Humanity abandoning planets, living in space.

[BloodAngel]

Having reading about and watching the Crest of the Stars series, I came up with a thought about humanity's future. How possible, would you say, would it be for humanity to eventually give up the idea of living on planets altogether, and gradually move away from Earth to live in gigantic space colonies? Given that we either forget about how zero-gravity affects our bodies, of course, or invent a method of artificial gravity (like rotating sections ala Babylon 5), or possibly alter our genes to be best-fit to live in space. What kind of people would we evolve to become, and what sort of effect would this have on human culture?

[Molyneux]

Having reading about and watching the Crest of the Stars series, I came up with a thought about humanity's future. How possible, would you say, would it be for humanity to eventually give up the idea of living on planets altogether, and gradually move away from Earth to live in gigantic space colonies? Given that we either forget about how zero-gravity affects our bodies, of course, or invent a method of artificial gravity (like rotating sections ala Babylon 5), or possibly alter our genes to be best-fit to live in space. What kind of people would we evolve to become, and what sort of effect would this have on human culture?

Give humans a prehensile tail, work out the cardiovascular problems, and humans are pretty much set to live in a low-grav or null-grav environment.

[LordShaithis]

Why the hell would we bother?

[Cao Cao]

Why the hell would we bother?

I suppose in the unlucky event that we mess up Earth beyond repair and we never find other Earth-like planets or develop planetary terraforming tech we might have to.
Though personally I'd prefer artificial enviroments on, say, Mars to 100% of humanity living in space.

If we did move out into space for whatever reason, I'd think it more likely that we'd construct artificial gravity enviroments rather than drastically alter ourselves to live in zero-g.
Perhaps some factions would - to the point where they would no longer be considered human by people in Earth gravity enviroments. I'd foresee much prejudice, tension possibly leading to wars in that route.

[Kwizard]

If and when we figure out how to travel significantly faster than light (obviously into the age of interstellar civilization), a lot of things would be more efficient to do in space. Manufacturing, materials processing, construction, even some varieties of agriculture - all of it could become much easier done in zero-g.

But just as easily that could be imagined, I could see people sentimentally saying "there's nothing like the actual surface of a planet and a biosphere.."

[Sea Skimmer]

Living in deep space makes no since whatsoever. Even if the biosphere of earth was totally destroyed, it would still be FAR easier and far more practical to dug some tunnels and keep living on the planet then to live in deep space. Deep space brings a long list of cost inflations and drawbacks and no advantages.

[Guardsman Bass]

I think that if you could create massive, indoor habitats (sort of like a Biosphere 2, except in space), either by hollowing out an asteroid or just building a free-standing structure, you could get people to dwell permanently in it. Especially if it was huge (a fifty-km diameter rock with different levels and areas within it hollowed out is a lot of freaking floor space).

[SirNitram]

Once we're in space, planets are a huge waste of effort. Terraforming? Lifting to orbit? Sheesh, it's like a huge sinkhole of energy! And energy is damn important.

Barring ridiculously common Earth-types(Which will inevitably have native life; that's how we get Earth-types), we're staying in space once we get there. Sure, some people will go to the surface. But it'll be more efficient to stay in the sky. And why not? Planets can't dodge rocks, for one thing...

[Simplicius]

Wouldn't some sort of effective radiation-shielding have to be devised to make up for the lack of a planet's magnetosphere?

[Mark S]

I don't think we'd change our bodies to suit space. We're humans! We don't change to suit or environment, we change our environment to suit us! If we were living in space homes we'd make them match Earth as closely as possible and go about doing things as we always have.

[SirNitram]

Wouldn't some sort of effective radiation-shielding have to be devised to make up for the lack of a planet's magnetosphere?

Like lead?

[Cao Cao]

Once we're in space, planets are a huge waste of effort. Terraforming? Lifting to orbit? Sheesh, it's like a huge sinkhole of energy! And energy is damn important.

