Talk:Space habitat

Article misnamed

This seems to me to be misnamed. It should be called 'Orbital Space Colonies' or 'Orbital Space Habitats' or something like that. Also, I don't understand why the writing is suspect. Is all pretty well established stuff. See http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/75SummerStudy/Design.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlGlobus (talk • contribs) 04:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I added a section giving NASA's references, (surely they are space scientists if anyone is!). I am removing the reference request. User:Ray Van De Walker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.171.255.181 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Zone of the Enders: Antilla

i have a question-for anyone who has played "zone of the enders"(the first one)- Would Antilla be an O'Neill cylinder? seeing as there is a section there about "O'Neill cylinders in popular culture,i thought it was prudent to check. (yes i know i should have put that there but i havent because this is a more central page with all the links on) Pikajedi3 16:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear power / magnetosphere

Can anyone make this sentence more clear? I don't understand how these are connected: "As well, colonies are well outside the magnetosphere of Earth, and can employ nuclear power without fear of pollution."Dreixel 14:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Found source of the problem. From the Project Orion article:

Today, if Orion-style nuclear pulse rockets are built they can legally be launched from above the magnetosphere so that charged ions of fallout in its exhaust plasma are not trapped by the Earth's magnetic field and are not returned to Earth.

Someone must have read this and extrapolated. But this refers only to nuclear explosions, not nuclear reactors. So the statements in the above sentence are not connected. I'll rewrite the statement in question to reflect that. Noclevername 04:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Unclear

What does # 9 under Problems mean? Can someone clear this statement up? Noclevername 18:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand it either. I've tagged it with a request for a citation, because hopefully one would clarify the intended meaning. If we don't get one soon, I suggest removing it. JulesH 18:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Centrifugal/centripetal force

(copied from User talk:JulesH:) Hmm, just looking to avoid a 'revert war', but as I understand it, the centrifugal force acts in a reactionary manner on the object which is exerting the centripetal force. In this case, the habitat is exerting a centripetal force on its occupants, while the occupants are exerting a reactionary centrifugal force on the habitat. That is why I'm suggesting that centripetal be used, rather than centrifugal, as the subject is the effect on the occupants.

The ficticious definition of the centrifugal force really doesn't help someone who is trying to understand it as it is, well, ficticious, and therefore could lead someone analysing the physics in the wrong direction (pun entirely unintended). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiroth (talk • contribs) 04:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

The problem with saying it's the centripetal force that acts in this manner is twofold:

• Centripetal force acts in the opposite direction to the "gravity" that is felt in a rotating frame, so clearly it isn't actually centripetal force. It might, however, be the reaction force provided by centripetal force, except...
• Only something that's actually in contact with the outer edge would experience centripetal force. But all objects within the frame of reference experience apparent downwards acceleration, whether they are in contact or not. The acceleration is fictitious (i.e., it's really caused by an *absence* of acceleration due to there being no centripetal force to keep the object moving in a circle), but is an observable phenomenon. The "force" causing it is the fictitious centrifugal force (really a combination of inertia and lack of centrepetal force, which is effectively what centrifugal force is).

Hope that clarifies things. JulesH 09:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough - it does end up becoming a more useful way of looking at it than analysis of real forces in the end, doesn't it? Although I still believe that centripetal is the more technically accurate, centrifugal it is for reasons of convenience. -Xiroth 00:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"Bubbleworld" asteroids

Should Larry Niven's concept of hollowing, heating and "inflating" iron asteroids to make large space habitats be included, or is it too speculative at present? --- Noclevername 21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If there are non-fictional sources, I think it should be included. JulesH 08:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Got it. In the nonfiction article "Bigger than Worlds", Niven states that he got the design from the book Islands in Space by Dandridge M. Cole and Donald W. Cox. ---Amazon.com: found it, Islands in Space;: The Challenge of the Planetoids (the ;: appears to be part of the title), 1964, "unknown binding" [1]. I'll add the description but I have had a terrible time trying to use footnotes (newbie, y'know). Any help in doing so would be appreciated. Noclevername 19:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to Niven's article? JulesH 08:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"Bigger Than Worlds", section title: "Inside-Outside", pp. 517-518, Playgrounds of the Mind, Larry Niven, Tor Science Fiction, 1991 Noclevername 22:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Radiation

