From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Apr 2 21:06:05 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["187" "Thu" "2" "April" "1998" "21:03:42" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "7" "starship-design: Links" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) X-VM-Labels: nil X-VM-Summary-Format: "%n %*%a %-17.17F %-3.3m %2d %4l/%-5c %I\"%s\"\n" Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA17680 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 21:04:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA17671 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 21:04:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [205.163.58.85] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA10529 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 1998 21:06:37 -0800 Message-ID: <3523EF1D.3C2A@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 186 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: starship-design: Links Date: Thu, 02 Apr 1998 21:03:42 +0100 Check these out. and the rest of the SETIleague site is interesting, too. Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Apr 7 17:32:15 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["232" "Tue" "7" "April" "1998" "19:29:54" "-0500" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "10" "starship-design: Nothing going on? Here's something" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA07120 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 17:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA07102 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 17:32:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pm3-162.gpt.infi.net (pm3-162.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.162]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA19338 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 20:32:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pm3-162.gpt.infi.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD625B.8D7F0620@pm3-162.gpt.infi.net>; Tue, 7 Apr 1998 19:29:59 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD625B.8D7F0620@pm3-162.gpt.infi.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Content-Length: 231 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: starship-design: Nothing going on? Here's something Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 19:29:54 -0500 You will need a .PDF reader to view the file at this location. Save it, and then read it. http://www.vif.com/users/apeiron/v05n1mun.pdf Kyle Randall Mcallister Email: stk@sunherald.infi.net Phone: 228-875-0629 Fax: 228-872-5837 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Apr 8 21:15:43 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1438" "Thu" "9" "April" "1998" "00:14:40" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "42" "starship-design: Re: Starship IsReal" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA21670 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 21:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA21654 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 21:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id UDJOa11820; Thu, 9 Apr 1998 00:14:40 -0500 (EDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1437 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Starship IsReal Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1998 00:14:40 EDT In a message dated 4/8/98 12:49:21 AM, you wrote: >Hello Kelly. My name is Tom Jackson. My star ship construction is taking place >in cyberspace at http://members.aol.com/Star1Ship/index.htm. My idividual contribution >is the engine, propellant and shell of ship with heat, light, water provided. > >The shell consists of decks- Bridge, Crew, Passengers, Payload, Computer, Laboratory, >Holodeck. I'm in the process of filling each with hyperlinks to real information >as appropriate. > >I found your site and was pleased to discover another serious study and not just >Sci Fi. I do not want to reinvent the wheel, as there is enough to do requiring >independent invention. Your inclusion in your site of food requirements, I find >useful in determining payload mass and therefore engine specifications for a 5 >year trip to the nearest star accellerating at 1 gravity continuosly. > >What request procedure do I need to copy some material (such as food requirements) >or link to your site as appropriate. I know a little HTML and can link or copy >and paste source code as I need. Being mindful of copyrights, this inquiry is therefore >submitted. I have not been to all of your site, yet, however should this info be >posted please return the specific URL. > >Tom Jackson Glad you liked the site, and we have no objection to you linking to it, nor coping off data clips. Just don't replicate our pages or something. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 10 18:15:03 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1853" "Fri" "10" "April" "1998" "21:13:29" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "57" "starship-design: Fwd: Re: NASA Space Tourism study artical" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA25725 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 18:14:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA25680 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 18:14:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id UOXBa01987 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 21:13:29 -0500 (EDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_892257209_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1852 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Fwd: Re: NASA Space Tourism study artical Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 21:13:29 EDT This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_892257209_boundary Content-ID: <0_892257209@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII --part0_892257209_boundary Content-ID: <0_892257209@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-za04.mx.aol.com (rly-za04.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.100]) by air-za01.mail.aol.com (v40.19) with SMTP; Wed, 08 Apr 1998 09:40:27 -0400 Received: from portal.udlp.com (portal.udlp.com [207.109.1.80]) by rly-za04.mx.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id JAA11317 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 09:40:26 -0400 (EDT) From: KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com Received: from portal.udlp.com (root@localhost) by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id IAA12739 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 08:40:25 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ccmail.udlp.com ([128.254.66.12]) by portal.udlp.com with SMTP id IAA12696 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 1998 08:40:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ccMail by ccmail.udlp.com (IMA Internet Exchange 3.0 Enterprise) id 0000D6E2; Wed, 8 Apr 98 08:44:29 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 08:42:07 -0500 Message-ID: <0000D6E2.CE21254@udlp.com> Subject: Re: NASA Space Tourism study artical To: indy@stone.com, kellyst@aol.com Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit http://www.spacetransportation.org/genpub~2.pdf Hey I used to work with one of the authors. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: NASA Space Tourism study artical Author: KELLY STARKS at UNIASD14 Date: 4/8/98 8:39 AM http://www.spaceviews.com/1998/03/26b.html --part0_892257209_boundary-- From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 10 18:19:51 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["420" "Fri" "10" "April" "1998" "21:15:28" "-0400" "Massie, Will" "Massie.will@ipo.hq.navy.mil" nil "18" "starship-design: VIRUS WARNING: " "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA27735 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 18:19:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from donhqns4.hq.navy.mil (donhqns4.hq.navy.mil [164.224.250.84]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA27726 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 18:19:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by donhqns4.hq.navy.mil; id VAA08557; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 21:27:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from unknown(164.224.183.6) by donhqns4.hq.navy.mil via smap (3.2) id xma008553; Fri, 10 Apr 98 21:27:44 -0400 Received: by NIPO1 with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) id ; Fri, 10 Apr 1998 21:15:29 -0400 Message-ID: <9C7A7A791D55D111B81A00A0C981D3D38F01C5@NIPO1> X-Priority: 1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1458.49) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id SAA27728 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Massie, Will" Content-Length: 419 From: "Massie, Will" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: VIRUS WARNING: Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 21:15:28 -0400 VIRUS WARNING: A message was received which contained a virus: From: Kelly St Address: KellySt@aol.com Date: Friday, April 10, 1998 Time: 9:13:29 PM Subject: starship-design: Fwd: Re: NASA Space Tourism study artical This message contains 1 virus: Unknown infected with the 'bÀªfÍ>È virus This message was generated by ThunderBYTE Anti-Virus for MS Exchange http://www.thunderbyte.com/aboutmx.html From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Apr 12 20:09:25 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1858" "Sun" "12" "April" "1998" "23:08:28" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "55" "starship-design: Re: (no subject)" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA25339 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 20:09:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA25323 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 20:09:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv13.ems) id UDDAa02254; Sun, 12 Apr 1998 23:08:28 -0500 (EDT) Message-ID: <46b4db7c.353181ae@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1857 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: STAR1SHIP@aol.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: (no subject) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 23:08:28 EDT Sorry to hear about you linking problems. The sunsite site is the base site, and should have the most extensive contents. I have no problem with my name, our sites name, in your references. I'll forward you problems to the group. Sorry for the headaches. Kelly In a message dated 4/10/98 7:38:41 PM, you wrote: >The 404 technical problem, I had linking to your article in my web page (not email) >was through the urlybird mirror. Tried temp copying the source code which worked >with the links however your name as in the top and bottom art didn't transfer (hidden >404 error). A status query on the mail you sent me had "starship- design@lists.uoregon.edu(not >applicable)". There, I was able to go to your public archives sd199709 at ftp.efn.org >(FTP) and found you advised an alternate though fuzzy mirrior address. Successfull >at all links except top picture. It probably was trying to find default.htm probably >through urly bird. Should you want my link to include your article head, as web >master, it may be necessary for you copy the default.htm from urlybird site to >sunsite and edit article HTML source for relative link as you please. As you may >be aware, absolute links between your mirror sites may have busted some of your >maps. > >I had to include your name with the link in my payload deck so that it would not >appear that I wrote the article. Should you not want your name, in my physical >ship, please make the changes at your convenience. > >I found your archives very well maintained and hope mine will be also. Does your >list service have the capability of handling the new e-mail and at least maintain >links if not pictures and attachments? Having to type in lengthy URLs along with >click and drag favorite places to maintain history kind of defeats the advantage >of click and drag. > >Response welcome, >Tom From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Apr 13 04:31:49 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["865" "Mon" "13" "April" "1998" "04:31:12" "PDT" "Christoph Kulmann" "guderiak@hotmail.com" nil "30" "starship-design: Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA19480 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 04:31:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f111.hotmail.com [207.82.250.74]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id EAA19473 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 04:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 25594 invoked by uid 0); 13 Apr 1998 11:31:13 -0000 Message-ID: <19980413113113.25593.