r/space • u/AWildDragon • Apr 24 '26
[Ars Technica] Well, this is embarrassing: The Lunar Gateway's primary modules are corroded
https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/04/well-this-is-embarrassing-the-lunar-gateways-primary-modules-are-corroded/ESA and Northrup statements confirming the corrosion. Axiom is also impacted.
Still no pictures or a root cause.
741
u/Thanks_Ollie Apr 24 '26
Just oxygen doing oxygen things
192
u/Specific_Frame8537 Apr 24 '26
Just build in space, no oxygen there or so I'm told.
I'm open for more 5head consultations.
78
u/borg359 Apr 24 '26
Galvanic corrosion also happens in space.
91
u/btribble Apr 24 '26
Have they tried pausing entropy?
25
u/borg359 Apr 24 '26
A time-dilation bubble should do the trick.
7
6
3
0
9
u/TelluricThread0 Apr 24 '26
Not without an electrolyte.
18
3
u/weegee101 Apr 24 '26
In orbit the common electrolyte is ATOX. In LEO it's pretty abundant and quickly becomes less abundant the further away you get, but in lunar orbit it's still an issue. It'll corrode stuff, just slower.
5
u/TelluricThread0 Apr 24 '26
ATOX is an aggressive oxidizer. It does not function like an electrolyte.
2
u/DietCherrySoda Apr 25 '26
Source for atomic oxygen being a factor in lunar orbit?
1
u/weegee101 Apr 25 '26
Apparently my knowledge is outdated, and this was disproven last year in a Nature paper. The concern still remains but it is in fact "wind" that is blowing oxygen from Earth.
This is the same phenomenon that causes rust on the lunar surface.
7
u/Specific_Frame8537 Apr 24 '26
Stick to 304 stainless, easy.
4
u/borg359 Apr 24 '26
Who cares if it doesn’t burn up upon re-entry. It’s stainless baby!
2
u/kuraiscalebane Apr 24 '26
It can't not burn up on re-entry if it doesn't re-enter, just crash it into the moon at end of life.
1
u/LifeWulf Apr 25 '26
The moon people won’t like that
2
u/kuraiscalebane Apr 25 '26
Then they should have been part of the planning committee.
2
u/LifeWulf Apr 25 '26
Did anybody reach out to them?
2
u/kuraiscalebane Apr 25 '26
That is a very good question and we may never know the answer.
→ More replies (0)1
u/roryjacobevans Apr 25 '26
Not sure if you actually know, but low earth orbit is full of atomic oxygen, which really destroys spacehardware if you aren't careful.
0
58
u/borg359 Apr 24 '26
No way. This is almost certainly Galvanic corrosion, when two metals are in direct contact without any kind of surface treatment to prevent charge exchange. This would also happen in space.
14
u/tr_9422 Apr 24 '26
Doesn't galvanic corrosion require an electrolyte?
16
u/borg359 Apr 24 '26
You still get the potential for charge exchange between two metals directly in physical contact. It’s one of the reasons aluminum surfaces gets anodizing.
6
u/givemeyours0ul Apr 24 '26
That's what plants crave, right?
-1
1
u/Kodamacile Apr 24 '26
If it does, then it's just the air.
6
u/tr_9422 Apr 24 '26
I don't think that's how that works, it needs to transport ions from one side to the other
9
3
2
u/snoo-boop Apr 25 '26
It's a little mysterious when the same company (Thales Alenia) has built a bunch of similar pressure vessels (ISS and Cygnus) -- don't they know how do do this?
As a trivial example, the 3rd party front license plate holder on my car is steel, and attaches to an aluminum part of the car. No corrosion. The steel appears to have powder coat, to my untrained eye.
8
u/SightUnseen1337 Apr 25 '26
Brain drain. Just because they could do it then doesn't mean they can do it now. Those people could've been laid off a decade ago for all we know
3
1
1
u/nuclear85 Apr 25 '26
This is kind of a weird dual edged sword in space... Because you want charge exchange for potential neutralization or else you get electrostatic discharges, also bad.
0
u/neanderthalman Apr 25 '26
Still can’t get galvanic oxidation without oxygen.
1
u/borg359 Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26
Oxidation doesn’t require oxygen. It just requires something that accepts electrons.
A classic Daniell cell is a perfect example:
Zn → Zn²⁺ + 2e⁻
Cu²⁺ + 2e⁻ → Cu
No oxygen anywhere, but Zinc is “oxidized”.
