> It helps to answer the question of whether or not humans can even survive long term away from Earth
How will it answer that question that we already don't know of? I don't think that was the aim of ISS anyways and will definitely won't be the aim of second ISS. Humans can survive in space for year without significant physical damage but with lot of training.
To me, it's just so odd that people don't seem to understand why we have an ISS. Is the main argument "We've already learned what's needed about life in space, and now we don't need a space station anymore"? That seems absurd.
No, the argument is that there's plenty to learn, and it's all very interesting, but it doesn't stand up against people's very real needs here on Earth. I'm about the biggest fan of space you'll find, but even I, sadly, find the ethical calculus unassailable. Manned spaceflight won't accrue material benefits for ten generations or much more, and meanwhile human beings are dying of treatable or curable diseases, suffering under poverty, and living without access to clean water.
>I'm about the biggest fan of space you'll find, but even I, sadly, find the ethical calculus unassailable.
I'm not the biggest fan of manned spaceflight, and I couldn't care less about the ISS in particular.
But how does "ethical calculus" tell you to care about killing the ISS, vs. say LIGO, or wasteful military spending, or the video game industry, or foie gras, or goldschlager, or TikTok or astronomy in general or the Xbox or selfie sticks or...
If I was dictator, I'd prefer missions like New Horizons, but I can't see what ethical calculation is involved, I'd just rather see pictures of far away stuff than pay taxes for a space station to go around in circles.
How will it answer that question that we already don't know of? I don't think that was the aim of ISS anyways and will definitely won't be the aim of second ISS. Humans can survive in space for year without significant physical damage but with lot of training.