As it is, the article claims that the radiation level one would be exposed to in a space habitat is "well above" what is considered a dangerous level. However, in The High Frontier, it says that, discounting heavy primaries and solar flares, the average amount of radiation one would be exposed to in a space habitat with an atmosphere is 10 rads. While above anything here on Earth this is still below the level at which signifigant radiation poisoning is very likely (20 rads). If no-one can give a source to the current statement soon, then I propose changing it. Lehi (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hold on... 10 rads = 100 milligray. To convert to sieverts as used in the article we need to know the type of radiation; we'll assume low-energy neutron radiation with a Q of 5, and we'll assume exposure to the whole of a person's body so N=1. This suggests exposure is 500 mSv, way higher than the values in the article. The 20 rads safe level you suggest converts to 1 Sv, which is enough radiation to induce immediate physical effects. The current statement is talking about repeated prolonged exposure, for which safe limits are substantially lower than individual doses. JulesH (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean?

Advantages

5. Easier trade with Earth than planetary colonies, as colonies orbiting Earth will not have a gravity well to overcome to export to Earth, and a smaller gravity well to overcome to import from Earth.

Is it saying that trade would be easier directly between individual colonies and the Earth than trade between different space colonies; i.e. that colony-to-Earth trade would be easier than colony-to-colony trade? And if so, how is this an advantage and for whom, the colonies, the Earth, both? (it would seem to me that eventually, colony-to-colony trade would be easier than colony-to-Earth trade, and that this would be more preferred in furthering the goals of independence and self-sufficiency beyond Earth). This really needs to be clarified (rewritten), as I cannot tell what the sentence is trying to say (or am I just "not getting it"?)--Shanoman (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It almost needn't be mentioned, but that entire section is poorly referenced, and source citations are required for assertions like the one you quoted. That said, take a look at Delta_v#Delta-vs_around_the_Solar_System for a good graphic showing what the quoted text is probably trying to assert. (sdsds - talk) 04:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I just edited the claimed advantage in question. I hope that that is what you want.--Fartherred (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

too much science fiction

Advantages: vast access to resources, not true given that the only in-situ resource utilization for a space habitat is solar energy. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, if you're in, for example, high earth orbit, the delta-v/shipping costs/shipping time from the moon is not actually that great. Once you have a supply of mass, and plenty of energy, you can do just about anything really.

You can also build habitats near asteroids like Ceres, the delta-v there is even lower, and Ceres is volatile rich.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• I can see that it might be beneficial for Wikipedia to have more in line references than would be expected in an encyclopedia article in which one or two known respected authorities as authors can be trusted on many minor points. However, the call for a citation for the fact that space habitats would have access to constant solar energy goes beyond the line of the reasonable. This is common knowledge and needs no citation. The call for a citation for the immense population capacity for space habitats as a group is in error because the citation is given in line just 15 words beyond the call for a citation. I ask TeH nOmInAtOr to remove these calls for citation which he made in error.--Fartherred (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I removed the tags in question.--Fartherred (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Various revisions by 218.164.122.65

Most of the revisions by 218.164122.65 seem helpful but I have doubts about adding "most easily" to make "Nitrogen is most easily available from the Earth." My guess is that Space habitats are at least thirty years in the future, probably more. Considering the difficulty of lifting anything from Earth's gravity well, it could well be cheaper thirty years hence to distill nitrogen from Mars' atmosphere which contains about three percent Nitrogen. The added expense in extracting the Nitrogen might be made up in the reduced expense of transporting it to space habitats even in cis lunar space. Single stage to orbit reusable shuttles that have proved such a difficult challenge on Earth as to seem impossible are well within current design capabilities if operated from Mars. These could be fueled from locally available materials. If the article is to indicate that nitrogen from Mars would not be cheaper than nitrogen from Earth for Space habitats, there should be a reliable reference to state that.--Fartherred (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

False claim of vandalism

I have read the edits identified by CardinalDan as vandalism in his edit at 06:36:40 hours on the 27th of March. These edits were not vandalism. Wikipedia can use help in its struggles against vandalism, but here it seems that CardinalDan was somewhat trigger-happy, careless or both.

