It was an artistic choice, in order to be able to have large open windows that aren't too disorienting, in a habitat small enough that you can see clear curvature in every room, and still call the project "One Revolution Per Minute". If he had called it "One Point Four Revolutions Per Minute", it could have been 1g and still had the right curvature that he wanted, but then the lights moving past the windows would be a fair bit harder to handle.
In general, the major point of artistic license in the project is the windows, which the author acknowledges. A realistic (and still extremely exciting and inspiring) rotating space habitat this size would rotate at 1.4rpm to achieve 1g, and would not have transparent glass windows for safety and nausea reasons (replace them with screens that show a non-rotating view of the outside for a similar effect without the safety and nausea cost).
It's also worth noting that the habitat could be made bigger, to have 1rpm cause 1g. It would require a habitat with a radius of 890m, so a total circumference of 5.6km, still well within the tensile strength of steel for suspension under 1g (I personally wouldn't trust a rotating space habitat to be made out of composites or similar materials until we have a much, much better understanding of composite failure modes and a reliable way of testing/repairing such structures - steel is best because we know how to use it, what its limits are, and because it has fatigue resistance without being absurdly expensive like titanium). A habitat like that would not have the rooms visibly curve as much as they do in this video, though.
Thats kinda the default when traveling underwater or in space - most of the time there is nothing interesting visible, yet the outside medium can easily kill you and windows help with that.
You can have some observation sections, but regular windows everywhere don't make sense in this case.
Sure, but the stars will always be the same (baring some very drastic propulsion improvements) & even during regular inter-planetary transits your origin planet will become a star quite quickly as you get on your way & you will see the same starts +1 for the next months/years the trip takes until just before you arrive, when one of the stars suddenly turns in a the world that is your destination.
Off the top of my head, a list of reasons why humans should go to space that are not obviated by a lack of floor to ceiling windows throughout a ship or habitat (only the window specific ones are a direct response to you, this is otherwise just a direct answer to "Why space?" as a general question):
- to go where no one has gone before and see what no one else has seen
- to watch the development of a storm cell on Jupiter in real time
- because screens relaying a real time feed aren't really "less real" than windows which inherently have to filter out various wavelengths for basic safety
- because travelling with a ship covered in windows in space is suicidal, which in my opinion tends to dull the point of anything
- because studying the effects of various levels of artificial gravity on humans has inherent scientific value
- because cupolas like those on the ISS are easy enough to make safe without needing to fatally compromise the safety of your habitat with windows everywhere
- because real time control and maintenance of scientific equipment significantly improves the scientific productivity you can achieve with that equipment, and enables new experiments
- because humanity and intelligent life is not meant to occupy 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003% of the universe forever, and our cradle being special and worth preserving doesn't mean we should never leave the cradle
- because extant human society already wastes the talents of billions of current and future people confined by poverty into being unable to fulfill their potential, and confining humanity to an infinitesimally small portion of the universe forever is bad for similar reasons
- because even intelligent ocean dwellers could not have predicted fire when considering the leap to landborne life, and likewise we can't really know what will become possible once we get to space
- because a gamma ray burst that happened 100,000 years ago could be travelling to Earth right now, ready to largely wipe out life once it arrives
- because humans are good, and more humans that have better lives is preferable to fewer with worse lives
- because there are so many resources in space that development of them could render some useful and valuable materials as cheap as water, or lead to entirely new use cases for previously scarce materials
- because children and adults alike have always looked up at the stars and dreamed of going there, and crushing dreams of hope is cynical and selfish
- because it tests and focuses our science and industry on an endeavour that leads to myriad non-space economic and cultural benefits, without the downsides of trying to kill each other in ever more horrific ways while mobilising for wars
- because the hopelessness and cynicism felt by many globally that leads to the rejection of space is an injury inflicted upon us by conditions we have to fight to overcome, not a natural state we should give in to
- because Musk & Bezos already control way too much of society, and the idea that we should abandon 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999997% of the universe to them without even struggling for it is cowardly
- because wanting to explore and share and create and leave wonder for our children is good
- because I am saddened thinking of the past 50 years of stagnation in achieving truly great human endeavours in space, and I wonder why the people who led in those times failed so badly and whether the previous generations let them get away with it or simply found themselves unable to do anything. I don't want my grandchildren to wonder that about my generation.
- because humans going to space on a large scale is realistic and achievable with appropriate safety precautions and scientific/industrial advances, which we can choose to make
- because I have hope for the future and I'm not going to give that up
Still, no screen will ever be as good as a window. At least for visible wavelengths at human-perceptible intensities. It's fundamental - you are there - the photons that bounced off the clouds below are the ones hitting your retinas.
I know that my eyes would perceive some spectacular things we see in the sky as dull, because they aren't as sensible as my telescope's camera, and aren't able to concentrate that much light on my retina as the telescope can.
And, yet, one can sit back in a darkened observation deck and wonder at the Milky Way rotating above.
If someone is too concerned about motion sickness, then build a bigger ring that rotates slowly.
In general, the major point of artistic license in the project is the windows, which the author acknowledges. A realistic (and still extremely exciting and inspiring) rotating space habitat this size would rotate at 1.4rpm to achieve 1g, and would not have transparent glass windows for safety and nausea reasons (replace them with screens that show a non-rotating view of the outside for a similar effect without the safety and nausea cost).
It's also worth noting that the habitat could be made bigger, to have 1rpm cause 1g. It would require a habitat with a radius of 890m, so a total circumference of 5.6km, still well within the tensile strength of steel for suspension under 1g (I personally wouldn't trust a rotating space habitat to be made out of composites or similar materials until we have a much, much better understanding of composite failure modes and a reliable way of testing/repairing such structures - steel is best because we know how to use it, what its limits are, and because it has fatigue resistance without being absurdly expensive like titanium). A habitat like that would not have the rooms visibly curve as much as they do in this video, though.