Cylinders?

Terrorists can't take over your planet and drop it on another planet.

>You can only walk towards one direction
wat

Space Cylinders draw the attention of the Huun.

Well, there's a safety issue, but mainly it's because people are more familiar with alien planets than living in freefall all the time.

The safety issue is that when you fight over a planet, you and the enemy can do a LOT of fighting before the planet itself becomes irreparably damaged. Whereas a station is basically only a little less vulnerable than a space ship. Maybe moreso as it can't dodge. Especially a big risky world like where one big hull breach and the whole thing is ruined.

This is a misreading. The Coriolis effect is unnoticeable on large space stations when you're operating at a human scale. On a small to midsized ship, sure, moving up/down, pouring drinks, and walking spinward/anti-spinward give you weird effects. On a very large O'Neill cylinder, you'd need to be going very fast or very far to even realize that you're in spin gravity.

Also, lern2Einstein. In a very large centrifuge, your biology has no idea that it's accelerating due to centripetal force rather than gravity.

what is centrifugal force ?
What is large enough there is no noticeable change in gravity in 1 or 2 story high buildings

If ya really need space to live they are fine, but nothing beats a planet. If we look at the situation with space colonies in Gundam they are very fragile to the level of tech they have. Especually since nuclear reactors are everywhere. Remember that it was an actual pain for Zeon to save an intact colony for operation british. They could have just poked a few holes.

Because it is not real gravity. Your body was made for that stuff, not for centrifugal force pretending to be gravity. Spending too much with the latter will do interesting things to your body and mind.

Space stations of that size are surprisingly resilient to damage.

Have their been extended centrifuge trials with humans?

Because planets don't suffer hull breaches or fly apart if you blow an airlock. They're also more protected against space weather.

Mine asteroids and small moons. You need an initial starter of worms, fertile soil, and shit, but then you can basically make your own soil from that and rock dust.
Once your first few habitats are up and running, you can use them to create resources for new habitats; use as a base for asteroid mining, fill them with animals to create soil, etc.

>Why does spin gravity fuck you up?
Fucks up the inner ear when your feet are going faster than your head, and the gradient of apparent gravity over the same.
Make the cycle slow enough (using a big enough habitat so you still get 1G) and the issues vanish.

We evolved on a spinning rock. Is that extended enough for you?

>Because it is not real gravity. Your body was made for that stuff, not for centrifugal force pretending to be gravity. Spending too much with the latter will do interesting things to your body and mind.
>We evolved on a spinning rock. Is that extended enough for you?
Earth's spin isn't keeping us stuck to the inner surface of the planet.
I'm interested in what (negative) long term effects using centrifugal force pretending to be gravity has on the human body, and what trials have been conducted to come to this conclusion.

>Make the cycle slow enough (using a big enough habitat so you still get 1G) and the issues vanish.
I was sort of hoping that would be the case.

>Because planets don't suffer hull breaches or fly apart if you blow an airlock.
Make a compartmentalized outer hull

But you have to build cylinders even on the surface of planets...No planet has the same gravity as Earth.

O'Neill cylindersa are so big that yoj wont notice a leak for thousands of years.

Venus kinda does.

this is a perfect answer actually

anyone who studies interstellar colonization knows that planets are pointless.Just build habitats.

Silly user, gravity is a ficticious force.

Yes, but it fucking rains sulphuric acid at absurd atmospheric pressures.

Unless it's a big leak, caused by terrorists.

Anyone supporting planets is ignorant.
Any planet is hostile to human life and would require extensive terraforming to be liveable.
Planets with biosphere are too difficult to terraform and too valuable to destroy their biospheres.

Space Habitats offer the best solution and controllable weather.

Also a lot of living space-a Bishop Ring can have as much living space as Argentine or India.

Nobody want to live in a 1984-tier society.
To support a habitat like you would the entire population solely focused on keeping this thing working.

Not even speaking about the costs. It's simply madness to build this thing

Either you've never READ 1984, or you don't know how big O'Neill cylinders are meant to be.

I think it's both.

In reality? Absolutely. Space Cylinders in a dyson swarm/cloud around the sun will be where humanity lives and it will be glorious.

In science fiction/space fantasy? Planets are fucking awesome and add a feeling of exploration and fun, and it gives FTL species something to travel between and fight over. Keep them in.

Venus having a shitty atmosphere is not as big of a problem as one would think. Because of pic related. It is also the easiest inconvenience to get rid of.

