Sparked by the recent terrorist attack on New York, a question was
posed on another list, Starship Forum, about how much more vulnerable
a space settlement would be to a hostile attack, from Earth or some
other space settlements, and how it would just take one missile or one
bomb to destroy an entire settlement -- it being a pressurize vessel
in vacuum.
My partial answer is that it would be safer for a space settlement
at L5 than it would be for any city on Earth from terrorist or
military attack, mainly because of the greater distance separating
Earth and L5 than between any two cities on Earth. Long before a
missile from a hostile force on Earth could reach L5, an L5-er would
be able to blast it into the void, assuming the L5-ers have been
prepared for such attacks. Besides, L5-ers would have the high ground:
it would be easy to just "drop" big rocks on hostile Earth bases.
But suppose a missile, a shuttle loaded with explosives, or a
smuggled-in bomb does detonate on a space vessel, even a country-size
vessel, would the consequences be more catastrophic than what happened
in New York?
Monart
Starship Aurora
-
--- In spacesettlers@y..., Monart Pon wrote:
> Sparked by the recent terrorist attack on New York, a question was
> posed on another list, Starship Forum, about how much more
vulnerable
> a space settlement would be to a hostile attack, from Earth or some
> other space settlements, and how it would just take one missile or
one
> bomb to destroy an entire settlement -- it being a pressurize vessel
> in vacuum.
>
> Would anyone here provide an answer?
>
> My partial answer is that it would be safer for a space settlement
> at L5 than it would be for any city on Earth from terrorist or
> military attack, mainly because of the greater distance separating
> Earth and L5 than between any two cities on Earth. Long before a
> missile from a hostile force on Earth could reach L5, an L5-er would
> be able to blast it into the void, assuming the L5-ers have been
> prepared for such attacks. Besides, L5-ers would have the high
ground:
> it would be easy to just "drop" big rocks on hostile Earth bases.
>
> But suppose a missile, a shuttle loaded with explosives, or a
> smuggled-in bomb does detonate on a space vessel, even a
country-size
> vessel, would the consequences be more catastrophic than what
happened
> in New York?
>
> Monart
> Starship Aurora
>
> -
It all depends on the design of the space vessel or settlement. (I'm
an ex-engineer.)
pretty bad. Then there'd be more money for safer design of the new
and retro-fitting the old to make them safer.
Rick Brooks
--- Monart Pon wrote:
> Sparked by the recent terrorist attack on New York, a question was
> posed on another list, Starship Forum, about how much more vulnerable
> a space settlement would be to a hostile attack, from Earth or some
> other space settlements, and how it would just take one missile or one
> bomb to destroy an entire settlement -- it being a pressurize vessel
> in vacuum.
strength, very thick Armour. Ultimately it depends on the nature of the
weapon. Chemical explosives aren't going to do much but Nuclear could wipe out
a settlement. Kinetic could cause some damage but it would probably be
survivable.
> Would anyone here provide an answer?
>
> My partial answer is that it would be safer for a space settlement
> at L5 than it would be for any city on Earth from terrorist or
> military attack, mainly because of the greater distance separating
> Earth and L5 than between any two cities on Earth. Long before a
> missile from a hostile force on Earth could reach L5, an L5-er would
> be able to blast it into the void, assuming the L5-ers have been
> prepared for such attacks. Besides, L5-ers would have the high ground:
> it would be easy to just "drop" big rocks on hostile Earth bases.
It would take a few days for a chemically propelled missile to reach L5, longer
if its electric and shorter if it is nuclear propelled. The distance wont stop
a bomb being smuggled to the station although El Al like security on all
transports to the settlement would be able to prevent that.
As for high ground it would be very easy for those at L5 to have a rock hit the
earth which would provide a very good deterant to earth not to attack although
terrorists probably wouldn't give a shit. Also earth would by that time have a
significant space presence and be able to put a rock on a collision course with
the settlement.
> But suppose a missile, a shuttle loaded with explosives, or a
> smuggled-in bomb does detonate on a space vessel, even a country-size
> vessel, would the consequences be more catastrophic than what happened
> in New York?
It really depends on where it detonates and how powerful it is.
