The part about the ISS being the size of a six bedroom house really stuck with me. I always imagine it being a single cramped room. But now it’s a floating McMansion!
The ISS is larger (has more bedrooms) than I imagined too but using the "bedroom" descriptor is funny
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station#/m...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:View_of_the_ISS_taken_dur...
And all that was transferred part by part to space, having to be usable right from the start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_the_International_...
Three orders of magnitude reduction in cost in thirty years is pretty good going for something that insanely complicated.
In reality it would be larger since it's used in 3D.
You have 6 accessible surfaces. Most people only use their house in ~ 2 - 2.5 dimensions.
Lots of other savings. Like stacking anvils on top of eggs in the cupboard and you can push things through space more optimized without the constraints of gravity. ie doors and hallways only have to be tight circles, you'll gain a lot there.
I am not sure about this but I think something can be done, moreso from the people writing these articles. Maybe they can put a link to some website that explains rational measures.
Writing a "six bedroom house" gets the idea across more easily than 388 cubic metres of habitable volume. I have no idea how big 388 cubic metres is but I have a rough idea of what sizes houses are.
Communication is all about tailoring your message to your audience. On the NASA page linked to in the article, they use the house analogy in addition to the cubic metres - because they understand that rough approximations can sometimes be more useful information than hard figures.