Re: [unrev-II] It could have happened...

From: Eric Armstrong (
Date: Thu Nov 09 2000 - 20:49:47 PST

  • Next message: Eric Armstrong: "Re: [unrev-II] It could have happened..."

    Fascinating stuff. Thanks for those links.
    Never knew such designs existed.

    Distant cataclysms and remote-probability
    events don't concern me so much. But I suspect
    that we are looking at more than one highly
    probably cataclysm in our lifetimes, due to
    the combined effects of overpopulation and
    environmental damage, if nothing else.

    The "habitat" idea is tres interesting.
    But while the FAQ dismissed the idea of a
    meteor as the low-probablity event it is,
    a saw no discussion at all of the effects of
    *very* common meteorites.

    When your atmosphere is held within a shell,
    as it were, rather than held within a
    gravitational shield, what happens when a
    meteorite punctures that shell? In the current
    arrangement, they burn up in the atmosphere.
    But we have a few miles of atmosphere, and
    an "inverse" shell to hold it here. How do
    the space habitats deal with that?
    (If they can, then they do represent a highly
    viable response to low-probability threats
    like meteorites (although its hard to know
    just *how* low that probablity is) and to
    high-probablility threats like global warming,
    energy exhaustion, water shortage, etc.)

    -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
    It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!

    Community email addresses:
      Post message:
      List owner:

    Shortcut URL to this page:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 09 2000 - 20:59:59 PST