Is NASA Making Progress On The Lunar Gateway?

One of the most important pieces in NASA’s return to the Moon is the Gateway lunar space station. Acting as a hub, Gateway is expected to dock with visiting spacecraft, shelter crews before and during their missions, and provide logistics among other benefits. All this being said, new delays and Artemis developments bring up concerns regarding the station’s future.
As of right now, the two initial segments are scheduled to lift off together in October 2025. However, this is expected to change which could shift its development and upcoming milestones. Something NASA needs to ensure stays on track for a timely launch. Here I will go more in-depth into Gateway’s development, questions regarding its launch date, the station’s design, and more.
Full article here - thespacebucket.com/is-nasa-ma...
For more space-related content check out - thespacebucket.com/
Credit:
SpaceX - / spacex
NASA - / @nasa
Chapters:
0:00 - Intro
0;39 - Launch Date Changes
3:43 - New Lunar Space Station

[@martythemartian99]

Anyone who says Gateway is not needed for Artemis, need to get their heads out of the 1960's. This is not the Flags and Footprints Apollo mission, this is one more step in moving forward towards opening up manned space flight throughout the solar system. Thus far, humanity has not developed the hardware and systems needed to survive outside the protection of Earth's magnetic field for more than a several days. We need to move away from big news headline missions, and instead work consistently towards going forward with the capability to go anywhere, and do anything. I have spoken! 🧐

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

Yes, true, but this won't work good through minimalism. Gateway is neccessary, but it will be not more than a torturebox.

[@eternalfarewell2646]

You are completely wrong. First off, if we want to test a system capable of transporting humans outside the Van Allen belts, we could easily build such a transportation system immediately rather then spending billions on an orbital space station. We could launch the system on a direct trajectory to orbit Venus or Mars and return. An Lunar Orbital Space Station simply orbits the Moon and does not take us anywhere. As for not being a "Flags and Footprints Apollo mission", the best way to ensure long term sustainability on the Moon is to build a station on the surface of the Moon. A surface station is far safer then an orbital space station and will give astronauts a place to safely refuel their spacecraft and develop a base for exploring the Moon. A surface station could be a staging point where astronauts would then use manned pressurized Lunar Rovers to take days long expeditions across the Lunar Surface. A Lunar Gateway will simply waste thousands of dollars in developing an operating such a station and would lead to little to no scientific research.

[@jarivuorinen3878]

@@eternalfarewell2646 There exists no rocket that could haul anything from Earth to the Moon directly. This space station is needed on the orbit it will be in, simply because the rockets and spacecraft we'll use to service it, can actually reach this orbit. No rocket&spacecraft can carry heavy payloads directly to the surface, we don't currently have such technology.

[@MrCateagle]

Needs a few of Sierra Space's inflatable habitats.

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

absolutely!

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

That would make a big difference!

[@davidstevenson9517]

Sierra Spacehas offered up an inflatable lunar space station design. Built around one inflatable habitat with two "Shooting Star"-based modules on each side and another "SS"-based control module with two side docking ports at the aft end. (Posted on Amazing Space Videos, worth a look.)

[@benjaminmontenegro3423]

Two videos in two days in a row?We’re lucky it seems! Keep up the good work!

[@SoftAsFur]

'Imagine yourself in a room, that's too short for you to stand up in and not wide enough for you to lie down in. A room with no windows...' Ocean's 12 ~ Why not strap a rocket or 2 to a couple ISS modules and send them to lunar orbit? This is absurd they can't engineer this properly. It's like we are progressing backwards in technology.

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

This is great idea. Why let something that was brought into orbit at such great cost and effort burn up during entry into the atmosphere? It makes no sense!

[@HALLish-jl5mo]

The ISS is ageing. Metal fatigue, cracking, leaks, electrical shorts, solar panel degradation… It’s also in an awkwardly inclined orbit to let the Russians access it, which would increase delta v required to reach the moon (although considering Gateway is designed entirely to waste delta v, maybe that would be a bonus). Finally, the ISS is an international collaboration designed to be retired in 2031. What NASA would need to do is dismantle the station, disrupting the space program of multiple countries and their own existing commitments, to achieve their own goals. Probably not going to go well. Especially because while the Russian modules are self sufficient, American ones are not, intended to be placed, and have additional infrastructure added (solar panels, heat radiators, etc) by space shuttle and space walks. American modules also don’t have any toilets, with Russian segments having 2, and an ESA module having the third. So the only suitable ISS modules are the Russian ones.

