Talk:Lunar Gateway

Boeing's concept for Deep Space Gateway unveiled April, 2017

Boeing has their press release here: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2017-04-03-Boeing-Unveils-Deep-Space-Concepts-for-Moon-and-Mars-Exploration#assets_117:20175

Hi-res render: http://www.numerama.com/content/uploads/2017/04/boeing-deep-space-gateway.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.140.213.126 (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The article needs a photograph. Can an authorised person please upload the two pictures into Wiki-commons? Authorised by Boeing. Hollywood lawyers gave Wikipedia too many problems with copyright on photographs for anyone else to do it. Andrew Swallow (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Task complete. A picture has been added. Andrew Swallow (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

A more up-to-date image could be added: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dln8ytJVsAAY5og.jpg?name=orig found here: https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1034135635827863552 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.169.89 (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Near Rectilinear Orbit Visuals

This paper visualizes the four types of cislunar Near Rectilinear Orbits https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160003078.pdf The Deep Space Gateway would be placed in a South L2 NRO. Ryan Whitley and Roland Martinez's paper showing the advantages of NROs can be found here: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150019648.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.140.213.126 (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The article calls it a halo orbit, as does at least the first of the papers you cite, but it does not seem to fit the description in our article. –??– —Tamfang (talk) 03:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I've created 2 orbit animations with Cosmographia and one screenshot to make the trajectory better understandable for the public. Because from Earth it looks roughly like a highly eccentric lunar polar orbit which is hopefully now understandable with the new graphics. The original screenshot taken from the Freeflyer software is still online on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-rectilinear_halo_orbit . If anyone creates a better multiscreen animation from Freeflyer, please feel free to replace mine. Isenberg (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 23:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Deep Space Gateway → Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway – Name used by the US Govt in the NASA FY 2019 budget proposal Hektor (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME, it is referred to by the current name in sources. It's certainly a plausible redirect but it's too soon to talk about total name change._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose There are rival proposals for the Lunar Orbital Platform for instance the Bigelow depot. Andrew Swallow (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• See here Hektor (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Sorry wrong decision - see the speech (NASA foresees human lunar landings by the late 2020s) of Robert Lightfoot as reported by space news:

  The platform is the Lunar Orbiting Platform – Gateway, a human-tended facility in cislunar space formerly known as the Deep Space Gateway. That facility is one key element of the lunar exploration plans in the budget proposal, which calls for construction of an initial power and propulsion element that would be launched commercially in 2022.

The name change has been confirmed by the head of NASA himself. Hektor (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Hektor. This discussion was closed prematurely, and the official name did change. The move has to happen. Besides, 1) Bigelow's project is called 'Lunar Depot' so there is no need for disambiguation. 2) That Bigelow unit will/would be used for the new station. It is not a competing concept, it is a team effort (The lucky six are Bigelow Aerospace, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Orbital ATK, Sierra Nevada Corporation's Space Systems, and NanoRacks. Russia may join as well). Quote: "...are cooperating on the development of a habitat orbiting the Moon that they [Bigelow] hope to build in a public-private partnership with NASA."(http://spacenews.com/bigelow-and-ula-announce-plans-for-lunar-orbiting-facility/] - Oct. 17, 2017.) BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The criticism section seems as though it may need some balancing supportive quotes 82.22.197.128 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Official name has changed again, Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway has been shortened to just 'Gateway'. WatcherZero (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It is just the short name for LOPG. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Since they expanded it to international partners in Summer (bringing in ESA to build ESPIRIT when they realised the originally proposed PPE was too heavy for a single launch, asking the Russians to build an airlock for them, though there is a dispute because the US wants only US suits to be used while the Russians want the airlock to support Russian designed suits as well) they've dropped the LOP bit, neither ESA nor Russia are using it and NASA's Commercial tender in June didn't use it either. E.g. Esa: https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Exploration/Space_gateway Airbus: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2018/09/Forward-to-the-Moon-Airbus-wins-ESA-studies-for-future-human-base-in-lunar-orbit.html NASA: https://mediadc.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/90e76ef/2147483647/strip/true/crop/2290x1202+0+60/resize/1200x630!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmediadc.brightspotcdn.com%2Fca%2F5b%2F83ceda524a9fb7e2779922cc6015%2F7facts.jpg WatcherZero (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

