# An O'Neil cylinder vs. A cylinder with vertical layers

If humans had access to artificial gravity technology similar to Star Trek in terms of holding people to the floor, and if faced with annihilation and forced to build a generation ship to escape Earth, would they use an O'Neil cylinder and use the rotational gravity or stack layers inside the cylinder and use the artificial gravity to stack everyone vertically from the top to the bottom of the cylinder?

The only choice they can go with is the one which allows for the maximum amount of usable space. (Which one can pack more humans in)

Bonus: If the O'Neil cylinder wins , what would be an incentive to use the vertical design instead

• Insufficient data × 10. What factors are important to the builders, with what priorities and relative costs? Note that fake gravity is not real so we don’t know what properies it has—maybe it uses too much power or causes cancer? – JDługosz Jan 20 '17 at 0:32
• Why could you not build a multi-level O'Neill cylinder? I mean, yes, the local gravity will be a little different on different levels ("gravity" = velocity^2/radius afterall), but as long as the diameter is much larger than the distance between the top and bottom levels, you'd hardly notice. Plus, it depends on how much supporting machinery the station needs, it you use the space in the middle of the O'Neill cylinder for housing all the life support, power generation, engines, water, food (zero-g farms), I'd imagine the two would work out similar. – Samwise Jan 20 '17 at 0:45
• What you really must do is give us the dimensions of the ship. Height, radius, how high you want the ceilings. – AngelPray Jan 20 '17 at 0:45
• While the "what would they choose?" part makes this question sound opinion-based, the "what allows the maximum amount of usable space" can be answered using mathematics - about as far from opinions as you can get. – Zxyrra Jan 20 '17 at 3:55
• It all depends on the costs of both solutions and you didn't define them. I believe this makes good objective answers impossible. – Mołot Jan 20 '17 at 16:16