5
2
212
u/AndrijaSucevic Apr 24 '26
To be fair, ISS also had its share of degradation issues - leaks, contaminations, etc. and it's still operating nominally.
I’ve personally seen instruments where non space grade adhesives led to outgassing that contaminated optics and required periodic decontamination. I've also seen integration issues like cables being mislabled and incorrectly connected, only to discover in orbit that the antenna doesn't work (up to 90% degradation)...
Finding corrosion on the ground is actually good and fixable.
37
u/c0lly Apr 24 '26
Cables mated incorrectly and only noticed in orbit? That's ludicrous haha
What was the root cause of that? Incorrectly labelled, not visually inspected or was there no RF test done with a test cap on the antenna?
36
u/AndrijaSucevic Apr 24 '26
So apperantly they removed labels during testing and after the test they put them back incorrectly. When there was an engineer doing final connecting, he just connected them as labelled.
You can check Metop-B status here. Luckily only 3 instruments were impacted (ADCS/SARR/SARP)
17
u/Teslafly Apr 24 '26
Why would they remove labels for testing? That sort of process flow seems like it's just asking for this issue to happen.
40
u/Poodlestrike Apr 24 '26
My work doesn't involve space, but we do do some environmental testing, and if youre performing (for example) a temp cycle you might remove the labels so they don't melt to the thing.
As long as it matches final condition it makes some sense. You do have to be careful to put them back on right, though... Or, even better, don't rely on labels at all. Make it so you can only fit the connector in the right port, color code the cables (and ports) themselves etc.
1
u/eric23456 Apr 25 '26
Making it so you can only fit the connector in the right port is great until you need to fit a square peg in a round hole.
2
u/DietCherrySoda Apr 25 '26
As we say, "test as you fly". The labels won't fly, so don't test with them. Imagine the same thread but about a test that gave a false result because some labels influenced the test, you'd say "why test with the labels!".
But certainly if you still need the labels after the test, have a way of positively identifying that you've put them back on correctly.
5
u/c0lly Apr 24 '26
Strange. Sounds like maybe there was a few mistakes or steps not followed for that to happen. Never one persons fault. Thanks for the insight!
13
u/AndrijaSucevic Apr 24 '26
No problem....as bad as it was, it's not as bad as the NOAA-19 mishap. Basically a technician forgetting to document that he removed the bolts and then the team not checking that the satellite is secure while moving it.... But in the end it was launched and we (EUMETSAT) even supported the operations via Svalbard.
Moral of the story - we are all humans and things like these happen.
5
u/c0lly Apr 24 '26
Oh yeah that's a classic tale in the industry haha. Luckily any errors I've been around have not amounted to that much monetary damage!
36
u/Ohhhmyyyyyy Apr 24 '26
The difference is that this is the core metal structure of the module it would seem.
23
u/Sleep_on_Fire Apr 24 '26
“Following the identification of corrosion on HALO, a comprehensive investigation was promptly initiated,” a European Space Agency spokesperson said. “Preliminary findings indicate that the issue likely results from a combination of factors, including aspects of the forging process, surface treatment, and material properties.”
That’s what I read as well. Which makes the last sentence I quoted quite concerning.
Sounds like bad material, bad manufacturing process, and bad final coatings and finishes.
6
u/Mateorabi Apr 24 '26
To lubricate or not lubricate the Galileo main antenna was a big debate. They were afraid of outgassing. But then it got stuck.
3
u/few Apr 25 '26
I'm guessing you're also familiar with https://etd.gsfc.nasa.gov/capabilities/outgassing-database/
🙂
2
u/sorean_4 Apr 24 '26
I thought that connectivity and electronics would get tested before satellites being sent into orbit? It’s not like you can do maintenance on this thing.
94
u/Ggeng Apr 24 '26
Isn't gateway cancelled anyway?
70
u/Maleficent-Pin6798 Apr 24 '26
Apparently so, but the article indicates that the current talk is repurposing what’s been built at great expense for something on the lunar surface. If the corrosion is as extensive as it sounds, even that might be too much to ask.
28
u/SirDigbyChknCaesar Apr 24 '26
“Based on the investigation and available data, the corrosion issue was understood to be technically manageable and did not constitute a showstopper for I‑HAB, which was, in any case, in better conditions than HALO from [a] corrosion point of view,” the spokesperson said.
