some comments on space colony habitat design (from Space Prizes and Contests)

From: Dave Handwerk

> I don't advocate the dumbbell shape as the long thin
> (elevator) tube to the smaller low- & zero- gee
> spheres would waste precious resources. Instead I
> would add shielded elevators that travel between the
> main 1-gee sphere and the other smaller ones.

It's true that a tunnel between the spheres would add to the material
requirements, but consider this. If the tunnel is pressurized, it would
mean that in an emergency a person could get up to the zero-G axis on
their own power. I'm sure an elevator would be used under normal
circumstances, but in a power-out situation there could be an emergency
ladder or spiral stairwell. I'd agree that the very first, near-term
system rotating for artificial gravity will probably have the cables and
cable-climbing elevator you're envisioning. But I'd be a bit nervous
about being dependent on a powered system to get back up to the axis.

I supposed it's a bias I inherited from O'Neill. I remember him telling
some people he preferred cylinders and spheres over the Stanford Torus
because people could get up to the spin axis on their own power. But
I'd still be more comfortable with the ST's 6 pressurized spokes than
with cable-climbing elevators dependant on docking collars at both ends.

Regards,

Mike Combs