{"id":44322,"date":"2025-04-16T01:54:32","date_gmt":"2025-04-15T17:54:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp-productionenv-bjg9h2g2bgg5b8aa.southeastasia-01.azurewebsites.net\/news\/lunar-gateways-skeleton-is-complete-its-next-stop-may-be-trumps-chopping-block\/"},"modified":"2025-04-16T01:54:32","modified_gmt":"2025-04-15T17:54:32","slug":"lunar-gateways-skeleton-is-complete-its-next-stop-may-be-trumps-chopping-block","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/news\/lunar-gateways-skeleton-is-complete-its-next-stop-may-be-trumps-chopping-block\/","title":{"rendered":"Lunar Gateway\u2019s skeleton is complete\u2014its next stop may be Trump\u2019s chopping block"},"content":{"rendered":"

In one way or another, the Lunar Gateway has lingered around the periphery of NASA\u2019s human exploration program since the Obama administration.<\/p>\n

Back then, the elements that eventually coalesced into the Gateway were geared toward a nebulous initiative to capture a small asteroid and reposition it closer to Earth. Under direction from the first Trump administration, NASA ditched the asteroid idea and repackaged the concept to become a mini-space station in orbit around the Moon.<\/p>\n

NASA officials justified the Lunar Gateway program by highlighting its utility as a staging point or safe haven for astronauts traveling to and from the surface of the Moon. Crews could launch from Earth and travel to the Moon\u2019s vicinity inside NASA\u2019s Orion spacecraft, connect with the Gateway, and then float into their lunar lander already docked with the outpost.<\/p>\n

When plans for the Gateway came together nearly a decade ago, officials hailed the lunar station as a way to help lunar landers reach the Moon\u2019s south pole, where scientists believe large quantities of water ice reside in the bottoms of dark craters. At the time, NASA said the Gateway would also offer additional living space for astronauts beyond the relatively cramped quarters of the Orion crew capsule or small lunar landers.<\/p>\n

NASA cited other reasons for the Lunar Gateway program. It would help NASA gain experience sustaining human crews 1,000 times farther from Earth than the International Space Station. Gateway\u2019s design is about one-sixth the mass of ISS, with provisions to support astronauts for missions lasting up to 90 days when complete.<\/p>\n

The core of Lunar Gateway, called the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE), will have 12-kilowatt Hall thrusters, the highest-power electric propulsion system ever sent into space. On future missions, these fuel-efficient engines could push heavy cargo into deep space and help enable human expeditions to Mars.<\/p>\n

,<\/p>\n

That all sounds nice, but\u2026<\/h2>\n

Now, the justification for Lunar Gateway is less technical and more political. Many of the objectives listed above no longer make sense, or they could be met through other means. NASA will now use a much more voluminous lunar landing craft with its own muscular propulsion system\u2014SpaceX\u2019s Starship\u2014than engineers envisioned when work started on Gateway.<\/p>\n

Starship and NASA\u2019s second lunar lander, to be built by Blue Origin, doesn\u2019t need to dock with an outpost like Gateway to reach the surface of the Moon. In fact, docking Starship to the Gateway presents its own set of challenges. The Gateway\u2019s maneuvering thrusters weren\u2019t designed to keep the station stable with a massive spacecraft like Starship attached to it.<\/p>\n

You might say the Gateway is not only unnecessary, but an impediment to NASA\u2019s goals. If NASA wants a permanent outpost at the Moon, why not put it on the lunar surface? These are questions some space community stakeholders have asked since before the Gateway was even a line item in NASA\u2019s budget.<\/p>\n

If you ask NASA officials and other Gateway supporters today why it\u2019s important, you\u2019ll probably get an answer underscoring the program\u2019s international flavor. NASA is in charge of the Gateway\u2019s first two components, the PPE module and the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO), which will provide spartan accommodations to sustain the station\u2019s initial crews for up to 40 days.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s true that most of the pieces required to complete Gateway\u2019s assembly will come from international partners. Europe and Japan will provide a larger habitation module to accommodate astronauts for up to 90 days, the United Arab Emirates has agreed to build an airlock to add spacewalking capability to the Gateway, and Canada is developing a robotic arm. The European Space Agency (ESA) is also responsible for the Gateway\u2019s refueling and communications systems.<\/p>\n

,<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Maxar Technologies is building the Power and Propulsion Element for NASA\u2019s Lunar Gateway in Palo Alto, California.<\/p>\n

Credit:
\n NASA<\/p>\n<\/figure>\n

All told, international partners will pay about 60 percent of the cost of developing and building the Gateway, according to Amit Kshatriya, deputy associate administrator for NASA\u2019s Moon to Mars program.<\/p>\n

That sounds like a pretty good deal for NASA, but it still leaves the US space agency with a hefty bill. NASA has spent more than $3.5 billion on the Gateway program since its official start in 2019, and the agency is responsible for operating and resupplying the station once it is in space.<\/p>\n

At a recent event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Kshatriya said NASA\u2019s international partnerships have been \u201cone of the great results\u201d of the International Space Station program. The Lunar Gateway, he said, is important for \u201ccultivating that and making sure it endures.\u201d<\/p>\n

