What would you change?

> This list has been dormant for a while, so I'll do my part to get
> discussion going again.
>
> Let's assume that we're entering the age of orbital habitats and
> we're at the design phase now.
>
> We're starting with a blank slate and can set new standards for
> EVERYTHING that we manufacture. We all know that there are some
> things on Earth that illogical but continue on due to inertia.

History shows that attempts to design from the ground up tend to
produce inefficient systems in the early iterations. Systems designed
to permit the users to adapt them as needed will always be superior to
inflexible ones in the long run.

Orbital habitats should have as little constraint on the inhabitants as
possible. The design should only encompass standards needed to ensure
people can interact with each other and that devices are compatible
throughout the station. This implies a single system of units (which
will inevitably be SI, barring a miracle), a uniform standard for
electrical power, a common language (most likely english or a
derivative of english, though Esperanto is a possibility), and a common
set of interfaces for all life support related equipment.

In the early stages of orbital habitat construction it's likely that
some will be constructed specifically as social experiments. I predict
that these will almost all be failures due to the desire of the
leadership to overdesign the society.

......Andrew

Dr. Andrew Case, PhD.
Institute for Research in Electronics and Applied Physics,
University of Maryland, College Park
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
- David Hume