5 ms·

Philosophically I agree 100% but they cost a fraction of what it would cost to create a base on the moon for instance. Someone has to pick up that bill. I am

Philosophically I agree 100% but they cost a fraction of what it would cost to create a base on the moon for instance. Someone has to pick up that bill. I am sure we will get a base on the moon with time but technologically we aren't there yet. Let's focus on build a solid and habitable space station then we can use some of that knowledge to establish a base on the moon. (once we have solved the resource issues)

lmm 9y ago
A moonbase is likely safer and more convenient in many ways than a space station, since you don't have to deal with microgravity. Certainly they have different problems with different solutions, so there's only a limited amount of knowledge that would transfer over. I'm not opposed to an "ISS 2.0", but how much more would we expect to learn from it that we don't already know? I think it's already time to go to the Moon and/or Phobos.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  It's cheaper and closer to home to get it up and running and I don't believe there is any base to claim it will only be limited amount of transfer over. And if that was the case then the purpose of a moon base would be put even more into question. We have plenty to learn when it comes to building not just habitable space stations but also comfortable ones most of which will be easily transferable knowledge to a moon base when the cost of construction have come down signiticantly by the means of ex. space x or even a space elevator. There are so many things we could be spending money on which would make a moonbase way more likely to happen than just skipping over a lot of intermediate steps to get there.
  - lmm 9y ago
    So much of engineering is very different in zero-G. I want humanity to spread among the stars, so I want us to be able to construct habitats on planemos and smaller bodies. I don't see space stations as important in the long run; even interstellar spaceships would likely operate under continuous acceleration so involve little zero-G engineering.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      Space stations are not important in the long run, but the technologies developed to make them enjoyable and safe places are indeed very important but in the short and long run. Planets will have different g's so first making things in zero-g work seems to be a much more solid approach to developing a long term space program. If you want to spread you need to learn how to deal with being surrounded by space and a space station is the best way to do that short of sending people out in space arks.
      - lmm 9y ago
        > Planets will have different g's so first making things in zero-g work seems to be a much more solid approach to developing a long term space program. I don't think that follows at all, because I think engineering at 2g or 0.5g or even 0.01g has a lot more in common with engineering at 1g or 0.15g than it does with engineering at 0g. Zero-g is qualitatively very different from non-zero g; stuff like room design, plumbing, HVAC, material constraints (the need to avoid things that can powder) are totally different. > If you want to spread you need to learn how to deal with being surrounded by space and a space station is the best way to do that short of sending people out in space arks. Within the solar system all journeys are relatively short and it's ok for spaceships to not be closed systems. For interstellar travel I think space arks will be necessary anyway. There's no really plausible way to get to another star in anything short of multiple decades.
        ThomPete 9y ago
        "I don't think that follows at all, because I think engineering at 2g or 0.5g or even 0.01g has a lot more in common with engineering at 1g or 0.15g than it does with engineering at 0g. Zero-g is qualitatively very different from non-zero g; stuff like room design, plumbing, HVAC, material constraints (the need to avoid things that can powder) are totally different." Those are mostly things that can be explored on earth, no need to build a moonbase to figure that out. The opportunity with a space station is to figure out things that can't be explored realistically in other environments. "Within the solar system all journeys are relatively short and it's ok for spaceships to not be closed systems. For interstellar travel I think space arks will be necessary anyway. There's no really plausible way to get to another star in anything short of multiple decades." So it's much more useful what we learn on a space station than what we learn on a moon base. Being in space without access to any resources other than what you already have is a much more important thing to solve and solving that will allow us to reach other planets much easier, cheaper and safer. I really don't see what advantage a moon base is giving us compared to a space station for now.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
Does your cost analysis account for the dividends in the form of new technology developed during the project?
- Verdex_3 9y ago
  If ThomPete is talking about the analysis that I had a look at, then yeah the dividends from new technology developed was taken into account and it still doesn't work out economically. The problem is money spent on a moon base isn't being spent on economic developments on earth which also result in technological developments.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  Yes, cause the most crucial ones are technologies about getting things into orbit and sustaining life in obit, creating habitable environments and so on. Whether on a planet or in space those challenges aren't much different and whatever you gain as knowledge on a space station you can apply to a moon base later on. Furthermore, the challenge of building a space station and not suddenly run into budgeting or construction issues is many many many many times higher when it comes to establishing something on the moon. Each new learning that could be done on the space station will come as at a much higher cost doing something we don't have good enough technology to do with-in a realistic comfort zone. If you like me believe that technology is the primary forcemultiplier for any realistic development into space the trick is to focus on developing within our comfort zone, until we it within our comfort zone to risk a next step. Then you will actually end up with a space station much faster (and a mars station and an out ring station and a space ark etc) because of the exponential force of technology.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
    If you're talking about some kind of self-sustaining station, then space wouldn't be where you'd go first anyway. You'd want to establish a self-sustaining colony in the antarctic, where conditions are significantly more favorable and yet still incredibly hostile. And if you aren't... haven't we already done that with ISS?

lmm 9y ago

A moonbase is likely safer and more convenient in many ways than a space station, since you don't have to deal with microgravity. Certainly they have different problems with different solutions, so there's only a limited amount of knowledge that would transfer over. I'm not opposed to an "ISS 2.0", but how much more would we expect to learn from it that we don't already know? I think it's already time to go to the Moon and/or Phobos.

