What do you think is the best Planet/Moon for human colonization?

[alien117]

We all should know Kepler 425-b and Gliese 581d, and many more, but would do you think would be the best candidate? Planet? Moon?
What do you think?
My personal opinion is on Gliese 581 g.

 

[ThePatriotBeast]

I think Kepler 425-b since it's bigger than Earth and can hold more people

 

[alien117]

Yes, that seems very smart, but what about the gravity diffrence?
do you think we could adapt?

 

[ThePatriotBeast]

Yes, that seems very smart, but what about the gravity difference?
do you think we could adapt?

Ooh, I didn't think of that! We might be able to adapt, but it would probably take time and maybe even a little mutation! I've looked into natural selection, but that is on Earth. I guess we haven't tried natural selection in space yet. But, anyway, we would have to think about that!

 

[Astro-guy]

I think there is no best planet/moon for human colonization. Instead of colonizing some other planet and exploiting it, we should work on saving our own planet.

 

[Catastrophe]

What are your reasons for colonising another planet/moon? The only reason I consider valid (with reservations) is to escape from the destruction of Earth.
This raises two points:
1. Stop destroying it ourselves.
2. Destruction by 'rogue' asteroid/body. Not likely, but insurance for survival is a strong motive in the long term. But would have to be started soon.

These are not mutually incompatible. Both are valid. (With reservations).

The first, essential, reason must be combined with ceasing suicidal overpopulation. I have been pointing out for years (in many locations) that Nature will 'reward' overpopulation with countermeasures including plagues. I never thought that I would actually live to see it.

The reservation? Of course, the reservation is that can or should the human race be "saved" anyway? Survival of the fittest presupposes that the fittest to survive have the intelligence not to overpopulate their home planet.

Cat

 

[Wolfshadw]

The reservation? Of course, the reservation is that can or should the human race be "saved" anyway? Survival of the fittest presupposes that the fittest to survive have the intelligence not to overpopulate their home planet.

Given that we have yet to confirm intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, why should the human race be limited to it's home planet? Based on your ideas, one could argue that early humans should have never migrated from Mesopotamia.

-Wolf sends

 

[Catastrophe]

"Based on your ideas, one could argue that early humans should have never migrated from Mesopotamia."

I would be quite happy for them to expand into the whole planet provided that they treated it (and their own species) with respect. And even beyond, ditto.

I am not a "greenie" and I have never had a discussion "face to face" or even by phone on the subject of planetary conservation. However, I have recently become aware that the human race is depriving itself of oxygen (in the not too distant future) by preventing photosynthesis by overpopulating with humans. OK other species breathe in oxygen and breathe out CO2, but these species may become extinct, But with no rain forests where are the plants (in large amounts) going to photosynthesize? OK not in my lifetime, but in 50, 100, years?

Cat

 

[Wolfshadw]

I would be quite happy for them to expand into the whole planet provided that they treated it (and their own species) with respect. And even beyond, ditto.

Sadly, IMO, that would probably require a change, evolutionary in scale; one not likely to been seen for a multitude of generations (if ever).

-Wolf sends

 

[alien117]

What are your reasons for colonising another planet/moon? The only reason I consider valid (with reservations) is to escape from the destruction of Earth.
This raises two points:
1. Stop destroying it ourselves.
2. Destruction by 'rogue' asteroid/body. Not likely, but insurance for survival is a strong motive in the long term. But would have to be started soon.

These are not mutually incompatible. Both are valid. (With reservations).

The first, essential, reason must be combined with ceasing suicidal overpopulation. I have been pointing out for years (in many locations) that Nature will 'reward' overpopulation with countermeasures including plagues. I never thought that I would actually live to see it.

The reservation? Of course, the reservation is that can or should the human race be "saved" anyway? Survival of the fittest presupposes that the fittest to survive have the intelligence not to overpopulate their home planet.

Cat

Of course, but what if we needed a backup planet?
as you said a sort of insurance, what planet or moon would you choose?

 

[alien117]

I think there is no best planet/moon for human colonization. Instead of colonizing some other planet and exploiting it, we should work on saving our own planet.