Here is a quote from the Wikipedia's policy on vandalism: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism."

I see no evidence on CardinalDan's user page that he is even qualified to edit the Space habitat article. Certainly the mere fact that an edit came from an IP address does not make it vandalism.--Fartherred (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has posted any disagreement with my suggestion that CardinalDan was mistaken in reverting certain edits, I will restore these edits. It may be that these edits should be removed, but please do not call them vandalism. Fartherred (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Heated rejection

User:67.193.56.126 Removed a citation needed tag from the "heat rejection" paragraph. The edit summary indicates "it seems like a very basic fact." I would summarize the whole heat rejection paragraph as: "Habitats need a radiator to eliminate heat from absorbed sunlight." The rest is a bunch of false statements, nonsense, vague ideas from no source and/or original research. (As Wikipedia defines it, original research is any sort of dubious statement not attributed to some reliable source.) As to the "thermos bottle" referred to in the "Heat rejection" section, it is usually understood as a double walled bottle with a vacuum between the two walls to thermally insulate the contents. In that case a space habitat is as much like a thermos bottle as it is like a beer bottle. The comparison is worthless. Simply, a space habitat is in a vacuum and so lacks a way to lose heat by convection to air or water. Radiation is all that is left, and it is a definite problem. Certainly handling this problem might involve distributing coolants, but the section would have to direct me to some specific plan before I could judge it practical or not. In particular there needs to be a source mentioned so that I can see some real person actually made some definite proposal. I know there are numerous definite proposals of varying practicality and level of detail, but the Heat rejection section in this article is worthless.--Fartherred (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Superfluous link

I removed the link to [[Earth]] because everyone knows what Earth is and if they want a 126 kilobyte article giving additional details on Earth, they will not search by way of a [[Space habitat]] article. --Fartherred (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Damage Repaired

I think I have mainly repaired the unintentional damage done by User:67.185.205.32's edits, and hope I have retained some of the value. There is still that huge lack of references to work on and a few other minor points. --Fartherred (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

How embarrassing. I got the year wrong on a couple of {{citation needed}} tags that I put into the article. It is a good thing SmackBot is on the ball and caught it. There is still the work of finding the references ahead of me. It is just a question of finding the time. --Fartherred (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

bolo or bola?

A bolo is a machete. See bolas. What metaphor is intended? —Tamfang (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me bola was intended. I could change it, but the honor is yours if you want it. I need to make a trip to a suitable library and do some research on things like this. Just rummaging through the internet is insufficient. --Fartherred (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Extropian Institute advertising does not belong here

If true, the statement that some L5 members are active in the Extropian Institute has nothing to do with space habitats. --Fartherred (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed statements about the Extropian Institute, the National Space Society, the Moon Society and the Mars Society that did not refer to space habitats. --Fartherred (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Its name was Extropy Institute anyway. —Tamfang (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Space stations vs. space habitats

User N2e has added a section about the proposed Bigelow Commercial Space Station. It seems that this addition would be a better fit to the space station article referred to in the see also list. --Fartherred (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

N2e also suggested changing the lead section to allow the inclusion of non habitat space stations in this article. The reason we have two articles is to address two different topics. It seems to me the definition of this article should remain as it is. --Fartherred (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As I read my dictionary a habitat is a place to live. So a space habitat is a subclass of space station, and whether or not the International Space Station or the proposed Bigelow Commercial Space Station qualify as a space habitat is open to discussion. --Fartherred (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. I did not realize the article was intended to be restricted to the more narrowly-defined, long-term (forever???) space colonies at the time I added the Bigelow Space Station section. I'm fine with it being removed for now, while we discuss article scope here on the Talk page. I think my confusion came from the article title, which does not seem to limit the scope to the actual scope that editors have limited this article to over time.

I see a couple of possible approaches. Since the term "space habitat" is clearly a more general term, it will eventually point to some WP article that is more general than the concept you are limiting it to in this article today. I could likely find reliable sources that document this usage with a little bit of work, and I may come back and do that. But over time, I think it will happen even if I ignore it. So approach no. 1 would be to consider renaming this article to a more clear name that explicitly or implicitly limits the article scope more than the current title (Space habitat) does. The second approach is for someone, whether me or another editor, to find the verifiable sources for space habitat in more broad usage, and then morph this article into a broader and more general article on all "space habitats".