[@eichelbergergary]

while imperfect, the Gateway station orbiting them moon and available for occupancy by astronauts visiting the moon, is incredibly exciting to me.

[@dks13827]

as an Apollo guy........... I dont get it.

[@alexlabs4858]

@@dks13827Apollo’s goal was to beat the soviets to the moon and also prove that it was possible within a decade. Besides a few other research missions, that’s it. The goal of Artemis is completely different. The idea is to establish a permanent presence on the moon in preparation for traveling to Mars and beyond. Having a hub at the moon for both of these goals is important. For moon missions, someone always ends up staying in lunar orbit. With the amount of missions planned, it’s better that those accommodations be a full station rather than a regular small spacecraft. Gateway can also host transfer ships for travel to mars. These ships can use the support systems of the station as it waits for a ship from earth to arrive and have astronauts transfer onto it. Lots of really good reasons for a lunar space station, but the most important part is that this is a completely different mission than Apollo with wildly different goals even though it involves the same location.

[@martythemartian99]

@@dks13827 Apollo was cool, but did very little. Now we want to do a lot. Stay for a long time, learn as much as possible, and prepare for Mars by learning how to survive outside Earths magnetic field for extended periods. Apollo was a row boat, Artemis is a ship. Apollo was like camping with a tent and a bicycle, Artemis is camping with a truck. You can go further and stay longer.

[@nuance9000]

I get it, but I still think a smaller, proof-of-concept station in lunar orbit is more practical. Just maintaining rovers on the far side of the moon with an array of telecommuting satellites is a lot but necessary..? I think... 🤔

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

Artemis is what? Its still a f..... tincan without even a toilet. And Gateway is a torturebox, without even the space that 2 people could pass by each other.

[@DaniNyaaa]

Congrats on another great video!!

[@100c0c]

Thank you

[@Hattusa]

Imagine riding in the HLS Starship, then having to cram yourself into that 🤣

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

NASA does not seem to realize what Starship is. See how it is: 4 astronauts travel 3 days in a tincan, without toilet. When they reach the Moon, 2 astronauts board the Starship, where 100 astronauts still had enough room. They take the last 200km to the moom surface. Will the 2 have enough time to unload the 100t cargo? After 2 weeks they fly back to join the other 2 in the tincan without toilet and travel 3 days back to Earth. For what the 4th astronaut? On Apollo one was sufficient to wait in orbit. 🚀🏴‍☠️🎸

[@raptorwhite6468]

HLS probably won't be really spacious either, it's only designed for two people at a time

[@David-wc5zl]

LOL. Imagine still believing Elon Musk.

[@raptorwhite6468]

@@David-wc5zl Why not? SpaceX is doing great and the development of Starship is going according to plan, just slower, because of FAA

[@plainText384]

I hope we will see a Gateway expansion from NASA or ESA. There is no reason to be limited to 2x2x2 volume. Perhaps an inflatable LIFE module from Sierra Space? Surely Lockheed Martins planned cislunar transporter, SpaceX's planned Starship or some future tech based on the NASA/DARPA DRACO program could be used to ferry large space station components from LEO to NRHO, even if something like Falcon Heavy can't lift them to the moon in a single launch.

[@wesleybeaver]

The LIFE module will have to be proven in LEO before they would risk using one at Luna. However once proven, it would likely be the most economical method of expanding Gateway.

[@davidstevenson9517]

GATEWAY will expand; that what modular space stations are all about. China is expanding their Tiangong-3 over the next 2 years and intend to build their own lunar space station to support the International Lunar Research Station.

[@chriswirges5202]

What else is new? Sounds like the Webb doesn't it? KEEP GOING! We need to develop this technology to function outside our magnetic field in space. Having a Moon Base and Gateway gives humans the starting technology to live off planet. Without both we're stuck.

