New Member

From: Collin R. Skocik [mailto:acclarkefan2001@verizon.net]

> But I was thinking more in terms of accidents, slow leaks,
> breakdown of supply runs, fire, and any numbe rof things
> that could befall a space station or space habitat or
> whatever you'd like to call it.

If we're talking a space station (something comparable to what we have
now), the consequences of such events can be sudden and catastrophic.
If we're talking about space habitats several miles across, the
consequences would be neither, and would simply require action at some
point. You also mention "supply runs", but I don't think anyone
anticipates orbital habitats to be viable if vitally dependent on
monthly (say) supply runs.

> But I think as long as we live in our fragile human bodies,
> we'll need to live on planets, because they're sustainable
> over longer periods than any artificial space-based construction.

Would you argue that a sensibly-designed orbital habitat couldn't have a
lifetime at least somewhat in excess of a century?

But let's say for the sake of argument that no matter how good our
technology gets, we'll never see a 500 year old orbital habitat. Do we
really see someone choosing to immigrate from Earth to another planet,
and basing the decision on the fact that he can still count on the
planetary ecology being there a thousand years from now?

I have confidence that orbital habitats can be engineered to suit the
time-frames of most importance to human mortals.

> Too many things could completely destroy a space station.

Again, we should not compare a planetary civilization to a single space
station. It should rightly only be compared to a swarm of space
habitats of equal land area. In an orbital civilization composed of a
billion habitats, the loss of one (while upsetting to friends and
family) would be considered inconsequential in comparison to the whole.

Regards,

Mike Combs