[coldtea]

I think a lot of people get too hyped up by farfetched sci-fi ideas, than actually study the logistics.

Some still take the logistics of sending a small crew for a visit at the moon (which are still over the top, and we've still haven't managed to repeat in 50+ years) and wish them away through handwaving to "colonies on Mars" and "colonizing the stars".

(Meanwhile we have the far more human friendly oceans, right here on Earth, which we haven't colonized yet -- a common theme in the 70s --, and we seriously discuss man kind living on foreign planets and what have you, with 1000x the difficulties).

[TeMPOraL]

And then some tackle the logistics problems directly. There's plenty of scientific and semi-scientific literature considering the logistical issues in full; even hard sci-fi pays attention to it. Still, let's not begrudge people from getting inspired by science fiction too much; if people limited themselves to only ever considering the economic gains, the life would be much sadder.

> Meanwhile we have the far more human friendly oceans, right here on Earth, which we haven't colonized yet

Why not both?

Also, I'm not sure the difficulties are 1000x - some of the needs, especially those around closed-loop habitation, are essentially the same; simultaneously, the ocean is a PITA to explore, in a bunch of different but similarly problematic way as space. I'd buy a 10x factor. Ocean exploitation is also hindered by politics and justified fear of environmental damage. In space, there isn't much to damage.

[antisemiotic]

An Orion Drive spacecraft could easily carry an entire city block to orbit in one go, but the environmentalist killjoys don't want to hear about it.