Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl
Sorry, I tend to layer my habitat designs and went back to an old design that had fifty-five habitat shells, each with 1 km of thickness It ends up being a effective projected area of 2 million square kilometers.
|
Ah, now I get what you meant.
Hrm... it looks like Spaceships' "Open Spaces" don't really match up with this approach, as their rated acreage comes nowhere close to what you describe. So, presumably, all those spaces would be built as Habitats; a SM+27 Hab system with total life support would house 10 billion people, and cost $3 quadrillion. Which /could/ work...
... though I'm still hesitant to try this approach, given how many things can go wrong with actively-managed life-support systems in a single century, let alone a hundred-thousand centuries. I admit that I'm heading into territory Spaceships doesn't come close to touching with this requirement, but I think I'd need a bit more persuasion to abandon my current 'self-correcting ecosystems' approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
I think you're running into flaws with how Spaceships handles radiation shielding, it's a fairly trivial problem on truly large scale habitats. Other than that, I would probably not even try to use Spaceships for this, because it's just really far away from the sort of thing Spaceships is designed for.
|
True, but where Spaceships /can/ stretch this far, it's offering some interesting insights, such as how viable any particular drive-system might be to nudge such a ridiculously-large body's orbit. (Eg, the rocket equation is less of an issue than flying enough fuel-mining robotic craft just to feed a SM+29 mass driver; the fuel for which costs $3 quadrillion to provide 0.00003 mps of delta-v to a SM+35 station. (Which is cheaper than any other non-superscience drive in the books, usually by orders of magnitude.))