Nobody can even come up with a coherent reason for any of these proposals to exist. Even the ISS is more of a political instrument than a real science thing. NASA likes to say its about studying how to help humans live in space, but those results were in decades ago: more than a few months in zero-g wrecks people. So why are we still trying to build old modular Soyuz/Mir derivatives instead of trying to figure out the minimum spin humans need to stay healthy? Because the whole point is to do familiar safe things while providing full time jobs for ground control.
metalman•38m ago
Right!
And because China has a good chance of pulling of a moon and then mars landing first, they are lurching into, hmmmm,ok,they are lurching flat out trying to bluster up a program without disturbing the space grift industry, ie: SLS , Shuttle Leftover Systems
and the whole thing disolves into cringe
Muromec•25m ago
Disbanding NASA would be one of those symbolic things thay people will associate the dusk of American empire.
ACCount37•24m ago
I agree that a "long term fractional g spin test" is one of the most valuable things a LEO station can do. But there are others too.
For example, medical interventions against zero-g decay can be tested in any microgravity, spin or no spin. Development of in-space manufacturing and assembly can happen on any sufficiently capable space station.
All of that, however, requires a good amount of ambition. And I'm not sure if NASA under the current political system can deliver ambition.
Havoc•15m ago
At risk of crassness - human lives are pretty cheap and there are plenty of people willing to take the hit for a chance to be in space for an extended timeframe. Meanwhile building something with enough spin and shielding is a huge ask
maxerickson•9m ago
If manned stations aren't doing any particularly unique research, especially research that couldn't be done with automation, why spend huge resources on them?
__patchbit__•4m ago
Horses for courses micromanagement business administration and lobbying gravy train.
cl0ckt0wer•32m ago
It's liability laundering. If an openclaw blackmails a politician while hosted in space, what's the legal recourse?
Muromec•28m ago
A person who wrote the prompt, the person who spawned the instance, the person who provided the access to infra, the person who launched it.
At the end of the day, there is somebody who profits from it or could have prevented it
ceejayoz•27m ago
International law says you spank whoever launched it. There’s treaties on this.
Barring that, we have anti-satellite missiles.
Muromec•25m ago
What law?
patmorgan23•6m ago
The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.
mikkupikku•1h ago
metalman•38m ago
Muromec•25m ago
ACCount37•24m ago
For example, medical interventions against zero-g decay can be tested in any microgravity, spin or no spin. Development of in-space manufacturing and assembly can happen on any sufficiently capable space station.
All of that, however, requires a good amount of ambition. And I'm not sure if NASA under the current political system can deliver ambition.
Havoc•15m ago
maxerickson•9m ago
__patchbit__•4m ago