can be simulated better with a spinning station. Unless you're doing in situ mining, you might as well just go to Mars.

[@trignals]

@@thearpox7873 if you are going to build a permanent presence in another gravity well isru is the name of the game. Without it why not just orbit? The moon is also very attractive in ways that Mars is not, for astronomy for example. Mars lunch windows are about 26 months apart. ISS lead times are a massive step away from that. The more reluctant a program is to risk lives the more attractive it is to target the moon first. It is an enormously different challenge than the ISS was.

[@thearpox7873]

​@@trignals "Unless you're doing in situ mining" "isru is the name of the game. Without it why not just orbit" Ok, so you agree with me. If you can get it to work, cool. But it might just be cheaper for the next several decades to just use Earth for fuel and skip the Moon. Astronomy is interesting, but it's got nothing to do with preparing for future missions to Mars. You stated that the Moon can serve as a great steppingstone to Mars, which I find an unconvincing argument. If you now want to tell me about all the ways that the Moon is more interesting and safer than Mars that is great, but it doesn't advance your original argument. You wouldn't be doing the Moon 'first', you'd just be doing the Moon, and separately at some point you'd also do Mars in an unconnected fashion.

[@trignals]

@@thearpox7873 @thearpox7873 allow me to recap in the hopes if clarifying. Going into any other gravity well in a expeditionary fashion will be a very big commitment. It will involve isru. This has never been done. A program that does not want to risk a loss of funding due to losing too many astronauts will likely be very conservative. Therefore in order to go and do this at Mars, I believe the community could quite easily view encountering a subset of similar issues on the Moon as a very worthwhile exercise. This learning then reduces risk in going to Mars. If course it will also be hugely expensive and needs it's own justification. Yes, if Mars has justification is another question. Also on this front alignment for the Moon will be a cheaper more feasible and less risky proposition. Risk is not free. Reasons to do things at the moon is the topic in my original post, so it should be no surprise that it continues. Hopefully this helps you follow what I've already written. It's ok if you are unconvinced, it might be interesting to know why. As I hinted I'm not sure what the timescales you mention are intended to relate to. And yes I'm aware the Moon is different to Mars.

[@Eternal-Farewell]

I swear, the Lunar Gateway is quite possibly the WORST project in the history of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. If NASA really wants to build another space station to keep jobs at the Johnson Space Center, they should probably just build another space station in Low Lunar Orbit. You should have also mentioned on former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine who had no experience working with space systems practically forced the Lunar Gateway onto NASA. Even Mike Griffin said the Gateway was a terrible idea. A Lunar Base is a far superior solution and provides far more chances for international collaboration. ESA had previously planned to build a "Moon Village" when NASA was focused on their flawed Journey to Mars program. How much this once great agency has fallen over the years.

[@caldodge]

The Lunar Tollbooth (aka Flop-G) was created to give SLS something to do.

[@KukiNebproductions]

Very excited to hear your thoughts on this. Clicked fast!

[@joakimlindblom8256]

Back in 2019, I attended a panel discussion at SRI sponsored by the SETI Institute about the plans for returning to the Moon which included discussion of the Lunar Gateway. I was scratching my head about Lunar Gateway since it seemed like an unnecessary diversion from the goal of landing on the Moon. When I asked why they were doing it this way, they answered that (1) SLS did not have the energy to get Orion into low lunar orbit and then return to earth, hence the near rectilinear orbit waypoint of Gateway, and (2) it was already long decided to build Lunar Gateway and it was too late to change the plan even if Starship (then called ITS) were to take over from SLS. Seemed like the proverbial tail wagging the dog and didn't make much sense to me... but this video explains things much better: Gateway is in a large part a jobs program to make sure that JSC has an active mission control center maintains relevancy in the future when ISS gets replaced by commercial space stations. Basically, SLS all over again 🙄

[@EagerSpace]

1) It's true that Orion can't get both into and out of low lunar orbit; it's that way because of the constellation architecture that started Orion and NASA never changing it. I have videos on the artemis architecture and one on Orion that go into the details. 2) That's one I haven't heart. We have to build it because we decided to build it.

