NASA just canceled the Lunar Gateway — the first space station ever planned for EML2. That’s worth reflecting on, because the case for a station at that location has never been stronger.
In my previous post I laid out the astrodynamic case for staging lunar missions from the Earth-Moon L2 libration point rather than from low lunar orbit. The short version: the powered lunar swingby trajectory gets you there for about 330 m/s each way, global access and anytime return come for free, and EML2 sits on the edge of Earth’s gravity well in a way that makes it the natural departure point for missions anywhere in the solar system.
That post was about trajectories and delta-V budgets. This one is about what you would actually do with a station at EML2 once you had one — and why the recent cancellation of NASA’s Lunar Gateway has regrettable aspects even if the Gateway itself had serious problems.
First, Some Credit Where It’s Due
The Lunar Gateway was to be placed in a Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit — a specific, carefully chosen member of the family of halo orbits around EML2. After being rejected by ESAS in 2005, NASA eventually did build hardware for the “right” location. The Power and Propulsion Element was in final testing. The HALO habitation module had been delivered. ESA had completed habitation and logistics hardware. Canada, Japan, and the UAE all had contributions underway.
And then in March 2026, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman canceled it, pivoting the agency toward a lunar surface base instead.
There are defensible reasons for that decision, and I’ll get to them. But before accepting the premise that a station in an EML2 halo orbit was somehow the wrong idea, it’s worth being specific about what would have been gained — and what is now lost.
A Node That Never Closes
The single most underappreciated property of EML2 as a station location is what might be called its permanent openness. From any point on the lunar surface, at any time, a vehicle can reach EML2. There is no waiting for orbital planes to align, no launch window that opens and closes on a lunar timescale, no plane-change penalty that varies depending on where you landed and how long you’ve been there.
This is not true of an arbitrary low lunar orbit. As I described in the previous post, a polar orbit precesses, the Moon rotates beneath it, and the combination means that for any given (non-polar) surface location there are only certain times when a coplanar ascent is possible. Miss that window and you either wait or pay a steep delta-V penalty. The ESAS architecture acknowledged this and budgeted 1,450 m/s in the Orion service module to cope with it. For the surface crews, it meant that “anytime abort” was a promise that couldn’t always be kept.
A station at EML2 dissolves this problem entirely. Many of the halo orbits maintain a roughly fixed geometry relative to the lunar surface below. The crew on the surface always has a known, reachable destination above them. And critically, this is true from any latitude — the equator, the poles, the far side. You could have a crew at the South Pole Aitken Basin and a crew on the Aristarchus Plateau and both of them would have the same abort option available at any moment: burn toward EML2, arrive in two to three days.
That’s not just operationally elegant. For a program trying to establish a permanent surface presence — multiple simultaneous crews, multiple surface sites, operations that span years — it’s a prerequisite for safety that low lunar orbit simply cannot provide.
The Accumulation Principle
One of the ideas I kept returning to in the old NSF thread was the notion of “aggregation” — the accumulation of hardware at EML2 over time as a natural byproduct of conducting missions there. Every LSAM ascent stage that rendezvoused at EML2 and was captured rather than discarded became a piece of infrastructure. Small, underpowered, battery-limited infrastructure — but real, paid-for hardware in a stable location that costs almost nothing to keep there.
This points to a general principle that EML2 enables and low lunar orbit prevents: things you put at EML2 tend to stay there. Low lunar orbit is gravitationally hostile. The Moon’s lumpy, irregular gravity field — dominated by mass concentrations, or mascons, left over from ancient impacts — causes initially circular orbits to grow eccentric over months until they impact the surface. Keeping hardware in LLO requires active station-keeping propellant. Leave something there unattended for long enough and it becomes a crater.
EML2 is different. A halo orbit around EML2 requires only modest station-keeping — on the order of 400 ft/s per year, as Farquhar established in 1972, and potentially as low as 100 ft/s per year for some orbit choices. Hardware parked there doesn’t decay. A propellant depot filled on one mission is still available for the next. A habitat module delivered unmanned remains habitable for the crew that follows. Infrastructure accumulates rather than decaying, and the station grows over time in a way that a facility in LLO would find very challenging.
This is the logical foundation for a reusable lunar transportation system. You build the station incrementally, mission by mission. Each flight deposits something — propellant, a module, a spent ascent stage repurposed as additional volume. Eventually the station becomes large enough and capable enough to support a permanently resident crew, whose job is partly to maintain and extend the facility and partly to coordinate surface operations below. The surface base and the orbital node grow together, each making the other more capable.
