When I was 9, I was given a big, heavy, hard-cover book called The Usborne Book of the Future. I pored over that thing. Every page, every drawing, every implication of materials use, how propulsion might work, how people would live. And when we would get jetpacks. That was 1979.
Lucky. I had the Usborne Cities of the Future. If I recall, they were first published separately covering different topics, like the one I had, and your book was all of the editions put together. I would've loved to have that one.
I used to collect Popular Science as a kid. Every one of them was magical back then, they all felt different, probably because I was autistic. Still am, but not nearly as much, and the wonder and hope are gone out of everything. Futurism was better than a drug. Every image, every idea, I felt them all. Even the scent of the magazines and books. It was bliss.
The artwork of Don Davis essentially defined for me as a child what “The Future” would be like. I once posted his interior Stanford Torus picture on a Facebook chat as a response to something that someone said about space colonies, saying that I still liked the aesthetic of the design even though it was from the 1970s, only to find that I had just replied to Don himself with his own picture! That was a great moment.
The boomers are indeed to blame for many problems but it's so so easy to forget about how new and old generations contribute to the decaying of our world. Mark Zuckerberg wasn't a boomer, he was a Gen X and yet many things Facebook did are responsible for our current dystopian internet.
Not so. The Boomer generation _started_ in 1945. The very first of them would have turned 25 in 1970 and 30 in 1975. Boomers would have been the artists and engineers who picked up the torch from the older ones and tried to run with it. It was Greatest Generation (1901 to 1927) and Silent Generation (1928 to 1945) politicians like Senator William Proxmire and his Golden Fleece Awards for space exploration and supersonic transport projects that killed the space program and other pioneering high technology efforts and instead either axed such programs or only funded the ones with military applications (like the Space Shuttle Program as delivered).
long robotic arms made jetpacks in space obsolete. main problem with jetpacks in space is all the exhaust sticking to things, kicking things around, its like the tiniest micro-metheorites.
As a kid, I loved 2001 A Space Odyssey, Logan's Run, Space 1999, and anything that had that futuristic look. Jacque Fresco did amazing work on The Venus Project.
This is the decade I (mostly) grew up in and this is the stuff that got me interested in futuristic things. My interest in this was initiated in the 5th grade when my teacher taught us about planned cities. I also liked watching Star Trek re-runs. If anybody remembers it, in the late 70's and early 80's I used to buy Future Life magazine at a local store. I saved 4 of them and still have them. They're in mint condition. They are Sept and Dec 1979 and March and May 1980. They have some of the same illustrations shown in this video.
As for the technology, most of it seems practical and liveable, just like that seen in Minority Report. All too often people go wild with circus like cities that people would never want to live in, but the ones on the pics appear to be sensible enough to one day be built. However, I say "one day", because whilst we've got sociopathic kleptocrats in charge, ones who see more profit in war rather than the advancement of humanity, then these things will take at least 100 years before they're built.
Thank you for sharing these marvelous illustrations from the 1970's. I came of age in that era and was keenly interested in science fiction, but have never seen these before.
5:16 The suspension bridge is straight and level. 5:25 In a dramatic documentary, a neutron star will pass through the solar system in 70 years and everyone will agree to build one to escape. 5:37 The plane has vertical takeoff and landing. 7:02 Plenty of space between buildings to make it bright and windy.
The metal chevrons being installed are not solar shades but radiation shields, they are mirrored so light still bounces through the nested chevrons but radiation such as gamma waves would have to pass straight through the shielding material, basically there is no straight path through the windows. Also, the proposals were not to use transparent anything to let in light but materials with only 80% transparency, likely something similar to fused quartz so more like your glass top kitchen range than transparent glass. One detail that is never shown in the drawings is the outer radiation shield made of slag from smelting the metal and from packed regolith, it would be separate from the rotating habitat sort of like the outer bicycle tire around the inner tube and either would not rotate or would counter rotate slowly. This would be so less tensile strength would be needed in the shielding material so low quality unrefined materials and waste materials could be used. The mirrors drawn for the O'Neill cylinders are also a bit ridiculous as they would need ridiculous amounts of tensile and bending moment strength to rotate with the cylinder, the mirrors would be more likely to be stationary or pivoting heliostats that do not rotate with the cylinders. You need the artwork to convey the idea to the masses but unfortunately the artists put in their own interpretations and some of the more important details such as the Chevron radiation shields are simply not noticed by the public... Note, the main advantage of O'Neill cylinders, Bernal spheres, and the Stanford Torus is that building a few would protect our society from global catastrophes as someone would survive to rebuild and recognize Earth, this is why tree seeds are sent out in the wind, colonizing other habitats is nature's defense against catastrophes. All of these megastructures were to be made from mayerials from the Moon or asteroids, not from material launched from Earth...
