My current #SF movie bugbear: Non-rotating #spacecraft with a large rotating section for the human habitat. Bonus points if the habitable part spans both the rotating and non-rotating portions and the crew can move freely between them.

It's an absurdly complex #engineering challenge to build it this way, it introduces an open set of failure modes that would not otherwise exist and there's no good reason for any of it that I can think of.

Instead, rotate the whole ship, and if there are a few things which for some reason must not be rotated (scopes, antennae and cameras, perhaps?) place them in the smallest and simplest possible unpressurised nonrotating segment at the axis.

@pieist

Agreed. Stationary core and rotating ring is insanity.

Bridging the rotating/ non-rotating interface with power cables is difficult (slip rings or a Canfield Joint).
Bridging the interface with sewage lines is freaking impossible.

Just spin the entire ship already.

https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/artificialgrav.php

@nyrath @pieist Stationary core and rotating ring was the defacto standard for comm sats (particularly from Hughes) for many decades. The electronics and antennas were on a despun core, surrounded by a rotating "drum" that provided solar power, thermal regulation, and stability as a giant flywheel.

You'd never build a satellite like that today, but it was a very clever and robust design for the time.

@simonbp @nyrath Awesome. Thanks for that. The biggest part of my complaint-slash-incredulity is to do with the transfer couplings that have to retain atmosphere, resist torsional strain, be low friction and reliable. Not a job I would even want as an engineer. ("How about giving me a non-stupid problem to solve, please.")

No habitat involved in what you're talking about so it's mostly a "how much power and data complexity can we put into a coaxial link" problem.