4 ms·
Your mistake is in assuming we're simply optimizing for volume and nothing else. Factor in each of size, cost, and deployment complexity, and it's clear many f
by zzalpha 11y ago
Your mistake is in assuming we're simply optimizing for volume and nothing else.
Factor in each of size, cost, and deployment complexity, and it's clear many feel that inflatable structures represent huge potential wins.
Besides, it's not like you actually need to build single, huge volumes. Space-based habitats built of multiple, smaller linked structures makes more sense, anyway, as it enables module isolation in case of failure.
- Retric 11y agoWe are still thinking in terms of tiny structures. Picture a space station with 100,000+ people. From a safty standpoint you want modular structures. But, you also want to minimize the areas directly linked to space. Thus you end up with something like a nuclear submarine vs an ever expanding ant hill. Remember apartment builds give every room a view, but that's high risk in space. You can also reuse walls, between areas to cut down on mass without compromising if there is a leak.