--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Saatvik Agarwal
> Combs, Mike wrote:
>
> "I have no doubt that a person would feel more like they were "outside"
> with wide open spaces overhead than with the Stanford Torus' glass
> ceiling only a few meters overhead, despite the Bernal Sphere's smaller
> diameter. How many times have we heard space habitats disparaged as
> "like living in a shopping mall for the rest of your life"? I guarantee
> you those making that disparagement are looking at the Stanford Torus
> design, not the other ones."
>
> Wouldn't it be kind of weird to have people above your head, i.e. on
the
> other side of the sphere?

Sort of like when I'm in the living room and my sister is upstairs
above it in her bedroom?

If the sphere is very big, you'd be unlike to see people above you.

> Also, if we construct decks as you proposed won't only a fraction of
> people (the ones who live/work on the uppermost deck) get to see the
> open space above them, i.e., the sky?
>
> Thanks and regards
> Saatvik Agarwal

How many people do see the sky very much when they work inside and
live inside? I assume that people from the lower decks could go to
the upper deck for "outside" recreation.

Rick Brooks

From: Michael Capriola [mailto:capcartoonist@...]

>Adding up the figures, I find that most of the extra 3.467 Mt of
shield for
>the torus makes up the 3.09 Mt difference between the two habitats.
In
>everything else -- nitrogen, oxygen, structural mass -- the torus uses
less
>than the sphere.
>
>This is because the torus has more surface area that needs to be
shielded --
>2,127,701 m^2 compared to 1,367,784 m^2 for the torus.

"Combs, Mike" responded:
"That sounds right to me. I get the impression the calculator is making
a slightly bigger sphere than what O'Neill proposed. It could be that
he was assuming a slightly greater population density. I know he
compared it to some of the older parts of Europe."

The Space Settlements: Design Study book put optimum population density at
67m^2 per person. The belmont calculator had 68^2 per person for their
Torus of pop 10,000. So I plugged in smaller and smaller radii for the
Sphere until I came up with the 68^2 figure for 10,000 pop in a sphere.
Basically, I aimed for two habitat designs that shared as many features in
common as possible (same population and pop density, same energy usage, food
and water requirements, etc) in order to get a better idea on how the two
designs would differ.

If you want to increase population density, then both the sphere and the
torus can be smaller.
The problem here is that some arbitrary decisions are being made along the
way: people won't be happy above a certain popultion density, or people
won't be comfortable above N revolutions per minute, etc.

On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to

From: Saatvik Agarwal [mailto:asaatvik@....uk]

> Wouldn't it be kind of weird to have people above your head, i.e. on
the
> other side of the sphere?

It would be if you could clearly see them. I'm just guessing, but I
expect it would be a bit difficult to make out people clearly on the
other side of a Bernal Sphere with the naked eye. But I'm sure you
could even recognize friends with a good pair of binoculars. In an
O'Neill Cylinder, I think you would need a high-powered telescope to
make out people at all (and that's assuming a clear day).

> Also, if we construct decks as you proposed won't only a fraction of
> people (the ones who live/work on the uppermost deck) get to see the
> open space above them, i.e., the sky?

I don't expect that anyone will live beneath the deck. I'd only expect
buildings where views outside a window is not desired. So to me that
would mean shopping malls, sports stadiums, storage warehouses, and
maybe some light industry.

Regards,

Mike Combs

Hi Mike,

I would like to comment the following

>
> I don't expect that anyone will live beneath the
> deck. I'd only expect
> buildings where views outside a window is not
> desired.

I believe is a very good idea the habitat has several
floors. Imagine you have twenty decks all around the
perimeter of the cylinder. That means 20 times more
living space!! wasting just 40 meters of thickness. If
diameter is about 2 km, that is almost nothing and you
get quite a lot for that.

Regards,

Omar Vega

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

would not multiple decks be similar to a multistory shopping mall? Or multistory condo? Perhaps the idea of living "below" decks could be alivated by many opening like atriums opening up lower decks to the 'sky'?

Perhaps even higher 'cei;ings" of these decks could also alive some of the misgivings...instead of 10 or 12 foot ceilings, extend to 40 fy ceilings.. again even 160 meters of "deck levels" each with 40 foot heights is still a minimal amount of 2500+ meter diameter.

The lower decks nearest the exterior wall would lend themselves to industrial uses, warehouse areas, and infrastructure support, i.e. water lectrical conduits etc. and since they would have less human density provide an extra cushion of survivability for rogue astroids or other dangers from accessing higher density huma areas...?
From: omar vega
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 10:01 AM
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Stanford Torus vs Bernal Sphere

Hi Mike,

I would like to comment the following

>
> I don't expect that anyone will live beneath the
> deck. I'd only expect
> buildings where views outside a window is not
> desired.

I believe is a very good idea the habitat has several
floors. Imagine you have twenty decks all around the
perimeter of the cylinder. That means 20 times more
living space!! wasting just 40 meters of thickness. If
diameter is about 2 km, that is almost nothing and you
get quite a lot for that.

Regards,

Omar Vega

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

From: panamabob@...
[mailto:panamabob@...]

> would not multiple decks be similar to a multistory
> shopping mall? Or multistory condo? Perhaps the idea
> of living "below" decks could be alivated by many
> opening like atriums opening up lower decks to the 'sky'?

I've debated with people who have carried that to an extreme. I've had
more than one person go, "Gee, O'Neill never realized that if he put 50
decks in that design you could support 50 times as many people". I tell
them that O'Neill's design goal was not to support the maximum number of
people with the minimum number of habitats, it was to recreate, as far
as practically possible, the most attractive living areas here on Earth
in space. To me that means wide open spaces overhead, and natural
sunlight. When this notion of multiple deck is taken too far, I think
the end result is the Deathstar, i.e. everybody lives in small metal
rooms under artificial illumination.

But then on the other hand, I have to bear in mind that I've also argued
that anybody who says "All habitats will be such and such a way" is
wrong. There will be a wide variety of designs reflecting a broad
variety of tastes and choices. Maybe there will be such
Deathstar-variety space habitats for the very poor who cannot afford to
pay for much. Maybe they'll eat algae; another idea I've sided against.
But I will say that, especially for the first generation of immigrants,
providing a living environment analogous to what they've already been
used to on Earth will be of vital importance; to winning them over in
the first place, to having them stay for a lifetime, and to encouraging
them to raise families there.

Regards,

Mike Combs

Even though a sphere is more economical than a torus and all, I still
haven't been able to think of a way to isolate it yet? Any ideas?

Thanks
Saatvik Agarwal

Combs, Mike wrote:

From: Saatvik Agarwal [mailto:asaatvik@....uk]

> Even though a sphere is more economical than a torus and all, I still
> haven't been able to think of a way to isolate it yet? Any ideas?

If area isolation is considered an important issue in your design, then
yeah, go with the torus. As I recall, the Stanford Torus was designed
with 6 areas of alternating residential and agricultural space. And I
think there was a notion of partitions between them that could be closed
off in an emergency. Each area would have access to 1 spoke.

Regards,

Mike Combs