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.102.20.28 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 13 Apr 1998 04:31:12 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.102.20.28] Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Christoph Kulmann" Content-Length: 864 From: "Christoph Kulmann" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 04:31:12 PDT Hi Folks, I have a question about the fuel-to-payload mass ratios of your starships. In http://sunsite.unc.edu/lunar/school/InterStellar/Explorer_Class/External_fueled_Drive.html you give a detailed list of fule:dryweight ratios to accelerate a ship to 1/3 light speed, ranging from 55:1 to 500,000,000:1. As you know, there is an interesting drive concept at PSU called ICAN-II. (http://antimatter.phys.psu.edu/ICAN-II_Paper) Now assume you equip your Explorer Class Starship with an ICAN-II drive, what mass ratio would be required to accelerate it to 1/3 light speed? With the original dryweight of 500,000 tons and without using a fuel launcher... Well, they don't say it that clearly, so I'm asking... So long Christoph Kulmann ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Apr 14 14:35:10 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1994" "Tue" "14" "April" "1998" "16:32:11" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "54" "RE: starship-design: Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA07899 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 14:34:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA07797 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 14:34:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p0.gnt.com [204.49.68.205]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA23006; Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:34:34 -0500 Message-ID: <000201bd67ed$17212480$cd4431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: <19980413113113.25593.qmail@hotmail.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 1993 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Christoph Kulmann'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:32:11 -0500 Christoph, First, you need to remember that the ICAN II drive as it is currently specified is only capable of INTERPLANETARY velocities. Its total delta v is 120 km/sec for a payload of around 100 tons ( I think that was it) which is WAY short of 100,000 km/sec. I had theorized here in this forum that a follow on version using a more advanced reactor design might be able to push a probe up to interstellar velocities, but I was talking about a probe of around the same payload mass as the ICAN mission, not an Explorer class vessel. Since even this probe would require a 833 fold increase in delta v, we clearly have a long way to go before this engine will push an Explorer out. By the way, I want to stake out a new ship class. Kelly is calling his class Explorer. I want to delineate one called Pathfinder with a crew of only ten to twenty specialists. More later on design and mission profile... I think we also need a class for a heavy colonization vessel called Caravan that would be a follow on to the Explorer mission. The sequence of events I had in mind was Pathfinder -> Explorer -> Caravan. > -----Original Message----- > I have a question about the fuel-to-payload mass ratios of your > starships. In > http://sunsite.unc.edu/lunar/school/InterStellar/Explorer_Class/External_fue led_Drive.html you give a detailed list of fule:dryweight ratios to accelerate a ship to 1/3 light speed, ranging from 55:1 to 500,000,000:1. As you know, there is an interesting drive concept at PSU called ICAN-II. (http://antimatter.phys.psu.edu/ICAN-II_Paper) Now assume you equip your Explorer Class Starship with an ICAN-II drive, what mass ratio would be required to accelerate it to 1/3 light speed? With the original dryweight of 500,000 tons and without using a fuel launcher... Well, they don't say it that clearly, so I'm asking... So long Christoph Kulmann ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 17 18:02:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4016" "Fri" "17" "April" "1998" "21:01:13" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "102" "starship-design: Fwd: Now they think of it!!" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA28195 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 18:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.33]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA28143 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 18:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UJESa18926 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 21:01:13 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <8e382a81.3537fb5c@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part0_892861274_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 4015 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Fwd: Now they think of it!! Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 21:01:13 EDT This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --part0_892861274_boundary Content-ID: <0_892861274@inet_out.mail.aol.com.1> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII --part0_892861274_boundary Content-ID: <0_892861274@inet_out.mail.aol.com.2> Content-type: message/rfc822 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from rly-za01.mx.aol.com (rly-za01.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.97]) by air-za05.mail.aol.com (v42.1) with SMTP; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:10:33 -0400 Received: from portal.udlp.com (portal.udlp.com [207.109.1.80]) by rly-za01.mx.aol.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) with ESMTP id LAA13733; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 11:10:31 -0400 (EDT) From: KELLY_STARKS@udlp.com Received: from portal.udlp.com (root@localhost) by portal.udlp.com with ESMTP id KAA28317; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 10:10:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ccmail.udlp.com ([128.254.66.12]) by portal.udlp.com with SMTP id KAA28247; Fri, 17 Apr 1998 10:10:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from ccMail by ccmail.udlp.com (IMA Internet Exchange 3.0 Enterprise) id 0001B710; Fri, 17 Apr 98 10:14:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 10:13:58 -0500 Message-ID: <0001B710.CE21254@udlp.com> Subject: Now they think of it!! To: errataj5@cca.rockwell.com, indy@stone.com, kellyst@aol.com, kryswalker@aol.com Content-Description: cc:Mail note part Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit News cliping NASA officials are considering proposing a set of incentives, ranging from promises to purchase launch services to loan guarantees, to support the private development of reusable launch vehicles (RLVs), Space News reported last week. William Claybaugh, business advisor to the deputy associate administrator for space transportation technology at NASA, told Space News that the agency is considering a number of incentives to support RLVs that would require government backing but "may not necessarily cost the government anything," he said. Among Claybaugh's proposals include promises by NASA to purchase a specific number of RLV flights, tax credits, and underwriting commercial loans or subsidizing the interest rates on those loans. Those proposals would reduce the perceived risk in the project and lower the interest rates, making more capital available, according to Gary Payton, NASA's deputy associate administrator for space transportation technology. A study last year by the Aerospace Corporation showed that commercial RLV builders could expect to invest no more than about $1 billion in a new project, requiring either outside investment or government funding. The finding raised concerns about the future of VentureStar, the full-scale follow-on to the X-33, which has an expected development cost of about $5-6 billion. While NASA's proposals of loan guarantees and other incentives appear targeted specifically at Lockheed Martin, developer of the VentureStar, Claybaugh said any incentives would be available to other companies developing RLVs. Claybaugh was skeptical that any company could develop an RLV that provided low-cost access to space solely on commercial funding. "If a company has to pay back all the development costs on a commercial basis, [it is] not going to be able to hit the $1,000 per pound cost target," he told Space News. >>> This is the deal Lockheed offered them 2 years ago instead of the X-33 program and they turned it down!! They agreed to spend an extra billion dollars instead! On the plus side, this kind of idea has been considered the most promising way to greatly accelerate the development of these low cost launchers. Kelly --part0_892861274_boundary-- From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Apr 19 10:16:23 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6719" "Sun" "19" "April" "1998" "10:15:20" "PDT" "Christoph Kulmann" "guderiak@hotmail.com" nil "130" "starship-design: New Starship Classes" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA16917 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 10:16:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f49.hotmail.com [207.82.250.60]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA16912 for ; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 10:15:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 12017 invoked by uid 0); 19 Apr 1998 17:15:22 -0000 Message-ID: <19980419171522.12016.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.102.20.28 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 19 Apr 1998 10:15:20 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.102.20.28] Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Christoph Kulmann" Content-Length: 6718 From: "Christoph Kulmann" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: New Starship Classes Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 10:15:20 PDT Hello Lee, Thank you for your answer. I was surprised about your introdcution of a new ship called Pahtfinder. It's a good idea, but I strongly disagree with your proposed crew of 10 - 20 specialists. First of all, even a relatively small ship would still need decades for a two-way mission to a neighbouring star system. And no matter how thoroughly you plan a mission, there is always the risk of unexpected events. And for a small crew, a loss of five members in an accident might deal a severe blow to the whole mission. But for a ship the size of the Explorer class, with a crew around 700, such a loss could be far easier compensated by the rest, because a large crew offers a much better and more stable social base from which to operate. The second objection is just an innocent question: What should Pathfinder do? Just monitor an alien star system? A robot probe could do the same job - and much, much cheaper. Especially if you consider that most of our neighbouring stars won't show any signs of life, I think it's wiser to send unmanned probes first. Imagine the following headline: "Exploration crews failed to find life in the 20 nearest star systems - NASA Directors thrown in jail for wasting 100,000,000,000,000 Dollars" To send an Explorer class ship would only be justified if something very special is found by one of the Pathfinders: 1. A terrestrial planet or moon with a Gaia-style biosphere and possibly MILLIONS of alien species, 2. A lifeless, but still Earth-like world suitable for colonization and eventual terraforming, and thus worth further investigation, 3. Something really strange, e.g. an alien artifact, left behind by an exploration crew in the distant past, which couldn't be recovered by the Pathfinder probe. For your proposed sequence of ships (Pathfinder -> Explorer -> Caravan), I think it would be helpful to view them in the historical context in which they are most likely to happen. 