Submitted by Gari_305 t3_zq32pe in Futurology
Comments
KeithGribblesheimer t1_j0xb8t9 wrote
Also:
Humans could one day live in multi-generational spaceships making an effort to colonize distant galaxies.
Humans could one day live in orbital space stations spinning around Jupiter and Saturn.
Humans could one day develop near light speed travel by building solar sails and then lasing the sun.
Humans could one day act as rational human beings that aren't focused on fear, greed and lust.
Humans could one day build tiny robots one atom at a time and kill each other with them.
WhiteWolfHanzo t1_j0xcuci wrote
You had me until #4, ngl.
Weebcop_the_unique t1_j0yqg80 wrote
You had me until #5, ngl.
FIFY
fastornator t1_j0xcmt0 wrote
That's the ticket.
---nom--- t1_j0ywi16 wrote
How about freezing sperm, putting it in an artificial womb and then feeding through a tube and teaching the baby. š
Irdiarrur t1_j0zrf86 wrote
seems like the first point is telling me that these humans will serve the purpose of transporting the future of man kind, so not to live in a sense of real living as a human being
Mingey_FringeBiscuit t1_j10odns wrote
Gimme that āDiamond Ageā twist at the end
StarChild413 t1_j12hx4l wrote
so if we build those things and have a way to resurrect people from the dead we'll become rational human beings? ;)
TouchCommercial5022 t1_j0xr52p wrote
ā« This has been proposed, notably by marine explorer Jacques Cousteau and astronaut Scott Carpenter. It's not going to happen for several reasons.
Permanent housing in water deeper than about 100 ft (30 m) is a bad idea due to the biological effects of pressure, including but not limited to nitrogen narcosis and possible long-term nerve damage, if not talk about the completely unexplored impact of such an environment on pregnancy and young children.
Very little light reaches that far, so seafloor communities rose from the surface to feed. Almost all life in the sea depends on the sun, so whether we live above or below the surface, we continue to depend on the same fisheries and ecology to survive, so living at the bottom of the sea is not at all a fix for overpopulation, if that's a concern. Also, just by staying there on the continental shelf, seafloor communities will disturb the nearshore ecology, likely reducing the overall food supply.
Semi-submersible cities are being explored in some areas (outside of Japan), but they will be high cost, high maintenance, and are not underwater habitats in any real sense. Floating aquaculture facilities can be useful, but they have nothing to do with the issue.
Living underwater is dangerous and expensive. Underwater habitats require completely reliable life support, whether they take in air from the surface or from some other source. A power outage can allow the air to stratify, forming pockets of deadly CO2. Leaks and corrosion will be a constant problem, and constant salt and moisture will wreak havoc on health and equipment. Most oceanic structures have relatively short lives for this reason. So although Europe has buildings that are thousands of years old, it is likely that no underwater structure will be continuously inhabited for more than fifty years.
So while some may enjoy the experience, economics and practicalities will always be heavily stacked against life underwater. Even if we say a large asteroid is coming, it would be much cheaper, easier, and safer to bury yourself underground than to flee underwater.
Finally, humans didn't evolve in cans, and it's already clear that a host of modern ailments, from high cholesterol to myopia to a host of autoimmune diseases, are the result of having locked ourselves in caves of our own making. We need to get out more, not less, and while these and other impacts can be addressed, the easiest way to do it on Earth is to control our population and maintain the opportunity to get out for a regular walk.
colonizing the seas would be an expensive and difficult project due to the corrosive effects of seawater on human construction, the tremendous hydraulic pressures exerted by the water column on the proposed habitat, the shallow water hazards of navigation and tsunamis, and the difficulties for deep water from high pressure leaks and even structural collapse, such as a submarine that has passed "crush depth".
Possible? Maybe. At least hypothetically.
Viable? Probably not.
Unless you keep it very close to the surface, the pressures will make it prohibitively expensive. Even in shallow water, the cost to build and maintain will be a multiple of enclosing the same space on land. There would have to be a very compelling reason to build underwater to justify the risk and expense.
What's more; What would be the point? They would be enormously expensive to build and maintain, and if something went wrong, they could all die. I'm not seeing a silver lining
Most people don't want to live underwater.
There are a few underwater structures, for novelty's sake.
The smaller a structure is, the easier it is for it to withstand the pressure of ocean water. A submarine is easy, a bubble the size of a city would need massive amounts of reinforcement not to fall apart immediately.
ā« This idea is very similar to the floating cities on Venus;
A manned research station floating in the atmosphere of Venus seems feasible. At about 50 to 54 kilometers from the surface, the environment is quite hospitable compared to the near-vacuum environment in which the International Space Station operates.
For example, the atmospheric pressure at that altitude is similar to the pressure of sea level on Earth. Therefore, the walls of the floating station will not have to withstand a large pressure difference. They wouldn't need to be as hideous as the walls on the ISS. (And not as thick as the walls of a submarine.)
The temperature a little more than 50 kilometers up is in the range of 0 to 50 degrees Celsius. Some air conditioning may be needed, but not the extreme cooling you'd want closer to the surface.
