Re: starship-design: Been quiet for a while...

["N. Lindberg" <nlindber@u.washington.edu>]

Kyle,
	That's an excellent idea.  Before we can decide what our
priorities are as far as what bodies we study, we should ask what we might
expect to find in a target starsystem.  comets, big planets, li'l planets,
asteriods of wildly varying compositions.  My vote is that we give the
most 'earth-like' planets the most emphasis if there is one, and also
scout the system for water and other resources, especially on the minor
bodies, in anticipation that humans might try to take up permanent
residence there someday.  In the absence of any earth-like bodies, we
still ought to do the latter.  Study of the star is important too: to
compare the detailed measurements that will be possible from proximity
with data on Sol.  Also, does this system have a Kupier belt/oort cloud
type thing? why/why not.  Are there differences?  
Just trying to keep the ball rolling.
Best regards,
Nels Lindberg

On Sun, 4 Apr 1999, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote:

> Hi all:
> 
> It's been quiet here for quite a long time. I have been thinking, for
> now, perhaps we have exhausted our working 'resources' for designing a
> starship. Technologically, we aren't concrete yet. But, here is
> something we can do: define our overall objectives for exploring the
> destination star system. What planets/moons do we investigate the most
> heavily? How do we proceed in our exploration of planetary surfaces? I
> would like to hear your opinions on this. It might make for some thought
> provoking discussion.
> 
> Kyle R. Mcallister
>