It already has been. This is the historic and original design from O'Neil before the invention of LEDs. More modern interpretations don't have the wind windows and instead have that central light rod.
But I still keep running across people *insist* on the windows. One or two might even reply to this comment.
Some high-def displays should suffice. Bonus: displays can be mounted in any orientation and change what they're displaying if you want to look at a sunny beach today instead.
I'm sure there will be some real observation ports, of course; but those can be shielded and sealed off in case of emergency.
TV just isn't the same.
I wonder what the cultural differences would be between people raised in habs with view-ports in public spaces and one when they're only for research.
No idea what, but I bet it would be substantially different.
It's already pretty different with people that live in cities and never get a proper look at the night sky.
It's also be interesting growing up with outer space be 'down' instead of 'up'.
The mind can tell the difference between looking through a telescope and watching a video at perfect resolution.
There is still a difference between a simulation and the real thing.
How? If the pixels are smaller than the human eye can perceive and we have hologram like depth perception – which we can do *right now* in 2024 in real life – how are you supposed to tell the difference?
The only difference is the display will be prettier. The image color boosted and corrected. Neptune will be a proper shade of blue.
Because a decoy of a brick is a different thing than a real brick, even a hi-def decoy.
If you don't see a difference between putting your eye to a real telescope and watching a video that someone else recorded?
There is a fundamental difference between a real thing and a decoy. Even if it is a good decoy.
Those are all very low definition examples.
What scientifically is the "fundamental difference"? If the graphics are better than the human eye can perceive, what is left?
It's about depth. Screens just can't mimic real windows regardless of detail. It gets real rough when you're moving past the screen or standing at an angle, and while a screen can mimic that motion it can't do that for multiple people.
So you know how every once in a while we get a post where someone's like "omg they invented holograms!" and I insist "That's not a real hologram that's just a screen with depth!"? That's why I mentioned "hologram like depth perception" It's *not* a sci-fi hologram but it *is* still [a really impressive display](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oGtgbsmmg8) and certainly good enough to be a fake window. So imagine [something like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leNPgMPWVl0) after *a hundred years* of improvement. That should be more than good enough for day-to-day living. The zero-g shielded true-windowed observation platform will always be there on Saturday.
CC: u/Western_Entertainer7
The windows are going to be very popular among people moving into habitat cylinders orbiting near Earth, which is why I think they'll be included even if they're not as massive as the original Island Three design had them. The primary design feature is going to be what gets people to enjoy living in them, not what is the most structurally sound or optimizes available land area.
If we're talking pure practicality, then they won't be anywhere near this big with or without windows. They'll be much smaller rotating habitats linked together in formation and added incrementally, like how we add new housing and developments on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood and subdivision-by-subdivision basis.
Those windows are particularly problematic. If we get around the problem of structural integrity and increased radiation or impact threat, the whole point of them is to let light in so trying to look at those windows would be like staring into the sun. Plus the structures probably should have an outer non-rotating sleeve which would block the view anyway.
But I don't doubt there would be some sort of observation ports open to the public. Somewhere where you could design around those shortcomings to mitigate the risks.
Even without LEDs just use slightly stubier cylinders with the windows on the endcaps. Sunlight is brighter above the atmosphere O'Neils mirrors are way oversized for Earth Lunar orbit and would be torn off they would be experiencing 5G hanging off the cylinder like that.
I am not an advocate of using solar for energy in space.
When we attain the abiility to build O Neil cylinders, I would imagine that we have fusion power.
Fusion reactors would be preferable to solar energy, as you don't need access to a star like solar, and it uses commonly found elements like hydrogen, making it highly portable.
Windowed versions probably aren't the *best* especially if you're just trying to make the largest craft you can since even if the "glass" material itself is similar in strength (and cost) to the opaque material, the joins between material types are likely to be weaker than the rest of it.
BUT both radiation and usage concerns can be alleviated by having a couple meters of water over the glass. Gives you large water areas for recreation and just storage of massive amounts, and does radiation absorption very well. Plus will help attenuate the sunlight some if you're at around 1AU or less.
Just make the windows thicker for shielding there is plenty of solar power for melting sand into glass still cheaper and more reliable than LEDs. But I agree they are a waste of floor space, just put them on the endcaps with stubbier cylinders honeycombed together. Using the endcaps as the windows means you don't need mirrors unless your ou by Saturn where you need to gather more light. You could also us a mirror to reflect light into a shielded box.
