5 ms·
The colonisation of Mercury makes more sense, as discussed previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5734333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5
by dreen 13y ago
The colonisation of Mercury makes more sense, as discussed previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5734333 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5734333
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mercury http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mercury
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- michaelpinto 13y agoIt would be very hard to terraform Mercury which makes it a bad candidate for the long run. It would be very hard, but Mars would be the best planet to terraform: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars
- stcredzero 13y agoI don't think terraforming is necessarily the best way to prioritize initial colonization. Access to food, energy, and other resources are what should be initially prioritized. This still means that Mars is an excellent candidate for colonization, because of proximity to the asteroids.
- geogra4 13y agoOr Venus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus
- api 13y agoI don't think so. Technically the plan outlined there is feasible, but the problem is getting there. Flying that close to the sun would multiply the radiation problem considerably. Then you'd have to land and drill underground and build enough to get a foothold before you died. Finally, there's the fact that you'd have to live underground. You could never really live on the surface. For Venus, yes, you could float around in the atmosphere, but where would you get raw materials? The surface is too hostile to mine.