Economic diversity vs. SBSP (was SBSP-logic is based on a no-growth-

> The solution I have come to, lately, for a successful
> orbiting colony is a large, high-population,
> economically-diverse one -- e.g. a major city. The
> density would be high, and therefore the
> heat-rejection needs would be high.
[...]
> Besides better-catering to thermal-power-rejection
> needs, a geostationary orbit would require less power
> for orbit maintenance, could come in handy for Earth
> communications services (since geostationary
> satellites seem to already be popular), would provide
> more-consistent service for teleworkers and
> tele-service-providers (up-link as well as
> down-link), would be closer to mineral resources
> mined from Luna and asteroids, and would be above the
> ever-growing swarm of LEO non-standard-orbit space
> junk. Three such geostationary cities, 120 degrees
> apart, could cover the globe with data services, and
> also patch through communications from each other.

> This was no proposal to build an entire city simply
> in order to provide communications services. The
> cities are proposed to be economically diverse, with
> some millions of residents exploiting some tens of
> thousands of economic niches.

> The first stage, as I opined before, would involve
> the development of ultra-dense, high-capacity,
> high-social-efficiency single-shell Terran cities. At
> the least, these would serve as proof-of-concept for
> orbital cities of the same nature. However, the
> profit derived from these new, outcompeting, Terran
> cities might also be able to serve as part of the
> investment capital needed for orbital cities.
[...]
> Here are my development stages, again:
>
> 1. Dense Terran single-shell cities
> 2. Simulated-isolation of single-shell cities
> 3. Mass-launch of burned-in hardware and populations

> Why is hitssquad making so many hostile comments among a
> small group of people who happen to be interested in the
> subject?

To what "hostile comments" are you referring?

> Just how is ssi_list hurting anyone?

Some messages that have been posted on ssi_list might be hurting
space-settlement potential by over-selling the market-potential for
Space-Based Solar Power. As Mike Combs said in ssi_list #7868:

> if somebody could successfully establish that the cost
> of nuclear energy could be made to decline markedly,
> it might well be the death knell for SBSP, which might
> consequently mean that we space settlement advocates
> would have to scramble to devise a new business plan.

I have proposed a new space-settlement business plan, Charles. If you
find it faulty, please point out the faults. If you find it lacking
in detail or clarity, please direct inquiries or requests regarding
such toward me.