Explain what you mean or shut up

1984 is about a society with three states locked in constant 'what the government says is the truth' with constant surveillance and constantly being told what to think.
An O'Neill cylinder is HUGE. As in, a radius of over a kilometre.

You would not need an oppressive 'do what I say or be brainwashed into doing what I say' society when there's enough room for everyone.

Go read the fucking book, dipshit. It's not very long.

Not with that attitude, at least!

Earth, where 1984 supposedly was set, is even huger and is many kilometers.

Is that your rebuttal? Evidently you haven't read the book and just relied on what you've been told about it.

Sorry.
I'm and that was my first post in this thread. I have only seen the movie. But what you said is that if there is enough room for everyone, totalitarian state is not needed.
And then you appeared to say that a kilometer radius meant space enough for everyone.

I just thought that all that was very weird and a totally disjoint argument.

An O'Neill cylinder would be 8 kilometers wide and 32 kilometers long. That's plenty of space, and the possibility of high population density is offset by the fact that everybody living in space would have to be trained technical experts by necessity (so the number of immigrants from Earth would be severely cut down) and that, since it's a can of air floating in space, you can't really "cross borders" or get illegal immigrants. Anybody coming on board would have to be vetted and approved by the colony administration.

Of course you can have a powerful government if you want, but they'd be less oppressive towards everybody and more concerned with trying to keep the station stable.

>An O'Neill cylinder is HUGE. As in, a radius of over a kilometre.
And you can build bigger habitats.
Like Bishop Rings and this could have a living area as large as India, and a (rather crowded)population of one billion.

Thanks to graphene, we can make bigger cylinders! Meet the McKendree cylinder: an habitat with the same area as Russian.

>And you can build bigger habitats.
Yes, but ring-shaped habitats are really just a slice of a cylinder, aren't they?
If you can build a ring, you can make it longer and cap the ends.

Over a kilometre in radius. As in, it would be OVER two kiometres across.

Additionally, you'd have robots assigned to the repair crew as well as having a fully covered roster as priority #1.
In a space station, the government's job is to hold the colony together. Literally, their job is to make sure everyone survives the day without explosive decompression or lethal doses of radiation.
Keeping people happy and not angry at the government would be part of that.
Additionally, anyone whining about the 'human rights' of the guy who tried to blow everyone into space can follow him out the airlock.

Yes, everyone would likely need to be trackable at any time, but that happens nowadays through the magic of your mobile phone; the network needs to know where your phone is at any time in order to route calls. That's more accurate than GPS, and is the #1 method of confirming a terrorist's location prior to a drone strike.
Personal freedoms would be easier on a space station; so long as you're contributing to society, it doesn't really matter what you do as long as the right stuff is done.
Additionally, you could levy taxes like ancient egypt; work for the state to pay for public services such as air, food, water, radiation shielding, and so forth.
Unemployment would be low. Probably pretty much zero; anyone out of work could be assigned a job by the government where an extra hand is needed; there is always more cleaning up of dust to be done. Anyone REFUSING to work (and pay for their air) could be thrown out the airlock. Or simply thrown into a mulcher and contribute to society as fertiliser.
Short-staffed? Simply import more people from your nearest overpopulated planet. Overstaffed? Find another habitat that needs people and will take some of yours.

Sounds to me like it would be 24x32 kilometers. Not that much. Is the habitat supposed to be permanent or is it a 200 year thing?

What would wars look like between cylinders? Do you aboard them?

It'd have about 1295 square kilometers of living space, more than the total land area of New York City. If you want more living space, just build another colony (Cole bubble, torus, whatever) and offload the population there.

You'd probably fight the wars in far-off places. Actually blowing holes in the cylinders would kill millions. That's a PR nightmare unless you somehow managed to black out all communications, or its Solar War 1 and they're just collateral damage.

Well, you are likely to have a ton of weapons around the O'neill cylinder to shot at asteroids and anyone looking mean at you. Actually, the whole O'neill cylinder could be the warship.

>the whole O'neill cylinder could be the warship.
>a setting where you steer an entire goddamn armed and armored country through the stars, to conquer anything from space stations to solar systems

F U N D I T

>other solar systems
without FTL that is going to be a long trip

A much more significant inconvenience is that there's just nothing on Venus worth to live there. Trying to mine the surface from above is insanely complicated, and without that all you have for resources is CO2 and H2SO4.

