This has been bothering me for a while. Funding aside (I think THE WORLD would be able to pull off enough cash for funding), why don't we build a larger, better International Space Station? One that ships could launch off of with ease (MUCH less fuel required because of low gravity), one with a top of the line observatory, one that could simply just do more: boarding, tourism, etc.

This has been bothering me for a while. Funding aside (I think THE WORLD would be able to pull off enough cash for funding), why don't we build a larger, better International Space Station? One that ships could launch off of with ease (MUCH less fuel required because of low gravity), one with a top of the line observatory, one that could simply just do more: boarding, tourism, etc.

 

1. It is always about money.

 

2. You still have to get the fuel up there in the first place, and that takes more fuel.

 

3. You need a mission for the station. The mission of the ISS was to pump money into the former Soviet Union aerospace industry so that their scientists and ebgineers could be occupied and not be dealing with third-world nations desiring long-range missiles and nukes.

 

4. Any large project has to compete with other large projects for funds.

 

5. The WORLD can agree on very little, maintain agrement for a protracted period on even less, and effectively mannage nothing at all. The ISS is a perfect example of just how difficult project management is in a multi-national setting. Several planned modules have been canceled, and even so, it is still not complete. The cost has been enormous.

Understandable. But this is all due to Intl. problems and disagreements, is it not? If at least a few members of the UN could agree, would this be feasible? Or do you think the product wouldn't be worth the trouble?

This has been bothering me for a while. Funding aside (I think THE WORLD would be able to pull off enough cash for funding), why don't we build a larger, better International Space Station? One that ships could launch off of with ease (MUCH less fuel required because of low gravity), one with a top of the line observatory, one that could simply just do more: boarding, tourism, etc.

 

Well..you're asking why and then saying funding aside. I would assuming the funding part is the "why". As far as I can see, it is the only why. If we had an infinite amount of money to fund such a thing, I don't see why we wouldn't do it. Screw the ISS, if we had unlimited funding we'd have a space colony like this by now:

 

 

 

Take as long as you need for the awesomeness of that to sink in.

Well..you're asking why and then saying funding aside. I would assuming the funding part is the "why". As far as I can see, it is the only why. If we had an infinite amount of money to fund such a thing, I don't see why we wouldn't do it. Screw the ISS, if we had unlimited funding we'd have a space colony like this by now:

 

 

 

Take as long as you need for the awesomeness of that to sink in.

 

HA! That was my desktop background at one point. And yes, I suppose funding is the only why. As stupid as money is, it provides, yet inhibits, so much.

HA! That was my desktop background at one point. And yes, I suppose funding is the only why. As stupid as money is, it provides, yet inhibits, so much.

 

It's currently one of the images that cycles as my desktop background now lol. There was a theoretical model on how that colony specifically would function though I believe, such as how gravity would be artificially implemented. If you or anyone else looking over this has that article and could link me to it, it would be much appreciated

Understandable. But this is all due to Intl. problems and disagreements, is it not? If at least a few members of the UN could agree, would this be feasible? Or do you think the product wouldn't be worth the trouble?

 

A few members of the UN agreed on the ISS.

In a simple approximation, we might agree that:

 

Money = labor

Money = resources

 

With labor you can develop and construct the space station... so you need labor and resources for both the research and the actual construction. Since we need labor and resources to build a larger space station, we can conclude that the bottleneck is money.

 

You can invent several schemes how more money (labor, resources) could be allocated to a new space station. Here's a few:

- increase taxes and send all extra tax money to the space station, either through direct government involvement or some stimulation

- make a plan-economy like the Soviets had, and simply send the laborers/resources and scientists to work on the space-station

 

Whatever you come up with, you will need to massively increase the labor effort on space-related research and also on the space-industry. All that will mean that a lot more resources are needed. A lot of that is high-tech resources, which again need more people and more money.

 

Right now, there is no large pool of unemployed highly educated people anywhere on this planet, so labor is a real bottleneck. Worldwide, resources of all types are becoming more expensive. Production of many resources cannot keep up with demand, which increases prices. So, resources are also a bottleneck.

 

Solve those two bottlenecks, and we'll have a spacestation in no-time.

Edited February 21, 201114 yr by CaptainPanic