Well the one thing you could do with a bigger ISS is artificial gravity. But before we design a huge rotating space station, we need to do experiments to see what level of spin humans can tolerate in space and what amount of g is needed for health.
Another thing you can do with a big habitat is to do experiments in closed system life support using plants - trees, crops, food etc. After all the enthusiasts think that is possible for Mars - so surely must be possible in LEO (you don't need soil to grow plants).
Advantage is, if you had both of those, no need to rotate people around every three months because they can remain healthy long term in full g - and no need to keep supplying from Earth to the space station because the station is more or less self sufficient (if that is possible) at least for a decade or two as long as the modules last.
That would be such a huge cost saving, that I'd have thought that should be the first thing you do if you want a long term human presence in space.
Then - if you can have humans in space for a quarter or a tenth of the cost of the ISS program, then you can start to build bigger space stations for them to live in. Instead of spending huge amounts on lifting humans and their supplies to the ISS, spend it on lifting materials to expand the space station.
And also opens the way to humans at L1 and L2 position and other places in space if you don't have to resupply every three months.
I don't even know if we do need a human presence in space, maybe it can all be done with telerobotics.
If that bigger ISS is operated using telerobots controlled from the Earth - we are rather far from that just now but maybe soon not so many years that we can do that - then it would cost just a fraction of the running costs of the ISS and again could be much larger. But you don't get the benefits of humans enjoying weightlessness and the view of the Earth - however by then maybe you get tourists in space so they enjoy it that way.
Another thing you can do with a big habitat is to do experiments in closed system life support using plants - trees, crops, food etc. After all the enthusiasts think that is possible for Mars - so surely must be possible in LEO (you don't need soil to grow plants).
Advantage is, if you had both of those, no need to rotate people around every three months because they can remain healthy long term in full g - and no need to keep supplying from Earth to the space station because the station is more or less self sufficient (if that is possible) at least for a decade or two as long as the modules last.
That would be such a huge cost saving, that I'd have thought that should be the first thing you do if you want a long term human presence in space.
Then - if you can have humans in space for a quarter or a tenth of the cost of the ISS program, then you can start to build bigger space stations for them to live in. Instead of spending huge amounts on lifting humans and their supplies to the ISS, spend it on lifting materials to expand the space station.
And also opens the way to humans at L1 and L2 position and other places in space if you don't have to resupply every three months.
I don't even know if we do need a human presence in space, maybe it can all be done with telerobotics.
If that bigger ISS is operated using telerobots controlled from the Earth - we are rather far from that just now but maybe soon not so many years that we can do that - then it would cost just a fraction of the running costs of the ISS and again could be much larger. But you don't get the benefits of humans enjoying weightlessness and the view of the Earth - however by then maybe you get tourists in space so they enjoy it that way.
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.4k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0