In the netherlands we had the Gebroeders Das, twin brothers that made beautiful pictures of scenes in the future. Rudolf and Robbert. Maybe you can look into that. Kind regards, Jasper
The point with these kinds of predictions is that no one, not even scientists… No one takes into account things that slow down the development of progress. An IS for example or today's conflicts. Protesters who delay things by filing lawsuits. Rules and laws that block a project or development. And finally, a good example is that as long as too much money is made from fossil fuels, new developments and techniques will be partly obstructed. All this, of course, spoken briefly, in a nutshell.
Rotational gravity is very different to linear gravity. Those lakes and rivers would not settle as there is a sideways force from the rotation. The human body would also struggle in this environment. You would be vomiting constantly. To experience how it would be, all you have to do is sit on a children's playground roundabout and turn your head from side to side as it is spinning. You will get the same effect.
Those effects get less pronounced with scale. In a small rotating space station, you'd need a fairly high speed to produce 1G, and your head would still experience noticeably less gravity than your feet. The O'Neill cylinder is 8km in diameter and rotates at less than half an RPM, so it doesn't have those problems.
NASA studies with normal people disagree. Just about anybody can adapt fairly readily to something around 1RPM of the Stanford Torus. Materials science is concrete and steel.
I see us more living virtually. The outside world a desolate wasteland but our consciousness uploaded into dazzling virtual cities and environments beyond our wildest imaginations! Of course we’ll all be living batteries like depicted in the movie The Matrix!😮
What is commonly known as the "O'Neill Cylinder" was not for us to think about building. It was his "Island 3" for the 2080s, when space industries are established and anyone had a need for housing millions of people up there. O'Neill said that it was probably about as accurate as what "futurists" from the 1890s thought that the year 2000 would look like. We know that it could never work: An object with a long center of mass spinning about its long axis is inherently unstable, wanting to wander off-axis, tumble and go end over end. Yes you can link 2 of them together and then apply active stabilization, but a good engineer doesn't design in defiance of the laws of physics and then apply complexity to overcome the design flaws. Any windows looking out into space are prohibited because they're a straight path in for galactic cosmic rays which come from all directions an require 4 tonnes of rock or other material per square meter of external area to stop them down to what a city at 1.7km elevation down here gets. What's called the Bernal sphere is the O'Neill Island one. His first generation hab for the ≈10k workers at the space manufacturing facility. It was 800 meters diameter (the image the video shows for the interior is for another design called the "Sunflower".) Bernal's 1929 sphere didn't spin for gravity and didn't allow for Sunlight to be brought in. The Stanford Torus was the baseline first generation hab selected by the NASA Ames / Stanford studies. It was also for the ≈10k people, but they wanted larger diameter for sower spin rate, because 400 meter radius of the "Island One" would have prevented a lot of people from being able to comfortably adapt. NASA studies found that just about anybody could readily apt to the les than 1 RPM of the torus. These habs weren't just a lark, not just a "wouldn't it be cool if..." idea. No new inventions needed to start back then. Concrete and steel, no fantasy magic like industrial scale construction with buckytubes or nanotech sentient AI self-assemblers required. Their business was to mine NEAS (thereby removing scarcity of raw materials, metals (including previously rare or "precious" or "strategic" metals) and building Solar power satellites to provide energy to the ground grids. The cost until the first hab for the workers was built (along with all the ground, launch, and in-space infrastructure to do it) was to be less than what they projected that the US would need to spend to meet new grid capacity by then (of course we spent far more than their projections). Like many large infrastructure or industrial developments down here. Like the Interstate Highway system or a large dam. Less than what we've