MY 3D Cities

[volco]

I like to draw cities, buildings, ships, planes. Now I do it on the machine and I'd like these judged:

This is a skyscraper complex I've designed as Gates of the River Plate for Buenos Aires' underdeveloped docks.

Edited November 16, 2007 by volco

[volco]

A hotel-marina-office tower in my fictional city

[Matus1976]

Great pictures Volco. I do alot of 3D modeling myself and went nuts on a 150 story art deco scky scraper just for a fun little diversion. Do you work for an architectual firm or are these works you are doing for your own interest? How did 3D modeling of buildings change your life?

The most enjoyable work I've done was a realistic space station for the Lifeboat Foundation, a 3D city in space - here are some pictures of it:

There is a movie posted here (still in progress)

http://lifeboat.com/movies/Lifeboat_02_WM9_800x600.wmv

[DavidV]

The most enjoyable work I've done was a realistic space station for the Lifeboat Foundation, a 3D city in space - here are some pictures of it:

I'm not an aerospace engineer or anything, but I think you need to do some research on spacestation design:

The aerodynamic profile of the shuttles is absurd. Wings need to slope UP, the horizontal stabilizer way too big, etc. The size of the nozzles relative to vehicle size would require an external fuel tank. These things would never fly in the atmosphere, so why not just scrap the wings?

Square windows and pressurized environments just dont mix. They need to be round or oval for structural integrity. Some of them are way too large for a pressurized environment.

The location of the solar panels is not suitable for moving them for optimal reception. They are way too small relative to the station size.

You wouldn't pressurize the dock around the spaceship, so why have the garage-like space docks? It's a total waste of resources. Also, what happenes when you want to redesign the shuttles? Scrap the entire station to build bigger garages?

Why are there FOUR rings? To maximize gravity and minimize energy costs, you need to make ONE ring as large as possible. At the scale you show, there would be a noticeable difference between the centripetal force near your feat and your head. It would give you a constant headache.

Likewise, why is there habitatble space (green space) outside the rings? You want green space were people are actually living, maximizing the size of the ring.

There's all kinds of things missing, like external manipulation devices, ports, antennas, etc.

The thing looks like its made out of bare metal. Are you familiar with the expression "hot tin roof"? Also, I know metal panels look cool and all, but you can't actually build large, pressurized structures that way.

Don't the lifeboat people know anything about spaceship design?

[volco]

MAtus: !!!! Wow I can't believe you're the one who designed the lifeboat, I was a "fan" of that project for quiet a while two years ago. Did you make the floating octogons city as well?

Greedy: And what's your opinion on the hanging horizontal building of my skybridge project?

Edited November 16, 2007 by volco

[DavidV]

Greedy: And what's your opinion on the hanging horizontal building of my skybridge project?

It's certainly a creative design. I'm not sure if the wings are purely decorative or functional. I'm not sure how they could be functional, and they would make a very expensive decoration. I'm also having a hard time imagining the structural design. Modern skyscrapers are either designed with a steel frame or a tube frame structure. You seem to have a cantilevered arch design, and I'm not sure if you can actually make arches of that size and height structuraly sound. Also, have you ever seen a skyscraper with the base level open like that? There are a number of reasons why that isn't done.

[Gabo]

Your design for the River Plate docks is beautiful... I would really like to have something like that in my city

[volco]

It's certainly a creative design. I'm not sure if the wings are purely decorative or functional. I'm not sure how they could be functional, and they would make a very expensive decoration. I'm also having a hard time imagining the structural design. Modern skyscrapers are either designed with a steel frame or a tube frame structure. You seem to have a cantilevered arch design, and I'm not sure if you can actually make arches of that size and height structuraly sound. Also, have you ever seen a skyscraper with the base level open like that? There are a number of reasons why that isn't done.

There's nothing decorative about it. I intended to make an arch but I didnt know how to cover the 100+ meters span in between the towers.