1. A small and relatively fast interstellar probe (WITHOUT any human crew!!) could be launched within our own lifetime (well, at least mine...). If they are designed for a one-way mission and equipped with high-resolution cameras and powerful senders, multiple star systems could be screaned simultanously. So we will have plenty of data to imagine what is "out yonder". If there is sufficient public demand, this could be achieved by a combined international effort. 2. If one of the three conditions mentioned above is met, we can start preparing an Explorer mission. Because an Explorer Starship will inevitably be a giant vessel costing almost unimaginable sums of money, we need a large, planetary-scale economy (called "Type I" by Kardashev). That means we need a world government, ore mines on several asteroids and one or two cities on Mars and dozens of interplanetary ships cruising around - in other words, a situation unlikely to be reached before the next 200 years. And even then we must take greatest care that the mission will be successful even under the worst circumstances. To understand what I mean, let's consider the example of a powerful nation engaged in a high-tech war. Even if they succeed in blowing their enemies into oblivion, they will suffer dearly - not from physical destruction, but from the loss of a far too large portion of their national whealth. Even a small but sophisticated anti-aircraft missile costs more than most people can spend within 10 years, only to be shot once and never seen again...In war, you literally throw your money out of all windows. Now return to our Explorer craft. If such a vast ship is build, it means an immense strain even for a powerful civilization. We construct and launch it in the good hope it will return something useful...All right, if it does indeed. But then, if contact to the ship is broken and never again resumed, if the ship is lost in interstellar space, all the money invested will be gone - for nothing. Such a loss of resources may crush even a global economy. So we should be careful not to undertake such a massive project too early. (That's also the reason why I am HIGHLY sceptical about your mission plan - I hardly believe that an Explorer Starship can be launched as early as 2050) 3. Now to your Caravan colony ship. If you plan a different class for colonization, that implies it will be several times larger than Explorer. But to make things worse, for a really effective colonization task (well, setting up a city of 1 million inhabitants and all the supporting infrastructure) you need more than one ship - I think, four of them is still a conservative guess. Then again, the inevitable question arises: Who in Heaven's Name can afford PAYING it??? For interstellar colonization, we need more than a global economy - we need a stable, Solar System wide community, with several billion people living and working outside Earth: on Mars, the Asteroids, Ganymed, etc. In other words, we need an economic basis approaching something like a stellar civilization (Type II in Kardashev's model). To be honest, this will take at least one or two MILLENNIA to achieve. But then, a very simple question arises: Why bother with a class of ships which will only be launched in an era as distant as the Roman Empire?????? Don't you agree that engineers of the 4th Millennium will have much more sophisticated technologies from which to build a starship? -------------------------------------------------- I hope my arguments don't cause any disillusionment for anyone. But as far as starship design is concerned, I think it is important to stick to the ground and don't make steps too fast. From the first time I found your LIT-pages I was fascinated by your concepts because they are reasonable - they don't move too far into the realm of Science Fiction. But if you plan interstellar colonization before have gathered any experience with interstellar travel at all - Well, you will inevitably run into problems... Your idea of different ship classes is a good one - but I think it is really wiser to send unmanned, small and relatively cheap Pathfinder probes first and let them do the remote sensing. Parallel to this we could refine the design of the Explorer class, which could be send out once an alien world raises our special curiosity. It would also be helpful if someone could give a very rough overview of the costs of both Pathfinder/Explorer ships - so that we have a vague sense for the sheer dimension of this task and know how many Sponsors to ask.... So long Christoph Kulmann ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Apr 20 18:12:31 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["8595" "Mon" "20" "April" "1998" "20:07:34" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "195" "starship-design: RE: New Starship Classes" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA06301 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:12:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA06272 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p46.gnt.com [204.49.68.251]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA27910; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 20:11:44 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bd6cc2$5a132020$fb4431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <19980419171522.12016.qmail@hotmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 8594 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Christoph Kulmann'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: RE: New Starship Classes Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 20:07:34 -0500 Chris, Gee, we've already covered most of those points! Sorry, but I suppose it is unrealistic of me to expect everyone to go and read all of the archives when they join the group... You raised quite a few points, some of which I will save for the actual description of Pathfinder and Caravan. What I will do is summarize briefly as best as I can remember some of the earlier "discussions" about your questions. > -----Original Message----- > From: Christoph Kulmann [mailto:guderiak@hotmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, April 19, 1998 12:15 PM > To: lparker@cacaphony.net > Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: New Starship Classes > > > It's a good idea, but I strongly disagree with your proposed > crew of 10 > - 20 specialists. > First of all, even a relatively small ship would still need > decades for > a two-way mission to a neighbouring star system. I am making different assumptions as to propulsion systems. I am assuming constant acceleration at 10 m/sec (1G). Such a trip will take only marginally longer than the difference in light years (in real-time) and considerably less in ship board time. > The second objection is just an innocent question: What should > Pathfinder do? Just monitor an alien star system? A robot > probe could do > the same job - and much, much cheaper. Especially if you > consider that > most of our neighbouring stars won't show any signs of life, I think > it's wiser to send unmanned probes first. Umm, I think it was the general consensus that anything that a robot probe could discover, we will be able to observe directly from Earth by that time. A ship (of any class) would only be sent after it was determined there was adequate reason to send one. Exactly which type of ship would depend upon what we thought was at the other end. > > To send an Explorer class ship would only be justified if > something very > special is found by one of the Pathfinders: > Which is precisely why I think we need more than one class. It is not going to be immediately apparent that an Explorer class ship is justified in every system we decide to go to. An Explorer is an all purpose vessel with a large crew capable of dealing with every aspect of EXPLORING a new system thoroughly. It would primarily be targeted at systems in which we already expect to establish a permanent manned presence. It would be responsible for preparing the way for colonization. A Pathfinder is more of a survey ship, it would be sent to systems which for some reason we don't get a clear indication of habitable planets or perhaps no indication of habitable planets. As you point out the search for aliens and alien artifacts is important and it would be terribly irresponsible of us to assume that they would only be found in oxygen/water environments. Contrariwise, an Explorer mission to such a null environment would be extremely wasteful of time, money and resources as you point out. > 1. A small and relatively fast interstellar probe (WITHOUT any human > crew!!) could be launched within our own lifetime (well, at least > mine...). If they are designed for a one-way mission and > equipped with > high-resolution cameras and powerful senders, multiple star > systems could be screaned simultanously. So we will have > plenty of data > to imagine what is "out yonder". If there is sufficient > public demand, > this could be achieved by a combined international effort. A robot, even an AI robot is only as good as its programming. It won't recognize an alien artifact if it is crawling across the ship's hull. (If it could, we would already know what it looked like and wouldn't need to send the ship!) > > 2. If one of the three conditions mentioned above is met, we > can start This was an earlier discussion. Most of what you say here is valid and has already been covered. I am working on a timeline that covers the interplanetary infrastructure necessary to support this mission. The web page containing the timeline draft was previously posted to the group. I haven't worked on it lately, but I will repost the address this weekend. Everyone in the group realizes that 2050 is highly unlikely, barring miraculous breakthroughs, but we had to have some point to aim for and the founding members picked 2050 for good reasons. (Okay, Kelly, David? Someone else want to take up this one?) > > 3. Now to your Caravan ... more than one ship - I > think, four ... Solar System wide community, with several > billion people living and working outside Earth: on Mars, the Asteroids, > Ganymed, etc. > In other words, we need an economic basis approaching > something like a stellar civilization (Type II in Kardashev's > model). To > be honest, this will take at least one or two MILLENNIA to achieve. Exploration is a little like math, you cna't move on to the next level until you've already done some of the next level and you will never really complete the previous level until you are fully into the next level. We can't wait until we are a Type II to start doing Type II things or we will never get to be a Type II .... Incidentally, we are net yet a Type I, maybe Type 0.80! > > But then, a very simple question arises: Why bother with a class of > ships which will only be launched in an era as distant as the Roman > Empire?????? Although I understand your reasoning, I disagree with it. I don't believe it will take that long. > Don't you agree that engineers of the 4th Millennium will > have much more > sophisticated technologies from which to build a starship? Sure I do, I can also build one heck of catamaran in my backyard. Should the Polynesians have waited until I came along to explore the Pacific? > > -------------------------------------------------- > > I hope my arguments don't cause any disillusionment for > anyone. But as > far as starship design is concerned, I think it is important > to stick to > the ground and don't make steps too fast. From the first time I found > your LIT-pages I was fascinated by your concepts because they are > reasonable - they don't move too far into the realm of > Science Fiction. I think you will find that most of us are firmly rooted in reality. Much as we might fantasize, the actual concepts defined here are typically rooted in fact, not fiction. > But if you plan interstellar colonization before have gathered any > experience with interstellar travel at all - Well, you will > inevitably run into problems... Which brings us back to Pathfinder. Pathfinder is doable with only (relatively)modest increases in propulsion. It does not require exorbitant commitments to build compared to Explorer or Caravan and makes a logical choice for a