The mortal danger Starlink poses to space travel.

[Christine Wheelwright]

It's becoming increasingly clear that this is the big deal-breaker in manned spaceflight: if the Solar System had a habitable planet or moon, governments would pay astronomical amounts of money to set up viable self-sustaining colonies on it that would eventually be able to pay back the investment in terms of raw resources or even manufactured products. But there's nowhere habitable, so Earth will have to create and maintain at enormous cost viable habitats for - necessarily - small numbers of people who could never hope to produce anything that could repay a fraction of the debt. It's a non-starter.

I agree. The nations of the World have generally adopted a form of loosely restrained capitalism. This is the system of choice going forward. Fair enough. But we need to understand the limitations of such a system when it comes to solving our huge environmental problems. And as for space travel (I mean proper space travel....lets say to another planet), it aint going to happen under this current system. I think the next few decades will be dominated by a growth in profitable space tourism outfits (offering joy rides to 100km initially and then into orbit within a couple of decades). This, of course, does nothing to solve the very real problems faced by the planet. Quite the opposite actually.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Probably our nearest current equivalent (though at a much smaller scale, and more local etc etc) is the Amundsen-Scott South Pole station. The first buildings were used for about twenty years, then they moved to a dome for about thirty years until they moved again a decade or so ago.
I don’t know how much it costs to keep a few scientists alive in a very hostile environment, but they’ve already been doing so at the South Pole for over sixty years.
It’s just an example

A very good example. The new station was built in 2008 at a cost of $147 million - which includes the cost of flying all of the 40 000 tons of construction materials to the South Pole. This is piddling compared to the cost of getting manned habitats into orbit. The station can accommodate about 200 people at the most. Once the station was built maintenance costs were relatively low - bringing in supplies (there is now an overland route), repairing equipment and clearing snow from the building. The station serves a practical purpose. There are very few tourists and no 'settlers' there, just scientists who study weather patterns and the Antarctic ice inasmuch as they impact on the rest of the planet. Despite the fact that the South Pole is a human paradise compared to, say, the Moon or Mars (water, oxygen, correct gravity, adequate protection against Cosmic Rays and Solar Flares), there has been no push to colonise it, even though the cost of doing would be a fraction of the cost of colonising anywhere off-Earth. Why is that, I wonder?*


*Of course we know damn well why. Because photos of shivering scientists aren't nearly as romantic as artists' impressions of happy colonists in spacesuits bounding over the Valles Marineris.

 

[StilLearning]

A very good example. The new station was built in 2008 at a cost of $147 million - which includes the cost of flying all of the 40 000 tons of construction materials to the South Pole. This is piddling compared to the cost of getting manned habitats into orbit. The station can accommodate about 200 people at the most. Once the station was built maintenance costs were relatively low - bringing in supplies (there is now an overland route), repairing equipment and clearing snow from the building. The station serves a practical purpose. There are very few tourists and no 'settlers' there, just scientists who study weather patterns and the Antarctic ice inasmuch as they impact on the rest of the planet. Despite the fact that the South Pole is a human paradise compared to, say, the Moon or Mars (water, oxygen, correct gravity, adequate protection against Cosmic Rays and Solar Flares), there has been no push to colonise it, even though the cost of doing would be a fraction of the cost of colonising anywhere off-Earth. Why is that, I wonder?*


*Of course we know damn well why. Because photos of shivering scientists aren't nearly as romantic as artists' impressions of happy colonists in spacesuits bounding over the Valles Marineris.

If I might put that comparison in context: Antarctica has a population of around 4-5000 in the summer (IIRC), and around 1000 over winter - mostly scientists on research bases (doing environment, weather, geology etc research), but there is also tourism: In the 2009-2010 season 37,000 people visited Antarctica, mostly on sea cruises. These often include a helicopter trip to briefly visit the mainland. Sightseeing flights go regularly from Australia and New Zealand. There's some hiking, skiing and mountaineering etc. McMurdo station, the biggest settlement has a population of about 1000 in summer, and about 250 in winter.

Over time the general trend for both scientific population and tourism is upwards - the main restrictions are from treaties, which often are designed (partly) with protecting the Antarctic wilderness in mind. EDIT: I had look for numbers on what Antarctica's economy is worth, but it's hard to figure as the continent is divided between different nations END EDIT

The International Space Station houses a standard crew of 6 or 7, with maybe 10 when a crew transfer is taking place, and has a maximum capacity of 12 (again, IIRC). China's Tiangong space station has a maximum crew of 6. Their time is divided between looking after the station itself and running the various experiments there, which range from materials science and biology tests using micro-g as a tool to measuring space radiation, observations of Earth and launching nano-satellites from the station. The research is partly government, and partly commercial. The ISS will probably end up lasting for about 30 years, and costing something like $300 billion (including crew and resupply flights) to build and then run (so about half of that, $150 billion, was spent to build it in the first place, the rests spreads over its lifespan as about $5 billion a year running costs).
The most people ever in space all at once was 13 - I think? And there are now 'scenic flight' space tourism companies that fly you up there for maybe 5 minutes, a few fully private flights to the ISS happening, and a few private space stations tentatively planned. The Moon briefly had a population of 2 (+ 1 in orbit) for a few days, over the course of 3 years, decades ago.

There are thousands more space vehicles and platforms between Earth and the Moon, mostly doing practical jobs related to things here on earth - and they are all robotic (or junk). EDIT: The commercial space industry is worth about $150 billion to $400 billion a year (depending on whether you include all activities that use it, only those that are reliant on it, or only those activities taking place in space) [ Topic: Space industry worldwide ] END EDIT

I think we might see a big % increase in space and lunar population over the next few decades, but even if it's in the 500% - 1000% mark there will still be less than 1/5 the population there than of Antarctica during the winter.

 

[Harpo]

But that’s the entire continent. I have friends who have been to Antarctica as tourists. Tourists don’t go to the South Pole Station.

 

[StilLearning]

Most space tourists don't go to the ISS - they go on Virgin Orbit or Blue Origin's 5 minute 'scenic' flights. And all of manned spaceflight is vastly outnumbered by, and wrapped up with, the unmanned space industry. So, to me, it doesn't make sense to do a comparison between the south pole base and any manned space station, without also comparing the rest of human presence in Antarctica and off world.
Doing that I wonder if a better comparison to our current use of the space between the Earth and Moon might be with off-shore industry in parts of the North Sea - industrial and economic potential, scope for 'daytrip' style tourism (e.g Boat Tours From Kylesku North Coast 500 - North Coast Sea Tours ), but little for colonisation and demanding much greater reliance on automation ( they use a lot of Normally Unmanned Installations )? [sorry, edited for clarity]