Re: RE: RE: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/20/00 4:21:45 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes:

>Kelly,
>
>> well, I think it was more like 40.  ;)  But it does blow the
>> assumptions of
>> needing a full eco/fam system all the time.
>
>You don't really think I bothered to go back and look it up do you? <VBG>

Course not - neather did I.  ;)


>> Given any near future trip would take decades of ship time,
>> is a ship that
>> small practical?  Could that few people do any real survey of
>> a star system?
>>
>
>Well, I was assuming that IF we went at all, it would be possible to go
>CLOSE to c. Given that, and dilation effects, I think trips lasting a few
>years (ship time) are feasible. Depending on the dilation coefficient,
>that
>could get us out to as far as several hundred light years within a few
>centuries without ever needing FTL.
>
>Of course, if we change the assumptions to something like .3 c, you are
>right.

Frankly were not much closer to near light speed travel, then FTl travel.  No 
idea how to generae that much power, or hold a ship together at it.  Maser 
sails could be pushed up that fast, but debres would rip them apart, and no 
way to slow them down.

We'ld never bother with trips that would take centuries.  Its just rediculas 
to send a ship out that long.  It couldn't possibly get there before more 
advanced ships built later ran ahead of it.



>> Why send separte frieghters?  Its easier and simpler to
>> maintain, to just
>> integrate the stuff in one ship.
>>
>> I used to like the redundancy of multiple shipsm but given
>> the size one ship
>> would need to be, multiples started sounding crazy.
>
>I was expanding upon the carrier group resupply paradigm that was mentioned
>earlier. If the freighters are capable of higher velocities than the
>expedition, or are launched FIRST, then it might make things easier. No
>sense shutting out options unnecessarily.

Given the speeds and distences, its pretty hard to do auto intersepts.  And 
since you have to wind up at the same speeds, you might as well use the same 
ship.  Can't see a way around that.


>
>> Hum?
>
>Ho...
>
>I was alluding to refinement of existing technology leading to greater
>levels of performance, as in first generation makes it to 0.3 c, second
>generation can reach 0.6 c, third generation can reach 0.9 c, etc. No REAL
>major discovery, just refinement of the same design. That is a brute force
>approach, as opposed to a new design, such as inertial nullifiers allowing
>a
>jump from 0.3 c to 0.999999 c overnight.

But the same techs can't get you faster.  Fusion systems, or things like fuel 
sail, would require a exponential fuel growth.  To get past .3 or .4 you need 
a whole concept for tech.  Something like zero-point energy, mass/inertia 
alterratin - something wild.


>
>Lee


Kelly