Tensegrity Structuspace habitats

Has anybody had a look at the new Tensegrity Structure space habitat design? Scalable real estate for the human future in space refers to structures that start out at a small enough scale to be lifted in just a few launches and then grow to scales as large as what ONeill envisioned, all while under continuous occupancy. http://www.nasa.gov/content/growth-adapted-tensegrity-structures-a-new-calculus-for-the-space-economy/#.VQHdOHvzPGz https://www.skyframeresearch.com/ http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Longman_2013_PhI_Tensegrity.pdf First off, gratifying to come upon a space habitat design dated 2013. Not very much professional design work in this area these days. The big claim for Tensegrity Structures is that space habitat dwellers, when they decide its time for expansion, could build a new pressure hull inside of the existing hull. When finished, they would disassemble/recycle the exterior hull, and then allow the new hull to expand to something like twice the size. All while the structure is continuously occupied. Not sure how the landscaping fares while this expansion is happening. Ive noticed that after the heyday of High Frontier, theres been a lot of focus on incremental expansion with continuous occupancy. Peter Kokh designed helical structures with this in mind, and Ive seen a banded tori design with a primary mirror which constantly grows in area as new tori are added. I had never thought lack of incremental expansion in the 70s designs was much of a problem. When things get crowded, you build a second habitat, and about half your population immigrates. Repeat as needed. But lots of people seem to see a need for continuous expansion of the original structure, and this seems another example. Ill have to admit, building a newer, much bigger pressure hull inside the smaller existing one is quite a trick. They claim this technology could support the same land area as a Stanford Torus with only 6% the mass of the aluminum hull of that design. Ultimate scale: 16 km diameter torus (theres a gorgeous piece of artwork illustrating that). They seem to agree with the more-recent assertions that the Summer Study underestimated shielding mass requirements. Water bags are used in the separate (and only very slowly rotating) radiation shield. The light-pathways seems rather complex. I think this is a consequence of their assertion that the chevron shields would be inadequate. (They cite only 1 inch thickness of aluminum; I thought I remembered there being at least a few feet of shielding thickness in there, but its been a while since I read that study.) But I seem to remember telling somebody that we should not concern ourselves with the arduous travails of the photons, so I guess thats not a valid objection. Their objection to the mirrors of Island 3 concern the energy requirements of moving mirrors under multiple G loads. But I think maintaining planarity of such large-scale mirrors is the killer here. What does everybody else think of this new design?
Regards, Mike Combs