Personally, I can see the distinction you are trying to maintain in this article, and I like it. So I favor option no. 1. What do others think? Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to find you so agreeable. I would like to move your additions over to the space station article, but it would be easier for you to keep the attribution to N2e where it belongs than for me. I do not have any experience in such moves. We still should get more comments before doing anything though. Perhaps I must hog tie a couple of contributors and drag them over here to comment on this. --Fartherred (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have them handy, but IIRC, both Gerry O'Neill (damn if I can recall the name of the book :( It was his description of the evo of the idea, along with details & drawings) & Jerry Pournelle (in A Step Farther Out) distinguished habs from space stations. I seem to recall Heppenheimer did, too, in High Frontier, & Harry Stine may have in Third Industrial Revolution (or maybe just mentioned it in passing...) Their use of "space habitat" was limited to the big O'Neill habs, & as I recall, O'Neill made the point of distinguishing them from "space stations" & "space colonies"; IIRC, he limited "colony" to planetary sites. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Good contribution to the discussion TREKphiler. If you find that verifiable distinction in a third-party source, we could definitely use it in the intro/setup to both articles, basically to define the scope of each article, etc.

However, in the absence of such a well-sourced distinction, I continue to think that, in the medium term, the term "space habitat" is clearly a more general term than this existing article can successfully limit it to. Thus, the "space habitat" article will eventually point to some WP article that is more general than the concept editors are limiting it to in this article today. Any of us could likely find reliable sources that document this broader usage with a little bit of work, but no one has done so yet. But over time, I think it will happen even if each of usignore it. So approach no. 1 remains to consider renaming this article to a more clear name that explicitly or implicitly limits the article scope more limited than the current title (Space habitat) does. The second approach is for someone, whether me or another editor, to find the verifiable sources for space habitat in more broad usage, and then morph this article into a broader and more general article on all "space habitats". Only time will tell which outcome will emerge in the great spontaneous order of Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have requested a citation for the claim in the article lede that the term is limited to the more narrow sense only; i.e., that "space habitat" = "permanent" space habitation. N2e (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Citations and sources are needed

Please be sure that all additions to the Space habitat article are are verifiable. Any new items added to the article should have inline citations for each claim made.

I have removed a good deal of the unsourced material that had been previously tagged {{citation needed}} for at least a couple of months with no sources added. There is yet more of this to remove. If you have a source, please feel free to add the removed material back in, along with the citation. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I made an estimate that mankind has launched under 30,000 tons into orbit, whereas a Bernal Sphere has a low mass estimate of 3.5 million tons. It is easy to calculate as OR, but I haven't found a reference. --IanOsgood (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Some of the un-cited material is perhaps from here: http://books.google.ch/books?id=YUcjOsG0hi0C&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=people+get+motion-sick+in+centrifuges&source=bl&ots=QEkskbGggW&sig=2yGUKZgrQxHcPvqO_rgbTk8ivWo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jjUbT6DKFoya-wbFlIy4Cg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=people%20get%20motion-sick%20in%20centrifuges&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.44.11 (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Space habitats moving to other stars

User: 74.194.199.65 objects to a space habitat being the passenger compartment of a star ship.

This article is not so much concerned with whether it is possible to colonize distant stars using space habitats as what reliable sources write about it. In Space colonization#Outside the Solar System there is a quote of Stephen Hawking about going to another star to find an Earthlike planet to establish colonies. Generation ship has the statement "...self-sustaining space habitats would be needed." I realize I have not provided a reference, but this is such a commonly repeated theme that I should not have much trouble. Wait a bit. - Fartherred (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: phrase it to make clear the essentials of a hab underlie the essentials of a self-sustaining deep-space vessel. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Niven's bubbleworld(s)

“ The Bubbleworld concept was popularized by science fiction author Larry Niven in his fictional Known Space stories, describing such worlds as the primary habitats of the Belters, a civilization who had colonized the Asteroid Belt. ”

Yes and no. The only mention of the concept that I remember in his fiction is "Confinement Asteroid", where pregnant Belters live (because babies don't develop properly in microgravity). The existence of such a habitat for special use implies that they're not common. —Tamfang (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Terrarium as space habitat

