>>13938740>Matters to spacers how?Its going to limit initial uptake from the people with the resources to actually make it work. Is Elon Musk really going to spend the money to move to Mars if it means that he can't monitor his stock values? The speed of light is already an issue for stock trading and that will definitely be an issue for billionaires.
If you're suggesting that people will go without a thought of returning, how many people of lower economic classes will go especially if it means being basically an indentured servant whose job is keeping the upper class alive and comfortable?
>With nuclear spacecraft it's 1 month-3 months.We tolerated those kind of transit times back in the age of sailing ships, but how many people will be willing to go back to being 1 to 3 months away from home after living on a planet where communications with home are slow, and they're stuck inside without a space suit and are likely going to need to live underground due to the lack of a magnetic field or thick atmosphere.
If you're living underground anyway, likely mining as the economic base, why wouldn't people live on Antarctica where they can go outside with a parka, and not worry about the unknown effects of long term partial gravity?
If the attraction is mining, manufactured colonies in orbit collecting resources from captured near earth asteroids seems more plausible. Communications and transit times with Earth would be shorter, economic exchanges with Earth have a far more plausible mechanism, and it doesn't require going back down a gravity well.
>people don't care about utilitarian habitatsThere's no reason that space habitats have to be utilitarian. Habitats could be built to give stunning views of Earth, with the best manufactured scenery inside.
>Yes. Why even make this sentence?Sorry, I talk to a lot of climate change deniers who make statements similar to
>Antarctica will always be a frozen hellscape. 
