this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
244 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

71923 readers
2970 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
244
A City on Mars: Reality kills space settlement dreams (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
123 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A book review on the latest Weinersmith creation. It’s true, there is so much we don’t know.

Just throwing this out there on this forum because missing technology is the problem that kills the dream of Mars, according to the authors.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The gravity problem is also best solved away from the surface of any celestial bodies. Massive spinning space stations would be much more pleasant to live in in almost every way. Unless a planet or moon has a good reason to land on it (e.g. material to be mined) it makes much more sense to simply build a habitat away from the gravity well and build smaller work camps on the surface that can be supported by the main habitat(s).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

The problem is that such space stations are very complex to build and maintain, and can more easily catastrophically fail. It's certainly an option, but it may not be worth it.

Of course, all of this is speculation, but my point is mostly that if we don't have sufficiently advanced space construction capabilities, surface habitats and infrastructure on the moon may be preferable.