I do not know if mention in a science fiction novel is sufficient to qualify the terrarium idea for inclusion in the [[Space habitat]] article. I think not. While this is being considered I will remove the phrase "relativistic speeds" from the section because it is common knowledge that nothing traveling at relativistic speeds follows regular routes through the solar system. - Fartherred (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of [[Template:By whom]]

It seems to me that the [[Template:By whom]] was correctly used to tag an unsourced, unattributed opinion. The template was removed without explanation so I restored it, pending discussion. - Fartherred (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest the change of "At the time, colonization was definitely seen[by whom?] as an end in itself. The basic proposal by O'Neill had an example..." to "O'Neill's proposal had an example..." This eliminates the tagged statement along with the tag. - Fartherred (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

An off-topic link

In the Space Studies Institute subsection of the section, Engineering studies, there is a link from the word economically to Economics of extraterrestrial resource extraction which at first sounds as though it might relate to using mass drivers to lift resources from the moon, but when one follows the link it leads by redirect to the Asteroid mining article which is only indirectly related to moving ores from the Moon. I will remove the distracting off-topic link and place a link to asteroid mining where it belongs. - Fartherred (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive links to the above redirect have been removed from Colonization of the Moon, Colonization of Mars, and "Space habitat". I have suggested to the author of the redirect, User:N2e, that the redirect itself should be deleted but he would not cooperate making that process more difficult. So instead I would like to convert the redirect into a DAB page in which readers can choose an article as they wish for information about the economics of extraterrestrial resource extraction Colonization of the Moon#Economic development, Colonization of Mars#Economics, or Asteroid mining#Economics. I offer a link to my concept of the page at Talk:Economics of extraterrestrial resource extraction. Check it out and comment if you like. - Fartherred (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I think you are on a bit of thin ice—besides not assuming good faith—by labeling a good faith link as "disruptive" and saying that User:N2e (me) "would not cooperate". Moreover, you did it without a hotlink to my user id, so I wouldn't necessarily have seen your comment, and thus be able to fairly respond to it. (In the event, I saw changes on my Watchlist; with has thousands of articles on it, so I would most likely have missed it.)

• re "disruptive": it is not disruptive to offer a link to a Economics of extraterrestrial resource extraction to assist the Wikipedia reader to get to an article that discusses the topic of Economics of extraterrestrial resource extraction at all; it is merely a less-than-perfect link in the always improving soup of Wikipedia. Let's get back to improving the encyclopedia, not discussing various contributors to that fine work of emergent order..
• that the current existence of Economics of extraterrestrial resource extraction is a redir is merely a result of Wikipedia being a work in progress. That item (formerly a REDIR, and now a DAB) will eventually exist as an article. It does not yet. As can be seen in our discussion of it on that Talk page, both of us agree on that. I don't believe it is right to remove the link here in a dispute over whether a particular redir is deleted or not; but I have neither the time nor inclination to get into a revert war with you.
• re "User:N2e ... would not cooperate". I think you are incorrect. I have entered into a discussion with you on that Talk page; we agree on some things and not on others. Calling that "would not cooperate" is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT! writ large.

Finally, uncivil behavior on your part will only make the process of getting consensus in place on the things we do agree on more difficult. YMMV, but I would suggest an alternate and more civil path to improving this encyclopedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

N2e, you complain about my labeling your good faith link as disruptive. Here is a quote from: WP:Disruptive editing: "The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia." Indeed I wrote that you would not cooperate, because it is true. Also there was no obligation on your part to cooperate in deleting the "Economics of extraterrestrial resource extraction" redirect. I was not finding fault with you. My statement is descriptive of the situation in hope of drawing other editors to "Talk:Economics of extraterrestrial resource extraction". I am sorry I did not leave out your user name.

