Asklemmy

43956 readers

1043 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Should we A) colonise other planets or B) build habitats in the middle of space, like O'Neill Cylinders and stuff? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 weeks ago by KevinFromSpace@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

158 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not sure that fitting Earthlike habitats in giant spaceships would make sense without limitless exponential growth. Wouldn't it be more feasible to put something on the surface of a planet?

No matter how advanced our technology gets, we are not going to get around the basic constraints on energy.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 7 points 3 weeks ago

Hopium huffers will smugly chant "asteroid mining!" as the answer to your questions, in much the same way that "monorail!" was chanted during that one Simpsons episode.