Humans can't breathe Venus' atmosphere, but it contains a variety of elements, including oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon, which can be processed into breathable air and drinkable water, and even used to grow plants. Because breathable air is less dense than carbon dioxide, it would function as a gas lift in Venusian conditions, so helium may not be necessary.
It is true that there is some acidity, so the exterior walls and solar panels of a floating research station would have to be made of acid-proof substances. Anyone climbing outside the station would need a supply of oxygen and an acid-proof suit, which would be simpler and less bulky than the pressurized suits required in Earth orbit.
The Soviet/European Vega mission demonstrated that it is possible to parachute research balloons into the atmosphere of Venus and inflate them there. NASA's HAVOC project has been looking at ways to parachute into much larger aircraft: first a robotic aircraft, and then a manned aircraft with a multi-stage rocket module to fly the crew into space again. The idea is that they would then meet an interplanetary transit vehicle in the orbit of Venus.
https://sacd.larc.nasa.gov/branches/space-mission-analysis-branch-smab/smab-projects/havoc/
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20160006329
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160006329.pdf
The astronauts would visit using self-deploying blimps, stay (literally) for a couple of weeks, and return to orbit in their rocket-powered "gondola." From this altitude, they could monitor surface probes in real time, so they could accomplish much more in two weeks than a rover can accomplish in several years.
problem with venus;
ā« thickening and crushing atmosphere.
ā« extremely high temperatures.
ā« acid rain.
advantages of venus;
ā« minimum terrestrial pressure at cloud level.
ā« comfortable temperatures at cloud level.
ā« magnetosphere to block cosmic rays.
ā« gravity similar to that of the earth.
ISSUE
Take an oven. Seal it. Fill it with gas until it is at a pressure higher than that of the ocean more than half a mile deep, enough pressure to crush a nuclear-powered attack submarine.
Understands? Good. Now fill it with superheated battery acid.
That's Venus.
We have tried to send landers to Venus. They lasted for about an hour or two before cooking, crushing, and dissolving.
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "men are from Mars, women are from Venus." Apparently it means that women are tougher than submarines and breathe battery acid while men are comparatively cowardly.
Because of this, landing and surviving a rover would cost much more than sending a probe to Mars. Traveling is not the biggest problem, although landing is.
Venus's own gravity is very high compared to that of Mars, making the descent through the atmosphere a thousand times more difficult. Venus's gravity is very similar to Earth's, and is about twice as high as Mars'. The planet's gravity, coupled with the already superheated atmosphere and high atmospheric pressure, requires extremely powerful heat shields; the most powerful ever built, and they have to work every time.
There are thick clouds of sulfuric acid with violent electrical storms over the entire surface clouding both images and communications. Because of the clouds, we don't know much about Venus through direct contact. We know what we know mainly through radar data.
The extreme heat and lack of visibility also make landing very difficult. Of the 18 landing missions, only 8 were successful. Okay, actually only 15 made it out of Earth orbit, and 2 more partially failed to deploy all components. The longest any lander survived was 127 minutes before losing signal or being destroyed (Venera 13). So we'll put the success rate at 10/15, with a very low lifetime. Even future missions to Venus estimate a run time of one hour (Venera D). The Russians aren't giving up on Venus;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observations_and_explorations_of_Venus#Timeline_of_Venus_exploration
It is more practical to have heated capsules on the Martian surface than to have supercooled capsules on the Venusian surface. The main natural handicap any human/rover has in exploring Mars is dust storms, whereas on Venus there are too many to count. That is why we have lost so many probes on the surface of Venus.
Venus' composition might be similar to Earth's inside the planet, but on the surface, it's a very different story. The surface of Venus is made up of rocks that are mostly igneous in nature due to volcanic activity and are extremely alkaline and cannot support life.
Master_Bates_69 t1_j0wxo3s wrote
Like Sandy from SpongeBob SquarePants?
Snaz5 t1_j0xvasa wrote
Anyone remember that group awhile ago that was trying to raise money to build floating cities?
SingleMaltShooter t1_j0y89wq wrote
The Living Universe Foundation. Their plan was based on the ideas in the book āThe Millennial Projectā by Marshall Savage.
shrlytmpl t1_j0xldmt wrote
I've played all the bioshocks. I'll pass, thank you.
mondaymoderate t1_j0xgyor wrote
Floating Venus cities is such a cool idea. With modern technology it would inly take 3 months to get to Venus.
fastornator t1_j0xi8m9 wrote
It's a fucking stupid idea, Just like engineered asteroids.
mondaymoderate t1_j0xigjm wrote
Donāt ruin my Jetson dream just need to figure out what to do about the acid rain.
fastornator t1_j0xixdg wrote
If you want to be realistic, how about cities floating upon evacuated glass spheres in the earth atmosphere. That's a much more practical idea.
Phoebesrent-a-bee t1_j0yvntc wrote
Curious, how does one live in an evacuated glass sphere?
frankduxvandamme t1_j108i9n wrote
It's a stupid idea for a possible colony. But as a research outpost for a small group of astronauts, it's an outstanding idea.
AnythingToAvoidWork t1_j11aq6e wrote
Yeah, like what's wrong with starting with the moon? Send drones or whatever to hollow out huge caves, or find existing ones, build airlocks. Establish a forward colony. 3d printing tech is solving a lot of issues.