There are other ways international partners can contribute to NASA\u2019s human exploration program. For example, Europe already builds service modules for the Orion spacecraft designed to ferry astronauts to and from Earth. Japan has agreed to develop a pressurized rover for astronauts to drive on the Moon.<\/p>\n

The focus of NASA\u2019s Artemis program is currently on the Moon\u2014as it has been since the first Trump administration\u2014with an eye toward building experience for future human voyages to the red planet. The balance between the Moon and Mars could shift in the second Trump administration, thickening the cloud of uncertainty about the Gateway\u2019s value to NASA.<\/p>\n

Behind schedule and over budget<\/h2>\n

For now, the Gateway\u2019s first two modules are scheduled for launch at the end of 2027. That\u2019s five years later than the schedule NASA released six years ago. NASA currently projects it will cost the US government about $5.3 billion to build, launch, and activate the PPE and HALO in space. The two modules will launch together on a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket.<\/p>\n

,<\/p>\n

Officials blame changing requirements for much of the delays and rising costs. NASA managers dramatically changed their plans for the Gateway program in 2020, when they decided to launch the PPE and HALO on the same rocket, prompting major changes to their designs.<\/p>\n

Jared Isaacman, Trump\u2019s nominee for NASA administrator, declined to commit to the Gateway program during a confirmation hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee on April 9. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the committee\u2019s chairman, pressed Isaacman on the Lunar Gateway. Cruz is one of the Gateway program\u2019s biggest backers in Congress since it is managed by Johnson Space Center in Texas. If it goes ahead, Gateway would guarantee numerous jobs at NASA\u2019s mission control in Houston throughout its 15-year lifetime.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s an area that if I\u2019m confirmed, I would love to roll up my sleeves and further understand what\u2019s working right?\u201d Isaacman replied to Cruz. \u201cWhat are the opportunities the Gateway presents to us? And where are some of the challenges, because I think the Gateway is a component of many programs that are over budget and behind schedule.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The pressure shell for the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) module arrived in Gilbert, Arizona, last week for internal outfitting.<\/p>\n

Credit:
\n NASA\/Josh Valcarcel<\/p>\n<\/figure>\n

Checking in with Gateway<\/h2>\n

Nevertheless, the Gateway program achieved a milestone one week before Isaacman\u2019s confirmation hearing. The metallic pressure shell for the HALO module was shipped from its factory in Italy to Arizona. The HALO module is only partially complete, and it lacks life support systems and other hardware it needs to operate in space.<\/p>\n

Over the next couple of years, Northrop Grumman will outfit the habitat with those components and connect it with the Power and Propulsion Element under construction at Maxar Technologies in Silicon Valley. This stage of spacecraft assembly, along with prelaunch testing, often uncovers problems that can drive up costs and trigger more delays.<\/p>\n

Ars recently spoke with Jon Olansen, a bio-mechanical engineer and veteran space shuttle flight controller who now manages the Gateway program at Johnson Space Center. A transcript of our conversation with Olansen is below. It is lightly edited for clarity and brevity.<\/p>\n

Ars: <\/strong>The HALO module has arrived in Arizona from Italy. What\u2019s next?<\/p>\n

Olansen: <\/strong>This HALO module went through significant effort from the primary and secondary structure perspective out at Thales Alenia Space in Italy. That was most of their focus in getting the vehicle ready to ship to Arizona. Now that it\u2019s in Arizona, Northrop is setting it up in their facility there in Gilbert to be able to do all of the outfitting of the systems we need to actually execute the missions we want to do, keep the crew safe, and enable the science that we\u2019re looking to do. So, if you consider your standard spacecraft, you\u2019re going to have all of your command-and-control capabilities, your avionics systems, your computers, your network management, all of the things you need to control the vehicle. You\u2019re going to have your power distribution capabilities. HALO attaches to the Power and Propulsion Element, and it provides the primary power distribution capability for the entire station. So that\u2019ll all be part of HALO. You\u2019ll have your standard thermal systems for active cooling. You\u2019ll have the vehicle environmental control systems that will need to be installed, [along with] some of the other crew systems that you can think of, from lighting, restraint, mobility aids, all the different types of crew systems. Then, of course, all of our science aspects. So we have payload lockers, both internally, as well as payload sites external that we\u2019ll have available, so pretty much all the different systems that you would need for a human-rated spacecraft.<\/p>\n

Ars: <\/strong>What\u2019s the latest status of the Power and Propulsion Element?<\/p>\n

Olansen: <\/strong>PPE is fairly well along in their assembly and integration activities. The central cylinder has been integrated with the propulsion tanks\u2026 Their propulsion module is in good shape. They\u2019re working on the avionics shelves associated with that spacecraft. So, with both vehicles, we\u2019re really trying to get the assembly done in the next year or so, so we can get into integrated spacecraft testing at that point in time.<\/p>\n

Ars: <\/strong>What\u2019s in the critical path in getting to the launch pad?<\/p>\n