A gateway is a passageway with a gate in it. NASA and ESA can get away with calling their spacestation a lunar gateway but not just a Gateway since it sounds silly in news reports. A unique name is needed. Andrew Swallow (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Station versus Spaceship

Some NASA publications refer to the Gateway as a spaceship: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/questions-nasas-new-spaceship The Gateway is designed to be able to change its orbit if needed. Would it be more accurate to refer to the Gateway as a spaceship? Pseismic (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The International Space Station also has thrusters to adjust its orbit, yet, it is still called an orbital station. No difference with the Gateway. Also, note that it will be assembled in lunar orbit, and will not fly there as a spaceship would. I would leave it as it is. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

LOPG looks to be the most important next step tool in man's exploration of the solar system. My only reservation would be their current choice of orbit, if we are going to explore more remote planets & moons it is the latency of communication with rovers landed on the moon's surface that is surely more important than constant communication back to earth. LOPG and the moon could prove a great trials portal for rovers destined for use on other planets, possibly utilising nuclear power sources for areas where solar power is not available or sufficient for the mission.2A00:23C7:1A00:DB00:ADA9:8508:F6CE:9F9D (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The Length of the Criticism Section is Ridiculous

I understand the utility of having a criticism section, but it seems like there's quotes from everyone and their mother posted there. It's almost half the length of the entire article! I propose that it should be cut down in length, just because as-is it's really overtaking the entire rest of the article.129.107.80.73 (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If it's sourced and by notable "space professionals" we should keep it. - Seems more balanced now. - Negative reaction section is only about 10% of the article length. - Rod57 (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Anyone is free to add more references about reasons for having the gateway, to balance the long criticism section. Isenberg (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspect we will end up with 3 space stations

My suspicion is that NASA will end up building 3 space stations. This will be driven by cost and time.

1. The Lunar Orbital Platform (LOP) in lunar orbit which will house the reusable manned and heavy cargo landers. The landers will be refuelled there. 2. The Gateway space station in high Earth orbit (EML-2?) to which the Mars transfer vehicles will return. The modules supplied by other countries will end up here. 3. The LEO space ship yard. This will construct the Mars transfer vehicle and possibly the other space stations. The other space stations will be supplied via the ship yard because the CRS and Commercial Crew Program can reach this space station.

For space craft manufacturing a copy is considerably quicker and cheaper than designing a new module so all 3 could use the same design of PPE. IMHO The LOP and mini LEO ship yard could be in orbit by 2024.

Andrew Swallow (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I do not understand your comment —or was it a question to improve this article? The Lunar Orbital Platform – Gateway (formerly called Deep Space Gateway) is the only currently proposed space station by NASA, although NASA may give technical advice to private enterprises such as Bigellow Aerospace for a tourist hub in low Earth orbit. I never heard of the EML-2 nor "LEO space ship yard" concepts, and if they exist, they have certainly not been formally proposed. As for the ISS, NASA will be bailing out soon. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Sit back and watch this contingency happen. Andrew Swallow (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew Swallow: Did it happen yet? I'm sorry I'm just really confused by this. NASA will 100% not build more than one new station. Everything you described directley contradicts NASA's current LEO, lunar, and Mars infrastructures. NASA's current Deep Space Transport is a single launch SEP spacecraft (very ambitious design but it seems they aren't in the business of large transfer vehicles and i doubt that will change). A high earth orbit space station has no potential use that the ISS or gateway can't support. The ISS (formerly Space Station Freedom) was proposed as a LEO shipyard until they realized how unnecessary it was to build a large transfer vehicle. I am interested where this speculation comes from. RundownPear (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Major update needed to this page needed: NASA's current plans are for the Phase One Gateway

Here is a quote from SpaceNews showing the direction NASA now has for a smaller, "Phase One Gateway":

The plan also makes use of a minimal version of a lunar Gateway. Gerstenmaier said NASA was moving ahead with the Power and Propulsion Element, evaluating proposals submitted by industry in November. A selection, he said, should come this summer, with the unit launched by the end of 2022.