Who cares, you have a big country to roam around and have fun, while you teach the next generation(s) to prepare for war.
Or just wait it out in the freezer, whatever fancies your interstellar war boner. I'd guess once your tech allows you to build SPACE BATTLECONTINENTS, you'd also have decent cryostasis and travel to appreciable fractions of c.
Also, extremely interesting weaponry.

This setting idea is tingling me, can we make this a thing?

Leave most of your population in the system. Depart with a skeleton crew made of military couples. When they arrive to the star system, they will have breed an army for the next conquest.

> more than the total land area of New York City.
Sounds tiny if you have to grow food for all the 10 million people you'd have in there after a few hundred years. Now of course that won't happen because there are stringent population controls in place. I think?

Imagine if the cylinder from Rendezvous with Rama was hostile.

Sorry if that is a spoiler but that book was published 44 years ago.

This is even better when you consider that these interstellar ships will be armed to the teeth with powerful lasers, infrared radars, and supercomputers to vaporize dangerous space dust and tough as diamond frontal armor for what they can't atomize. Not to mention, travelling at significant fraction of C makes even the trash you throw out of the airlok bad news for enemy planets.

Hydroponics can feed 13,300 people per square kilometer. New York's population density is 10,654 people per square km. So you'll have roughly half of the total area alloted to food production (if you're willing to go vegan)

>travel to appreciable fractions of c
At that point, it'd be a strange nomad setting where RKKV warfare has rendered detectable celestial bodies too dangerous to live on, so everybody's on a fortress-seed-ship roaming around in the infinite void extracting resources as they go.

>Of course you can have a powerful government if you want, but they'd be less oppressive towards everybody and more concerned with trying to keep the station stable
You're even dumber than I thought.
The reason everyone needs to do a certain job is why I said it was similar to 84. You can't choose to do another thing, you can't just abandon it and start your own deal. It needs a totalitarian state to sustain it, or else people would get angry about living and dying doing a shit job.
Brainwashing would be vital for such society

I think there's still way to defend yourself against RKKV. While fast, they don't travel at C. An early warning system around the local Oort cloud should give plenty of warning to the habitats in the solar core.

Still, that gives you options if you don't like your neighbours. You don't like the rule of the Solarian League? You can strap thrusters to your cylinder and leave the system.

>Unless it's a big leak, caused by terrorists.

It is a hermetically sealed cylinder millions of kilometers from anything with much more advanced tracking and surveillance and these terrorists would need to blow a big fucking hole in it. I am doubtful that sort of attack would be a problem.

Go take your fantasy elsewhere. With a population of millions, there will always be enough volunteers to do anything.

>or else people would get angry about living and dying doing a shit job
Do you not KNOW how most of the world lives? You go out and you do X for 8-10 hours a day because you need to earn the money to eat/breathe/not die.

You have to be 18 to post here.

Go on...

>Economies with complex needs work best under strong, authoitarian governments.

I take it you aren't familiar with the 20th century

>Interstellar space degenerates into a bunch of nomadic warrior hordes preying on rogue planets and the outskirts of the solar system always threatening to launch themselves as barbarian tides against the core habitats like wolves against the sheep at relativistic speeds.

You're going to have a very unhealthy population

the real question when it comes to space war is why attack anyone? any resources on a planet can also be found in space. especially if FTL is available. if someone tells you to pay space taxes you can just fuck off to another solar system. you are a self contained country so you don't need land. the only reason I can think of to attack a planet is if you had a religion that said so. just be careful. you never know when some dirtsiders will disguise a nuclear pulse drive powered warship as a hospital. see the novel: Footfall written by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle

Are there any women (or men) to get as war trophies on desolate planets?

At this level of technology you probably could just build yourself a custom waifu.

>Go take your fantasy elsewhere. With a population of millions, there will always be enough volunteers to do anything.
It's not enough. You'll need qualified workers.
>Do you not KNOW how most of the world lives? You go out and you do X for 8-10 hours a day because you need to earn the money to eat/breathe/not die.
And you can choose other job if you want. Yeah, most of the third world is like what you've said, but they're also infested with crime.
It's hardly a economy. It would be a socialist state who regulate every aspect of your life.

okay, yeah. biological 'specimens' would be a resource unique to terrestrial planets. I feel like cloning and genetic engineering would make that redundant though.

