Should we A) colonise other planets or B) build habitats in the middle of space, like O'Neill Cylinders and stuff?
Should we A) colonise other planets or B) build habitats in the middle of space, like O'Neill Cylinders and stuff?
C) keep the planet we have habitable
our planet could easily be wiped by a number of things. if we dont plan for a planetary catastrophe out of our control, our species is doomed.
there is not a single thing that could wipe out a deep sea habitat that wouldnt also wipe any space colonies. but i dont see anybody arguing for that, despite being far more achievable and practical. also, there is no feasible way for space colonies to be self sufficient anywhere in the near future, so wiping out earth also wipes out space colonies relying on it for supplies. this argument aboOt survivability is absurd.
Terraforming other planets would be astronomically more challenging than fixing our own planet and we don't seem to be able to get our shit together to do that. Even if we are capable of terraforming other planets, it would take many centuries at minimum. O'Neal cylinders are far more likely to work once we start industrializing the moon.
If the colonization strategy is the Moon then Mars, I expect humanity would have the technology needed to colonize Mars easily while terraforming occurs.
The problem with an O'Neil Cylinder is bringing up enough processed material to build one.
If we can't manage to keep Earth's ecosystem thriving to support us, we certainly won't be able to create a new self-sustaining ecosystem elsewhere. And without that, there's no chance of any non-Earth settlement being able to sustain a healthy human society and culture long-term.
Without some serious (currently impossible) terraforming, Mars colonies are limited to deep caves or heavily shielded buildings, no outside to relax, nowhere else to go. Have a look at the list of crimes in Antarctica, a similar situation where people are stuck together, that's not a good environment for mental health, and it will be worse farther away. A Mars colony (edit: or space station) owned by a private company will be a corporate prison, the inhabitants are 100% dependent on that company - who would voluntarily put their lives into the hands of the whims of some narcissistic hoarder with no empathy or regard for workers?
If we can’t manage to keep Earth’s ecosystem thriving to support us, we certainly won’t be able to create a new self-sustaining ecosystem elsewhere. And without that, there’s no chance of any non-Earth settlement being able to sustain a healthy human society and culture long-term.
I'm unconvinced that pulling back from space programs will make Earth's ecosystem thrive.
A Mars colony (edit: or space station) owned by a private company will be a corporate prison, the inhabitants are 100% dependent on that company - who would voluntarily put their lives into the hands of the whims of some narcissistic hoarder with no empathy or regard for workers?
Agreed. That would be a super-weird concept, like a country owned by a private corporation.
I'm unconvinced that pulling back from space programs will make Earth's ecosystem thrive.
My point was more or less the opposite: Anyone interested in space exploration should also be interested in keeping Earth well livable, because that is needed for its success.
I definitely agree with you, however, I think needing to become self sustaining on earth is a goal that would be well served by trying to design a self sufficient system for mars.
Earth is big enough that it's really easy to forget we're all in the same fish bowl. Entire cities can flush their shit down the river and as far as they are concerned, nothing bad ever happens to them. The scale of earth makes us blind to the problems our actions and methods cause. The ecosystems also do quite a bit to protect us from our own actions
You can't ignore externalities in a space colony. Everything must be accounted for. That is what makes it so difficult to design for. Any small amount of waste will still accumulate over time and eventually becomes a problem.
The tighter scope and strict requirements of a space colony would make it easier to actually objectively measure how sustainable it is. You would know exactly how much external inputs you are delivering each year. We can then take the lessons and technologies that are absolutely required in a space settlement and use them to inform how to better be sustainable on earth. For example, solar cells used to only really be used on satellites, not because they were great on satellites, but because they were pretty much the only option that could stay operational for years. Now PV power generation is helping countries all over the world become a little more sustainable. The harsh requirements of space make us better at problem solving.
I totally agree that earth is our only option for species survival though. Anyone selling Mars as a "backup" for humanity is either delusional or a con man. I think developing the capability to keep a settlement on Mars is a worthwhile endeavor, but there is no way for humanity to thrive there. Any large scale catastrophe on earth will still be more survivable in select pockets on earth than anywhere on Mars.
Launch Billionaires into deep space without supplies
Men will do anything other than go to therapy.
We should be exploring both options, exploration can often lead to unexpected discoveries and technological advancement.
How about we focus our efforts on unshittifying Earth first, eh?
Space colonies. That way they can be dropped to earth to start colony independence wars.
Europa tea party!!!!!!!
Why? Nice planet we've got here, we could focus on preventing it becoming inhabitable due to climate change instead.
