The dwarf planet Ceres – long believed to be a barren space rock – is an ocean world with reservoirs of sea water beneath its surface – more water than Earth.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/aug/10/planet-ceres-ocean-world-sea-water-beneath-surface?fbclid=IwAR08khg_i1No7z7h1b-DuIXv61imqgNH2tQ9fImx9pkzgey4g1A1mJZxBPE

Ceres actually is a better place to colonize than Mars for several reasons: easier to get to, lower gravity, and lots of water. Its launch windows are actually more frequent than those for Mars.

http://www.pagef30.com/2009/04/why-ceres-might-be-better-location-for.html?fbclid=IwAR1SnqjeLYiGcxjQVCCySbYBljfQiuSFpa_rOrlcYeu_Kle3xsknIwRSjIY

Ceres' gravity (3% of Earths) is great for space transport and trade, greatly reducing energy and fuel costs, and it lies at the heart of the asteroid belt with all of those raw materials.

You can compensate for low g by building ring habitats that rotate with people living on the outer walls (the 3% of g pulling them downward would feel like a downhill direction, something you can get used to). Or you can shape the spinning habitats like gently curved bowls whose radii change with height, so no matter where you stand the combined gravity and spin vectors makes you feel like "down" is locally perpendicular through the floor/wall.

It's surface area is about the same as Argentina, plenty of room for any conceivable number of colonists.

It has got more going for it than Mars as a place to colonize.

Forget Mars – Go to Ceres
byu/Celtiberian2023 inspace

8 Comments

  1. The heart of the asteroid belt with all those resources? I mean, bot really, it’s sparse. I guess you could find and shunt metalic asteroids to Ceres without needing too much more fuel.

  2. > You can compensate for low g by building ring habitats…

    We can’t even maintain bridges properly here on earth. 

  3. Forgetting Mars is going top be impossible. It would be like getting the biggest, coolest lego kit ever then not playing with it. Impossible of course.