Yes, that is a valid point, but what if the Earth was falling torward an impending doom that was unstoppable? what planet or moon would you choose for 'Relocation' of the human race?

 

[Helio]

Yes, that is a valid point, but what if the Earth was falling torward an impending doom that was unstoppable? what planet or moon would you choose for 'Relocation' of the human race?

Mars is the only option, IMO. It is extremely hazardous there but less so than the rest.

The search for habitable exoplanets, however, has only just begun. As of now, in a quick finder, I see only one GJ273b (2.9 Earth masses) that is close (< 15 lyrs) powered by a K-type star, which are likely more stable than the more common M-type stars.

 

[Vincent Peri]

Just how many people does anyone think can be evacuated from earth to somewhere else?

One hundred? How many rocketships will that require?

One thousand? Absolutely out of the question IMO.

 

[IG2007]

Sadly, IMO, that would probably require a change, evolutionary in scale; one not likely to been seen for a multitude of generations (if ever).

-Wolf sends

"Come gather round people, wherever you roam,
And admit that the waters around you have grown,
And accept it that you will be soon drenched to the bone;
If your time to you is worth saving,
You better start swimming or you will sink like a stone -
For the times, they are a-changin'. "

-The Times They Are A-Changin', Bob Dylan.

And that's the song from where I took my custom title,

"Come mothers and fathers, throughout the land
And don't criticize what you can't understand -
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one, if you can't lend your hand
For the times, they are a-changin' "

It is so strange and ironic that a song about change is always stable, no matter if it is 1960s or the 21st Century. Indeed, we should first focus on prioritizing Climate Change as something we must stop, and everything else after that, because, if we don't, the Human Civilization won't exist after this century. A horrifying truth, indeed, but facts are facts and we have to accept it. We must stop it, "if your time to you is worth saving."

We all should know Kepler 425-b and Gliese 581d, and many more, but would do you think would be the best candidate? Planet? Moon?
What do you think?
My personal opinion is on Gliese 581 g.

Well, if we have somehow managed to get over Climate Change, or if it is too late for getting over it, my choice is either the Moon or Mars, or perhaps, Europa.

 

[vincenzosassone]

Even though the previous speech was about the colonnization of Planets and Moons, I would like to take part to this new speech. I want to estabilsh a principle I have always used in my life: There is never too late to do something. I think now more than ever we need it...

 

[CCooper96]

And what about Europa, Jupiter's moon? Its atmosphere contains large amounts of O2 and can be habitable.

 

[Connor]

I think that a planet orbiting Proxima Centauri would be best. With its Earth-like atmosphere and conditions, it is habitable.

 

[Catastrophe]

But how long does it take to get there? Just check this out.

Assuming (very reasonably) that you will have to travel at only a fraction of light speed, remember the fuel to accelerate and, what is more, if you want to stop when you get there, the fuel to decelerate.
Light speed is 6.706e+8 ( 186,000 x 60 x 60 = 6.696 x 10^8 ) miles per hour
The nearest star is approx 4.3 light years away, or 4.3 x 6,000,000,000,000 or approx 25.8 x 10^13 miles.

Thus 4.3 light years at 1% speed of light would take 25.8 x 10^13 divided by 6.7 x 10^6 or 3.85 x 10^7 hours, or 1.6 x 10^6 days or 4383.56 years. Of course, getting up to speed and slowing down would add to the time, but I think we can probably neglect these. They probably amount to only a few hundred years. Remember we have shown elsewhere that light sails are out.
Any other ideas?

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

One point I don't think has been mentioned. Given an emergency (asteroid strike) type situation, how much fuel -- how many ships -- are available on Earth to ferry humans to Mars (or wherever)? I think you are looking at a "two by two" into the Ark situation with many not very happy about being left behind.

Cat

 

[Vincent Peri]

One point I don't think has been mentioned. Given an emergency (asteroid strike) type situation, how much fuel -- how many ships -- are available on Earth to ferry humans to Mars (or wherever)? I think you are looking at a "two by two" into the Ark situation with many not very happy about being left behind.

Cat

See my post #13.