--- In spacesettlers@y..., Ryan Healey wrote:
> --- Monart Pon wrote:
> > Sparked by the recent terrorist attack on New York, a question was
> > posed on another list, Starship Forum, about how much more
vulnerable
> > a space settlement would be to a hostile attack, from Earth or
some
> > other space settlements, and how it would just take one missile
or one
> > bomb to destroy an entire settlement -- it being a pressurize
vessel
> > in vacuum.
>
> With about 2 metres of radiation shielding that would also function
as low
> strength, very thick Armour. Ultimately it depends on the nature
of the
> weapon. Chemical explosives aren't going to do much but Nuclear
could wipe out
> a settlement. Kinetic could cause some damage but it would
probably be
> survivable.
>
> > Would anyone here provide an answer?
> >
> > My partial answer is that it would be safer for a space settlement
> > at L5 than it would be for any city on Earth from terrorist or
> > military attack, mainly because of the greater distance separating
> > Earth and L5 than between any two cities on Earth. Long before a
> > missile from a hostile force on Earth could reach L5, an L5-er
would
> > be able to blast it into the void, assuming the L5-ers have been
> > prepared for such attacks. Besides, L5-ers would have the high
ground:
> > it would be easy to just "drop" big rocks on hostile Earth bases.
>
> It would take a few days for a chemically propelled missile to
reach L5, longer
> if its electric and shorter if it is nuclear propelled. The
distance wont stop
> a bomb being smuggled to the station although El Al like security
on all
> transports to the settlement would be able to prevent that.
>
> As for high ground it would be very easy for those at L5 to have a
rock hit the
> earth which would provide a very good deterant to earth not to
attack although
> terrorists probably wouldn't give a shit. Also earth would by that
time have a
> significant space presence and be able to put a rock on a collision
course with
> the settlement.
>
> > But suppose a missile, a shuttle loaded with explosives, or a
> > smuggled-in bomb does detonate on a space vessel, even a country-
size
> > vessel, would the consequences be more catastrophic than what
happened
> > in New York?
>
> It really depends on where it detonates and how powerful it is.
>
> > Monart
> > Starship Aurora
>
$8.95/month.
Planning on a possible meteorite puncture or explosion from any
source would seem to be prudent. Incorporating several relatively
independent modules connected by air-locks or doors that close very
quickly, would make sense to me. Then a strike could only damage a
fraction of the settlement.
Naturally, separate air refreshing stations should also be included
to guard against biological attach.
Tom
I don't think having multiple modules is something people would really want to
live in for the rest of their lives. The measures taken to protect against
radiation and rocks would be enough to protect against most terrorist attacks
except for the ones where even a heavily compartmentalised station would suffer
a lot of deaths. Radiation is actually quite a lot more dangerous where most
settlements will be built then meteors. Losing atmosphere would not justify
very quick closing doors because any large space settlement would take hours or
possibly days for air to leak out a hole that could be made by terrorists
without a nuclear weapon.
probably make sure that any nuclear explosives are very carefully controlled.
Chemical weapons would be detected very quickly by the environmental system and
also don't have anywhere near the power of nuclear weapons. Biological weapons
are the ones to worry about. The only surefire way of fighting them requires
nano-technology which could also be used as a very effective weapon.
--- tomntucker@... wrote:
rabrooks@... wrote:
--- In spacesettlers@y..., Monart Pon
> smuggled-in bomb does detonate on a space vessel, even a country-size
> vessel, would the consequences be more catastrophic than whathappened
> in New York?
It all depends on the design of the space vessel or settlement. (I'm
an ex-engineer.)
If I had to venture a guess, I'd say the first such incident wouldbe
pretty bad. Then there'd be more money for safer design ofthe new
and retro-fitting the old to make them safer.
Rick Brooks
Thank you for your thoughts.
I'm still wondering about the de-pressurizing dangers, should an impactpuncture the shell of the
vessel, even a huge country-size vessel. Would the escaping atmospherethrough the breach be
catastrophic? i suppose it would depend on the size of the vessel,the size of the puncture, the
atmospheric pressure, and how quickly the puncture can be sealed.
