One thing though, is that it is a bit risky to put all your eggs in one basket. If some giant "comet" is heading for us, we'll have big problems trying to deflect it. I am not sure what sizes we are talking about, but according to wikipedia it is estimated to be at least 70,000 objects with diameters greater than 100 km in theBetter still, if hydrogen sulphide-induced hibernation turns out to be a practical technique in human beings, we may be able to sleep through the trip. But even so, when you get down to it, there's not really any economically viable activity on the horizon for people to engage in that would require them to settle on a planet or asteroid and live there for the rest of their lives. In general, when we need to extract resources from a hostile environment we tend to build infrastructure to exploit them (such as oil platforms) but we don't exactly scurry to move our families there. Rather, crews go out to work a long shift, then return home to take their leave. After all, there's no there there — just a howling wilderness of north Atlantic gales and frigid water that will kill you within five minutes of exposure.Kuiper belt; objects at such sizes becomes tricky to deflect.
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
Remember that we cannot live on stars.The more stars in near vicinity, the less planets can accrete due to stars passing nearby.
Have you seen any calculations on how much energy we'd need in order to travel at 1/2 the speed of light, or just 1/3. though?Originally Posted by Xdeathfire
Slightly off topic, but some astronomers propose that the universe will suffer from theOriginally Posted by Sinan
heat death.
![]()
Bookmarks