5 ms·

Long-term habitation of surfaces of bodies other than that of Earth is a stepping stone to being able to live in space long term in very large, permanently spac

Long-term habitation of surfaces of bodies other than that of Earth is a stepping stone to being able to live in space long term in very large, permanently spaceborne crafts. It’s easier to develop these things on the moon, mars, etc because of immediate access to materials that’d need to be launched into orbit otherwise. In the long term, it may make sense to build shipyards on the moon, on Mars, or somewhere in the asteroid belt where large ships can be built and launched without having to fight Earth’s strong gravity well. As for why to do that, I like to think of Earth as a very cozy cave that humanity’s caveman would serve itself well to venture beyond, if only to increase the number of possibilities for the species. In a universe where there are large human civilizations not just throughout the solar system but also scattered amongst other star systems, there are numerous paths that each branch will take that Earth’s branch in its lonesome may never have trodden. It also just seems a bit cruel to be able to see the vastness of the universe and never be able to touch any of it in person. At the risk of being dramatic, only sending rovers and probes while we remain on earth feels a bit like being stuck in a gilded cage piloting around drones and RC cars to explore what lies beyond.

z0r 2y ago
Imagine being born in a habitat on another planet that is further away from Earth in travel time than one's lifespan, and being robbed of your birthright to experience the natural wonders and beauty of the cradle of humanity.
- grecy 2y ago
  Imagine being born on an earth where millions of species have gone extinct, where there are hardly any old growth forests left, no bison roaming the central/western US plains and where thousands of water bodies around the world are so toxic they'll kill you if you fall in.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    I feel strongly that I was robbed of my birthright to be a mammoth hunter in a caveman tribe. Man didn't evolve for this industrial society we've created, our machinations have already denied to us our natural condition.
    - usrbinbash 2y ago
      If I could, I would go and be a watchmaker in the 18th century.
      - jhbadger 2y ago
        There are times and places (including the 18th century) that seem like they could be interesting to live in, but then I consider the lack of indoor plumbing. It's not just the convenience -- the lack of hygienic facilities was a major reason why cholera and other water-transmitted diseases was such a problem even in the West until the late 19th century.
    - grecy 2y ago
      Move North. I spent years up there hunting bison & moose, catching salmon so big my arms hurt, cutting my own firewood to heat my home, helping friends build their log cabins with our bare hands (never got around to building my own...). You can live that life if you want, plenty of people up there live off grid and only come into town once a month or so. -48 is a hell of a thing. The most beautiful place I've ever been.
  - z0r 2y ago
    I am an advocate of wildlife conservation efforts, and regularly donate to charities that work to conserve species and their habitats. I am just replying to a single comment, so forgive me for addressing everyone else as well as you here. I think it's very funny that people are making obvious replies to my comment to defend against (the also very obvious) observation that perhaps being born and dying in a tin can on another planet might be an undesirable fate for the vast majority of the human race.
    - grecy 2y ago
      Oh, I agree with you 100%, and I'm just pointing out that people probably said exactly the same thing a few hundred years ago about living in 2000 (if they knew what it would be like), and likely will say it again in a few hundred years about living in 3000.
      - z0r 2y ago
        We have already been robbed of so much biodiversity in the last 100 years and it doesn't take much research to realize it. We should do our best to avoid depriving those generations ahead of us even more :(
- Teever 2y ago
  I guess that would be kind of like the life experience of the billions of humans who never had the opportunity to go to the cradle of civilization or whereever humans are thought to have evolved first.
- deadbabe 2y ago
  You don’t have to imagine too hard. Imagine being born right here on Earth in some shitty country never being allowed to really venture beyond the same 14 mile radius you were born in because you just have to slave away at a job all day and night just to survive. For some, it is life.
usrbinbash 2y ago
> a stepping stone to being able to live in space long term in very large, permanently spaceborne crafts. That is not going to happen, without technology that currently only exists in Science Fiction, like artificial gravity, for the simple reason that we require 1g to live, let alone thrive. > because of immediate access to materials that’d need to be launched into orbit otherwise. 1. How does this "immediate access" benefit the aforementioned "very large, permanently spaceborne crafts", which apparently won't be moored to planetary bodies? 2. There is no "immediate access". Having rocks next to me, and having the sort of highly refined materials that go into building the tech required for spacecraft, are 2 VERY different things. But, I am always happy to be proven wrong: Let's take a very simple task, like ISRU'ing LOX & Methane, and let's do it, at scale, here on Earth, where there is no lack of energy, breathable atmosphere, building materials and labour. Strange, isn't it, that no one seems to be doing that. > In a universe where there are large human civilizations not just throughout the solar system but also scattered amongst other star systems, there are numerous paths and discoveries that each branch will take that Earth’s branch in its lonesome may never have trodden. I agree. But given that, what evidence supports the idea that the branch that eventually allows us to leave our solar system requires us to first waste tons of resources on trying to send people to inhospitable, irradiated rocks for no good reason? Especially since we have a perfectly good alternative to this waste of time: Sending robots. > It also just seems a bit cruel to be able to see the vastness of the universe and never be able to touch any of it, in person. Unless we discover a way to do FTL travel, it doesn't matter if that feels cruel or not, it is reality. And I can pretty much guarantee that the person discovering the means to cheat physics in such a way won't be doing so while constantly worrying about his habitats airlock malfunctioning, or the piss-regeneration system giving out, or the supply ship getting canceled in the next congressional-bickering about the budget. It will happen here on Earth, likely by someone who never visited even LEO, someone who works and lives in a stable environment with books, people to talk to, air to breathe and delicious non-freeze dried food to eat, who never has to worry whether there will be enough recycled piss to make his next cup of coffee.
- hersko 2y ago
  > That is not going to happen, without technology that currently only exists in Science Fiction, like artificial gravity, for the simple reason that we require 1g to live, let alone thrive. Artificial gravity is easily generated via rotation or thrust. > 1. How does this "immediate access" benefit the aforementioned "very large, permanently spaceborne crafts", which apparently won't be moored to planetary bodies? It will be far easier to get materials into space from the moon than from the much deeper gravity well of earth. > I agree. But given that, what evidence supports the idea that the branch that eventually allows us to leave our solar system requires us to first waste tons of resources on trying to send people to inhospitable, irradiated rocks for no good reason? How do you see us developing the technology for humans to leave the solar system if we never develop the technology to visit the moon? Technology is generally driven forward by increments, and having smaller goals leading to the larger one is pretty normal. Also, you don't need to "cheat physics" to explore space.
nathan_compton 2y ago
"the vastness of the universe and never be able to touch any of it in person." No matter how much of the universe we touch it will always just be a vanishing sliver.
- PopePompus 2y ago
  And the flip side is that the resources available in the universe are practically inexhaustible. A few quadrillion humans wouldn't strain it.