What we have here is a difference of opinion about what is disruptive. This is a forum to discuss content. I consider linking the word "economically" in the clause: "the essential technology for moving ores economically from the Moon to space-colony orbits" to the "Asteroid_mining#Economics" section while displaying only the redirect title to be disruptive because the reader would expect something about moon transportation from the text, and the reader would expect something related to Space Studies Institute work in the section so titled. - Fartherred (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Definition

It seemed odd to have a first-level section saying what the article is not about, so I reorganized the lede a bit. Let the edit wars begin. —Tamfang (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Fiction vs History

I suggest that the sentence about the Elysium movie belongs in the Fiction section rather than History. In fact, there have recently been a great flurry of movies featuring low-to-medium earth orbit space stations which seem to varying degrees to constitute space habitats (not to mention all the video game uses, which seemingly an entire generation of young non-readers regard as the origin of the entire concept), so the Fiction section has lots of potential entries which could be added; but I hardly think any of this qualifies as history. If the very first notions appeared in fiction, over a century ago, then sure that is history, but I don't think any fictional references in the last 40 years (or 60?) qualify for the history section, which ought to be reserved for legitimate engineering innovations in recent times. 173.180.150.33 (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC) --(an anonymous occasional editor, whose usual grammar and spelling corrections hardly seem worth getting an account, which I don't have time for anyway)

I'd agree with that. IMO, any fictional treatment beyond the first conceptual use in fiction, which introduced the idea, isn't history. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Space habitat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114035834/http://www.strangehorizons.com/2005/20050221/homesteading-a.shtml to http://www.strangehorizons.com/2005/20050221/homesteading-a.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

"Space settlement"

It has been discussed above in 2010 that the article-term "Space habitat" is misleading.

While I agree its not to be understood as space station, I do see the need to move this article to "Space settlement" and use this article for structures like the Habitation Module.

Alternatively I could set up an article called "Space habitat (facility)" and kind of make this article "Space habitat (settlement)"? Nsae Comp (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I have created and redirected the articles Space habitat (settlement) and Space habitat (facility). Lets see how its picked up? Maybe this article will even just become a disambiguation site? Nsae Comp (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Article should be moved/renamed

As discussed multiple times above, the article is poorly named. The body of the article seems to be focused on a structure that is untethered in space with little-to-no gravity, not attached to a celestial body (such as a planet, moon, asteroid, etc), but this does not fit into the more widely accepted definition of "space habitat", which does not have this restriction. For example:

- The IAF (International Astronautical Federation)'s Space Habitats Committee says it aims to discuss "the issues and stakes raised by future space habitats (including settlements on celestial bodies and orbital infrastructures)".

- Room.eu.com has an article on "space habitats", which also assumes that they can be attached to a celestial body https://room.eu.com/article/the-multidisciplinary-world-of-space-habitation-design

Its hard to find references to back this article up when the article itself is based on a definition that does not seem to be accepted by other parties. Even the article itself is aware of the confusion here, saying "A space habitat, or more precisely a space settlement", and then later: "The term space habitat sometimes includes more broadly habitats built on or in a body other than Earth—such as the Moon, Mars or an asteroid. This article concentrates on self-contained structures envisaged for micro-g environments."

As suggested above, I think this article should be renamed to "Orbital Space Habitats", "Orbital Cities", "Deep Space Human Habitation" or something similar in order to match the contents and focus of article. Bugghost (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2024

Space habitat → Space settlement – As discussed above - this article is currently wholly based on the assumption that space habitats are in a micro-g scenario, which does not fit the more widely accepted definition, which is more general.

For example, the IAF's Space Habitat's Committee's definition includes both "settlements on celestial bodies and orbital infrastructures". Renaming this article to "Orbital space habitat" would reduce ambiguity of the purpose of the article. Bugghost (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: "Orbital space habitat" currently redirects to Space habitat (facility). The Space habitat (facility) article was created due to the ambiguity of this current article's title - see above in the talk section titled "Space settlement" by @Nsae Comp.

I'm proposing that the Orbital space habitat -> Space habitat (facility) redirect is removed in order to facilitate the renaming of this article.

