Where is my von Braun wheel?

Starship and Large Habitats

• Some see Starship-to-LEO as technologically conservative and “no-lose”: even partial success yields a very capable, cheaper heavy launcher; full success could enable very large space hotels and testbeds for lunar/Mars tech.
• Skeptics highlight refueling complexity, limited current market for 100‑ton payloads, and poor lunar performance without in‑situ propellant.
• There’s debate over whether a cheap heavy lifter will create new markets (telescopes, large habitats) or whether demand is overstated.

Atmosphere, Water, and Materials in Space

• Large rotating habitats are constrained by the need for huge amounts of nitrogen (or other buffer gases); oxygen is easy from oxides, but pure O₂ atmospheres are unsafe.
• Discussion of shipping LN₂ or ammonia, vs water as “oxygen+hydrogen in a bag,” with tradeoffs in tank mass and logistics.
• Ideas for sourcing volatiles: lunar ice, comets/asteroids, Ceres, or atmospheric scooping in LEO; many argue importing from Earth or Moon remains cheaper/ easier for a long time.
• Alternative atmospheres (argon, helium, SF₆) are mentioned but helium leakage and flammability/radiative issues are concerns.

Where to Colonize: Moon, Mars, Ceres, Free Space

• One view: Ceres is the ultimate target due to abundant water and nitrogen; proposal is a beanstalk plus many O’Neill cylinders, potentially supporting populations larger than Earth’s.
• Counterpoints: Ceres’ large delta‑v, long transit times, and need for high‑efficiency propulsion make it a very remote and difficult goal.
• Moon is seen by some as the natural first permanent base and construction yard; others worry its “convenience” encourages under‑committed, politically fragile projects.
• Skeptics doubt any economic case for large‑scale Mars or space colonization; optimists see it as a long‑term “interstellar pathway.”

Artificial Gravity vs Zero-G Stations

• Many argue the ISS largely duplicated Mir/Salyut biomedical knowledge and that a rotating station should have been built to study partial gravity (Moon/Mars analogs).
• Defenders say ISS provided crucial long‑duration data, microgravity science, and, especially, engineering/operational experience and a path for commercial crew/cargo.
• Technical debate on von Braun wheels: Coriolis effects, gravity gradients along the body, required radius, and alternative designs (barbells/dumbbells, tethers, H‑shapes).
• Radiation shielding is seen as a bigger long‑term constraint than gravity: truly safe habitats likely need massive, in‑space‑built structures.

Inflatable and Modular Habitat Concepts

• Inflatables (BEAM, Sierra Space, Chinese demos) are viewed as a promising way to get large pressurized volume cheaply.
• Ideas include Goodyear‑style toruses, Starship‑launched “sleeves” assembled into a spinning ring, and water‑filled walls for radiation and micrometeoroid protection.
• Concerns include vulnerability to punctures and the challenge of building and spinning large structures in a balanced way.

Humans vs Robots and Funding Priorities

• Some argue “everything worth doing in space” (telescopes, comms, probes) works fine without humans; crewed programs are political jobs programs that risk contaminating places like Mars.
• Others stress that large, complex in‑space projects still benefit from human versatility, and compare human spaceflight to basic science: long‑term, indirect payoff rather than immediate ROI.
• A recurring theme is that institutional incentives (stable budgets, prestige) drive choices like the ISS and lunar “mega‑station” concepts more than clear scientific or economic goals.

Cultural/Conceptual Notes

• Von Braun’s Nazi past is raised as context for his “visionary” status.
• Fiction (O’Neill, Heinlein, The Expanse, Star Trek, various films and novels) shapes expectations about wheels, gravity, and colonization, often far ahead of what current engineering and politics can support.