NASA Is In BIG TROUBLE! NASA's Gateway CAN'T Dock With Starship, SLS Can't Launch...

[@andrewplumb6544]

When Starship can 'in orbit' refuel everything else is pointless.

[@madusmaxamus8670]

NASA is totally focused on keeping its suppliers (Boeing) and its dated technology (Artimus) instead of scrapping all of it and moving into the 21 century and using what is available now. Boeing has it's own issues and the Artimus is an antique that needs to be put out to pasture. SpaceX has improved engines, larger space craft and newer technology that can do for far much less than what NASA has spent so far. Is NASA going to keep trying to resuscitate that antique by spending more billions of dollars or are they going to wake up to the fact that the SLS is a dead horse?

[@rearspeaker6364]

some organizations just live under rocks nowadays.

[@Wes4Trump]

Artemis is program. It can be altered with newer vehicles.

[@georgegarvey7338]

NASA is money laundering.

[@kevinmccarthy8746]

Musk said they do not need the gateway and it is a waste of money. Years and years ago.

[@alphatech4966]

yes but they still built that gate

[@KramR54]

If NASA ran a car company, they would still be redesigning the steering wheel of the Model-T while Musk is working on the Tesla. NASA is a dinosaur.

[@simonscofield8825]

This is why it will never favour SpaceX and go with Blue Origin everytime - they are just stuck in the dark ages of space and will never admit that there are companies doing much better than themselves as they see NASA as been the big dogs where in reality they are just old hazbeens now!!

[@ghost307]

Launch HLS. Refuel it in Earth orbit. Launch Dragon. Transfer to HLS. Do lunar mission. Return and transfer to Dragon. Come down. Refuel HLS for the next trip. Problem solved.

[@ThomasJoseph315]

Why not just make a second starship a Lunar gateway? It could be replaced every few years with one packed with supplies and new tech. The size of it is larger than the lunar gateway anyway.

[@alphatech4966]

then Gateway must be removed

[@epockismet76]

With starship acting as a space truck, there is a lot of flexability, so they don't have to plan as much ahead as NASA & Co usually does alone. A lot of the hype in the market overshadows the work everyone has contributed, and how that will progress. But everyone still follows the same level of efficiency, so for a long term mission, the stations will be built a lot different than the space trucks 👍

[@KraziIvan]

​@@alphatech4966Would be neat to see a modified starship being the new core for a gateway type station with docking/expansion ports.

[@Scaliad]

Starship cargo hold should be configured as a slideout... 😅

[@DAYTIME1231]

I thought Starship is built to take us to Mars. I cannot image why they can’t stop at the moon on the way. Landing on the moon would be a good shakedown for Starship.

[@jambothejoyful2966]

The current version is sized down from the final vision and is ideal for going to the moon

[@happyhoer2517]

Forget gateway for christ sake. The starship can act as gateway after returning from moon landing.

[@CruentusV]

basically, nasa needs to scrap ANY space programs that were wholly reliant upon boeing's participation (or programs reliant upon ANY defense-industry company in any way). not that they will because legacy politicians still depend upon personal quid-pro-quo, contract-granting enrichment...

[@Taz6688]

Instead of de-orbiting the space station, strip it down, strap on a big rocket, send it to the moon to act as a depot, it's up there and cost millions to get it up there, extend the life.

[@PC-nf3no]

I don't know if they could actually do that. To brake orbit, they'd have to go from 17,000 mph to 27,000 mph. I don't know if it could handle the stress of that. I'm thinking probably not. I was quite shocked to hear NASA's decision to deorbit the lab. Seems like such a waste. There is some talk of plans that one or two modules will be transferred to the new Axiom Station. NASA claims it's due to the station age. I think that is BS. It's clearly a money thing. The ISS absorbs Billions of NASA dollars, and they want to scale down to being a customer on someone else's station and focus on exploration. Commercial companies are now in a better position to take over low orbit economies so I can't really argue with that.

[@gottfriedheumesser1994]

@@PC-nf3no The mechanic structure of the ISS does not allow its landing on the moon as a total. You would have to disassemble the parts and rejoin them on the moon again, And what about the non-US parts of the ISS? The first was the Russian one!

