Earth II

O'Neill would certainly have come down in favor of 2. He even spoke of habitats designed such that the Amish could live in them and keep them going.

I once felt compelled to add something to my Space Settlement FAQ (http://space.mike-combs.com/spacsetl.htm#terrorist) to the effect that, when thinking of the "life support system", don't think of a building with chugging machines which a terrorist could attack. Instead, think "every green leaf growing in sunlight".

Regards,

Mike Combs

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sraj
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:20 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Earth II

Joe,

I only wish we could put the idea into practice. Incidentally, this has raised another doubt in my mind.

Which is more high tech:

1. A space hab that is choke full of the latest computers, actuators, solar cells (with limited life of say 100 years).. and which packs up if the computer goes out of order.

or

2. One that is designed the way our planet is designed. No gadgets at all.
At the basic level the system is self-sustaining. Even if all the technicians pack up and leave, the space-hab continues to function (more or less).