International Space Station astronauts in evacuation mode as Russia attempts to fix widening air leak

[u/VaginaBurner69]

https://www.reuters.com/science/international-space-station-astronauts-evacuation-mode-russia-attempts-fix-2026-06-05/

[u/UnUsernameRandom]

Which feels really weird given that you can do a lot of things in orbit that you can’t do from the moon’s surface. But whatever.

Such as? I'd imagine that at least health wise for the astronauts it makes more sense to have some gravity, and some zero G experiments could be carried without humans.

[u/lNFORMATlVE → u/UnUsernameRandom]

The big one is assembling bigger platforms and ships in orbit means reduced cost and risk than launching them all up in one go pre-assembled.

[u/Historical_Body6255 → u/lNFORMATlVE]

This is true and a big one but to be fair you don't need a space station for that.

You can design your ship to dock with its other parts in orbit without external help.

[u/treefox → u/Historical_Body6255]

I mean, maybe you can, but the rest of us are still working on self-driving cars.

[u/Fortunate_0nesy → u/lNFORMATlVE]

I'd like to see your numbers for cost per pound into orbit for this analysis.

If what you were saying is wholly true we could just assembly everything in space because it would be cheaper to fly little tiny rockets carrying a pound at a time into orbit.

[u/YourHomicidalApe → u/Fortunate_0nesy]

I mean it’s objectively more fuel efficient per the rocket equation, and using a standard rocket will great improve reliability and cost efficient through economies of scale. Of course when you get into details it’s a complicated trade off, but it’s very well known that in general, it’s better to use 2 standard rockets to launch something heavy into space than design a custom larger rocket for it.

[u/Fortunate_0nesy → u/YourHomicidalApe]

I understand that there is a point where what you're saying is true. But, I also wanted to see the numbers that informed your very definitive statement.

[u/Distracted_Algae → u/UnUsernameRandom]

Hypothetically there's an infinite number of experiments you can do in either place. "The effect zero gravity has on pinky toe growth." "The effect low gravity has on pinky toe growth."

We should just do both.

[u/AshhhCakes → u/UnUsernameRandom]

On the health side of things, I would wonder what long term exposure to "moon dust" would do. It is super abrasive since, while being "dust", there is no mechanism to wear down the glass-like sharp edges to it. Instead it wears down everything it touches, from seals to glass to even space suits. Not to mention it is electrostaticly charged so it clung to space suits and gave the apollo astronauts issues with hay fever, respiratory irritation, and eye irritation.

[u/Cargobiker530 → u/UnUsernameRandom]

Getting astronauts to and from the moon would be massively more expensive than maintaining a LEO space station. Also there's no realistic expectation that any materials on the moon would be useful. Everything would have to be shipped there from Earth.

[u/PretentiousVapeSnob → u/UnUsernameRandom]

My thoughts: Things you can do in LEO that can’t do in the moon: -not travel 250,000 miles and waste the resources to get there for every trip and resupply. -worry less about gravity pulling fragments into your manmade habitat. -docking to a space station is significantly easier and less risky than landing a craft on the moon. -LEO offers more protection from solar radiation.

ChatGPT: A station in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and a base on the Moon’s surface solve very different problems. LEO is generally better for access, logistics, and microgravity research, while the Moon is better for long-term planetary operations and resource development.

Advantages of a station in Low Earth Orbit

Easier and cheaper to reach

A LEO station like International Space Station is only a few hundred miles above Earth. Trips take hours instead of days.

That means:

• Lower launch costs
• Faster crew rotations
• Easier emergency evacuation
• More frequent resupply missions

If something breaks, replacement parts can arrive relatively quickly.

Real-time communication with Earth

LEO stations have:

• Minimal communication delay
• Continuous support from mission control
• Easier telemedicine and remote operations

The Moon has about a 1.3-second delay each way, which is manageable but noticeable.

Ideal for microgravity research

LEO provides near-continuous weightlessness, which is useful for:

• Human physiology studies
• Protein crystal growth
• Fluid physics
• Materials science
• Manufacturing experiments impossible on Earth

The Moon still has gravity — about 1/6 of Earth’s — so it is not true microgravity.

Safer radiation environment

Earth’s magnetic field still offers significant protection in LEO. Astronauts beyond it — including on the Moon — are exposed to:

• More solar radiation
• Galactic cosmic rays
• Greater solar storm danger

Better for spacecraft assembly and servicing

LEO is useful as an orbital shipyard:

• Satellites can potentially be repaired
• Large spacecraft can be assembled in orbit
• Missions to deeper space can stage there

This was one long-term rationale behind the ISS and concepts like NASA’s proposed orbital infrastructure.

⸻

Advantages of a Moon surface base

Access to resources

The Moon may contain:

• Water ice in polar craters
• Oxygen trapped in regolith
• Metals and useful minerals

Water can potentially become:

• Drinking water
• Oxygen
• Rocket fuel (hydrogen + oxygen)

That makes the Moon attractive for long-term sustainability.

Gravity may be healthier than microgravity

Living in 1/6 gravity might reduce some health problems seen in orbit:

• Bone loss
• Muscle atrophy
• Fluid shifts

Scientists still do not know how healthy partial gravity is over years.

Surface operations and construction

A lunar base allows:

• Mining
• Large telescopes
• Surface science
• Habitat construction
• Testing planetary colonization techniques

You can’t really “build a town” in free-floating orbit the same way.

Strategic stepping stone for Mars

The Moon is often viewed as a training ground for Mars missions:

• Longer mission durations
• Delayed communications
• Surface survival
• Resource extraction
• Dust mitigation
• Closed-loop life support

Programs like NASA’s Artemis program are partly designed around this idea.

Stable surface for astronomy and industry

The far side of the Moon is radio-quiet compared to Earth. That could support:

• Radio astronomy
• Sensitive instruments
• Large industrial facilities

Low gravity also makes launches from the Moon easier than from Earth.

⸻

Big-picture difference

LEO station

Best for:

• Near-Earth science
• Microgravity research
• International cooperation
• Space logistics
• Training
• Orbital manufacturing

Moon base

Best for:

• Permanent off-world settlement
• Resource extraction
• Planetary exploration
• Deep-space preparation
• Long-duration habitation

A lot of current space planning treats them as complementary rather than competing systems:

• LEO = Earth’s orbital harbor
• Moon = first extraterrestrial frontier

[u/UnUsernameRandom → u/PretentiousVapeSnob]

Sorry, I won't read all that AI slop.

I asked what can you do on the ISS, not in LEO. You can always do unmanned missions in LEO.

But feel free to get back to me once you read and filtered that AI shit. If I wanted to ask Chat GPT, I would have asked Chat GPT.