I thought that if modern super suspension bridges can take the weight of a highway the same technique could be used to hang the skybridge bldg.

he wings, far from decorative, are counterweights to the middle section:

The open base is a product of two curved columns, like the tour eiffel filled with concrete. But that's not essential, I can still do with a simple core design. (open in the sense that the first 6 stories would not exist but for elevator and infrastructure)

All in all I expect to be able to see it as an economic problem rather than a technological one (but my stability notions are nooby)

The economic problem is that a suspension bridge is usually justified for an infrastructural connection - for the public good- while my proposal is for a luxury hotel.

[DavidV]

There's nothing decorative about it.

I don't mean structuraly, I mean financially - it's too small and isolated for an office building and too large for an atrium or skywalk. It might make more sense in a hotel.

Edited November 16, 2007 by GreedyCapitalist

[volco]

Great pictures Volco. I do alot of 3D modeling myself and went nuts on a 150 story art deco scky scraper just for a fun little diversion. Do you work for an architectual firm or are these works you are doing for your own interest? How did 3D modeling of buildings change your life?

Edited November 16, 2007 by volco

[DavidV]

I thought that if modern super suspension bridges can take the weight of a highway the same technique could be used to hang the skybridge bldg.

Yes, but bridge arches only have to carry the dead weight of the bridge. Your arches have to carry the full weight of the columns, including the structure and all its contents. As the depicted in the rendering, I'm not sure that they would support the structure. I think the basic idea is sound though.

[volco]

I don't mean structuraly, I mean financially - it's too small and isolated for an office building and too large for an atrium or skywalk. It might make more sense in a hotel.

The skybridge is made of two modules about 20m width. Each counterweight is another module. The four were calculated for 98 rooms (i'll have to upload the layouts). The towers are office ones. IT's a hotel-office complex.

[volco]

Yes, but bridge arches only have to carry the dead weight of the bridge. Your arches have to carry the full weight of the columns, including the structure and all its contents. As the depicted in the rendering, I'm not sure that they would support the structure. I think the basic idea is sound though.

In the only way that this is different from a bridge is in that it's not anchored, so the two towers ultimately carry the full weight. And of course the cables carry the whole weight of the hotel (and transfers it to the towers).

I made a previous model (ignore the txtures) but took the two side towers away when I thought they were structurally useless: did I get your last point?

[Matus1976]

I'm not an aerospace engineer or anything, but I think you need to do some research on spacestation design:

Well, I am glad you start out by admitting your ignorance, but in doing so, perhaps you should not follow it up by a pompous tone.

The aerodynamic profile of the shuttles is absurd. Wings need to slope UP, the horizontal stabilizer way too big, etc. The size of the nozzles relative to vehicle size would require an external fuel tank. These things would never fly in the atmosphere, so why not just scrap the wings?

So, in the 15 seconds you spent thinking about something you know little about, you cant think of any reason for this design? Perhaps, like ol Paley, you ought to make a psuedoscientific dictum about that.

The design of this shuttle is based on a hypersonic reusable shuttle which 'skips' along the atmosphere, if you google "waverider" you will learn all about it, they are quite interesting. The shape and curve of the wings is necessary to scoop air into whatever air breathing engine, probably a scramjet, is underneat the craft, and to ensure the vehicle 'skips' along the upper atmoshpere until exiting the atmosphere all together. Riding its own pressure wave gives the vehicle a lift to drag ration which is much higher than conventional designs. There are single stage to orbit and dual stage to orbit designs of these.

Here are some examples

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/waverider/waverider.shtml

Basic Research and Technologies for Two-Stage-to-Orbit Vehicles

http://books.google.com/books?id=rqhCjGErf7wC&dq

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...t/waverider.htm

http://daedalus.k.u-tokyo.ac.jp/images/res...waverider03.jpg

I think *you* need to do some more research.

Square windows and pressurized environments just dont mix. They need to be round or oval for structural integrity. Some of them are way too large for a pressurized environment.