z0r 2y ago

Imagine being born in a habitat on another planet that is further away from Earth in travel time than one's lifespan, and being robbed of your birthright to experience the natural wonders and beauty of the cradle of humanity.

grecy 2y ago
Imagine being born on an earth where millions of species have gone extinct, where there are hardly any old growth forests left, no bison roaming the central/western US plains and where thousands of water bodies around the world are so toxic they'll kill you if you fall in.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  I feel strongly that I was robbed of my birthright to be a mammoth hunter in a caveman tribe. Man didn't evolve for this industrial society we've created, our machinations have already denied to us our natural condition.
  - usrbinbash 2y ago
    If I could, I would go and be a watchmaker in the 18th century.
    - jhbadger 2y ago
      There are times and places (including the 18th century) that seem like they could be interesting to live in, but then I consider the lack of indoor plumbing. It's not just the convenience -- the lack of hygienic facilities was a major reason why cholera and other water-transmitted diseases was such a problem even in the West until the late 19th century.
  - grecy 2y ago
    Move North. I spent years up there hunting bison & moose, catching salmon so big my arms hurt, cutting my own firewood to heat my home, helping friends build their log cabins with our bare hands (never got around to building my own...). You can live that life if you want, plenty of people up there live off grid and only come into town once a month or so. -48 is a hell of a thing. The most beautiful place I've ever been.
- z0r 2y ago
  I am an advocate of wildlife conservation efforts, and regularly donate to charities that work to conserve species and their habitats. I am just replying to a single comment, so forgive me for addressing everyone else as well as you here. I think it's very funny that people are making obvious replies to my comment to defend against (the also very obvious) observation that perhaps being born and dying in a tin can on another planet might be an undesirable fate for the vast majority of the human race.
  - grecy 2y ago
    Oh, I agree with you 100%, and I'm just pointing out that people probably said exactly the same thing a few hundred years ago about living in 2000 (if they knew what it would be like), and likely will say it again in a few hundred years about living in 3000.
    - z0r 2y ago
      We have already been robbed of so much biodiversity in the last 100 years and it doesn't take much research to realize it. We should do our best to avoid depriving those generations ahead of us even more :(
Teever 2y ago
I guess that would be kind of like the life experience of the billions of humans who never had the opportunity to go to the cradle of civilization or whereever humans are thought to have evolved first.
deadbabe 2y ago
You don’t have to imagine too hard. Imagine being born right here on Earth in some shitty country never being allowed to really venture beyond the same 14 mile radius you were born in because you just have to slave away at a job all day and night just to survive. For some, it is life.