[@PC-nf3no]

@@gottfriedheumesser1994 Oh, no! I'm not talking about landing it on the moon at all. I just meant in regard to your idea of sending to the moon for an orbiting depot. That is what you meant, right? As far as the international segments, the Russian had considered separating its segments as a standalone station. I think even they realize they are junk as their recent comments were to let them burn up with the rest of the deorbited station. The other international segments, Japanese and Euro segments, I think are owned by NASA by agreement and maybe some funding. Whatever the terms of the agreements are, it seems that they are in agreement with NASA to deorbit and destroy them as well.

[@gottfriedheumesser1994]

@@PC-nf3no The OP wanted to send the ISS to the moon instead of deorbiting, and that cannot work. As an engineer, I have learned a little about mechanics.

[@PC-nf3no]

@@gottfriedheumesser1994 As an Engineer, I have said it probably could not be done, but I haven't crunched any numbers. To disassemble, attach boosters to get each module to the moon, land them on the moon by some unknown method, and reassemble them on the moon might be possible with our current tech but it would probably be too expensive. I'm sure it definitely would not be desirable considering the age of the modules and that none were designed to be a surface module. Even to send the ISS to a lunar orbit, as we both have said, is not likely, but a case might be made to send a module or two from the ISS to the gateway as an addition. End of thread!

[@JustJ001]

I think it would be great if SpaceX designed and built the next space station when the international station comes down. That way SpaceX could have a station around earth they could put a space station around the moon, they could facilitate the moon base, all in preparation and practice for setting up a similar facility on Mars. Might as well work out any kinks while you're close to home so you know what you're doing when you venture out. Wouldn't hurt to have a space station around mars as well in the future.

[@leapdrive]

“Wouldn’t hurt” will cause taxpayer to pay billions of dollars.

[@JustJ001]

@@leapdrive it very well could. And if something like that was going to be attempted I think it should be put to the vote of the people if they would actually want some of their tax money to go to that. It's a big decision and the people should have a say.

[@Wes4Trump]

​@@leapdriveno more than the billions waisted by NASA now! They are the ones holding back these private companies from doing it with their own money!

[@leapdrive]

@@JustJ001 , people don’t have a say.

[@panwspanialy]

Good movie, but the lengthy introductions and drama make you want to fast forward a bit. Can it be more concise and shorter?

[@RobertLake-mf2qt]

Perhaps I am wrong but this whole situation has the appearance of someone getting tangled up in their own shorts. In reality, the whole Gateway concept has theoretical, if not practical, flaws that have not been addressed. I think potential problematic issues have been "kicked down the road" to be solved at a later date, rather that preemptive solution. This is almost like someone driving forward by looking in the rearview mirror. Cannot dock? Who is talking to who?

[@fionajack9160]

This was covered a week ago by Great SpaceX.

[@alphatech4966]

I do this before them!

[@fionajack9160]

@@alphatech4966 so this is the second time for you?

[@diaryofatreasurefinder7828]

Cost plus for Boeing. Ripoff for us. Private enterprise obviously can perform

[@_TONY_Az]

Spacex is just about ready screw boeing

[@seancayce]

Send a dragon capsul up with starship ... then use it as a transfer craft..

[@garykyle962]

That's what happens when you are working with the government

[@timkeagy1140]

Time for NASA to retire

[@rearspeaker6364]

it can't, its where the air force hides the Aliens.

[@art.is.life.eternal]