Sharp corners are the enemy of pressurization, if gentle curves are used, the windows can easily maintain their integrity, since I designed all of the 3D components of this, I guarantee you there are NO sharp corners. The pressurization difference between the inside of a space station at 2/3rds STP differs very little from an airliner at 30,000 feet compared to atmosphere outside of it, today airliner windows are not geometric circles but are instead rectangles with rounded corners. The same will be possible in space craft and stations. Additionally, at 14 pounds per square inch, plenty of materials can handle standard atmospheric pressure, given mild steel is about 30,000 psi, glass fibers can exceed 100,000 psi, (in fact, we get no where near the actual theorhetic strength of these materials, where steel is about 1.4 million pounds per square inch and glass over 400,000 or so (going from memory) molecular manufacturing technologies will probably allow us to get much closer to the actual physical strengths of materials, while using much less of it in the process. in the time frame such a vehicle is built, probably 25 years from now, transparent materials will EASILY be able to handle those pressures. Yes if you built one NOW with what we have TODAY these are too big. But try to think a little bit outside your narrow linear projections of technological growth.

Eric Drexler, in Engines of Creations, describes a rocket engine made from early stages of molecular manufacturing

What is the engine like? Rather than being a massive piece of welded and bolted metal, it is a seamless thing, gemlike. Its empty internal cells, patterned in arrays about a wavelength of light apart, have a side effect: like the pits on a laser disk they diffract light, producing a varied iridescence like that of a fire opal. These empty spaces lighten a structure already made from some of the lightest, strongest materials known. Compared to a modern metal engine, this advanced engine has over 90 percent less mass.

Tap it, and it rings like a bell of surprisingly high pitch for its size. Mounted in a spacecraft of similar construction, it flies from a runway to space and back again with ease. It stands long, hard use because its strong materials have let designers include large safety margins. Because assemblers have let designers pattern its structure to yield before breaking (blunting cracks and halting their spread), the engine is not only strong but tough.

For all its excellence, this engine is fundamentally quite conventional. It has merely replaced dense metal with carefully tailored structures of light, tightly bonded atoms. The final product contains no nanomachinery.

There is exists a huge realm of potential engineering feats just beyond our current manufacturing capabilities, in the range of atom patterns from 100 - 10,000 atoms or so. Complex 3d structures of specific atomic arrangements in this scale have very unique properties which we are not commonly familiar with, yet this scale is a size which biological life has mastered, from the foot of the gecko to the irridescence of butterflies, both of which come from extremely complex nano scale size structures replicated in a macroscopic device.

Something as simple as lacing polycarbonates with fullerene nanotubes can yield transparent materials thousands of times stronger (higher yeild strengths, tougher, etc) than current structures.

The location of the solar panels is not suitable for moving them for optimal reception. They are way too small relative to the station size.

I think you'll find yourself mistaken, in space near Earth 1 square meter recieves about 1.4 kW of light, the same molecular manufacturing process will have likely significantly increased the effeciency of solar panels by then. This station design was intended to house 1,000 occupants and 500 visitors, 1500 people. These solar panels are 8 meters wide and 280 meters tall, which comes out to 2,240 square meters. There are 16 panels like that on one side, giving about 35,000 square meters of panels. At 50% effeciency, which I think is reasonable for a solar panel 25 years from now, or 50, whenever you think such a thing would be built, and at 1.4 kW per square meter, that comes out to about 25,000 kW total. At 1500 occupants, thats 16 kW PER PERSON average energy consumption today in the US per household is about 2 kW. On the ISS now, their panels produce about 64 kw and the current crew is 6 people, about 10kW per person. These panels on the ISS are the primary source of power, on this space station they are for emergency power only. 16 kw per person in a station built 25 years or more from now, of emergency power, seems perfectly reasonable to me. But then again, perhaps I just need to do some more research in space station design, and with your great wisdom you might enlighten me.

Also, the panels can rotate at their base, and the entire assembly of panels can also change angles, they can point to the sun from any orientation of the vessel.

