Are there any benefits to a large body of water in a space habitat?

The classic example of a cylindrical space habitat, Clarke's Rama, has a 10 km-wide ring of water at the middle. Most depictions of this O'Neill-style of habitat do something similar, placing a large body of water somewhere inside.

The drawbacks to this design choice are fairly obvious:

1. If the habitat is meant to move, the momentum imparted to the water needs to be accounted for when it comes time to apply the brakes. Rendezvous With Rama "solves" this with a sheer cliff on one side of the sea, against which the water sloshes. This cliff towers over the rest of the habitat and serves no other apparent purpose.

2. The sea takes up space "“ nearly 20% in Rama's case "“ that could be dedicated to habitation, agriculture, and so on.

3. The sea, especially if it occupies the circumference of the inner surface, is a barrier to all surface-based transportation.

4. If the primary purpose is water storage or recreation, then arguably numerous smaller and less obstructive lakes could do the same job with fewer or reduced downsides. In fact, smaller lakes could be even more effective (e.g.: if the goal is recreational coastline, ten lakes 1/10th the size of the sea would have more than three times the sea's coastline; water stored within the hull does not pose a flood risk).

5. Water is less dense than the surface and sub-surface material it replaces, which could throw off the balance of the habitat and cause it to spin end-over-end.

So, are there any undeniable benefits to having a large and obstructive body of water, either at the 'equator' or elsewhere, in such a habitat? Benefits must offset the above drawbacks. Assume a habitat for humans; an amphibious or aquatic species would likely ask "why all this dry land?".

posted almost 7 years ago

rek‭

6 reputation 15 0 1 0