4 ms·

An extinction-level impactor on earth would opaque the skies for decades. Unless you have a power source that's going to last that long without refueling, and t

by rosser 13y ago

An extinction-level impactor on earth would opaque the skies for decades. Unless you have a power source that's going to last that long without refueling, and that's sufficient not only to supply the direct needs of the human occupants, but also their indirect needs, in the form of light for their crops, then no; probably not. That's one of the more compelling points about Mercury, according to this argument: pretty much nowhere else in the solar system is power going to be that cheap and abundant.

aaron695 13y ago
> Unless you have a power source that's going to last that long Geothermal, nuclear, tidal. Perhaps wind, I'd think heating the upper atmosphere would still cause turbulence? I'd say the main reason is that it's not as cool. Which at the end of the day is why we do stuff. Living on Mercury would be dam cool.
- taproot 13y ago
  +1 for oblivious optimism.
- vec 13y ago
  I've got to say "cool" is not the first word that springs to mind when I think about setting up shop that close to Sol.
robryan 13y ago
In terms of the situation on earth, you don't need a large amount of survival from an extinction level event. Even if it was a few thousand diverse people in underground nuclear powered bunkers we would eventually build back up.
rogerbinns 13y ago
On Mars you'd need a long running power source anyway, so the same one used on earth should suffice. I think a good argument could be made that Earth is better than Mars for a survivable outpost, and that Mercury has a compelling energy advantage but not much else.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- rosser 13y ago
  Earth is better than Mars for a survivable outpost ...except that the context of the discussion is having a survivable outpost for humanity in the event that Earth was no longer habitable. TFA makes the case that, of the options we have left, Mercury may actually be among the best.
  - rogerbinns 13y ago
    > ... in the event that Earth was no longer habitable The most likely scenario is that regular city folk find it no longer habitable. Self contained/reliant underground outposts could still survive. An event that makes all of those outposts untenable is far less likely.

by rosser 13y ago

aaron695 13y ago

> Unless you have a power source that's going to last that long Geothermal, nuclear, tidal. Perhaps wind, I'd think heating the upper atmosphere would still cause turbulence? I'd say the main reason is that it's not as cool. Which at the end of the day is why we do stuff. Living on Mercury would be dam cool.

taproot 13y ago
+1 for oblivious optimism.
vec 13y ago
I've got to say "cool" is not the first word that springs to mind when I think about setting up shop that close to Sol.

robryan 13y ago

In terms of the situation on earth, you don't need a large amount of survival from an extinction level event. Even if it was a few thousand diverse people in underground nuclear powered bunkers we would eventually build back up.

rogerbinns 13y ago

On Mars you'd need a long running power source anyway, so the same one used on earth should suffice. I think a good argument could be made that Earth is better than Mars for a survivable outpost, and that Mercury has a compelling energy advantage but not much else.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
rosser 13y ago
Earth is better than Mars for a survivable outpost ...except that the context of the discussion is having a survivable outpost for humanity in the event that Earth was no longer habitable. TFA makes the case that, of the options we have left, Mercury may actually be among the best.
- rogerbinns 13y ago
  > ... in the event that Earth was no longer habitable The most likely scenario is that regular city folk find it no longer habitable. Self contained/reliant underground outposts could still survive. An event that makes all of those outposts untenable is far less likely.