>>23452098
>you're not telling the full story.
Only because I have only so much time and room to exchange on a topic.
None of us can say with absolute certainty that some engineering breakthrough will make beamed solar energy the most economical method, and even if it is the most economical for some use, like powering cities in space with less transmission loss, it may not be as economical in other context. Mastering nuclear fusion have plenty of other, large scale, practical usage, especially for spaceships.
As it is also a mean of storing energy, we would produce it even just to use it in vehicles.
Carrying an antenna to obtain energy from solar satellites that also have to track you if not predict your moves isn't exactly practical.

Helium-3 (among other potential fusion fuel) is rare because we do not have the technology to reach better sources or brute force it, accept overcost but still come out as economical because Fusion is crazy efficient.

>>23452151
There's been research before, there's still research today.
Could it be that we don't instantly become able to replicate a biosphere?
Could it be that UC as a setting didn't instantly perfect everything about nature and complete self-sustaining biosphere?

It's simple:
Anon was acting as if I said it couldn't ever happen, almost like he was fighting a bioengineered combat strawman
Your answer sound like wishfull hope that 100% self-sufficiency will be ready (soon!!!!) right as we need it, just because there's been some progress far from what we need.
Me I'm just saying biology is among the most difficult science and it's not surprise Gundam as a Sci-Fi setting don't pretend it mastered it.

So it was no tangent, it was a direct answer to anon. Just wishing for it to happen don't mean it will.
https://pictolic.com/en/article/why-the-american-experiment-biosphere-2-failed-which-could-change-the-world
And even multinational corporation working in GMO with clear interest in sight still can't make custom plant.