Tensegrity Structuspace habitats

'Combs, Mike' mikecombs@... [spacesettlers] wrote:

> But as for the mirrors, where you say, it isn't just a flat panel
> covered in Mylar after all, why cant it be? Ill grant that in some
> designs the mirrors rotate with the habitat, but I actually only take
> seriously designs where the mirrors are stationary. And mirrors in 0-G,
> which never experience weather, I think could be a framework with Mylar
> stretched over, and little else. The construction would be astonishing
> flimsy in comparison to our Earthbound expectations.

That's true enough. Also, it doesn't need to be an image-quality
mirror... small ripples won't matter as long as most of the light is
hitting the windows/lens/light pipe/whatever. So that too allows for
flimsier construction.

> Oh, on going back and re-reading, I now think you meant radiation
> shielding integrated with the mirrors. Like those chevron shields on the
> Stanford Torus. If thats the right interpretation of your point, then I
> guess Id say we have to pay for the radiation shield anyway.

I know I'm jumping in here, but for my $0.02 worth, I'm skeptical those
chevron shields are at all practical. I've tried drawing them out, with
the thickness (say, 2 meters or so) that would be needed to stop cosmic
rays. It's pretty ridiculous, and most of the light ends up blocked,
unless you make them really huge.

The advantage of the chevron shield idea is that only the surface of the
chevrons needs to be optical quality; the bulk of them can be concrete
or plastic or whatever's convenient. But they're so ridiculous, I think
you might be better off with flat multi-meter-thick windows of
plexiglas, quartz, or similar.

> Granted:
> light-paths are a complication, but in my mind are a minor one worth it
> for the natural illumination. I also judge it worth it even if my heat
> radiators require a bit more acreage than yours.
>
> But I might legitimately be accused of a certain romanticism here. It
> always struck me that space settlers would feel more at home if under
> real sunlight, and could look up at the real sun in the sky (even if a
> reflected image).

Yes, I get that. Opinions can certainly very, but there's no denying a
certain visceral appeal of having "real" (even if reflected or filtered)
sunlight on your skin. At some level it doesn't matter that we could
probably produce an identical mix of photons artificially... we
*imagine* that it's different, and so psychologically, it is.

In the game, I hope to support both approaches to lighting. I'll
estimate the costs and benefits as accurately as I can, and then let
people work out their own designs as they see fit.

Best,
- Joe