It's almost like we should stop destroying this perfect insanely unique and suitable planet we live on until we've reached a level of bioengineering that allows us to artificially adapt to the significant environmental challenges of interplanetary travel...
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
340 points (98.9% liked)
science
20515 readers
735 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I feel like a lot of people are going to take that as some sort of anti-space program sentiment, which may or may not be your point.
But for those people, I think it's worth considering that we don't know what all of those environmental challenges are until we go to space and find out.
One way or another, earth will become uninhabitable, whether by our own hand thanks to climate change nuclear war, etc. or by some natural phenomenon that we are powerless to prevent- gamma ray burst, asteroid impact, the sun dying out
In all likelihood, we won't have to worry about those natural disasters for hundreds, thousands, millions, or even billions of years, but we don't actually know that for sure. For all we know, we could just be days away from destruction by some ridiculously powerful space-bullshit that we don't even know to be worried about yet.
We aren't always going about space exploration in the right ways or for the right reasons, but every tiny step we take does inch us closer to a better understanding of what's all out there in the universe, what dangers it presents to us, and how we can avoid or counteract those dangers.
If we hadn't been sending astronauts into space for the better part of the last century, we wouldn't know that it might cause these kinds of vision problems, and so we wouldn't know to work on a solution for that to have it ready for when it's really needed. Sure would suck to have all of our other ducks in a row to set up a sustaining Mars colony or whatever, only to find out when we got there that 70% of our colonists can't see right due to the trip there. Now we know, and we can work on a solution, whether it's bioengineering, or special contact lenses, or whatever may be needed.
Definitely not anti space sentiment, to clarify. I love the space program and funding it fully with public dollars has historically led to massive returns in scientific discoveries we use daily. Memory foam, aerogels, paints, etc. I'm just venting about the people (who I've talked to irl) who hype space so hard they disregard how important it is to look back towards our mother planet before we set our dreams on the next. IE "So what if Earth has problems, we'll just colonize Mars" without acknowledging the inherent and extreme environmental challenges that exist in that unknown that don't exist on our shockingly perfect little flying rock we have here.
I'm just venting about the people (who I've talked to irl) who hype space so hard they disregard how important it is to look back towards our mother planet before we set our dreams on the next.
I hear what you're saying. To be fair though, it's never too soon to start thinking about the future. And from my perspective, the future in space looks very bright indeed.
Never said it's not, just saying we have to ensure we live here first because we don't even know if interplanetary habitation is viable. We assume so, but in cases like this, we learn that there are variables uncounted that must be.
I think the problem I have is with the word "first". If we do that, we'll all be miserable for the next several millennia, and then we all die. If we try to make earth work "first", it will never actually be time to focus on space.
We can do them both at the same time, and that time is now.
Also, what about interplanetary habitation wouldn't be possible? You just create an earth-like environment in space. Yes, that's a monumental task, but it's also a fairly straightforward task. If you can build a park or seed a forest on earth, you can do the same on a large spinning habitat in space.
In some ways doing it at a smaller scale is really more complicated. When you can simply recreate a whole biome, that certainly makes things simple. But when you need to pack everything necessary for sustainable living into a small station, that's quite complicated and results in a delicate ecosystem with a lot of failure conditions which could end in total ecological collapse. But again, to master those techniques, we need to start doing it.
The earth is immeasurably more inhabitable and solvable than any achieveable planetary body we know of. If you can't solve the problems here first. You more than likely cannot solve the problems at all.
What if the core problem is elbow room. What if what we really need is room to expand, "space" if you will.
And why does it have to be about solving problems? Why can't it be expanding into space for the opportunity it represents. Space habitats aren't for escaping earth, that's not the point. It's more like expanding earth, until earth is more of an idea than a single place.
Because, as this article points out, space is not currently habitable. Additionally, I think you're missing my point. If we can't solve a social problem like that here, I don't see how we'll solve it by making it much harder with things like medical complications from flat eyes. That's before we get into the bevy of other problems in medical, manufacturing, and energy that are inherent to space. Space is not like our earth, practically divinely engineered for us by sheer luck. To quote many a NASA staff member "Space is hard". But I'm not saying that means don't do it, I'm saying it means have your priorities straight because we all need to save this insanely perfect planet first. It's going to be way easier to do that than to "move on and start fresh". You're not in the old pioneering days where you could just take a ship to another land and start anew. This beyond wasn't mean for us as we are, but as we will be.
space is not currently habitable
I disagree completely. There are many problems associated with living in low gravity or freefall, but I don't advocate living like that. Rotating habitats are not that hard.
That's before we get into the bevy of other problems in medical, manufacturing, and energy
Medical problems there may still be, it's true. But I would argue that for every challenge we face in manufacturing, we'll see just as many advantages. And energy is a completely different story, energy is just easier in space than on earth. Certainly for space around Erath, Mars, or anything closer to the sun, solar is the obvious choice. It's cheap, steady and runs 24/7 with no weather or nights.
It doesn't mean don't do it, it means have your priorities straight
I would argue that having our priorities straight would mean providing NASA with 20x their current annual budget. We could easily account for that cost but adjusting our spending on tax breaks for the wealthy and new military programs. As it is, we're mostly ignoring space rather than investing in it.
Don't get me wrong, earth is great, biologically it's perfect for us. But societally, it's limiting, and we'll never achieve more if we don't actually reach for it.
"I disagree completely" with a statement that's never been disproven in the entire existence of our species?... This is literally an article about long term astronauts suffering a serious medical complication, and that's not even a lifetime up there. You think we could have a baby and raise it in orbit? You understand the radiation shielding isn't perfect? You understand there are unexplained medical complications in bone density, muscle density, and heart function for returning astronauts? You understand that new bacterial and microbial colonies have manifested in the iss and we don't know anything about the long-term effects that will have?