spent on the military to fight over oil, less than a small oil war or the bailouts we've seen. I've seen it variously estimated as around $900 billion. Note that we're currently spending $680 billion on the military every year. In modern money, more than the entire historic running grand-total NSA cost (counting Apollo, the Shuttle, the ISS, and everything else NASA does. Not counting "black" military spending or ongoing military operational expenses, which are more and aren't in that voted DoD budget. $14 trillion on military since 2003. The Pentagon has utterly failed its audits, can't account for half of its assets. Half of what we give them every year (about 1/3 of the cost of the space mining project cost, every year) just goes away, and nobody asks why or where. Space Settlements: A Design Study NASA, SP-413 (1975) nss [.] org [/] settlement/nasa/75SummerStudy/s.s.doc.html (remove the spaces and [ ] symbols) Anyone who doubts these estimates by the NSA studies is invited to show their professional engineering qualifications in all the relevant mining, construction, and astronautical engineering, and where they've publish under peer-review showing that those professionally peer-reviewed studies were wrong. A mining engineer who participated said that the mine on the Moon would barely keep one tele-operated bulldozer occupied, and that the open pit mine on the Moon would be about 3 or 4 football fields ("futbol" for international units), 3 or 4 meters deep. Note that before the first habitat is done, we're mining NEAs, so any questions of "cost" goes out the airlock, along with the national debt forever and any need for future oil wars. Of course Congress in their infinite wisdom decided against it, stuck us with the Shuttle, and going on building up the military, as our official long-term energy policy.
As for the rotating space colonies ideas. the rotation could also centifugate in the space all the flush of the toilets of such huge human population.....
Been born 1971, I remember vividly to image the 2020s like this. What a letdown humanity proved to be. Instead the next generations decided to debate pronouns and who can use whose toilet.
I am a little younger than you, but I disagree. Our greed-driven generation achieved nothing, except worsening the situation for everyone. The letdown is really us. The younger generations aren't stuck in the past like we tend to be.
Yeah you’re both wrong. The 70’s sucked ass and today is way better. Like omg it’s so much better. We have avocados in fucking rural Ohio. Fuck your O’Neil cylinders
The problem isn’t the next generations, sir; you’re the one obsessing over pronouns and bathrooms. I can prove it, too…you’re the one who decided to post this comment that has nothing at all to do with the video. Obsessed much? 🙄
Materials NOT brought up from earth but rather dragged down from the asteroid belt. If you are going to build space habitats you would not put them in earth orbit, you would build them closer to the sun where their orbit would give you greater solar energy.
Far enough from Earth to not get shadowed by it. The studies did an experiment, if they limited the collector mirror mass to only 3x the habitat mass (1.6meter reinforced concrete for the 800 meter "O/Neill Island one" which this video calls the "bernal sphere".) The answer was 4 light days out, or ≈700 AU. A city for a few million people with modern technical civilization energy usage, out in interstellar space might need a mirror that would cover from the UK to Algeria, from Gibraltar to Lebanon, but it's only a few moles' thick metal.
You missed a lot of good references here the anime Gundam wing has a good reference to bouth oneal and bernof spare the more recent move Elysian Is a better reference to the Stanford Taurus
Because of course cartoons and hollywood fantasy movies are always a good illustration of what's possible. ("Elysium" had force fields keeping cosmic rays out and air in, and didn't spin for gravity.
Sadly, all we have to look forward to is dystopia; simply put, the future as described in books like 1984 and Fahrenheit 451as well as movies like V for Vendetta.
What mass immigration? Feminism was around before the ‘70s, Islam and LGBTQIA+ as well. DEI is a a new acronym for an idea that’s also been around for decades. I guess if you believe that the world or universe revolves your small subpar knowledge of it then I guess this comment makes sense. Anyone who isn’t addicted to rage and resentment see it as just plain sad and pathetic.
🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/UltraFuture
I must point of how generic modern buildings can be.
3:23 1980s style music has a comback now.
When I was 9, I was given a big, heavy, hard-cover book called The Usborne Book of the Future. I pored over that thing. Every page, every drawing, every implication of materials use, how propulsion might work, how people would live. And when we would get jetpacks.
That was 1979.
Lucky. I had the Usborne Cities of the Future. If I recall, they were first published separately covering different topics, like the one I had, and your book was all of the editions put together. I would've loved to have that one.
I’m reading that book right now! Space colonies, moon colonies etc.
I used to collect Popular Science as a kid. Every one of them was magical back then, they all felt different, probably because I was autistic. Still am, but not nearly as much, and the wonder and hope are gone out of everything. Futurism was better than a drug. Every image, every idea, I felt them all. Even the scent of the magazines and books. It was bliss.
jetpacks are very real, just very expensive
I remeber the TV series 'Space 1999' as an 80's kid. That was the future I was looking forward to.
Sadly, we got skibidi instead 😭
Many of us
I just watched an episode of that show the other night.😅
The artwork of Don Davis essentially defined for me as a child what “The Future” would be like. I once posted his interior Stanford Torus picture on a Facebook chat as a response to something that someone said about space colonies, saying that I still liked the aesthetic of the design even though it was from the 1970s, only to find that I had just replied to Don himself with his own picture! That was a great moment.
In the 70s, the boomers were not running things. They were the underlings. As soon as they were in charge, everything went away.
The boomers are indeed to blame for many problems but it's so so easy to forget about how new and old generations contribute to the decaying of our world. Mark Zuckerberg wasn't a boomer, he was a Gen X and yet many things Facebook did are responsible for our current dystopian internet.
Not so. The Boomer generation _started_ in 1945. The very first of them would have turned 25 in 1970 and 30 in 1975. Boomers would have been the artists and engineers who picked up the torch from the older ones and tried to run with it. It was Greatest Generation (1901 to 1927) and Silent Generation (1928 to 1945) politicians like Senator William Proxmire and his Golden Fleece Awards for space exploration and supersonic transport projects that killed the space program and other pioneering high technology efforts and instead either axed such programs or only funded the ones with military applications (like the Space Shuttle Program as delivered).
Not the jetpacks for everyone. I see how insane people are with simple electric scooters, I don't want to imagine them with jetpacks.
long robotic arms made jetpacks in space obsolete.
main problem with jetpacks in space is all the exhaust sticking to things, kicking things around, its like the tiniest micro-metheorites.
Like giving a bunch of 6 year olds a fork in one hand and a live outlet in the other
Or flying cars!
As a kid, I loved 2001 A Space Odyssey, Logan's Run, Space 1999, and anything that had that futuristic look. Jacque Fresco did amazing work on The Venus Project.
The artwork reminds me of; “Rendezvous With Rama.”
One element common to many of those images is green open spaces or the blending of indoor and outdoor settings.
This is the decade I (mostly) grew up in and this is the stuff that got me interested in futuristic things. My interest in this was initiated in the 5th grade when my teacher taught us about planned cities. I also liked watching Star Trek re-runs.
If anybody remembers it, in the late 70's and early 80's I used to buy Future Life magazine at a local store. I saved 4 of them and still have them. They're in mint condition. They are Sept and Dec 1979 and March and May 1980. They have some of the same illustrations shown in this video.
As for the technology, most of it seems practical and liveable, just like that seen in Minority Report. All too often people go wild with circus like cities that people would never want to live in, but the ones on the pics appear to be sensible enough to one day be built. However, I say "one day", because whilst we've got sociopathic kleptocrats in charge, ones who see more profit in war rather than the advancement of humanity, then these things will take at least 100 years before they're built.
Thank you for sharing these marvelous illustrations from the 1970's. I came of age in that era and was keenly interested in science fiction, but have never seen these before.
5:16 The suspension bridge is straight and level.
5:25 In a dramatic documentary, a neutron star will pass through the solar system in 70 years and everyone will agree to build one to escape.
5:37 The plane has vertical takeoff and landing.
