How to build this?

> The picture therefore seems to be showing a vehicle therefore
> rather than a space colony.

Sorry for the confusion, yes, I'm referring to spaceship design.

> The best vehicle design would of course be the one with the least
> surface area that would require radiation shielding and therefore
> the least mass and least energy required per change in velocity.

Which would be a sphere, correct?

What I liked about this ship from the movie RED PLANET, was the
counter-rotating rings. Each would counter the angular momentum of
the other. Is this correct?

If there was only one ring, how would the angular momentum be
accomodated?

Here are some quick calculations:

If we want a 1.0 gravity environment:

With 6 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 86 m
With 5 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 97 m
With 4 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 117 m
With 3 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 160 m

If we want a 0.75 gravity environment:

With 6 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 80 m
With 5 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 88 m
With 4 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 103 m
With 3 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 136 m

If we want a 0.66 gravity environment:

With 6 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 77 m
With 5 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 85 m
With 4 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 98 m
With 3 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 127 m

If we want a 0.5 gravity environment:

With 6 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 73 m
With 5 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 79 m
With 4 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 89 m
With 3 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 111 m

If we want a 0.33 gravity environment:

With 6 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 69 m
With 5 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 73 m
With 4 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 79 m
With 3 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 94 m

If we want a 0.25 gravity environment:

With 6 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 67 m
With 5 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 70 m
With 4 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 75 m
With 3 rotations per minute the radius of the ring = 86 m

OK, is it a good idea to have counter-rotating rings? I'm assuming
it is.

If that is what is desired, then I fall back to the design of the
Discovery in 2001:A Space Odyssey. Put the centerfuges inside the
shell of the sphere. This eliminates the pressure seal issue for the
outer shell becomes the unitary pressure vessel.

Place the two counter rotating centerfuges next to each other at the
center of the spherical shell. All of the volume outside the two
narrow centerfuges becomes zero-gravity crew quarters and storage.

If you look at the numbers above you'll see that if the crew can
survive sustained exposure to 6 rpm then the radius difference
between the different gravity simulation levels drops in smaller
increments than at lower rpms.

I know from the Stanford Torus study that they recommended a
rotation rate of less than 3 rpm so that a broad range of people
could accomodate themselves to living within the Habitat.

However, a spaceship doesn't have to have those design constraints,
and we could select a crew that can adjust to a higher rpm rate.
Does anyone have any information on how high rpm rates can go and
how long they can be sustained so that the crew can live normally.

Lastly, consider the volume of the sphere that could be used for
other purposes. If it is too much space, then perhaps we could
design a disk shaped ship within which to place the centerfuges but
now we're faced with the prospect of flat surfaces and corner joints
within the pressure vessel design. How problematic are they?

Any thoughts?

TangoMan