[@KrimsonStorm]

Woah, my hometown of Syracuse was mentioned! That aside, I think you're absolutely correct with your final thoughts. A US lead international partnership would be best suited for the surface and not a space station. Also yes we do need more space themed children's books!

[@EagerSpace]

I chose Syracuse because it is conveniently located 4200 kilometers from Seattle. And I think I was there once on a college tour with my daughter.

[@mskiptr]

@@EagerSpace Sicily is nowhere near that close to Seattle /j

[@donjones4719]

Your video is good, as always. But I literally can't get through it in one viewing, I'm getting nauseous at seeing the problems and the mistakes made and being perpetuated. OK, I got through it. And... tut tut. At 15:00 you say an Artemis 4 SpaceX HLS is proposed to be enhanced to hold 4 astronauts. (First I've heard of this.) But the tut-tut is over you being too kind to NASA and not noting it's clear *any* Artemis HLS could hold a dozen astronauts. NASA's problem is it would emphasize the limitations of Orion and SLS. We clearly need something bigger than Orion and its 4-person limitation in order to do a useful amount of work at the South Pole. Fortunately there's a good video on the YT channel Eager Space about that. Oh, wait, that's you. :) People, check out Options 3-5 on his *Commercial Moon* video. kzbin.info/www/bejne/q326YmWCZ9N0fsU

[@javaman4584]

@@donjones4719 Two people on the moon for a maximum of six days every year or two isn't going to accomplish much of anything. It will be little more than Apollo 2.0 but more expensive.

[@donjones4719]

@@javaman4584 Exactly. Check out the Eager Space video I linked to see how a regular Starship can be used for the Orion leg of the trip. (A pair of Dragon launches from Pad 39A and SLC-40 can provide a crew of 8 that boards the ship in LEO.) The HLS is still used as planned at lunar orbit.

[@anguscovoflyer95]

I’m not sure if you heard but axiom space is now having pretty bad financial problems

[@EagerSpace]

Yes. And they seemed to be the ones with the program that was closest to launch.

[@theevilcottonball]

Lunar Gateway, or just Gateway, is the name of the space station that NASA is planning on pudding into near rectolinear halo orbit around the moon.

[@debott4538]

"Pudding". I thought the same thing. 😂

[@phil20_20]

Is it Boeing?

[@Jason-gq8fo]

Hadn’t seen the nasa Mars idea before. It scares me. Please nasa drop SLS

[@CharFred-vr1ti]

SLS works.

[@Astrolavey]

@@CharFred-vr1ti At best, it will launch twice a year. A SLS based Mars Architecture at best would take at least 6 years to finsh just the transporter. That not even including an ascent vehicle, rover, or base that would have to be there for them. Which would be another 2-3 years. It's a ridiculous idea. Starship could easily be used as a cargo vehicle to launch the payloads way faster and cheaper. And be used as an ascent vehicle on Mars.

[@CharFred-vr1ti]

@@Astrolavey Mars is particularly ridiculous. It's not happening with SLS & Starship.

[@CharFred-vr1ti]

@@Astrolavey and no, Starship cannot be easily used for beyond LEO and cheaply. It doesn't work today and will probably never work for lunar landings.

[@Astrolavey]

@@CharFred-vr1ti Mars isn't ridiculous. Have starships bring cargo down to the surface. Build a transfer vehicle with a nuclear engine. Get there in 5 months. Take a lander down. Assemble the base. Stay a while. Take a starship back up to the transfer vehicle. Return home. Are you saying we should never go to Mars? Because we should. Yes, the Moon is the better option for now, but humanity needs to go to Mars as well

[@michaelmcmullen354]

As far as using the gateway as an aid to get to Mars, using Starship based components with the means for long term storage it is simply a matter of locating a fuel storage depot at the Gateway, probably ferried up from a leo depot using a slow transit in starship tankers using electric propulsion and limited chemical propulsion. This will allow for fuel sufficient for flight to Mars sufficient for the trip from the Gateway, and back to earth from the mars surface without refueling (such as a sample recovery mission that also leaves some useful infrastructure on mars as well). A depot in Mars orbitis also a possibility. Fueling on mars surface is fine, but there will not be sufficient infrastructure on mars for some time for this to be possible. Admittedly a moon Halo orbit is not necessary for this and a group of well placed communications sattellites (possibly with GPS capability) with one in that halo orbit or a few orbiting the moon.

