3 ms·

Yep, that's the problem with these ideas about terraforming. If you have the technology and energy to change the environment on a planet that much, it's really

by magduf 7y ago

Yep, that's the problem with these ideas about terraforming. If you have the technology and energy to change the environment on a planet that much, it's really easier to just build O'Neill cylinders or some other large stations and rotate them so that you get perfect 1g gravity, and you can stick them in whatever orbit you want (i.e., close to Earth) so that they aren't far away and they're at just the right distance from the Sun so that they aren't too hot or cold.

eloff 7y ago
That's the problem with Elon Musk's mars colony plan. There seem to be better alternatives closer to home. Even the moon would be better in many respects, but space stations make more sense.
- magduf 7y ago
  Well to be fair, building an O'Neill cylinder is well beyond our current capabilities, and simply flying a craft to Mars and blowing up an inflatable dome is much easier and more practical given our current technology. However, I do agree that this colonize-Mars idea seems a little silly. We have a large body (the Moon) that's only a few days away, instead of 6-18 months; why not start there? Once we get pretty good at mining on the Moon and nearby asteroids, we should get better at building some rotating space stations.
hereonbusiness 7y ago
I wonder if maybe future space dwelling people will look at living on planets like we do at living in caves. What I feel would be missing for me is the scale and freedom of living on an earth like planet. It might be different if one is born and raised on a space station.
- magduf 7y ago
  For "scale" and "freedom", theoretically, you could build as many O'Neill cylinders as you want (there's lots of resources in a star system), and make them quite large. What's easier about planets is that you don't have to have this technology or go to this trouble, but the problem is that in reality, there just aren't any habitable planets out there within a reasonable distance, except the one we're standing on right now. If we discovered warp drive or some alien stargates or something and could easily transport ourselves to countless distant star systems, that might be different, but right now it isn't.

by magduf 7y ago

eloff 7y ago

That's the problem with Elon Musk's mars colony plan. There seem to be better alternatives closer to home. Even the moon would be better in many respects, but space stations make more sense.

magduf 7y ago
Well to be fair, building an O'Neill cylinder is well beyond our current capabilities, and simply flying a craft to Mars and blowing up an inflatable dome is much easier and more practical given our current technology. However, I do agree that this colonize-Mars idea seems a little silly. We have a large body (the Moon) that's only a few days away, instead of 6-18 months; why not start there? Once we get pretty good at mining on the Moon and nearby asteroids, we should get better at building some rotating space stations.

hereonbusiness 7y ago

I wonder if maybe future space dwelling people will look at living on planets like we do at living in caves. What I feel would be missing for me is the scale and freedom of living on an earth like planet. It might be different if one is born and raised on a space station.

magduf 7y ago
For "scale" and "freedom", theoretically, you could build as many O'Neill cylinders as you want (there's lots of resources in a star system), and make them quite large. What's easier about planets is that you don't have to have this technology or go to this trouble, but the problem is that in reality, there just aren't any habitable planets out there within a reasonable distance, except the one we're standing on right now. If we discovered warp drive or some alien stargates or something and could easily transport ourselves to countless distant star systems, that might be different, but right now it isn't.