Is there a "front" to the ISS, with regards to how it orbits?
Other than occasional rotations to help with docking (or re-boosting), it maintains a consistent orientation relative to the direction it orbits in.
Along with reboosting the ISS back up, spacecraft docked to it can be used to rotate the station to a different orientation, when needed.
They're actually radiators! Ammonia is pumped through the space station and along the radiators, where it's cooled back down and recycled along the heat pipes.
And keep in mind it's in direct high-noon no-atmosphere-to-block-it sunlight half the time, too!
With the EATCS it can remove up to 70 kW of heat from the station. It's an upgrade from an earlier system that could only do 14 kW, installed back in 2001.
So you get lower and lower efficiencies the more each surface can "see" each other.
and in an environment like the space station where every kilogram you launch costs something like 50,000$? you want maximum efficiency!
That site is (amusingly for a site about space) a black hole of time. Way too much interesting content on there.
1. Advection, which involves heat moving within a fluid. The space station isn't a liquid unless something very bad happens, so that doesn't help.
This requires contact. Since the space station is in orbit, it's not touching anything, so it can't transfer any heat to it using conduction. So this doesn't help.
This transfers heat between an object and its environment, using the motion of fluids/gasses. Since there's pretty much no atmosphere as high up as the ISS is, this doesn't help either.
This is where a surface emits electromagnetic waves, lowering the thermal energy left in the surface. So it works in space!
it should have HUGE FUCKING RADIATORS!
Otherwise the question is always going to be: where's all that heat going?
So ignoring that some of them are gonna be non-humans, a human expends about 8 million joules of heat a day. Given there are 86400 seconds in a day and a watt is a joule a second, that means each person puts out about 93 watts.
Sure, by 2361 they've probably built more efficient radiators so they'd might be smaller, but it still needs to dump heat somehow.
One alternative is to have exhaustible heat sinks in your ships.
Tungsten for example, or if you just want to go the cheap route, plain ol' rock from asteroids.
Now as you fly around, you're slowly warming it up. It's like a battery, but for heat.
But it'd be real handy for things like combat, where otherwise your radiators make big tempting targets to shoot holes in.
342 meters vs 642 meters.
But in terms of volume, dear god it's so much tinier! It's basically a long stick, the Ent-D is a big fat thing. It has lots of internal volume.
By the math, if it scales linearly, the carrier would only have 18 people on it.
Does that number seem at all right to you?
I mean, the people running it have military ranks and it's very heavily armed.
But it's not a military vessel, still. There's civilians, it's not packed that densely, it's not as heavily redundant as a warship.