"Energy is easier in space"
Alright, here you're just brazenly wrong. Energy is so so much more difficult in space due to the vacuum. Managing thermal effects is exponentially more difficult, and it's not as easy as just "slap some solar panels up" are you even familiar with the failure rate of solar panels due to space debris? Even the smallest of micro debris can pick up significant momentum with no atmospheric drag and slight gravitational acceleration.
The budget is one thing we agree on. We spend vastly more than that on yachts so it's not even an issue. I don't believe you have any idea how difficult space really is though, and I encourage you to study it further because it's not the escape you hope it will be. Not in our lifetimes. Not without a miracle.
load more comments
(6 replies)
This is part of that process.
Agreed
load more comments
(2 replies)
Maybe "2001 A Space Odyssey" had the right idea ... spinning a whole big station to produce 1G. (Arthur C. Clarke was part of the writing team.)
Discussion here sez it takes a radius of 224m at 2rpm: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/281/what-would-the-size-and-rotation-of-a-station-need-to-be-to-produce-1g-gravity-f
At this site you can play with the parameters: https://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/
It frustrates me that nobody has attempted construction of a Coriolis station yet. They are so prolific throughout science fiction and theoretical scientific literature, and they have been prolific for ages.
Detractors of Coriolis stations will usually say that the scale required for the optimal 1G is not feasible, but the physics behind the idea are more or less sound.
We have the technology to build one, it’s just a matter of profitability. Nobody wants to burn their trillions on a moonshot.
The matierals science is actually the bigger hurdle than profitability - we'd need carbon nanotubes or similar to handle the tensile stress of a rotating structure that big, since conventional materials would literally tear themselves apart at the rotation speeds needed for 1g.
224m radius from the previous comment equates to 1400m circumference. With a crossbrace of another 900m (assuming an X shape). And a bit of stuff in the middle to affix the solar collector arrays (which must be stationary).
For comparison, the ISS is 109m long.
We’d better get to work!
NASA's budget just got gutted by the anti science party.
Thanks for reminding me. :(
I've seen a video (maybe it was Smarter Every Day?) about a research team experimenting with the effects and acclimation potential of small-radius coriolis stations. From what I remember we can get used to the centrifugal force well enough, even though experiencing coriolis forces across the length of your body is certainly an unusual situation.
Profitability is a huge problem regardless though. The ISS is getting destroyed by the end of the decade, and no replacement is seriously planned. The ISS was born in a geopolitical context of unprecedented international cooperation in the '90s, and that era is long gone. Unless China, the EU or US (lmao) wants to finance an ISS replacement all on their lonesome, not much will happen there for the foreseeable future. There's not a whole lot "because we can" budgets going around these days.
The scale required in order to avoid side effects of the Coriolis effect is huge. For example, the running scene in 2001 could never happen. He'd be constantly falling over.
We also don't need a full ring e.g. Project Hail Mary.
At that point just build a death star
Nah, wholly uneven centripedal forces with a spinning sphere. The entire point of a ring is that all along the outer surface is the same force. A sphere would have a gradient depending on lattitude. Maybe useful for experiments, but it'd likely be uncomfortable moving around in it.
Not if you make a proper core instead of the weaponry then you could get gravity based on a highly compressed material creating the gravitational force. If you go big youre going all in.
But then you'd have to move the mass equivalence of the Earth itself, which completely and utterly ruins the entire point of a space craft. Just move the entire Earth like in that one Chinese movie at that point...
Seriously why even bother studying the health effects of zero G? Figure out how to build a spinning craft instead and don't worry about health effects.
Did the whole "space craft rotates to simulate gravity" thing really begin with 2001?
I think von Braun may be the originator but I could be wrong, you be surprised how incestuous the relationship between science and science fiction is. Regardless 2001 is probably what popularized it.
Its not incest. Its progression. You have to imagine something to create it. Just look at the original star trek and cell phones. They were not two sisters getting down with one another. At best they were 2nd cousins who meet at the family reunion once a year and hook up.
As a kid, I remember hearing about simulating gravity by spinning a space ship. I was excited to see it happen in 2001, so my recollection is that it was already a known concept, and I was just a kid at the time.
I doubt it ... but that's a really good question ... to answer it you'd need to look at at least a century and a half of science fiction. I don't think Jules Verne thought of it (haven't read all his stuff), but it might have been Aristotle for all I know.
Yeah seems like something Clarke, Heinlein or Asimov could've come up with. But also seems like an idea that could go back to Newton's time.
Easier said than done
Hmm, mankind's glorious expansion into the Milky Way has been temporarily suspended while we figure out the correct kind of reading glasses we'll need.
We're not going anywhere, and astronauts, at this point, are superfluous. Space is not for us. Send machines. It's mostly a deadly, hostile, radiation-blasted empty hell, what's the appeal?
Praise the machines tbh. They're just so much better for this.
You're just saying that for when the machines start the uprising.
Flat-eyes: new slur for Astronauts?
Just reminded me how racist the 90's were
Will the eye-flattening of space living fix my myopia?
Asking the important questions right here.
These symptoms became known as Space-Associated Neuro-Ocular Syndrome (SANS).
If you stay in a zero G environment for months on end...
Your eyes are gonna have a bad time.
who knew la forge was the most accurate star trek character?
Nah, they have artificial gravity.
We're stuck on this rock for god damn reason. We should dig instead of flying but it's just my private opinion that means nothing.
view more: next ›