Re: Asimov DESIGN SPACE

[zkulpa@lksu.ippt.gov.pl (Zenon Kulpa)]

> From KellySt@aol.com Sat Jan  6 20:43:10 1996
> [...]
> Good idea, we have pretty well argued threw everything, and a summary would
> be a good idea.  Assuming we'ld dfo it.  Several of us have suggested it.  A
> fw said they were starting.  Oh well.  Using Zenons framework
> 
> > Here I would like to remind about my attempt (a year ago)
> > to start recapitulation effort of all discussed options.
> > Below follows the sketch of the beginning ;-))
> > of the DESIGN SPACE summary I have started then.
> > There should be, of course, many more aspects
> > listed, like target(s), life supply 
> > (e.g., stored food/hydroponics/farming;
> > all crew awake/all crew hibernates(or something)/mixed, etc.),
> > command structure, project financing.... &c &c.
> 
> >                      *       LIT "ASIMOV"      *
> >                      *     Starship Design     *
> 
> You might have noticed I hate the name Asimov for the ship.  It gives the
> whole project a grade school feel.  I mean lets be real.  This is a name that
> would never be acceptable to a real starship project.
> 
The name arised from the vote by LIT members.
I did not vote - I missed the deadline...
My proposal would be different, though Asimov-like: "FarStar".
However, on second thoughts, it should possibly be changed to "NearStar",
to be more real...;-)).
Acceptable for the real thing or not, it seems good enough 
as our "working name" in discussions.
When starting to build the real thing :-)
we can announce the name competition again...


Concerning my "preliminary sketch of the beginning of the
Design Space topics listing"  :-)), 
I think we should first finish the (well ordered & structured) 
listing of the topics in the Design Space
instead of arguing again over these few topics I have listed
which were over-argued back and forth already...

And the rationale for the listing is NOT to list options
which we (who are we, anyway?) AGREED upon (I am afraid there are a few, 
if any, of them - even the name semms to be still disputable...), 
but to list ALL the options proposed, in a structured way, 
to give us insight about the full range
of possibilities and their interdependence
(something like the list obtained after the first stage 
of a brainstorming session).
Such a listing may be then used as a structuring device
for collecting the results of/positions taken during
the discussion, showing, e.g., the holes in the arguments
or (im)possibilities that were missed somehow, etc.
In this way we may come at the only(!? - any other ideas?) useful 
and READABLE (in the finite time left us... ;-)) summary 
of the discussion and progress made so far.

Without this, I am afraid further discussion would be a waste of time:
as many of you complain, we are already either going around in circles, 
endlessly repeating the arguments and ideas that just happen 
old enough to be forgotten by most of the remaining participants, 
or are trying to devise more and more outlandish SF ideas 
without knowing whether they are really necessary 
(or whether they were not discussed a year ago...).

I know it may be boring, such compilation and structuring of topics,
but it is inevitable if the whole LIT affair is to have any further sense. 
I have made a beginning - let someone else adds 
a few more topics to the list (from his favourite domain) -
we will then shortly discuss and refine the composition 
of this additional fragment of the list (NOT discussing 
the pro/contra of the topics on it - THAT was discussed upon already!), 
then go to the next few...

Thus, Kellys discussion of the options on my list
is rather off (current) topic - there are many arguments 
pro/contra the options listed (as for me, I have the opposite opinion
to at least some arguments given by Kelly in his letter),
but this is no time to repeat them -
first, we should list all options discussed,
then recapitulate shortly the previous arguments
(the even MORE BORING part of the job... ;-))
using the list as a Table of Contents,
and then start arguing again for the topics
we find not (over-)discussed yet satisfactorily.


Thus, despite the (AAAFFFULLL!) itching, I try to refrain from
arguing with Kelly's opinions on the topics I listed.

Ohhh my, except that one:  ;-O
------------------------
> >    * Manned:
> >      * Without crew procreation
> >        * Suicide (explore and die before your time when supplies end)
> >        * One-way (outpost construction and stay till natural death)
> 
> Suicide and one way are the same.  
>
Kelly, try to be logical.
They are NOT the same (for short explanation - 
see inside brackets above).

> We couldn't biuld a self sustaining
> outpost, 
>
If so, we couldn't build the (tens-of-years)-self sustaining
space ship, either...

> and wouldn't fund resupply flights forever 
>
You assume the outpost crew will live forever? [see above].
And with the presently foreseable technology,
the return flight will last just around the life expectancy
of the outpost crew (oh, let add some 10 yers or so);
thus the return will have almost only one sense - to bury
the crew bones in the Earth grave (rather than in Space...).

Or either we should assume
"a fantastic improvement in star drives" (your words, Kelly...).
No question in this case - we should plan a round-trip mission
(but, I am sure, quite a number of the crew will want to stay back 
at the outpost anyway - I would, for that matter).

[...]

>  NO ONE would fund a one-way flight.
> 
Did you ask EVERYone, 
so you are so cock-sure about that "NO ONE" thing?
 
------------------------------------------
  Enough, Zenon, do not indulge yourself in the pleasure
  of arguing with Kelly, against your own advice...


> p.s.
> Zenon, did you CC yourself at an AmericaOnline account?
>  (@emin08.mail.aol.com)  
> 
I do not think so.
At least I am not aware of having any contacts with AOL.
Why do you ask?

-- Zenon