3 ms·
I'm always confused about our priority for us to become a multi-planetary species. Planets are interesting to us for their resources, but they provide a far gre
by sktrdie 10y ago
I'm always confused about our priority for us to become a multi-planetary species. Planets are interesting to us for their resources, but they provide a far greater risk: they're another huge gravity well. This means that it's expensive/resourceful to leave these places (as it currently is for earth).
So I'm confused to why not make space habitats our priority instead of other planets. Certainly inhabiting planets is something that will happen regardless, I'm just baffled to why it needs to happen before we build something like a Stanford Torus.
- abainbridge 10y agoEven Mars' pathetic magnetosphere is probably better than nothing (ie what you'd get on a Stanford Torus). Either way, meteor showers will be life threatening, instead of pretty, like they are on Earth.
- delecti 10y agoProbably because planets help defend you really really well. The gravity well makes it much easier to keep an atmosphere, the atmosphere blocks UV rays and the majority of harmful falling objects, the planet's magnetic field helps block higher energy solar rays. Plus, if there's a breathable atmosphere on the planet, your habitat isn't limited to the space you can enclose in a bubble.
- fsloth 10y agoCurrently it seems space as an environment is not suitable for humans due to heavy radiation. Massive shielding needed. Also, from a psychological point of view - would you rather have your grandchildren stuck in cramped sodacans in space or colonizing a new world with a sky and mountains and other goodies. A planet based colony is probably a lot more resilient than a space based one. I have no opinion as such towards one or another.