I am surprised you did not mention the IR panels, typically space stations have more of a problem getting rid of heat than keeping it in, since the vacuum of space is an excellent thermal insulator. Stations usually need panels which have liquids pumped through them which have collected excess heat from the interior of the station, usually these panels are about 50 - 75% percent the size of solar panels. On this station, they are placed at right angles to the solar panels.

You wouldn't pressurize the dock around the spaceship, so why have the garage-like space docks? It's a total waste of resources. Also, what happenes when you want to redesign the shuttles? Scrap the entire station to build bigger garages?

Well seeing as you know so much about space station design, even though you arent an aerospace engineer, perhaps you can spend more than 15 seconds thinking about why a space station might want to have a large pressurized dock. Of course you asked what happens if you want to redesign the shuttles, might, you think A LARGE PRESSURIZED DOCK be useful? Never mind the fact that this space station is intended to be self sufficient and will be required to collect resources from space and process them. In that regard, the entire hanger section can open, not just the quarter doors for 1 shuttle, if you look at the image I linked, you can see the four shuttle doors are part of still larger doors, all of which can open. Those larger doors also contain much smaller doors which are intended for small space only vehicles, and still smaller round doors for repair vehicles and such. But hey, its just a 3D model, nobody is going to be building this thing based on my model.

Why are there FOUR rings? To maximize gravity and minimize energy costs, you need to make ONE ring as large as possible.

Of course you would think that, not knowing much about space station design apparently. The goal is not to 'maximize gravity' its to make a ring as small as possible (to use fewer resources) which still replicates reasonable gravitational accelerations AND does not subject it's occupants to any of the dizzying affects from small radius and rapid rotation rates. If you are interested in those optimal rates, check how G Harry Stines book "Living In Space" The diameter of these rings are an optimal balance of those. Additionally, the founder of this organization, who PAID me for this work, wanted four rings because the goal of this station is not to 'minimize energy costs' but to provide a self sufficient reliable, safe, redundant refuge for a population of humans. Optimally, there would be many such stations, the more the better. The stations would collect resources from space and use them not only to repair themselves, but to build more stations. In the case of a severe emergency, the rings can seperate from each other and from the rest of the station and provide a limited duration support until rescue is possible.

At the scale you show, there would be a noticeable difference between the centripetal force near your feat and your head. It would give you a constant headache.

No you would not, the rotation rate is too slow, and the radius too large for it to be percievable over that distance. I assume you are just saying that because you 'feel' like that is the case, but the studies done on this subject disagree with you, I can provide you some relevant references if you are interested.

Likewise, why is there habitatble space (green space) outside the rings? You want green space were people are actually living, maximizing the size of the ring.

If you are actually interested you could check out the full write up at lifeboat.com, but that green section is a microgravity recreation area bridging the two pairs of rings, meant primarily to house the 500 tourists who would probably be spending most of their time in microgravity for their short stays.

There's all kinds of things missing, like external manipulation devices, ports, antennas, etc.

They are all there, at the hub of the rings are 2 different kinds of engines, chemical and ion, or their equivalent 25 years from now to represent short powerful bursts of thrust used in emergency situations, and long duration low level effecient propulsion. Around the hub are 3 sensor boxes which have antennas. Additionally, at the base of each strut on the underside of the rings are structures which contain still more thrusters, sensor domes, and high powered lasers which track and destroy small meteorites which threaten the station. As for manipulators, if you look at the picture of the hanger there are large telescopic retractable arms which manipulators on the ends which can slide forward and back along tracks, there are two in each bay, hanging from the 'cieling' and can extend over 200 meters out from the hanger bays fully deployed. With four bays there are 8 of these arms on each end. There are also magnetic clamps which grab the hull of the waverider when it docks.

You can see all of these in large image here

http://lifeboat.com/images/zoom6.jpg

The thing looks like its made out of bare metal. Are you familiar with the expression "hot tin roof"? Also, I know metal panels look cool and all, but you can't actually build large, pressurized structures that way.

