photonic_sorcerer,
@photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

It’s not about prime real estate, it’s about increasing the redundancy of humanity’s survival. Two planets are better than one.

Jaytreeman,

In order to colonize mars, having a good space station in orbit would help out immensely. We're talking big enough to stretch out and hold a few hundred people.
The station would need to grow crops and have minor but flexible manufacturing.
At that point, why would you colonize mars vs just make more stations?

Urist,
@Urist@lemmy.ml avatar

For real, resource extraction is a big one. Finding ice means they can make, besides water, oxygen and rocket fuel. Not to mention that shelters for radiation are incredibly hard to make without a huge amount of mass, which we cannot efficiently get into orbit without a space elevator. Hence being able to extract it from the location of the colony, say dig into the ground or build thick walls with bricks made from soil, is necessary for long term survival of the inhabitants. I think it is cool that due to these reasons having air balloons over Venus might even be a better option due to it having a protective atmosphere.

Jaytreeman,

You can make a radiation field by running a large motor that would save you from the solar radiation.
In space you always have access to the sun. A cheap form of power. You need a lot more batteries if you're on the planet.

Venus is a much better idea over mars.

Urist,
@Urist@lemmy.ml avatar

Didn’t know that it was feasible to create a radiation field by running a large motor. Not that I doubt you, but if you have a source I would be very happy to read more about it.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • memes@lemmy.ml
  • localhost
  • All magazines
  • Loading…
    Loading the web debug toolbar…
    Attempt #