Man on the Moon.

[phatteus]

TTD,

Interesting thought. I think the obvious answer.. at least initially, is that space stations would be used as scientific platforms; that is to say that such "stations" would house those people studying the "planets" on which these cities are built, as well as their families. This would be like any other research station.
In the future, however, who would live there as far as colonists go? That would grwatly depend on the manner in which people were to be transported. As it is, space travel is exorbitantly expensive. By that argument, we would postulate that the people populating these cities would be the super-rich, as those would be the only people who would actually be able to "get there!"
We then have the problem of commercialism. Rich people have their vices as well as the rest of us. They need to eat, they need to drink alcoholic beverages, they need to be tickled in fetish clubs, etc. THis would lead us to the assumption that the markets in these Space Resorts would be extremely high class. You'd have a Prada, perhaps a SAKS ten to the fifth avenue, and of course a VERY upscale fetish club to satisfy the 1% of the TMFers who could afford to be tickled on the Moon. THis would quickly isolate the average joes and simple susans remaining on Earth, and make Space living rather attractive. It would quickly cause businesses to leave the Earth to folow the money, which has gone to Earth2 to buy Bruno Magli shoes and Krispy Kreme Donuts. Earth would suffer a massive depression, and the Earth economy would suffer, prompting the world's leaders to agree to consolidate all the world's money into four major currencies: The American Dollar, the Japanese Yen, the Euro, and the (yet to be named) South American Unified currency. These currencies would feed off of each other, allowing more persons remaining on Earth to become affluent, thus moving off to the extraplanetary colonies, thus starting the process all over again. This trend would continue until the Earth was stricken in poverty, and at the mercy of the New World.

Have a Nice Day.

 

[dreamboy]

True to my nature, I used to be a science-fiction buff, and actually yearn for the day we could really pull off such a feat. But given the current situation, it's sad to think that Geedoubleyou thinks the rest of us are only as intelligent as him, and CANNOT see this simply as a political stunt for more votes. It's like he doesn't have enough realistic problems to deal with right here on his own planet!

 

[BigJim]

Eventually, stations may be constructed on Mars or moons there around and then other planetoids etc. Again, who goes and who and or what will be left here?


Just a thought.🙄


TTD

The pioneers of their day, I suppose Ed. The equivalents of Captain Cook and Ferdinand Magellan.

 

[Ticklish9's]

Artificial gravity? *confused*

Consider this sequence of events instead.

Blast an asteroid into near earth orbit. Mine it out. Allow the proceeds from the mineral resources make the investors rich many times over.

Now, take this nice empty asteroid. It's got a shell casing many metres thick - thick enough to stop cosmic radiation and shrug off micrometeorite impacts, particularly if reinforced internally.

Spin it.

Welcome to your habitable, gravity-providing space station.

Give it a nice fusion tube and you've got an internal ecosystem capable of supporting hundreds of thousands, in a very average asteroid. That paid for itself.

Of course, no need to make it a space station. Tie it down to Earth with carbonnanotubing, and use it as a counterweight for an orbital elevator. Think that's futuristic? Think again - corporations are already competing for the bids to build just such a critter, with today's technology.

Space isn't just the final frontier. It's our destiny - not in that predetermined sense, but in the sense that it is an integral part of achieving our full potential as a species.

 

[BigJim]

Qu

Artificial gravity? *confused*

Consider this sequence of events instead.

Blast an asteroid into near earth orbit. Mine it out. Allow the proceeds from the mineral resources make the investors rich many times over.

How do we get there to blast it in the first place? No missile could get that far, without a larger transport taking it there.

Spin it.

Welcome to your habitable, gravity-providing space station.

Rotation does not create, or assist in the creation of, gravity. What it does do is create centrifugal force that pushes in the exact opposite direction to gravity. The idea that we'd all float off into space if the Earth slowed to a halt is a complete fallacy, because the Earth's rotation does not create gravity. Quite the opposite in fact.

Give it a nice fusion tube and you've got an internal ecosystem capable of supporting hundreds of thousands, in a very average asteroid. That paid for itself.

Of course, no need to make it a space station. Tie it down to Earth with carbonnanotubing, and use it as a counterweight for an orbital elevator. Think that's futuristic? Think again - corporations are already competing for the bids to build just such a critter, with today's technology.

Space isn't just the final frontier. It's our destiny - not in that predetermined sense, but in the sense that it is an integral part of achieving our full potential as a species.

Hell yes! 🙂

 

[Ticklish9's]

Re: Qu

How do we get there to blast it in the first place? No missile could get that far, without a larger transport taking it there.

Not overly difficult, and for the size of the return, the investment is well worth it - and well within today's technology. Just because we haven't given it a shot yet (largely due to the "we need to get our shit together on Earth first" argument) doesn't mean it can't be done. Honestly, a motivated enough private corporation could easily set out and do it - tomorrow.

Rotation does not create, or assist in the creation of, gravity. What it does do is create centrifugal force that pushes in the exact opposite direction to gravity. The idea that we'd all float off into space if the Earth slowed to a halt is a complete fallacy, because the Earth's rotation does not create gravity. Quite the opposite in fact.

Very true. That said, when one is inside an asteroid, the centrifugal force acts in a gravitational manner. While you and I are quite aware of the difference between the two, our bones and muscles are not - and therefore, I see no need for the generation of artificial gravity, when such a simple technique will prevent the decay of muscle matter through weightlessness so easily. Sorry I wasn't clearer on that.

Hell yes! 🙂

We'll get there yet. 😀

 

[BigJim]

Re: Re: Qu

Not overly difficult, and for the size of the return, the investment is well worth it - and well within today's technology. Just because we haven't given it a shot yet (largely due to the "we need to get our shit together on Earth first" argument) doesn't mean it can't be done. Honestly, a motivated enough private corporation could easily set out and do it - tomorrow.

I think the yield involved from a single asteroid wouldn't be worth enough. (Unless it was a massive bastard like Ceres or Juno. Sadly, like the rock in Armageddon all the nukes in the world would barely give it an itch behind the ear. On top of that the mathematics involved in creating a trajectory over 100,000,000-260,000,000 miles contain just too many variables to work. It'd be like you firing a rifle over the Atlantic and trying to guess how intelligent I was, by examining pieces of my brain that landed on your front lawn, if the bullet was accurate enough to hit my skull.

Very true. That said, when one is inside an asteroid, the centrifugal force acts in a gravitational manner. While you and I are quite aware of the difference between the two, our bones and muscles are not - and therefore, I see no need for the generation of artificial gravity, when such a simple technique will prevent the decay of muscle matter through weightlessness so easily. Sorry I wasn't clearer on that.

Ah, I see. We'd be standing upside down inside the shell of the asteroid? Kind of laborius, but theoretically possible I suppose. Always assuming we had enough drive to move the bastard back out there. Eye of Palpatine anyone?

 

[Ticklish9's]

All told, it's just math. Obviously a degree of precision IS required, but then, that's true of all such missions. And Orbital mechanics are very well understood, given the hundreds of satellites in orbit now. But a valid point - the political will to launch a huge rock into near earth orbit would have to be strong.