Asklemmy

43945 readers

1001 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

[–] FrogPrincess@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The problem with an O’Neil Cylinder is bringing up enough processed material to build one.

One possible solution is a moon base. The moon is full of titanium and iron.

And then you could launch the stuff out of a weaker gravity well with no air resistance.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 3 weeks ago

I don't see the application of an O’Neil Cylinder within the Earth and Mars gravity wells given how expensive they would be to build next to better places to grow crops.

If one does get built, I would expect it in orbit around Jupiter or Saturn to support activity there.