first step to the stars. > > Your idea of different ship classes is a good one - but I think it is > really wiser to send unmanned, small and relatively cheap Pathfinder > probes first and let them do the remote sensing. Parallel to this we > could refine the design of the Explorer class, which could be > send out once an alien world raises our special curiosity. SNEAK PREVIEW The ICAN II mission serves as the basis of this design. For those who haven't already familiarized themselves with the basics of the ICAN II mission, it is a Solar Lens satellite delivered to orbit past Pluto by a vehicle powered by an Antiproton Catalyzed Microfission/Fusion (ACMF) engine. This engine does not provide as much impulse as a pure fusion engine, but we don't know how to build a pure fusion engine and probably won't for at least fifty years. In the interim, I think this engine can be developed to utilize Lithium in one of the low neutron fusion reactions which will also increase thrust by approximately 100 percent. A ship built around three or four of these engines designed for constant acceleration should be possible within fifty years. Of course, such a design would require considerably more than the current or forecasted production of antiprotons, but I am being optimistic here. The constraints of the ICAN mission envisioned a payload mass of 100 tons. After some research, I have determined that 100 tons is the LOWER limit for a Pathfinder mission. Explorer requires much, much more than that. Kelly's proposal for Explorer is well thought out and very comprehensive, but will take longer and cost a lot more. Pathfinder is a way of getting there sooner and cheaper when we don't need (or want) a full scale mission. Explorer fits in perfectly as a follow on mission if we find a reason to go back. As I have time (don't hold your breath, I work for a living) I will post the Pathfinder mission definition. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Apr 20 21:16:09 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["315" "Mon" "20" "April" "1998" "21:15:14" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "9" "starship-design: ITER" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA08773 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 21:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA08744 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 21:16:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [205.163.58.46] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA10600 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 21:18:07 -0700 Message-ID: <353BACC5.3BF5@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 314 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: starship-design: ITER Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 21:15:14 +0100 Check this site out at your lesure, it'll give you an idea of how far we've gotten with controlled thermonuclear fusion, an essential technology for starflight, Another thing, a fairly recent (1997) book by Fowler, "The Fusion Quest" is worth having a look at. Best Regards Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Apr 21 14:01:12 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["250" "Tue" "21" "April" "1998" "22:00:02" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "10" "starship-design: Help with formula" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA01940 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:01:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA01866 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA00454 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 13:02:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id WAA19884; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:00:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804212000.WAA19884@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Length: 249 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl Subject: starship-design: Help with formula Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 22:00:02 +0200 (MET DST) Please, I have lost it somewhere, no time to search or derive, what is the formula for Earth time & crew time in the (one-way) flight with constant acceleration = 1g (half way +, half way - ) depending on the distance (in ly)? Thanks, -- Zenon From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Apr 21 14:14:11 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4311" "Mon" "20" "April" "1998" "21:49:33" "-0500" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "59" "starship-design: FW: New thoughts" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA10246 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA10204 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:14:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pm3-140.gpt.infi.net (pm3-140.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.140]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA16273 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 17:14:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pm3-140.gpt.infi.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6D40.162993C0@pm3-140.gpt.infi.net>; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 16:11:05 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6D40.162993C0@pm3-140.gpt.infi.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id OAA10224 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Content-Length: 4310 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: starship-design: FW: New thoughts Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 21:49:33 -0500 -----Original Message----- From: Kyle R. Mcallister [SMTP:stk@sunherald.infi.net] Sent: Monday, April 20, 1998 9:47 PM To: 'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu' Subject: New thoughts Greetings all: I was reading the recent posts to the list, (why are things so slow anymore?) and had a few thoughts: 1. What we need to get to a nearby star A. Colonies on the moon, asteroids, etc. to gather resources to build starships B. Extraordinary advances in materials development, propulsion systems, and fuel production C. A better government/economy system D. More public interest in spaceflight (ad-campaigns, tv shows, etc?) E. Interferometers to detect presence of planets at a destination star system. That way, we'll know whether or not to go there. 2. Timelines (when will we get there?) As proposed by Michio Kaku and Lee Parker: Type .8 civilization (Lee's estimate) fossil fuels, possibility of nuclear destruction, fission nuclear systems, verge of fusion energy. Slight expansion into nearby regions of space (earth-moon theater) Best current engine systems are nuclear hydrogen or ion drives. This is where we currently are, 1998 Type I civilization: Improved economy, less warfare, more devotion of resources to scientific research and space exploration. Nuclear fusion developed, antimatter production possible. Best current engine systems are nuclear fusion, antimatter catalyzed fusion, or antimatter/matter annhilation. Expansion into solar system, colonies on moon, mars mission completed, possible planetary colonies. Possible probes to nearby solar systems. Possible manned missions to nearest systems near end of timeframe. Circa 2020-2300? Type II civilization: solar system economy, no warfare, near complete devotion of resurces to expansion. Energy crises cause new energy sources to be investigated, such as "dyson shells" and "zero-point energy". Colonization of nearest star systems begins, expansion into farther systems possible. Maximum radius for expansion increases slowly. Circa 2300-5000? Type III civilization: large areas of intestellar space colonized, expansion rate continues to increase. Advanced technologies available that are currently unknown. Circa 5000+? What would be nice: (changes are shown only) Type I civilization: 2020-2200. Best engines are antimatter annhilation, and possible investigation into "gravity drives" and zero-point energy. Type II civilization: 2200-2700. Expansion rate increases slowly, energy resources rise with exploitation of advanced energy sources. Possible investigation into faster, propellantless spacecraft. Type III civilization: 2700+. No limit to expansion. Possible creation of superluminal-capable starships and communication systems. Expansion rate increases to greater than C. Which scenario will happen? Who knows. It is impossible to decide. 3. Extraterrestrials I've heard much discussion about why we haven't heard from extraterrestial civilizations. Here are some possible explanations: 1. Perhaps we have heard from them, but do not know it. SERENDIP III detected over 300 candidate signals, most of which were observed twice at the same position and frequency. META detected 37 signals of unknown origin that appear likely, and are aligned alon the plane of the milky way. 2 stong signals from META were detected in Saggitarius, and the famous 1977 WOW signal was also in Saggitarius. It has also been shown that a true signal would "scintillate" or flicker in position and intensity. This type of signal is what we observe and catalog as interesting but unprovable signals. Perhaps follow-ups of greater magnitude are in order? 2. Perhaps we can't hear from the really advance civilizations. True, they would radiate infrared radiation, but if you were a civilization that advanced, you would need every bit of energy you could get. Perhaps they would harness this heat for energy purposes. Also, perhaps radio is NOT the best medium for interstellar communication. If you had a superluminal method of communication, you would surely choose this over slow radio waves. Recent experiments seem to show that superluminal transmission of signals may actually be possible. Well, that's about it. Best regards, Kyle Randall Mcallister Email: stk@sunherald.infi.net Phone: 228-875-0629 Fax: 228-872-5837 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Apr 21 14:29:17 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["479" "Tue" "21" "April" "1998" "14:29:09" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "20" "starship-design: Help with formula" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA19695 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:29:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (hexadecimal.uoregon.edu [128.223.32.56]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA19626 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:29:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA02277; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA05183; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:29:11 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13629.4005.709753.877772@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <199804212000.WAA19884@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> References: <199804212000.WAA19884@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> X-Mailer: VM 6.47 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Length: 478 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Zenon Kulpa Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Help with formula Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 14:29:09 -0700 (PDT) Zenon Kulpa writes: > Please, I have lost it somewhere, no time to search or derive, > what is the formula for Earth time & crew time > in the (one-way) flight with constant acceleration = 1g > (half way +, half way - ) depending on the distance (in ly)? > > Thanks, > > -- Zenon For one-way acceleration: t = (c / a) * acosh(1 + (a * d / c^2)) t = elapsed time c = speed of light a = acceleration d = distance traveled acosh = inverse hyberbolic cosine function From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Apr 21 15:34:48 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["855" "Tue" "21" "April" "1998" "15:34:43" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "18" "starship-design: new web-browsable starship-design archive" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA29500 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 15:34:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA29443; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 15:34:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804212234.PAA29443@darkwing.uoregon.