Suspension of Disbelief.

Theemile wrote:
Or so a lot of us argued in the past. Yet David said no, there isn't that level of industry out there to contribute significantly.
...

And again, basic support industry does not make "significant contributions" to rebuilding major "estates" from scratch.

The belt industry would probably be quite good in furbishing(and maintaining) any new stations etc., but that´s not the same as being useful for BUILDING them.


As i´m reading it, the only way for the belt industry to "contribute significantly" would be to start doing the whole "build the tools to build the tools..." thing, and if what they have at best that can do that are some minor workshops? It would take years before they COULD add to reconstruction, and that would be at the price of reducing maintenance for the belt population.

kzt wrote:Space habitats are expensive. At least 10 times more costly to build on a per person basis than a house on a habitable planet. Probably much more than that. Remember how It was mentioned about how expensive grav plates are for a house? Well every residence in space needs them and that is not the most expensive part.
...

Actually no. Space has the advantage of not being burdened by gravity at all. Any large enough habitat COULD easily be built to provide gravity by centrifugal force.

Tenshinai wrote:Actually no. Space has the advantage of not being burdened by gravity at all. Any large enough habitat COULD easily be built to provide gravity by centrifugal force.

Nothing could possibly go wrong with a structure under that much stress and with that amount of momentum. Nothing.

kzt wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:Actually no. Space has the advantage of not being burdened by gravity at all. Any large enough habitat COULD easily be built to provide gravity by centrifugal force.

Nothing could possibly go wrong with a structure under that much stress and with that amount of momentum. Nothing.

Unless you are building 100-300++ stories tall, buildings don't have a problem with gravity.

Balance, station keeping, and oh, the basics: DOCKING with a spinning object.

kzt wrote:If your house on a planet includes grav plates, a self-contained air recycling system, a waste recyling and reclamation system, radiation shielding, exterior walls that are pressure bulkheads, gas based fire suppression systems, 3 layers of backup power, and skinsuits for everyone (including the growing kids) than maybe it isn't that much more expensive.

But I don't tend to see that in the text.

To be fair most of the civilian, and all the kids, probably have some one-size-fits-all emergency suits (like the backup emergency ones warships carry if someone can't get to their skinsuit) or possibly the fits a range of sizes ones like passenger liners carry.
That's still equipment that planet based housing doesn't require; but people who aren't part of damage control, aren't military, or don't routinely do vacuum work probably don't have the expensive custom-fitted skinsuits.

kzt wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:Actually no. Space has the advantage of not being burdened by gravity at all. Any large enough habitat COULD easily be built to provide gravity by centrifugal force.

Nothing could possibly go wrong with a structure under that much stress and with that amount of momentum. Nothing.

Ehm, seriously, you´re aware that we can easily build that kind of habitat NOW?
And have been able for decades. SAFE.

We just don´t have the cheap access to space for anyone to want to pay for it.

The stress is less than on that of a large skyscraper, and the momentum is effectively irrelevant, not to mention drastically easier to deal with than it is to secure skyscrapers against earthquakes.

And that´s before even thinking about having lower than 1g effective gravity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity
Extra strength is needed in the structure to keep it from flying apart due to the rotation. However, the amount of structure needed over and above that to hold a breathable atmosphere (10 tons force per square meter at 1 atmosphere) is relatively modest for most structures.

To reduce precession forces to livable levels, a rate of spin of 2 rpm or less would be needed. To produce 1g, the radius of rotation would have to be 224 m (735 ft) or greater

kzt wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:Actually no. Space has the advantage of not being burdened by gravity at all. Any large enough habitat COULD easily be built to provide gravity by centrifugal force.

Nothing could possibly go wrong with a structure under that much stress and with that amount of momentum. Nothing.

Ahem, Graysons have already been doing that for decades, pre-Alliance. Their farms, that so marveled Honor before she pulled out to do the convoy. And I believe they only continued to build more and more orbital farms, until her SkyDomes company really took off, and all of them used rotation.

Admittedly, it was only enough to provide 0.5 gravity, and was more to allow crops to get one full day of sun every cycle, but that's still spinning.

Even 0.5g from centrifugal force is better than the 0g we have on the ISS now and can't be that complex to dock with, considering even on simply reaction thrusters, most shuttles can push upto 50 gravs of acceleration.

Tenshinai wrote:
Ehm, seriously, you´re aware that we can easily build that kind of habitat NOW?
SNIP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity
[i]Extra strength is needed in the structure to keep it from flying apart due to the rotation. However, the amount of structure needed overSNIP

The problem is not the stress. It is the fact that people like to live how they live and because of this, the station is not balanced dynamically. Parts will mass more than others. Unless you constantly impose draconian measures on movement etc.

This will cause the station to always tumble requiring a lot of station keeping drives. True, there will be station keeping drives on a "stationary" station as well, but it will not have the problem of a spinning mass to overcome. Serious problems for docking. Yea yea, the ol, dock at the axis and float through a supposedly rotating seal. Of course such a system sucks wind for transporting cargo.

Really depends on how much $$$ energy costs.

Relax wrote:This will cause the station to always tumble requiring a lot of station keeping drives. True, there will be station keeping drives on a "stationary" station as well, but it will not have the problem of a spinning mass to overcome.

Any imbalances due to people moving around can be countered by moving other masses around. The Honorverse has absurdly good sensors, and even their computer-control ought to be able to compensate properly. I'd use water tanks (other liquids are available) and pumps. Maybe tractor/pressor-propelled sliding masses for when you need things moved fast.

Relax wrote:Serious problems for docking. Yea yea, the ol, dock at the axis and float through a supposedly rotating seal. Of course such a system sucks wind for transporting cargo.

You don't need a rotating seal, you just spin the ship so that it's stationary in the reference frame of the station.
Easiest if it's on the axis, but it doesn't have to be - you can lower a relatively small mass on a cable (or tractor, assuming forces through those behave sanely) a long way off the opposite side, and it'll balance.

Personally, I think some of you guys are being deliberately obtuse.

If you're going to source the overwhelming majority of your required metal ores from an asteroid belt, for a highly industrialized system such as Manticore, it makes perfect sense that a huge population will make their homes in said asteroid belt.

Firstly, because said asteroid belt is not just a hop away from the closest habitable planet, but literally millions of kilometers. Even with impeller drives, there is no way that the huge numbers of people directly involved in the actual mining process will be able to commute between their place of work and the nearest habitable planet, even if only on a weekly or monthly basis.

Secondly, extensive on-site habitation means that the miners would most likely want their families to live with them, not being separated from them for months at a time.

Thirdly, that means a huge support industry. Schools, clinics, LEO facilities, emergency services, entertainment facilities, shops and other businesses, you name it. These habitats will not be simple mining camps, but actual cities and towns.

Fourthly, nowhere do I remember seeing textev re the size of the belt habitats. Each habitat could, for all we know, house millions of people.

Fifthly, to reiterate, the habitats are not simply mining camps. We need to stop looking at them through a 21st century lens. Manticore is an advanced, highly developed society, with a very high standard of living and a level of technological development that is appropriate for a spacefaring civilization. It is not bound by the rules of a planet bound society.