Obviously, to guard against this ever happening, some type of earlywarning system would be deployed
at a far distance from the settlement to detect, deflect, and if necessary,destroy any hostiles.
Monart
Starship Aurora <
http://www.starshipaurora.com
>
Starship Forum <
Thank, Ryan, for your helpful answers. I'm also wondering about the dangersof atmospheric leakage if an explosion does breach the shell. And whatearly warning measures could be taken to detect and prevent any hostileattack.
Monart
Starship Aurora <
http://www.starshipaurora.com
>
Starship Forum <
>
--- Monart Pon
> Sparked by the recent terrorist attack on New York, a questionwas
> posed on another list, Starship Forum, about how much more vulnerable
> a space settlement would be to a hostile attack, from Earth orsome
> other space settlements, and how it would just take one missileor one
> bomb to destroy an entire settlement -- it being a pressurizevessel
> in vacuum.
With about 2 metres of radiation shielding that would also functionas low
strength, very thick Armour. Ultimately it depends on thenature of the
weapon. Chemical explosives aren't going to do much but Nuclearcould wipe out
a settlement. Kinetic could cause some damage but it wouldprobably be
survivable.
> Would anyone here provide an answer?
>
> My partial answer is that it would be safer for a space settlement
> at L5 than it would be for any city on Earth from terrorist or
> military attack, mainly because of the greater distance separating
> Earth and L5 than between any two cities on Earth. Long beforea
> missile from a hostile force on Earth could reach L5, an L5-erwould
> be able to blast it into the void, assuming the L5-ers have been
> prepared for such attacks. Besides, L5-ers would have the highground:
> it would be easy to just "drop" big rocks on hostile Earth bases.
It would take a few days for a chemically propelled missile to reachL5, longer
if its electric and shorter if it is nuclear propelled. Thedistance wont stop
a bomb being smuggled to the station although El Al like securityon all
transports to the settlement would be able to prevent that.
As for high ground it would be very easy for those at L5 to havea rock hit the
earth which would provide a very good deterant to earth not toattack although
terrorists probably wouldn't give a shit. Also earth wouldby that time have a
significant space presence and be able to put a rock on a collisioncourse with
the settlement.
> But suppose a missile, a shuttle loaded with explosives, or a
> smuggled-in bomb does detonate on a space vessel, even a country-size
> vessel, would the consequences be more catastrophic than whathappened
> in New York?
It really depends on where it detonates and how powerful it is.
Thanks, again, Ryan. I see you have anticipated some of the questions Iasked in my previous post. I'm glad you pointed out, in reply to Tom Tucker'srecommendation for a compartmentalization design, that people wouldn'twant to live in such a space submarine for too long, compared tothe wide-open designs of O'Neill's cylinders. You might be right that themeasures taken against radiation and meteorites, and the sheer size ofthe habitats, would also offer some defense against some attacks. If someexternal perimeter defense can also be mounted, that would add to the security.
Monart
Starship Aurora <
http://www.starshipaurora.com
>
Starship Forum <
>
Ryan Healed wrote:
I don't think having multiple modules is somethingpeople would really want to
live in for the rest of their lives. The measures taken toprotect against
radiation and rocks would be enough to protect against most terroristattacks
except for the ones where even a heavily compartmentalised stationwould suffer
a lot of deaths. Radiation is actually quite a lot more dangerouswhere most
settlements will be built then meteors. Losing atmospherewould not justify
very quick closing doors because any large space settlement wouldtake hours or
possibly days for air to leak out a hole that could be made byterrorists
without a nuclear weapon.
Those with a nuclear explosives could destroy the settlement butwe will
probably make sure that any nuclear explosives are very carefullycontrolled.
Chemical weapons would be detected very quickly by the environmentalsystem and
also don't have anywhere near the power of nuclear weapons. Biological weapons
are the ones to worry about. The only surefire way of fightingthem requires
nano-technology which could also be used as a very effective weapon.
