4 ms·
The major cost is lifting mass out of Earth’s gravity well, so if you really want to cut costs we require sources of materials which don’t come from Earth. Once
by IntronExon 9y ago
The major cost is lifting mass out of Earth’s gravity well, so if you really want to cut costs we require sources of materials which don’t come from Earth. Once you have this, and build your station, why send it to Mars? Keep it here, or send it to a planet with resources we can use (a moon of Jupiter might work).
You’d need a compelling reason to do this, since the cost from R&D to launches would be in the trillions and take decades.
- Mikho 9y agoIIS has not so many years left to live, BTW. Space Stations as posts on orbits are good for many practical and scientific reason.
- IntronExon 9y agoAbsolutely, but to me that’s an argument for space stations in orbit around Earth, not Mars.
- Mikho 9y agoAgree. Though one does not exclude another. Starting with a new ISS to test ideas and tech and extending it later to SS for Mars would be logical.