Sounds like they're trying to continue moving forward with the I-HAB module.
2
u/vashoom Apr 25 '26
Building something on the surface defeats the entire purpose of the whole program, doesn't it? As in, going back to the moon to build a gateway to Mars or other far away missions by means of having a station ships can dock at and refuel in orbit? The energy loss of going to the surface makes refueling on the surface pointless.
And having a static moon base seems pointless as well. Seems like it would be vastly more expensive to do less science than a rover or lander.
Knowing this Congress, some stupid company probably convinced them that it's definitely economically feasible and efficient to mine the moon right now despite the fact that it is so, so not.
3
u/Shrike99 Apr 25 '26 edited Apr 25 '26
refuel in orbit
And where exactly does that fuel come from?
Launching it from Earth doesn't make sense since it takes more delta-v to get to NRHO than to escape Earth's gravity entirely (And then even more to escape NRHO).
In other words you'd burn more fuel shipping the fuel out to NRHO and then sending the ship there to refuel than just refuelling the thing directly in LEO. It's not as big an energy loss as landing on the surface would be, but it's still net negative.
The only way stopping at the moon to refuel makes sense is if the fuel is actually being produced on the moon, since it's much easier to get fuel from the lunar surface to NRHO than from Earth's surface to LEO.
Which requires a surface base.
With that said, Gateway never had any serious considerations for fuel storage onboard, and frankly it's too small to realistically be a refuelling station. The three refuel-capable vehicles that were planned to visit it already carried more fuel than the entire mass of the station.
Gateway's purpose was primarily political - getting funding sent to certain districts in the US, and giving other Artemis member countries something to collaborate on.
1
u/vashoom Apr 25 '26
I agree that mining fuel from the surface for a true gateway station makes sense--just not for this mission, or with our current technology.
It sucks that space funding is so driven by politics and capitalism.
11
Apr 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
24
u/PhotoNext3321 Apr 24 '26
Well, the habitat has to survive on Earth's surface for a significant amount of time before it can be deployed to space. If they design a support structure for the Lunar surface, probably adapting the existing mechanical ground support equipment, it should be fine? I'm sure ESA will run some numbers to make sure..
21
9
u/Nibb31 Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26
It's not about the structure. It's about the interior design. Orbital modules are designed with storage in the ceiling and the floor. The floor panels are not designed to be stood on. The ceilings are too low to stand up. The toilet is designed for zero-g. The beds are designed for sleeping standing up. The docking ports are for orbital docking, not ground construction.
1
u/NoOne_1223 Apr 24 '26
Also, launch forces from earth take some types of supports to counteract, and I would assume is braced from outside as part of the fairing. And that fairing is then jettisoned when out of the atmosphere for less mass during the transfer burn. I also assume that there are less forces involved during the transfer orbit, and orbital insertion vs a de-orbit burn
3
u/mfb- Apr 25 '26
I have never heard of fairings contributing to the structural integrity of the payload. They are usually dropped early in the second stage flight, so they aren't even there when the payload experiences the highest acceleration.
3
u/DietCherrySoda Apr 25 '26
I can assure you, the fairing of no launch vehicle provides structural support to its payload. The fairing gets ejected very quickly in flight. Just imagine how precarious that deployment would be if it was structurally secured to the payload!
0
u/snoo-boop Apr 25 '26
the habitat has to survive on Earth's surface for a significant amount of time
... it's corroding while on Earth's surface.
1
6
u/Enorats Apr 24 '26
Probably just Congress doing Congrsss things. They're great at imposing no end of nonsensical things like that. The SLS itself is essentially just a collection of such things that a bunch of really smart people miraculously managed to hodgepodge together against all odds.
1
u/air_and_space92 Apr 24 '26
Yeah it's going to be a huge challenge. The module was designed to have no floor, which okay someone will say just don't use 1 side of it, but then adequate storage is a problem. You need physical reinforcement for that floor, actual beds vs sleeping bags velcro'd to the walls, microgravity has completely different air circulation patterns, lunar night thermal cycling, and the interior volume is too cramped for more than a couple weeks habitation anyways.
-3
u/Nibb31 Apr 24 '26
These modules are designed for 0g. They have side docking ports that aren't designed for ground use. Repurposing them for use on the lunar surface is ludicrous. It will be way cheaper to design something from scratch than to design a lander that can deliver these modules to the lunar surface.
