> Widely scattered space habitats would inherently slow the spread of
> diseases, particularly if travel time is measured in days rather than
> hours. The time en route would allow more thorough health & agriculture
> screening than is the norm today, so the main vector for engineered
> diseases would be active distribution devices instead of unknowingly
> infected carriers.
Right, but as I said before, wouldn't you get much the same effect
for much less expense by putting those space habitats on the ground?
Of course, a space habitat has the advantage of cheap access to vacuum
and intense sunlight, but an earth habitat has compensating advantages
of its own.
> Distributed systems are robust, even though some nodes might be lost to
> hostile action. None of this addresses how we make it through the next
> decade or two, though.
It would be much easier to develop self-contained ground habitats than
space ones. Even the simple fallout shelters of the 1960s could sustain
life for a period of weeks or months.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:43 MDT