Also welcoming any other name suggestions. Some may have objections to "Orbital space habitat" because technically the habitat could be non-orbiting. (Maybe "Deep space settlement" would be more fitting?) Bugghost (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your ping. Yes I very much concur with renaming this article because of the mentioned ambiguity with space habitat modules, this has been ignored since the articles creation 2006 when the first argument of it being misnamed was posted. Lets get this done. But "orbital space habitat" does not solve this problem. "Space settlement" is imho the most straight forward solution, but there might be better ones. To underline the main point I have added the above mentioned IAF definition/differentiation to the article flashing out the difference to habitat modules. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I see what you're saying - I agree that "Space settlement" is a good way of differentiating the topic from a habitat module, and it's an improvement over my suggestion of "Orbital space habitat". However I still think the title needs some way of conveying that the topic is about settlements that are floating in space (rather than, lets say, on the surface of a planet). What about "Orbital settlement"? Orbital settlement already redirects to this article Bugghost🎤:🐛👻 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I tend to say that I am fine with "orbital settlement". But it basically raises the question if we possibly want a seperate article about space settlements in general, which would include orbital settlements, extraterrestrial settlements and interplanetary or cycler settlements, and interstellar settlement or arks?

Or shall this article be about all that? ... Writing this and realizing the spectrum of space settlements and looking at the focus of this article I now completely agree that "orbital settlement" is the best title for this established article/content.

One more but: "space settlement" (and possibly "extraterrestrial settlement", if such a redirect would be created) cant be a redirect to here anymore, because "space settlement" then is broader. But this can be solved in a later step.

For now lets change this articles title and do what it has been lacking for a very long time. Nsae Comp (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Technically the current article is about non-planetary space settlements. I think that a new article for orbital settlements could be created, but the content of the current Space habitat article goes beyond mere orbital habitats (spacecrafts for interstellar travel or generation ships would also have to be based on concepts such as Bernal sphere, Stanford torus or O'Neill cylinder (see for example here), so those aren't only for strictly orbital settlements). MGeog2022 (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Despite the article not covering habitats built on or in a body other than Earth—such as the Moon, Mars or an asteroid, I think that space habitat is more generic than orbital space habitat. While generally a space habitat would be an orbital one, what about for example spacecrafts for interstellar travel or generation ships? Those would also be space habitats with micro-g environments, but wouldn't be orbital space habitats. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of our proposal in the other branch of the discussion, of differentiating it to "space settlement" (what I would argue is what you were sketching) and move it to "orbital settlement"? Nsae Comp (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think space settlement would be a right name for the article currently named as space habitat. The article currently named as Space habitat (facility) could then remain as the sole space habitat article (both concepts are habitats, but one is a permanent settlement, while the other isn't, at least necessarily). I'm not sure if this is what you are saying, since I see no place for renaming any currently existing article to orbital settlement. I identify the following article hierarchy:

• Space habitat (currently Space habitat (facility); exists):
  • Space station (exists)
  • Space settlement (currently Space habitat; exists):
    • (non-Earth) Planetary habitat (doesn't exist) (should also cover habitats in astronomical objects other than planets)
      • Moonbase (exists)
      • Mars habitat (exists)
    • Generation ship (exists)
    • Orbital settlement (doesn't exist, but it probably wouldn't have much to add to space settlement article) MGeog2022 (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

      Sorry I seem to have missed these other replys. I am more and more for "space settlement". I though think space settlement might be a sub-category of extraterrestrial settlement, and not the other way around, because of atmospheric extraterrestrial settlements. But especially in that case its good to have this "space settlement" called article. Nsae Comp (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The NSS uses "orbital space settlement", and as far as I know they have been hosting much of O'Neil's concepts, which are often cited concepts for orbital space setllements.[2] So I am either for orbital settlement or orbital space settlement. Nsae Comp (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Just brainstorming a bit: if the original purpose of calling this article "space habitat" was to emphazise the habitat concept, habitat in the sense of a lived in nature immitating environment, like a habitat of a species. Then other terms could be sphere (as in Biosphere 2), dome, spome. From architecture the closest concept probably would be arcology. Which brings us back to more classical concepts like city or island. That said I think settlement is still the most general and the other concepts are more particular. Nsae Comp (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose this is not restricted to orbital space, Free space habitat would be better, since they are habitats in free space (as opposed to atmospheric, surface or subsurface habitats), and not necessarily in orbit (ie. Lagrangian habitats, habitats launched into interstellar space) -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 06:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know what an "atmospheric habitat" is, or what purpose would it have if it was possible. I agree that "orbital space habitat" isn't right, because the article is about habitats that could be in an orbit, but also could not. I'm not sure if "free space habitat" is OK, though, because it possibly could be misleading (perhaps it can lead the reader to think that the habitat can't be in orbit). MGeog2022 (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  re:atmospheric... such as proposals for aerostat habitats for the colonization of Venus.

  re:freespace... well deep space is beyond Earthspace (or beyond the Solar System), so wouldn't apply to anything in orbit of Earth either. Free space would be stations in zero-g/freefall in outer space in vacuum (in space, not falling down to the surface freefall down the gravity well like a vomit comet)

  -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I wasn't aware of the concept of atmospheric habitat.