I'm not convinced that suspending space programs would create solutions to climate change.
If we can do B, A doesn't provide many benefits.
A 1km diameter, 30km cylinder would provide enough area to feed ~140k people. 95km^2 of space.
That is assuming no imported food etc, based on 7000m^2 per person which is almost 2 acres each.
140k people is a small city.
140k people is about the amount of people living in a 1km radius around you, if you live in some inner city area.
You could have most people in a relatively small area with the rest for farming.
There would be little need for the equivalent of roads, almost all travel would be walk or bike. The longest distance between two points is less than 34km. If the main settlement is in a ring around the middle of the cylinder, it is less than 17km to any point.
D) Move manufacturing and other dirty processes off planet and live here.
Okay Bezos.
Tyrell Corporation.
Why is this getting upvoted so much, its just NIMBY, but for the universe. We should decrease environmental damage rather than exporting it or sweeping it under the rug.
Is this sub-populated mostly by Facebook people? Some of the answers really feel like it.
All these answers are so killjoy and boring. Like yeah we should strive to make our own planet better, but why not also do this? Building habitats on other worlds doesn't prevent us from caring for this one.
Plus maybe trying to make a liveable environment in space can give us new insights in preserving the one at home. Like how solar panels have come from space exploration.
Yes.
Seriously, we should be doing both as long term space habitats can serve as a way to reduce the cost of moving cargo around.
Ringworld.
Fix our own planet first
Why not both?
I'm guessing B will happen first, just because we have so much more control of the environment, but we're still so far away from either one... Maybe I'll get to see the early stages sometime in my life.
A quote attributed to a few people, Heinlein and Pournelle for two, "If you can get your ship into orbit, you're halfway to anywhere." Both space and planets have shared and their separate problems to solve. In my head I prefer the image of most populations moving into habitats in space, customized to their preferences, with smaller settlements on various bodies for their own purposes. In my realistic view I don't see us getting that far before we get bogged down with all the problems we've created on this planet. The window to a permanent space civilization might have already shut. A sad thing, as a 70s kid I grew up convinced we were full speed into some version of what scifi had sold to me.
All of the above. But start with cleaning up this planet. Build better / more sustainable and more diverse communities and energy production. Build arcologies in the arctic, deserts, oceans. Those are good “practice” for building the same off planet.
How to survive in space: Develop ways to survive in space only first. Once you manage that all the other problems are trivial compared and you don't have a single point of failure (aka our planet) anymore. Isn't that obvious?
Actually, both.
We should stay fucking put until we figure out how to end greed and racism once and for all
We aren't going to stop being prejudiced against each other until we meet other species to turn our prejudices outward.
Any ideas?
Neither. There's plenty of room and resources here on Earth. I think it's fine to do space exploration and even have research bases on moons and other planets, but I just don't see the imperative for colonization.
Genetically modify ourselves so that we can live both in zero gravity (and maybe survive short exposure to vacuum) and on other planets.
I don’t think space habitats any significant distance from Earth will be possible. Mitigating the increased radiation will be tough enough just trying to get to Mars, much less trying to stay in space out that far. At least on Mars we can hang out in old lava tubes or something.
i think you underestimate human ingenuity and the time frames involved.
After reading A City on Mars by Kelly and Zach Weinersmith I think a O'Neill Cylinder spinning spaceship for artificial gravity type is more achievable than planarity colonisation.
But the main point of the book, and I am fairly convinced of the more I think about it, is that it is a lot of effort and risk for not a lot of gain and we are entirely unprepared for space colonisation.
Until we are able to travel way faster than what we can do now, I think it’s more feasible to build in space. Lots of implications for long term effects on human bodies though. Most ideal is a wormhole to an identical planet to earth so humans won’t need to adapt.
yes.
if we want to become a true space faring species resilient to all that the universe can throw at us we will need both
Huge sci-fi lover here. But at the same time, colonization of space for humans is possibly impossible without avatars. The human body evolved here, and it's a vessel that works here the best. To colonize other worlds, it's more economically viable to send machines, create biologically synthesized new species (taking dna from local species there), and then transfer consciousness to them. Similar with Avatar, but without having to have the spaceships arrive in the planet full of humans. Humans remain on earth, and they project their consciousness somewhere else, in an instant due to entanglement.
Both! All three!
What’s the purpose—research? Tax evasion? Shits and giggles?
THE YEAR IS UNIVERSAL CENTURY 0079
C) Undersea habitat domes!