[flagged]
We learned a lot from it, but now it's outdated and crawling with difficult to eradicate mold and fungus.
With Starship, we could launch 100 International Space Stations.
We'll be fine.
> that the spores could survive radiation doses of 500 to 1000 gray (=sieverts),
Humans can survive massive amount if radiation, provided it's not all at once (research sample size = 1).
Albert Stevens survived 64 sieverts deliverted over 20 years (lethal dose 50 % die in 30 days is 4-5 sieverts).
It's almost as if linear-no-threshold model is wrong and we do actually have some capability to repair some damage
Edit: just to clarify, survive doesn't mean thrive. Just that we might survive in a deadly environment better and longer than expected.
Threshold dosing in terms of cancer has zero evidence to support it, and cancer is already really common suggesting if there’s any threshold we are well past it.
The only reason you hear about it is there is an industry who really wishes it were true. Just like people suggesting low dose exposure to lead wasn’t harmful when they want to sell Tetraethyllead in gasoline, monetary rewards cloud judgement. Same deal with tanning beds and just about any product exposing people to ionizing radiation, the risks don’t seem bad when there’s money to be made.
Likely a problem for any future space travel e.g. to Mars? Why not use it as a laboratory to figure out how to deal with it?
It's not really a waste of money inasmuch as, the things you put into space are consumables, and you have to replace them before they turn back into dust.
Also, as a complete aside, and unrelated to any of the above, why do you think we left all that hardware in Afghanistan? Don't you think we could have recovered at least almost all of it if we'd wanted to? Because it wasn't like we were really having a ton of hot combat at the time. And, if we could, why didn't we? It certainly wasn't cost, the MIC has the unlimited money cheat turned on so cost isn't a factor in anything really. Couldn't have been public perception, being that it was almost universally viewed as a blunder. When I look at it though, I don't see a blunder, I see a strategic move. Have a look at a map, who's next-door neighbors with Afghanistan? Iran. Does Iran get along with Afghanistan? No. Why don't they get along? Afghanistan is overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim, Iran is overwhelmingly Shia Muslim, and those two groups HATE eachother. Iran, by far, as the better military forces, so, if you want to keep those two countries busy murdering eachother for the foreseeable future, well, you "give" a bunch of semi-modern military hardware to Afghanistan, obviously.
So the real question is how much is that strategic move worth? It's cost somewhere ~6 trillion dollars since 2001 to run military operations in the middle east. We left ~8 billion dollars worth of hardware in Afghanistan, so, if that strategy works, well, it's substantially cheaper than just fighting a hot war with Iran, probably by a few decimal places.
That such a hilarious oversimplification. You are just bumbling into a highly complex issue throwing around generalizations.
The issues between Iran and Afganistan are overwhelmingly about water rights, not some religious battle.
Iran supports different groups within Afganistan, including Sunni and Shia.
> if you want to keep those two countries busy murdering eachother for the foreseeable future, well, you "give" a bunch of semi-modern military hardware to Afghanistan, obviously.
Except Afghanistan is not using those things to fight Iran at all. There is no hot war. Afghanistan can't really operate that stuff anyway, what they do is simply sell it as parts to finance the government.
And as it looks right now, a war with Central Asian countries that the US certainty wouldn't want is far more likely then a war with Iran.
> When I look at it though, I don't see a blunder, I see a strategic move.
If you want to 4D galaxy brain yourself out of any bad choices by the government you certainty can but its just complete nonsense.
The reality is these process are simply not planned out. Communication between militarily and politics are terrible. Sometimes things just are what they are.
No it doesn't. Actually inform yourself. The station is old, hard to maintain and out of data.
The money free up from the ISS can then be spent on multiple new next generation stations that will be cheaper to operate and more modern.