Gravity would be an issue but I'm sure something could be figured out.
fastornator t1_j11b66c wrote
Why though? Wouldn't it be better just to send robots?
AnythingToAvoidWork t1_j124336 wrote
Drones. Robots. Whatever.
tuckerchiz t1_j0y5ztn wrote
Humans could live in giant ācyclersā basically Oneill cylinder space stations that travel on elliptical routes between any two planets over the course of years or decades, and act as a way to transport huge quantities of goods through the solar system cheaply (though slowly). Say a 2 million population Cycler, named the State of Kennedy, 2x2x6 miles in size, flying between Jupiter and Earth (the distances would change constantly) for a couple decades and then arriving and orbiting each for a two year trading/vacation stint, before plunging back into the depths.
NPJenkins t1_j0y8ghx wrote
I really hope thereās life after this one simply because I want to witness how far science can truly take us. We think weāre advanced now because this is as advanced as weāve ever been, but I think future humans will look at us the same way we think of the Romans.
tuckerchiz t1_j0yb2rq wrote
Absolutely and I hope so. Im biased and optimistic, but I have faith in the current coalition of free, great nations to get us over the hump into space. And a bright human future exists if we can just get through this turbulent period, and keep dreaming. And I agree, āheavenā would be a cool place to watch it all unfold from.
Z3r0sama2017 t1_j10sy9u wrote
Can't wait for spacers to drop it on Australia to defeat tyrannical Earth governments and free our souls from gravity.
FLcitizen t1_j0xajt7 wrote
I see giant domes floating on the ocean
nhalliday t1_j0xhdyq wrote
Cloral, anyone?
Slufoot7 t1_j0ykk6k wrote
Holy fuck I havent thought about that series in almost 2 decades
Phoebesrent-a-bee t1_j0yvjxs wrote
Hobey ho. Rather have cloral than hermitire, deep seep, or grand atoll.
blake213 t1_j0y6mwz wrote
Humans could one day live with their parents all the way until age 60
Koala_eiO t1_j0xb3pr wrote
That seems much more impractical than living underground.
Vaiiki t1_j0xbr02 wrote
Absolutely zero droughts.
fastornator t1_j0xcpwb wrote
Unlike living on engineered asteroids.
aelysium t1_j0xdft2 wrote
Venus? You mean Bespin?
fastornator t1_j0xe7b4 wrote
No moron we're talking about reality here. Humans could live in the atmosphere of Venus but not in the atmosphere of a fictional planet. SMH. /s
[deleted] t1_j124t7d wrote
[removed]
mouserat_hat t1_j0xfkcp wrote
But, holes?
fastornator t1_j0xgjm9 wrote
I don't see how humans could live in buttholes
mouserat_hat t1_j0xke80 wrote
I see it as likely as humans living in balloons floating in the atmosphere of Venus.
I guess I am more of an "ass half-full" kind of person! Fuckin love you mate!
AnythingToAvoidWork t1_j119x8t wrote
I love the idea of us becoming a space-colonizing species but I'd be terrified of depressurization disasters.
ML4Bratwurst t1_j0zy2lj wrote
Humans could also turn themselves into pickels and live in jars
Bubbagumpredditor t1_j0w2esf wrote
Yeah, this has been a standard idea in space exploration and science fiction for decades.
deion_snaders t1_j0wb8cr wrote
This idea is different and something I've never seen before.
>The scientists posited that future space colonizers could wrap a massive mesh bag made of carbon nanofibers around an asteroid roughly the size of Bennu, which has a 300-meter diameter. They would then rotate the asteroid to the point it breaks apart. All the rubble from the space rock would be caught in the nanofiber mesh, creating a hollowed-out outer layer that could be used as the exterior structure for a space habitat. Crucially, that layer of asteroid detritus would act as a shield against radiation.
The "ground" in this concept is asteroid material pulled apart by centrifugal force and the surface on which we would build our structures.
dilletaunty t1_j0xlvzf wrote
Thatās still just a slightly different OāNeil cylinder/bubble habitat - aka an asteroid thatās hollowed out, spun, and terraformed with the ground being the outside due to the spin. Using a carbon nanotube mesh bag is a new way of keeping the asteroid together but not a surprising one.
TomSurman t1_j0yxlat wrote
The concept of using asteroid material to build a rotating habitat has been around for decades. This is just describing one possible construction process.
Bubbagumpredditor t1_j107nnb wrote
Yeah. I remember someone talking about mining to the center, sticking a bunch of bags of water in there and then heating the outside, when the water bags burst you get a rough sphere asteroid. I think this was an idea back in the 70s
AConcernedParent t1_j0x7bs9 wrote
If Gundam has taught me anything itās that space colonies get DROPPED
flame1469 t1_j0xnamz wrote
Took the words right outta my mouth.
goliathfasa t1_j0y1wfm wrote
Only after you wipe out the entire population with poison gas first. Nobody drops populated colonies come on.
MaulerMania t1_j101bjr wrote
Came looking for Gundam, was not disappointed.
_lavoisier_ t1_j0wtdmb wrote
And we will be complete slaves, working to death in this doughnut
DaddyCatALSO t1_j0x4dx3 wrote
Like we aren't that in this post-post-industrial earth on which we live. You people don't realize you're already living these dystopias you think you fear so much.