7:02 Plenty of space between buildings to make it bright and windy.
I really like the cityscapes in the background of the original Star Trek series.
The metal chevrons being installed are not solar shades but radiation shields, they are mirrored so light still bounces through the nested chevrons but radiation such as gamma waves would have to pass straight through the shielding material, basically there is no straight path through the windows. Also, the proposals were not to use transparent anything to let in light but materials with only 80% transparency, likely something similar to fused quartz so more like your glass top kitchen range than transparent glass. One detail that is never shown in the drawings is the outer radiation shield made of slag from smelting the metal and from packed regolith, it would be separate from the rotating habitat sort of like the outer bicycle tire around the inner tube and either would not rotate or would counter rotate slowly. This would be so less tensile strength would be needed in the shielding material so low quality unrefined materials and waste materials could be used. The mirrors drawn for the O'Neill cylinders are also a bit ridiculous as they would need ridiculous amounts of tensile and bending moment strength to rotate with the cylinder, the mirrors would be more likely to be stationary or pivoting heliostats that do not rotate with the cylinders. You need the artwork to convey the idea to the masses but unfortunately the artists put in their own interpretations and some of the more important details such as the Chevron radiation shields are simply not noticed by the public...
Note, the main advantage of O'Neill cylinders, Bernal spheres, and the Stanford Torus is that building a few would protect our society from global catastrophes as someone would survive to rebuild and recognize Earth, this is why tree seeds are sent out in the wind, colonizing other habitats is nature's defense against catastrophes.
All of these megastructures were to be made from mayerials from the Moon or asteroids, not from material launched from Earth...
Little did they know that the future would be a diverse, inclusive, and equitable society with beauty and safety and love.
lol
Lmao 🤣
😂
In the netherlands we had the Gebroeders Das, twin brothers that made beautiful pictures of scenes in the future. Rudolf and Robbert. Maybe you can look into that. Kind regards, Jasper
The point with these kinds of predictions is that no one, not even scientists… No one takes into account things that slow down the development of progress. An IS for example or today's conflicts. Protesters who delay things by filing lawsuits. Rules and laws that block a project or development. And finally, a good example is that as long as too much money is made from fossil fuels, new developments and techniques will be partly obstructed.
All this, of course, spoken briefly, in a nutshell.
Fantastic presentation and narration!
1970s Fusion in 50 years. Mars colony in 30 years.
2020s Fusion in 50 years. Mars colony in 30 years.
0:48 the roots of Elysium.
The ring in Elysium was a Bishop's ring as the habitat was not fully enclosed...
Bro thought he could have a golden future without the golden standards he mad!
Why the future isn't the same like we imagine , bcoz we don't count all the shortcomings in world , geopolitics , greed,etc
every mars garage will have orbital rockets
(to surrect planets is how to live in a universe - life as center of the universe )
Can you do a spinoff where you describe the future…. But to a late 5th century Roman? 😜😅
Rotational gravity is very different to linear gravity. Those lakes and rivers would not settle as there is a sideways force from the rotation. The human body would also struggle in this environment. You would be vomiting constantly. To experience how it would be, all you have to do is sit on a children's playground roundabout and turn your head from side to side as it is spinning. You will get the same effect.
And then there's material science.
Those effects get less pronounced with scale. In a small rotating space station, you'd need a fairly high speed to produce 1G, and your head would still experience noticeably less gravity than your feet. The O'Neill cylinder is 8km in diameter and rotates at less than half an RPM, so it doesn't have those problems.
NASA studies with normal people disagree. Just about anybody can adapt fairly readily to something around 1RPM of the Stanford Torus.
Materials science is concrete and steel.
I see us more living virtually. The outside world a desolate wasteland but our consciousness uploaded into dazzling virtual cities and environments beyond our wildest imaginations! Of course we’ll all be living batteries like depicted in the movie The Matrix!😮
Fo shizzle, the 70s is da future.
Nice colonies ….. wonder how well they drop! 😂
Not as easily as a rock. And there are a lot of rocks out there, raining down on us all the time.
