4 ms·

I'm not getting the nesting argument here. At least in the early days, a window to space will be a key selling feature. That means that the surfaces will have g

by AlanSE 5y ago

I'm not getting the nesting argument here. At least in the early days, a window to space will be a key selling feature. That means that the surfaces will have greater value, like with skyscrapers, but worse. Worse because pressurization demands that surfaces bulge out to contain the atmosphere. So while a large sphere might be the best engineering solution, funny shapes held together by weird superstructures might be the most profitable option. When we get into the more utilitarian phase of space development, then I think you would want something like shipyards where there really is a big micrometeorite shield (yes, as a sphere) with the inside filled with scaffolding. Robots scoot around do work with old and new hardware. If you think about nesting ROTATING structure inside of other pressure-envelope structures, then you're getting into some really crazy stuff. Are there designs that might make sense? Maybe, I don't know, I guess I wrote a blog about it https://gravitationalballoon.blogspot.com https://gravitationalballoon.blogspot.com

hinkley 5y ago
I think you're doing a lot of math there to determine pressure and the fact is that pressure in a space station is going to be dictated entirely by biology - partial pressure of oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide for mammal metabolism first, and comfort and plant metabolism later on. By the time logistics of managing or building out a real habitat, you're in a ±5psi range. Anything outside of that died on the design room floor. Windows are at a huge premium on cruise ships. It'll be much worse on space ships. But it's possible that inside windows will eventually look out onto something more interesting than the black void of space, so an inside window may be preferable. One of the reasons we look out the window in a car or on a boat is to establish the horizon and fight motion sickness. If you look 'outside' of a rotating space station - especially a rotating space station orbiting a planet or moon - you'll head rapidly in the exact opposite direction.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  Even cruise ships tend not to hand underwater window, despite how desirable they might be. For the same reason, I doubt a space-station will have privately owned windows.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    They're not really desirable on cruise ships at the end of the day. They gunk up quick and don't really have a great view even clean since you're either in harbor with probably silty water, or at speed in which case it's just fairly dark turbulent bubbles that you can see.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  Actually I think the main reason to have so much nitrogen is to reduce flammability, not biology or comfort.
hinkley 5y ago
You could build rings around rings. A couple of the designs on that page have multiple 'floors' in the same ring. I suppose those could be built incrementally in either direction (stacking new rings, or adding another floor to an existing one). I think my train of thought makes a bit more sense for moon and asteroid bases rather than free-floating orbital structures. And asteroid bases - on the right asteroids - are probably going to house most of the people. The ISS design definitely doesn't scale up. Everything off axis is a lever arm and the bigger you make it the more the whole thing tries to twist itself apart.

by AlanSE 5y ago

hinkley 5y ago

I think you're doing a lot of math there to determine pressure and the fact is that pressure in a space station is going to be dictated entirely by biology - partial pressure of oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide for mammal metabolism first, and comfort and plant metabolism later on. By the time logistics of managing or building out a real habitat, you're in a ±5psi range. Anything outside of that died on the design room floor. Windows are at a huge premium on cruise ships. It'll be much worse on space ships. But it's possible that inside windows will eventually look out onto something more interesting than the black void of space, so an inside window may be preferable. One of the reasons we look out the window in a car or on a boat is to establish the horizon and fight motion sickness. If you look 'outside' of a rotating space station - especially a rotating space station orbiting a planet or moon - you'll head rapidly in the exact opposite direction.

Chris2048 5y ago
Even cruise ships tend not to hand underwater window, despite how desirable they might be. For the same reason, I doubt a space-station will have privately owned windows.
- monocasa 5y ago
  They're not really desirable on cruise ships at the end of the day. They gunk up quick and don't really have a great view even clean since you're either in harbor with probably silty water, or at speed in which case it's just fairly dark turbulent bubbles that you can see.
Dylan16807 5y ago
Actually I think the main reason to have so much nitrogen is to reduce flammability, not biology or comfort.

hinkley 5y ago

You could build rings around rings. A couple of the designs on that page have multiple 'floors' in the same ring. I suppose those could be built incrementally in either direction (stacking new rings, or adding another floor to an existing one). I think my train of thought makes a bit more sense for moon and asteroid bases rather than free-floating orbital structures. And asteroid bases - on the right asteroids - are probably going to house most of the people. The ISS design definitely doesn't scale up. Everything off axis is a lever arm and the bigger you make it the more the whole thing tries to twist itself apart.