The only other element of the Gateway planned prior to a 2024 lunar landing is “some kind of docking/habitation small module,” he said. “That is all that is needed to essentially support a lunar landing.”

https://spacenews.com/nasa-outlines-plan-for-2024-lunar-landing/

The contract for the PPE has been awarded to Maxar Technologies (formerly SSL): https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-artemis-contract-for-lunar-gateway-power-propulsion

The contract for the docking/hab module has been awarded to NGIS: https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=36ebf3fc4d57c88b6bd8c94d1806dfb9

I disagree that "a major update is needed" for this article, and your references are months old. But the minimal architecture to serve Artemis 3 (Gateway phase 1) can be better highlighted, though. The award to build the PPE module is already documented; and NASA contracted studies for a small habitation module, no decision yet on its selection and it is not been built yet. Funding for the whole program is still in a very gray area. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, the Minimal Habitation Module contract was awarded ("quietly") to Grumman 5 days ago without a competition. Someone added that info already. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

2 or 3 proposals evaluated by ESA

As of 24 July 2019, ESA members were still deliberating on their participation on the Gateway, and 2 modules are being proposed for construction:

• ESPRIT (European System Providing Refueling, Infrastructure and Telecommunications)
• A habitation module

Now, Airbus is proposing ESA to consider building a third vehicle: a reusable space tug named "Moon Cruiser" to support many activities around the Gateway. So it seems like ESA's interest is high and are developing concepts, but it has not yet approved a budget to actually build anything.

Source: Airbus propose un remorqueur translunaire. (in French). Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: space tug, NASA is studying a submission by the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University for its own reusable space tug concept for supporting activities near the Gateway: "One of NASA's goals is to have a vehicle capable of regularly transporting payloads between the Gateway and other cislunar destinations." The tug project is called Project Luna. [1]; [2]. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

At the international partnership meeting in March ESA committed to Orion service modules, ESPRIT and to jointly develop a habitation module with JAXA though will have to wait for their budget meeting in November for formal approval. JAXA committed to a logistics module, part funding a habitation module and to provide HTV-X logistic resupply missions to Gateway with Falcon Heavy and Ariane 6 both in consideration for launching them. WatcherZero (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

While the ESA modules were just approved, the "Moon Cruiser" tug was excluded. So, I expect NASA to commission studies and fabrication for a tug. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible Move (2019) to Lunar Gateway

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

While LOP-G is still the "official" name, I'm seeing more and more references to it under the shortened "Lunar Gateway" name. In fact, "Lunar Gateway" seems to be the far more popular term. It may be worth considering a move. - Jadebenn (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a redirect from Lunar gateway to Lunar Orbital Platform – Gateway so the change is not urgent. I suggest waiting until the name is changed officially. Andrew Swallow (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The name is Gateway. See logo for instance. Hektor (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Requested move 26 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "Lunar Gateway" (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Lunar Orbital Platform – Gateway → Gateway (space station) – The "Lunar Orbital Platform – Gateway" is no longer an official name, as NASA calls it simply Gateway:

Astronauts will dock Orion at the Gateway where they will live and work around the Moon. The crew will take expeditions from the Gateway to the surface of the Moon in a new human landing system before returning to the orbital outpost. [The] crew will ultimately return to Earth aboard Orion.[3]

Pinging @PhilipTerryGraham, OkayKenji, N2e, Mfb, and Jadebenn: for consensus. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Opposed - The official name has definitely not changed. What you see in print is the short-form or short name. If a move was to be proposed for a shorter, common name, without resorting to disambiguation in parenthesis, it would be Lunar Gateway.

Rowan Forest (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Gateway sounds like the side gate to Kennedy Space Centre. Where as Lunar Gateway sounds like something near the Moon. Andrew Swallow (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - This is indeed the official name. See NASA papers for their FY2020 budget proposal for instance here. Hektor (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