>the real question when it comes to space war is why attack anyone?
Fuck them that's why
>any resources on a planet can also be found in space.
Not all of them. Cozy lebensraum, sex slaves...
>especially if FTL is available.
If.
>if someone tells you to pay space taxes you can just fuck off to another solar system.
Or blast the bastards. Interstellar travel is boring, blowing shit up is not.
>you don't need land.
ALWAYS NEED MORE CLAY
>the only reason I can think of to attack a planet is if you had a religion that said so.
Your imagination is limited.
>you never know when some dirtsiders will disguise a nuclear pulse drive powered warship as a hospital.
That's why you keep point defense systems on constant high alert. Every suspicious ship is either getting boarded, or blasted.

Cloning would make our species stagnant.

Resources are going to be very expensive to extract.
War could be cheap if you found a poor defended ship.

You can combine hydroponics with fish farming, but I couldn't find info on how this changes the area requirements. So let's suppose we use some of the hydroponics to feed chicken. Broiler chicken can have feed conversion ratio of 1.6, meaning a kilogram of chicken meat requires 1.6 kg of feed. Suppose meat makes for a third of the diet. Then the required amount of hydroponical produce per person is multiplied by 1.2 to result in 11,083 people fed per square km - still roughly half of the total area.

Pay your taxes or you wont be allowed prime stae orbit anymore, protection, scientific and economic data, and enterntaintment anymore!

There is literally no evidence that spin gravity would be any different from normal gravity for biological purposes. Hell people live in zero g for long periods of time today, you just need a strict exercise schedule so you won't atrophy. Spin gravity itself wouldn't do anything to your mind that living in space wouldn't already do, there's no reason you would go crazy or anything.

Space habitats are the actual future of mankind, we'll probably make thousands of space habitats before we colonize a single planet.

1984, the novel, is not a true history of the world. Far from it in fact.

>It's not enough. You'll need qualified workers.
Yes, which is why you start off by hiring workers from outside, and then train new ones. In schools.

And it won't BE the third world, because there will be plentiful resources.

>And it won't BE the third world, because there will be plentiful resources.
In space? Probably only the basic to survive
>Space habitats are the actual future of mankind, we'll probably make thousands of space habitats before we colonize a single planet.
Actualy we don't really have any reason to build it. It's better to just stay on earth.
We'll probably run out of resources before we manage to build such thing

I feel like planet would be either too hard of a target (they could build a linear particle accelerator on the moon and snipe anything that enters the inner solar system) or if you conquered a low tech planet now _you_ are a target for other cylinders and RKKVs if they exist.

although if a planet was not a threat you could show up and demand tribute or bomb them

The reason to build them is energy consumption. Eventually you will just run out of ways to make energy on Earth, even if you have fusion you will want access to exotic isotopes of hydrogen which aren't readily available. If you assume that people will expand their numbers and seek to improve their lives as long as it is cost effective to do so, space eventually becomes the only option. It's like saying people will never colonize the New World because there is plenty of land in the Old World. We are living in the 20 or so years after Columbus landed, when everyone knew that new land existed but nobody had the balls to go and take it yet.

>In space? Probably only the basic to survive

Space has fucktons of energy and raw materials. You throw up some solar panels and you can power a station for billions of years. You mine one asteroid you have all of the water and oxygen you need for millennia. The only thing stopping us at this very moment is our gravity well, and even that is becoming less of a problem every day. Space travel is becoming cheaper and cheaper as we learn more about how to do it right.

Humans won't ever have lack of reasons to kill each other.

I for one am all for building giant livable cylinders in space, if only to get away from those earth living feddie bastards.

Long live side 3! Sieg Zeon!

>he doesn't know

>Space has fucktons of energy and raw materials
It has the rawest of materials. You'll need to send up an entire infrastructure in order to do anything.
I do agree with all your other points, though.

A habitable planet is a habitat that houses billions and it's mostly built for you already. A similar number/size O'Neill cylinders (or whatever flavor of spacehab you prefer) would certainly be a huge investment.

I don't know if planets would necessarily be preferred, but I think it can be justified either way.

>You throw up some solar panels and you can power a station for billions of years.
Unless you want to travel to another star

Every time I see the OP image all I can think of is the anal prolapse quest.

Only Earth is habitable for humans, all others would need hundreds of years of terraforming.
Also habitats would be way comfier.

You wouldn't even need WMDs to destroy an entire space colony. One puncture and all the Oxygen is gone.

you shouldn't believe everything you see in movies/tv

On an O'Neill Cylinder a puncture the size of a car into one of the glass walls would see decompression take weeks because of the sheer size of the colony.

*evacuates everyone into adjacent modules*