Edward wrote: “That might mean that it was associated with the Asteroid Redirect (Retrieval) Mission to bring an asteroid to lunar orbit for study using the Orion spacecraft.”

Yes! I forgot about that Obama fakery. That asteroid mission was always a joke, from day one, but yes, it was part of the effort to find some goal for SLS/Orion.

Geez. No wonder NASA was so adrift under Obama. Other than making muslims appreciate their contributions to science (although no one has yet to discover even one contribution), NASA had no real direction from the President, and SLS-Orion had no mission.

Poor Lockheed Martin. Here they are, two decades downrange of signing their Orion contract, and it still hasn’t flown a single human being and has only flown twice, all because the rocket that is supposed launch it took so long to make, and still takes so long to make that it is years between launches. Then there is the part where NASA directed the company to swap out a perfectly good heat shield for one that doesn’t work right. Well, at least it is a cost-plus project, so they aren’t losing money on it. They might not have lost money on it, but we taxpayers don’t seem to be getting our money’s worth with Orion, with SLS, or with Gateway. Maybe Jared Isaacman can direct NASA into some good goals and missions.

Edward: If my memory serves me right, Gateway was originally a concept put forth by Lockheed Martin to justify both SLS and Orion, after those projects were under way.

In other words, it was created to give these boondoggles a goal and destination, and had no real purpose related to establishing a lunar base or exploring the solar system.

NASA latched onto it for the same reason.

My recollection is that NASA had the Gateway concept before the Artemis lunar mission. I seem to remember that “Gateway” meant it was to be the way to get to the rest of the solar system. I don’t recall the reasoning, but I suspect that NASA intended to use the Oberth effect* (a modification to the gravity assist “slingshot” maneuver**) during the close pass of the Moon as a way to reduce the propellant needed and increase the science payload to the rest of the solar system.

I have never been convinced that Gateway ever made any real sense, but then no advocate ever explained the reasoning to me. Is it economical, in that it saves money or time in the long run? Does it really get enough more payload to various destinations to pay for itself? Is Congress really willing to increase the number of solar system probes to make this a worthwhile endeavor?

Even for manned missions it does not make that much sense. The orbital period adds a week to any manned mission to the Moon, and it may add another week to the return trip. Either way, it limits the launches of flights to the Moon (or to the rest of the solar system) to every two weeks, at best. The reason it was used for Artemis is that SLS is not strong enough to match the Apollo profile of the low lunar orbit rendezvous technique, so the Artemis rendezvous takes place in high lunar orbit and the lander does most of the work within the lunar gravity well.

The only positive side that I see for Gateway is that it allows NASA to claim an increase in space capabilities, orbiting a part-time space station around another world, despite SLS’s decrease in launch capability from the Saturn V.
__________________
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist

But then again two modified Starships could just land on the moon and set up a base. A third could have just extra fuel for a return trip. Scavenge all the left over fuel from the first two ships.

You could even modify the fuel tanks before launch to have man sized doors in them to make turning them into living and working space easier.
The engines could even be removed and turned into assent vehicles for either cargo or emergency return to Earth orbit. Or even into Lunar hoppers to get around the moon faster and further.

I suppose one could launch the elements of Gateway on Falcon Heavies but it’s my understanding that these modules have no capability to rendezvous and self-assemble.

As things stand now, that’s correct. Only PPE/HALO will have LOI and maneuvering capability.

I don’t think it’s just Starship HLS that would make Gateway look dinky. I think it would look only modestly less so with Blue Origin’s Blue Moon 2 in the picture. Gateway, as planned, is simply, and irretrievably, dinky. Also expensive and useless.

mkent,

I suppose one could launch the elements of Gateway on Falcon Heavies but it’s my understanding that these modules have no capability to rendezvous and self-assemble. The Orions that are supposed to accompany these modules when launched on SLS are also supposed to latch onto them, pull them free of the SLS upper stage and then steer them into position for docking with the rest of Gateway. That won’t be possible if SLS is canceled unless a second FH is allocated to get an Orion out to Gateway to handle these chores. Granted that even a fully-expended pair of FHs would cost less than 10% of a single SLS, but Orions, individually, also cost way more than a pair of throw-away FHs.

This seems an awful lot of trouble and expense to go to just to wind up with a dinky little barely-occupied “space station” in a problematical orbit. If SLS goes – and I think it will – Orion and Gateway should be axed at the same time. Get back to the Moon with reusable SpaceX or partly reusable Blue Origin hardware and put off building any sort of lunar-orbiting space station until a proper large rad-armored and rotating one – or more – is needed to serve as an R&R location for long-term lunar residents.

Jay: I have raised this fact repeatedly since November that if you cancel SLS, you drive a stake through Lunar Gateway. Are you not reading my posts?

Just asking. :o