--- tomntucker@... wrote:
Nothing large will come near it without being noticed and anything that wont be noticed would probably be harmless (at least in so far as can't get through the stations walls). That will allow a perimeter defence system to exist and work.--- Monart Pon wrote:
Thanks, again, Ryan. I see you have anticipated some of the questions Iasked in my previous post. I'm glad you pointed out, in reply to Tom Tucker'srecommendation for a compartmentalization design, that people wouldn'twant to live in such a space submarine for too long, compared tothe wide-open designs of O'Neill's cylinders. You might be right that themeasures taken against radiation and meteorites, and the sheer size ofthe habitats, would also offer some defense against some attacks. If someexternal perimeter defense can also be mounted, that would add to the security.
Monart
Starship Aurora
Ryan Healed wrote:I don't think having multiple modules is somethingpeople would really want to
live in for the rest of their lives. The measures taken toprotect against
radiation and rocks would be enough to protect against most terroristattacks
except for the ones where even a heavily compartmentalised stationwould suffer
a lot of deaths. Radiation is actually quite a lot more dangerouswhere most
settlements will be built then meteors. Losing atmospherewould not justify
very quick closing doors because any large space settlement wouldtake hours or
possibly days for air to leak out a hole that could be made byterrorists
without a nuclear weapon.
Those with a nuclear explosives could destroy the settlement butwe will
probably make sure that any nuclear explosives are very carefullycontrolled.
Chemical weapons would be detected very quickly by the environmentalsystem and
also don't have anywhere near the power of nuclear weapons. Biological weapons
are the ones to worry about. The only surefire way of fightingthem requires
nano-technology which could also be used as a very effective weapon.
--- tomntucker@... wrote:
> All,
> Planning on a possible meteorite puncture or explosion from any
> source would seem to be prudent. Incorporating several relatively
> independent modules connected by air-locks or doors that closevery
> quickly, would make sense to me. Then a strike could only damagea
> fraction of the settlement.
>
> Naturally, separate air refreshing stations should also be included
> to guard against biological attach.
>
> Tom
Monart
Starship Aurora <
http://www.starshipaurora.com
>
Starship Forum <
>
Ryan Healed wrote:
I don't think having multiple modules is somethingpeople would really want to
live in for the rest of their lives. The measures taken toprotect against
radiation and rocks would be enough to protect against most terroristattacks
except for the ones where even a heavily compartmentalised stationwould suffer
a lot of deaths. Radiation is actually quite a lot more dangerouswhere most
settlements will be built then meteors. Losing atmospherewould not justify
very quick closing doors because any large space settlement wouldtake hours or
possibly days for air to leak out a hole that could be made byterrorists
without a nuclear weapon.
Those with a nuclear explosives could destroy the settlement butwe will
probably make sure that any nuclear explosives are very carefullycontrolled.
Chemical weapons would be detected very quickly by the environmentalsystem and
also don't have anywhere near the power of nuclear weapons. Biological weapons
are the ones to worry about. The only surefire way of fightingthem requires
nano-technology which could also be used as a very effective weapon.
--- tomntucker@... wrote:
> All,
> Planning on a possible meteorite puncture or explosion from any
> source would seem to be prudent. Incorporating several relatively
> independent modules connected by air-locks or doors that closevery
> quickly, would make sense to me. Then a strike could only damagea
> fraction of the settlement.
>
> Naturally, separate air refreshing stations should also be included
> to guard against biological attach.
>
> Tom
.
--- In spacesettlers@y..., Monart Pon wrote:
>
rabrooks@... wrote:
--- In spacesettlers@y..., Monart Pon wrote:
>>> smuggled-in bomb does detonate on a space vessel, even a
>>> country-size vessel, would the consequences be more catastrophic
>>> than what happened in New York?
>> It all depends on the design of the space vessel or settlement.
>> (I'm an ex-engineer.)
>> If I had to venture a guess, I'd say the first such incident would
>> be pretty bad. Then there'd be more money for safer design of the
>> new and retro-fitting the old to make them safer.
>> Rick Brooks
> Thank you for your thoughts.
You're welcome. They do come with a money back guarentee.
> I'm still wondering about the de-pressurizing dangers, should an
> impact puncture the shell of the vessel, even a huge country-size
> vessel. Would the escaping atmosphere through the breach be
> catastrophic? i suppose it would depend on the size of the vessel,
> the size of the puncture, the atmospheric pressure, and how quickly
> the puncture can be sealed.