The Propellant Economy
If there is a single capability that transforms the economics of lunar exploration from “expensive government program” to “something approaching sustainability,” it is in-situ resource utilization — specifically, the extraction of oxygen from lunar regolith and its use as rocket propellant. The Moon is roughly 45% oxygen by mass. It’s locked up in oxides, but the chemistry to liberate it is well understood. The energy required is large but not unreasonable for a well-powered surface installation.
Lunar oxygen changes the architecture in a fundamental way, particularly if you have somewhere sensible to deliver it. This is where EML2 becomes so impressive.
Consider the alternatives. If you want to use lunar oxygen to fuel Earth-departure stages, you need to get it from the surface to wherever those stages are waiting. If they’re waiting in LEO, you have to boost the oxygen off the surface (~2,000 m/s) and then brake it into low Earth orbit (~3,000 m/s from a lunar trajectory) — burning most of your propellant just to move the propellant, which is exactly as wasteful as it sounds. If the stages are waiting in low lunar orbit, you save the Earth-braking cost but you’re still deep in the Moon’s gravity well with a propellant depot that needs active station-keeping.
If the stages are waiting at EML2, everything changes. Lifting oxygen from the surface to EML2 costs roughly the same as lifting it to LLO — about 2,000 m/s — but now the oxygen is sitting at a location from which Earth departure requires only a small additional burn. The orbital energy of the propellant is preserved for the mission it’s meant to fuel. A tanker flight from the surface to EML2 deposits propellant that can directly power a trans-Mars injection. Nothing is wasted on intermediate orbital maneuvering.
This is the endgame that makes EML2 so compelling as a long-term node. The Moon produces the propellant. A reusable lander — fueled by lunar oxygen, carrying lunar-extracted hydrogen or fuel shipped from Earth — shuttles between the surface and the station. The station accumulates propellant, stages crews, and dispatches missions. The Earth only has to supply the things the Moon can’t provide: crew, food, specialized equipment, and the hydrogen or carbon-based fuel that pairs with lunar oxygen. Over time, as ISRU matures, even some of those imports may shrink.
The Interplanetary Crossroads
I wrote in the previous post about EML2 as a Mars staging node, but I want to be more specific about why this matters and why no other location offers the same combination of advantages.
Staging a Mars mission from LEO has a fundamental problem that doesn’t get discussed enough: getting the nodal geometry right. A trans-Mars injection from LEO requires the departure asymptote — the direction and speed of departure — to align with the spacecraft’s orbital plane at the moment of the burn. Because the line of nodes of a LEO orbit drifts at only 2–4 degrees per day due to Earth’s oblateness, an orbit that is correctly aligned today may be completely wrong three weeks from now. For a vehicle assembled in LEO over multiple launches — which any serious Mars mission will require — there is no guarantee that assembly will finish exactly when the orbit is in the right position. Miss the window and you wait months for the next one, or pay an enormous penalty to reorient.
From EML2, this problem is greatly reduced. The Moon sweeps through all values of right ascension at about 12 degrees per day — fast enough that you can pick your departure time from L2 to hit any target in the inner solar system within a reasonable fraction of the launch window. You’re not at the mercy of slow nodal drift. A Mars vehicle assembled over months at EML2 can wait there without losing its departure geometry. When the window opens, you execute a small burn (~300 m/s) to re-enter a highly elliptical Earth orbit, coast to perigee, and fire the trans-Mars injection burn from deep in Earth’s gravity well where the Oberth effect makes every kilogram of propellant count for maximum energy.
For low-thrust propulsion — nuclear electric or solar electric — the advantages are even starker. EML2 is effectively already outside Earth’s gravity well. A low-thrust vehicle departing from L2 begins thrusting almost immediately toward its destination rather than spending weeks or months spiraling outward through radiation belts. The spiral-out time that makes low-thrust systems impractical from LEO becomes trivial from EML2.
And then there’s the question of what comes back. A vehicle returning from Mars or an asteroid carries enormous kinetic energy relative to Earth. Capturing it into LEO requires either a large propulsive burn or a precise aerobraking pass. Capturing it into EML2 is easier — the Moon’s gravity can assist — and once there, the returning vehicle’s propellant, hardware, and any payload can be transferred and reused. A Mars ship that returns to EML2 rather than LEO can be refueled with lunar oxygen and sent out again without descending into Earth’s gravity well at all.
The Far Side and the Science Case
There is one capability that EML2 provides and no other location does: continuous line-of-sight to both the Earth and the lunar far side simultaneously, from a stable quasi-stationary vantage point.