[@EagerSpace]

If you want a depot that is closer to Mars in terms of fuel, you can locate it in a high earth orbit and not pay the penalty of getting into lunar orbit and back out again.

[@michaelmcmullen354]

@@EagerSpace Thinking more of serving multiple goals. Even Geo is a relatively good choice for a high refueling point. The current Halo location mostly provides a location with fair backside of moon communication path. If you change the plan for the moon too much everything will be pushed back to go and 4 years will be lost, ass well as most funding from congress. This is just a way of having your cake and eating it too.

[@EagerSpace]

Geo is a bad location because you have to spend Delta v to do a big inclination change but that's not needed for moon or Mars transfer trajectories.

[@michaelmcmullen354]

@@EagerSpace Agreed. Earth/moon lagrange points are very good, but don't always make good locations from an accessibility and useful Staging location for refueling or changing vehicles.

[@egooidios5061]

Pfff, I guess all the people from the mission control center in Houston can get a job at SpaceX. Soon we will need more, many more of these centers. Some of them will be dedicated distance handling of robotic missions on other planets

[@12HedmanLane]

We all saw how bringing the sample back to the space station went for Ryan Reynolds and his crew.

[@martinross6416]

Is this the best jobs program or what?

[@rileygreene8826]

I question why doesn't Nasa use Dragon as a ferry to a waiting lunar starship and bypass orion and gateway. Though I know the answer already. :(

[@EagerSpace]

In the current architecture a single starship can make it to the lunar surface and back to lunar orbit but not back to earth. And dragon isn't designed as a long-duration capsule - Polaris Dawn flew about as long as it can fly.

[@alx-vla4986]

In addition, we could question the feasibility of a HALO orbit, with only one day a week to access the Moon's surface.

[@EagerSpace]

I honestly think that part of the Artemis plan is just nuts. You're going to put astronauts on the moon and if something happens you likely have to wait days until they can get home.

[@PetesGuide]

Galaxian font?

[@EagerSpace]

It's a TrueType font named "Metal Lord", but yes, that was the feeling I was going for.

[@debott4538]

I agree that Gateway is a bad idea for a 'stepping stone' to Mars. But I must disagree with your dV numbers @18:20. Before adding the the 2x450m/s for NRHO, you are assuming that a transfer to the moon takes the same 3600m/s as getting to Mars directly. Instead I think a moon transfer takes less dV than a Mars transfer. (still: (1xmoon transfer + 2xNRHO) > (1x Mars transfer)) I might be mistaken on this, however, and online discourse tends to be all over the place when stating any dV numbers. So I guess I'll have to simply ask for your sources regarding those 3600m/s, just so that we're on the same page. :)

[@EagerSpace]

I really like this delta-v map of the solar system. It's not perfect but it gives you a general idea of how things work out. www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1ktjfi/deltav_map_of_the_solar_system/#lightbox You essentially spend about 3100 m/s getting from lower earth orbit (250 km) to moon transfer. Then you spend about 500 m/s getting to earth mars transfer, so 3600 m/s. I missed getting to Mars capture/escape, which would be another 670 m/s, so closer to 4200 to get all the way to Mars. To get to NRHO, you're talking about the same 3100 m/s + 450 m/s, or 3550 m/s to get to gateway. Then to get from gateway to mars you need 450 m/s to get out of NRHO plus 1150, or 1600 m/s. 3550 + 1600 gives you 5150 to get to mars. The important point is that if you go to gateway you have to dip down into the lunar gravity well to get into that orbit and then spend energy to get back out of it when you could just go directly to mars.

[@debott4538]

@@EagerSpace Thank you for the numbers. That map is what I like to use myself and have as a print on my desk. Neat for a quick look-up. :] On a side note, I had re-posted that very link to answer my own question yesterday, but obviously YT never published my response. Do you know if only you as the creator of this video are allowed to post links in the comments? Or does YT by default delete any of my comments that contain links, because I swear this happened before, and I am somewhat mad about it. I just want to quote sources, dammit! :( Edit: okay having it looked up just now, apparently YT does indiscriminately delete most/all comments with links. But apparently not even you, the video creator, could see my comment let alone white-list it.

