4 ms·
Orbiting shipyards seems like a likely bet (assuming we want to explore and interact with space). If we want giant, heavy spacecraft that are capable of intera
by alehul 7y ago
Orbiting shipyards seems like a likely bet (assuming we want to explore and interact with space).
If we want giant, heavy spacecraft that are capable of interacting with their environment — the space equivalent of a construction vehicle or a tank — earth's high escape velocity makes it impossible to launch from.
We'd instead need to construct it in space, even if all the materials were from earth.
As the cost of launching from earth continues to fall, it'll also become increasingly economically feasible to launch multiple payloads to build a larger, more complex spacecraft.
(Think of the assembly of the ISS as a proof-of-concept here [1]).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_the_International_Space_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_the_International_...
- ClumsyPilot 7y agoThe entire point of construction in space is to avoid launching from earth. It takes 36 times less energy to get a ton of material from moon surface, and can be done without rockets at all - a space elevator can be built on the moon with 'normal' materials.
- heavenlyblue 7y agoWhy is Elon Musk aiming for Mars if building a solar panel array and all of the subsequent manufacturing industry on the moon could potentially be way more productive? Is there something I am missing?
- chasd00 7y agoMusk has been talking more and more about the moon lately. Maybe he's thinking the same.
- whatshisface 7y agoThe fact that NASA has a clear directive to spend an absolutely humongous amount of money on the moon over a relatively short time frame may have something to do with Elon Musk's interest.
- serpix 7y agoUS military uses quite a ridiculously larger amount yearly. Nasa budget for going to the moon is insignificant compared to what is spent on war.
- baq 7y agoFalse dichotomy. Military budget that can be spent on Elon’s business is probably less than what NASA is prepared to spend on a proven Earth-Moon-Earth service.
- whatshisface 7y agoIt's not a perfect false dichotomy, between people getting to keep their wealth and all of the things it could be spent on, there actually is a sum that has to balance to zero.
- NortySpock 7y agoRobert Zubrin argued that Mars has more lightweight bulk resources (water, carbon dioxide) twenty years ago, and at the time the moon was thought to be barren of such resources that are useful for starting a human colony. Recently (in the last decade) water has been discovered on the moon, frozen in areas of cold permanent shadow in craters. Also the current US vice president wants to go to the Moon. The previous president wanted to go to Mars.
- elihu 7y agoMars is a more hospitable, Earth-like environment for humans. It has an atmosphere, a normal-length day-night cycle, less extremes of temperature, and closer to normal gravity. Mars and the moon both have pros and cons. Mars would be an easier place to survive, but the moon is easier to get to.
- hutzlibu 7y ago"Mars would be an easier place to survive, but the moon is easier to get to. " Since it takes 6 months to get to mars and only 3 days to the moon and the only advantage for surviving on mars is the mini gravity, I really think we should start with the moon.
- elihu 7y agoIt's not just the gravity. On the moon, you have to deal with 2 weeks of day and 2 weeks of night, which means having to deal with wide temperature swings and if you rely on solar you need very large batteries. Mars also has an atmosphere which contains CO2, which is useful for making methane. It also has a lot of water. (The moon has water too, though it may be less abundant/accessible.)
- redblacktree 7y agoCould some of those downsides be mitigated by putting your base on a "pole"? That is, are there locations on the Moon's surface where the sun is perpetually visible?
- m4rtink 7y agoThere are just a few crater rims where this happens, not the full pole - but those do indeed get sunn almost all the time & border areas in perpetual darkness, which is also pretty useful (cryogenics, temperature gradient, etc.).
- elihu 7y agoSort of; there are some spots that get sunlight almost all the time. (The moon has quite a bit of wobble, so it's hard to get to 100%.) That greatly restricts your choice of base locations, though. There may be other resources or geological features you might want to be close to that aren't convenient (lava tubes, water deposits, flat places to land, minerals that can be used as building materials, etc...).
- ClumsyPilot 7y agoMars is absolutely a better place to live, it's an actual planet. But for industrial hub, the fact that we have the moon is an absolute miracle. We can build and refuel ships that dwarf our current ones. And we will need moon based factories if we are to make any meaningful progress is settling the solar system. The only things that should ever be lifted off earth is People/ other life, and super high-tech goods like microchips. The Moon is also close enough to Earth that you can get help, or go back in case you suddenly need surgery. Good luck with that on Mars. Settling Mars with our current ships is like settling Australia with a canoe.
- m4rtink 7y agoIndeed, yet there are various challenges inherent to Moon colonization, such as continuous direct surface impacts due to no atmosphere, extreme temperature surface environment due to 14 day days, lack of various elements (such as carbon or nitrogen), etc. Still super useful & the short distance overrides much of the downsides.
- alehul 7y ago> The entire point of construction in space is to avoid launching from earth This is true, but avoiding launching from earth could be done for one of two reasons: (1) to increase the efficiency of what can be built (2) to increase the possibility of what can be built Your point is (1), and I agree with it. The point mentioned above is (2) — even if all the materials for the ISS were from earth, it still could not be constructed on earth and then launched as a whole, and so construction in space is viable.
- tomatotomato37 7y agoIt would still be a good stepping stone to complete off-world industry; one of the reasons current space launches cost a lot is because you don't only want things in orbit but you want something in orbit intact and functional. A pallet of dumb steel ingots could be lopped up with something with much more generous tolerances ala the Big Dumb Booster[0], with any orbital maneuvering once up there accomplished by space tugs. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_dumb_booster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_dumb_booster