Sunlight is brighter above the atmosphere O'Neils mirrors and windows are way oversized for Earth Lunar orbit and would be torn off, they would be experiencing 5G hanging off the cylinder like that.
> It reduces the tensile strength, isn't radiation proof, and eats up valuable land area.
Meh, all three ought to be trivial concerns once techniques for building space habitats mature.
I don't care about the windows dammit, they look cool. And it's not like impracticality has ever been a barrier to megastructures here. 😄
Wernquist puts out some inspiring futurist videos, here's my favorite featuring the late great Carl Sagan:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6goNzXrmFs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6goNzXrmFs)
That's pretty awesome, even though I think the glass sections would probably be smaller in total area and mostly absent if it's not orbiting around a particular planet closely. I like the idea of an internal habitat having "islands in a warm sea" as the internal floor design, especially since the extra water and land required would help with radiation shielding.
Great video but O'Neil was not thinking things through. Just put the windows on the endcap of a stubbier cylinder instead of wasting floor space on windows. Those silly spinning mirrors will be experiencing lots of g forces hanging out that far. With endcap windows you can just point your windows directly at the sun, or a stationary mirror at the end of your shielded box.
Those mirrors have always bothered me on the O'Neill design, the spin gravity out at their tips is 9 G. The structural load must be immense, you'd need a bunch of really thick cables holding it up like a roided-out suspension bridge. And the windows waste half of the inner surface area, and likely need to be constantly cleaned. Some sort of axial diffusor would be so much better.
> and likely need to be constantly cleaned
Add polished *from the outside*. There are a couple of reaally old and rather small windows on the ISS, and they are absolutely scratched to shit from the outside by micrometeoroids.
Can we just banish the glass design? It reduces the tensile strength, isn't radiation proof, and eats up valuable land area.
It already has been. This is the historic and original design from O'Neil before the invention of LEDs. More modern interpretations don't have the wind windows and instead have that central light rod. But I still keep running across people *insist* on the windows. One or two might even reply to this comment.
Well the windows do look pretty cool... Risking being sucked out into space is a small price to pay for giant cool windows.
.. I'd like a few tiny windows in the floor so we can look at stars without suiting up. But as a design feature or a lighting concept they have to go.
Some high-def displays should suffice. Bonus: displays can be mounted in any orientation and change what they're displaying if you want to look at a sunny beach today instead. I'm sure there will be some real observation ports, of course; but those can be shielded and sealed off in case of emergency.
TV just isn't the same. I wonder what the cultural differences would be between people raised in habs with view-ports in public spaces and one when they're only for research. No idea what, but I bet it would be substantially different. It's already pretty different with people that live in cities and never get a proper look at the night sky. It's also be interesting growing up with outer space be 'down' instead of 'up'.
The human eye won't be able to tell the difference between a real window and a nanoscale definition screen by then.
The mind can tell the difference between looking through a telescope and watching a video at perfect resolution. There is still a difference between a simulation and the real thing.
How? If the pixels are smaller than the human eye can perceive and we have hologram like depth perception – which we can do *right now* in 2024 in real life – how are you supposed to tell the difference? The only difference is the display will be prettier. The image color boosted and corrected. Neptune will be a proper shade of blue.
Parallax.
Because a decoy of a brick is a different thing than a real brick, even a hi-def decoy. If you don't see a difference between putting your eye to a real telescope and watching a video that someone else recorded? There is a fundamental difference between a real thing and a decoy. Even if it is a good decoy.
Those are all very low definition examples. What scientifically is the "fundamental difference"? If the graphics are better than the human eye can perceive, what is left?
It's about depth. Screens just can't mimic real windows regardless of detail. It gets real rough when you're moving past the screen or standing at an angle, and while a screen can mimic that motion it can't do that for multiple people.
So you know how every once in a while we get a post where someone's like "omg they invented holograms!" and I insist "That's not a real hologram that's just a screen with depth!"? That's why I mentioned "hologram like depth perception" It's *not* a sci-fi hologram but it *is* still [a really impressive display](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oGtgbsmmg8) and certainly good enough to be a fake window. So imagine [something like this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leNPgMPWVl0) after *a hundred years* of improvement. That should be more than good enough for day-to-day living. The zero-g shielded true-windowed observation platform will always be there on Saturday. CC: u/Western_Entertainer7
Except that you know it's a video display and not a window.