[@NoNameAtAll2]

I can't even see comment by creator of the video, wow youtube moderation is bad

[@debott4538]

@@NoNameAtAll2 Right!? Thank you, so it isn't just me! This seems to mostly affect links (perhaps even only to external sites, such as Reddit in this case). I did see his reply yesterday, hence my own response, but it is indeed no longer visible today, despite showing his avatar next to the replies-button. Edit: Okay now @EagerSpace's reply is visible again. wtf? XD

[@EagerSpace]

search for "delta v map of the solar system", and pick one of the reddit examples.

[@dionysus2006]

Why is a Lunar Gateway even needed? We are trying to establish a Lunar base not a Lunar space station. Here is what the mission profile should be for a Lunar base. (1) Establish a long-term propellant depot in LEO, supply on a regular basis with Starship. (2) Launch HLS to LEO and load propellants (3) Launch astronauts to HLS using Crew Dragon (4) Translunar injection of HLS to Lunar orbit. (5) Land on Moon (6) Work on Lunar base (7) Launch from Moon to TransEarth trajectory (8) Injection burn to LEO (9) Dock with Crew Dragon (10) Return to Earth. NOTE: all cargo, equipment, supplies for the Lunar base will be delivered with unmanned cargo Starships well in advance of the HLS so the astronauts have some place to go. The HLS will handle only astronauts leaving room for the propellant for the orbital insertion burns. HLS and cargo Starships will not need heat tiles or aerodynamic surfaces since they will stay permanently in Space. Some of the cargo Starships could be used as Lunar base modules. This approach vastly reduces risk, cost, schedule, and complexity since it is based on existing Crew Dragon and variants of Starship.

[@jrdaparker]

Why would anyone want to go from Oregon to Syracuse NY?

[@ThomasHaberkorn]

ever seen the movie Life from 2017?

[@thanksfernuthin]

I think Dustin from Smarter Every Day had some of the same concerns and expressed them to a collected number of NASA scientists. Have you seen that video?

[@EagerSpace]

I don't watch space videos unless I'm sure there's no overlap with the things I like to talk about.

[@thanksfernuthin]

@@EagerSpace That's an interesting mode to operate in. Fair enough.

[@EagerSpace]

I do kindof-sortof pay attention and I'll watch Tim Dodd's because there's little overlap, but I don't watch Dustin's and I don't watch Scott Manley's. Bit of a shame, actually, but I prefer it that way.

[@1lustigermenschfighterlp458]

Wrong thumbnail? Why are the commercial stations on there again as in the last video? Good video anyways.

[@EagerSpace]

Uh... Yeah... It's fixed now. Thanks.

[@victor_silva6142]

And here silly me thinking it was some old von Braun idea about a support station for lunar operations... 😂

[@EagerSpace]

I did have some of the plans from the late 1960s in the presentation, but I didn't think they were relevant so I pulled them out. That had multiple earth stations, a moon station, and IIRC a mars station as well.

[@victor_silva6142]

@@EagerSpace wow. Really? That's ambitious to be sure.

[@EagerSpace]

Fun article here www.wired.com/2012/04/integrated-program-plan-maximum-rate-traffic-model-1970/

[@douginorlando6260]

The motivation is not focused on a successful permanent lunar presence. Even when China succeeds, the U.S. motivation will not prioritize success over politics. But when China shows progress towards implementing a lunar launch infrastructure that provides very low cost per pound of payload from the moon to lunar orbit, then alarm bells will finally be sounded. The military implications are immense (both total domination over all current military uses of space, but also new military uses including orbiting weapons and potentially dropping unstoppable massive hypersonic “Rods” on targets). By then it will be too late to catch up as the lunar ice deposits will be taken.

[@12pentaborane]

The title card has me thinking Lunar Gateway is opening for Iron Maiden or Judas Priest.

[@EagerSpace]

Yes. Lunar Gateway would be a good - but not great - band name.

[@12pentaborane]

@@EagerSpace It's less the name and more the font choice, looks very much like a British or German heavy metal font.

[@EagerSpace]

The font is named metal lord.

[@andrewdrednaught]

Form follows politics, as opposed to form follows function. Just like Shuttle...