That is not a notice of a name change, but one of many instances of the casual use of the short-hand by the editor. From NASA itself: "lunar-orbiting platform commonly referred to as "the gateway." Also look at this, they use simply "Gateway" throughout the page, but look at the tag at the bottom: Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway. Both of you have a strong argument for a move based on a common name (Lunar Gateway [4]), but it is demonstrable not a "official name change" by NASA. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Ugh, tagging is not updated for technical reasons, and the word "Lunar Gateway" is less common than "Gateway" in the formal contexts. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 16:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I am certainly willing to support a move based on the most common name. The two evident choices are: "Lunar Gateway" and "Gateway (space station) ". "Lunar Gateway" is common, self-explanatory and unambiguous. "Gateway (space station)" necessitates of a disambiguation (Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous.) So the logical choice is a common name that is: self-explanatory, that is also conflict-free, and unambiguous: "Lunar Gateway". Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Lunar Gateway, see Rowan Forest. --mfb (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support move to Lunar Gateway – Surmising an old name is still either an official or common name simply because it’s still used in blog tags is dubious logic. The sources provided by Hektor and Rowan clearly point to “Gateway” being at the very least the common name for the station. However, “Lunar Gateway” would be a natural disambiguation that would be preferable to the more clunky parentheses-based “Gateway (space station)” disambiguation. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 14:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

My logic is not based on a blog tag, but in the hard fact that NASA has not changed the name. The tag was presented as an additional support. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: It was not so much "additional support", but literally the only source out of the three you provided which demonstrated the use of "Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway" by NASA in recent times. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: You are always so [redacted, possible personal attack?], dramas and antagonization. Again: From NASA itself: "lunar-orbiting platform commonly referred to as "the gateway." [5]. As usual, you are too full of yourself and above NASA references. Rowan Forest (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support move to Lunar Gateway Just looking though some Space news related articles about this project, the common name as pointed out already is "Gateway" and also adding "lunar" might make it clearer. (the reason most articles just use "Gateway" is probably because the reader already knows the context).OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 22:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support Lunar Gateway as a reasonably common, concise, and precise name. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 31 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There's consensus to not move the page. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Lunar Gateway → Gateway (space station) – Gateway (space station): Gateway is the real name of the space station that will be built by NASA around the Moon and for manned voyages to Mars. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/moon-to-mars/lunar-gateway CRS-20 (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Pinging @PhilipTerryGraham, OkayKenji, N2e, Mfb, Rowan Forest, and Jadebenn:. — CRS-20 (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• See https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-artemis-contract-for-gateway-logistics-services (Gateway Logistics Services) — CRS-20 (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@CRS-20: I corrected the formatting of the requested move, using the template Template:Requested move. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 21:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@OkayKenji: A huge thank you. Cordially. — CRS-20 (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – The term "Lunar Gateway" seems to be more widely used still, even by NASA. See NASA's Lunar Gateway page. Dicklyon (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support – It's "Gateway Logistics Services" and not "Lunar Gateway Logistics Services" — CRS-20 (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@CRS-20: Seems a bit silly to be voting on your own proposal. Why not just update your original rationale instead? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

By requesting a move, your support is already applied is one way to put it. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 07:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@OkayKenji: Thank you for this intelligent response, unlike the blah blah of some. — CRS-20 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks but, please remember to Assume good faith. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 06:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@OkayKenji: I don't think he did it to me (ex: silly, doggy). — CRS-20 (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@OkayKenji: The Gateway will serve as an orbital outpost to support the human and scientific exploration of the Moon. As a command and service module in lunar orbit, the Gateway can be evolved to support longer duration lunar missions and exploration farther into the solar system. American companies will regularly deliver supplies like oxygen, fuel, and food to the Gateway for NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/ Cordially. — CRS-20 (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - NASA uses both and "Gateway" is so ambiguous that it would need the disambiguation brackets. Better to use the name that doesn't need them, see the guidelines. --mfb (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Gateway (space station) is not ambiguous, see https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2021_budget_book_508.pdf (FY 2021 Budget) — CRS-20 (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – Natural disambiguation should always be preferenced ahead of disambiguation via topics in parenthetical diusambiguation, to quote, "Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation [...] If no unambiguous, commonly used, and clear natural disambiguation is available, another type of disambiguation is used." Sources provided by Dicklyon in this discussion and sources presented in discussions previously have indicated that "Lunar Gateway" is a recognisable term used officially to refer to the station. It should be used in this circumstance regardless of whether or not "Gateway" or "Lunar Gateway" are the most commonly recognisable name. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Even if NASA says "Gateway", and if I suggest "Gateway (space station), do you prefer "Lunar Gateway"? — CRS-20 (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You seem easy with "quotes", so tell me which one forbids me to vote "Support" to my proposal? — CRS-20 (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@CRS-20: I don't understand why you needed to ask your first question here, since I clearly stated in my comment opposing the move proposal that I do indeed prefer "Lunar Gateway". I admittedly do not know of any guidelines or policies that prevent one from voting on their move proposal, but I can say at least that it looks dodgy; it can be interpreted as an attempt to trick editors who don't pay attention to signatures that there is third-party support for the proposal. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I see that you have not read the FY 2021 Budget. No mention is made of the 819-page FY 2021 Budget (February 2020). — CRS-20 (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@CRS-20: Please do not make unecessary edits to others' comments like you did in this edit. The talk page guidelines explicitly state that "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points." On closer expection, it seems you too have not read the FY 2021 budget summary that you cited. You can find the station being referred to as the "Lunar Gateway" on pages M2M-2, ET-29, ET-41, ET-43, SSMS-37, SSMS-43, and SSMS-44. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: Not SSMS-37, SSMS-43, and SSMS-44 : lunar Gateway, is not Lunar Gateway. — CRS-20 (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – Interesting discussion, especially since you all seem to know your stuff. But I think the problem here is that the name is just still too much up in the air and the project seems to be still developting. So I would suggest to wait and see how the project developes further and then decide, especially because we might have to change/move the article yet again. Nsae Comp (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per these sources [6][7][8][9][10][11] the common name seems to be a mix of "Gateway" and "Lunar Gateway" - gateway for most of those articles are used only in the context of "lunar" or "lunar gateway". So it terms of Common Name Gateway or Lunar Gateway are both acceptable. But "Gatway" by itself is not WP:ATDAB - one of the suggestions is to "Natural disambiguation: Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names." - Lunar Gateway achieves just this plus is also commonly used. The parenthetical disambiguation works - but "Lunar Gateway" meets Common Name and disambiguation. "Lunar Gateway" is also something natural ("readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to") over Gateway (space station). OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 02:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reconsidering, removing my vote for now. But not changing to support yet. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 04:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC) Oppose As of now the WP:COMMONAME is still "Lunar Gateway". If Gateway becomes the COMMONAME, then Gateway (space station). OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 05:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@OkayKenji: It is not Gateway or Lunar Gateway, but Gateway (space station) or Lunar Gateway. NASA removed the word Lunar because Gateway is a gateway to the Moon and the planet Mars. — CRS-20 (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Well I should clarify. I said that "Lunar Gateway" is better as it a more natural disambiguation over "Gateway (space station)". What are people more likely to look up (say on Google) "Lunar Gateway" or "Gateway (space station)"? I think "Lunar Gateway" (citing WP:ATDAB - Natural disambiguation). Thanks for clarifying. OkayKenji ^{(talk page)} 03:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is another address: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/ — CRS-20 (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is another address: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/moon-to-mars - We Go Together — CRS-20 (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@OkayKenji: You have understood everything, here we are. — CRS-20 (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@OkayKenji: Does Cynxing have the right to vote? — CRS-20 (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Gateway" may be the official name of the station, but NASA itself often uses "Lunar Gateway" and it serves as an effective natural disambiguation. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 04:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: So even if it's official, we shouldn't take it into account. So why do we have to give verifiable references. And since 1 January 2020, it is rare to see "Lunar Gateway". — CRS-20 (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: And since 1 January 2020, it is rare to see "Lunar Gateway". I should have put in more from NASA. — CRS-20 (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@CRS-20: Wikipedia's guidelines on article titles do make a note that, yes, the official name of an article's subject shouldn't necessarily be the name of the article. To quote, "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. In many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit these criteria. However, in many other cases, it will not be." In this particular case, many editors in this discussion have expressed their concern that "Gateway" is simply too ambiguous to be the title of this article, and editors such as myself have further expressed that it is inappropriate to use when "Lunar Gateway" exists as the station's most commonly recognisable name, and as a natural disambiguation. "Gateway" needs the parenthetical disambiguation "(space station)", while "Lunar Gateway" does not, because it disambiguates naturally. As a response to your claim that "since 1 January 2020, it is rare to see "Lunar Gateway"", here's a couple of articles from reliable third-party sources published in the past month alone, which use "Lunar Gateway" as a proper noun in prose writing.