[@DJAYPAZ]

Well said. Living beyond the Earths magnetosphere is a big step. As you’ve said we need to take this step close to home.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

The kids will need to grow up. A painfull experience for some....

[@David-wc5zl]

LOL This is never happening. It's not possible for humans to survive long term off of Earth. Look at the bratty demands here. It's pathetic. MuskCult.

[@davebooth5608]

I wish they’d have Gateway done before they launch ppl to the moon. It feel safer to me. Idk just makes sense

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

With only weekly access? Gives me no confidence. 🚀🏴‍☠️🎸

[@SebastianWellsTL]

Love your videos!

[@rainer9825]

Gateway has significant political value. It enables partners to build momentum to identify and reach shared goals.

[@TiberiusMaximus]

so expect to see 1 SLS launch every 3 years then...wow

[@danielnorman8595]

Smarter everyday told the nasa engineers that that elliptical orbit around the moon was nonsense he told them they should reconsider. He posted the video if you haven't seen it it's worth watching

[@davidstevenson9517]

If the limit on the diameter of GATEWAY is the diameter of Falcon Heavy fairing (6:00), then NASA needs a heavier launcher for modules of greater diameter i.e. Vulcan or New Glenn. Vulcan has proven it could do the job. While NASA, and partners, now have the launcher to give crews respectable accommodations at GATEWAY, they don't have the finance. Surely this a temporary problem?

[@i-love-space390]

When people talk about delays in the program, they act like the CoVid 19 pandemic never happened or something. Is it no wonder that all these programs are delayed? You can't have 2 years of shutdowns and limitations on your work and expect the programs to remain on schedule. Also, why not adapt the first lunar landing mission, Artemis 3, to make use of the Gateway? Personally, I think the program needs more redundancy. Apollo had more redundancy than Artemis. Look at the puny delta-V capability of the Orion service module compared to the Apollo Service module. Look at the fact that Artemis is using a much higher energy orbit than Apollo. There are many design choices of Artemis that make it even riskier than Apollo.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

People also tend to think tech development works like it does in a video game. That there is a magical count down timer and when it hits zero things magically appear.

[@torussaga3428]

Why not just fit out two Star Ships and dock them. Plenty of space in space...well a type of space within space.

[@Balls_yeet]

W vid keep doing more

[@notgreg123]

I can see what they were going for with gateway but i feel like they were planning too far ahead One of the big reasons for the gateway's existance is orbital refueling which will almost certainly become a thing in the future. The problem is that they have a lot of work to do before this is possible and with the station only having a lifespan of a measly 15 years, i just don't think it's practical or really that useful Eventually a lunar station will be necessary and useful, but this isn't it. For what it'll be used for it'll basically just be a worse ISS

[@martythemartian99]

You are right, but politicians need to have things to show to justify the money, meaning NASA needs to avoid taking the time they really need, and doing the slower steps that would make everything go smoother.

[@donaldautry345]

So Artemis is not only bogged down but it’s also bogging down every other participant

[@PC-nf3no]

"...smaller than originally planned!" This is what happens when budget people look at a design and cost and say you need to chop off 50% of the cost of your design. It's unfortunate that the station design was approved under the previous administration that had to deal with a Congress that would have done anything to deny any positive political gains. The subcommittee didn't even want the gateway and lunar exploration and wanted a Mars Direct system under a misguided and unsustainable prodding from the Mars Society. I don't like to be at odds with Dr. Zubrin but Mars direct was a 1 or 2 and done concept that would die in political red tape from enormous cost/benefits like the Apollo program. Lessons have to be learned on the moon first. NASA had a very difficult time convincing Congress on why it was important to go to the Moon first. NASA's plan is shaky but on fairly solid ground. Starship can reduce the costs of the program significantly by maturing as planned and eliminating SLS from the equation. An enhanced Gateway could become the stop off for multiple systems and operators on the way to the moon or planets. The Delta V required to get to Mars from the moon is significantly less than from Earth to Mars. It also allows for different kinds of propulsion and ship design that would not be possible launching from Earth. We spent over a Billion dollars to build the ISS only to be throwing it away after 30 years. We have better technology today and have learned much since ISS was designed, but I think the life expectancy of Gateway has to be significantly longer and cheaper to maintain than the ISS in the minds of those allocating the money to build it.

[@meltdown7259]

Lunar Gateway Space Station and fuel station. Plutonium powered propulsion

[@MarsEndeavour2023.]

Personally The Gateway Is Unnecessarily, It's No Need To Have A Space Station Around The Moon, It's A Waste Of Money. The Money And Time, It's Best If They Used The Time And Resources To Build Design And Test For A MoonBase.

[@Hoopaball]

Gateway is a joke. Why is the UAE developing the airlock and sharing our tech, while at the same time their universities are working to develop China's "international lunar research station" in a "research and manufacturing park" built by China, located in the UAE?

[@Anton-ji4td]

Where is the financial return? A huge amount of money is spent on all these projects, but where is the return. If you run a company a positive balance sheet is required.

[@yoshkeslp8678]

Government Subsidies and Contracts from the US and private investors

[@martythemartian99]

Do you say the same thing when you go on a holiday? r when your kid wants new gear for their sport? There will be some financial return, but that is not the only reason for doing this.

[@stocky9218]

If all scientific research and exploration required a return then modern society wouldn’t exist. The money spent on this is trivial compared to the money people waste on gambling and alcohol. However I do think gateway is stupid and it’s better spent on a lunar base

[@martythemartian99]

@@stocky9218 Learning to live in deep space is never stupid.

[@FishyAltFishy]

@@martythemartian99 spending tens of billions so that a dozen people can stay in space is pretty silly.

[@raytribble8075]

Send it there and SpaceX and Jared Isaacman can go break it in!

[@Marc-mp6lf]

0.75 is the perfect speed. Please speak a little bit slower.

[@dks13827]

I think the managers of this are ALL like that TN girl pilot.

[@Wrangler-fp4ei]

If the report is correct, the models or the plans need to be changed. Station is too small thanks to politicians ignore of needs of humans in space, too eager to cut budgets too look good for their voters. The crew will likely be camping out the capsule when visiting.

[@sharmanish123]

NASA is an highly developed space agency but Russia and china are equally good and better in some ways .like sending astronauts to issue use soyuz for last 40 years or so .recently there may be some changes .

[@lars-erikstrid2278]

Russia has a shoe string budget. So don't expect much from them. If they would have had the money and no sanctions, well then things would be different.

[@eleventy-seven]

No

[@doltsbane]

Gateway made a certain amount of sense when NASA was talking about a small lander, but if you're using Starship as your lander it's ridiculous. The lander it's supposed to be servicing has more pressurized volume than the space station and Starship is designed for ship to ship propellant transfer, it can be refueled directly from whatever tanker is delivering propellants to Gateway. What's the point?

[@andresitocasla2202]

All this gonna be cancel after artemis II anyways

[@tylersullivan8304]

Years to launch? Such bullcrap

[@chrisantoniou4366]

The Lunar Gateway is a waste of money and cannot do the things proposed for it... It can't shelter astronauts before and during a lunar mission - their orbiter and lander can do that much more effectively and the time needed to get to an orbit to rendezvous with the LG is ridiculously long. You also have to factor in that the extra steps in rendezvousing and docking limits the times available for a rocket to launch and reach it, and as for "providing logistics" - what logistics? Communication can be better (cheaper and more efficiently, 24/7) accomplished by a small fleet of dedicated communications satellites. Please let me know what the LG can achieve which can't be more quickly, efficiently, safely and more cheaply achieved on Earth or in low Earth orbit.

[@ericgeorge7874]

I always liked the 2001: A Space Odyssey movie where simply have the LEO station and ferry to a moon base with one craft needed.

[@chrisantoniou4366]

@@ericgeorge7874 ...and forever after The Blue Danube was associated with space... Seriously though, it makes more sense to do that than to have a "Lunar Gateway". At least you can have a number of different ferries to different bases on the Moon close enough to Earth to refuel, fix any issues, and so on. By the way, did you notice that the Orion III that takes the astronauts to the Moon has retractable legs? Totally unnecessary in space!

