NASA's lunar reboot is long on ambition, short on answers
- Reference: 1774447915
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2026/03/25/nasa_gateway_opinion/
- Source link:
The space agency [1]outlined plans this week, which notably included "pausing" proposals for the Gateway space station, thanks in part to SpaceX and Blue Origin being less than keen on the highly elliptical orbit in which the outpost would have operated.
The original architecture called for the Orion spacecraft to dock with the station, and astronauts to transfer to a Human Landing System (HLS) vehicle for longer trips to the lunar surface. The Gateway's unavailability means a rethink is needed. Orion, as currently designed, can't loiter for long in lunar orbit on its own.
[2]
The next scheduled lunar landings, currently Artemis IV and V, won't require somewhere to stash Orion. Both should be relatively short trips to the Moon: rendezvous with whatever lander is ready in time (SpaceX or Blue Origin), head down to plant a flag and make some footprints, back to the Orion capsule in orbit, and then home.
[3]
[4]
However, the establishment of a lunar base and longer missions will require somewhere to park the astronauts' ride, as they will need a guaranteed way of getting back to Earth .
NASA has a few options. One is to launch Orion, rendezvous with a Starship-type vehicle, and then use that spacecraft to return to Earth. That, however, warrants a substantial rework.
[5]Goodbye, Lunar Gateway: NASA ditches Moon station for Moon base
[6]NASA sets 'impossible' ground rules for relocation of 'flown space vehicle'
[7]Starship may chauffeur Orion to the Moon, as NASA mulls ditching SLS after Artemis V
[8]Artemis II takes a rain check on return to launch pad as NASA fixes loose wire
During the Ignition event, it appeared NASA's intent was to drop the problem into the laps of the commercial HLS providers in exchange for removing the requirement for a near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO).
The question of how to ferry astronauts to and from a proposed moonbase is only one of many challenges arising from NASA's change of direction. There is also the question of what to do with the existing Gateway hardware that was designed for orbit rather than the lunar surface.
[9]
A space agency insider told The Register that engineers had expected the "pause" for a while, although as recently as last week, the European Space Agency was [10]posting imagery of an outpost that is now on hold.
NASA's blueprint for lunar rovers and extended Moon stays are exciting, even if the timelines look optimistic given decades of efforts that have unraveled as political support waned and funding was cut. But scrapping the current architecture demands clarity on basics like how astronauts will travel between Earth and a moonbase.
That clarity does not exist at present, and, going by administrator Jared Isaacman's timelines, the clock is ticking. ®
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/24/goodbye_lunar_gateway_nasa_ditches/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2acQUs0vSRKat8LabDZjGrAAAAIg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44acQUs0vSRKat8LabDZjGrAAAAIg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33acQUs0vSRKat8LabDZjGrAAAAIg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/24/goodbye_lunar_gateway_nasa_ditches/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/23/nasa_rfp_shuttle_relocation/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/20/nasa_pondering_orion_hitching_a/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2026/03/17/nasa_artemis_ii_delay/
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44acQUs0vSRKat8LabDZjGrAAAAIg&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2023/03/Gateway_blueprint
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Two different goals
The goal that can be sold to Trump is a flags and footprints 2 proving America Trump is great again. That does not interest me but I accept it is the route to funding. Orion is the only crew vehicle available today that can return humans from the Moon so it is a part of the next US crewed Moon landing. SLS was the backbone of Artemis because congress loved splitting billions between 50 states. Gateway was required because that was as far as SLS could send Orion. SLS's low cadence doomed Artemis to flags and footprints every two years. Isaacman has done a masterful job of sidelining SLS. Step one was to promise the same money for more missions. Step 2 was for Orion to meet HLS in LEO and have the HLS deliver Orion to Low Lunar Orbit. Step 3 is that cheaper rockets can get Orion to LEO so there is no need for SLS. At the same time the pork that was promised by Gateway goes to the same people but for operating a Moon base instead. Moving outbound crew transfer to LEO eliminates the reason for Gateway. The only way that pork remains on the table is if the Moon base actually happens so old space's skilled lobbyists will now be re-deployed supporting that instead.
The goal I care about is reducing the cost of access to space - with a return journey. Orion does not do that. For a twenty year old concept it is fine but we can do better now. To reduce costs we will have to. The loiter time is a problem that might be fixable with enough money. The way to reduce cost is through scale. Satellites have been expensive because reducing the mass to the absolute bare minimum costs lots of money (or reliability). Bump up the size and problems can be solved with cheap brute force engineering. Bump up the size and the expense can be divided by 40 passengers instead of 4.
On the other hand, bump up the size and even the biggest rockets can only get a big crew vehicle to LEO. To go further would require distributed launch of propellant. Both HLS systems already require that. As that problem needs to be solved anyway we might as well apply the same solution to the crew transport problem. SpaceX already plan to make their Starship upper stage re-usable. At some distant point in the future with 100 consecutive landings people might actually consider it safe enough for astronauts - or at least safer than SLS/Orion. Blue are much more secretive and have announced long running projects that surprised space enthusiasts. I do not know what they have in mind but I am sure they have something and Jared knows about it. Perhaps they will dust off their [1]biconic design for use in a crew vehicle.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Commercial_Crew_Program#CCDev_2
Rise of the Trumpanaut
USA ambitions are like spending all your money of fags and streaming packages instead of your family.
Exactly how will astronauts get to and from that moonbase?
Eagles.
Brand it Trump, and classify it as military hardware.
There, funding and top-level support guaranteed. And when we're shut of the bastard, maybe we can repurpose all that ICE funding to something less awful.