> Obviously, to guard against this ever happening, some type of early
> warning system would be deployed at a far distance from the
> settlement to detect, deflect, and if necessary, destroy any
hostiles.
> Monart
> Starship Aurora
As an engineer, my first thought is a double hull. Between hulls
is some sort of sealant. What kind of sealant would have to be
found by experimentation in space.
I'm thinking of irregular shaped small, but heavy duty, plastic
patches. Air pressure between hulls could be higher than inside
to force the patches together at the site of an air leak.
Rick Brooks
The Stanford torus design would have the equivalent of a double hull. The
structure is made of Al with a bit of a safety margain but no allowance for
meteors or radiation. To provide radiation and meteor shielding left over Slag
from ore processing. It's about 2 m thick and is connected to the pressure
vessel through a system of bearings. It would rotate in the opposite direction
and at much slower speed (to counter torque and also prevent the radiation
sheild flying apart).
I really can't see a need.
--- rabrooks@... wrote:
Ryan Healey wrote,
want to live in for the rest of their lives."
I would say that that would depend on the size of the modules. I was
reading a space book last night that claimed that people in very large
indoor areas (e.g., large domed stadia, old dirigible hangers such as the
ones at Ames, large hotel atria) do not really feel that they are
"inside".
Also, there is a cultural component. People from, say, Tokyo and Shanghai
have a different sense of acceptable living space per person than I do (I
live on a big piece of property and drive my car everywhere --- I AM
sprawl!). I've been to Tokyo a half dozen times, and believe me, the
living density is quite high.
Ron Menich
"
I don't think having multiple modules is something people would really want to live in for the rest of their lives.
"
I would say that that would depend on the size of the modules. I was reading a space book last night that claimed that people in very large indoor areas (e.g., large domed stadia, old dirigible hangers such as the ones at Ames, large hotel atria) do not really feel that they are "inside".
Also, there is a cultural component. People from, say, Tokyo and Shanghai have a different sense of acceptable living space per person than I do (I live on a big piece of property and drive my car everywhere --- I AM sprawl!). I've been to Tokyo a half dozen times, and believe me, the living density is quite high.
Ron Menich
From: "Ryan Healey"
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Vulnerability of Space Settlements to Attacks
> With about 2 metres of radiation shielding that would also function as low
> strength, very thick Armour. Ultimately it depends on the nature of the
> weapon. Chemical explosives aren't going to do much but Nuclear could
wipe out
> a settlement. Kinetic could cause some damage but it would probably be
> survivable.
>
Nukes could wipe out a whole city on Earth itself, so the scale of the
damage is about the same, I think. (Well, not exactly... If a nuke is
detonated at an O'Neil cylinder, then the entire atmosphere will blow away
and everyone dies from decompression in a few minutes. In an Earth-based
city, there would be a lot of survivors that would rather die slowly from
burns, famine and disease.)
[snikt]
Lucio
It all comes down to the overall survivability of the colony. A
hijacked ship could impact like a big bomb, unless the colony had
defense measures which might be designed for meteor impacts.
Detection & classification is obviously the biggest part of this.
Either you deflect it or you vaporise it. With long enough lead times,
you don't even need nuclear explosives to completely destroy something
incoming. IT's unclear whether fragmenting something does you any more
harm. Does part of a ship carry sufficiently less KE compared to the
whole ship, so that it's not a great threat to break apart a hijacked
liner?
to move loads around space has the capability to do the same damage
through KE effects.
Any space vehicle would make a city-killer bomb, just by de-orbiting
it so it penetrates deeply enough into the atmosphere.
The big hazard is smuggled bombs exploding inside, probably
particularly dangerous if it went off near a bearing.
It must be suggested that security for space facilities of any sort
will be intense.
Of course, war making in space is another matter.
Ryan Healey wrote:
> The Stanford torus design would have the equivalent of a double
hull. The structure is made of Al with a bit of a safety margain but
no allowance for meteors or radiation. To provide radiation and
meteor shielding left over Slag from ore processing. It's about 2 m
thick and is connected to the pressure vessel through a system of
bearings.