Thats exactly how you build large pressurized structures, though by then their may be entirely new manufacturing techniques available. But who says thy are metal? They are a light shade and shiny, but I don't pretend to know exactly what panels will be made out of on space stations in 25 - 50 years. Do you?

Don't the lifeboat people know anything about spaceship design?

Yes, they do, obviously it is you who does not. I did most of the design of this, with aesthetic direction by the founder of the organization (some of which I disagreed with) My write up can be found here, http://lifeboat.com/ex/ark_i and was scrutinized by many members of our scientific advisory board, in particular Al Globulus. Al's background, among other things, includes

Al Globus is Senior Research Associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center. He was previously visiting research associate at the Molecular Engineering Laboratory in the chemistry department of the University of California at Santa Cruz.

Al is co-recipient of the 1997 Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology for Theoretical Work. He is member of the governing board of education for the Space Colonization Training Center (SCTC), Member of the board of directors of the National Space Society, Chairman of the National Space Society Space Settlement Advocacy Committee

etc etc

His extensive writings on orbital space settlement designs can be found here

http://space.alglobus.net/

Keep in mind, we are attempting to portray a space station built using technology 25 - 50 years advanced from now, such predictions are notoriously difficult. Additionally, though we try to make reasonable predictions based on those, you must also present the station in such a way that people connect it with concepts they know, so while we may be able to make atomically perfect molecular manufactured hulls through 3D printing like systems, making a perfectly smooth hull is something people will have difficulty connecting with. Sci Fi authors of the 40's and 50's used to depict astronaughts with slide rules, showing them with 'computers' would have left most people confused. Similiarly, the projection of a space station design 50 years out will annoy technophiles and futurists if it is not advanced enough, and annoy people not familiar with technological growth if it is too advanced looking. So, chill out a bit.

MAtus: !!!! Wow I can't believe you're the one who designed the lifeboat, I was a "fan" of that project for quiet a while two years ago. Did you make the floating octogons city as well?

Haha, thanks, no I didnt make then one, but what self respecting 3D Artists Objectivist doesnt at one time play around with floating cities made of interlocking platforms? ;P

Not very good, but it was just a quick one for fun.

[volco]

hehe, I've started my own floating city a couple of winds ago, it's located on the BIOT and it's supposed to be an autonomous region.

So I need to make up my mind on how I'll continue with this. I'm about to present myself for a job interview with an American company outsourcing here, and I need to make a portfolio. I might have to learn to render in Kerkythea

[DavidV]

Matus,

While I am only a software engineer, I do know a little about aerospace - I was an aerospace engineering major for part of undergraduate, designed and built model airplanes, and my high school science fair project was on computational fluid dynamics.

I'm not going to reply to your technical responses, not because I agree with them, but because it would take me several days to research and work out the physics, and it's just not worth it to me. I would simply suggest that you show your drawings to someone who IS an expert in the field.

Al Globulus

Being a nanotechnology researcher does not qualify you to design space stations.

[Matus1976]

Matus,

While I am only a software engineer, I do know a little about aerospace - I was an aerospace engineering major for part of undergraduate, designed and built model airplanes, and my high school science fair project was on computational fluid dynamics.

I'm not going to reply to your technical responses, not because I agree with them, but because it would take me several days to research and work out the physics, and it's just not worth it to me. I would simply suggest that you show your drawings to someone who IS an expert in the field.

In other words, you still feel like it's all wrong, but you dont want to put the effort into proving it. Fair enough. Perhaps next time you should consider situations like these, especially in fields you are not familiar with to a great degree, good opportunities to learn something new and interesting, instead of new opportunities to wield your mighty pompous forum sword.

Many experts in the field have reviewed this design, our scientific advisory board has over 300 members, including many members who directly work in this area.

Being a nanotechnology researcher does not qualify you to design space stations.

