>>23450665
>What's reasonable when [fiction]
By that retarded logic, why not just build billions of space colony for every single habitant, since you imply that modifying a design doesn't matter?
>Nobody's LETTING anyone. It's an unavoidable thing that [fiction]
By that retarded logic, why aren't you prepared for a total nuclear war with terrorists "unavoidably" bringing nuclear bomb in the middle of every single city? O'Neill colonies are barely the size of a big city. Once you get into nuclear weapons that's quite fragile.
>muh colony can't st-stand
Funny how you didn't finish that phrase.
Did you even remember what's the topic? No, I bet you didn't even care.
O'Neill didn't plan his colonies to be casually resisting a nukes spam like the one-week-war, even if you bargained to exclude any scenario where nukes explode inside, breach from outside to inside, or damage the spindle far beyond preparation, causing a cascade failure.
>Do you have a sense of scale?
Do you? Volume and mass would increase following cube law for any volume you need want to up-armor compared to the original design.
Do you understand "form follow function"? The function is being a space colony, not surviving a nuclear war.
>Space age materials
We have material far superior to anything available in the middle-age and yet we don't build every house to resist nukes or even artillery.
And as said in my previous posts that you clearly didn't read, there's no reason economical or political to give them special treatment.
Also,
>would be several times superior to the proposed models in strength and would allow for similar mass at far stronger
All that mean is that they would use build it cheaper and lighter to a LOT of money to be used for more space colonies.