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: VM 6.40 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Length: 854 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: new web-browsable starship-design archive Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 15:34:43 -0700 (PDT) A while back one of my co-workers pestered me to install this program called MHonArc that converts mail folders into a set of web-browsable HTML pages containing the individual messages with threading information. It recently occured to me that I could apply it to my archive of starship-design postings, so here you go: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~stevev/sd-archive/ I've split the archives into three-month quarters dating from the beginning of the list up through the end of March, in order to keep the thread indexes down to a more reasonable size. This is somewhat easier for me to maintain than the FTP archives and certainly much easier for many people to use. If people are still using the FTP archives mentioned in the list info message I will still maintain them, but I think I may switch everything over into the web archive eventually. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Apr 21 19:52:58 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1828" "Tue" "21" "April" "1998" "19:52:06" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "35" "Re: starship-design: FW: New thoughts" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA14957 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:52:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA14910 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [205.163.58.226] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA12253 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:55:06 -0700 Message-ID: <353CEAD5.6B03@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <01BD6D40.162993C0@pm3-140.gpt.infi.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 1827 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: Re: starship-design: FW: New thoughts Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 19:52:06 +0100 Kyle, First, a question: How does one determine the criteria for the "types" of civilizations? Could you tell me a website or recommend a book for in-depth information? Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > 1. What we need to get to a nearby star > > A. Colonies on the moon, asteroids, etc. to gather resources to build starships > B. Extraordinary advances in materials development, propulsion systems, and fuel production > C. A better government/economy system > D. More public interest in spaceflight (ad-campaigns, tv shows, etc?) > E. Interferometers to detect presence of planets at a destination star system. That way, we'll know whether or not to go there. Also, prehaps I could speak to letter [C]. Many students of foreign affairs (and i happen to think similarly) see the world as moving toward a multipolar arraingement of states based on economic cooperation due to the relative absence of strategic threats in the post-cold war environment. The European Union is farthest along this path and in 1999 the "euro" will come online as the official currency of an economy and population which is larger than the US. Obviously, the euro will quickly replace the dollar as the world's dominant currency due to its stability (the Germans will get to run the bank) and size. In the western hemisphere Clinton is negotiating a NAFTA-like arraingement for Latin America sans Cuba. (It _will_ go through despite any amount of union footdragging) In the east, ASEAN, which is much looser, may tighten up. The above was a li'l longwinded, but the upshot is this, individual states will give up some sovereignty for economic benefits. Integrated economies mean **larger** economies, ones which might be better able to support space, maybe even underwrite an asteriod mining company (remember that?). 220,284 Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Apr 22 06:08:13 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["734" "Wed" "22" "April" "1998" "15:05:30" "+0200" "Zenon Kulpa" "zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl" nil "33" "Re: starship-design: Help with formula" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA04965 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 06:08:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (zmit1.ippt.gov.pl [148.81.53.8]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA04935 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 06:07:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from zkulpa@localhost) by zmit1.ippt.gov.pl (8.8.5/8.7.3-zmit) id PAA21025; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:05:30 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <199804221305.PAA21025@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Zenon Kulpa Content-Length: 733 From: Zenon Kulpa Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl, stevev@efn.org Subject: Re: starship-design: Help with formula Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:05:30 +0200 (MET DST) > From: Steve VanDevender > > Zenon Kulpa writes: > > Please, I have lost it somewhere, no time to search or derive, > > what is the formula for Earth time & crew time > > in the (one-way) flight with constant acceleration = 1g > > (half way +, half way - ) depending on the distance (in ly)? > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- Zenon > Thank you, but: > For one-way acceleration: > Does that mean half-way acceleration, and then half-way deceleration to stop at target (at distance d)? > t = (c / a) * acosh(1 + (a * d / c^2)) > > t = elapsed time > Earth time or crew (ship) time? > c = speed of light > a = acceleration > d = distance traveled > acosh = inverse hyberbolic cosine function > -- Zenon From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Apr 22 09:10:31 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["984" "Wed" "22" "April" "1998" "09:10:14" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: Help with formula" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA03996 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 09:10:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (hexadecimal.uoregon.edu [128.223.32.56]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA03953 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 09:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA03384; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 09:10:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA02467; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 09:10:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13630.5734.351292.377585@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <199804221305.PAA21025@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> References: <199804221305.PAA21025@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl> X-Mailer: VM 6.47 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Length: 983 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Zenon Kulpa Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu, stevev@efn.org Subject: Re: starship-design: Help with formula Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 09:10:14 -0700 (PDT) Zenon Kulpa writes: > > From: Steve VanDevender > > > > Zenon Kulpa writes: > > > Please, I have lost it somewhere, no time to search or derive, > > > what is the formula for Earth time & crew time > > > in the (one-way) flight with constant acceleration = 1g > > > (half way +, half way - ) depending on the distance (in ly)? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -- Zenon > > > Thank you, but: > > > For one-way acceleration: > > > Does that mean half-way acceleration, and then half-way deceleration > to stop at target (at distance d)? It covers one-half of the kind of trip you're talking about. > > t = (c / a) * acosh(1 + (a * d / c^2)) > > > > t = elapsed time > > > Earth time or crew (ship) time? Ooops, now that I look at it the formula gives ship time, not Earth time. Sorry. > > c = speed of light > > a = acceleration > > d = distance traveled > > acosh = inverse hyberbolic cosine function > > -- Zenon From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Apr 22 13:05:46 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["917" "Wed" "22" "April" "1998" "15:03:39" "-0500" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "26" "RE: starship-design: FW: New thoughts" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA20839 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 13:05:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA20780 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 13:05:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pm3-136.gpt.infi.net (pm3-154.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.154]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA04450 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:05:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pm3-136.gpt.infi.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD6DFF.D5BD8F60@pm3-136.gpt.infi.net>; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:03:40 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD6DFF.D5BD8F60@pm3-136.gpt.infi.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id NAA20786 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Content-Length: 916 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: RE: starship-design: FW: New thoughts Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:03:39 -0500 ---------- From: Lindberg[SMTP:lindberg@olywa.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 1:52 PM To: SSD Subject: Re: starship-design: FW: New thoughts >Kyle, >First, a question: How does one determine the criteria for the "types" >of civilizations? Could you tell me a website or recommend a book for >in-depth information? A good book that tells about civilization types, as well as the future of sciences is Michio Kaku's book "Visions". I know of a web page, but I'll have to look it up. > The above was a li'l longwinded, but the upshot is this, individual >states will give up some sovereignty for economic benefits. Integrated >economies mean **larger** economies, ones which might be better able to >support space, maybe even underwrite an asteriod mining company >(remember that?). I agree with the point you made. And it would be nice to have an asteroid mining program set up. Kyle R. Mcallister From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Apr 22 14:15:33 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["809" "Wed" "22" "April" "1998" "15:11:36" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "18" "starship-design: Euro" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA00080 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 14:15:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.xs4all.nl (smtp2.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA29945 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 14:15:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tim (es01-17.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.50.18]) by smtp2.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA04415 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 23:15:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980422151136.007a5100@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <353CEAD5.6B03@olywa.net> References: <01BD6D40.162993C0@pm3-140.gpt.infi.