Preface

Sometimes, the best ideas come in the most unexpected ways.

Three years ago, we were both beating our brains out in an attempt to design a space settlement like no one had ever seen before. Many concepts came to us. Some were good, few were great and none stood out as truly unique. Christmas came by and we were still struggling, trying to get out of the temporary stalemate.

Then, one day, it happened. All that was necessary to kick-start our project was a sudden flash of inspiration. The answer? H o n e y b e e s. Time after time, nature has proved itself to be the greatest architect. Mankind has often borrowed elements of design from animals and plants, using them to improve existing machinery (ranging from plane wings to algorithms [5]).

During the process of creating our settlement, our first and foremost goal had always been clear: keeping the design between the bounds imposed by current, real-life technological advances. Although settlements comparable in size to the Moon are definitely interesting from a researcher’s point of view, they become mere fiction when you realize that the ISS is about the size of a football field. Our mission was that of creating a self-sustainable, highly upgradeable space station that could be in production by the end of 2025; for the most part, we have done just that. Our idea, however, was far from perfect. Space colonization is still at the earliest of stages. Rotating a spacecraft the size of a skyscraper to simulate gravity is nigh impossible, just like properly protecting it against radiation is. This begs the question: H o w sm all c an a sp ac e se ttle m e n t b e ?

Fortunately, recent scientific research has shown that our design may not be that farfetched at all. In the following pages, we will try to prove that Honeycomb is closer to reality than it ever was, while also trying to find the minimum size of a potential space colony.