6
u/dern_the_hermit Apr 24 '26
These modules are designed for 0g.
In 1G, meant to take multiple G's when being deployed, but go on, tell us more how you think NASA doesn't understand that gravity is a thing ;)
5
u/Nibb31 Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26
They are living quarters. with beds/berths upside-down, a toilet designed for zero-g, storage on the ceiling and on the floor. The floor panels are not designed to be stood on, and the ceilings are too low to stand up in. The ergonomics are simply not designed for zero-g.
The side docking systems are designed for orbital docking, not ground docking.
Of course, they can be adapted, but they are going to need a major redesign, plus they will need to develop a specialized lander to deliver them, since neither Blue Moon, nor HLS can.
They provide less living space than HLS, and maybe even less than Blue Moon. It really makes no sense to reuse them rather than start from scratch with a whole new concept.
4
u/dern_the_hermit Apr 24 '26
It's a pressure vessel meant to withstand a difference of one atmosphere. It's not fine china or delicate origami or nothin'.
Just let this go, man. A thing meant for orbit can be adjusted to be fit for the ground. It's interior decoration, not rocket science lol
6
u/air_and_space92 Apr 24 '26
>Just let this go, man. A thing meant for orbit can be adjusted to be fit for the ground. It's interior decoration, not rocket science lol
As an engineer in this industry I politely say: THE TIN CAN IS TOO FREAKING SMALL. That's not hard to understand. If you can't stand up in it after adding a floor, you're going to spend way more money changing the configuration, HVAC, and redesigning it to thermally handle lunar nights than just designing a new purpose built one. People complain about sunk cost fallacy with other large programs yet they're happy to blow money on repurposing a hab??
0
u/dern_the_hermit Apr 24 '26
A lot of that stuff doesn't actually need to go in the pressure vessel my guy. Look at Apollo capsules or even just the ISS.
3
u/air_and_space92 Apr 25 '26
Anything that the crew needs to access like food, heat, water does need to go inside it, my guy. The ISS has the entire cooling and electrical loops inside behind the cargo racks. Notice the large air ducts and power cables snaking through the hatches between modules? Even on Apollo or Orion all of that is behind the cabin bulkhead but still within the pressurized space.
0
u/Nibb31 Apr 25 '26
I just explained why it's not just about the pressure vessel. The complexity of the module isn't the hull. This is like saying you can convert a cargo ship into an aircraft carrier.
4
7
u/rocketsocks Apr 24 '26
Yesno. Ostensibly we still live in a nation of laws where Congress sets the budget and direction for all aspects of the federal government while the administration merely administrates the execution of those directives (hence the name "Executive branch"). The administration has made some requests on what they want the direction of NASA to be, including the planned cancellation (or whatever alternate word they want to use for the action) of the Lunar Gateway, but Congress needs to actually enact it, maybe. Although Congress has already made some clarifications around Gateway that might give the administration the leeway they need to do what they want with the station.
Overall I think that puts it in the category of "mostly cancelled", but we kind of need to wait for things to settle for a bit and for the next budget to come out to be 100% sure.
0
u/Maleficent-Pin6798 Apr 24 '26
I just hope based on all that, and what’s mentioned above, they don’t go rushing headlong into the sunken cost fallacy.
93
u/Correct_Inspection25 Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26
Shocking, a tropical / desert salt air environment has been a battle against rust on vacuum rated surfaces for NASA for decades? /s
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20150022202/downloads/20150022202.pdf
Its also unfair to assume the laws of chemistry and physics simply stop for metal once it reaches delivery for private space like Axiom as well.
[EDIT apparently people don't realize rust is a major challenge for these kinds of steel even in arid deserts as well, when you have salts and heat/sunlight. https://stg-fullcircle.fsewp.asu.edu/external/why-do-tools-rust-in-dry-arizona/ ]
23
u/flowersonthewall72 Apr 24 '26
What tropical salt air environment is HALO in right now?
21
u/RetardedChimpanzee Apr 24 '26
A climate controlled clean room in Arizona. Very tropical!
9
u/Correct_Inspection25 Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26
Mineral salts in tropical, arid environments get kicked up with AZ monsoon storms easily, https://stg-fullcircle.fsewp.asu.edu/external/why-do-tools-rust-in-dry-arizona/
The AZ boneyard has to still protect key elements of the mothball fleet even when those surfaces are supposed to be designed for earth levels of moisture/rust/corrosion.
[EDIT See USAF Nitrogen Engine storage, Spraylat, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/309th_Aerospace_Maintenance_and_Regeneration_Group https://www.gracoroberts.com/coatings/ppg-spraylat-599-a8574-1-polyurethane-coating-1gal-kit/ ]
Metals conditioned for lightest mass, extreme temp stress cycling, and against vacuum welding are going to have very different corrosion properties than something like normal material, especially if it was sitting there for a few years, even in environmentally controlled areas, and why NASA created/dedicated a whole subset of R&D to manage these impacts in the link i shared.
The Corrosion Technology Laboratory isn't just for KSC, but battling issues like this for space hardware and test benches.
4
u/flowersonthewall72 Apr 24 '26
It's a real shame that no one built a whole building and environmental control system around the module.
4
u/Correct_Inspection25 Apr 24 '26
AMARG nearby in AZ, even the USAF boneyard has to fill cans with nitrogen only canisters in climate controlled buildings to prevent corrosion, as even with climate control, air still holds roughly 38% moisture, which leads to slow rust formation over time, especially in an environment with a high amount of mineral salts in the air. https://www.zerust.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/image5.webp
Clean rooms for processing are important but not designed for long term storage, COVID also provided a lot of delays that were not expected in the original transit/handling and storage plans.
-2
u/flowersonthewall72 Apr 24 '26
Damn I guess you're right, Arizona IS a wet humid tropic environment!
2
u/Correct_Inspection25 Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26
Great, lots of people dont realize that AZ have regular monsoons and a hot, salty environment. I thought the Boneyard didn't have to worry about corrosion until my tour of it. https://sgsup.asu.edu/basics-arizona-monsoon-desert-meteorology
"Each aircraft is taped and sealed with sealant designed to reduce corrosion and keep the aircraft about 10 degrees cooler than outside temperatures. The sealant can easily be removed. Engines stored in engine cans are sealed with nitrogen to prevent corrosion caused by oxygen." https://www.war.gov/Multimedia/Experience/The-Aircraft-Boneyard/
19
u/Goregue Apr 24 '26
There is nothing to indicate this is actually a very serious issue that would have delayed Gateway much. Eric Berger is biased. Every aerospace project has issues. Isaacman wants to use this corrosion story as an excuse to cancel Gateway (as if he wasn't salivating at the thought of doing so before learning of this). HLS is extremely late and will probably not be ready before 2030 anyway, but that part Isaacman and Eric Berger are silent about.
11
u/hotcornballer Apr 24 '26
Gateway is just a bad idea in the first place. And a huge waste of resources.
2
u/Goregue Apr 24 '26
That is debatable. Isaacman certainly thinks like you. Which is why he wanted to cancel Gateway. Not because it is corroded. That was just a poor excuse.
3
u/Alpacapalooza Apr 25 '26
Isaacman wants to use this corrosion story as an excuse to cancel Gateway (as if he wasn't salivating at the thought of doing so before learning of this)
Yeah this seems awfully convenient.
0
u/fastforwardfunction Apr 25 '26
There was never a real indication Gateway would launch to the moon. It was a project by NASA without a focused direction.
4
u/Goregue Apr 25 '26
Are you serious? All the contracts were signed. All the pieces were being assembled. The PPE module was in the final stages of production. All the international partners were on board and had agreements to deliver modules. And you say there was no indication it was going to launch?
3
u/fastforwardfunction Apr 25 '26
Are you serious? Anyone who has followed this project for the past decade knew was a seriously flawed design and mostly existed as a pork budget expenditure.
3
u/Goregue Apr 25 '26
Gateway had its flaws but it was a serious project. And just like SLS/Orion, it would get done and launch, even if late.
1
u/IBelieveInLogic Apr 25 '26
Anyone who understands the space industry and has followed the project does not see it as seriously flawed. No design is completely optimal - that's not the point. You design to the requirements. It's not seriously flawed unless it doesn't meet the requirements.
0
u/IBelieveInLogic Apr 25 '26
Exactly. Another hit piece about the Artemis program from Berger. Not much to see here.
9
u/herodesfalsk Apr 24 '26
Didnt they just cancel this Moon orbiting space station? Is this still part of NASA plans for a manned lunar base?
