4 ms·
It’s easier to deploy in the weightless environment of orbit than on the moon with gravity. Consistent with this, the largest off-Earth structure ever built (th
by jessriedel 2y ago
It’s easier to deploy in the weightless environment of orbit than on the moon with gravity. Consistent with this, the largest off-Earth structure ever built (the ISS) is in orbit, not on a heavenly body.
- itishappy 2y agoSure, but it's even easier to not have to worry about deploying at all. The largest structures we've built were built in-situ.
- jessriedel 2y agoIt requires deployment either way. The largest ships we have that go to the moon are no larger than those going to orbit.
- avmich 2y agoCan't believe you don't see the other reasons why ISS is on orbit.
- jessriedel 2y agoI think you have misread my comment.
- avmich 2y ago"Consistent with this..." I read as "this cause has significant part in justification that...". ISS obviously is on orbit not because it's easier to build in space than on the surface of a natural satellite - if Earth would have a Deimos orbiting it at height of 1000 km, I see it quite possible that ISS would be on the surface of such satellite, with all ifs and buts - but because ISS is roughly in the closest location to Earth which is still "space" and doesn't require continuous re-launching (like New Shepard). Coming back to the topic, I'd like to see the reasons why both approaches could be beneficial. I see, for example, that for space-based constructions we don't - mostly - have interference from the surface of anything, while for surface-based constructions we have support and resources. Do we have a full analysis which would allow us to say "surface always sux, in-space forewa" or "only l00mers build in space, real men are firmly grounded"? Or, talking about a finer point, deployment only - do we have full justification?