Asklemmy

Oh! Oh! I've thought about this!

It would make more sense to build habitat craters, dug deep enough into the ground that the surface air pressure would be at a level tolerable to humans (even if the atmosphere mixture was bad, being able to simply wear a respirator instead of an entire suit would be huge).

I did some math once, on Mars a crater several miles deep would have a pressure similar to Earth's surface.

I think the Moon was like 40 miles or something, which at that point would probably run into other problems that I am not smart enough to worry about lol

The low-gravity planets/moons we have access to have rather harsh radiation environments, too, so neither. Dig into the ground. You would put a bunker or dome up on the surface for observations and airlocks, but it'd be foolish to live that exposed on a surface without a deep well of atmosphere & Van Allen belts.

Low gravity planets are probably small planets with a low escape velocity, so they probably can't hold a thick atmosphere. Domes are better at maintaining internal pressure.

It depends on whether you need to contain atmosphere.

Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars Trilogy goes into exquisite detail about the tradeoffs between different construction methods on Mars and other worlds in our solar system.

Habitat zorbs that bounce around the planet.

It depends on the planet. Unless the planet was earthlike to some degree I would suppose MOST habitats would be underground.

The only reasons skyscrapers exist is due to a lack of available footprint. If you’re settling a new planet just build out single story shit as far as the eye can see.

Between this and the vegan fly trap, some good questions hah

A fascinating alternative is “a pressurized ETFE membrane… periodically anchored to the ground by steel cables.”

In plain language: Fiber-reinforced rip-stop ETFE (a thin, strong, light, transparent material used for yacht sails) is used to make a roof and walls with the area under it pressurized and anchored using very tall cables, hundreds of meters high or more, to create a sky. The covered area is huge, the size of a city, compartmentalized for redundancy. People are able to go about their daily lives without use of space suits and it doesn’t feel like you are “inside”.

Domes are over-rated

You could do what they do in The Expanse. Spin the planet fast enough that you have artificial gravity, and build upside-down housing as you now fall away from the center.

I vote for blocks of bouncy castles several storeys high. No need for elevators.

I'm not sure about this, but I guess it depends on atmosphere. If The atmospheric pressure is weak, which is very likely for a low gravity planet, I'd guess domes would be better due to making a much more efficient pressure vessel than rectangles. If The planet does have a relatively high atmospheric pressure, traditionally shaped buildings are probably cheaper to make than domes.

Still domes. One reason for domes is that it helps with holding pressure, which wouldn't be a problem on an ideal planet. The other reason is that domes have low surface area, which means there's less weight to bring to the planet from earth.

Jetsons already did it ;)

If domes are built, I don't see then being built like those we typically see on Earth. Instead, I expect there to be layers of pressure sealing to prevent the escape of air. If you are going to put in several layers anyway, why not make the dome structure habitable.