271–280 of 393 posts
Let’s colonize Mercury. It’s not actually hot at the poles - it’s shaded enough from the consistent low angle to the sun that there’s even water ice. And the planet is full of useful metals (more than earth), and as much solar energy as you can handle. The article dismisses Mercury out of hand as “too hot” but I think it’s our best bet. https://www.universetoday.com/130109/how-do-we-colonize-merc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are perhaps ways to mine Venus surface materials; something like dredging. Dedicated development of high-temp computing may also make longer-term robotic operations possible. None of that's particularly convenient, of course, and I can't imagine why you'd want to do it. But one can say that about every other extra-terrestrial option, too.
You would need a 50km long dredge. That seems completely unworkable; that's much longer than the deepest of deep mining operations we have here on Earth, and we aren't nearly as constrained on Earth as you would be on Venus. How would you even get such a thing to Venus? The only realistic way to do so would be to construct it of local materials, but now we have a chicken-and-egg problem. Plus, keep in mind that a lot…
If you need 50km long dredge, then it is a viable project in future, just like now it is with space elevator. Apparently that type of dredge will be needed to extract materials from gas planets(and 50km might not be enough), so that dredge will have to be developed anyway.
The most logical solution to make habitable world would be to bombard Venus with comets and small planets. They all have enough materials to stabilize Venus atmosphere and teraform it and also calculated bombarding can cause Venus to change axis and rotation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Over time, we could evolve a branch of humanity, "Homo ares" These were called Belters (as in asteroid belt) in the excellent book series The Expanse, which is also an excellent sci-fi show available on Amazon.
The Expanse is quite good. But the earth/Mars/Belt differences are mostly cultural at least in the TV series. The "Belters" meme in SF has been around for a long time though. See Larry Niven for example. (And I'm sure it's older than that.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally would bombard with comets. Bring down the temperature and deposit water on the planet.
Are there so many ice comets avaiable? Also, would the temperature really go down and not be negated by the kinetic impact? Apart from that, more water probably helps, if we do not need that water more urgently on mars.
Then there is also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud
Don't worry - there is more than enough comets to bomb the Mars with all the future settlements. Muhaha
I'd tend to Jupiter's outer big moon, Callisto, as a good place to live. The surface is a vacuum, sure, but it's got surface ice which probably has liquid water underneath making it (and Ganymede and Europa for the same reason, and Venus 50 km up, and Earth) one of the few places in the solar system you could theoretically go outside with just a breather and no space suit. Plus it's got protection from charged partic…
All these worlds are yours, except Europa. Attempt no landing there.
Everyone in the comments here debating the merits of Mars vs the Moon vs Titan seems to have missed the whole point of this article. The author is arguing that anywhere other than Titan is infeasible due to recent research suggesting that Galactic Cosmic Rays cause significant brain damage (not just increased risk of cancer). In fact, the article argues that the danger is so severe that even getting to Titan quickly…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I, too, have concerns about how well humans will thrive in low gravity (the moon, Mars, etc). Over time, we could evolve a branch of humanity, "Homo ares", for Mars, but it won't be easy. Venus is just a tragic waste of a planet. So close to Earth in size, so wrong in every other way.
I've always wondered if Venus was as habitable as Mars on the surface which we'd choose. The lower gravity well of Mars makes it much easier to come back from which is practically a requirement to go there. But like you said, the jury is still out on how well we can live in lower gravity. Getting back from Venus after just beginning to colonize it may not be possible with current technology.
But as things are, the relative effort to terraform Venus, compared with Mars, is absolutely colossal. It essentially requires a full-blown robotic asteroid mining industry, wherein olivine asteroids are diverted directly to Venus, and magnesium and calcium are mined, sent to Jupiter to produce saturated hydrides, and those sent on to Venus. It will take 1000 years, minimum.
Mars can get realistic results within 200 years, just by diverting water-ice comets and managing temperature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mainly because right now, any significant endeavour is tied to using massive amounts of fossil fuel. As long as it will be the case, we won't be able to start new, large scale projects without jeopardizing our ability to live on earth.
> Mainly because right now, any significant endeavour is tied to using massive amounts of fossil fuel. But does that actually matter in space? I am asking out of genuine curiosity here: does using fossil fuels in space have any real downside? There is no atmosphere, ergo no greenhouse effect. The vastness of space would seem to swallow up any sort of pollution.
If this investment is done using current tech, the impact on carbon emissions won't be sustainable.
It doesn't mean we should not do it, but a clean source of energy is a prerequisite to a successful space settlement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Expanse is quite good. But the earth/Mars/Belt differences are mostly cultural at least in the TV series. The "Belters" meme in SF has been around for a long time though. See Larry Niven for example. (And I'm sure it's older than that.)
Jeff Prucher's Brave new words gives its earliest attestation for the word as Niven's Warriors in 1966.