Even if you put the panels on the rotating structure itself (ie. the whole station was rotating) and you didn't put the panels on a dedicated module, it should also be possible to point the axis of rotation towards the sun at all times. Remember, you're in space.

Considering your design this could be done, having two crescent shapes at the ends and panels in the X and Z axis.

Yes, but what are you assuming those rates are? I'm asking for numbers here. I don't think we can meaningfully discuss details beyond proposing ideas without numbers.

For numbers lets use ISS, it's 109m so 2 stations would be enough for gravity, lets say you could make each 100m*100m a living space for 100 people. That would be a space station 1000 times of ISS, we are not including farms and such as we assume optimization.

For power we say each person uses 2350 kWh each year. Now I need to do some math.

2350/ 365 = 6.4(round to 6) a 1m*1m panel produces about assuming 2000 kwh(%200 peak at all times) that is about 3m*3m for every person and 300 000m * 300 000m for only the people on the ship. Comparing against the ISS you will see it generates 120 kwh at peak so about power for 20 people.

Human lives are not cheap. I'm frankly shocked that you would claim that human lives are less valuable than robot lives.

industrially human lives are cheap on a industrial scale only. :(

Technically, I have no doubt that such a project would be feasible with enough investment in R&D.

20 years ago, having a device that could access the internet in your pocket wasn't possible.

50 years ago, putting a man on the moon wasn't possible.

70 years ago, supersonic flight wasn't possible.

Just over 100 years ago, heavier than air flight wasn't possible.

All these things weren't possible.... right up until we actually did them.

This isn't creating FTL. Sure, there are problems to solve, but there are real engineering solutions; we don't need to figure out a way to violate any fundamental physical laws.

I would fund the sattelite project. I really wanna see north pole, if there is a huge opening to hollow earth, becouse it is simply unavailable to dig north pole pics anywhere.

I am crazy right, but a theory that earth is an excentric torus not an enclosed sphere is quite viable.

They aren't sending everyone who signs up to space, but there is little that is really stopping the creation of an orbiting city-state in the next 30-50 years. It won't be huge in any hurry, but it is the kind of project that people here on earth could work together to bring to life.

The biggest factor holding grand projects of humanity like this back are people saying "There is no way such a thing could be done, you shouldn't even try". And of course if no effort is ever made to do something like this then of course it isn't happening. But bringing a large chuck of humanity together and asking "How can we do this" is kind of a good place to start.

And who knows what developments might come of it. Zero-G fabrication of any number of things could become a huge economic drive to support the early years of a project like this, and profits could be funnelled into tech and infrastructure to make things better and easier to build. (astroid redirect and capture anyone? Careful planning and aerobraking could put a steady supply of raw materials close at hand for an orbital society. Not EVERYTHING they need has to come up from the surface. There are many times over the usable mass of earth out there in orbit after all.)

So basically they are hoping to have a real-life Gundam scenario within the next 50 years? To have a nation in orbit around the Earth is not going to go well with Earth-bound (hee-hee) nations. Also, to have it independent of Earth is definitely not going to be ratified by the UN or any other nation for that matter. As other people mentioned, so many or much resources would have to be transported there. This new Orbital Nation would have to have great value and significance to be able to leverage any sort of sustainable trade or independence.

I doubt Asgardia in its current vision will ever happen in the next 100 years. But I hope to be wrong in the best of ways.

NOTE: To future residents of Asgardia. Please don't drop any colonies or part of your colonies unto Earth. KThxBye.

They aren't sending everyone who signs up to space, but there is little that is really stopping the creation of an orbiting city-state in the next 30-50 years.

That's an intereting point. With that in mind, why would anyone want to fund the project?

In 30 years, I will be an old man in "astronaut terms". How many astronauts over 50 (well, significantly over 50... there's two or three at 51 and 52 right now) are there? Not many. How many over 60?

In 50 years, you will be 70 even if you are only 20 years old now. Realistically, you would be more like 80-95 (a 20 year old will likely not have enough money for a funding that has a chance of being considered for a "ticket"). How many 80+ year old astronauts are there?

In 30 years, I will be an old man in "astronaut terms". How many astronauts over 50 (well, significantly over 50... there's two or three at 51 and 52 right now) are there? Not many. How many over 60?

In 50 years, you will be 70 even if you are only 20 years old now. Realistically, you would be more like 80-95 (a 20 year old will likely not have enough money for a funding that has a chance of being considered for a "ticket"). How many 80+ year old astronauts are there?

This is an interesting point indeed. Perhaps people would fund such a project with aspirations to their children or even grandchildren having a shot at being residents on such a station if they chose to...

Perhaps people would fund such a project with aspirations to their children or even grandchildren having a shot at being residents on such a station if they chose to...

People do that with building cooperatives, admittedly.

The difference being that a building cooperative has a 2-3 year timeframe of realization rather than 50 years with a practical 100% rate of success, a 100% chance of securing at least 85% of the assets, and practically guaranteeing a very-low-rent home for life, and a 99% chance of acutally yielding interest in addition. My grandmother lives in such an apartment, for which she invested a couple of thousands in a building cooperative 60 years ago. Large, modern apartment downtown Munich, and 650€ per month rent, auxilliary cost included, and she gets interest back from the cooperative's gains (being a non-profit organization, they cash out the gains which are in the upper two-digit million range per year among the shareholders). Which is a ridiculously good deal, even more so as the shares are inheritable. It would still be a good deal even if the rent was 500€ higher and auxilliary cost excluded.

Something like a space station has a chance of success of... I don't know? 5% of being realized? Remember that organizations with an industry nation's budget and military background had catastrophic failures, let alone some amateurs who "have a dream". If NASA with their 10,000 man-years of experience and near-infinite money cannot achieve a 100% success rate, what should make me believe some privateer can?

What happens if/when a rocket explodes? What if some debris hits the station, what if for some reason the stabilisators fail and it goes out-of-orbit and gets atomized entering the atmosphere? Suffices that the next Stuxnet or similar incidentially disables the station's navigational computer, and off you go. Suffices that one drunk idiot opens the wrong airlock at the wrong time, killing the maintenance crew, whatever. There's a difference between maintaining a house on safe ground, and maintaining a space station.

Sure, a house can burn down or be struck by lightning, too. But this is 100% covered by an insurance (indeed, a fire is the best thing that can happen to you). I'm assuming you cannot afford the insurance for rocket explosions and space station "things", if any insurance company will do it at all.

I'm 30. One of my side projects in life currently is looking around for a suitable wood lot to begin a hardwood timber plantation to produce heavy timbers that currently are extremely rare and very hard to get for woodworkers. If I plant 2000-4000 trees of mixed hardwood in the next 5 years, then most of them will be ready for harvest and use at their intended size sometime around when I would be turning 200, if not 300... In my life time the only usable wood I'll see from the project will be trimmings and thinning cuts that most likely would only be suitable for firewood. It will cost me thousands of dollars, and many weekends of my lifetime to buy, prep, and manage the property, and there is no way I'm seeing a beautiful 16 inch wide oak plank out of it, but if I don't make an effort to ensure a plot of land is managed for production of beautiful North American hardwood in my region, then who exactly is going to? The Irving Family (Largest lumber producer in the region) sure doesn't seem interested in producing hardwood, as they are too busy planting fast growing softwoods that will be market usable for 2x4 stud frame in the next 30-50 years, if that.

The world doesn't end when we die. Many of us on this planet feel that it would be a lot better of a place in general if more of us remembered this fact.

@[member='Luckless'], building a legacy (family) business, are we?