Bonus question: what if both options are for warfare in WWIII?
Submarine. There’s life around atleast, even if its a weird looking fish once in a while. Having gravity and what not, just less of a physical impact.
Meanwhile I’m also horrified at how many choose the iss
Fully agree. Here take a Fresca.
Gimme that octopussy
Submarines have showers and other amenities. Not to mention pooping.
Most of them don’t have windows, though. Then again, I don’t see why you wouldn’t add outside cameras in the 21st century.
Space station.
Same. In theory they’d be very similar in nature, but space station makes for a cooler story.
I’ve always wanted to be crammed into a tiny spaceship with a big fuck-off telescope and the collected works of humanity loaded on the computer, and be launched perpendicular to the plane of orbit. (This is, by necessity, a one-way trip, as it would take a very very very long time to get far enough for good data)
We don’t actually know what the galaxy looks like from a top-down (or bottom-up, depending on how you choose to view it) perspective so it would be a really unique experience and would send very useful information back…. probably. Eventually.
So I’d definitely take the space station. Not the same, but close enough.
Ooof I’m claustrophobic so neither of these would be good. I pick Space Station though because zero g seems really cool and you’d get way better pictures.
In WW2 I’d probably still pick Space Station though the odds of survival are way lower.
I’m not a big fan of getting into anything that I can’t just step out of, but between the two, being in space would be a new, unique experience, so I’d take that.
Submarine would be easier in a sense. Personally, I feel like I’m falling over in even mild negative Gs, and then you add the health issues. The view would be pretty cool though, and I could have actual bandwidth for communication. (Seawater blocks most things)
I’m going submarine, because I like boats and prefer text communication anyway. If it’s WWIII, a submarine might be the safest place on the planet to be, and among the most comfortable, so it’s a no-brainer.
Oooof. Submarine because I think 3 years in space would be much more physically diminishing. Oh crap, bonus question… omg. Same answer because I believe the technology is vastly more advanced on the side I’d find myself during that conflict. Scary though to think about both during active war. O_O
I think hidding in submarine should be way easier, but you also want to win the war, so you can replenish supplies.
Submarine. It’s less exciting, but it wouldn’t ruin my body for the rest of my life from spending 3 years in zero g.
lol yea, 3 years is too long.
100% in space. If something were to go wrong, and there is a tiny leak, for example. I would rather want to open a hatch and die instantly to lack of pressure than to slowly drown in a sub as it fills up.
Good news, if the sub is deep enough you can die instantly due to too much pressure.
Fantastic, both options are on the list then!
Considering the known health issues of both, gotta go submarine.
No human has spent 3 consecutive years in zero g. A few people have spent more than one year, and that’s rough. I choose submarine over ISS. However, if offered the choice between a submarine and a future rotating space station with artificial gravity, my answer might be different.