This is the old design. I don't know of any "official word" on these
things, but this original design would seem to be discarded. Aluminum
pressure vessel is an invitation to disaster, due to fire-explosion
effects on aluminum, as well as the fact that a metal presure vessel
tends to pop if punctured.
The Concrete Space Colonies article covered all this. If you need 95%
dumb rock dust, then why not incorporate it into the structure? The
passive defense feature of concrete shells lends much to the
survivability.
Much has already been said here about the favorable qualities of
passive (mass) radiation shielding.
Ryan wrote:
> With about 2 metres of radiation shielding that would also function
as low strength, very thick Armour...
Reinforced prestressed fused rock dust is actually a very high
strength armour. Even if an impact penetrates the shell, it must
destroy all the cables holding tension before an area of shell fails.
Likely, however we can have lower density and it is likely that many of the
people will want that so we may as well provide it.
If one has a sufficiently big wallet, then one can build a sufficiently
large habitat. I'm not sure how important the observation is that "many
of the people will want that" (lots of interior space). How much are
they willing to pay? --- now there's the rub. If there's a shortage of
money, then perhaps there will also be a shortage of internal space.
one.
Ron Menich
Ryan Healey
10/09/01 03:32 AM
Please respond to spacesettlers
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Vulnerability of Space Settlements to Attacks
Likely, however we can have lower density and it is likely that many of
the
people will want that so we may as well provide it.
--- rmenich@... wrote:
> Ryan Healey wrote,
>
> "I don't think having multiple modules is something people would really
> want to live in for the rest of their lives."
>
> I would say that that would depend on the size of the modules. I was
> reading a space book last night that claimed that people in very large
> indoor areas (e.g., large domed stadia, old dirigible hangers such as
the
> ones at Ames, large hotel atria) do not really feel that they are
> "inside".
>
> Also, there is a cultural component. People from, say, Tokyo and
Shanghai
> have a different sense of acceptable living space per person than I do
(I
> live on a big piece of property and drive my car everywhere --- I AM
> sprawl!). I've been to Tokyo a half dozen times, and believe me, the
> living density is quite high.
>
> Ron Menich
I hope you're right --- I'd rather see a spacious habitat than a cramped one.
Ron Menich
Ryan Healey
10/09/01 03:32 AM
Please respond to spacesettlers
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Re: Vulnerability of Space Settlements to Attacks
Likely, however we can have lower density and it is likely that many of the
people will want that so we may as well provide it.
--- rmenich@... wrote:
Considering the economic conditions of that time and the ease with which large
habitats can be built as well as the low population that will be in orbit (even
after earth is considered sparcly populated) then it is pretty easy to assume
that large open spaces wont be much of a problem and will probably be what is
wanted.
in the future could consider to be very very cramped.
There may be a shortage of money in the begining but it wont last long.
--- rmenich@... wrote:
I agree.
affordable (compared to earth).
George
--- In spacesettlers@y..., Ryan Healey wrote:
> Considering the economic conditions of that time and the ease with
which large
> habitats can be built as well as the low population that will be in
orbit (even
> after earth is considered sparcly populated) then it is pretty easy
to assume
> that large open spaces wont be much of a problem and will probably
be what is
> wanted.
>
> Spacious and cramped are relative terms. What we may consider
spacious those
> in the future could consider to be very very cramped.
>
> There may be a shortage of money in the begining but it wont last
long.
>
> --- rmenich@m... wrote:
> > If one has a sufficiently big wallet, then one can build a
sufficiently
> > large habitat. I'm not sure how important the observation is
that "many
> > of the people will want that" (lots of interior space). How
much are
> > they willing to pay? --- now there's the rub. If there's a
shortage of
> > money, then perhaps there will also be a shortage of internal
space.
> >
> > I hope you're right --- I'd rather see a spacious habitat than a
cramped
From: rmenich@... [mailto:rmenich@...]
large indoor areas (e.g., large domed stadia, old dirigible hangers such as
the ones at Ames, large hotel atria) do not really feel that they are
"inside".