Here's a novel concept: Free Market Space Economics. Any company, at this juncture, that is incapable of building reusable spaceships, should not even be being considered seriously as a viable solution to anything by NASA. When NASA FINALLY got up off its bony ass, and decided to use SpaceX to bring back the two "Stucknauts," Boeing's response was, "We HATE SpaceX, but we have to go with NASA's recommendation." Instead of "HATING" them, why don't you try EMULATING them? Can you match their accomplishments? Why not? - Time to fish or cut bait: the days of "accidentally" going billions of taxpayer dollars over-budget, and expecting to be rewarded for such incompetence and greed by being given MORE tax money by NASA, are over. The careers of NASA executives who allow such obvious thievery should also be over. NO - MORE - EXCUSES! God, I am SICK of NASA whining about "We MUST have more than one launch provider," and other thin and dim excuses for waste, fraud, and abuse. When ONE provider, (SpaceX) (given HALF the seed money of a "competitor" (Boeing) that managed - on DOUBLE the tax money, to produce a single, POS leaking bucket of a MODULE), while SpaceX produced a FLEET of its own reusable ships AND technologically superior modules (and its own suits, both IVA and EVA), then LET OTHER COMPANIES WORK AS HARD, and DUMP the excess baggage. NO - MORE - WHINING! NASA is good at two things: unmanned space exploration of space, and WASTING taxpayer dollars to prop up companies like Boeing who never had an "edge" to lose, and are stuck like glue in a 20th-century model of spacecraft building - and they aren't going to change. Meanwhile, when you have an excellent, proven, less expensive, technologically superior provider of nearly any type of launch, then use the HELL out of them, and stop hand-wringing. Let other companies work hard enough to close the 100-year gap between existing providers and SpaceX, and - like any other business - let the MARKET - NOT NASA - sort it out. Companies that can, will - companies that CAN'T, will "HATE" those who can. Yawn. Go away. - Bill Nelson, and much of NASA's Senior management, are all stuck on spending ridiculous amounts of our money on obvious failures, that enrich the older NASA contractors building single-use ships, and choking out (as a result of this stupidity or purposeful incompetence), projects that are more valuable, with near 100% chance of success. The Lunar Rover, for instance, (already built, at great expense, but which NASA has decided NOT to send to the moon, and instead, just include a dead weight the same as the actual Rover). Along with their old loyalties, their confusion, and their incompetence at spending our money using proper priorities, they need to go - they are HOLDING US BACK! Likewise, if single-use rocket builders can't adjust to this new reality, they need to be left behind in the dust they created themselves. How much money, time, and other missions were lost while Boeing and NASA clutched their pearls, wrung their hands, and finally decided on what the obvious choice was all along: use SpaceX to bring them home - a 100% safe choice. How much was wasted, as we watched squirming, cackling hens, squandering our tax money on a lost cause, while double-talking, and making obviously ridiculous excuses? Time for a clean sweep of upper NASA management, and kicking to the curb any companies not forward-looking enough to be designing reusable craft. SpaceX just used, for the 21st time, a reusable booster to launch a successful mission, which will allow that booster to be turned right back around, after a check and a refurb, and be used again. Any company incapable and/or unwilling to match or exceed that accomplishment deserves only one fate (if they have been around for decades): make boats, or toy planes - but stay out of our taxes, and space. You are either lazy, greedy, and/or incompetent, and any ONE of these traits means you have NO BUSINESS designing mission-critical components, and DEFINITELY not entire spacecraft systems. It is NOW time to decide if we are serious about space, and the manned exploration of it. A few years from now will be too late, and those countries who lose out in THIS race will not be in the running for "technology leaders." If we continue down this path, we will make national fools of ourselves, while other countries literally fly by us. Lead, or get the hell out of the way. Those who follow will be lost. We have lost FIFTY FIVE YEARS dithering, deciding, and wandering around in near-earth orbit.

[@scotthruska]

Space X has flown 9 missions to ISS for 4 billion dollars less

[@PercyPruneMHDOIFandBars]

Whilst I think putting all your eggs in one basket, even if it's SpaceX, is a bad idea, the current NASA policy is insane! SLS was obsolete before it ever flew and the inevitable disaster on launch that's coming will not improve NASA's image one iota. Hopefully, some of the other projects will bear fruit soon because competition is healthy. I'm fascinated by Dreamchaser, it looks like an exciting concept and I hope it works! In the 1960 Apollo landed on the moon without any of the current advantages in computing available today. WHY is the return to the moon so complicated? The Apollo model is just as relevant today as it was then. Launch, TLI, Lunar orbit, decent and landing. Reverse the process for the return. Why add multiple extra steps (creating multiple points of potential failure) just to complicate matters? Apollo 2024 should be comparatively straight forward and FAR cheaper using, for instance, Falcon Heavy and Starship, (once the testing is completed) since both are reusable as opposed to Saturn which wasn't.

[@PC-nf3no]

One thing you have to keep in mind about Gateways limitations is why Congress never wanted it. Congress did not even want a Moon Program. Congress only wanted it for stepping off to Mars. NASA needed it because of one other reason and that is that the Service Module on Orion was too small to make an orbit close enough to the Moon for a landing craft. NASA had to convince Congress that we needed to go to the moon to mature technologies and practices on the moon before going to Mars. The whole Artemis, Orion, Gateway project was shoe-stringed together to appear less expensive than an outright properly designed project. Things haven't worked out so well but it's not all NASA's fault considering the constraints on funding from Congress. The Gateway does four things for NASA. Number one, and the selling point to Congress, is that there is significantly less Delta V required to go from the Gateway to Mars on a future project than from Earth to Mars. Two, it is in a position to allow continuous communication to almost all parts of the Moon. Three, easier access to the Lunar surface. And the fourth thing that is never mentioned is that other agencies would be able to use the Gateway to access the Lunar surface more easily should they choose to develop their programs to that end.

[@JosephGeis]

Just get NASA out of space, problem solved!

[@riogrande5761]

Non issue at present. First SpaceX has to Starship working and then they can design a dock compatible system. Nothing burger.

[@jroar123]

You do see the problem with Lunar Gateway? To use StarShip at the Gateway, down to the lunar surface, and back up to the Gateway will require several tons of fuel. I don't see Boeing bringing enough with them to fuel StarShip. That means you will need to use another StarShip to ferry back and forth as a gas station. If that has to happen, why not bring the Astronauts with you instead of StarLiner?

[@art.is.life.eternal]

Why would it require "several tons of fuel?" Once in orbit, the fuel necessary to land would be absolutely minimal - the gravity on the moon is only 1/6th that of Earth, but it does have enough of a pull to just bring Starship in, with only retro--thrusters judiciously applied to land it. The same applies to its return to Gateway: again, the pull on Starship would be TINY compared to what it needs to leave Earth orbit, making its return to Gateway as thrifty on fuel as the landing. The landing and liftoff would not require powerful, extended expenditures of fuel - small bursts would probably do the trick. The environmental barriers to launching and landing even that kind of mass are completely different between the Earth and the moon. The best solution, really, would be to bring some number of Starliners into Lunar orbit, and retrofit them in orbit to form a Station much larger and more flexible than anything NASA, and its butt-buddy Boeing, could even conceive of. Any company, at this juncture, that is incapable of building reusable spaceships should not even be being considered seriously as a viable solution to anything by NASA. Time to fish or cut bait: the days of "accidentally" going billions of taxpayer dollars over-budget, and expecting to be rewarded for such incompetence and greed by being given MORE tax money by NASA, are over. The careers of NASA executives who allow such obvious thievery should also be over. God, I am SICK of NASA whining about "We MUST have more than one launch provider," and other thin and dim excuses for waste, fraud, and abuse. When ONE provider, (SpaceX) (given HALF the seed money of a "competitor" (Boeing) that managed - on DOUBLE the tax money, to produce a single, POS leaking bucket of a MODULE), while SpaceX produced a FLEET of its own reusable ships AND technologically superior modules (and its own suits, both IVA and EVA), then LET OTHER COMPANIES WORK AS HARD, and DUMP the excess baggage. NASA is good at two things: unmanned space exploration of space, and WASTING taxpayer dollars to prop up companies like Boeing who never had an "edge" to lose, and are stuck like glue in a 20th-century model of spacecraft building - and they aren't going to change. Meanwhile, you have an excellent, proven, less expensive, technologically superior, provider of nearly any type of launch, then use the HELL out of them, and stop hand-wringing. Let other companies work hard enough to close the 100-year gap between existing providers and SpaceX, and - like any other business - let the MARKET - NOT NASA - sort it out. - Bill Nelson, and much of Senior NASA management, are all stuck on spending ridiculous amounts of our money on obvious failures, that enrich the older NASA contractors building single-use ships, and choking out (as a result of this stupidity or purposeful incompetence), projects that are more valuable, with near 100% chance of success. The Lunar Rover, for instance, (already built, at great expense, but which NASA has decided NOT to send to the moon). Their old loyalties, their confusion, and their incompetence at spending our money using proper priorities, need to go - they are HOLDING US BACK! Likewise, if single-use rocket builders can't adjust to this new reality, they need to be left behind in the dust they created themselves. Time for a clean sweep of upper NASA management, and kicking to the curb any companies not forward-looking enough to be designing reusable craft. SpaceX just used, for the 21st time, a reusable booster to launch a successful mission, which will allow that booster to be turned right back around, after a check and a refurb, and be used again. Any company incapable and unwilling to match or exceed that accomplishment deserves only one fate (if they have been around for decades): make boats, or toy planes - but stay out of our taxes, and space. You are either lazy, greedy, and/or incompetent, and any ONE of these traits means you have NO BUSINESS designing mission-critical components, and DEFINITELY not entire spacecraft systems.