References

– PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - There may be future Gateways for other planets. It is not a gateway for Mars, the "Mars Gateway" would orbit Mars. Lunar is the adjective modifying the general idea of a gateway. Since, thus far, the public is only familiar with the Lunar Gateway, "Lunar Gateway" is the most likely search. — Cynxing (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cynxing: I have just corrected 3 unnecessary spaces in your edit, and you are not a true Wikipedian since we cannot reach you. Also shut your !!!, to be polite. — CRS-20 (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@CRS-20: You had been reminded earlier in this discussion by OkayKenji to assume good faith from fellow editors. Unfortunately you're now launching personal attacks, on an editor that did nothing to provoke you and merely shared their opinion on the proposal, much less. Telling people to "shut your !!!" and calling them "not a true Wikipedian" is wholly inappropriate and you need to stop. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - it is known as the Lunar Gateway, and shortening the name only adds confusion. The parenthesis only complicate the name, not add clarity. Abebenjoe (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Significant issues with article's NPOV

It is Wikipedia policy that separate "Criticism" sections should be avoided when possible. Likewise, a section full of wholly supportive material should be avoided as well, as these sections both have non-neutral points of view.

In addition, both sections are little more than a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of statements. There is little unifed explanation of the criticism/support itself, just a list of things people have said about it.

Given these facts, I suggest merging the two sections and retitling the new combined section "Reactions" or "Reception." – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Someone has done that - but it's not helpful, because you have to read each entry in detail to work out if they defend or criticise. Now the only supporting mention is from the Gateway program manager! I've put it under "Positive" to make it easier to find. - Rod57 (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Gateway Logistics Module isn't really a module

The Gateway Logistics Module isn't a module as this would actually be Dragon XL operating under the GLS contract. However you classify it, this shouldn't be listed under the "proposed" section as it is now awarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.58.224 (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Please put the crowdfunding back on the Gateway All-purpose Module

It is crowdfunded, go search it up on GoFundMe. I actually started the GoFundMe page Uhhh556675665 (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

WHO REMOVED IT FROM THE PAGE ENTIRELY? Uhhh556675665 (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Aight who removed the all purpose module. Nobody knows about it and I am determined to make it a thing

Aight who removed the all purpose module. Nobody knows about it and I am determined to make it a thing Uhhh556675665 (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Uhhh556675665: Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources (see WP:RS) and relevance of the information. What you have added seems to be a random gofund me page with no indication of any kind of notability or recognition. So that cannot be added to the article. --McSly (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Power and Propulsion Element into Lunar Gateway

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not merged/withdrawn/WP:SNOW. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 13:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

---

This is a sub-topic of a topic that is not big enough to need a split. Whether the Power and Propulsion Element meets WP:Notability or not, the encyclopedia and its readers will be better served by having the content all in one place, at least for now. Later, if the content grows significantly in size, it can be de-merged. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 17:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Davidwr: I see your reasoning, but I intended to write more in the article. It was originally just a section in the Lunar Gateway page, but I thought that each module should have it's own page, consistent with other space stations, Mir, ISS, etc. I believe there is enough information to form a separate article, but I may be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PythosIsAwesome (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@PythosIsAwesome: I agree, for consistency's sake, I believe we should keep it separated. Since we do have so much information now, with much more seemingly on the near horizon, coming from NASA and its contractors about the Gateway, I believe that we could see an uptick in views, edits, and more information as it becomes available. XFalcon2004x (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• If the PPE article has extended commentary about the the ARM mission of its original purpose and the various configurations for that, then it should not be merged into the Gateway article, since it would not be appropriate to have extended coverage of Asteroid Redirect hardware inside LOPG. If PythosIsAwesome or other editors intend to add coverage of Asteroid Redirect portion of its development to the PPE article, then it should stand as a separate article. -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have also been editing it and found there are many sources cited in the article that are barely used, maybe one sentence, with only a handful making up the majority if the article, I intend to read these sources and believe I can add more about it's history with the Asteroid Redirect Mission and its past and current development under Artemis and Gateway. PythosIsAwesome (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with PythosIsAwesome. CRS-20 (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Withdrawn In light of the many changes to the article since I opened this discussion, and in light of nobody else recommending a merger, I am closing this as "withdrawn/WP:SNOW". davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 13:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:reflist

{{Reflist|2}} is deprecated.

