Link: https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/03/nasa-kills-lunar-space-station-to-focus-on-ambitious-moon-base/

...Isaacman also confirmed that NASA will no longer build a Lunar Gateway in orbit around the Moon, but would rather focus all of its energy and resources on the lunar surface...

...One of Isaacman’s fundamental beliefs is that NASA does not have a revenue problem. Rather, it has an expense problem.

“For too long we tried to satisfy every stakeholder, and the results of that are very well documented in Office of the Inspector General reports,” he said. “Billions of dollars wasted. Years lost. Hardware that never launched. Fewer flagship science missions. And fewer astronauts in space, which means fewer kids dressing up as astronauts for Halloween...

...the lunar base would be established through three phases...The first of these, running through 2028, is estimated to comprise 21 landings, putting a total of 4 metric tons of payload on the Moon...

Its about time! There's nothing a permanent space station orbiting the moon can do, that a fleet of rotating Starship-class vehicles can't do better.

Forcing lunar landers to rendezvous with the station before attempting a landing just wastes fuel.

Forcing a cargo ship to rendezvous with the station also wastes fuel - if a lander needs to top off its tanks before attempting a landing, why not dock it directly to the cargo ship? And then return that cargo ship to Earth to be refilled and reused again and again as a temporary supply depot.

Hopefully they'll fully cancel the Senate Lunch System program soon too!

By no means an expert, so anyone feel free to correct me. My understanding is that one of the big issues with landing on the moon is simply because of the ground itself. I would imagine if they could get this moon base started up, including a stable and safe landing location (i.e. flatten a landing place) would help tremendously with landing and leaving, essentially providing the same benefits an orbit station would.

Regolith is SHARP, never having been eroded by water. Don't want to get that stufd in your lungs. Or engines, vehicles, or electronics, I imagine.

The lunar gateway is less of a space station than the name implies. Also less useful than you might think as the moon doesn't have gravity (in significant amounts)

that a fleet of rotating Starship-class vehicles can’t do better.

Has Starship done...anything yet? They've launched like a quintillion of them and none have achieved anything. In the 60's NASA launched two unmanned test Saturn Vs and then Apollo 8.

How does it play into ESA and JAXA plans? They have their own modules that they are building.

Yeah true, probably another good reason to have a large flat area to land on! Although would be curious if concrete or something would even be useful or not to take (water and all).

You would think a country $39T in debt and borrowing $500B a month would think about priorities over a moon base which no oen knows why needs to be built.

A rat done bit my sister Nell.

(with Whitey on the Moon)

Her face and arms began to swell.

(and Whitey's on the Moon)

I can't pay no doctor bill.

(but Whitey's on the Moon)

Ten years from now I'll be paying still.

(while Whitey's on the Moon)

They plan on using local materials as often as possible. 100% guarantee that would include making lunar concrete, not shipping terrestrial concrete up there. Rough napkin math: It would take a full, dedicated Falcon 9 launch just to ship the 15 metric tonnes needed for a single launch pad. Not a great use of resources.

Hell, even SLS is in a better spot than Starship