Instead of Mars: Asgardia

[jkn]

New competition for Elons Mars colony: Asgardia - The Space Nation

Both share this problem: http://phys.org/news/2016-10-mars-bound-astronauts-chronic-dementia-galactic.html
Although Earths magnetic field protects Asgardia from most of radiation. Another study about radiation in space Apollo Astronaut Study Reveals Greater Heart Risk for Deep-Space Travelers

To stop radiation lot of mass is needed. Lifting this mass from Moon with fuel made on the Moon is easier than from Earth. We need moon base before we can build anything really large in space.

Asgardia would be good client for BFR.

 

[ecarfan]

The ideals of Asgardia seem admirable. It isn't clear to me what it really consists of of. Is the goal to establish a permanent human colony in LEO that is an independent nation? If so, I don't see how such a colony could be sustainable, and of course the cost to build it and the ongoing cost of supporting it would be enormous.

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty does not appear to prohibit something like Asgardia. See Outer Space Treaty of 1967 - Wikisource, the free online library

I do not in any way see Asgardia as "competition" to Elon's goal of establishing a self-sustaining human colony on Mars.

 

[jkn]

I do not in any way see Asgardia as "competition" to Elon's goal of establishing a self-sustaining human colony on Mars.

I believe there is limited number of people who want to leave Earth and have money to do it. Practicing food production on orbit would be useful for Mars mission. They need to do it to keep costs down.

 

[ecarfan]

Practicing food production on orbit would be useful for Mars mission. They need to do it to keep costs down.

"Practicing" growing edible plants in zero gravity in LEO would be incredibly costly and unnecessary for Elon's plan to establish a permanent Martian colony to succeed. You can "practice" growing plants in a simulated Martian environment on earth, the only difference will be the gravity. But growing plants in zero gee isn't relevant to growing plants on Mars.

 

[jspayneii]

I don't see this as competition. In fact, it seems more like a stepping stone.

"Practicing" growing edible plants in zero gravity in LEO would be incredibly costly and unnecessary for Elon's plan to establish a permanent Martian colony to succeed. You can "practice" growing plants in a simulated Martian environment on earth, the only difference will be the gravity. But growing plants in zero gee isn't relevant to growing plants on Mars.

Growing plants in space could be more cost effective than trying to carry enough supplies for travel to Mars. It could also provide some free CO2 conversion. I would also think that it wouldn't been zero gravity, as some artificial gravity will probably be necessary for a long term space civilization.

 

[jkn]

If they grow all food they eat, they also produce all O2 they use. Keeping system in balance might not be easy. If I remember correctly, Biosphere 2 failed to do that. Maintaining space station, including food production, requires lot of work. That will also limit number of people wanting to go. If Asgardia fails, then even less people wants to go to Mars. Asgardia would be good stepping stone for Mars mission, but it might delay it.

 

[Ludus]

Looks like somebody was browsing in used book stores and came across ONeill colonies

It's never been that they're technically impossible. They just require titanic investment in space infrastructure up front before anybody can just live there. It takes 100x the investment to build a space colony as to start a settlement on Mars.

Mars is hard but it's possible to just settle it without literally building the world first.

 

[Ludus]

The ideals of Asgardia seem admirable. It isn't clear to me what it really consists of of. Is the goal to establish a permanent human colony in LEO that is an independent nation? If so, I don't see how such a colony could be sustainable, and of course the cost to build it and the ongoing cost of supporting it would be enormous.

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty does not appear to prohibit something like Asgardia. See Outer Space Treaty of 1967 - Wikisource, the free online library

I do not in any way see Asgardia as "competition" to Elon's goal of establishing a self-sustaining human colony on Mars.

It makes signatory states responsible for regulation and oversight of any space activities undertaken by their citizens or from their territory. It does effectively prohibit the main idea that this is an independent state in space.

 

[jkn]

In small scale Asgardia is lot cheaper and faster to build than Mars base. When we go to large scale, Mars base wins. Asgardia is of course lot safer at least in beginning. Small Asgardia could not function as a state. But as you point out it might not anyway.

I still think we need Moon base to test hardware needed on Mars and to produce materials and fuel for Mars mission and other projects, like Asgardia. It's incorrect to add costs of Moon base to Mars project. We need Moon base for other purposes also. Developing tech with Moon base is much faster. If something fails we don't need to wait 2+ years for next launch window. We can send new component when its ready.