Nor does being a software engineer who though he took a few courses a few years ago is not even familiar enough with space access vehicles to recognize hypersonic waveriders.

And Of course you gloss over the first part of Al's bio

"Al Globus is Senior Research Associate for Human Factors Research and Technology at San Jose State University at NASA Ames Research Center. "

He works for NASA, spends much of his life authoring numerous studies specifically relating But he is disqualified in your mind because he also works in the nanotechnology field. "

Never mind the plethora of other members of the advisory boards who are very active in science, work for NASA, sponsor launch competitions, and work in space station and settlement designs.

Even so, within the context of this site and it's goals, the design is perfectly fine. For what its worth, I pushed for a modular design, one that was obviously assembled by numerous individual similar components, but the site owner wanted a more futuristic look because as he thought molecular manufacturing would be available, while it probably would be, the design comes off as too futuristic looking for some. Some newer members are pushing for that as well. Like I said, its a balancing act between connecting with what people are familiar with and also presenting something that takes into account technological progression, its all a big guessing game really so to assert a projection of a space station design 25 or 50 years from now is 'not realistic' is very presumptuous.

[JMeganSnow]

My *father* is a senior research scientist for human factors research and technology at Boeing, and I'd never ask him to design an airplane. Do you know what human factors is? It's designing technology so that humans can actually make use of it. It means, say, putting the latches on a space suit where you can reach them when you're suited in. If he were a *mechanical engineer*, that'd be different.

[Matus1976]

My *father* is a senior research scientist for human factors research and technology at Boeing, and I'd never ask him to design an airplane. Do you know what human factors is? It's designing technology so that humans can actually make use of it. It means, say, putting the latches on a space suit where you can reach them when you're suited in. If he were a *mechanical engineer*, that'd be different.

Yes I am aware what "human factors" studies are, the point is, as a human factors researcher at Boeing, your father obviously possesses some knowledge of airplane design, he is not a human factors researcher at steel case inc. Are you or greedy capitalist suggesting that to have a decent design for a space station for a web site which is talking about a space station which might be built 25 years to 50 years from now, they must use someone whose actual job is space station design? How many people in the WORLD actually get paid to design space stations (besides me =P, who got paid to make this) Seriously, how many would you guess?

The point is, among other things, being employed at NASA he is going to be aware of many designs factors relating to humans in space (consider human factors studies in microgravity, for instance) BUT in addition to that he is a passionate student himself of space station design and science, which his numerous essays and articles suggest, as am I. Considering that no one is going to BUILD THE DAMN THING based on MY 3D model, you people should lighten up. Greedy capitalist isnt even interested in expending the effort to understand what he is wrong about but is still sure he is right. Why? is HE a professional space station designer? NO. He took a couple classes. There are few to no professional space station designers in the world, so appealing to that as the ultimate arbiter in deciding if something is 'realistic' is ridiculous, so the people who study this passionately in their own time are the ones who do the designing, and these designs are simply conceptual overviews, they are not technical engineering schematics which will depend heavily on technical innovations many years from now. John Galt was not a professional motor maker while he worked at Taggart, Roark was not a professional architect while he was working in a quarry, to suggest, as you and greedy capitalist seem to be doing, that nobody can ever have knowledge outside their own limited direct field of employment is absurd, especially when its a field virtualy nobody in the world is employed in.

[volco]

Yes I am aware what "human factors" studies are, the point is, as a human factors researcher at Boeing, your father obviously possesses some knowledge of airplane design, he is not a human factors researcher at steel case inc. Are you or greedy capitalist suggesting that to have a decent design for a space station for a web site which is talking about a space station which might be built 25 years to 50 years from now, they must use someone whose actual job is space station design? How many people in the WORLD actually get paid to design space stations (besides me =P, who got paid to make this) Seriously, how many would you guess?

