You must log in or register to comment.

Tip_Odde t1_j20dpkl wrote

Its a lot harder to try to change a small portion of the planet without impacting the whole planet than it is to start fresh


Half-Borg t1_j20dwyn wrote

It makes no sense to colonize the moon, there is nothing there we need. And even if, costs are much higher than getting it on earth. Colonizing Mars is just a fever dream of a mad man. Unfortunately the richest mad man on earth.


Psycho_bob0_o t1_j20evbk wrote

The moon has helium-3 and a weak gravity well.. Do you actually believe all space colonization is senseless?


s1ngular1ty2 t1_j20hgvd wrote

Yes it's senseless. It's a waste of money. The only planet worth any consideration is the moon for limited moon bases for scientific research because it's close enough.


Half-Borg t1_j20k0vn wrote

At what do we do with the weak gravity well? Can we build space ships on the moon?


Psycho_bob0_o t1_j20kn8z wrote

That would be one option (though very far off) but if you want O'Neill cylinders outside of the earth's orbit materials from the moon would be much cheaper. You could also use the moon as a waypoint for deep space missions.


Half-Borg t1_j20lg8o wrote

I say that's off at least fify years, maybe a hundred


Psycho_bob0_o t1_j20lsxl wrote

You're probably right to be honest! It still is true though...


Half-Borg t1_j20mf0g wrote

I not against space colonization in general, but I don't see it happen in my lifetime. For now space is for the robots. Human will follow in the far future.


fitzroy95 t1_j20fvot wrote

Colonizing anywhere off Earth is a step to ensuring the long-term survivability of humanity. There are several things that can destroy human civilization that we can't stop. Probably won't kill humanity as a whole, but could send the survivors back to the stone age and they'd never recover

e.g. a "dinosaur-killer" asteroid. the eruption of any of the world's dozen or so Super-volcanos (several of which are over-due), etc

Taking humanity into space gives us a second chance, where right now, all our eggs are in 1 basket. and that basket is extremely fragile


s1ngular1ty2 t1_j20h4fn wrote

If something destroys the Earth we are dead because any Colony requires the Earth to send supplies to function.

Stop believing sci-fi. It's not real.


fitzroy95 t1_j20jy1c wrote

Any colony that is built off world is going to need to slowly become self-sufficient, growing their own food, mining and manufacturing. and Yes, that takes time.

and Yes, there will be a period where they are totally dependent on Earth, which is likely to last decades, but is certainly unlikely to last centuries.

Technology changes at a massive rate, and the minerals and resources available in space far outstrip anything available on Earth. Getting access to them is going to be hard, but far from impossible.


s1ngular1ty2 t1_j20kr6g wrote

No it won't because other planets lack the necessary resources and required supplies form Earth.

You are believing sci-fi and need to stop.


fitzroy95 t1_j20m3h2 wrote

No, I believe in science, technology, and humanity's rate of development.

Apparently you believe that we've reached our peak technology and will never improve.

I believe that the term for that is "Luddite"


s1ngular1ty2 t1_j20mexz wrote

No you believe in sci-fi because you don't have a strong foundation in technical areas. Colonizing other planets is sci-fi and not real and won't be probably ever.

It is that hard...


Half-Borg t1_j20jsrh wrote

First, a self sustaining colony is not automatically the same as a colony. Second, disregarding unlikely extinction events, and focusing on likely extinction events, it would make much more sense to finally do something about climate change.


fitzroy95 t1_j20kmrr wrote

> disregarding unlikely extinction events

"unlikely" ?

Most of the world's super-volcanos are overdue for an eruption, those are guaranteed to happen, the only question is whether the next one is next year, or in 1000 years.

The same applies to dinosaur killers. We've been hit by multiples of those over the millennia, we're almost guaranteed to be hit by another. That one is more on the range of millions of years statistically, but could still be tomorrow (but probably won't be).


Half-Borg t1_j20lnsp wrote

What makes the moon more habitable, than earth after an super volcano eruption?


fitzroy95 t1_j20n0o5 wrote

Humanity will still (probably) survive after a super-volcano eruption, but current technology and civilization is much less likely to. And once those are gone, they can never be rebuilt, because all of the necessary resources (minerals etc) needed to rebuild have already been used up, and those remaining are impossible to access without already possessing those technologies.

Having self-sustaining colonies off-planet means that technology and civilization can still survive, and be reintroduced afterwards. Getting them to the point of being self-sustaining, and having their own space-based manufacturing isn't a trivial task, but is very achievable within a century or so.


Half-Borg t1_j20ndy6 wrote

So far life has survived asteroid impacts and super volcano eruptions on earth. It hasn't on Mars. So why not build the self sustaining colony in Australia?