ThomPete 9y ago
It's cheaper and closer to home to get it up and running and I don't believe there is any base to claim it will only be limited amount of transfer over. And if that was the case then the purpose of a moon base would be put even more into question. We have plenty to learn when it comes to building not just habitable space stations but also comfortable ones most of which will be easily transferable knowledge to a moon base when the cost of construction have come down signiticantly by the means of ex. space x or even a space elevator. There are so many things we could be spending money on which would make a moonbase way more likely to happen than just skipping over a lot of intermediate steps to get there.
- lmm 9y ago
  So much of engineering is very different in zero-G. I want humanity to spread among the stars, so I want us to be able to construct habitats on planemos and smaller bodies. I don't see space stations as important in the long run; even interstellar spaceships would likely operate under continuous acceleration so involve little zero-G engineering.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    Space stations are not important in the long run, but the technologies developed to make them enjoyable and safe places are indeed very important but in the short and long run. Planets will have different g's so first making things in zero-g work seems to be a much more solid approach to developing a long term space program. If you want to spread you need to learn how to deal with being surrounded by space and a space station is the best way to do that short of sending people out in space arks.
    - lmm 9y ago
      > Planets will have different g's so first making things in zero-g work seems to be a much more solid approach to developing a long term space program. I don't think that follows at all, because I think engineering at 2g or 0.5g or even 0.01g has a lot more in common with engineering at 1g or 0.15g than it does with engineering at 0g. Zero-g is qualitatively very different from non-zero g; stuff like room design, plumbing, HVAC, material constraints (the need to avoid things that can powder) are totally different. > If you want to spread you need to learn how to deal with being surrounded by space and a space station is the best way to do that short of sending people out in space arks. Within the solar system all journeys are relatively short and it's ok for spaceships to not be closed systems. For interstellar travel I think space arks will be necessary anyway. There's no really plausible way to get to another star in anything short of multiple decades.
      - ThomPete 9y ago
        "I don't think that follows at all, because I think engineering at 2g or 0.5g or even 0.01g has a lot more in common with engineering at 1g or 0.15g than it does with engineering at 0g. Zero-g is qualitatively very different from non-zero g; stuff like room design, plumbing, HVAC, material constraints (the need to avoid things that can powder) are totally different." Those are mostly things that can be explored on earth, no need to build a moonbase to figure that out. The opportunity with a space station is to figure out things that can't be explored realistically in other environments. "Within the solar system all journeys are relatively short and it's ok for spaceships to not be closed systems. For interstellar travel I think space arks will be necessary anyway. There's no really plausible way to get to another star in anything short of multiple decades." So it's much more useful what we learn on a space station than what we learn on a moon base. Being in space without access to any resources other than what you already have is a much more important thing to solve and solving that will allow us to reach other planets much easier, cheaper and safer. I really don't see what advantage a moon base is giving us compared to a space station for now.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago

Does your cost analysis account for the dividends in the form of new technology developed during the project?

Verdex_3 9y ago
If ThomPete is talking about the analysis that I had a look at, then yeah the dividends from new technology developed was taken into account and it still doesn't work out economically. The problem is money spent on a moon base isn't being spent on economic developments on earth which also result in technological developments.
ThomPete 9y ago
Yes, cause the most crucial ones are technologies about getting things into orbit and sustaining life in obit, creating habitable environments and so on. Whether on a planet or in space those challenges aren't much different and whatever you gain as knowledge on a space station you can apply to a moon base later on. Furthermore, the challenge of building a space station and not suddenly run into budgeting or construction issues is many many many many times higher when it comes to establishing something on the moon. Each new learning that could be done on the space station will come as at a much higher cost doing something we don't have good enough technology to do with-in a realistic comfort zone. If you like me believe that technology is the primary forcemultiplier for any realistic development into space the trick is to focus on developing within our comfort zone, until we it within our comfort zone to risk a next step. Then you will actually end up with a space station much faster (and a mars station and an out ring station and a space ark etc) because of the exponential force of technology.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
  If you're talking about some kind of self-sustaining station, then space wouldn't be where you'd go first anyway. You'd want to establish a self-sustaining colony in the antarctic, where conditions are significantly more favorable and yet still incredibly hostile. And if you aren't... haven't we already done that with ISS?