[@jroar123]

@@art.is.life.eternal Simple, it's called mass. StarShip is going to be taking down tons of equipment and supplies.

[@popswrench2]

gateway better be autonomous or it will be screwed

[@leapdrive]

The lunar landing is being built around the Lunar Gateway. It’s a huge example of Elon’s Rule: “The best part is a no part.” Starship can land on the moon and launch back to earth without the expensive Lunar Gateway. Get with it NASA.

[@robertbrander2074]

The Question is ..... Can the BF Spaceship ever Dock with NASA's Moon Gateway ? ... It ain't built yet , Can't fly or land , is a long way from being Reusable , Can't transfer FUEL , Needs 10 fillups ... needs to Carry people , Land on the Moon and Return Safely .... Which is Not Likely for many Years !! :-/

[@alphatech4966]

It's being built! but the dock system is already being tested.

[@KraziIvan]

Gateway isn't built yet as well. Maybe time to re think it's design too.

[@PercyPruneMHDOIFandBars]

Bearing in mind the compatibility issue between boeing and dragon spacesuits, I don't think I'll hold my breath with regard to interoperability with docking. America and Russia managed it DURING THE COLD WAR, but now?

[@ghost307]

The Gateway is composed of multiple modules. The number of modules is determined by the number of companies that want contracts to be involved with flights to the moon. There is no technical reason that it needs to look like a child's toy.

[@dionysus2006]

The AI voice needs to stop snickering as much. Distracting

[@kevinmccarthy8746]

Years and years ago I remember a NASA guy said OH, OH, The DREAM CHASER can not be configuerd to, I forget if it was the Super heavey or the Falcon. I think it was the Super Heavey because of the shear mass of the Dream Chaser. So this person was saying OH no, no way to configure to carry the DC, NO WAY he said , all the while in my mind I saw it as a pretty good fit, a retired sailor living in Mexico, so a want to be a NASA guy. Dream Chaser needs to be big enough to house the big satalightes or the Hubble in a enclosed pressurised work bay. Four independent controled Canada arms. Long duration flights in orbit, all kinds of fuel, and Porn Hub.

[@flasheddy6236]

Boeing should stick to first and foremost building safe aircraft, it appears when it comes to space there out of there depth.

[@alphatech4966]

they are trying hard but it is not significant

[@PercyPruneMHDOIFandBars]

Yes. However recently, it has become increasingly obvious they can't even do that! Boeing needs a MAJOR restructuring in both management and culture, particularly quality control. Too many bean counters and not enough engineers in management positions.

[@tonyug113]

Why does it matter, aside from being a comms satellite , the gateway is useless in the Spacex Architecture --- just not needed, i'd argue the same for the BO architecture -- only real validity with tha dynetics architecture .. even then i suspect could be redundant if they just lauunched new alpacas from earth every time.

[@jroar123]

Lunar Gateway is not needed if Starship brings crew back and forth.

[@gottfriedheumesser1994]

Is the Starship built for landing on the moon? Does it have legs?

[@art.is.life.eternal]

@@gottfriedheumesser1994 They are developing a six-legged landing system for Starship right now.

[@gottfriedheumesser1994]

@@art.is.life.eternal Legs for takeoff have to be different from the ones just suited for landing.

