A truly international lunar base as the next logical step for human spaceflight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A human mission to Mars has been highlighted as the long term goal for space exploration, with intermediate stages such as missions to the Moon and/or to asteroids, but a human mission to Mars will not be feasible before several decades. For the time being the major ambitious accomplishment in the field of human spaceflight is the International Space Station but a human spaceflight programme which would be restricted to Low Earth orbit (LEO) has indeed little interest. Thus the next step in the field of human exploration should be the definition of a new exploration programme beyond LEO, built within a long term perspective. We must acknowledge that science is not the main driver of human space exploration and that the main success of the ISS is to have allowed its partners to work together. The main goal of a new human exploration programme will be to promote international cooperation between the major space-faring countries. The only sensible and feasible objective of a near/mid-term human spaceflight programme should be the edification of a lunar base, under the condition that this base is built as a truly international venture. The ISS in the 1990s had illustrated a calmed relation between the USA, together with Europe, Canada and Japan, and Russia; a lunar base would be the symbol of a similar calmed relation between the same partners and China, and possibly others such as India. For the benefit of all humankind this extra continent, the Moon, should be used only for peaceful purposes like Antarctica today, and should not become the theatre or the stake of conflicts. Such a programme is technically feasible and financially affordable in a rather short term. So let us go to the Moon, but let us get there together.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".