Island One costs

I have to agree with Mike here. In fact, I think the IIS was the
largest initial cost. As a research facility it could start by
researching manufacturing and construction techniques that will make
build modules in situ easier. Then all that has to be done is send up
raw material. A tonne of steel is easier to transport and is cheaper
to send up, since it is more compact, and no one in his right mind is
going to ship it using the shuttle. After module building is old hat,
space agriculture could easily decrease the number of trips going up,
and increase the population is space.

The research has to be directed to boot strap a space settlement and
not in the random experiments of the moment that it is being used for
today.

This is the purpose of commiting to a program in space. Once you have
a reason to be up there, you develop the technology to stay up there.
If that means mining the moon, or NEAs or Manned mission to Mars or
Pluto so be it.

>
> Sorry, but this is so backwards. REALITY CHECK TIME! Now think
hard.
> How many billions have we just spent putting up a few SMALL modules
and
> how many billions will we continue to spend to keep it operational.
Now
> how much larger and more complicated would it be to put together a
> colony? A thousand times? A million times?
>
> I wouldn't consider it an inevitable fact that if Island One masses
X times
> as much as ISS that Island One must cost X times as much. Not
building
> Island One on a cost-plus contract and making technical decisions
based on
> technical concerns rather than international politics might make all
the