Oi, the mile's British, except we got it off the Romans (Mille - a thousand Roman steps).
9:50
Inspo for Neo Tokyo?
If one is willing to let planned cities to be the dominant mode.
Logan’s Run had their take on a City of Domes, and so too some other Sci-fi shows. The Domed style seems to have fallen out of fashion.
People really had imagination back then
What is commonly known as the "O'Neill Cylinder" was not for us to think about building. It was his "Island 3" for the 2080s, when space industries are established and anyone had a need for housing millions of people up there. O'Neill said that it was probably about as accurate as what "futurists" from the 1890s thought that the year 2000 would look like.
We know that it could never work: An object with a long center of mass spinning about its long axis is inherently unstable, wanting to wander off-axis, tumble and go end over end.
Yes you can link 2 of them together and then apply active stabilization, but a good engineer doesn't design in defiance of the laws of physics and then apply complexity to overcome the design flaws.
Any windows looking out into space are prohibited because they're a straight path in for galactic cosmic rays which come from all directions an require 4 tonnes of rock or other material per square meter of external area to stop them down to what a city at 1.7km elevation down here gets.
What's called the Bernal sphere is the O'Neill Island one. His first generation hab for the ≈10k workers at the space manufacturing facility.
It was 800 meters diameter (the image the video shows for the interior is for another design called the "Sunflower".) Bernal's 1929 sphere didn't spin for gravity and didn't allow for Sunlight to be brought in.
The Stanford Torus was the baseline first generation hab selected by the NASA Ames / Stanford studies. It was also for the ≈10k people, but they wanted larger diameter for sower spin rate, because 400 meter radius of the "Island One" would have prevented a lot of people from being able to comfortably adapt. NASA studies found that just about anybody could readily apt to the les than 1 RPM of the torus.
These habs weren't just a lark, not just a "wouldn't it be cool if..." idea.
No new inventions needed to start back then. Concrete and steel, no fantasy magic like industrial scale construction with buckytubes or nanotech sentient AI self-assemblers required.
Their business was to mine NEAS (thereby removing scarcity of raw materials, metals (including previously rare or "precious" or "strategic" metals) and building Solar power satellites to provide energy to the ground grids.
The cost until the first hab for the workers was built (along with all the ground, launch, and in-space infrastructure to do it) was to be less than what they projected that the US would need to spend to meet new grid capacity by then (of course we spent far more than their projections). Like many large infrastructure or industrial developments down here. Like the Interstate Highway system or a large dam. Less than what we've spent on the military to fight over oil, less than a small oil war or the bailouts we've seen.
I've seen it variously estimated as around $900 billion.
Note that we're currently spending $680 billion on the military every year. In modern money, more than the entire historic running grand-total NSA cost (counting Apollo, the Shuttle, the ISS, and everything else NASA does. Not counting "black" military spending or ongoing military operational expenses, which are more and aren't in that voted DoD budget.
$14 trillion on military since 2003.
The Pentagon has utterly failed its audits, can't account for half of its assets. Half of what we give them every year (about 1/3 of the cost of the space mining project cost, every year) just goes away, and nobody asks why or where.
Space Settlements: A Design Study
NASA, SP-413 (1975)
nss [.] org [/] settlement/nasa/75SummerStudy/s.s.doc.html
(remove the spaces and [ ] symbols)
Anyone who doubts these estimates by the NSA studies is invited to show their professional engineering qualifications in all the relevant mining, construction, and astronautical engineering, and where they've publish under peer-review showing that those professionally peer-reviewed studies were wrong.
A mining engineer who participated said that the mine on the Moon would barely keep one tele-operated bulldozer occupied, and that the open pit mine on the Moon would be about 3 or 4 football fields ("futbol" for international units), 3 or 4 meters deep.
Note that before the first habitat is done, we're mining NEAs, so any questions of "cost" goes out the airlock, along with the national debt forever and any need for future oil wars.
Of course Congress in their infinite wisdom decided against it, stuck us with the Shuttle, and going on building up the military, as our official long-term energy policy.
As for the rotating space colonies ideas. the rotation could also centifugate in the space all the flush of the toilets of such huge human population.....
