These kind of estimates are always wrong.

The only way to do it would be to start smaller, and use that to build
something larger, funded by a major revenue source from Earth, which
could be a combination of Toursism, SSPS, or precious metal export.

Then go through the following stages (give or take) of construction:

1. A "can" station with a crew of 12
2. Multiple cans rotating round a hub to give a crew of 60 in
artificial gravity
3. Expand above to 300 crew
4. A small torus (like a 1/3 model of the Stamford Torus)
5. More of the above - they are fine for workers and hotel guests,
though not yet for colonists
6. A Bernel Sphere - able to take the first true "colonists"
7. O'Niell cylinders

The tricky bit will be to generate revenue with stage 1, or at least
with stage 2, both to start paying back the investment, and to
demonstrate a potentially viable business model.







(Tony Rusi) wrote in message . com...
Why hasn't anyone just gone to the bankers? It looks like Space
Colonies can pay for themselves.

Tamara (marian futerman) wrote:

Dear Monart,

Do you have the actual breakdown of how much it will cost to
construct a
habitat for 10,000 people?
Getting there and building one?

For O'Neill's original estimates (as low as $33 billion 1975 dollars),
see his "TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND
APPLICATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JULY 23, 1975" in the section "Costs and
Payoffs"
http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/CoEvolutionBook/TESTIM.HTML
The site here http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/ is
brim-full of info.

In the 1977 Enclycolopedia Britannica Yearbook of Science and the
Future, the lead article, "Space Colonies" by O'Neill, gave a figure
of
$40 billion 1975 dollars for a habitat housing 10,000 on 750,000
square
meters of land.

As to the cost of "getting there" to build it: I've not seen any
estimates.




Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 19:15:35 -0600
From: Monart Pon
Subject: Costs of an O'Neill Habitat

Suppose that 10,000 families were to pay (in cash or in mortgages) an
average of $1,000,000 each for a home in an O'Neill habitat, then
there
would be $10 billion dollars towards the construction.

Suppose that 2 tourists per month, paying $20 million each, were to
visit the habitat, then there would be $480 million per year towards
the
construction.

Suppose the billions per year spent on tickets for football, baseball,
hockey, wrestling, etc., on burgers, pizzas, doughnuts, gambling,
tobacco, alchohol, cocaine, etc., were instead invested in shares of
an
O'Neill habitat, then...

Suppose the billions were NOT spent on fighting one war or another
every
year, then...

Suppose the billions spent on burning up petroleum as fuel were spent
instead on buying solar power from an O'Neill habitat, then ...

Suppose IBM, Intel, Microsoft, General Foods, Dupont, Exxon,
Johnson&Johnson, General Motor, Ford, etc., were to invest in
subsidiaries in an O'Neill habitat, then ...

Suppose the government were to give up their predatory practices, let
people mind their own businesses and let them keep their own money,
then ...

Add up all those billions and trillions, and there you'd have more
than
enough for several O'Neill habitats.

The issue is not how much it costs or how much people can afford, it's
what people choose, and are allowed to choose, to spend their money
on.