Vaiiki t1_j0xc0lf wrote
Well I went to work like normal today and not one bit or my day looked like if the dinosaurs won Jurassic Park so you don't sound very reliable.
DaddyCatALSO t1_j0xovr7 wrote
Sure, sure . . . .
StarChild413 t1_j12hsda wrote
so your idea of a feared dystopia is Jurassic World: Dominion
comesbeforeV t1_j0w2qtx wrote
I'm glad I'll be dead before this becomes reality. Looks like utter hell.
[deleted] t1_j0wp5d6 wrote
Yeah like wtf, what if I want to go skiing in the mountains or take a dip in a lake somewhere, or go for a run in the woods with my dog
Fuckkk that i hope Iām long dead too bro
khamelean t1_j0wpu61 wrote
Thatās what the holodeck is for, obviously!!
checkwarrantystatus t1_j0xdkfi wrote
But nobody wants to clean up the holodeck after the bukake party.
Balls_of_Mithril t1_j0xnqnj wrote
Speak for yourself
novelide t1_j0wrvn6 wrote
I hope you're doing those things if that's what you want to do. Same for those who want to live in an asteroid and fly like Superman.
Pbleadhead t1_j0xh86u wrote
hell yes. zero-G just up the elevator. plenty of new sports to invent. The ability to simply go start building a second asteroid city if the one you are in is getting crowded, or starts doing politics you dont like.
[deleted] t1_j0ws7zc wrote
Well itās winter here but yeah, I was skiing this weekend lol and I donāt think I could survive a winter without going skiing or boarding, same thing with being in the woods/ lake in summer
DaddyCatALSO t1_j0x4l5m wrote
They'll build those right into it, especially the second and third, research the literature.
[deleted] t1_j0x4yhz wrote
Yeah but keyword there is ābuildā. Even if they build it with things from earth I would rather it be on Earth, instead of a fake one
InternationalPen2072 t1_j0xzl7z wrote
If we can travel today I think weāll be able to travel when we are living inside asteroids lol
DaddyCatALSO t1_j0x4gel wrote
Look slike a great palce ot be
Barbossal t1_j0x4n8f wrote
"It is the year 0079 of the Universal Century. A half-century has passed since Earth began moving its burgeoning population into gigantic orbiting space colonies. A new home for mankind, where people are born and raised. And die. 9 months ago, the cluster of colonies furthest from the Earth, called Side 3, proclaimed itself the Principality of Zeon and launched a war of independence against the Earth Federation. Initial fighting lasted over one month and saw both sides lose half their respective populations. People were horrified by the indescribable atrocities that had been committed in the name of independence. Eight months had passed since the rebellion began. They were at a stalemate."
My childhood has been preparing me for this.
tyrandan2 t1_j0xtnci wrote
Just dropping in to say The Expanse is an amazing series. I'd love to live on the belt.
RadicalBeam t1_j0ykx0l wrote
I feel like if reading The Expanse taught me anything it would be that I'd hate to live on The Belt. But then there aren't many good options left.
EyoDab t1_j0z4cj4 wrote
Meh, it looks like it really depends. We only really ever got to see the dark underbelly of the Belt
nunchyabeeswax t1_j145bxf wrote
The Expanse taught me that I'd hate to live anywhere in the Solar System, not unless I'm filthy rich like Jules-Pierre Mao.
​
I love the series, but let's be clear. Humanity is in a state of dystopia.
readMyFlow t1_j0wtwyd wrote
Humans will never live outside the Earth for consecutive generations. Because weāre not evolved for the environment it will be too costly to maintain living environment. Once the novelty wears off even the filthy rich would prefer Earth with millions of people.
DaddyCatALSO t1_j0x50uf wrote
Frontiers aren't *for* the rich, Jay Gould and Jim Brady didn't live in Tombstone
InternationalPen2072 t1_j0y1dey wrote
The majority of humanity will inhabit Earth for at least many hundreds of years. People, even in small numbers, will absolutely settle the Solar System, though. We could create a self-sustaining habitat almost anywhere in the near future.
TouchCommercial5022 t1_j0wpk5b wrote
ā« Take an object and spin it fast enough, and you get artificial gravity. It's possible to get enough to equal Earth's gravity, but it requires a quick spin.
There are all sorts of weird side effects and some massive engineering issues, like making sure whatever you're spinning is strong enough not to break.
You can experience the effects at most fairgrounds. Many games create artificial gravity, and some create enough to at least partially counter normal gravity.
There are two ways we currently have to simulate gravity in a spaceship that we can build differently.
The first and easiest technique is to simply accelerate your ship in the direction of travel at whatever speed gives you the effect you need. This has the advantage of simplicity, as you simply build your ship as if you were always sitting on the launch pad, and only experience zero G at the midpoint of your trip when you rotate it 180 degrees and start an equal deceleration burn for that you arrive at your destination at a good orbital velocity. There's only one small problem with this simple and elegant solution, and that's the fact that we don't have any drive system remotely capable of giving a significant acceleration effect over anything other than extremely short distances. Interplanetary travel using this method is totally out of the question until we come up with something that is orders of magnitude more effective than anything on the drawing boards. (If we had such a drive system available, we could also get speeds up to a serious fraction of the speed of light, which would be amazing.)
That leaves the second option as the only viable solution, where the acceleration effect is not provided by the drive system, but by a rotation vector that allows an equivalent of gravity to be experienced on the outer walls of the vessel. This is also a simple solution, but it has some inherent problems with the concept. When you use centripetal acceleration as a means of simulating normal gravity, you are committing to building a substantial structure to avoid negative effects such as different "G" forces at different distances from the center of rotation and the application of Coriolis forces on the objects within.
Studies have shown that anything with a radius of less than 100 m or a speed of more than 3 rpm produces significant dizziness that debilitates most people. If the ship has a radius greater than 500 m, or a rotation rate of less than 1 rpm, most people are perfectly comfortable, since the adverse variable "G" and Coriolis effects are diffuse enough to then.
This makes your design quite difficult if you want to get somewhere quickly without really great engines, since your ship is now at least 1 km in diameter and weighs thousands of tons. However, it's quite workable if you're not in a rush or just want an orbital habitat that looks like this;
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-7913d5ae5821767fc51d6a8c61d50222-lq
You wouldn't want to build something like this though;
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f16db03f1baeccca3b2f65160801cfbd-lq
The cleaning bill would be horrible, and your astronauts wouldn't be very useful since they'd spend most of their time with their heads in the bathroom.
A useful equation is the following;
This is the formula used to calculate how big the boat needs to be and how fast it needs to turn to achieve the desired gravity. T = period of time required for one complete revolution, R = radius of the rotating section of the spacecraft and a = the generated acceleration (9.8 m/s2 equals 1G).
There is another way to achieve rotational gravity without building huge structures, and that is to use conventional spacecraft linked together by a truss or cable, and "spin" them to provide the same effect as a huge wheel or cylinder. You end up with something that looks like this;
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e175dea9c42cdca27b1f5ebff6e55f76-lq
It might not look pretty, but it provides artificial gravity without outrageous amounts of mass. It can be a bit unwieldy in terms of course correction and navigation, but I can see a layout where the control thrusters and navigation sensors are located "center" and use a computer to compensate for rotational speed. .
Until we invent some still mythical impulse that has a specific impulse in millions of seconds instead of just hundreds of seconds, it seems that spinning things is the only practical way to do it.
Every spaceflight mission has been a compromise. They consist of months of trade-offs as mass, cost, and capabilities are reduced to meet not what we want to do, but what can be done with available funds.
It would be a good idea to build a large rotating section of the spacecraft going to Mars, so that parts of the spacecraft can have simulated gravity to help the crew maintain better physical condition. But I'd be surprised if someone who writes the check to go to Mars, whether government or commercial, would be willing to spend the extra money to do such a thing.
If it does, it's probably because the Mars mission was delayed long enough that the technology has been developed for other programs and can be reused with much less research and development cost.
With each increment of the ISS, we learn more about how to ameliorate the negative effects of microgravity on the body. By the time we can go to Mars, we may have learned enough that much less expensive nutrition and exercise protocols can produce the same effects as simulated gravity. Remember that such a spacecraft would have to be extremely large to produce 1 g effects. It's more realistic for us to build one that more closely reflects the gravity of 1/3g of Mars.
ā« the article claims to use massive asteroids as a home;
One of the dumbest things in science fiction is that all spaceships are built. There's no reason to make spaceships streamlined, no reason to make them at all. It's much better to empty an asteroid
This has numerous benefits:
ā« You don't have to put all that mass into orbit.
ā« You have the best camouflage in the galaxy: if you don't want to be seen, one of the best ways is to travel in an almost black ship that looks like a natural object, because it is a natural object.
ā« Asteroids are mostly metal, that's useful for building things.
ā« Metals are excellent at absorbing radiation, and space is full of radiation.
ā« If you need to slow down when you reach a planet, you can glide through the atmosphere. You will lose some metal from the outside, but you probably have more.
ā« There are minerals and water and other goodies on some asteroids that will come in handy.
ā« Asteroids are almost comically common. Our asteroid belt has about 1.9 million asteroids larger than 1 kilometer in diameter (that's a big ship) and millions and millions more that are smaller.
ā« You can use that additional material as a reaction mass. Essentially you can throw it out the back to make your ship go faster. Nice.
ā« You can spin them and create artificial gravity inside.
ā« Launching smaller ships from the surface is easy, since the total gravity of the asteroid is practically zero.
All those asteroids you see on Google Newsā¦ Those could be alien spacecraft. Watch the heads of conspiracy theorists explode over that!
the downside is that they are scattered in billions of cubic kilometers around the solar system. Most of them can't be used for construction, being just a loose collection of small rocks and dust, with a bit of water.
Asteroids are not very strong, even metallic asteroids are very weak with large inclusions of non-metals.
They do not support compression or tension efforts well.
It will look like a large rock (say, a few kilometers in circumference), like the other 150 million asteroids in the system.