INFJ_GenX t1_j20dvdl wrote

Hasn't the Earth gone through multiple ice ages and worldwide extinctual level flooding after the ice melts?

Now, wouldn't it be safer to be off the planet when that happens?


s1ngular1ty2 t1_j20ejcj wrote

No it wouldn't because no other planet is habitable so it's ACTUALLY safer to be on the planet that is only TEMPORARILY not habitable.

We can build bunkers for a limited amount of people to survive to the next habitable period. In fact, it's believed, this is what early societies did because there are massive cave systems in Middle East countries that people dug to possibly escape asteroid impacts in the past that caused massive flooding that we remember in most religions as the great flood. There are countless religions that document these floods and massive scarring in the US that indicates a massive flood happened around the same time, like 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. There is also evidence of asteroid impacts around that time.


INFJ_GenX t1_j20ewwd wrote

Yeah I hope you feel that way when you see a 2-mile high tsunami coming at you at the speed of sound when an asteroid hits the ocean (solar outer crust ejection from our own micronova sun burst that happens like clockwork every 15,000 years or so ).


INFJ_GenX t1_j20fcqs wrote

That's an actual description from the "Adam and Eve Story" that's been recently declassified by the CIA.


s1ngular1ty2 t1_j20flf0 wrote

I don't think you understand that other planets are worse than a 2 mile high Tsunami. They don't have atmospheres, are too cold, have toxic soil, high radiation, almost no water, and zero life.

Other planets are worse than Earth and harder to colonize. It's not happening. Get over it.


INFJ_GenX t1_j20g5zh wrote

I'm not tripping bro there's nothing to get over with I'm very content, happy being on this planet, I'm just not a multi-billionaire that has a legacy to think about.


INFJ_GenX t1_j20gour wrote

Besides wasn't it Buzz Aldrin who said on a moon circling Mars that there's a monolith that we need to go investigate and to find out who put it there...doesn't that sound just a little bit curious to you?


s1ngular1ty2 t1_j20h8y0 wrote

Not really because it's fake...


INFJ_GenX t1_j20hkuf wrote

Because you have a PhD and work at NASA or similar agency? Or you just arbitrarily just threw that out there that it's fake just to sound smart because it's important for you to sound smarter than others?

I mean I didn't make this CIA declassification stuff up ( in fact you could go on the CIA website to the archives and read that report yourself) and I also didn't do a deepface fake video of Buzz Aldrin.


fitzroy95 t1_j20f5fy wrote

other planets (and free-floating colonies) can be made habitable (with time and significant cost and work), and the technology gained in doing that can help with repairing the damage we've one to our own planet.

Experimenting with the biosphere and climate of Earth is guaranteed to have short and long term consequences, and its better for the planet's population if those experiments and technology development were done somewhere else where there is zero chance of killing most of humanity


s1ngular1ty2 t1_j20fgcx wrote

No they can't. It's easier and cheaper to build bunkers on Earth by an order of magnitude. Stop believing Sci-fi. Earth bunkers could survive anything practically. It's not even that difficult.


fitzroy95 t1_j20gbcj wrote

You can certainly dig a hole in the ground and hunker in there for years, even grow food and recycle everything.

However you can never collect more resources than what you take down your hole, and all of the technology you use to hide down there will wear out.

an underground bunker is just a guarantee of a slow death for the inhabitants, it certainly provides zero future for them


s1ngular1ty2 t1_j20gw95 wrote

You can wear space suits on Earth just like you can on other planets. So you can definitely go out and gather more materials. You are naive. It is also easier because there is still some atmosphere that you can filter to provide breathable atmosphere.


epukinsk t1_j20f0fu wrote

If your goal is to just try to do hard stuff for the sake of it then sure.

If your goal is to check out what Mars is like then no.


space-ModTeam t1_j20f5ma wrote

Hello u/lodoslomo, your submission "Planetary Colonization" has been removed from r/space because:

  • Such questions should be asked in the "All space questions" thread stickied at the top of the sub.

Please read the rules in the sidebar and check r/space for duplicate submissions before posting. If you have any questions about this removal please message the r/space moderators. Thank you.


Psycho_bob0_o t1_j20fol4 wrote

It's worth noting such projects have existed(for example the biosphere).. however they tend to be run over short periods of time as the funds to permanently settle these places simply isn't there.


srandrews t1_j20g0v0 wrote

>some remote desert, or arctic, region on Earth before trying it on Mars or the moon?

Yes, which is why various organizations have tried various endurance projects to see what happens. The ill fated biospheres immediately jump to mind. There is this one:

When combining the results of them with economic reality and the willful ignorance of most humans, one can easily jump to the bad news: Humanity will not be colonizing anything.