What Artemis could look like without Gateway

As NASA’s Artemis program moves forward, questions occasionally arise about the role of the Lunar Gateway, the planned lunar-orbiting station intended to support long-term exploration. It remains part of NASA’s publicly stated architecture, but it is also reasonable to examine what Artemis could look like if that element were delayed, scaled back, or ultimately not flown. 

Based on current contracts, ongoing development work, and publicly discussed concepts, such a scenario does not suggest Artemis would stop. Instead, it points toward a shift in emphasis to the lunar surface itself.

At its core, Artemis is designed to restore human access to the Moon and establish a sustainable presence there. Gateway was conceived as one way to support that goal, to be positioned in a highly elliptical near-rectilinear halo orbit for docking, logistics, and crew transfer. This stems from the fact that Orion does not have the ability to place itself into a low lunar orbit with enough propellant remaining to return to Earth.

However, Gateway has never been the only mechanism capable of enabling lunar surface missions. Many of the capabilities required for sustained exploration – transportation, habitation, power, mobility, and surface logistics – are already being developed independently of a permanent orbital outpost. In fact, the first crewed Artemis landing – Artemis 3 – as currently planned does not require Gateway and would instead dock directly with a lunar lander waiting in a near-rectilinear halo orbit around the Moon.

Advertisement - scroll for more content

In a scenario without Gateway, future Artemis missions would likely rely more on this simplified Earth-to-Moon architecture. Crews would launch from Earth aboard Orion, enter an elliptical lunar orbit, and transfer straight to the landing vehicle. That dedicated spacecraft would carry astronauts to the surface, support surface operations, and then return them to Orion in lunar orbit for the journey home. This approach reduces architectural complexity while preserving core mission objectives. 

The viability of this surface-focused model depends heavily on NASA’s decision to rely on commercially developed lunar landers under the Human Landing System program. SpaceX is currently developing Starship HLS under contract with NASA to support the first crewed Artemis landing. The vehicle is designed not only to transport astronauts to and from the surface, but also to deliver large amounts of cargo needed for surface infrastructure. 

In parallel, Blue Origin is developing its Blue Moon Mark 2 lander as a second HLS provider intended to support later Artemis missions and provide redundancy. NASA structured the HLS program to involve multiple commercial providers over time, reducing reliance on any single vehicle and increasing long-term flexibility. 

Within that context, Blue Origin’s decision to suspend New Shepard suborbital flights appears to reflect a strategic shift toward concentrating engineering and development resources on lunar systems and timelines more directly aligned with NASA’s surface exploration goals.

Surface infrastructure is where Artemis could become more durable over time. NASA and its partners have been studying lunar surface habitation concepts for years, independent of Gateway. The most mature of these is the Multi-Purpose Habitation surface module being developed by Thales Alenia Space through the Italian Space Agency. This type of habitat is designed to provide pressurized living and working space for crews staying on the Moon for weeks at a time. 

NASA is also advancing the concept of a Habitable Mobility Platform, essentially a pressurized rover that would allow crews to live and work while traveling long distances away from a fixed base as part of the Artemis Base Camp concept. 

In addition, inflatable and modular habitat concepts are being explored through NASA NextSTEP studies and international and commercial efforts, including work by companies such as Spartan Space, to inform future designs rather than serve as near-term flight hardware. 

In this surface-focused model, cargo landers would deliver habitats and infrastructure ahead of crews. Astronauts would live and work inside purpose-built surface structures while landers would function primarily as transportation. Such an approach could allow Artemis to progress toward sustained lunar operations even if Gateway were delayed, scaled back, or not flown.

Mobility on the lunar surface is another area where development is already underway. NASA has not yet selected a single rover for Artemis missions. Instead, it awarded Lunar Terrain Vehicle services contracts to three companies: Intuitive Machines, Lunar Outpost, and Venturi Astrolab. These teams are competing to mature their designs, with NASA expected to decide later which rover or rovers ultimately fly. These are active contracts intended to support unpressurized crew mobility at future lunar landing sites. 

Intuitive Machines brings direct lunar delivery and surface operations experience through its IM-1 and IM-2 missions. Lunar Outpost emphasizes modularity and autonomy, enabling both crewed and robotic use. Venturi Astrolab’s FLEX rover concept focuses on mobility and logistics, supporting longer traverses and base camp-style operations. Together, these efforts suggest a future in which surface mobility is treated as an integral part of lunar operations rather than an add-on.

Viewed this way, Artemis appears less dependent on any single architectural element than it might seem. Gateway, if flown, could add operational margin and long-term capability. If it is not, Artemis could still continue by leaning more heavily on commercial landers, surface habitats, rovers, and supporting systems that are already in development. The long-term shape of the program may depend less on where astronauts pause in orbit and more on how reliably the systems that enable people to live and work on the Moon mature over time.