[@yoskarokuto3553]

(( I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA... (But I said it anyway) - Smarter Every Day 293 ))

[@TimothyLipinski]

Great Video ! The NASA Lunar Gateway is better mated to a moon of Mars ! A LS (Lunar Surface) Outpost is needed more than the NASA Lunar Gateway for Crew safety ! Also the recovery of Lunar Water Ice (H2O) for a Fuel Depot on the LS means you can fuel the Blue Moon HLS on the LS and not at the NASA Lunar Gateway ! The Blue Moon HLS with a fuel load of 6.1 km/sec delta-V can launch to the LEO CSS with the Crew of four Lunar Workers ! The SpaceX Starship HLS being delayed by NASA and the FCC can land with cargo for a near future Lunar Outpost ! High on the list for the LS Cargo is a Lunar Rover, Solar Panels and inflatable modules all for Crew SAFETY ! More info on the paper "Moon Direct" by Robert Zubrin... tjl

[@fast-toast]

They should just send a starship there and then hollow it out. It would probably be cheaper and have way more space.

[@IbnBahtuta]

What starship are you meaning? There isn't one.

[@fast-toast]

@IbnBahtuta when it gets made, they should send a starship up there.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

@@fast-toast There is a LOT more to a space station than an empty shell.

[@Bellshazar]

Could always permanently dock a lunar starship to it. If they made the tank areas livable space you would have a lot more room.

[@buddhistandcatholic]

Lunar Gateway is a waste of taxpayers' dollars at this point. what can NASA fit into gateway what space X can't fit into the lunar lander variant of starship.

[@flemmodk]

50$ the chinese gets their base up before that.🎉🎉🎉

[@derek_shannon]

The best gateway is no gateway.

[@zhengliheng]

Let us all realize the fact that the US had never built a multi-module space station independently. More importantly, the US had never built a core module of a space station, which takes care of the propulsion and overall control. By far, the only nations with experience on building core modules are Russia and China.

[@rogerdysert5344]

There has to be a first time for everything. What's your point? Just curious. No faith in the US space program or what?

[@zhengliheng]

@@rogerdysert5344 My point is, while it is not impossible to learn to run before walk, it is usually not the best way.

[@rogerdysert5344]

I fully understand your point. I guess I'm more of a risk taker than most.

[@Heat_Lance]

Maybe quit smoking the CCP's propaganda and actually look up some NASA history. The shuttle missions were the only thing keeping Roscosmos and Mir flying in the 90s. The shuttle with Space Hab and Space Lab modules was literally like launching a space station every time it went up. Space Station Freedom was fully developed before being adapted to become apart of the ISS. The ISS that China is banned from because not even the Russians trust the CCP.

[@samtobio3045]

Thales Alenia built the ISS hulls. You should know that NASA and its US contractors did the majority, if not all of the systems design. Cygnus, and HALO, are exactly that.

[@FishyAltFishy]

gateway is pointless, we didn't have painfully expensive lunar orbiting stations in the Apollo era, and those missions worked fine.

[@allangibson8494]

The Apollo missions weren’t aiming to land on the poles or far side of the moon either.

[@FishyAltFishy]

@@allangibson8494 I didn't know spacecraft needed a space station to land anywhere near the poles, I guess Chandrayaan-3 was fake.

[@allangibson8494]

@@FishyAltFishy The maintenance of continued communication requires a relay station. The early lunar landers don’t have the power budget for continuous nighttime communication with Earth - an orbiting station will.

[@FishyAltFishy]

relays need to be manned now? really? they cant just build a generic relay with all the typical features and redundancies?@@allangibson8494

[@ameritoast5174]

Seems like someone forgot about Apollo 13, didn't work fine there. Also, while Apollo was good it was not meant to keep a human presence on the moon. I do think Gateway is not what it was initially proposed to be and may be more steps than needed. However, having an orbital station that can grow and be used for fuel and ferrying sound like a good idea. Especially since its meant for more than just the moon. its supposed to be a meetup before moving past the moon and towards mars.

[@petera6984]

Gateway is a bad idea

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

There is more to it than meets the eye. Go watch Angry Astronaut.

[@tylersullivan8304]

I think it’s a shit ship. I think it’s takin too long and is still taking too long, it’s kinda of a joke we’re not doing better than this junk

[@outbacktrek]