4 ms·
Isn't the large total surface area of the asteroid belt overwhelmed by drawbacks like unusability of most of it for most purposes (uneven, unstable, unshielded,
by EForEndeavour 7y ago
Isn't the large total surface area of the asteroid belt overwhelmed by drawbacks like unusability of most of it for most purposes (uneven, unstable, unshielded, etc.), and the fact that humans do really poorly in microgravity?
- aeorgnoieang 7y agoThose drawbacks are only true on some (possible) timescales. The biggest drawback currently, for human settlement of the asteroid belt, is that we can't afford to send anyone there! Freeman Dyson's the person after which the Dyson sphere is named, so the current (relative) "unusability" of asteroids or the fact that humans currently seem to "do really poorly in microgravity" are 'just' additional obstacles to be overcome sometime in the future from the perspective in which space megastructures are possible.
- yellowapple 7y agoOne question I really hope we can answer someday: exactly how little gravity do humans need before it becomes too "micro"? Can humans stay healthy on Mars? On the Moon? On Ceres or Enceladus or Pluto or Charon or yet smaller bodies? But yeah, I don't think "surface area" is the right angle to look at. More like "volume within a sufficient depth". A lot of (most?) asteroids and comets consist primarily of water ice, and water happens to be pretty darn good at radioactive shielding, so if we build habitats inside the asteroids we'd have a solid chance of significantly addressing that particular hazard (and also have plenty of water for drinking / agriculture / fuel).
- pedrosorio 7y agoThat sounds about right. You should check this out of haven’t yet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Expanse_(TV_series) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Expanse_(TV_series)
- EForEndeavour 7y agoThanks for reminding me that I really need to get around to starting Season 4!