Concordia's pages describe the station as if it were 2045. The studies here are different. They are written today, as an engineer would write them for a design review, and they decide questions the station's canon has not settled yet. A study that survives review becomes a design note and then a page in the guide.
How to review
- Check the physics first. Every study lists its assumptions and tags each claim as established physics, engineering extrapolation, speculative technology or fictional design choice.
- Rerun the numbers. Each study names a script in the repository that prints every table. If your result differs, that is the most useful feedback there is.
- Send corrections. Open an issue on GitHub with the study name, the section and what you found. Better sources, missing failure modes and wrong assumptions are all welcome.
- Rules of evidence. A figure from a vendor is marked as a vendor claim. A figure that has not been checked against the primary source is listed as unverified.