Olansen: <\/strong>The assembly and integration activity is really the key for us. It\u2019s to get to the full vehicle level test. All the different activities that we\u2019re working on across the vehicles are making substantive progress. So, it\u2019s a matter of bringing them all in and doing the assembly and integration in the appropriate sequences, so that we get the vehicles put together the way we need them and get to the point where we can actually power up the vehicles and do all the testing we need to do. Obviously, software is a key part of that development activity, once we power on the vehicles, making sure we can do all the control work that we need to do for those vehicles.<\/p>\n

[There are] a couple of key pieces I will mention along those lines. On the PPE side, we have the electrical propulsion system. The thrusters associated with that system are being delivered. Those will go through acceptance testing at the Glenn Research Center [in Ohio] and then be integrated on the spacecraft out at Maxar; so that work is ongoing as we speak. Out at ESA, ESA is providing the HALO lunar communication system. That\u2019ll be delivered later this year. That\u2019ll be installed on HALO as part of its integrated test and checkout and then launch on HALO. That provides the full communication capability down to the lunar surface for us, where PPE provides the communication capability back to Earth. So, those are key components that we\u2019re looking to get delivered later this year.<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Jon Olansen, manager of NASA\u2019s Gateway program at Johnson Space Center in Houston.<\/p>\n

Credit:
\n NASA\/Andrew Carlsen<\/p>\n<\/figure>\n

Ars: <\/strong>What\u2019s the status of the electric propulsion thrusters for the PPE?<\/p>\n

Olansen: <\/strong>The first one has actually been delivered already, so we\u2019ll have the opportunity to go through, like I said, the acceptance testing for those. The other flight units are right on the heels of the first one that was delivered. They\u2019ll make it through their acceptance testing, then get delivered to Maxar, like I said, for integration into PPE. So, that work is already in progress. [The Power and Propulsion Element will have three xenon-fueled 12-kilowatt Hall thrusters produced by Aerojet Rocketdyne, and four smaller 6-kilowatt thrusters.]<\/p>\n

Ars: <\/strong>The Government Accountability Office (GAO) outlined concerns last year about keeping the mass of Gateway within the capability of its rocket. Has there been any progress on that issue? Will you need to remove components from the HALO module and launch them on a future mission? Will you narrow your launch windows to only launch on the most fuel-efficient trajectories?<\/p>\n

Olansen: <\/strong>We\u2019re working the plan. Now that we\u2019re launching the two vehicles together, we\u2019re working mass management. Mass management is always an issue with spacecraft development, so it\u2019s no different for us. All of the things you described are all knobs that are in the trade space as we proceed, but fundamentally, we\u2019re working to design the optimal spacecraft that we can, first. So, that\u2019s the key part. As we get all the components delivered, we can measure mass across all of those components, understand what our integrated mass looks like, and we have several different options to make sure that we\u2019re able to execute the mission we need to execute. All of those will be balanced over time based on the impacts that are there. There\u2019s not a need for a lot of those decisions to happen today. Those that are needed from a design perspective, we\u2019ve already made. Those that are needed from enabling future decisions, we\u2019ve already made all of those. So, really, what we\u2019re working through is being able to, at the appropriate time, make decisions necessary to fly the vehicle the way we need to, to get out to NRHO [Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit, an elliptical orbit around the Moon], and then be able to execute the Artemis missions in the future.<\/p>\n

Ars: <\/strong>The GAO also discussed a problem with Gateway\u2019s controllability with something as massive as Starship docked to it. What\u2019s the latest status of that problem?<\/p>\n

Olansen:<\/strong> There are a number of different risks that we work through as a program, as you\u2019d expect. We continue to look at all possibilities and work through them with due diligence. That\u2019s our job, to be able to do that on a daily basis. With the stack controllability [issue], where that came from for GAO, we were early in the assessments of what the potential impacts could be from visiting vehicles, not just any one [vehicle] but any visiting vehicle. We\u2019re a smaller space station than ISS, so making sure we understand the implications of thruster firings as vehicles approach the station, and the implications associated with those, is where that stack controllability conversation came from.<\/p>\n

The bus that Maxar typically designs doesn\u2019t have to generally deal with docking. Part of what we\u2019ve been doing is working through ways that we can use the capabilities that are already built into that spacecraft differently to provide us the control authority we need when we have visiting vehicles, as well as working with the visiting vehicles and their design to make sure that they\u2019re minimizing the impact on the station. So, the combination of those two has largely, over the past year since that report came out, improved where we are from a stack controllability perspective. We still have forward work to close out all of the different potential cases that are there. We\u2019ll continue to work through those. That\u2019s standard forward work, but we\u2019ve been able to make some updates, some software updates, some management updates, and logic updates that really allow us to control the stack effectively and have the right amount of control authority for the dockings and undockings that we will need to execute for the missions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In one way or another, the Lunar Gateway has lingered around the periphery of NASA\u2019s human exploration program since the Obama administration. Back then, the elements that eventually coalesced into the Gateway were geared toward a nebulous initiative to capture a small asteroid and reposition it closer to Earth. Under direction from the first Trump […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":44325,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-44322","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44322"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44322"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44322\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/44325"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}