TLB: Just what exactly do you think HOUSES Mycroft??? A freighter?
Mycroft is offensive only. Need CM's as well as sidewalls, armor along with C&C. = FORTS. Or said platforms get kablooied by mistletoe or certain spoilers...
@ET al:
Forts are not immobile.
They run around at 75G.
Certain bad guys run around at 150G...
In the age of FTL 4 stage missiles with unlimited range, acceleration means nothing. This is like the problem today of wet navy ships plodding along at 30 knots who are going to "dodge" HAHAHA, ICBM's at 17,000 knots... or even fighters at 600knots. Not a chance in Hell of that happening.
Only true reason one has mobile units is to attack outside the hyper limit anymore. Because if one can defend to the hyper limit with FTL missiles(they can) then one can attack from beyond the hyper limit with FTL missiles as well. This means that current hyper capable ships are not adequate as they cannot accurately/quickly enough micro jump to attack/defend before a million missiles are headed to your orbital infrastructure. Needs to change in their design, but this would be predicated on the need for better astrogation technology allowing closer hyper jumps and being BASED outside the hyperlimit with 100% hot hyperdrives/impellers at ALL times.... OUCH! Maintenance expense Holy Cow! DOES NOT EXIST: So, need LOTS of anti missile defense in system. = Bubble sidewall FORTS + Keyhole.
Resource extraction: IS NOT critical infrastructure. This is why every nation, that is an industrialized one here on earth has strategic reserves.
FOOD:
Only reason Grayson did not go balls to the wall building Domes planetside is because of this little thing called a WAR. Otherwise, everything plowed into war would have been plowed into Sky Domes. Grayson was only using 30% free manpower to update itself to modern standards as it was taking 70% to ONLY feed itself before we address clothe/house itself
(nice quote by the way. I had forgotten about it). That is horrifically pathetic compared to earth today. This would make Grayson destitute by today's standard equal to that of Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Mongolia, China(two China's today, the industrial coast and everyone else)
Oyster Bay, would only drive home the need to ditch the orbital food production ASAP. Starvation is not fun.
Incidentally, all this orbital reliance would also force them to build... FORTS.
As for Heavy Industry: Seems we have a definition problem: Heavy industry is not only PRODUCTION which you are narrowly focusing on. Which is the VASTLY larger workforce: Those few who design the product, build the assembly line, assemble the product or those who use it? Those who use it. And of those professions, only those who assemble it can be anyone. The others have to be interested in the subject and actively pursue those jobs or enjoy doing them. Otherwise they leave and go elsewhere to a jobs they enjoy doing and pursuing.
There is supposedly: 2% females in heavy construction industry today..... Almost none of them would I consider actually "in" the industry. Clerical administrative work is hardly "heavy industry". Neither is holding a STOP traffic sign. Why are women not heavy equipment operators which obviously does not require muscles but rather patience and hand-eye coordination? Because you have to KNOW what the grunts on the ground are doing and the end goals and how to go about DOING so you do not
kill them with your heavy machinery or bollicks the job. This knowledge requires BEING a heavy GRUNT on the ground FIRST who does the problem solving ON THE GROUND. Something women, with on average weak upper body strength, are not cut out to do even if we ignore the psychological differences/preferences between men/women. The number in heavy construction/industry rises if you add in associated supportive industries and the number can rise to 10% if you include accounting and 15% if you really stretch the definition as is done in Europe to make themselves feel better.
https://www.nawic.org/nawic/statistics.asp (URL not of Europe) Of course the idiots in Europe demand women with no experience actually working in the industry from the ground up hold CEO/Board positions....... Absolutely brilliant... That is going to bite them in the ass long term. Can't wait for these short sighted feminists to demand 50% of workforce for garbage collectors and plumbers to be women. Right.... as if that will happen. Of course they have no problem with 90% of highly paid nurses to be female. There are more nurses than engineers in the USA by the way... and they both make about the same salary... Yet they are bitching and pushing women to be engineers... Something women clearly do not want to do.
Yes, for a short period of time you can get people, be they male or female to do jobs they do not LIKE to do. Rosie the Riveter, welding, and piloting airplanes for instance. If automobile statistics are any indication, women would be superior pilots to men for commercial operations, but women have almost no interest in becoming pilots even though it pays well... Welding also pays VERY well. No, you cannot get people to do jobs they do not LIKE to do for a long period of time. A nation requires people doing what they LIKE to do over a LONG period. You can't wish away biology. Or you just get a world filled with feminists who hate themselves, don't marry, become crazy cat loonies, as they aren't men but pretend they are, and men who are selfish and unwilling to find a wife as the fishing ground is polluted with insane science denying feminists(MGTOW).