Barring ridiculously common Earth-types(Which will inevitably have native life; that's how we get Earth-types), we're staying in space once we get there. Sure, some people will go to the surface. But it'll be more efficient to stay in the sky. And why not? Planets can't dodge rocks, for one thing...

I'd assume that given time and advances, lifting off from the surface of an Earth-type planet to space would be as easy and efficient as flying from London to New York is today.

[Aeolus]

Wouldn't some sort of effective radiation-shielding have to be devised to make up for the lack of a planet's magnetosphere?

A really big station would be pretty easy to shield.

[SirNitram]

Once we're in space, planets are a huge waste of effort. Terraforming? Lifting to orbit? Sheesh, it's like a huge sinkhole of energy! And energy is damn important.

Barring ridiculously common Earth-types(Which will inevitably have native life; that's how we get Earth-types), we're staying in space once we get there. Sure, some people will go to the surface. But it'll be more efficient to stay in the sky. And why not? Planets can't dodge rocks, for one thing...

I'd assume that given time and advances, lifting off from the surface of an Earth-type planet to space would be as easy and efficient as flying from London to New York is today.

Not really. End of the day, 60mJ/kg is alot of juice.

[Lord Zentei]

Wouldn't some sort of effective radiation-shielding have to be devised to make up for the lack of a planet's magnetosphere?

Like lead?

You might want to use light elements instead: there is the problem of induced radiation when interstellar particles strike heavy nuclei.

[Aeolus]

Wouldn't some sort of effective radiation-shielding have to be devised to make up for the lack of a planet's magnetosphere?

Like lead?

You might want to use light elements instead: there is the problem of induced radiation when interstellar particles strike heavy nuclei.

A few dozen feet of rock or ice?

[Spartan]

You can make excellent use of a planet without needing to terra-form it. Free gravity, lots of space, an atmosphere that can't accidentally blow out into space. A self contained colony on a airless lifeless moon is better than an asteroid or free flying space station, assuming the continuation of science as we know it. Ofcourse that's assuming you chose a geologically stable planet.

[bilateralrope]

Planets can't dodge rocks, for one thing...

I wasn't aware that Space Stations could move themselves much eaither. And it takes a much bigger rock to pose a threat to people on a planet because the atmosphere will break up smaller ones that are still big enough to cause problems for spacecraft

[SirNitram]

Planets can't dodge rocks, for one thing...

I wasn't aware that Space Stations could move themselves much eaither. And it takes a much bigger rock to pose a threat to people on a planet because the atmosphere will break up smaller ones that are still big enough to cause problems for spacecraft

Any kind of station is easier to move than a planet, if only because it's lighter and it's easy as hell to build small rocket motors. Asteroids tend to be very predictable.

[Cao Cao]

Planets can't dodge rocks, for one thing...

I wasn't aware that Space Stations could move themselves much eaither. And it takes a much bigger rock to pose a threat to people on a planet because the atmosphere will break up smaller ones that are still big enough to cause problems for spacecraft

Any kind of station is easier to move than a planet, if only because it's lighter and it's easy as hell to build small rocket motors. Asteroids tend to be very predictable.

Large asteroids are, but smaller stellar debris is harder to detect and predict and would be far more dangerous to a space station than it would to a planet.

[Broomstick]

Once we're in space, planets are a huge waste of effort. Terraforming? Lifting to orbit? Sheesh, it's like a huge sinkhole of energy! And energy is damn important.

Barring ridiculously common Earth-types(Which will inevitably have native life; that's how we get Earth-types), we're staying in space once we get there. Sure, some people will go to the surface. But it'll be more efficient to stay in the sky. And why not? Planets can't dodge rocks, for one thing...

I'd assume that given time and advances, lifting off from the surface of an Earth-type planet to space would be as easy and efficient as flying from London to New York is today.

Depends on how you define "efficient"

From the viewpoint of energy required, a sailing ship is MUCH more efficient than an airplane - you're drawing on the winds that are blowing anyway, and perhaps ocean currents as well. Steam or petroleum fueled boats are less efficient in that more energy is required, but they are faster and because you bring the energy source with you and can control it, it's more reliable. The airplane is MUCH more of an energy hog - but it's faster and we've tapped resources that make the required energy available at prices we can afford.