The point is, among other things, being employed at NASA he is going to be aware of many designs factors relating to humans in space (consider human factors studies in microgravity, for instance) BUT in addition to that he is a passionate student himself of space station design and science, which his numerous essays and articles suggest, as am I. Considering that no one is going to BUILD THE DAMN THING based on MY 3D model, you people should lighten up. Greedy capitalist isnt even interested in expending the effort to understand what he is wrong about but is still sure he is right. Why? is HE a professional space station designer? NO. He took a couple classes. There are few to no professional space station designers in the world, so appealing to that as the ultimate arbiter in deciding if something is 'realistic' is ridiculous, so the people who study this passionately in their own time are the ones who do the designing, and these designs are simply conceptual overviews, they are not technical engineering schematics which will depend heavily on technical innovations many years from now. John Galt was not a professional motor maker while he worked at Taggart, Roark was not a professional architect while he was working in a quarry, to suggest, as you and greedy capitalist seem to be doing, that nobody can ever have knowledge outside their own limited direct field of employment is absurd, especially when its a field virtualy nobody in the world is employed in.

I thought the lifeboat spaceship was built considering especulated dangers flowing from especulated future technologies. Then it should be able to use especulated technologies for the design, and thus there's little point in calculating its feasibility with today's technology.

At the same, like my design, the more physically and economically plausible it is, the more enjoyable it is as well. I'm not talking about a moral middle point, but of an artist's evaluation.

Remember that the product he needed to deliver with the Lifeboat asignment was an impression a perception a visual materialization in the general public, and not an actual spaceship.

This would be just as telling Ayn Rand that Rearden Metal is impossible, that we have alluminum in real life and it has different properties. duh.

But, Greedy has a very valid point. Remember: "the world as it should AND COULD be".

Edited November 18, 2007 by volco

[DavidV]

Remember that the product he needed to deliver with the Lifeboat asignment was an impression a perception a visual materialization in the general public, and not an actual spaceship.

To be more precise, the impression is targeted towards people who might support the Lifeboat Foundation - people just like me, since I do support the lifeboat foundation, in large part due to my technical background. It's not good PR for potential "customers" like me to see their imagery, and immediately think "whoever made this knows nothing about aerospace." I'm not trying to be insulting, just pointing out that that's not good marketing for an organization which seeks to build spacestations to not have consulted someone knowlegeable. There's thousands of people who are experts in such things, such as the guys behind the ISS and Bigelow.

[Moebius]

Matus I have to admit, after these exchanges your space station got about a million times more interesting. Must be the forum drama factor.

Anyway they are much more detailed than I realize at first glance. Very cool stuff. I don't know anything about space stations, but as a layman your explanations sound pretty convincing to me.

[volco]

To be more precise, the impression is targeted towards people who might support the Lifeboat Foundation - people just like me, since I do support the lifeboat foundation, in large part due to my technical background. It's not good PR for potential "customers" like me to see their imagery, and immediately think "whoever made this knows nothing about aerospace." I'm not trying to be insulting, just pointing out that that's not good marketing for an organization which seeks to build spacestations to not have consulted someone knowlegeable. There's thousands of people who are experts in such things, such as the guys behind the ISS and Bigelow.

I could never consider harsh discussion or cold analysis something insulting (its lack of would be).

So true, the LF was meant for people who have at least read Vinge, and naturally a more feasible design wqould have been better. The spaceship is still quiet very cool and I congratulate MAltus.

But I don't understand why you would support teh Foundation other than to make personal conecctions. I mean it's an insane idea. There's no more guarantee of containment (of say goo) in the spaceship than in Eart, only in the most dangerous medium of all: space.

ME, I've tryied to make my skyscraper complex more structurally sound

and began the interiors:

[Matus1976]

To be more precise, the impression is targeted towards people who might support the Lifeboat Foundation - people just like me, since I do support the lifeboat foundation, in large part due to my technical background. It's not good PR for potential "customers" like me to see their imagery, and immediately think "whoever made this knows nothing about aerospace." I'm not trying to be insulting, just pointing out that that's not good marketing for an organization which seeks to build spacestations to not have consulted someone knowlegeable. There's thousands of people who are experts in such things, such as the guys behind the ISS and Bigelow.

