>>11765238This is a thing people don't often consider. There's no reaosn why you couldn't do rotating habitats on the surface of the Moon, they'd still be cylinders just oriented vertically, and they'd spin to produce a combined total of 1g apparent gravity, at an angle that would make you feel like your city was built on a hill. You can't do dish shaped like some people suggest, because you'd have significantly less gravity at the inside rim compared to the outside, and it would be at a different angle too. The weaker the surface gravity of the object you're building your habitat on, the smaller the apparent 'slope' you'd feel on the interior surface. Mars gravity is probably too strong to do this, but Moon gravity should be alright, and the gravity on anything Triton sized or smaller is definitely weak enough to deal with.
Ceres would be a good place to cover with rotating habitats to a depth of a few dozen kilometers, in fact you could use Ceres' surface as a habitat factory and lift them into space using a steel cable space elevator 900 km long, and release them on a Ceres escape trajectory so that they orbit the sun and can maneuver close to other, smaller asteroids to mine them as well.
Once we have big enough rotating space habitats that each one can house the labor force and industry necessary to build more habitats, the colonization of the solar system by mankind would appear analogous to bacteria colonizing an agar plate, ie exponential growth. There wouldn't even really be anything stopping us from doing interstellar colonization at that point either, just send ten thousand habitats on a 1000 year trajectory in a big cloud and have everyone pack a lunch. If 1000 habitats break down every decade, all you need is the other 9000 habitats to disassemble those broken down ones and use their materials to build fresh new habitats.
