pinquoin84k,



I address the invalid frame of your initial statement – not to the triviality of a singular word.



Rotating habitat modules are entirely feasible – a point you now concede.



The matters you cite as “problems” merely describe parameters (the physical requirements) specific subsystems of the designed module must meet.



These are not, as your initial comment proposed, insurmountable difficulties – another point you now concede.



In the course of this discussion I observe an inability on your part to hold the disparate elements of your own argument in focus – rendering you incapable of recognizing my response to these elements. This is either intractability on your part, or a more profound inability to integrate on the conceptual level.



You now wave the word “friction” about as though it were a magical spell – which is obtuse if you possess an understanding of sealed moving interfaces and baring systems.



I find it bizarre that you claim to be an aerospace engineer working in the theoretical field of Advanced Applications (here I refer to your initial claim that you are “working to make this happen”) if your claim of profession is true, then how do you explain your evident ignorance? Clearly you do not recognize the main “worked examples” resulting from theoretical antimatter design studies carried out in the field of Advanced Applications which I have named and described – and oddly, you seem to think these are “SciFi” rather than the results of advanced study commonly recognized within the area of the aerospace community involved in Advanced Applications.



This is either intractability on your part, or abject ignorance. I see no other possibility.



It seems increasingly improbable to me that you are any kind of engineer – this I judge based on the deficit of knowledge evidenced in your responses. It seems more likely that you are a failed engineering student rather than a researcher working in the area of Advanced Applications.



In order to help you I will diagram your argument and my response:



1. You object to rotating habitat modules with the claim that these “are impossible.”



- and/so-



I point out the engineering techniques which are the design requirement.



2. You object to rotating habitat modules citing power requirements. Note: Your very argument makes power generation the subject.



- and/so-



I point out the triviality of your objection in the context of the power generation capacity of antimatter catalyzed fusion (which is what the author of the image states as the propulsive system of the spacecraft in his image). Surely you realize the energy expenditure required to spin (or de-spin, for that matter) the habitat is trivial compared to the power generation of the system under discussion. Certianly this power requirement does not even need the copious power generation of anything like antimatter catalyzed fusion – the requirements could be easily met, even at our present state of technology, even if the vehicle under discussion were chemically propelled. A simple RTG (I will provide the description, as your ignorance of even the present state of technology in this area is evident: RTG = Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator) would more than provide the necessary output if the system were to rely on electrical generation.



3. You object to rotating habitat modules citing complexity and cost.



- and/so-



I point out that complexity is irrelevant, we are discussing manned interplanetary exploration vehicles – complexity goes with the territory. As to cost I address the expense of antimatter production, noting that if $62.5 trillion per gram (or alternately $5 billion per gram – depending on production levels) is not an obstacle than the expense of the multiple redundancies of systems aboard your interplanetary exploration spacecraft is certainly not an obstacle.



4. You concede the main point then fallback to your initial position, citing “friction.”



- and/so-



I point out that what you have revealed is a glaring contradiction, that despite your claims, you have no knowledge of the basic engineering techniques under discussion: you claim to understand sealed moving interfaces and bearing assemblies – if this is so, then you must know your objection is irrational.



An engineer would recognize this. Therefore you are not an engineer.



As to my attitude, I respect integrity and despise fakery.



When we build manned exploration vehicles capable of exploring the moons of Jupiter they will, by necessity, be equipped with rotating habitat modules. The engineering required is certainly feasible. The artistic depiction of this vehicle respects the need for such modules. It is a realistic depiction, and the artist has obviously examined, understood, and incorporated his understanding of the necessary engineering into his work. His work is commendable in this regard. This artist certainly does not deserve the lack of knowledge and disrespect conveyed in your initial comment.



You are a fraud attempting to pass yourself off as something you evidently are not.