4 ms·

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 sho

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.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      It's simply not true. No matter what planet you need to go to you need to spend a lot of time in space. Furthermore no matter what planet you would want to explore you would need a space station to explore from. It will also be the best way start the exploration as you can use your knowledge from the space station we have on earth. So no matter how you look at it, in space in zero-g is going to be the majority of the endeavour. Furthermore, we are simply not even close to be able to live realistically far from earth let alone able to afford it. There are so many things that need to be established before it becomes realistically sustainable and safe.
      - lmm 9y ago
        > No matter what planet you need to go to you need to spend a lot of time in space. Days for the moon, months rather than years for Mars, and we've already had people on space stations for that kind of duration. 3 years for the Jovian system which is a step up but not a huge one. > Furthermore no matter what planet you would want to explore you would need a space station to explore from. I don't see that at all. Unmanned satellites would make sense, but the surface (or possibly an aerostat for some planemos) is always going to be a much more human-friendly environment in terms of gravity and radiation shielding. > It will also be the best way start the exploration as you can use your knowledge from the space station we have on earth. This is circular reasoning. > Furthermore, we are simply not even close to be able to live realistically far from earth let alone able to afford it. Which is why the moon makes sense as a next step. It's challenging but doable.

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.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    It's simply not true. No matter what planet you need to go to you need to spend a lot of time in space. Furthermore no matter what planet you would want to explore you would need a space station to explore from. It will also be the best way start the exploration as you can use your knowledge from the space station we have on earth. So no matter how you look at it, in space in zero-g is going to be the majority of the endeavour. Furthermore, we are simply not even close to be able to live realistically far from earth let alone able to afford it. There are so many things that need to be established before it becomes realistically sustainable and safe.
    - lmm 9y ago
      > No matter what planet you need to go to you need to spend a lot of time in space. Days for the moon, months rather than years for Mars, and we've already had people on space stations for that kind of duration. 3 years for the Jovian system which is a step up but not a huge one. > Furthermore no matter what planet you would want to explore you would need a space station to explore from. I don't see that at all. Unmanned satellites would make sense, but the surface (or possibly an aerostat for some planemos) is always going to be a much more human-friendly environment in terms of gravity and radiation shielding. > It will also be the best way start the exploration as you can use your knowledge from the space station we have on earth. This is circular reasoning. > Furthermore, we are simply not even close to be able to live realistically far from earth let alone able to afford it. Which is why the moon makes sense as a next step. It's challenging but doable.