JF Mezei wrote on Wed, 22 May 2019
16:34:48 -0400:

On 2019-05-22 16:02, Fred J. McCall wrote:

It's covered in the cite I gave.

You explain the orbit, I asked if the orbit having periods where it is
close to moon was the main advantage or if there are others.


No, I didn't. I provided a cite which explained what an NRHO is and
what the advantages are. Did you read all the papers it linked to?
Did you understand it all?

You've asked this before and it's been answered before. Neither the
Lander Element nor the Transfer Element could reasonably be required
to "be able to rejoin the Gateway at any altitude".

I originally asked in a context where I thought Gateway would be in a
lunar orbit. So I asked again, now that I know it is in L2 location.


And when you originally asked I described the orbit (so you should
have known what it was by now) and why your 'desirement' was not
feasible or reasonable. Mayfly, is your long term memory defective or
do you just not bother to read and understand the answers when you ask
questions?

be available for the first Lander Element to meet with it. There is
no requirement for a Transfer Element to 'loiter' once it drops a
Lander Element.

Didn't you mention the transfer would have to wait for Gatway to again
be close which happens every 6 days ?


It doesn't have to 'loiter' WAITING FOR THE ASCENT ELEMENT TO COME
BACK UP, YOU NINNY!

Anything that can get mass to that orbit can do the job. Gateway will
use ion engines that are pretty stingy insofar as fuel use goes.

But Gateway will still need to be refueled so that it can refuel
trasnfer element and landers, right?


Right. And the long term goal is for that fuel to be produced on the
Moon, not on Earth.


The whole point of Gateway is a refueling station, isn't it?


No.

And weren't you the guy proposing to just use LEM, which leaves its
descent stage on the Moon?

Yes. I propose this in the context of a 2024 deadline where NASA is
unable to deliver anything new in such time frames.


Wrong. Landers and such will be commercial, not 'NASA delivered'.
Blue Origin, for example, says that their Blue Moon lander can be
ready for use by 2024.


And in a context
that this is a political one-off mission not some long term endeavour.


Wrong. Pull your head out of your TDS asshole.

("cows can fly") and then ask a question that assumes the premise is
true. In your case, the falsehood is "this project is to support only
one mission to Moon". Since that premise is false, your question is
moot.

I asmed about missions to Mars. Does this Gateway provide any advantage.


Yes, if you buy into NASA's architecture for this sort of thing. I
answered that already.


For Moon, I gave see resupply dicking when Grateway is "high", and
Gateway launching landers to Moon when it is low. But for missions to
Mars, is there any Advantage?


Asked and answered. REPEATEDLY. The answer hasn't changed. Write it
the **** own and stop asking.


Also, assuming Gateway is to be built is wrong. With a goal of landing
on Moon in 2024, all efforts will be amde to make it happen once. Only
after, if funds aren't pulled, would they start thinking about a Gateway
thing to support multiple missions.


Again, pull your head out of your TDS ass. Your preceding paragraph
is bull****. NASA has put forward a plan. You claim to have looked
at it. It involves Gateway.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson