Tensegrity Structuspace habitats

Agreed. Of course, I've been arguing for LEDs for a long time, partly for
thermal reasons (you produce a lot less waste heat if crops are grown using
only photosynthetically active wavelengths, mostly deep red and blue), and
partly for the thermal reason that "natural sunlight" is mostly waste heat,
anyway, that you'll just need to disipate. White light is only needed for
people and "parks" - a fraction of the total floor space.

The chevron and mirror systems needed to direct sunlight around the shield
mass, not to mention the control systems to simulate a normal day-night
cycle, take space, and mass, and add a lot of complexity.

Besides, I like the relative simplicity of having a solar panel array
between the habitat and the sun to gather solar energy while shading the
habitat so it can more easily radiate the heat of agriculture and
civilization.

Of course, with my approach, agriculture is done in separate areas than
human live/work/recreation, so having different lights isn't a problem (and
note that being able to have different crops have different day/night cycles
can be an advantage). No, I don't believe that we should build huge habitats
where a huge portion of our interior surface is farmed using current
terrestrial practices of tractors and plows, with "natural sunlight" beamed
from above in a way that simulates the movement of the Sun from dawn to
dusk.

I detail my arguments in
http://ramblingsonthefutureofhumanity.blogspot.com/2009/11/lighting-our-spac
e-habitats.html

Stephen D. Covey

Agreed. Of course, I've been arguing for LEDs for a long time, partly for thermal reasons (you produce a lot less waste heat if crops are grown using only photosynthetically active wavelengths, mostly deep red and blue), and partly for the thermal reason that "natural sunlight" is mostly waste heat, anyway, that you'll just need to disipate. White light is only needed for people and "parks" - a fraction of the total floor space.

The chevron and mirror systems needed to direct sunlight around the shield mass, not to mention the control systems to simulate a normal day-night cycle, take space, and mass, and add a lot of complexity.

Besides, I like the relative simplicity of having a solar panel array between the habitat and the sun to gather solar energy while shading the habitat so it can more easily radiate the heat of agriculture and civilization.

Of course, with my approach, agriculture is done in separate areas than human live/work/recreation, so having different lights isn't a problem (and note that being able to have different crops have different day/night cycles can be an advantage). No, I don't believe that we should build huge habitats where a huge portion of our interior surface is farmed using current terrestrial practices of tractors and plows, with "natural sunlight" beamed from above in a way that simulates the movement of the Sun from dawn to dusk.

I detail my arguments in
http://ramblingsonthefutureofhumanity.blogspot.com/2009/11/lighting-our-space-habitats.html

Stephen D. Covey