May 10, 17 / Gem 18, 01 10:15 UTC

Artificial space station, or we use the moon instead?  

Hey,  asgardians. I think if the asgard would use artificial facility it will cost quadrotrillion dollars, from before it built, and for maintaining the facility to keep the asgardians alive. So, how 'bout we use the moon?  Sounds crazy, but if we built it on the moon we got the stability, lots of resources, and safe.

I'm sorry for my bad english or anything bad on my post. 

And what do you think about my suggestion? 

May 11, 17 / Gem 19, 01 00:22 UTC

Hey Dirk, yeah thats true, i think if we use the artificial facility it will more dangerous for population. I think if we build it in the moon, it is not just cheaper but sooner to realize😊

May 11, 17 / Gem 19, 01 08:49 UTC

Moon-base would be cool to have, and with or without Asgardia that is what we as a humankind need to move forward in our quest to become space-bound race.

May 11, 17 / Gem 19, 01 11:01 UTC

Perhaps we could build a moon-base first, perhaps an autonomous mining station with a small number of permanent staff, and then expand into orbit. We could build a mass driver on the moon to launch materials we mined there into earth's orbit, which we could then use to build large-scale orbital habitats, like Gerald O'Neill envisioned.

May 11, 17 / Gem 19, 01 14:58 UTC

Comment deleted

  Updated  on Jun 15, 17 / Can 26, 01 15:46 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: "This user no longer wishes to be associated with a tin pot banana republic"

May 11, 17 / Gem 19, 01 16:59 UTC

I think that was hyperbole.

I am still putting together a plan and haven't even tried putting dollars to it yet.


May 26, 17 / Can 06, 01 17:09 UTC

"Artificial" have several meanings. Have you thought about catching asteroid, putting it into Earth Orbit, and build facility on this asteroid, using mostly materials from inside? Problem with cost is that you have pay for something. If energy is produced from Solar Panels on this asteroid, it is basically free. If construction materials are from inside of asteroid, again free. Oxygen can be produced by plants in facility - free. The cost is only for something you have to send from Earth into orbit, or salaries.

Jun 10, 17 / Can 21, 01 07:29 UTC

As there are developments into the process of utilising moon/mars dust in order to 3-d print building blocks a staged move to the moon would potentially be a quicker way for us to get out "there". However, the lack of gravity would have a detrimental effect upon our physiology.  

As such perhaps an official aim to move to an orbital station would be better for us, then it could be possible to create an artificial gravitational pull with a centrifugal spin of the station... I do believe that a staged move via the moon will still be advantageous though.

Jun 10, 17 / Can 21, 01 22:12 UTC

Nah we should build a station first an then set up a base on the moon for industrial perpouses its like a fully stocked warehouse full of everything we would need to build space crafts an reasorces we could Traid with other nations on Earth it's actually easier to ship things from the moon to earth rather then sending things into space from earth plus it's got a ton of helium 3 Wich is a valuable reasorce used for clean nuclear fuel and could be used for traiding basically we should establish large mineing operations on the moon before we set our sites on Mars

Jun 13, 17 / Can 24, 01 04:52 UTC

With complete honesty, I think a mid-term goal to reach would be having a buoyant station among the clouds of Venus. Hear me out.

Short-term, yes the moon is a great checkpoint. I'm all for it. As of now, it's prohibitively expensive and out of the question; but we know its not going to fall and burn up in the atmosphere or glitch and lose our vitals, not to mention artificial gravity. 

For multiple reasons, Venus is a much better candidate than Mars for long-term colonization, and apparently noone else is interested. We would get prime real estate (if there was such a thing in Venutian standards) There are materials we could build to be inert in the atmosphere of sulfuric acid, even at that temperature. If we could focus on that, the rest would fall into place. Firefighter suits are already built to spec for the most part, and venus is significantly closer and larger than mars. When comparing Venus to Mars, Venus is a much better candidate. Mars just doesnt look as bad because we can walk on its surface, and deadly cold doesnt look as bad as deadly hot. Not to mention that pesky gamma shower those martians are victim to.

Heres some food for thought on that topic:

Jul 9, 17 / Leo 22, 01 14:27 UTC

For I dipped into the future, far as human eye could see,

Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;

Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,

Pilots of the purple twilight dropping down with costly bales;

Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rained a ghastly dew

From the nations' airy navies grappling in the central blue;

Far along the world-wide whisper of the south-wind rushing warm,

With the standards of the peoples plunging thro' the thunder-storm;

Till the war-drum throbbed no longer, and the battle flags were furled

In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.

There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe,

And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapped in universal law.

  Last edited by:  Graeme Kilshaw (Asgardian)  on Jul 14, 17 / Leo 27, 01 08:21 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: image

Jul 13, 17 / Leo 26, 01 06:43 UTC

I think asteroid mining the infamous asteroid "apophis" will give our bread boxes a nice economic use while tracking the bad boy and being a headquarters for the first decade? 

Jul 21, 17 / Vir 06, 01 05:18 UTC

I believe that in a certain conference  it was stated that Asgardia would be in orbital space and on the moon. Both would be very suitable plus the moon could hold many more inhabitants in an easier way since the moon is already in orbit and has more than enough area to hold Asgardian colonies. It may also be easier to assemble items on the moon since objects wont just fly off if you where to make a mistake. Although a fully man made colony in orbit is a great and fun idea. Having a large set of loops spinning out at a distance could keep us at the same gravity as Earth so we are not weakened from living in space. Having artificial biospheres for a self sustainable colony ecosystem is also a part to add on to that. 

Nov 3, 17 / Oph 27, 01 12:48 UTC

A moon base would be cheaper to build and expand, but harder to run and live on. In a space station, centrifugal rings could be used to generate artificial gravity, which would be 1G, preventing micro-G related ailments such as bone atrophy. It would also have better internet connection (Just saying, but Seriously. We have got to LIVE here,and I need Netflix. you might think you could do without, but after one or two months, you will despise the slow connection.) However, A moon base would be cheaper (as I have already said) but getting two and from it would require more advanced craft than a simple orbital randevu. This makes the WHOLE THING more expensive (by several orders of magnitude, should we perfect the SSTO), and less sustainable. Also, It would be much harder to protect earth from such a high orbit.           (I realize I may not make much sense in what I just said, but sentence structure goes out the window after 50-something hours without sleep, sorry)

Nov 3, 17 / Oph 27, 01 14:31 UTC

Some great points in this article.... though I didn't notice anyone mention the ability to relocate stations.

An orbital platform has mobility and can move outwards as new stations are built and/or launched (building from space would be ideal) - this type of system would keep the oldest stations the furthest from earth(/factory) and the newest ones with all the latest bells and whistles closest.  Furthermore a platform is easier to move out of the way of oncoming collisions.

A stationary base on the moon or other large body takes additional fuel to enter and clear it's gravitational orbit and seems to me would surpass the building costs over time. In addition, the base would constantly need upgrading as new technologies emerge.

  Last edited by:  Asgardian 794177 (Asgardian, Candidate)  on Nov 3, 17 / Oph 27, 01 14:33 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time