Space colonization

Debate everything related to:
-Terrafoming planets
-Eath-like exoplanets
-Space habitats/colonies
Will the humans be able to do all of this? Which is the best candidate for a human colony, Venus, the Moon or an Space Habitat?

wouldn't it be easier to just mine planets for resources and then live in artificial environments, ie space stations?

isnt transforming an entire planet to meet your physiological needs rather than creating your needs in an isolated area really inefficient?

I've always thought about space colonization like this. I guess it's about cost effectiveness

Would it be cheaper to: a) continually move the resources out of the influence of the planet to the station/next planet. or b) terraform the planet and use the resources there.

So far Photshop and blue/green colours in the palette are the most sofisticated terraforming tools we have.

Thats why i put Space habitats/colonies but anyway planets would be a good biospheere reserves. It´s also easier to explode the resouces of a planet if you can brethe in it's suface without a suit spa.
psd:Sorry for bad English, I'm not native.

the only tools NASA have tbqh f4m

Yes, if we come up with a solution to stand in radiation for more than a several minutes, or insulate ourselves for several decades or even centuries.

Yes if after that we come up with solution of a propeller system that can run for years and years and years with super minimal need of propellant or some kind of harvesting form the sun/other external energy sources.

Those are the first few problems we are facing right now, anything else - we can solve.

Venus for example ivery similar to earth we only need to start arotation movement so we can increase the magnetic field to make it similar to the one we have in eath them we have to to add hydrogen so it reacts whith CO2 to produce water and carbone reducing the
greenhouse effect at the same time. And the last steep would be to add life forms (so easy).

*is very similar to the one we have in the Ear
*in Earth
Sorry for bad spell

and how do we start at 462 °C ?

At 50km to the surface the temparature is 70 celsius which is reasonable. And to put hydrogen in the atmophere and add hydrogen is not a problem the surface temperature.

Sorry put hydrogen in the atmosphere and make a rotation movement.

thats cool, but how do we produce/add the hydrogen ?

Exotic particles tachyon

With meteor impacts wich could also be use to make the planet rotate faster.

>-Terrafoming planets

This will not happen in the foreseeable future. We don't have the ability, and realistic plans would take thousands of years anyway.

>-Eath-like exoplanets

We can't get to them and there are no technologies on the horizon that would allow us to do so.

>-Space habitats/colonies

This is what space colonization will look like. The first permanent settlers on Mars (for example) will live in self-contained habitats, probably underground.

Anyway, do you thing humans (or anything wich comes from us) coulr some day bet the level two civilization in the Kardashov scale?

*could
*beat

>Space habitats/colonies
Shit like this terrifies me. Life in a major city is chokingly claustrophobic and overpopulated enough, and you expect people to be born, live and die without seeing the blue sky or green hills even once in their lives?

I mean, it's not like Earth is doing much better. Humans are a fucking cancer on this planet, but it's kinda mindboggling when you realize the vast majority of our landmasses have the disgusting signs of human habitations all over. The old distinction between "the city", "the countryside" and "the wilderness" are outdated 19th century concept, since everything just blends into itself now through suburbs and endless farmland. You can only truly get away from civilization by moving into unlivalbe hellholes like the jungle or the siberian taiga.
Sometimes I really do wish human civilization would collapse. A good, 95+% population drop is just what our filthy smog-ridden earth needs.

Sure? Here a recreated view of a bishop ring it woud have 3 million km3 suface.

Have you guys ever read the culture novels? Because in them the notion of living on a planet is outdated

This.
On spacestations you can also simulate gravity using centrifugal force.
Non 1G gravity might be bad for the development of babies, and without reproduction we'll never be able to truly colonize.

It's the one aspect people always forget.

>Non 1G gravity might be bad
came to this thread to post this

Plus, terraforming will take hundreds or thousands of years

And where wiil you get the money to build this?

>if we come up with a solution to stand in radiation for more than a several minutes
I've spent my whole life bathed in radiation, standing, sitting, sleeping.

Doesn't seem to be a problem for me but I guess your special snowflake misunderstood definition of radiation tells a different story.

>super minimal need of propellant
Like an ion engine?

>some kind of harvesting form the sun
like a solar panel?

>Those are the first few problems we are facing right now
Looks like I solved them. Next please.

Thank you (I made the post).

>space colonization

Not for a long while of course.
We'll have outposts on Mars and the moon long before the first space colony.
The first space habitats will also be small and might not even have simulated gravity.

But as space gets cheaper and we learn how to build things in space a space city might actually become reality one day.
I don't expect to see even the start of the project in my lifetime.

>I guess it's about cost effectiveness
In-situ resource utilization is by far the most cost-effective, because getting materials into orbit is both expensive and difficult, and gets even more so the more that is being lifted. This is why self-replicating machines are an attractive prospect for e.g. asteroid mining. You could send one kit up, which could then make more of itself.

>self-replicating machines are an attractive prospect
It doesn't even need to be self replicating, but AI will play a big role in space colonization.
Since if it's robots and not humans we're sending we can afford to take the slower but cheaper ion propulsion.

>distinction between "the city", "the countryside" and "the wilderness" are outdated 19th century concept
I live in a town and next to a forest in Europe, your argument is invalid.
What you are talking about applies only to metropolises and conurbations. Seems you have never been outside your little world.

Can some biolgists or psychologist or whatever pseudoscientist tell why we find pictures of Earth so beautiful?
Would an alien race think we're fucking cancer spreading everywhere and think the "blue marble" is a disgusting abomination?

Move to Europe senpai