Outside, at least. Inside, it will look like this:
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-935dfe842db825142c9430f416350d6c-lq
Or this:
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c7bf1f8dfe48d4b337b27e0f57867a95-lq
Oh wellā¦ many possibilities. The sky will be faked, of course, and light will be generated or reflected. But other than that, it will be a natural ecosystem. The real constraints are that the ecosystem has to be self-sustaining, just like, well, Earth's is. And it's all going to cover only a few square kilometers, so it puts some restrictions on it as well (expect only a few tens of meters of "ocean" on your tropical beach).
Also, the rock itself will be festooned on the surface with robots and sensors, probably a good-sized fusion plant, and most likely a line of rockets, taking up half the circumference.
So it looks more like this...
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-37f23d71419e6b08f0035f3d15c8ba6d-pjlq
Harbinger2001 t1_j0xvdko wrote
You forgot to mention that itās looking like asteroids are more like gravel than actual rock. So you canāt build anything inside them or spin them without them flying apart.
DaddyCatALSO t1_j0x4w1x wrote
That size is abit small comapred tot he scnearios I've read about
Gari_305 OP t1_j0vz1u1 wrote
From the article
>The scientists who devised the new method, outlined in a paper in the journal Frontiers in Astronomy and Space, did so as part of a thought experiment. They aimed to think up a space habitat idea that wouldn't require massive amounts of materials being launched into space.
>
>A Manhattan-sized asteroid space habitat
>
>The idea they ultimately came up with was to use materials already free-flying around space in massive quantities in the form of asteroids.
Franklin_le_Tanklin t1_j0x36hv wrote
George Lucas should have wrote a paper on this I guess
Chibibowa t1_j0xlt94 wrote
Space colonialism will be real. Humans always need something to grab/conquer! Itās either that or we start a global civil war because ressource scarcity and pollution.
BoringBob84 t1_j0xuvyw wrote
I think this is what the Beltalowda did in the Sci-Fi series, "The Expanse."
driverofracecars t1_j0ye5hs wrote
If itās the size of Manhattan, is it really a āmegaā city?
HumanJenoM t1_j0ytefk wrote
No they could not
Space is extremely hostile to the human body
The_Aviansie t1_j0wpqvk wrote
Will it be made of two million, five hundred thousand tons of spinning metal, all alone in the night?
LeonSilverhand t1_j0wsgty wrote
Humans could one day die by a Manhattan-sized asteroid megastructure
LA_LOOKS t1_j0xbxx6 wrote
Humans could one day pull their head out of their asses and walk towards the green and never come back out.
proflopper t1_j0yd6pp wrote
Just make sure you leave ceres station if you hear anything weird happening.
Brexsh1t t1_j0yt6wi wrote
Wow, this is surely whatās been missing in my life. Honestly this would just suck, who would want to do this? I cannot see an upside.
[deleted] t1_j0w3ylc wrote
[removed]
FuturologyBot t1_j0w57ig wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:
From the article
>The scientists who devised the new method, outlined in a paper in the journal Frontiers in Astronomy and Space, did so as part of a thought experiment. They aimed to think up a space habitat idea that wouldn't require massive amounts of materials being launched into space.
>
>A Manhattan-sized asteroid space habitat
>
>The idea they ultimately came up with was to use materials already free-flying around space in massive quantities in the form of asteroids.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/zq32pe/humans_could_one_day_live_in_manhattansized/j0vz1u1/
[deleted] t1_j0w6d7x wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0w6fz5 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0w914p wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0wg7to wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0wh6h8 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0wi9w7 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0wnibo wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0wsngq wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0wx0yd wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0wxjcx wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0x0bf6 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0x3kqg wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0x43s7 wrote
[removed]
DwnTwnLestrBrwn t1_j0x7omz wrote
This sub has been getting so stale over the past little while. Almost every post is, āhumans could <insert literally anything> in the future.ā
InternationalPen2072 t1_j0y0sa7 wrote
Correct me if Iām wrong but isnāt that the point of this sub?
DwnTwnLestrBrwn t1_j10fdmt wrote
Most of these are just āhumans could live in a 12th dimension plane of astral projection of ethereal consciousnessā and other ambiguous, claims, not backed by really anything other than peoplesā imaginations.
[deleted] t1_j0xahya wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0xbi9p wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0xe2yl wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0xg82x wrote
[removed]
iGothereLate78 t1_j0xg9mf wrote
Humans could one day transcend into beings of light and live in other dimensionsā¦
We can all just say random far fetched silliness.
TTTristan t1_j10m236 wrote
Do you think it's impossible, or even highly improbable that we'll reach out into space and construct cylindrical habitats for ourselves one day? Possibly out of or in asteroids? That doesn't sound very farfetched to me at all.
[deleted] t1_j0xn9hh wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0xnfwp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0xnsji wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0xo6fu wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0xtyy4 wrote
[removed]
Absorbent_Towel t1_j0xvrxj wrote
Does anybody know if space bugs taste good? Think I might try some after my 22-hour mining shift on the asteroid.
[deleted] t1_j0xx89b wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0xzgtc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0y0g4b wrote
[removed]
PaleAsDeath t1_j0y0hye wrote
Give me healthcare and universal basic income and I'll be more impressed.
[deleted] t1_j0y0ycd wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0y88lx wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0yd10c wrote
[removed]
TheRacooning18 t1_j0ydfah wrote
yeah dont start with that. Were gonna get an actual colony drop
eatsoupgetrich t1_j0ylj0q wrote
What if humans were able to transfer thought to yams that could be hurled into space to reduce the materials needed to sustain life.