The far side of the Moon is one of the most scientifically valuable real estate in the inner solar system. Shielded from Earth’s radio noise by 3,500 kilometers of lunar rock, it offers radio-quiet conditions that simply don’t exist anywhere else in the vicinity of Earth. The proposals for low-frequency radio telescopes on the lunar far side have been circulating for decades — arrays that could detect signals from the cosmic dark ages, the era before the first stars formed, that are completely inaccessible from any Earth-based or Earth-orbiting facility. A robotic telescope on the far side, operated in real time from an EML2 station, would represent one of the most significant astronomical capabilities ever built.
Beyond radio astronomy, a station at EML2 could coordinate all far-side surface operations — rovers, sample return missions, drill sites — that today require relay satellites to communicate with Earth. Rather than a dedicated relay satellite with its own station-keeping requirements and limited lifespan, the EML2 station itself serves as the relay. One facility does the work of many.
The EML2 station also has nearly continuous line-of-sight to the lunar poles — which is where the ice is, where the permanent shadow regions are, and where the first serious ISRU operations will occur. A station at EML2 is therefore not just a relay for the far side but an operations hub for the poles. Communications, navigation support, emergency coordination — all of it flows through the station.
What the Gateway Got Wrong, and What It Got Right
I don’t want to be uncritical of the Gateway specifically just because I’ve spent twenty years arguing for EML2 generally. The Gateway had real problems.
The biggest was that it was never cleanly integrated into a coherent architecture. It was added to the Artemis program after the first lunar landings were already planned via direct LOR, which meant the landers had to reach EML2 from the surface on an ascent stage that wasn’t originally designed for that range. The delta-V from the surface to EML2 is manageable but not trivial — about 2,700 m/s with a realistic trajectory — and the Altair/LSAM design was optimized for LLO, not for EML2. The result was a lander perpetually constrained by its propellant budget and a station that felt like an add-on rather than the centerpiece of a coherent system.
The right way to design around EML2 is the way I described in the previous post: the crew transfer vehicle (Orion or its successor) goes to EML2 via the powered lunar swingby at low delta-V cost, and the lander is designed from the ground up to operate between EML2 and the surface. Instead, NASA designed the lander for LOR, then tried to stretch it to reach a station that was four times farther away. That’s not an EML2 architecture. That’s a LOR architecture with an expensive orbital waypoint bolted on.
The Gateway also suffered from being designed as a political object as much as an engineering one — sized to give international partners meaningful contributions, scheduled to keep SLS flights on the manifest, shaped to satisfy constituencies on Capitol Hill. These pressures produced a station that was too small to be genuinely useful as a long-duration habitat and too expensive to be politically safe when budgets tightened.
What the Gateway got right was the orbit. The Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit is an excellent choice within the EML2 halo family — it provides good south polar coverage, manageable station-keeping costs, and reasonable transit times to the surface. The location was correct. The architecture around it was not.
What Should Come Next
NASA’s stated plan is now a lunar surface base, with the Gateway hardware repurposed where possible. That’s not necessarily wrong as a near-term priority — boots on the ground, ISRU demonstrations, understanding the surface environment — but it is incomplete as a long-term strategy if it doesn’t include a plan to eventually build the orbital node that makes the surface base part of a larger transportation system.
The good news is that the Power and Propulsion Element — the solar-electric propulsion heart of the Gateway — is apparently being redirected toward a Mars mission. That’s the most astrodynamically coherent use of that hardware imaginable: a high-power electric propulsion module operating in deep space, for exactly the kind of mission that EML2 staging is designed to support. If that program survives and succeeds, it may keep the institutional knowledge and hardware heritage of EML2 operations alive until the moment arrives to revive the station concept properly.
The case for an EML2 station hasn’t weakened. If anything, the experience of Artemis — the mass problems, the plane-change penalties, the inability to deliver true anytime return from arbitrary surface sites, the difficulty of making LOR scale beyond a handful of missions — has reinforced every argument that Farquhar made in 1972 and that I’ve been repeating since 2006. The orbit is right. The astrodynamics are right. The question is whether anyone will build the right architecture around them before the next round of cancellations makes the question moot.
I remain, as always, cautiously optimistic. The Moon will still be there. EML2 will still be there. The powered lunar swingby trajectory will still work. Somebody will eventually put a station in the right place and wonder why it took so long.
Latest posts by Kirk Sorensen (see all)
- Star Trek 2 should have led to a court-martial - August 16, 2026
- Human colonies floating in the clouds of Venus - June 4, 2026
- Colonies on Mars require more than engineering - May 30, 2026