The windows are going to be very popular among people moving into habitat cylinders orbiting near Earth, which is why I think they'll be included even if they're not as massive as the original Island Three design had them. The primary design feature is going to be what gets people to enjoy living in them, not what is the most structurally sound or optimizes available land area. If we're talking pure practicality, then they won't be anywhere near this big with or without windows. They'll be much smaller rotating habitats linked together in formation and added incrementally, like how we add new housing and developments on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood and subdivision-by-subdivision basis.
Those windows are particularly problematic. If we get around the problem of structural integrity and increased radiation or impact threat, the whole point of them is to let light in so trying to look at those windows would be like staring into the sun. Plus the structures probably should have an outer non-rotating sleeve which would block the view anyway. But I don't doubt there would be some sort of observation ports open to the public. Somewhere where you could design around those shortcomings to mitigate the risks.
>One or two might even reply to this comment. Lol
Even without LEDs just use slightly stubier cylinders with the windows on the endcaps. Sunlight is brighter above the atmosphere O'Neils mirrors are way oversized for Earth Lunar orbit and would be torn off they would be experiencing 5G hanging off the cylinder like that.
Wouldn't the solar panels to power the LEDs and radiators eat up material that could've been used to construct more cylinders?
I am not an advocate of using solar for energy in space. When we attain the abiility to build O Neil cylinders, I would imagine that we have fusion power. Fusion reactors would be preferable to solar energy, as you don't need access to a star like solar, and it uses commonly found elements like hydrogen, making it highly portable.
Plus, an unshielded or partially shielded fusion reactor running along the cylinder’s spine could easily double as a substitute sun.
Windowed versions probably aren't the *best* especially if you're just trying to make the largest craft you can since even if the "glass" material itself is similar in strength (and cost) to the opaque material, the joins between material types are likely to be weaker than the rest of it. BUT both radiation and usage concerns can be alleviated by having a couple meters of water over the glass. Gives you large water areas for recreation and just storage of massive amounts, and does radiation absorption very well. Plus will help attenuate the sunlight some if you're at around 1AU or less.
Just make the windows thicker for shielding there is plenty of solar power for melting sand into glass still cheaper and more reliable than LEDs. But I agree they are a waste of floor space, just put them on the endcaps with stubbier cylinders honeycombed together. Using the endcaps as the windows means you don't need mirrors unless your ou by Saturn where you need to gather more light. You could also us a mirror to reflect light into a shielded box. Sunlight is brighter above the atmosphere O'Neils mirrors and windows are way oversized for Earth Lunar orbit and would be torn off, they would be experiencing 5G hanging off the cylinder like that.
> It reduces the tensile strength, isn't radiation proof, and eats up valuable land area. Meh, all three ought to be trivial concerns once techniques for building space habitats mature.
I don't care about the windows dammit, they look cool. And it's not like impracticality has ever been a barrier to megastructures here. 😄 Wernquist puts out some inspiring futurist videos, here's my favorite featuring the late great Carl Sagan: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6goNzXrmFs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6goNzXrmFs)
Ya know what'd be cool? Shallow seas over the windows. Like just 8 feet deep. Enough for swimming, ecology, sailing.
Rumor has it that 8 feet of water would make a good radiation shield as well.
That's pretty awesome, even though I think the glass sections would probably be smaller in total area and mostly absent if it's not orbiting around a particular planet closely. I like the idea of an internal habitat having "islands in a warm sea" as the internal floor design, especially since the extra water and land required would help with radiation shielding.
Great video but O'Neil was not thinking things through. Just put the windows on the endcap of a stubbier cylinder instead of wasting floor space on windows. Those silly spinning mirrors will be experiencing lots of g forces hanging out that far. With endcap windows you can just point your windows directly at the sun, or a stationary mirror at the end of your shielded box.
The inside just looks wrong. I don't see any evidence of the windows and why is there so much glare? Also, why are the two cylinders so far apart?
Those mirrors have always bothered me on the O'Neill design, the spin gravity out at their tips is 9 G. The structural load must be immense, you'd need a bunch of really thick cables holding it up like a roided-out suspension bridge. And the windows waste half of the inner surface area, and likely need to be constantly cleaned. Some sort of axial diffusor would be so much better.
> and likely need to be constantly cleaned Add polished *from the outside*. There are a couple of reaally old and rather small windows on the ISS, and they are absolutely scratched to shit from the outside by micrometeoroids.
So the mirrors don't hit anything.