[deleted] t1_j0yln0u wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0ylt1k wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0ym9wc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0ymdqg wrote
[removed]
apocaghost t1_j0yp4q8 wrote
The human race is not going to get that far. The species wonāt even get an operational manufacturing system in space let alone a successful moon base. Humanity wasted to much of its time and resources on self indulgent behavior. 10 years and counting for the Grand Extinction.
[deleted] t1_j0yphr7 wrote
[removed]
Achtelnote t1_j0yqjiu wrote
Doubt. Lmao.
We'll drive ourselves to extinction here. The only way that would be tolerable or even plausible is if we get FTL somehow. We can barely meet our energy requirements.
Rebel_Scum59 t1_j0yr61v wrote
Humans could one day live in your mothers house too.
SadcoreEmpire168 t1_j0yt7z5 wrote
So this is how Elysium came to fruition in the past
[deleted] t1_j0yttzs wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0ytxvx wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0yumzm wrote
[removed]
Mysterious_Mubaz t1_j0yupq9 wrote
When the sun explodes in 4 billion years .humans won't exist then
cabur t1_j0yw34z wrote
As someone that has watched The Expanse, nah Iām good fam
[deleted] t1_j0yy3s2 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0yz2mf wrote
[removed]
Astrobrandon13 t1_j0z2ac8 wrote
Wow! What a creative and original idea! Why didnāt anyone else ever think of this!?
Craigg75 t1_j0z2uud wrote
Buzz kill -- this can never happen because there is no magnetosphere. Colonists would die from cancer within a year. Next.
GrizDrummer25 t1_j0z6a18 wrote
Why is Manhattan a reference point for large-scale anything? Anyone outside of a major metro area has no idea how big that is.
squidking78 t1_j0zrp4t wrote
Manhattan is actually incredibly tiny, for how many people/itās density etc. no other place in the US quite like it, where urban sprawl and inefficient transport is the norm.
[deleted] t1_j0zc5z6 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0zcj55 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0zctqe wrote
[removed]
TXheathen t1_j0zkiwo wrote
Why donāt we fix the planet weāre on and stop pretending like living in space is a good idea.
[deleted] t1_j0zme5e wrote
[removed]
LordNedNoodle t1_j0znmn4 wrote
Humans could one day live in peace, seems just as feasible as these news articles.
crazykid01 t1_j0zoa2i wrote
The most interesting part of this theory is what we could do after expanding the asteroid with the mesh bag.
Once you have expanded the asteroid with the mesh bag containing all the debris, you can then harden the surface any way you want. If you harden/encapsulate the outside surface first with some material (like: steel/iron/concrete/plastic/glass) then harden the interior after removing all the useful deposits of material, you can have a fully functioning bubble of atmosphere to work with/build with to create a small city.
Add a landing platform w/ tunnel to get through the barrier and boom you have a fully functional city.
You can then hopefully take the carbon fiber mesh bag and use it on the next asteroid that fits the criteria or use a carbon fiber mesh bag as an easier way to mine useful resources out of asteroids.
Most of the above can be done with robots once we start expanding into space.
[deleted] t1_j0zsf5u wrote
[removed]
Phenomenon101 t1_j0zuj5w wrote
They're saying this when we haven't even landed on Mars....smh
[deleted] t1_j0zzjwz wrote
[removed]
KultofEnnui t1_j0zztpn wrote
I imagine the smell would be somewhere between 18th century mental hospital, an apple store, a plague ship, and opening your septic tank indoors.
Five dollars says scurvy begins a week after the hydroponics fail over a software update lockout.
[deleted] t1_j1063gz wrote
[removed]
Dominion1995 t1_j108prl wrote
We can one day live in a huge styrofoam city under the ocean. That stuff lasts forever.
FiftyCalReaper t1_j10hmti wrote
Well Manhattan is a total shithole so this isn't an appealing proposition. At least you can ESCAPE from New York.
[deleted] t1_j10jiax wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j10lus4 wrote
[removed]
SB-121 t1_j10mgmj wrote
I suppose it's a nice thought experiment, but by the end of the century the population will be in freefall so it doesn't really have a practical application.
[deleted] t1_j10qotc wrote
[deleted]
maskedpaki t1_j11qmza wrote
cool how about some affordable housing first ?
(extra text because of this subreddits bullshit rules about comment length )
celticxcross t1_j11u62w wrote
Bishops Rings - they have internal surface areas the size of India or Argentina.
ItsnotsmallguysWtf t1_j1t4ivk wrote
How much tensile strength would you need to build something like that?
celticxcross t1_j1v1s9t wrote
Approximately 1,000 km (620 mi) in radius (6,283.2 km circumference) and 500 km (310 mi) in width, containing 3 million square kilometers (1.2 million square miles) of living space, comparable to the area of Argentina or India.
