Sounds like optimal solution to me.

Latency can be managed by having shared connections (for example: https://tanguy.ortolo.eu/blog/article42/ssh-connection-shari... ), so handshakes don't make everything super slow

And one scary observation related to this is that warm water will also hold less oxygen for marine life, literally throttling that part of our life-support.

Why? Sorry about my ignorance, but what will happen in about 120 days?

I think its a reference to GTA 6 releasing

I found this: https://faculty.up.edu/lulay/failure/vasacasestudy.pdf . Fascinating failure

Don't threaten me with good time!

I think in this case parasitoid has a specific meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitoid

>Parasitoidism is one of six major evolutionary strategies within parasitism, distinguished by the fatal prognosis for the host, which makes the strategy close to predation.

That sounds congruent with the "asteroid" example: It denoted a broad category, but eventually gained a very specific connotation, and when the connotation became popular enough, it took over as the new definition. So now we've got to use alternate phrasing like "starlike object" or "false star" or "pseudostar."

Terms like "spheroid" resisted the same fate, but I think that could change if everybody's talking a lot about some kind of spheroid that remains mysterious enough that we can't give it a better name in time.

Can we trust them to enough? If they have a medical emergency (which is quite probable, old people are in risk of all kinds of trouble, even before the harsh environment of spaceships), will the whole mission fail?

We generally have selected the most vigorous military personnel to participate in these types of missions, using old volunteers would be quite a change.

Would not count it as forest, but plantation, if it is heavily managed.

I agree. And how all of our meager steps towards trying to learn the pre-requisites of sustainable colonies (eg. closed cycle ecology) have failed miserably. For example Biosphere program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2 ).

And the only working ecological system we can study is being destroyed by humanity and capital on record pace.

Biosphere 2 had the problem, not least, that it didn't have enough of an atmosphere to buffer swings of CO2 concentration between day and night. It's like "what did they think would happen?"

I assume the reason nobody has tried to fund a biosphere 3 is because we don't yet have enough knowledge to make it possible.

I think it is more that you need a specific endpoint and a real business plan. Like how could Biosphere 2 have really made money?

A closed loop ecology for, say, survival on Mars, is an interesting question that somebody might need an answer to but there is no reason why it needs to look like the Earth with oceans and all and it might lean heavily on bacteria that live in vats or 24 hour illuminated agriculture or something.

Meanwhile it is not so clear that from a scientific point of view that some experiment in a greenhouse can give conclusive answers about the ecology of the Earth where so much is going on.