Kalpana One design (was Rotating space colonies)

I may have over-stated my case, Brooks. If a Stanford Torus-type
facility with three "spokes" is proposed, the isolation I'm suggesting
would simply be bulkheads with (large but closable) access doors at the
junctures of the spokes and the torus, between these junctures and the
torus sections in between junctures, and between the spokes and the hub.
The air handling infrasructure, water recycling infrastruture, power
distribution systems, communication systems, and computing systems in
any one of the three sections should be designed to accomodate the needs
of that section and, if need be, an adjacent section (albeit at a
predetermined minimal level of performance).

I think the recent experience that the crew of the ISS had with a failed
ammonia pump illustrates the need for such redundancy. In a small
station there is little room for equipment or process breakdowns. As one
who works hands-on with pumps, piping, electrical and computer controls,
and system processes I can assure you that breakdowns will occur
(sometimes in the most unexpected ways). No matter how much thought is
put in to identifying which equipment and systems are "critical" - our
space dwellers will no doubt find that the malfunction of some mundane
piece of equipment, valve, electrical relay, section of pipe, or run of
cable has unanticipated consequences that they wont be able to fix
quickly or easily.

Chris

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "brooksn" wrote:
>
> I would think that the redundancies you mention, the ability to
section off every section and have fully independent systems for each,
and 2 back up systems for each to be excessive...
>
...On back up systems, I would think it would depend on the system,
which would decide how much back up is needed. Do we need 2 back up
toilets per working toilet? Maybe not, do we need 2 back up CO2
scrubbers per scrubber? Quite possibly.