Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum robocon@xxxxxx (09 Nov 2017 01:02 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Rupert Boleyn (09 Nov 2017 02:17 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Richard Aiken (09 Nov 2017 03:48 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Kelly St. Clair (09 Nov 2017 04:39 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Amber Witherspoon (09 Nov 2017 09:37 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Rupert Boleyn (09 Nov 2017 05:29 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Grimmund (09 Nov 2017 17:45 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum shadow@xxxxxx (09 Nov 2017 11:37 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Grimmund (09 Nov 2017 17:43 UTC)

Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Kelly St. Clair 09 Nov 2017 04:39 UTC

On 11/8/2017 7:48 PM, Richard Aiken wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com
> <mailto:xxxxxx@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     . . . Later steps would assume that the electronics will be decades
>     out of date and would get replaced anyway, so they'd either be
>     removed as part of the process, or no-one would care if they died
>     from prolonged vacuum exposure because they'd be getting replaced
>     upon recommissioning anyway.
>
>
> Hmmm.
>
> When you consider that higher-tech replacement electronics are very
> likely to be markedly small in volume than the originals, you've
> essentially got pre-built smuggling spaces scattered the length and
> breath of every recommissioned ship.

Unless they find something else/invent something new to go in (some of)
those spaces.

--
---------------
Kelly St. Clair
xxxxxx@efn.org