[@rabbitdyne]

As always, I appreciate your content, but you are making terrible mistakes and assumptions here. I do realise why gateway was initially made for (the politics behind it) but NASA is not talking about literally using it to launch from there to mars; NASA will be using it to test technologies that could later be used in mars. It’s easier to simulate an interplanetary journey when you are in outer space and not in LEO. You need to realise that humans flying to another planets need to be researched, I know you are used to having hundreds of papers and scientific articles than come from ISS, but this is different; we have very little information about how humans will live in a journey to another planet. Also, you can extract fuel from them moon, and lifting things up from the moon is easier than lifting things up from earth. That means that you could have a refuelling station in lunar orbit, which would actually facilitate going to mars.

[@EagerSpace]

NASA currently has no Mars architecture so we can't really speculate on what their plans are. They have a whole bunch of requirements, lots of ideas for what they will do on Mars, but nothing documented on the transportation side. The have certainly talked about gateway as a place to start a Mars mission in the past: www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/04/nasa-goals-missions-sls-eyes-multi-step-mars/ The question WRT testing technologies is twofold. The first question is "which technologies need to be tested outside of LEO?", and the second question is "is gateway an effective way to test these technologies?" As for humans living in space on a Martian trip, astronauts have been living on ISS for 6-month missions for a *long* time and the bulk of their research has been about humans in space. Not sure how that equates to "very little information". I talked about ISRU in the video. If you have that, yes, it may make sense to stop by lunar orbit to refuel, but we are years if not decades from that capability. If you think we should build that capability first before going to Mars, that's an interesting discussion, but building gateway now doesn't help us move closer to ISRU.

[@ythegamerita]

If only our progress wasn't managed by people chosen by how good they are at lying but actually managed by smart people Technocracy when?

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

Where does the problem lay? Is it the people we have to pick from or the quality of the people doing the picking? I think the latter is a far more dangerous thing.

[@screwstatists7324]

God, I hate bureaucracy.

[@noahdoyle6780]

Okay, dumb question time: Why not take incremental steps, leanring and working out problems along the way? Build a LEO station. Build propellant depots in LEO. Build cislunar vessel in LEO Fly to Moon, maybe turn into a station. Land on Moon, do Moon stuff. Build Mars ship in LEO, fuel up there (or at Moon.) Fly Mars ship to Mars, land on Mars, do Mars stuff, maybe leave one as Mars station. Repeat for steps further out.

[@BrainRobo]

It is not a dumb question, but the answer is unfortunately dumb... This process would have been ideal. However, the problem with all the details lies in the history of NASA and the funding allocated to legacy systems to keep the systems as close to the shuttle program, which inherently limited innovation. The problem also lies that after the ISS was established, there were no incentives to start designing and testing systems such as fuel depots until recently, which, with hindsight, was the problem. The advent of the commercial crew program and commercial entities in space has started to shift the playground to increase further space capabilities, but in my opinion, it is too late in the process since the support that would have been pivotal by the ISS will soon not be possible due to its decommissioning. There is still some silver lining, that is, if the current new reusable rockets and upcoming space engineering startups can achieve their goals with the least possible failures. Such companies include Impulse (which would facilitate higher orbital energy insertions), SpaceX with Starship (which technically for the expandable version already provides some exciting capabilities), Blue Origin and Rocket Lab with new competing rockets to facilitate LEO and beyond, Axiom space with their inflatable habitats and many more projects, Intuitive Machines and I forgot the name of the Japanese company for lunar landers and many more...

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

Because (among other things) with a changing national administration every 4 years long term planning becomes hard to do. Logical system like you propose fall apart when at the 30% point there is a change in admin, funding etc and suddenly a program is cancelled, reduced etc. Things fall behind, partners have to drop out..

[@EagerSpace]

Really like this answer. I'd only add that a lot of this is inherent in the way Congress does budgeting; the bulk of the budget is programs that just keep running and that means it's easy to keep running existing programs. New programs come under a lot of scrutiny and you have convince congress in general that it's a good idea, and sometimes it's really hard to do that (ISS took years and years to come up with a program that congress approved). The other issues it that big organizations inherently prefer the status quo. That's why most of the innovation in software comes from small new companies rather than the big existing ones. Apple has built 300 versions of the iPhone for a reason.