  Free space would be stations in zero-g/freefall in outer space in vacuum: so free space habitat isn't a right name for the current Space habitat article, because those would, in many cases, be orbital ones.

  I think that the new name should be Space settlement, or remain as it is. The existence of Space habitat (facility) perhaps is not such a big problem. Sometimes the best solution is the one that Paul McCartney would say: let it be :-) MGeog2022 (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that this article has been named Space habitat for nearly 22 years, that name changes were proposed several times over this period, but eventually it wasn't changed (see above in this discussion), and that in most if not all other languages (at least the ones that use Latin script) it's also called Space habitat. MGeog2022 (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The previous requests never gained any attention or discussion. It would seem because no one cares. But if I look at the sources and institutions that talk about this call it settlement and not habitat, because habitats are not large scale and complex living complexes. So orbital space settlement according to the NSS use (see reference above) is the most fitting and in use term. Wikiepedia is not static just because it has been around forever. Nsae Comp (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem, I like Space settlement as a possible name for the article, as I said above, because it assumes nothing about whether it is in orbit or not. I don't say that it shouldn't be renamed, just that the existence of more than 10 articles in other languages under the title Space habitat is also something to think about when assessing pros and cons of renaming the article.

On the other hand, space habitat is a commonly used term outside of Wikipedia (this name isn't due to original research or an invention or mistake by a contributor): just see for example here, here and here. Again, I'm not saying that settlement isn't a valid or even better name, just that habitat is valid as well. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Introduction paragraph of O'Neill cylinder article currently says space settlement, while the same paragraph of Bernal sphere and Standford torus both say space habitat.

The current Space habitat article contains space habitat text 47 times, and space settlement 11 times (most in references or external links). I think that a consistent use of the terms should be kept if the article is renamed, replacing most occurrences of space habitat by space settlement (keeping space habitat in some cases, like when the differences between settelement and habitat are explained). Once an agreement is reached, I think that O'Neill cylinder, Bernal sphere and Standford torus should use the agreed term consistently.

If renamed, I think the new name should be space settlement. As the article says:

A space habitat, or more precisely a space settlement, is any large-scale habitation facility in space, or more particularly in outer space or an orbit.

There are some differences between settlement and habitat (they are also explained in the article), but basically they are the same: habitat is used when seen from a technical viewpoint, and settlement from a human social one (that is, a space settlement lives in a space habitat, just like the "settlement" of Irish people lives in the "habitat" of the island of Ireland). MGeog2022 (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Then we are good to go as far as I can see. If "orbital space settlement" or "space settlement" I dont care much because it only depends on which focus the article has. The latter would then in my opinion need to see the inclusion of other forms of space settlements in the text. Nsae Comp (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

100% agreeing with Nsae Comp - happy with either "Orbital space settlement" or "Space settlement", but if we go with the latter then the article should include some discussion of other types of settlements in space (eg. maybe just an exerpt from Space Colonization and pointing to that article for more details about settlements on other planents/celestial bodies). Bugghost🎤:🐛👻 08:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I'll add some mention of non-orbital settlements. Then, the new name should be "Space settlement", and most occurrences of "space habitat" in the article should be replaced by "space settlement" (I volunteer to change it myself if nobody else does it before). The same for articles such as Stanford torus and Bernal sphere (O'Neill cylinder already has Space settlement). MGeog2022 (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

If renamed, some kind of disambiguation link for Space habitat should be kept, redirecting to this article, because people would continue searching for Space habitat while looking for this very article. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I changed the proposed new name to Space settlement, since it seems that we all agree it's a good one. MGeog2022 (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)