Super-habitats

--- In spacesettlers, Darren wrote:

> Xenophile,
>
> Yes, and I think that we have a better chance of realising nano-tech
> in the short term by starting with something that is in one sense
> already nano-tech.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if you're right about that. Not only
that, but the guys working on "dry nanotech" could probably gain clues
from the guys working on "wet nanotech" (and perhaps vise versa).

A similar case would be: I'd always felt that, if fully reusable SSTO
is too tall an order right now, we should create a fully reusable TSTO
and use what we learn from that to evolve our way to the fully
reusable SSTO of our dreams. In the meantime, we get some benifits
from the TSTO.

Somebody here (I wish I could remember who, so I could credit him/her)
suggested that, if fully reusable SSTO is too tall an order right now,
we should create an EXPENDABLE SSTO and use what we learn from that to
evolve our way to the fully reusable SSTO of our dreams. I read that
and thought that it was a very good idea.

In fact I think we should do both. The fully reusable TSTO will be
beter for some things, and the expendable SSTO will be better for
others. And by approaching the goal from both sides, chances are that
we will get there sooner, even if one of us is terrible wrong about
which is the best way to go.

But even more than that, as each side is *almost there* (the SSTO is
now returning, and over half of the parts are used again; the booster
stage on the TSTO is almost able to make orbit), the two can start
borrowing from each other, and give us our fully reusable SSTO a lot
sooner than either approach alone would have done.

So yes, let's do both "wet" and "dry" nanotech. Perhaps the future
will see both used, just for different things. And even if one or the
other eventually takes over, it'll happen faster, I doubt not, because
of things learned from the other.