[@christiananderson9015]

What has bill nelson done for NASA? We need someone young to head the agency. Alot of NASA's problems stem from his refusal to buck the old contractors

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

His refusal? It has nothing to do with congress?

[@EagerSpace]

Bill was one of the main senators that were in charge of enforcing the shuttle-base status quo on NASA.

[@timwood6115]

The crawler that will move the later versions of the SLS to the launch pad is way over budget and nowhere close to completion. That problem could delay the moon landing, regardless of what is going on with other aspects of the program. I’ve read that an SLS launch could cost $2 to $4 billion per launch. For that much money, NASA could buy a fleet of super heavy boosters and Starships. I also wonder if any astronaut is willing to fly on the SLS in light of the problems with the booster section that were identified in the Inspector General’s report.

[@EagerSpace]

It's actually the mobile launch platform that sits on the crawler that's way behind schedule and ridiculously over budget. I price SLS launches by looking at how much the spend per year and how often they launch. SLS + Orion is about a $4 billion program and they plan to launch once a year, so that's $4 billion a year. I think the big problem with SLS is the Orion heat shield - NASA's been working the problem for nearly 2 years now and we've heard nothing about what the expert panel found in June. My guess is we may learn more after the election.

[@12HedmanLane]

You said rectal 😅

[@12HedmanLane]

Yes, I am a child

[@MikeMaris]

Why cant we just replace the ISS 😭

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

Money largely.

[@807800]

What would NASA do if SpaceX finally started their Mars mission with Starship?

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

By that time they'll likely already be a partner in someway.

[@CharFred-vr1ti]

Won't happen without NASA

[@807800]

​@@CharFred-vr1ti Obviously, they would partner with NASA, just like their old plan of with Red Dragon. But, the question is, what would it mean to NASA's own Mars program which rely on SLS and Orion? NASA made it clear that SLS is part of their Mars plan, as you can also see in the video 17:33. Unlike Artemis moon program, a mission to Mars using Starship would have no need for SLS and Orion.

[@CharFred-vr1ti]

@@807800 red dragon was a joke. There is no serious Mars program.

[@807800]

@@CharFred-vr1ti Well, you can call it whatever you want, but it's a fact that back then, SpaceX had an agreement with NASA regarding the Red Dragon. Again, you can call it serious or not, but NASA do have a Mars program that's baseline using SLS/Orion, you can read the document, it's called "HEOMD Strategic Campaign Operations Plan for Exploration".

[@Combatant5]

I will make the argument Gateway makes sense *once commercial crew transport options become available*. That would make a permanent presence much more reasonable than it is under the current architecture, not to mention that it might be useful to have longer-term studies of the effects of deep space exposure on crewed vehicles when the ultimate hope is to go to Mars. I also don't necessarily buy that leaving from what is functionally an eccentric lunar orbit to get to Mars. The moon's orbit is a higher energy orbit to begin with thanks to how much higher it is than LEO, and while you do have to burn ~450 m/s to exit the orbit, I would question that it would be less efficient since you're starting higher to begin with. The reason SpaceX is planning to leave from LEO is because of their refueling architecture, after all.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

Is DV not DV? You expend it regardless. Moving from LEO to a Gateway orbit, then gateway to mars transfer? It only makes no sense if the DV required to the gateway was not DV that would get you to Mars.

[@EagerSpace]

LEO to moon transfer is about 3100 m/s of delta v, then you spend about 450 m/s getting into NRHO, so about 3550 total. From the moon to mars you spend that 450 m/s again, plus another 480 m/s to get to mars, so about 930 m/s. for that part. About 4480 m/s total. LEO straight to mars is 3600 m/s. Sure, it's easier once have everything in NRHO but you pay a high cost getting there. This is a useful reference. It's not exact but it will give you the right idea. www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1ktjfi/deltav_map_of_the_solar_system/#lightbox

[@SatoshiKitagawa]

Great video as always! But this doesn't sound like you learned to stop worrying and love the Artemis program XD What changed? For anyone wondering, I'm referring to this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qX_JZXyZd5ell9E

[@EagerSpace]

Fair question. The first video is more about trying to accept what you can't change, this one is more about history.