[@dociekania]

Manned mission to the moon is a nonsense.

[@gottfriedheumesser1994]

Some fifty years ago people went to the moon and stated that it makes little sense to stay there. What do you want to do there? The Apollo program was mostly a political mission after Sputnik and Gagarin.

[@lazerithlazerith4012]

I so want to believe we went to the moon. It gets harder every year to make my points to others that we went and to even to believe it myself.

[@BACA01]

Back in that days your were not an L G B T community.

[@alphatech4966]

Take it easy! Space engineering can't be rushed.

[@lazerithlazerith4012]

@@alphatech4966 rushed I am 48 years old I have waited most my life now to go somewhere other then a few miles above the planet. I will admit the space shuttle looked cool as hell at least.

[@davidgifford8112]

NASA “we are tasked to go back to the moon” Boeing “Our tech’, which is substantially based on 1970s Shuttle tech’ cannot get you to the lunar surface” NASA “where can your tech’ go?” Boeing “We can get to a high lunar orbit and, get this, support a mission to an Earth crossing asteroid (delta v is lower than a landing)” NASA “A tiny earth crossing asteroid wasn’t requested” Boeing “Our lobbiest’s say it is now” NASA “Super fantastic let’s do that”

[@rearspeaker6364]

and the Chinese space station can't dock with it or the ISS.

[@garylester3976]

So far their designs seem to be somewhat less than inspiring. Renders of Gateway a conglomeration of garbage with no real over arching design theme or aesthetics. "Cobblers..." And from the sounds of things problems with basic functionality.. Almost like those in charge dont have an actual plan, or even know where to start... I would suggest starting with a centerline, and designing docking along it... Might even be possible to create an open center zero gravity well where ships could be brought inside, attached to center davits, and carefully off centered slightly into berths and ported. Allowing multiple ships to dock internally and the station to have artificial gravity. The Advent of Starship means we can actually do things in Space, even really really big things. NASA and Boeing seem to be stuck in the mud of the Skylab era... No imagination... And Fìrst mention of a microprocessor issue ready to send crew off on a one way mission to nowhere... How dystopian! I seem to remember having mentioned over reliance on microprocessors a few times in recent writs. Simplification includes really tiny complication. I suggest Elon's Government Efficiency Comittee establish Chinese style Re-Education camps for Engineers, to Woke them about design simplification. Also they could use a few mandatory imagination courses, maybe start them with finger paint and fat crayons while wearing over sized shirts... Also suggest Government pay by results... That those who get results get a next round of funding. And those who dont get results, get replaced by those who do. I'm sure Elon already has a version of that running. Maybe one of the old Military bases could be used for re-Education? Surely theres an old Boot Camp complex... Perhaps SLS could be saved and used later, launch it on the nose of a future Mega Starship, and point it at Ort Cloud research... That would be one way to be unlikely to see it again... Big changes coming... Some of them very very good...

[@alphatech4966]

Thanks for your detailed comment, I have a lot to learn from you.

[@Absalon68]

"But we've always done it that way!", Is the worlds greatest loosers battle cry. Conestoga wagons were all the rage 150 years ago, right? It's all they had "back in the day". NASA needs to ramp up to that ideal, and realize they're rehashing rehashed OLD tech, and that's never turns out well.

[@scotthruska]

Boeing has been working on that stupid Starliner for years and can’t make it fly. NASA allows this and is probably getting kickbacks from Boeing

[@pplusbthrust]

Boondoggle on parade sans 💲

[@_TONY_Az]

Scrap sls dont you think boeing And NASA have wasted enough ofbour money and time

[@alphatech4966]

So do you want to continue losing money in the future?

[@davidhansen9338]

DUMP BOEING!!!

[@MikeMaynard-n2h]

The breathing between sentences is highly distracting... I cant watch anymore without noticing. Not trying to be critical, maybe its just me... maybe a pop filter could help?

[@brianarries7852]

I’m sick of some people complaining about Starship, some people saying it will take 20 refuels, it hasn’t even been a useful rocket yet, Elon is crazy and they will never get it finished in time to land on moon and yada yada yada. I mean shit NASA won’t even have a launch platform or 5, or 6 years, probably more