• PunchingWood@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    28 days ago

    You don’t think that a space agency specifically focusing on space flight, travel and expansion hasn’t been extensively researched all of the options? I’m almost certain in the case of NASA it’s more a financial issue and less of not wanting to do it, and that the financial cost is not worth what they expect to get out it anyway.

    As for the others, it remains to be seen what Musk will do. He’s got a lot of money to realise what he’s done so far, but I’m not sure if off-world facilities are within his budget (right now).

    Not sure what China’s goal is though, they say it’s aimed at scientific research, but I’m not sure what they’re expecting to get out of it that hasn’t been done already. They could do similar research on a much cheaper and easier to maintain space station.

    • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      If they’ve decided there’s no research to do up there, and it’d be too expensive… Then why would they be looking at every option for how it could be done?

      If they decided there’s not reseach value - they WOULDN’T bother looking at options for living on the moon… Because they don’t see value in doing so.

      So your argument conflicts with its self.

      • PunchingWood@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        28 days ago

        One can always research multiple options extensively, looking at different kinds of possible research on the moon and what they’d get out of it and whether or not it’s worth the effort, and then conclude that it would be too expensive. Research itself costs time and money too, and NASA has been tight on the money for a while I believe.

        While SpaceX and China can practically burn money just for the sake of it.