That's interesting, in light of the doubting Thomas' constant assertion that
living inside of a Stanford Torus or a Bernal Sphere would be like living in
a shopping mall for the rest of your life, when these environments would be
a good deal larger than the kinds of areas cited above.
Of course for the most part, these are people who would prefer us to go to
Mars for romantic reasons, cannot refute any of the many points O'Neill made
regarding the disadvantages of planets, and thus simply argue that living in
an orbital habitat would be unacceptably claustrophobic. But then,
realistically, nobody is going to be living out in the open on Mars any time
in the next couple of centuries, and there's no reason to think enclosed
environments on Mars would be any bigger than what can be built in space.
In fact, I think it can be successfully argued they can't be as large.
Regards,
Mike Combs
From:
rmenich@... [mailto:rmenich@...]
I was reading a space book last night that claimed that people in very large indoor areas (e.g., large domed stadia, old dirigible hangers such as the ones at Ames, large hotel atria) do not really feel that they are "inside".
That's interesting, in light of the doubting Thomas' constant assertion that living inside of a Stanford Torus or a Bernal Sphere would be like living in a shopping mall for the rest of your life, when these environments would be a good deal larger than the kinds of areas cited above.
Of course for the most part, these are people who would prefer us to go to Mars for romantic reasons, cannot refute any of the many points O'Neill made regarding the disadvantages of planets, and thus simply argue that living in an orbital habitat would be unacceptably claustrophobic. But then, realistically, nobody is going to be living out in the open on Mars any time in the next couple of centuries, and there's no reason to think enclosed environments on Mars would be any bigger than what can be built in space. In fact, I think it can be successfully argued they can't be as large.
Regards,
Mike Combs
From: Dr. Omni [mailto:dromni@...]
damage is about the same, I think. (Well, not exactly... If a nuke is
detonated at an O'Neil cylinder, then the entire atmosphere will blow away
and everyone dies from decompression in a few minutes. In an Earth-based
city, there would be a lot of survivors that would rather die slowly from
burns, famine and disease.)
Yeehah. Given a choice between the two, I think I'd rather be dead in a
minute, and only have 10-15 seconds to think about it.
Regards,
Mike Combs
From:
Dr. Omni [mailto:dromni@...]
Nukes could wipe out a whole city on Earth itself, so the scale of the
damage is about the same, I think. (Well, not exactly... If a nuke is
detonated at an O'Neil cylinder, then the entire atmosphere will blow away
and everyone dies from decompression in a few minutes. In an Earth-based
city, there would be a lot of survivors that would rather die slowly from
burns, famine and disease.)
Yeehah. Given a choice between the two, I think I'd rather be dead in a minute, and only have 10-15 seconds to think about it.
Regards,
Mike Combs
From: rmenich@... [mailto:rmenich@...]
large habitat. I'm not sure how important the observation is that "many of
the people will want that" (lots of interior space). How much are they
willing to pay? --- now there's the rub. If there's a shortage of money,
then perhaps there will also be a shortage of internal space.
I hope you're right --- I'd rather see a spacious habitat than a cramped
one.
I think a consequence of the square-cube law will be that large volume
habitats will not be proportionately more expensive than smaller volume
habitats.
Regards,
Mike Combs
From:
rmenich@... [mailto:rmenich@...]
If one has a sufficiently big wallet, then one can build a sufficiently large habitat. I'm not sure how important the observation is that "many of the people will want that" (lots of interior space). How much are they willing to pay? --- now there's the rub. If there's a shortage of money, then perhaps there will also be a shortage of internal space.
I hope you're right --- I'd rather see a spacious habitat than a cramped one.
I think a consequence of the square-cube law will be that large volume habitats will not be proportionately more expensive than smaller volume habitats.
Regards,
Mike Combs
Actually a space colony has to always be better prepared for
punctures. You will get small meteors, breaking windows, puncturing
holes, sandblasting the outer hull, etc... Any design would have to
have contigencies, for punctures. In fact you would expect automatic
systems to mobilize to minimize the damage a puncture would produce.
punctures until it can be fixed.
