XPost: sci.space.policy   
   From: zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk   
      
   Lawrence Gales wrote:   
      
      
   > (a) Instead of the spheres or cylinders which cannot be made small   
   > w/o sacrificing gravity, the Stanford Torus can be scaled down   
   > dramatically while retaining full 1 gee   
      
   What is this obsession with spheres, torii (toruses?) and cylinders? It's   
   very earth-bound thinking. As is the desire for one g, but let that slide.   
      
      
   Two modules with a long rope between them. Set them spinning, and you have   
   any gravity you like. In any size you like. Space is big, there is plenty of   
   room.   
      
      
   The longer the rope, the flatter the apparent gravity field - which is   
   something you can't do easily with a sphere, cylinder or torus, you have to   
   make those huge. Also it is less dizzy-making. And all it costs is a bit of   
   rope.   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Peter Fairbrother   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)