4 ms·

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

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.
      - lmm 9y ago
        > 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. The best way to explore the things we're going to need to live on other planemos is to live on another planemo. A space station involves solving a bunch of engineering challenges that are different from Earth, some of which are relevant to living on other planemos and many of which are not. A moonbase gives us more of the challenges we care about and less of the ones we don't. > 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. Again long-term life on a space station has a bunch of challenges that are just irrelevant. To spread to Mars we'll need a moonbase-like environment on Mars - one that has access to rock and some chemicals, not floating in empty space - and while people will need to go to and from there that's a matter of surviving in space for months rather than years, and frankly seems like something we could already handle. Similarly spreading to the Jovian system and so on.

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.
    - lmm 9y ago
      > 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. The best way to explore the things we're going to need to live on other planemos is to live on another planemo. A space station involves solving a bunch of engineering challenges that are different from Earth, some of which are relevant to living on other planemos and many of which are not. A moonbase gives us more of the challenges we care about and less of the ones we don't. > 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. Again long-term life on a space station has a bunch of challenges that are just irrelevant. To spread to Mars we'll need a moonbase-like environment on Mars - one that has access to rock and some chemicals, not floating in empty space - and while people will need to go to and from there that's a matter of surviving in space for months rather than years, and frankly seems like something we could already handle. Similarly spreading to the Jovian system and so on.