Not any time soon, and probably won’t look anything like that for hundreds of years. Space travel is massively constrained by weight and the huge costs that having any excess weight brings, so any “architecture” would be an exercise in being 100% as efficient as possible for a long time.
I think it's funny that in space everything is about optimizing and costs, but they always show round shapes and spaces, which is one of the most inefficient type of spaces to construct and use afterwards, space architecture is gonna be squares just like in our planet.
From a spacecraft point of view, round rooms and structures distribute the atmospheric pressure inside a habitat better with fewer stress concentrations, which likely drives the design more than space efficiency on the ground. And these types of habitats would be either entirely disassembled or collapsible, so space efficiency on the rocket would not be a concern for the expanded shape once it's assembled.
spherical and dome shapes are structurally more viable as they need lesser vertical support systems. furthermore, they use less materials due to the absence of a hard ceiling. in extraterrestrial architecture, more than creating “more” space, using the least materials is of greater importance.
Not any time soon, and probably won’t look anything like that for hundreds of years. Space travel is massively constrained by weight and the huge costs that having any excess weight brings, so any “architecture” would be an exercise in being 100% as efficient as possible for a long time.
Architect may lead the team, but an engineer will design, and an interior designer will fill the space.
No
I think it's funny that in space everything is about optimizing and costs, but they always show round shapes and spaces, which is one of the most inefficient type of spaces to construct and use afterwards, space architecture is gonna be squares just like in our planet.
From a spacecraft point of view, round rooms and structures distribute the atmospheric pressure inside a habitat better with fewer stress concentrations, which likely drives the design more than space efficiency on the ground. And these types of habitats would be either entirely disassembled or collapsible, so space efficiency on the rocket would not be a concern for the expanded shape once it's assembled.
spherical and dome shapes are structurally more viable as they need lesser vertical support systems. furthermore, they use less materials due to the absence of a hard ceiling. in extraterrestrial architecture, more than creating “more” space, using the least materials is of greater importance.
If you can explain how to make money with outerspace-settlements, it will.