« Last post by Twark_Main on Today at 01:10 am »
habitats that someone is going to live their life on
Well, are we staying on the home planet, or are we expanding or presence in hte solar system?
Right now, and going forward, we will need interplanetary transport and orbital platforms...
When we get around to permanent residential space habitats, where people might expect to spend years or decades (or centuries), and thus would benefit from near-1G spin gravity, we can worry about it.
Well, I've been suggesting that we "get around to permanent residential space habitats" first, in order to figure out, and demonstrate, the various techniques needed to live on other planets.
"We need to live in space so we can demonstrate how to live in space [but also standing on a planet].
Anyone else find this "justification" a bit philosophically feeble?
One gee, zero radiation, and EML-1 because the new environment will be new enough, so no need to change gravity too;
... no need except cost. You seem to act like it's no object, but reality disagrees.
zero radiation since we can survive with no radiation
We can survive in Ramsar, Iran too.
"Zero radiation" isn't on anyone's list. We don't even have "zero radiation" here on Earth! To achieve it in space would require not just immense and uneconomical shielding, but also isotopically separatig and purifying all incoming materials from natural radioactive isotopes (potassium-40, carbon-13, etc).
Zero radiation is both infeasible and unnecessary.
and EML-1 because it's just a few days away.
LEO is even closer, if travel time is your metric. It also has lower radiation, delta-v cost, and space debris generation potential.
Getting a lotta pushback on three seemingly self-evident reasons.
None of this is "self-evident." Rather, it's obvious that you chose favorites first and invented justifications later.