[@ryanrobbins2363]

Babe wake up! Eager space dropped.

[@deebusoh9023]

hope Mr trump will support this mission

[@skepular]

Going to Mars, you have to escape Earth's heavy gravity, so that should take more deltaV than getting out of Mars' lighter gravity, the opposite of what you said. I need explanation

[@debott4538]

I think he means that we start our journey from Low Earth Orbit, assuming everything is in place there: 3600m/s The journey back to Earth is from Mars' surface: 5700m/s A trip to Mars from Earth's surface is 9400m/s + 3600 m/s = 13,000m/s

[@EagerSpace]

Yes.

[@patrickunderwood5662]

Sigh.

[@rigomrtz]

Waste shame

[@Doofwarrior88]

If I were in charge of the nasa budget. I would increase it by 10 fold.

[@zachb1706]

I’d cancel SLS, Orion and Gateway. Put that money into developing a commercial version of Orion and increasing the budget of the Commercial LEO Destinations program. Bam, Artemis fixed.

[@alx-vla4986]

Boeing will happily spend other 10x budgets to finance precisely the same outcome...like a black hole!

[@ythegamerita]

Then in a couple of years the next person in charge will put all that extra budget into the army and maybe leave 2c a month to NASA

[@mathewferstl7042]

I'd spend that money on HSR but ok

[@BrianKelsay]

Its a turd of a program

[@TiberiusMaximus]

the sad part is once Starship is online all this shit will be obsolete overnight, Starships gonna change EVERYTHING. One Starship retrofitted for Lunar orbit can be a Gateway.

[@mathewferstl7042]

It barely has enough performance to get to LEO empty, a little while longer bud

[@TiberiusMaximus]

@@mathewferstl7042 so they're building a rocket with no payload capability? Doesn't sound accurate ...Bud. Maybe you should read a tad more about rockets or play some KSP...Bud

[@mathewferstl7042]

@@TiberiusMaximus so they're building a rocket with no payload capability? Essentially, it's called underperforming, because it's a rushed design. That's why, for an engine that's supposed to be rapidly reusable they're pushing its material limits like it's an expendable and why Starship 2/3 are now in the works. Starship one, once out of prototyping will have an LEO payload capacity, but one significantly less than what was hoped for, likely in the region of 70-80 tons, which means their HLS plans will have to reworked completely from mission architecture to HLS design. Hence why starship 2/3 is now being worked on You've probably been a "space enthusiast" for a month or two now, you'll come around eventually or get stuck in musk cycle

[@EagerSpace]

Starship 1 will never see production. They are switching over to 2 and then 3.

[@TiberiusMaximus]

@@mathewferstl7042 someone seems upset, you said what you said dude...own it and quit whining

[@xymaryai8283]

Starship is not fit for Lunar landing purpose. its just not. its a heavy LEO lifter. its a heavy, LEO, lifter. pls, NASA, stop huffing copium, use it to launch the Blue Origin lander, with a lunar transfer stage.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

You're being short sighted and simplistic to a degree. Starship is not an ideal lunar lander, it's a jack of all trades master of none. It's prime goal is lifting and moving a lot of mass cheaply and reliably. If you want to build a moon base with people you need to move a LOT of mass to the moon. Starship can do that, and IF (and there is a big IF since starship is still in development) they can meet their ambitions (never in their estimated time of course) then the will have a cheaper means of moving a LOT of mass to the moon. Making it the IDEAL ship for building a moon base. However, that's not to say it's the ideal way to move people. People and cargo are and can be handled differently. If you want to do another Apollo and plant a flag and gather a few rocks and little else, Starship is NOT the way to go.

[@winstonsmith478]

Horrendous waste of limited space science funds and like all human spaceflight, SO 1960s. Book: The End of Astronauts: Why Robots are the Future of Exploration (2022)

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

That simply ignores the people side of things which can have some impact. People tend to be ambivalent about robotic missions, thus public support (and thus public money) for such projects is harder to get or justify. Stick some bags of mostly water onboard and there is now human elements, human drama and a little more (sometimes not much more) human interest.

[@amentco8445]

The point isn't to send robots into space, it's to eventually figure out how to get people off planet in permanent colonies. How are we ever going to pull this off with essentially drones, forever?