InternationalPen2072 t1_j0fvzej wrote
Maximizing living space isn’t the end all be all of settling our Solar System. Ngl, it’s pretty big! Settling Mars, and especially terraforming it, would be extremely mind-boggling expensive, but it would be much cheaper than creating an equal amount of living area with O’Neill cylinders. Would this relegate the supermajority of Mars’ mass to generating a gravity well and nothing else? Yes. Does this really matter? I don’t think so. Unless we have a pressing need or desire to grow our population to quadrillions, I think it would be a little overkill to literally dismantle the entire freaking planet lmao. Personally, I value self-sustaining and ecologically balanced living spaces more, and I feel like the humanity that comes out the other end of the climate crisis would too. A terraformed or para-terraformed Mars would be large enough to be self-sustaining like this with plenty of room for expansion.
LordIlthari t1_j0fx3gn wrote
Ye gods, an actual reasoned argument. Personally, I view that if we want balanced ecosystems it’s best to build them ourselves, and that the best way to get as many of them as possible would be to not let the majority of mass we can live on just be used for gravity. A terra formed Mars would be just as artificial as a swarm of habitats, just less efficient. Also, I consider the need to find a solution to entropy pressing reason enough to form a population of quadrillions of quadrillions.
InternationalPen2072 t1_j0fyit2 wrote
The limitations of space habitats are size. O’Neil cylinders are relatively easy to manufacture while also allowing comfortable living space, but they do not provide enough space for near total self-sufficient self-regulating ecosystems. McKendree cylinders are big enough to be pretty self-regulating, but they are so massive they would cost an insane amount while being inefficient like planets. If we want to recreate Earth in any meaningful way, it would have to be big. Mars is already big, and so I think terraforming it is valuable, along with Venus while we are at it :) Orbital habitats should 100% be pursued too though; the Moon can’t be terraformed meaningfully, so maybe we should mine it for habitats first.
LordIlthari t1_j0fyp07 wrote
Dismantling the moon would mess with earth’s tides. I’m far more agreeable to the idea of terraforming Venus mostly because mining that hellhole might be more difficult than mining the sun. It’s almost certainly not efficient
InternationalPen2072 t1_j0fyvn6 wrote
I was meaning that we simply mine the Moon, not dismantle it entirely.
LordIlthari t1_j0fyx55 wrote
Ah, yeah of course. We’ll need to for a fusion economy anyways
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments