JF Mezei wrote on Wed, 28 Mar 2018
17:25:33 -0400:

On 2018-03-28 17:02, Fred J. McCall wrote:

NASA's plan is to go to Mars from the Gateway.

Yep. But if the only purpose of Gateway is to act as a pitstop for such
travel, then you only build it once you are sure you are going to Mars
that way.


Wrong. In fact, using that logic nothing would ever get built.


In fact, does Gateway have ANY use?


Ask NASA.


If you're going to assemble and fuel
a Mars expedition ship around the moon, won't it be easier to just send
first module to any Moon orbit and attach subsequent modules to it?


Again, ask NASA. Here. Feel free to go argue with them about it.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-...-in-deep-space


If gateway were as big as the space station with crew based there who
could do EVAs etc, I can see an advantage. (send new module, do basic
auto berth, and have crews complete the connections, tests etc).


See the link above.


But as it stands, the first module sent up for mars expedition will
likely be more functional than gateway anyways.


Oh, I see. You're arguing about what you IMAGINE.


When SpaceX shows faster progress with BFR/BFS than NASA does with
whatever it designs to get to and from Mars, NASA's idea to get to Mars
will get killed.


Want to bet?




Remember that both NASA and Russia were late with their modules.


What?


Sorry, meant to mention the ISS. Both Russia and USA were late in
delivering their modules to ISS.


Yes, but so what?


NASA is bound to be late with Gateway as well.


Based on what?


The more delayed Gateway is, the more the chances that SLS
will be killed before the first Gateway part is ready.


Based on what?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn