Thanks for all of your responses.

> I never had doubts that it can be done, from a technological
> perspective. My doubt was (and still is) in its'
> multigenerational success. "Survival" can be dismal.
> Thriving in the long-term is what were after.

I have rather the opposite viewpoint. I would view the most precarious
space habitat to be the very first one. I would view every subsequent
habitat and generation as further cementing long-term success.

> I imagine that initially, living spaces won't be so large
> and massive, due to the monetary and fuel expenditure
> necessary to launch them.

You're right about "massive", but low-mass may not necessarily always
mean small volumes. (One reason, perhaps, for favoring spheres over
other shapes.)

Think of the accommodations on the Hindenburg. Everything was as
low-mass as possible, but there was lots of room to move around in.

Regards,

Mike Combs