usrbinbash 2y ago

> a stepping stone to being able to live in space long term in very large, permanently spaceborne crafts. That is not going to happen, without technology that currently only exists in Science Fiction, like artificial gravity, for the simple reason that we require 1g to live, let alone thrive. > because of immediate access to materials that’d need to be launched into orbit otherwise. 1. How does this "immediate access" benefit the aforementioned "very large, permanently spaceborne crafts", which apparently won't be moored to planetary bodies? 2. There is no "immediate access". Having rocks next to me, and having the sort of highly refined materials that go into building the tech required for spacecraft, are 2 VERY different things. But, I am always happy to be proven wrong: Let's take a very simple task, like ISRU'ing LOX & Methane, and let's do it, at scale, here on Earth, where there is no lack of energy, breathable atmosphere, building materials and labour. Strange, isn't it, that no one seems to be doing that. > In a universe where there are large human civilizations not just throughout the solar system but also scattered amongst other star systems, there are numerous paths and discoveries that each branch will take that Earth’s branch in its lonesome may never have trodden. I agree. But given that, what evidence supports the idea that the branch that eventually allows us to leave our solar system requires us to first waste tons of resources on trying to send people to inhospitable, irradiated rocks for no good reason? Especially since we have a perfectly good alternative to this waste of time: Sending robots. > It also just seems a bit cruel to be able to see the vastness of the universe and never be able to touch any of it, in person. Unless we discover a way to do FTL travel, it doesn't matter if that feels cruel or not, it is reality. And I can pretty much guarantee that the person discovering the means to cheat physics in such a way won't be doing so while constantly worrying about his habitats airlock malfunctioning, or the piss-regeneration system giving out, or the supply ship getting canceled in the next congressional-bickering about the budget. It will happen here on Earth, likely by someone who never visited even LEO, someone who works and lives in a stable environment with books, people to talk to, air to breathe and delicious non-freeze dried food to eat, who never has to worry whether there will be enough recycled piss to make his next cup of coffee.

hersko 2y ago
> That is not going to happen, without technology that currently only exists in Science Fiction, like artificial gravity, for the simple reason that we require 1g to live, let alone thrive. Artificial gravity is easily generated via rotation or thrust. > 1. How does this "immediate access" benefit the aforementioned "very large, permanently spaceborne crafts", which apparently won't be moored to planetary bodies? It will be far easier to get materials into space from the moon than from the much deeper gravity well of earth. > I agree. But given that, what evidence supports the idea that the branch that eventually allows us to leave our solar system requires us to first waste tons of resources on trying to send people to inhospitable, irradiated rocks for no good reason? How do you see us developing the technology for humans to leave the solar system if we never develop the technology to visit the moon? Technology is generally driven forward by increments, and having smaller goals leading to the larger one is pretty normal. Also, you don't need to "cheat physics" to explore space.

nathan_compton 2y ago

"the vastness of the universe and never be able to touch any of it in person." No matter how much of the universe we touch it will always just be a vanishing sliver.

PopePompus 2y ago
And the flip side is that the resources available in the universe are practically inexhaustible. A few quadrillion humans wouldn't strain it.