"Transparent aluminum?" ;-)
"Hello... Computer."
Been born 1971, I remember vividly to image the 2020s like this. What a letdown humanity proved to be. Instead the next generations decided to debate pronouns and who can use whose toilet.
I am a little younger than you, but I disagree. Our greed-driven generation achieved nothing, except worsening the situation for everyone. The letdown is really us. The younger generations aren't stuck in the past like we tend to be.
Yeah you’re both wrong. The 70’s sucked ass and today is way better. Like omg it’s so much better. We have avocados in fucking rural Ohio. Fuck your O’Neil cylinders
The problem isn’t the next generations, sir; you’re the one obsessing over pronouns and bathrooms. I can prove it, too…you’re the one who decided to post this comment that has nothing at all to do with the video. Obsessed much? 🙄
Sure. Keep pointing your fingers at the youth.
Young people aren't debating pronouns, nor who can use which toilet.
Seems to be the older people doing that. 👈
Robert McCall is one of my favorite artist
0:47 Possible future
6:36
Taylor Swift concert
Materials NOT brought up from earth but rather dragged down from the asteroid belt.
If you are going to build space habitats you would not put them in earth orbit, you would build them closer to the sun where their orbit would give you greater solar energy.
Far enough from Earth to not get shadowed by it. The studies did an experiment, if they limited the collector mirror mass to only 3x the habitat mass (1.6meter reinforced concrete for the 800 meter "O/Neill Island one" which this video calls the "bernal sphere".)
The answer was 4 light days out, or ≈700 AU.
A city for a few million people with modern technical civilization energy usage, out in interstellar space might need a mirror that would cover from the UK to Algeria, from Gibraltar to Lebanon, but it's only a few moles' thick metal.
WHERES MY JETPACK???
You missed a lot of good references here the anime Gundam wing has a good reference to bouth oneal and bernof spare the more recent move Elysian Is a better reference to the Stanford Taurus
Because of course cartoons and hollywood fantasy movies are always a good illustration of what's possible. ("Elysium" had force fields keeping cosmic rays out and air in, and didn't spin for gravity.
2 the future ;-)
THE FUTURE.....THAT IS NOT...YET
Need more monorails.
"weird haircuts" and zooms in on an afro? the casual racism is rampant
Can’t believe you didn’t mention Elysium! Surely the best visualisation of a Torus…shame the rest of the film kinda sucks
transparent aluminum
We English also prefer miles over kilometres.
But not us Canadians! We made the switch under Trudeau 1.0...
Hottest topic of mankind is bitcoin mining, not space mining.
👍
What accent is that
03:11 Please don't bring back the 70's fashion :-) 🕺
Being an 80s kid, this also was my 1st idea. But looking at the fashion from the 90s to today: Please bring back the 70s fasion!
Ringworld
0:04 wtf is weird about an Afro? 🤨
Sadly, all we have to look forward to is dystopia; simply put, the future as described in books like 1984 and Fahrenheit 451as well as movies like V for Vendetta.
👍 just 4 the mile
why keep showing me this。。。
bulba!
As a kid, this was my future. I couldn't wait! Instead I got Donald Trump and MAGA. What a freaking buzzkill.
So urban sprawl isn’t sustainable on earth but it will be in space? 😂 sure
The industries to support it on Earth aren't supportable on Earth, but they will be in space.
The future that circumcised men took from us
Lol says weird haircuts and just shows a black lady with normal hair😂tf
Instead we got mass immigration, feminism, Islam, LGBTQIA+ and DEI 😒
They’re eating away at our taxes and over populated, destroying all the natural resources
💯
It's a well-known fact that Islam was invented in 1980.
(to master a solar system as identity has become a talent to explore )
What mass immigration?
Feminism was around before the ‘70s, Islam and LGBTQIA+ as well. DEI is a a new acronym for an idea that’s also been around for decades.
I guess if you believe that the world or universe revolves your small subpar knowledge of it then I guess this comment makes sense. Anyone who isn’t addicted to rage and resentment see it as just plain sad and pathetic.