The stuff the terorists will probably use is biotech. In fact I am
very surprised that terrorists haven't exploited this avenue. It is a
technology that is very easy to fund, fairly simple to research, with
most of the equipment accessable at your grocery or drug store.
--- In spacesettlers@y..., Monart Pon wrote:
That's a terrifying thought, a bio-attack on a space settlement. I wonderwhat would be the defence against that? Have everyone don spacesuits andvent out the atmosphere, and then re-plant the ecosystem after? (Just kidding,mabye :~)
Monart
Starship Aurora <
http://www.starshipaurora.com
>
Starship Forum <
>
Actually a space colony has to always be better prepared for
punctures. You will get small meteors, breaking windows, puncturing
holes, sandblasting the outer hull, etc... Any design would haveto
have contigencies, for punctures. In fact you would expect automatic
systems to mobilize to minimize the damage a puncture would produce.
For example an automaically deployable 10 m radius half shell tocover
punctures until it can be fixed.
The stuff the terorists will probably use is biotech. In fact Iam
very surprised that terrorists haven't exploited this avenue. Itis a
technology that is very easy to fund, fairly simple to research,with
most of the equipment accessable at your grocery or drug store.
--- In spacesettlers@y..., Monart Pon
Vacination aginast common dieseases.Quarantine and extensive testing to find dieseases a new arrival may have.El Al like security to find if a person is trying to bring biohazards in their luggage.Nano-technology.The security measures used will depend on the balance between security and freedom that the habitat wants (usually decided by the people who live there).--- Monart Pon wrote:
That's a terrifying thought, a bio-attack on a space settlement. I wonderwhat would be the defence against that? Have everyone don spacesuits andvent out the atmosphere, and then re-plant the ecosystem after? (Just kidding,mabye :~)
Monart
Starship Aurora
Actually a space colony has to always be better prepared for
punctures. You will get small meteors, breaking windows, puncturing
holes, sandblasting the outer hull, etc... Any design would haveto
have contigencies, for punctures. In fact you would expect automatic
systems to mobilize to minimize the damage a puncture would produce.
For example an automaically deployable 10 m radius half shell tocover
punctures until it can be fixed.
The stuff the terorists will probably use is biotech. In fact Iam
very surprised that terrorists haven't exploited this avenue. Itis a
technology that is very easy to fund, fairly simple to research,with
most of the equipment accessable at your grocery or drug store.
--- In spacesettlers@y..., Monart Pon wrote:
>
That's a terrifying thought, a bio-attack on a space settlement. I wonderwhat would be the defence against that? Have everyone don spacesuits andvent out the atmosphere, and then re-plant the ecosystem after? (Just kidding,mabye :~)
Monart
Starship Aurora <
http://www.starshipaurora.com
>
Starship Forum <
>
Bill wrote:
Actually a space colony has to always be better prepared for
punctures. You will get small meteors, breaking windows, puncturing
holes, sandblasting the outer hull, etc... Any design would haveto
have contigencies, for punctures. In fact you would expect automatic
systems to mobilize to minimize the damage a puncture would produce.
For example an automaically deployable 10 m radius half shell tocover
punctures until it can be fixed.
The stuff the terorists will probably use is biotech. In fact Iam
very surprised that terrorists haven't exploited this avenue. Itis a
technology that is very easy to fund, fairly simple to research,with
most of the equipment accessable at your grocery or drug store.
--- In spacesettlers@y..., Monart Pon
>
.
From: "Bill"
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 8:07 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Vulnerability of Space Settlements to Attacks
> The stuff the terorists will probably use is biotech. In fact I am
> very surprised that terrorists haven't exploited this avenue. It is a
> technology that is very easy to fund, fairly simple to research, with
> most of the equipment accessable at your grocery or drug store.
>
On the other and, bioweapons are difficult to control. Your plagues can also
spread among your own people, and your microbes can develop resistance
against the drugs that supposedly should defend you against them.
Space settlements, however, would be the perfect target for bio (and
chemical) weapons. They are sealed, isolated environments, and your
engineered plague can cause serious damage to your enemies without having a
chance to get into *your* habitat.
[snikt]
Lucio Coelho