There will always be an energy cost to lifting anything out of a gravity well. Always. Can we make more concentrated energy sources available at competitive prices? Perhaps - but the same amount of energy to lift into orbit will be required.

[Cao Cao]

Once we're in space, planets are a huge waste of effort. Terraforming? Lifting to orbit? Sheesh, it's like a huge sinkhole of energy! And energy is damn important.

Barring ridiculously common Earth-types(Which will inevitably have native life; that's how we get Earth-types), we're staying in space once we get there. Sure, some people will go to the surface. But it'll be more efficient to stay in the sky. And why not? Planets can't dodge rocks, for one thing...

I'd assume that given time and advances, lifting off from the surface of an Earth-type planet to space would be as easy and efficient as flying from London to New York is today.

Depends on how you define "efficient"

From the viewpoint of energy required, a sailing ship is MUCH more efficient than an airplane - you're drawing on the winds that are blowing anyway, and perhaps ocean currents as well. Steam or petroleum fueled boats are less efficient in that more energy is required, but they are faster and because you bring the energy source with you and can control it, it's more reliable. The airplane is MUCH more of an energy hog - but it's faster and we've tapped resources that make the required energy available at prices we can afford.

There will always be an energy cost to lifting anything out of a gravity well. Always. Can we make more concentrated energy sources available at competitive prices? Perhaps - but the same amount of energy to lift into orbit will be required.

True, but when I said efficient I meant more along the lines of "cost-effective".

And future societies might build space elevators. Would be a monumental project but I'm sure it'll be feasable someday.

[Aeolus]

I'd assume that given time and advances, lifting off from the surface of an Earth-type planet to space would be as easy and efficient as flying from London to New York is today.

Depends on how you define "efficient"

From the viewpoint of energy required, a sailing ship is MUCH more efficient than an airplane - you're drawing on the winds that are blowing anyway, and perhaps ocean currents as well. Steam or petroleum fueled boats are less efficient in that more energy is required, but they are faster and because you bring the energy source with you and can control it, it's more reliable. The airplane is MUCH more of an energy hog - but it's faster and we've tapped resources that make the required energy available at prices we can afford.

There will always be an energy cost to lifting anything out of a gravity well. Always. Can we make more concentrated energy sources available at competitive prices? Perhaps - but the same amount of energy to lift into orbit will be required.

True, but when I said efficient I meant more along the lines of "cost-effective".

And future societies might build space elevators. Would be a monumental project but I'm sure it'll be feasable someday.

Even with space elevators it will still require energy to lift an object into orbit.

[Patrick Degan]

I'm quite dubious about the space-elevator dream myself for several reasons, not the least of which involves material strength for such a large unsupported structure.

As for going to orbital habitats, entirely feasible. One of the key assumptions regarding future space migration has always been finding Earthlike planets to settle people on. But if you reject this concept in favour of simply building orbital habitats, any star of sufficient duration and energy output becomes viable as a site for colonisation. Plenty of asteroids and moons to exploit for mineral resources and nowhere near the energy cost for lifting out of a planetary gravity well. This does not totally negate planetary colonisation as an evolutionary safeguard, but orbital habitation is an open-ended solution to a host of potential problems. Hell, it would work quite nicely just within the boundaries of our own solar system, supporting an orbital civilisation for many millenia to come.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Why the hell would we bother?

Some reasons :

Effectively unlimited space for growth.

Why not ?

Safety of the species, in case something happens to Earth.

Related to the last, planetbound life may be too dangerous when combined with really advanced technology. Directed asteroids, engineered plagues, and so forth could devastate the planet, and as technology advances fewer and fewer people will be needed to instigate the disaster ( or so goes the arguement ). A individual space station might be as vunerable or more so, but getting them all will be much harder.

Freedom; if we have the tech to make space colonization practical, you and your followers/comrades/family can set up your very own society, probably where no one can find you.