Sciebtifically speaking, when if ever might me have o'neill cylinders and stanford torus habitats in space?
>>16536155these will never exist outside of artists' conceptual drawings. right up there with dyson spheres in terms of midwit sci-fi fantasy.
Between 10-40 years depending on investments and how cheap access to GTO is.The issue is not technology but how money and labor are invested. Like maybe instead of throwing billions into middle east griftwars that money could be invested into space industry.
>>16536404>Between 100-400 years depending on investments and how cheap access to GTO is.ftfy
>>16536404>>16536535you are delusional.even if you had infinite money and supplies there is no material that could withstand the stresses and no way to assemble something of this size while also keeping all the mass evenly balanced.nevermind the fact that centrifugal force does not act like gravity other than in a very superficial and limited sense.
>>16536566What makes the centrifugal force different than gravity as far as the people are concerned? Like yeah, you couldn't play baseball, but most everyday life things are the same.
>>16536578>most everyday life things are the samelol what leads you to believe that? the way its portrayed in movies?
>>16536155When we embrace eugenics.
>>16536566If an object can withstand 1 g on earth, it can withstand 1 g rotation in space. Its also an issue of tensile strength rather than compressive strength, so no, it is not beyond materials science. Rockets already withstand much higher g loads than a rotating colony.The issue is cost of access to orbit. Once you get cost of access per kilogram to orbit low, getting heavy industry into space makes such things practical.
>>16536733are you pretending to be retarded?
>>16536816Im sorry but acceleration under motion is equivalent to gravitational acceleration according to newtonian and einsteinian mechanics.1g of force due to rotation is 1g of force due to gravity>durrr no material or structure can withstand 1g centripetal force!!!!How about 20gs? So no, I am obviously both more intelligent and knowledgeable than you.
>>16536830how many gigatons of mass at 1g, retard?
>>16536867Look into Von Brauns and Oneills calculations, this has already been solved by engineers.
>>16536867Also, graphene could handle...ridiculously heavy tensile structures.
>>16536881More conventionally, aramid, and you could have 1g acceleration on kilometers long dumbbell linked habs, thus coriolis effects would not be noticed.
>>16536155>Sciebtifically speaking, when if ever might me have o'neill cylinders and stanford torus habitats in space?Probably never? I don't see any situation where building a large space habitat would ever be more cost effective than simply building an encased dome habitat, or even a subterranean hollowed out environment, on a planet. Being in space is quite literally the most dangerous, least healthiest, place for human-type-organisms. I could definitely see us making larger, more comfortable, orbiting stations for research, dry-docks, fueling and service stations, and mostly automated resource extraction rigs for asteroids or gaseous planets, but never full-time-live-in-stations. I'd also extend this criticism to "Generation Ships". I don't think there's ever going to be any point where fabricating a large colony ship that's designed to slowly plod along for thousands of years until it eventually arrives in another system that *might* have a habitable world, will ever be a good idea/use of resources. Simply because the resources you'd use to make one could be used to terraform our own planet into a 'better' planet, or if we're threatened by a meteor - at such a cost we could literally fucking vaporize any planet killing stone. Furthermore, the thousands of years it'd take for the ship to reach its' destination would be more than enough time to develop some method to move faster than the speed of light.
>>16536566>no materialsteel>no way to assemble something of this sizeweldingnext?
>>16536830>how about 20git's not just the forces, it's the sizethe bigger it is, the harder it is to make it, but O'Neill's Island One is well within the limits for structural steel
>>16536907The issue with surface colonies are two-fold: First you are down a gravity well, so you have to waste huge amounts of energy getting stuff away from it and, if there's not much of an atmosphere, huge amounts of energy getting stuff there in the first place. Secondly, we still don't know the long-term effects of lower gravity on a person. If you're going to have to build giant spinning structures to provide 1G and keep everyone healthy, you might as well do it in space where it's less effort.
>>16536907I really like this picture but it raises a few questionsif this thing is rotating to create artificial gravity on the inside what happens if you stand on the outside surface? you fly away in outer space?also would the gravity be lower the closer you are to the rotation axis? wouldn't all the humidity gather there? could it rain inside that thing? could you jump and take off from one side and fly or swim through the middle to reach the other side?
>>16536155statistically, no
>>16536155way too fragile and too expensive to build in the first place. also how do you remove heat?
>>16536907how feasible would it be to use an hollowed out asteroid as an Aldrin cycler?
>>16537451first you'd need an asteroid on an Aldrin cycler orbiteasier to just launch your purpose built space hotel to the cycler orbit and/or assemble it in the orbit
>>16536566perfectly possible, not currently economical
>>16537441>how do you remove heat?Fins
>>16536907>least healthiest, place for human-type-organismseugenics via genetic engineering permitted by a free market solves this>large space habitat would ever be more cost effective than simply building an encased domePlanet>Space is cheaper than Planet>Space>PlanetFuture niches allowed by a free market market will exist there. In the same way not everyone lived in the town with the steel works, some stayed on farms - as the market dictated.>I'd also extend this criticism to "Generation Ships".I don't think there's ever going to be any pointVenture capitalists will be allowed to waste their money any way they choose in the future free market civilization that space faring man will become.>Simply because the resources you'd use to make one could be used to terraform our own planet into a 'better' planetBuilding a glorified ISS costs much less than transforming the moon. Time resource alone is much less.>threatened by a meteorCost a pittance to a future civilization economically suited to building decent sized o'neill cylinders. We could do that with todays technology.>more than enough time to develop some method to move faster than the speed of light.People still sail the ocean despite aircraft. Also assumes FTL is possible.You're thick. Watch more Isaac Arthur.
>>16537441>too expensiveInterstate highways are too expensive for an 1820's economy. Under a roughly free market (and without overly burdensome dysgenics), economic growth is 4%. I.e things get 4% cheaper a year. Wait a few centuries (barring upcoming dysgenic collapse) and our economy will (would) be big enough to afford such projects.
>>16538475>it's perfectly possible, this cgi image I made proves it
>>16538475we should build this over South America
>>16536155by definition, the first year of the Universal Century
>>16538791Based gundam connoisseur
>>16536155two weeks
>>16536155Once whites are gone, never.