Colonization with humans is not the same as using robots without humans.
There is no risk of human dying in space, so that is a big security problem risk solved right there.
2nly, many things can be done and prepared with it.
Including this cylinder, for humans to live, or survive, should there be a problem on earth making life impossible here, before the next 2 to 3 billion years that is, as by then, the sun will have engulfed the earth by its current expansion phase, which is, of course, of astronomical proportion, scale and magnitude.
There is not much that would stop us to go and visit those robots working and building there, but there should not be a “need” to be.
The Hohmann transfer orbits - minimum delta-V concept is a good idea, however, it would allow us more power and give us more resources.
There are other methods for transport and distribution of required assembly systems and subsystems that can be devised.
Edit 2 at 09:02:
Another benefit of dealing with space loads could be the regeneration of the earth’s ozone layer.
Perhaps the less we have to burn it with fuel and punch holes in it, the better it will be for it to do it’s protective work from negative sun rays, despite it’s poisonous toxicity.
Edit 3 at 09:18:
Theoretically, if the sun expanded enough to engulf Jupiter, which it may not, due to distance, Jupiter could generate extra solar fuel, besides that of the other 4 planets before it, which would already have been.
Obviously, those gravity wells would have to be analyzed accurately enough so to avoid robotic accidents and their consequent repair resources, depending on the circumstances.
Systems external to our own solar system could be possible to run in the next 200 to 300 years, depending on their levels .
Edit 4 at 09:25:
The ISS is our first colony by 2,000, and maybe we could have if the political will had been there.
Just because people say we don’t doesn’t mean we don’t.
People can say whatever they want, it won’t change the facts.
If there would not have been political will to do so, we would not have our first ISS (International, not Interstellar, Space Station) colony by 2,000.
It did require political will, and scientific will, and practical scientific resources and the expenditure of those scientific resources to be able to succeed and keep it working as I write.
Edit 5 at 09:30:
Terraforming a planet or, first colony, moon, asteroid is much more complex than it seems, and it can also have other effects.
It’s much easier to assemble smaller systems which can deal with gravity differences and maybe make more analysis as to how to solve those gravity problems than to have the terraformed system without being able to live there due to gravity problems.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast01oct_1
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/benefits/bone_loss.html
A Terraformed system can therotically generate it’s own breathable oxygen and make agriculture possible without the use of a space suit to compensate for the conditions adverse to human needs.
The whole planet or system can do so by itself, like, if there was enough oxygen and trees on Mars to generate it’s own atmosphere with ozone layer and so on.
It’s much easier to create even a small station to live in.
We don’t even have such station on the moon for all I know.
The only mobile ones there were the relatively temporary expeditions we sent.
The word “Hypothetical” is used, followed by “process” to form an “Hypothetical process” contrary to a practical process.
Edit 6 at 09:51:
With enough work, everyone has a new job building in space, to organize more resources, and be able to travel better, before we can go to the next solar system.
Those extra solar system resources could help us to
- live on earth longer,
- to prepare to live on other conditions than earth if we cannot protect ourselves to live here due to act of God or other astronomical reasons,
- Prepare to reach the next solar system.
More and better control should not always work against us.
Of course, we may have problem to deal with 20 billion people on earth.
Even if the 6 billion to 8 billion we now have will eventually die, the added numbers of the next living generation, while this current one dies, will add up.
That means more resources will be required for their off-spring to be able to live as well.
Of course, 6 billion people is more manpower than lower amount of population, and more capacity to deal with risk of damage from outer-space as well as dealing with our own conditions here on earth.
There are conditions where that many people or, perhaps, more people, will not be better, and so, could cause more problems than good.
If we get better at it, we should be able to do it with less people, which would give more potential for the extra people to deal with the extra work.
To work with robots is not less work, contrary to popular belief, it is more work, in fact.
Edit 7 at 05:19:
Electron linac with deep energy control for Adaptive Rail Cargo Inspection System
Those can be used to launch material from planets, and moons. I’m not so sure about asteroid, as they may be harder to install on there, due to the smaller gravitational mass of those systems.
A second problem with the smaller asteroid is the fact that their own orbit can be affected simply by trying to approach a robotic space ship to it, and try to start to drill it.
It can literally be pushed out of it’s orbit, due to the small gravitational mass, and the fact even a small amount of force applied to it can move it out of that previous orbit.
It can be noted that those small asteroid can literally be moved out of their orbit if there is enough force for it.
They can be moved to the moon or other systems for processing.
Thirdly, I read designs to engulf the asteroid with a wrap around device, so as to keep it in place better, while an opposite force starts to drill it, and to mine it, without changing its orbit.
This was from Popular Mechanics
or
https://www.popsci.com/tags/space-mining
http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2016/07/looking-space-asteroid-miner