Is it even worth colonizing other planets?

Is it even worth colonizing other planets?
Seems to me like it would be way cheaper to build colonies on asteroids and small moons, to avoid dealing with gravity wells and atmosphere of planets

>build colonies on asteroids
Asteroids are really fucking small.
They have almost nothing on them.
And they spin way to fast to be useful.
>build colonies on small moons
This idea receives serious consideration.
There are several gas giant moons people can make a case for.

Another common suggestion is comets.

Seems like we should just build towns in the desert

The advantage of planets is the gravity and atmosphere.

Atmospheres can suck

No

>Asteroids are really fucking small.
Theres asteroids bigger than pluto
>They have almost nothing on them.
Except rare and useful metals
>And they spin way to fast to be useful
wat. Depends on the asteroid

We cannot possibly know as for now.

>Is it even worth colonizing other planets?

Only for learning the science of what happens to the human body in those environments and developing technologies to try to live there. We will never get the chance colonize another celestial body. Even if we did we'd only be able to colonize one that has the same, or within a close %, gravity of Earth.

Our best bet are O'Neill cylinders. Not that we will ever make any.

I fixed that chart for you :^)

It's not so much 'worth it' as an absolutely necessary requirement for survival. As time goes on the probability of another mass extinction event approaches 1. The only way for a species as complex and fragile as ours to survive in any meaningful sense is to have permanent, self-sustaining, offsite backups. Both planetary and asteroid colonies are necessary components of such a redundancy.

>Theres asteroids bigger than pluto
Pluto is really fucking small.

>Except rare and useful metals
A case for mining not colonization.

>Depends on the asteroid
You're right here, but asteroids do, on average, spin too fast to make permanent residence viable in the same timeframe as planetary/lunar colonization.

>As time goes on the probability of another mass extinction event approaches 1.
Even if we leave earth it still does. That's a stupid point.

I think what you are trying to get at is that it is easier to change ourselves than to change big rocks. In which case you are 100% correct. However there are ethical implications in modifying our genome. Gravity wells, like you have stated, are significantly prohibitive towards a solar economy as well. A large industrial base in space will ease any terraforming of planets rather to incur further costs. Mastering space will always be far more rewarding than to hop large rocks.

If we are to assume a conservative approach and preserve our genome then the stars will forever float on in the sky and beyond our reach.

The goal in leaving earth is that we won't get completely wiped out unless two mass extinctions occur within a relatively short time-frame.

Mass extinction events don't affect the whole biosphere. The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs left deep sea life almost untouched. If survival of our species is your goal start a deep sea colony on earth. It achieves the same goal at much lower cost, so it's actually realistic to achieve. But of course it doesn't get the same publicity because people generally don't care about the deep sea.

>Is it even worth colonizing other planets?
Yes.
The scientific value alone is incredible. Robots are great, but they don't even come close to actual scientists for performing research.

>Seems to me like it would be way cheaper to build colonies on asteroids and small moons, to avoid dealing with gravity wells and atmosphere of planets
Gravity wells and atmospheres are pretty handy things to have around, though.

>There are several gas giant moons people can make a case for.
Titan.
People don't even need fucking pressure suits there. Why aren't more people interested in Titan?

>Another common suggestion is comets.
That sounds less likely. The gravity on comets is microscopic, and they go through absurd temperature swings as they orbit the sun.

>Our best bet are O'Neill cylinders.
They're great, but they cost a fuckton and don't scale down. Plus they're WAY out of our reach technologically.

>As time goes on the probability of another mass extinction event approaches 1.
Yes, but they're hardly common. Given the timescales involved, extinction is an argument to have people living elsewhere "eventually".

>But of course it doesn't get the same publicity because people generally don't care about the deep sea.
Which is a real shame, because we know fuck-all about the sea floor. There have been underwater research bases in the past, but the money all disappeared once people figured out how to use ROVs for oil extraction.

>eventually

and when the fuck is eventually if it's not now

asteroids like the one that killed the dinosaurs happen every 100 million years, and that was 65 million years ago

there is all kinds of shit that could instantly fuck us

Comets are mainly suggested as the best "colony ships" to get to other solar systems.
Mainly because they're big-ish and fast and go to other solar systems.

Only if there's an existing civilization that we can turn into wageslaves

>and when the fuck is eventually if it's not now
Much later. If your only reason to leave Earth is an incredibly rare event, then you don't need to go tomorrow.

>asteroids like the one that killed the dinosaurs happen every 100 million years, and that was 65 million years ago
Wait, are you trying to say that they come on a schedule?

>there is all kinds of shit that could instantly fuck us
None of which is even remotely likely to happen.

>Comets are mainly suggested as the best "colony ships" to get to other solar systems.
An interstellar craft would need to be made of exceptionally lightweight materials and parts, in order to keep the mass-ratio high. Trying to use a big rock as a starting point seems counterproductive.

>Mainly because they're big-ish and fast and go to other solar systems.
What?

>Much later. If your only reason to leave Earth is an incredibly rare event, then you don't need to go tomorrow.

You can say this every day until it happens

>Wait, are you trying to say that they come on a schedule?

No


>None of which is even remotely likely to happen.

Balanced by their devastating impact

>An interstellar craft would need to be made of exceptionally lightweight materials and parts, in order to keep the mass-ratio high. Trying to use a big rock as a starting point seems counterproductive.

A big rock with fucking huge velocity

it's more worthwhile to colonise some desert or Arctic region

>Pluto is really fucking small.
Almost 2400 kilometres across is not "small"

I don't think its fair to assume that in X years we will have LESS advanced technology than today or a point in the near future. That would assume that we experience a "dark ages" and that we de-volve in technology or somehow go backwards in advancement, lose what we already have etc

>A big rock with fucking huge velocity
That makes it even more impractical. Either you have to slow it down, turn it into a spacecraft, then re-accelerate it. Or you have to accelerate all of the parts of you spacecraft that will actually do anything up to meet it, at which point you already have a lighter spacecraft that's better in all ways without shackling it to a huge boulder. The comet's not even on a escape tracetory anyway, so you're STILL going to have to accelerate it even more.

The comet isn't doing anything for you, it's just adding inertia and wasting propellant. Why would you want it?

Or you could intercept it

There are comets that travel between solar systems

...