Looks like new Administration has jumped started NASA into planning something.
Space.com has reported NASA has plans to established a Luna Station in orbit of the Moon in order gain more experience handling deep exploration.
The "gateway" is driven by organizational inertia dating all the way back to an early 2000s study. This notional planning is internal to NASA and Boeing, is not being done at the behest of the Administration, and has not been adopted by the Administration.
Also the small space station is to sever as a jump point for robotic missions going to the surface of the Moon and other efforts.
Robotic missions would not stage from the gateway. There's no need -- we've been mounting robotic planetary missions since the 1960s without gateways or other space stations. At most, lunar surface rovers might be temporarily controlled from the gateway. But that also makes little sense given the short communications time lag from Earth.
Is this good step?
No, the gateway is a make-work destination for SLS and Orion because after SLS and Orion development and operations are paid for, NASA can't afford more than a couple ISS-type modules in lunar orbit. There's no money for human lunar landers, surface habitats, rovers, and ascent vehicles. Or for deep space propulsion, deep space habitats, human Mars landers, surface habitats, etc.
SLS/Orion/gateway is a Potemkin human space "exploration" program. It just replicates a little of what ISS is doing a little further out. That is not human space exploration. If we want a _real_ human space exploration program -- one that does more than visit an ISS-type module beyond low-Earth orbit once a year -- then we should ditch SLS/Orion, replace them with much less expensive and more reliable launchers and capsules that already exist and/or are under development, and put NASA's limited resources into the systems necessary to put boot prints on the surface of the Moon or Mars.
They still need learn how to control radiation exposure from the sun for the longer trips.
We know how to shield against solar events (behind water reserves and/or human waste) and against background radiation (polyethylene).
Will ISS be able be sustained?
Commitments are only through 2024. If SLS/Orion are retained, NASA funding for ISS would need to ramp down shortly after so that NASA funding for this gateway could ramp up.
The SLS apparently going to be powering much of the missions.
SLS throw weight is not needed for these kinds of minimal missions beyond low Earth orbit. Gateway elements would be launched as secondary payloads on SLS, meaning that they could be launched as primary payloads on much cheaper launchers. And SLS doesn't have the launch rate nor the reliability to support NASA's more ambitious plans, like Mars DRM 5.0.
I do wonder why no serious efforts were made try go explore while Obama Administration was around.
An early effort to invest in actual human space exploration technologies and systems was stymied by old Shuttle job concerns, and SLS was created and Orion continued to maintain those jobs. When it became clear that SLS and Orion could not affordably execute near-term human lunar missions nor support long-term human Mars missions, a robotic mission to move an SUV-sized, near-Earth asteroid into lunar orbit was proffered to give astronauts on Orion something to visit. The asteroid mission was almost universally panned, but SLS and Orion have soldiered on, driven by the jobs issue. The gateway is the latest attempt to give SLS and Orion something to do that they could conceivably do.
(I'm not trying get political here.)
Me neither, just to be clear. I am purposefully avoiding mentions of political parties, governing branches, and leadership.
Putting a base on the Moon would be a logical step before putting one on Mars.
It's actually not. Everything is different, from how you get to the surface (Mars has an atmosphere, Moon does not) to the toxic contaminants (carcinogenic hexavalent chromium versus silicosis-inducing dust) to any number of mundane but important, system-driving details (local gravity, local solar flux, water sources, etc.). Even the surface operations doctrine, planning, and tempo are radically different due to the enormous differences in distance from Earth and communications lag. Lunar advocates like to argue that the Moon is on the critical path to Mars, but systems and operations designed for the Moon will not be useable for Mars.
I'm agnostic on the Mars versus Moon debate. (In fact, I think the debate is idiotic.)
But if the decision is to go to Mars, then spend limited resources on the systems and testing needed for Mars. The Moon would be an expensive distraction and contribute little to a humans-to-Mars effort.
Further human exploration of the Moon should (and probably can) stand on its own.
I'll stick to the station idea. Any Mars mission is likely to spend more time in transit than on the ground, unless you're going Zubrin one way ;) And the long-term experience is the needed point - ISS doesn't even pretend to recycle (sorry, it does recycle some urine), everything else comes canned.
The gateway will not provide long-term experience. It is man-tended, not manned.
My 2 cents... YMMV.