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

NASA Is In BIG TROUBLE! NASA's Gateway CAN'T Dock With Starship, SLS Can't Launch...
===
Sources of image & video:
iamVisual:
===
NASA Is In BIG TROUBLE! NASA's Gateway CAN'T Dock With Starship, SLS Can't Launch...
The road back to the Moon is difficult! But it’s strange that NASA seems to be making it even harder. Do you remember the Lunar Gateway? You could be forgiven if you don’t, as the program is still under consideration by NASA planners, and it’s still not entirely clear what the purpose of the lunar space station is. Notably, this project has recently been found to have many serious issues, starting with its most basic functions.
Moreover, its progress is tied to a rocket notorious for delays, high costs, and technical problems—the SLS. Is it time to cancel them?
Is SpaceX’s Starship being considered as the solution?
All will be in today’s episode of Alpha Tech:
NASA Is In BIG TROUBLE! NASA's Gateway CAN'T Dock With Starship, SLS Can't Launch...
But before getting into the main content, I want to tell you: Thank you all for supporting our channel throughout this time. We now getting very close to the 100,000 subscribers mark. To achieve this, we need your help. Please hit the subscribe button now so you won't miss out on any exciting content and also give us the motivation to continue creating every day.
And now, let's continue!
NASA Is In BIG TROUBLE! NASA's Gateway CAN'T Dock With Starship, SLS Can't Launch...
Lunar Gateway, formerly known as Deep Space Gateway when it was first envisioned during the Obama administration, and later as the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway, is planned for an elliptical orbit of the Moon and, as its name suggests, will serve as a gateway to the lunar surface. Astronauts aboard Orion will dock at the Lunar Gateway and transfer to the Human Landing System (HLS) for the remaining journey to the Moon’s surface.
NASA chose to retain the Gateway and repurpose it for Artemis primarily because Orion cannot enter low lunar orbit or leave after completing its mission. Orion can dock with the Lunar Gateway in a highly elliptical polar orbit, flying 3,000 km (about 1,865 miles) above the Moon's north pole and 70,000 km (about 43,500 miles) above its south pole. HLS will depart from the Lunar Gateway and then land on the Moon’s surface. After the surface mission is completed, HLS will lift off and dock with the Gateway, and the crew will transfer back to Orion to return to Earth. Meanwhile, the Lunar Gateway will be a base where HLS will be refurbished and refueled.
Originally, the lunar space station was expected to launch in 2022. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen, and now, according to a new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, NASA does not expect to launch the initial components of the Gateway until at least December 2027. The estimated baseline cost is $5.3 billion.
NASA’s current plan envisions using the Gateway as part of the Artemis IV mission, which is now scheduled for September 2028. Unfortunately, the Gateway’s current launch target is three months later than needed to support Artemis IV, the second mission to send humans to the Moon.
Additionally, the Gateway program is currently facing quite significant technical challenges. This pertains to something called 'stacking control capability.' Essentially, if Starship and other large vehicles connect to the Gateway, they could affect its ability to maintain its proper orbital alignment. This would disrupt communication with the Lunar Gateway and prevent other vehicles from docking.
The report states that the mass of Starship is 18 times the value NASA used to develop the control parameters for the Gateway's Power and Propulsion Element (PPE). Program officials are evaluating ways to mitigate the risks associated with docking large vehicles, including having visiting spacecraft fire their thrusters to share some control responsibilities with the PPE when docking with the Lunar Gateway.

===
#alphatech
#techalpha
#spacex
#elonmusk
#nasa
===
===

[andrewplumb]

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

[madusmaxamus]

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?

[KramR]

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.

[ThomasJoseph]

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.

[kevinmccarthy]

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

[ghost]

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.

[Taz]

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.

[DAYTIME]

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.

[JustJ]

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.

[happyhoer]

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

[panwspanialy]

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

[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...

[RobertLake-mfqt]

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?

[garykyle]

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

[PC-nfno]

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.

[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.

[dionysus]

The AI voice needs to stop snickering as much. Distracting

[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.

[diaryofatreasurefinder]

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

[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.