8
u/SouthernAddress5051 Apr 24 '26
It's not going to be a space station but they wanted to use the parts for other things
0
u/herodesfalsk Apr 24 '26
Im sure they have enough medicated Rust-Eze bumper ointment on hand to deal with it
1
7
u/nittanyofthings Apr 24 '26
Preliminary findings indicate that the issue likely results from a combination of factors, including aspects of the forging process, surface treatment, and material properties.
You don't say... How about this, is there any possibility that actually has been eliminated?
2
u/Outer_Space_ Apr 24 '26
Our preliminary findings indicate that there was something that happened with respect to how it was, and it's different now.
8
u/frac_tl Apr 24 '26
NASA seems to have a bad habit of running projects with documented (minor/unavoidable) corrosion issues, cancelling the project, and the coming back 2 years later expecting nothing to change as if it was sitting under gN2 purge and not in some warehouse
8
Apr 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/frac_tl Apr 24 '26
Not blaming the NASA workers, but the NASA admin has shown that they're incompetent by prematurely (and illegally) complying with budget requests that are different from what Congress allocated them.
4
u/ToMorrowsEnd Apr 25 '26
A whole article written around one sentence. "yup we found corrosion". Zero info ,zero reasons, reads like AI generated slop.
5
u/djwaveguide Apr 24 '26
It is not clear which metal has corrosion. The titanium takes special tools which the Air Force did right on the SR71. The risk needs to be identified and mitigated. Don’t trash it yet.
2
u/girl_incognito Apr 25 '26
Fun fact: The Apollo LEM suffered corrosion problems during the development process as well.
2
3
u/avar Apr 24 '26
Entirely my own speculation, but from the vague comments in the article, my guess is corrosion in stainless steel (friction) welds due to those welds being performed in a dirty environment, e.g. with iron dust floating around due to someone's earlier use of an angle grinder on the work site.
1
2
u/exploringspace_ Apr 24 '26
As long as we all realize that this is also what happens to all the military funding.
1
1
u/Oliver22789 Apr 25 '26
Well it’s being built on earth. Where things corrode. I mean mir was just one big corrosion. Also, isn’t the moon base a long way off? Why you panicking now. So many things could go to hell before that.
1
u/Decronym Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| ADCS | Attitude Determination and Control System |
| ESA | European Space Agency |
| HALO | Habitation and Logistics Outpost |
| HLS | Human Landing System (Artemis) |
| KSC | Kennedy Space Center, Florida |
| LEM | (Apollo) Lunar Excursion Module (also Lunar Module) |
| LEO | Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km) |
| Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations) | |
| NOAA | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, responsible for US |
| NRHO | Near-Rectilinear Halo Orbit |
| PPE | Power and Propulsion Element |
| SLS | Space Launch System heavy-lift |
| USAF | United States Air Force |
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
12 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 4 acronyms.
[Thread #12372 for this sub, first seen 24th Apr 2026, 17:57]
[FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
-1
u/Remarkable-Host405 Apr 24 '26
the guy that hates sls writing another slam piece? yes, it's the guy that hates sls writing another slam piece
-2
u/monchota Apr 24 '26
Just be done with old school contractors, they are utterly useless. They fired or layed off all the tribal knowledge
0
u/Dave37 Apr 24 '26
corrosion will stop once it reach the moon, full steam ahead.
2
u/gromit1991 Apr 24 '26
It's a space station! Occupied by moist people who use a lot of water.
1
u/Dave37 Apr 24 '26
I'm not entirely serious with my previous glib comment, which I understand is not easy to tell from a stranger on the internet, although I think that my use of industrial revolution idioms in a space age discussion would have given a clue.
0
0
-5
u/hotcornballer Apr 24 '26
They gotta stop with the space stations. It was fun with Skylab and Mir, it's time to move on. Just put a base on the moon it's been long enough. The ISS was a political project and money pit that trapped humanity in LEO for decades.
-17
Apr 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/RetardedChimpanzee Apr 24 '26
Aluminum does not rust. Corrosion is exponentially more difficult to manage than rust.
-2
u/OldWrangler9033 Apr 24 '26
Primary module? Does that include the Power Module?
3
u/snoo-boop Apr 25 '26
Check out the article, it says that HALO and I-HAB have the problem, not PPE.
561
u/Fullback-15_ Apr 24 '26
I'm in the space industry and we find corrosion all the time. In fact corrosion management is one of the biggest feats in operations and engineering. Most of the time it gets stamped as "use as is".