 

[Catastrophe]

See my post #13.

Yes. I already gave it a "Like"

Cat

 

[agent00seven]

I'd say nothing in this solar system is fit for colonization until we become far more advanced. Let's put the idea aside for another million years and hope we don't nuke ourselves into extinction.

I have to wonder about all the reports about UFO's defying the laws of physics as we know them. Will we ever be able to break the light barrier and travel to other solar systems? There could be civilizations out there that got their evolutionary start hundreds of millions of years before we did. Look how far we've come in a mere 5 million years, despite never getting over eating bananas.

 

[Catastrophe]

"I'd say nothing in this solar system is fit for colonization until we become far more advanced. Let's put the idea aside for another million years and hope we don't nuke ourselves into extinction."

There you have the future history of the human species. There are a few moons of the outer planets which have liquid water, due to heating factors such as friction, and so not relying heavily as we do on the Sun for warmth. On these moons it is possible that simple life may have developed - possibly microorganisms.

I personally believe that humans will not be around for billions of years but, just in case, we will have to allow for solar expansion. The Sun will expand almost far enough to engulf Earth, which will, however, have been long incinerated by then. Then, these moons will have been warming to greet us (sheer anthropocentric nonsense ) anyway, they will be at habitable temperatures. Unless water will have evaporated, we may find aquatic environments, with no land.

Before then, we should have taken action to avoid asteroid impacts. These may be "next week" in comparison, and a danger which we must take seriously. Our travels around the galaxy centre take us up and down through the galactic plane, and it may be that when crossing the galactic equator we are in much greater of impacts. There is evidence for a cycle of 26-30 million years when danger may be greatest.

Cat

 

[agent00seven]

"I'd say nothing in this solar system is fit for colonization until we become far more advanced. Let's put the idea aside for another million years and hope we don't nuke ourselves into extinction."

There you have the future history of the human species. There are a few moons of the outer planets which have liquid water, due to heating factors such as friction, and so not relying heavily as we do on the Sun for warmth. On these moons it is possible that simple life may have developed - possibly microorganisms.

I personally believe that humans will not be around for billions of years but, just in case, we will have to allow for solar expansion. The Sun will expand almost far enough to engulf Earth, which will, however, have been long incinerated by then. Then, these moons will have been warming to greet us (sheer anthropocentric nonsense ) anyway, they will be at habitable temperatures. Unless water will have evaporated, we may find aquatic environments, with no land.

Before then, we should have taken action to avoid asteroid impacts. These may be "next week" in comparison, and a danger which we must take seriously. Our travels around the galaxy centre take us up and down through the galactic plane, and it may be that when crossing the galactic equator we are in much greater of impacts. There is evidence for a cycle of 26-30 million years when danger may be greatest.

Cat

Yes, I know about the sun's end-of-life expansion and hope we can exit the nuclear bomb age with minimal damage and enter the nuclear power age. I've said on other forums that it's only a matter of time before we realize nuclear power is the future. The immense amount of energy stored within the atom will not be ignored for long.

Anyway, if we can escape a nuclear catastrophe and an asteroid strike for a million years or more, we may become advanced enough to do what seems impossible - things like exceeding the speed of light to visit other solar systems. We can't imagine that as a possibility, but if what is being reported about UFO's is true, then we've got a lot more to learn about the laws of the physics.

If the speed of light can't be broken and if we want to explore other planets in other solar systems, or if other species want to visit ours (if that's not already happening), I imagine robots, not biological beings, would be doing the exploring. Biological beings need lots of water and food to survive a multi-year trip, but a robot can be programmed to sleep and wake up upon arrival at its destination. The first ET we encounter may be a robot more intelligent than we are.

 

[Catastrophe]

Hmmm. You would need robots of greater intelligence than their makers. Don't forget, even at the nearest star, it will take about 4.3 years for you to receive a message from a robot asking how to act, and another 4.3 years for your advice to get back. The robot would be faced with situations of which we have no knowledge and thus have greater ability to act in unprogrammed situations - hence greater intelligence - which, of course, we would be unable to provide. Problems.

Cat