The guidance on Template:reflist/doc says:

{{Reflist|30em}} (for example) instructs the browser to create as many columns as possible (of width at least 30 em, in this example) given the width of the display window. (Units supported are em, ex, in, cm, mm, pt, pc, px, but em is almost always used.) There must not be a space between the number and the unit. Percent is not supported.

Choose a width appropriate to the typical width of the references:

• Automatic columns (default when no width is specified): Where there are only a few Footnotes; see, e.g., Silver State Arena (23:05, 28 December 2012)
• 30em: Where there are many footnotes plus a page-width Bibliography subsection: see, e.g., Ebola virus disease (02:02, 12 January 2018)
• 20em: Where Shortened footnotes are used; see, e.g., NBR 224 and 420 Classes (13:32, 1 August 2011).

Based on this, we should leave it on automatic, {{Reflist}}, or use {{Reflist|30em}}. In any case, we should NOT use {{Reflist|2}} davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 19:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Lunar Gateway → Gateway (lunar space station) – Gateway is the real name of the space station that will be built by NASA around the Moon and for manned voyages to Mars. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy2022_budget_summary.pdf - CRS-20 (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Proper and descriptive. Jusdafax (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - The proposed rename is precise, but neither natural, concise, or consistent with other article names for space stations. I do not think it would be an improvement under WP:CRITERIA. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 04:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  In addition, the points made in the last move discussion still stand in my view. "Lunar Gateway" is a far more effective natural disambiguation. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 05:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the current title is a good use of WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION in addition to probably being the more common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support - "Gateway" is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME for the NASA space station that is in the current multi-national arrangement for a new space station in lunar orbit. Accurate and also common use makes it the best choice. N2e (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, as natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation (WP:QUALIFIER). @N2e: I do not know of any exception in article title policies that allow for any commonly recognizable name (WP:COMMONNAME) to be disambiguated parenthetically rather than naturally, but if there is, I'd stand corrected. — Molly Brown (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, keep the natural disambiguation. The situation hasn't changed since last year and no new argument has been brought up why it should be moved. --mfb (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - As natural disambiguation. Hopefully the proposer of this and the previous discussions won't try to move it unilateral again. BilCat (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undue Weight Given to Criticism in the Reactions Section

I think it's problematic that the criticism of Gateway is almost as long as the rest of the article. We do not need to include every single perspective opposing Gateway, just as we should not include every single perspective supporting it. I'd be open to ideas for how we could integrate some of this content into the article better, and cut down on repetition. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) [ 22 January 2022‎ ]

Why is it undue ? If they are from notable "space professionals" eg astronauts and ex-NASA staff, we should include it - but it would help to include dates so we can see how the arguments change over time, eg. as the project/design changes. - Rod57 (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to consolidate the approvals and objections to a few key figures rather than the current practice of seemingly listing every remark ever made by anyone in a verifiable source. Hyperbole aside, I think it's a legitimate problem that the section is about as long as the rest of the article combined. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Listing the 'negatives' from 'experts ' on any major technological development program is of little to no value especially when the counterbalancing 'positives' consist of a single reference!

One of the negatives is from a functionary of the the Chinese Space Agency whose agenda includes criticising everybody else's programs regardless, and saying little or nothing about their own activities.

Another is a retired engineer and a third a journalist!

Remember it's easy to criticise especially if your self interested as in administrators and politicians whose personal agendas are rarely revealed in the criticism or members of foreign space related organisations who are happy to disparage competitors from whose endeavours they are excluded..

Technology focused articles must stick to the facts,the nuts and bolts and if you want to go off and explore the minutiae of political decision making, administrative practice and other 'sociological' issues surrounding the technology do so in a separate article dealing with just that. He10393 (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Why are modules to be connected with docking interfaces rather than CBMs

Why are modules to be connected with docking interfaces rather than CBMs (as US segment of ISS uses) ? Is it to reduce cost, or to allow robotic assembly, or something else ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

PPE

I see that in the render captioned “Configuration as of 16 November 2022” construction of the PPE was solely attributed to Maxar, however as I understand it the primary contractor/supplier is Northrop Grumman. Please correct me if I am wrong. 105.8.4.132 (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, I was incompetent and didn’t read far enough to see that it is infact built by Maxar. 105.8.4.132 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)