Yet you are wrong in just about every estimation you made, so obviously you do not know that much about aerospace design, which you admitted. Your reaction was basically a superficial knee jerk reaction based on your apparently 1960's NASA esque understanding of aerospace design. People who DO KNOW alot about aerospace and spacestations wouldnt react with comments dismissing the ring size without knowing what the actual numbers are or to hypersonic wave riders dismissing the downawrd curve of their wings which are absolutely necessary.

Constructive criticism is perfectly fine and I would always welcome it, and am never insulted by it, what was annoying was your pompous attitude, especially after admitting you don't know much about it. The guys doing ISS design and at Bigelow are focused on designing space stations NOW with materials and launch vehicles available NOW or at least in the very near future. Incidently the Lifeboat Foundation did get a quote from Bigelow just as a very superficial estimation for a station large enough to house 1500 people, I believe it came out at 500 billion dollars, and that did not take into accoutnt he technologies to make such a station self sustaining.

The Lifeboat Foundation did consult knowledgeable people, many of them, and many who are more knowledgeable than you are. As I said before, people have different perceptions of the accuracy of futuristic predictions, more conservative people would like to see a gigantic ring of assembled modules. People more liberal in their estimations envision artificial gravity and nanotechnology manufacturing, resulting in a space station no person except those few would recognize. A large ring of modules does not take into account ANY technological advancement in the next 50 years, which is unlikely. Your criticisms are based on YOUR perceptions of what a space station would be like NOW based on your apparently limited assessment of aerospace design and knowledge of materials. ANY design is going to annoy many people.

To think that lifeboat is actually going to build THIS space station based on MY 3D model is rediculous, and anyone who is dismissive of the Lifeboat Foundation because its not presenting a space station that is realisitically able to be built NOW with EXISTING technology is very shortsighted. Most people who visit the Lifeboat Foundation are all ready aware of the great changes technological advance can bring and the unpredictable nature of much of that progress - that is usually a major reason why they are visiting the site.

[Matus1976]

I could never consider harsh discussion or cold analysis something insulting (its lack of would be).

So true, the LF was meant for people who have at least read Vinge, and naturally a more feasible design wqould have been better. The spaceship is still quiet very cool and I congratulate MAltus.

But I don't understand why you would support teh Foundation other than to make personal conecctions. I mean it's an insane idea. There's no more guarantee of containment (of say goo) in the spaceship than in Eart, only in the most dangerous medium of all: space.

Thanks, it was definately an interesting project to work on. I am not sure I undersand your comment about supporting them, the foundation seeks to identify all existential threats humanity faces, rather man made or natural, and enact plans to mitigate the threats these pose, the ultimate long term maximimal mitigation strategey is to simply spread humanity out to as many places as possible, thus any single disaster has a much smaller chance of getting everyone. But there are more rational short term goals which help to mitigate these threats as well, such as information archives, genetic diversity archives, isolated bunkers in varying degrees of self-sustainiability, and of course better cheaper water purification technologies and food growing technologies - like aeroponics, for instance, which can grow food about 10x faster and with fewer resources than conventional in ground growing techniques.

The closest humanity has ever come to extinction was when a caldera volcano erupted about 70,000 years ago, the subsequent global dust layer dimmed the sun and caused a prolonged winter, it is thought that the human population was reduced to a mere 1,000 adults across the entire globe. Of course such a disaster occuring today (Yellowstone is one of these volcanos and is way overdue for eruption) would probably not wipe out all humans, but might very well thrust humanity into a new dark age with a domino like collapse of economies and governments. The last time Yellowstone erupted it covered almost all of the north american continent in a few feet of volcanic ash. The US today produces a large portion of the worlds food supply (50% by some estimates) and an even larger portion of the worlds grain supply. So its not just grey goo we face existential threats from.