To create 1 g equivalent centripetal acceleration (9.806 m/s^2) a 1,000 km (1,000,000 m) radius needs to spin at 3,131.45 m/sec.
https://physicscatalyst.com/calculators/physics/centripetal-acceleration-calculator.php
Equal to about one revolution per 2,000 sec (33.44 per minute) - or 0.03 rpm - or 0.003142 rad/sec.
https://www.inchcalculator.com/convert/revolution-per-minute-to-radian-per-second/
Depending on the assumptions for thickness you can calculate stress in the habitat's 10 m thick circular walls. Use 1,750 kg/m^3 for density of habitat circular walls:
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/stress-rotation-disc-ring-body-d_1752.html
Assuming no bone headed math mistake, I get a tensile strain of 5,817 kg/m^2
Carbon fiber has a tensile strength of 3.5 GPa
ItsnotsmallguysWtf t1_j1v42e4 wrote
I guess the only thing stopping us from building something like that is cost.
TheeApollo13 t1_j152xwc wrote
Not really much of a mega city if itās only the size of Manhattan š
Internal-Dot-290 t1_j0wr8jh wrote
We wouldn't be doing that anyway because robotics and AI would have progressed to the point that putting humans in that environment would be needlessly complicated and expensive. Even if hypothetically we needed human interactions out there we'd do it through drones piloted by humans on Earth.
Space mining, if it happens, is not going to involve sending lots of human out to an environment that they are not adapted to. It's expensive to design a habitat for humans and unnecessary.
There is also another aspect to consider. Humans are a greater liability than machines. NASA does extensive psychological profiling on astronauts for a reason.
bigsnow999 t1_j0wv6hy wrote
Does zoning apply to this project? If yes, then no thanks.
_Blackstar t1_j0x6otu wrote
Humans COULD one day spontaneously grow tails out of their foreheads.
[deleted] t1_j0xfrei wrote
[removed]
InternationalPen2072 t1_j0y1gff wrote
Bro, we literally went to the Moon. Stop being misanthropic.
[deleted] t1_j1uq4xg wrote
[removed]
PoSlowYaGetMo t1_j0xs0bk wrote
Sad. Iād want an ocean and land to explore. I couldnāt live in a perpetual city. Iād get depressed.
InternationalPen2072 t1_j0y0zaw wrote
People would undoubtedly travel. There might be rotating habitats dedicated as nature preserves.
Harbinger2001 t1_j0xuwzg wrote
Too bad weāre finding out that asteroids are really just accumulations of gravel. Also we couldnāt spin them at the needed speeds for artificial gravity without them tearing themselves apart.
novelide t1_j0ymsfu wrote
That's what the carbon fiber bag is for. The most important part they left out is where enough energy to spin up the asteroid will come from.
StormWarriors2 t1_j0yns6r wrote
We could live anywhere, but right now we are stuck reading this from a boring apartment building with high rent and over zealous landlords who jack up the price for random bs.
This is the most boring future.
ZoharDTeach t1_j10l3ax wrote
And then they'll start developing giant humanoid mechs made from a special alloy that can only be created in space and then the space colonies will try to gain independence from the planet-based governments.
StarChild413 t1_j12hnaa wrote
and then you'll get some protagonist role in the story with plot armor and the ability to be with your waifu
Timothy303 t1_j0xr40b wrote
We could. But we wonāt. Think about the $$$$
Ah, see?!!? Itās not happening anytime soon.
mfischer24 t1_j0wc44q wrote
The earth warms by a few degrees so letās study how to live in a ridiculously uninhabitable place instead where itās 1500 degrees during the day -200 at night. Just stop. Weāre not buying this crap.
khamelean t1_j0wqoav wrote
No oneās selling it. Itās just a hypothetical that many people enjoy thinking about. From engineering challenges to so social implications. Turns out many human beings enjoy using their imagination, just because youāre not one of them, no need to drag everyone else down to your level of misery.
LuckyandBrownie t1_j0w2wxp wrote
Human arenāt designed to live in low gravity. All of the space colonisation ideas are pure nonsense.
ReaperofFish t1_j0way24 wrote
These space habitats create "artificial" gravity but spinning.
LuckyandBrownie t1_j0wfuzu wrote
Spinning gravity is a whole other cans of worms and also is complete nonsense.
Subject_Meat5314 t1_j0wku1u wrote
how so? simulating gravity by spinning is absolutely a thing and as far as I know ingistinguishable from real gravitational force to the human body,
SuitableAd6672 t1_j0wg1s1 wrote
We are not designed, we evolved into what we are and we will keep on evolving. Particularly under environmental pressure. Yes, people will die but the survivors will have new capabilities over long time. I know thatās not in our life time, but we need to keep exploring.
LuckyandBrownie t1_j0whw9y wrote
I like how you make a pedantic nitpick of my comment then go on to misrepresent evolution.
SuitableAd6672 t1_j0wi8y0 wrote
I see the pedantic but I am honestly curious what I misrepresented? The environmental pressure, right?
TangentialFUCK t1_j0wghe4 wrote
Low gravity makes you soft
[bench presses 315 pounds]
Kozzzman t1_j0w9w91 wrote
We would just evolve into gelatinous blobs.
fastornator t1_j0wlclj wrote
There are a hell of a lot of places where humans could one day live.
Humans could one day live in giant domes under the ocean.
Edit: I was hoping to see y'all give other ideas where humans might live. I was thinking of balloons floating in the atmosphere of Venus.