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 808 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Euro Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:11:36 +0100 Nels Lindberg wrote: >The European Union is farthest along this path and in 1999 >the "euro" will come online as the official currency of an economy and >population which is larger than the US. Obviously, the euro will >quickly replace the dollar as the world's dominant currency due to its >stability (the Germans will get to run the bank) and size. Ha, if only the Europeans were that convinced. These days virtually all politicians are worried to poll the population about this subject. The latest news about the Euro is that we seem to get an anarchy regarding the president of the European bank. There are 2 candidates, but one France just said it will use its veto for its own candidate. (Their own candidate is the least favourite of the two.) Timothy (citizin of the Economically United Europe) From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Apr 22 18:41:18 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1958" "Wed" "22" "April" "1998" "18:40:23" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "37" "Re: starship-design: Euro" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA17809 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:41:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA17791 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:41:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [205.163.58.135] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA6571 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:43:34 -0700 Message-ID: <353E2B88.3492@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <01BD6D40.162993C0@pm3-140.gpt.infi.net> <3.0.1.32.19980422151136.007a5100@pop.xs4all.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 1957 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: Re: starship-design: Euro Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 18:40:23 +0100 Timothy van der Linden wrote: > > Nels Lindberg wrote: > > >The European Union is farthest along this path and in 1999 > >the "euro" will come online as the official currency of an economy and > >population which is larger than the US. Obviously, the euro will > >quickly replace the dollar as the world's dominant currency due to its > >stability (the Germans will get to run the bank) and size. > > Ha, if only the Europeans were that convinced. These days virtually all > politicians are worried to poll the population about this subject. > The latest news about the Euro is that we seem to get an anarchy regarding > the president of the European bank. There are 2 candidates, but one France > just said it will use its veto for its own candidate. (Their own candidate > is the least favourite of the two.) > > Timothy (citizin of the Economically United Europe) Timothy, In the hindu religion, one of the festivals celebrating the god Krishna in the town of Puri consisted of a massive idol on a huge, twenty wheeled cart which was drawn through the town at a fairly good clip. Krishna devotees who hurled themselves under the cart didn't slow it down much. It was called the Jagganath (world-ruler), from which english gets the word juggernaut. I hope not to offend you, but from this side of the Atlantic the euro looks like a Jagganath, unstoppable. The "moment of truth" for monetary integration is so near (252 days until banking in euros possible), and it would appear that the only alternative to going ahead is delay (which can only go on for so long) or backing out altogether. I don't view the second option as viable. Respectfully, from the Pacific Nels Lindberg P.S. I heard on the radio the other day that some trading in euros was being done. I'm not quite sure if this is the same thing as a proto-euro, but the "European Currency Unit," an averaging of european currencies, is worth US$ 1.1067 From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Apr 23 20:46:49 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2936" "Thu" "23" "April" "1998" "23:46:07" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "57" "Re: Re: starship-design: Euro" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA26862 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 20:46:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA26846 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 20:46:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UDMQa20031 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 23:46:07 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 2935 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Euro Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 23:46:07 EDT In a message dated 4/22/98 7:41:24 PM, lindberg@olywa.net wrote: >Timothy van der Linden wrote: >> >> Nels Lindberg wrote: >> >> >The European Union is farthest along this path and in 1999 >> >the "euro" will come online as the official currency of an economy and >> >population which is larger than the US. Obviously, the euro will >> >quickly replace the dollar as the world's dominant currency due to its >> >stability (the Germans will get to run the bank) and size. >> >> Ha, if only the Europeans were that convinced. These days virtually all >> politicians are worried to poll the population about this subject. >> The latest news about the Euro is that we seem to get an anarchy regarding >> the president of the European bank. There are 2 candidates, but one France >> just said it will use its veto for its own candidate. (Their own candidate >> is the least favourite of the two.) >> >> Timothy (citizin of the Economically United Europe) >Timothy, > In the hindu religion, one of the festivals celebrating the god Krishna >in the town of Puri consisted of a massive idol on a huge, twenty >wheeled cart which was drawn through the town at a fairly good clip. >Krishna devotees who hurled themselves under the cart didn't slow it >down much. It was called the Jagganath (world-ruler), from which english >gets the word juggernaut. I hope not to offend you, but from this side >of the Atlantic the euro looks like a Jagganath, unstoppable. The >"moment of truth" for monetary integration is so near (252 days until >banking in euros possible), and it would appear that the only >alternative to going ahead is delay (which can only go on for so long) >or backing out altogether. I don't view the second option as viable. >Respectfully, from the Pacific >Nels Lindberg > P.S. I heard on the radio the other day that some trading in euros was >being done. I'm not quite sure if this is the same thing as a >proto-euro, but the "European Currency Unit," an averaging of european >currencies, is worth US$ 1.1067 News to me. All the big hype about the united europe goliath faded out years ago, and I keep hearing concerns that the countries are to xenophobic to really allow a lot of uniting regardless of the economic costs. Remember these are countries that are still afraid to let in any imagrent, even at the major economic impediment that always means, and concern over declining domestic populations. I've certainly never heard a suggestion that the dollar is going to be over thrown as "THE" hard currency in the world, or the US as the prefered investment site in the developed world. I'm not being egocentric here, its just that the United States is a functioning, none boarder economy of over 300 millino, and has been runing underthis unity for about 2 centuries. Its going to take a lot more effort and time for europe to unite to that degree of functionality. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Apr 23 20:46:51 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1080" "Thu" "23" "April" "1998" "23:46:09" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: new web-browsable starship-design archive" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA26897 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 20:46:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA26865 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 20:46:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id USWQa24123 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 23:46:09 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <47ead562.35400b02@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1079 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: new web-browsable starship-design archive Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 23:46:09 EDT In a message dated 4/21/98 4:36:50 PM, stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu wrote: >A while back one of my co-workers pestered me to install this >program called MHonArc that converts mail folders into a set of >web-browsable HTML pages containing the individual messages with >threading information. It recently occured to me that I could >apply it to my archive of starship-design postings, so here you >go: > >http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~stevev/sd-archive/ > >I've split the archives into three-month quarters dating from the >beginning of the list up through the end of March, in order to >keep the thread indexes down to a more reasonable size. This is >somewhat easier for me to maintain than the FTP archives and >certainly much easier for many people to use. If people are >still using the FTP archives mentioned in the list info message I >will still maintain them, but I think I may switch everything >over into the web archive eventually. Sounds like a great idea! Any chance of droping a link into the web site, or bring up all the old posts from the old site? Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Apr 23 20:47:25 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["12506" "Thu" "23" "April" "1998" "23:46:16" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "456" "Re: starship-design: RE: New Starship Classes" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA27038 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 20:47:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA27031 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 20:47:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id 0IARa26229; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 23:46:16 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <915376e2.35400b09@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 12505 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lparker@cacaphony.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: RE: New Starship Classes Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 23:46:16 EDT In a message dated 4/20/98 7:12:45 PM, you wrote: >Chris, > > > >Gee, we've already covered most of those points! Sorry, but I suppose it is > >unrealistic of me to expect everyone to go and read all of the archives when > >they join the group... > > > >You raised quite a few points, some of which I will save for the actual > >description of Pathfinder and Caravan. What I will do is summarize briefly > >as best as I can remember some of the earlier "discussions" about your > >questions. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Christoph Kulmann [mailto:guderiak@hotmail.com] > >> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 1998 12:15 PM > >> To: lparker@cacaphony.net > >> Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > >> Subject: New Starship Classes > >> > >> > >> It's a good idea, but I strongly disagree with your proposed > >> crew of 10 - 20 specialists. > >> First of all, even a relatively small ship would still need > >> decades for > >> a two-way mission to a neighbouring star system. > > > >I am making different assumptions as to propulsion systems. I am assuming > >constant acceleration at 10 m/sec (1G). Such a trip will take only > >marginally longer than the difference in light years (in real-time) and > >considerably less in ship board time. I've been woundering about this. HOW can you get continuous 1G thrust? Even with the Explorers and Fuel/Sail carrying about 400 times their weight in fuel they would burn out after only 3-4 months of 1 G accel. How do you expect to just so much more power out of your fusionish drive system? > >> The second objection is just an innocent question: What should > >> Pathfinder do? Just monitor an alien star system? A robot > >> probe could do > >> the same job - and much, much cheaper. Especially if you > >> consider that > >> most of our neighbouring stars won't show any signs of life, I think > >> it's wiser to send unmanned probes first. > > > >Umm, I think it was the general consensus that anything that a robot probe > >could discover, we will be able to observe directly from Earth by that time. > >A ship (of any class) would only be sent after it was determined there was > >adequate reason to send one. Exactly which type of ship would depend upon > >what we thought was at the other end. > > > >> > >> To send an Explorer class ship would only be justified if > >> something very > >> special is found by one of the Pathfinders: > >> > >Which is precisely why I think we need more than one class. It is not going > >to be immediately apparent that an Explorer class ship is justified in every > >system we decide to go to. An Explorer is an all purpose vessel with a large > >crew capable of dealing with every aspect of EXPLORING a new system > >thoroughly. It would primarily be targeted at systems in which we already > >expect to establish a permanent manned presence. It would be responsible for > >preparing the way for colonization. > > > >A Pathfinder is more of a survey ship, it would be sent to systems which for > >some reason we don't get a clear indication of habitable planets or perhaps > >no indication of habitable planets. As you point out the search for aliens > >and alien artifacts is important and it would be terribly irresponsible of > >us to assume that they would only be found in oxygen/water environments. > >Contrariwise, an Explorer mission to such a null environment would be > >extremely wasteful of time, money and resources as you point out. My assumption for Explorer was that a smaller ship couldn't really do a detailed study of the starsystms. Given the extream lengths of missions (decades) sending a mission, carrying back the data, and then using it to plan the next mission, would just take to damb long. If you were that patent, you arn't interested enough to launch the mission. Yould just wait a few more decades for the tech to improve. So Explore was designed big enough so one flight could de a good job of detailed survay of all the planets, moons, a sample of the asterods and such, and still have the resources to get everyone back. For that even with better automation, is probably a 700 personish crew requirement. >> 1. A small and relatively fast interstellar probe (WITHOUT any human > >> crew!!) could be launched within our own lifetime (well, at least > >> mine...). If they are designed for a one-way mission and > >> equipped with > >> high-resolution cameras and powerful senders, multiple star > >> systems could be screaned simultanously. So we will have > >> plenty of data > >> to imagine what is "out yonder". If there is sufficient > >> public demand, > >> this could be achieved by a combined international effort. > > > >A robot, even an AI robot is only as good as its programming. It won't > >recognize an alien artifact if it is crawling across the ship's hull. (If it > >could, we would already know what it looked like and wouldn't need to send > >the ship!) > The robot probes mihgt not be able to bring back much more data then large telescope from Here, but they'ld be far more expensive, and slower. >> > >> 2. If one of the three conditions mentioned above is met, we > >> can start > > > >This was an earlier discussion. Most of what you say here is valid and has > >already been covered. I am working on a timeline that covers the > >interplanetary infrastructure necessary to support this mission. The web > >page containing the timeline draft was previously posted to the group. I > >haven't worked on it lately, but I will repost the address this weekend. > > > >Everyone in the group realizes that 2050 is highly unlikely, barring > >miraculous breakthroughs, but we had to have some point to aim for and the > >founding members picked 2050 for good reasons. (Okay, Kelly, David? Someone > >else want to take up this one?) Any farther in the future then 2050 and we couldn't clearly guess what kind of technology we'ld have to work with. (Even physics mihgt be changing.) So we'ld be reduced to debating science fiction senerios about what kind of warp drives, or hyperspace tricks might be developed. Also, any then 2050 and we'ld clearly not have the space infastructure to do a mission on this scale. >> 3. Now to your Caravan ... more than one ship - I > >> think, four ... Solar System wide community, with several > >> billion people living and working outside Earth: on Mars, the Asteroids, > >> Ganymed, etc. > >> In other words, we need an economic basis approaching > >> something like a stellar civilization (Type II in Kardashev's > >> model). To > >> be honest, this will take at least one or two MILLENNIA to achieve. Construction and such of the Explorer and Fuel/Sail craft wouldn't be that expensive, probably in the tens of billions of dollars, certainly not more then a couple hundred billion. The killer is the launcher or microwave emmiter satelights. They need to be on such a huge scale you'ld need self replicating robotic construction systems to go forth and eat a fewthousand (100 thousand) asteroids and fill the skies with microwave systems. Other wise the projects dead, and you wait for the next technology wave to simplify things. You don't need to wait for Type-I or type-II civilization status. >Exploration is a little like math, you cna't move on to the next level until > >you've already done some of the next level and you will never really > >complete the previous level until you are fully into the next level. We > >can't wait until we are a Type II to start doing Type II things or we will > >never get to be a Type II .... Incidentally, we are net yet a Type I, maybe > >Type 0.80! > > > >> > >> But then, a very simple question arises: Why bother with a class of > >> ships which will only be launched in an era as distant as the Roman > >> Empire?????? > > > >Although I understand your reasoning, I disagree with it. I don't believe it > >will take that long. > > > >> Don't you agree that engineers of the 4th Millennium will > >> have much more > >> sophisticated technologies from which to build a starship? > Engineers of the late 21st century would. Add a century or two and even the physics bags of tricks will get radically different. Zero point energy? Hyperdrive? What? > >Sure I do, I can also build one heck of catamaran in my backyard. Should the > >Polynesians have waited until I came along to explore the Pacific? > > > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> I hope my arguments don't cause any disillusionment for > >> anyone. But as > >> far as starship design is concerned, I think it is important > >> to stick to > >> the ground and don't make steps too fast. From the first time I found > >> your LIT-pages I was fascinated by your concepts because they are > >> reasonable - they don't move too far into the realm of > >> Science Fiction. Thanks. >I think you will find that most of us are firmly rooted in reality. Much as > >we might fantasize, the actual concepts defined here are typically rooted in > >fact, not fiction. Agreed. >> But if you plan interstellar colonization before have gathered any > >> experience with interstellar travel at all - Well, you will > >> inevitably run into problems... Actually the idea of interstellar colonization was a sore spot. Some really wanted to go that route, others figured any colony would be to small to be self suficent, and intersteller distences are to expensive to support a colony. Also their didn't seem to be any real need. Actually, why anyone would pay for these missions was also a sore spot. Why not just explore the solar system and ignore the stars until you can do it cheaper and faster? We couldn't really answer that, but for the purpose of the exersize we assumed their was a reason. >Which brings us back to Pathfinder. Pathfinder is doable with only > >(relatively)modest increases in propulsion. It does not require exorbitant > >commitments to build compared to Explorer or Caravan and makes a logical > >choice for a first step to the stars. I have serious qualms about that statement. Your drive system dosn't seem to have any real performance edge over my fusion concepts (fusion produces only so much power per pound of fuel) but your expecting orders of magnitude better performance. >> Your idea of different ship classes is a good one - but I think it is > >> really wiser to send unmanned, small and relatively cheap Pathfinder > >> probes first and let them do the remote sensing. Parallel to this we > >> could refine the design of the Explorer class, which could be > >> send out once an alien world raises our special curiosity. > > > >SNEAK PREVIEW > > > >The ICAN II mission serves as the basis of this design. For those who > >haven't already familiarized themselves with the basics of the ICAN II > >mission, it is a Solar Lens satellite delivered to orbit past Pluto by a > >vehicle powered by an Antiproton Catalyzed Microfission/Fusion (ACMF) > >engine. This engine does not provide as much impulse as a pure fusion > >engine, but we don't know how to build a pure fusion engine and probably > >won't for at least fifty years. Actually NASA and hte Air Force are considering funding experiments to build crude ones now. Fusion motors are far easier then fusion reactors. >In the interim, I think this engine can be developed to utilize Lithium in > >one of the low neutron fusion reactions which will also increase thrust by > >approximately 100 percent. A ship built around three or four of these > >engines designed for constant acceleration should be possible within fifty > >years. Of course, such a design would require considerably more than the > >current or forecasted production of antiprotons, but I am being optimistic > >here. > > > >The constraints of the ICAN mission envisioned a payload mass of 100 tons. > >After some research, I have determined that 100 tons is the LOWER limit for > >a Pathfinder mission. Explorer requires much, much more than that. Kelly's > >proposal for Explorer is well thought out and very comprehensive, but will > >take longer and cost a lot more. Thanks. It depends on how expensive the anti-protons are. ;) >Pathfinder is a way of getting there sooner and cheaper when we don't need > >(or want) a full scale mission. Explorer fits in perfectly as a follow on > >mission if we find a reason to go back. > > > >As I have time (don't hold your breath, I work for a living) I will post the > >Pathfinder mission definition. > > > >Lee Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 24 09:52:17 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1253" "Fri" "24" "April" "1998" "13:59:33" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "28" "Re: starship-design: Euro" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25109 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:52:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA25098 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:52:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA06249 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 06:04:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tim (es01-22.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.50.23]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA18474 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 15:04:25 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980424135933.007d2860@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 1252 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Euro Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 13:59:33 +0100 Hi Nels, > I hope not to offend you, but from this side >of the Atlantic the euro looks like a Jagganath, unstoppable. The Euro is indeed unstoppable, most (if not all) candidates have made approved their final commitment during the last few weeks. My intention wasn't to suggest that the Euro would be stopped, but that many laymen see little advantages. (It seems that the only advantage that the layman understands is that he doesn't need another currency when he goes on vacation.) > P.S. I heard on the radio the other day that some trading in euros was >being done. I'm not quite sure if this is the same thing as a >proto-euro, but the "European Currency Unit," an averaging of european >currencies, is worth US$ 1.1067 The ECU has been there for some while. I believe that its value will be directly translated to the Euro. The ECU has never been actual money. I'm not certain of the exact timeline of the Euro, but we'll first get a giral introduction (ie. via banking) and then the actual paper and coin money. Some contracts already are set up in Euros, and supermarkets try to make the customers aware with double pricetags. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 24 12:43:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["330" "Fri" "24" "April" "1998" "12:42:28" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "12" "Re: starship-design: FW: New thoughts" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA05221 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:43:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA05210 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:43:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [205.163.58.164] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA12646 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:44:54 -0700 Message-ID: <35407AA4.1E72@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000701bd6e5b$da4cfdc0$fb4431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 329 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: Re: starship-design: FW: New thoughts Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:42:28 +0100 L. Parker wrote: > > Nels, > > Khardashev defined several levels of civilization which he called Type I, > Type II and Type III. Basically, the definition comes down to utilization of > resources. Lee, Thanks for the info, real interesting. I think i might do something with this from a historical perspective. Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Apr 24 19:59:07 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5860" "Fri" "24" "April" "1998" "21:54:47" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "179" "RE: starship-design: RE: New Starship Classes" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA10970 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 19:58:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA10955 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 19:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p81.gnt.com [204.49.84.82]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA09790; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 21:58:42 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bd6ff5$fd4b8ee0$525431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <915376e2.35400b09@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 5859 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kelly St'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: RE: New Starship Classes Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 21:54:47 -0500 > -----Original Message----- > From: Kelly St [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 1998 10:46 PM > To: lparker@cacaphony.net; starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: RE: New Starship Classes > > > I've been woundering about this. HOW can you get continuous > 1G thrust? Even > with the Explorers and Fuel/Sail carrying about 400 times > their weight in fuel > they would burn out after only 3-4 months of 1 G accel. How > do you expect to > just so much more power out of your fusionish drive system? > It isn't so much a matter of HOW I expect to get continuous 1G thrust as a matter of defining what is necessary to make the mission possible. I ruled out centripetal force artificial gravity schemes as being unworkable in the long run, which leaves only continuous acceleration. This coupled with the need to make the flight times as short as possible produces an optimum flight profile of 1G continuous acceleration. I am not so sure that fusion motors are capable of this, just that it is necessary. Any advance that makes ACMF motors more efficient will probably also apply to any other type of fusion system to some degree. I don't really care if it is ACMF or fuel sail or something else. > > > > My assumption for Explorer was that a smaller ship couldn't > really do a > detailed study of the starsystms. Given the extream lengths > of missions > (decades) sending a mission, carrying back the data, and then > using it to plan > the next mission, would just take to damb long. If you were > that patent, you > arn't interested enough to launch the mission. Yould just > wait a few more > decades for the tech to improve. > > So Explore was designed big enough so one flight could de a > good job of > detailed survay of all the planets, moons, a sample of the > asterods and such, > and still have the resources to get everyone back. For that > even with better > automation, is probably a 700 personish crew requirement. > Again, I am being somewhat more optimisitic about what can be accomplished by robotic/AI systems with humans near by to provide backup. As an example, return to the question of finding alien artifacts, it would be enormously difficult to program a robot to recognize an alien artifact that we ourselves have never seen. What we can do however, is program a set of boundary conditions that would trigger an alarm to bring a human teleoperator into the loop. Such a system would not work over interstellar distances of course, but if the operator is in the same planetary system within a few light minutes, it is capable of expanding our reach enormously. > > The robot probes mihgt not be able to bring back much more > data then large > telescope from Here, but they'ld be far more expensive, and slower. > My point exactly, of course we have been over this before... > > Any farther in the future then 2050 and we couldn't clearly > guess what kind of > technology we'ld have to work with. (Even physics mihgt be > changing.) So > we'ld be reduced to debating science fiction senerios about > what kind of warp > drives, or hyperspace tricks might be developed. > > Also, any then 2050 and we'ld clearly not have the space > infastructure to do a > mission on this scale. > Thank you, not being one of the founding members, I had never heard the reasons for the selection of criteria. They make sense. > > Construction and such of the Explorer and Fuel/Sail craft > wouldn't be that > expensive, probably in the tens of billions of dollars, > certainly not more > then a couple hundred billion. The killer is the launcher or > microwave > emmiter satelights. They need to be on such a huge scale > you'ld need self > replicating robotic construction systems to go forth and eat > a fewthousand > (100 thousand) asteroids and fill the skies with microwave > systems. Other > wise the projects dead, and you wait for the next technology > wave to simplify > things. > > You don't need to wait for Type-I or type-II civilization status. > > > >> But if you plan interstellar colonization before have gathered any > > > >> experience with interstellar travel at all - Well, you will > > > >> inevitably run into problems... > > Actually the idea of interstellar colonization was a sore > spot. Some really > wanted to go that route, others figured any colony would be > to small to be > self suficent, and intersteller distences are to expensive to > support a > colony. Also their didn't seem to be any real need. > > Actually, why anyone would pay for these missions was also a > sore spot. Why > not just explore the solar system and ignore the stars until > you can do it > cheaper and faster? We couldn't really answer that, but for > the purpose of > the exersize we assumed their was a reason. Kelly is glossing over the truth here. After LOTS of discussion, we couldn't find ANY reason to go period. Unfortunately, our purpose here was to design a way to get there. Kind of shot ourselves in the foot. Actually, I prefer to think of it more like the parable of the man and the mountain: We will go because it is there. > > I have serious qualms about that statement. Your drive > system doesn't seem to > have any real performance edge over my fusion concepts > (fusion produces only > so much power per pound of fuel) but your expecting orders of > magnitude better > performance. > See above. I expect orders of magnitude improvement from any system before we can go.... > > > Actually NASA and the Air Force are considering funding > experiments to build > crude ones now. Fusion motors are far easier then fusion reactors. > The engine I described is the one the Air Force is funding. > > Thanks. > > It depends on how expensive the anti-protons are. ;) > For both our sakes I hope they become very plentiful and cheap... Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Apr 25 12:57:45 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["7530" "Sat" "25" "April" "1998" "15:49:04" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "367" "Re: RE: starship-design: RE: New Starship Classes" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA02307 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 12:57:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.36]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA02272 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 12:57:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UJJOa15811 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 15:49:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3ed285aa.35423e33@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 7529 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: RE: New Starship Classes Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 15:49:04 EDT In a message dated 4/24/98 8:58:47 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Kelly St [mailto:KellySt@aol.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 1998 10:46 PM > >> To: lparker@cacaphony.net; starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > >> Subject: Re: starship-design: RE: New Starship Classes > >> > > > >> > >> I've been woundering about this. HOW can you get continuous > >> 1G thrust? Even > >> with the Explorers and Fuel/Sail carrying about 400 times > >> their weight in fuel > >> they would burn out after only 3-4 months of 1 G accel. How > >> do you expect to > >> just so much more power out of your fusionish drive system? > >> > > > >It isn't so much a matter of HOW I expect to get continuous 1G thrust as a > >matter of defining what is necessary to make the mission possible. I ruled > >out centripetal force artificial gravity schemes as being unworkable in the > >long run, which leaves only continuous acceleration. This coupled with the > >need to make the flight times as short as possible produces an optimum > >flight profile of 1G continuous acceleration. > > > >I am not so sure that fusion motors are capable of this, just that it is > >necessary. Any advance that makes ACMF motors more efficient will probably > >also apply to any other type of fusion system to some degree. I don't really > >care if it is ACMF or fuel sail or something else. A 1-g small fast craft (short of FTL) has been considered about the ultimate in deep space craft. Unfortunately we simply haven't fuel system capable of doing it. Fusion fuels (thou far more powerfull then anything else) simply don't have the raw power per pound of fuel. Anti-matter is so expensiove and dangerous, and so weighted down by its storage systems, that it may actually be worse. Whgich is what drove me to the Explorers and Fuel/Sail. Each using complex tricks to suply them with power, and still only able to get to 40% of light speed. > >> My assumption for Explorer was that a smaller ship couldn't > >> really do a > >> detailed study of the starsystms. Given the extream lengths > >> of missions > >> (decades) sending a mission, carrying back the data, and then > >> using it to plan > >> the next mission, would just take to damb long. If you were > >> that patent, you > >> arn't interested enough to launch the mission. Yould just > >> wait a few more > >> decades for the tech to improve. > >> > >> So Explore was designed big enough so one flight could de a > >> good job of > >> detailed survay of all the planets, moons, a sample of the > >> asterods and such, > >> and still have the resources to get everyone back. For that > >> even with better > >> automation, is probably a 700 personish crew requirement. > >> > > > >Again, I am being somewhat more optimisitic about what can be accomplished > >by robotic/AI systems with humans near by to provide backup. As an example, > >return to the question of finding alien artifacts, it would be enormously > >difficult to program a robot to recognize an alien artifact that we > >ourselves have never seen. What we can do however, is program a set of > >boundary conditions that would trigger an alarm to bring a human > >teleoperator into the loop. Such a system would not work over interstellar > >distances of course, but if the operator is in the same planetary system > >within a few light minutes, it is capable of expanding our reach enormously. I'ld agree to a degree, but given the tens of thousands of support personel for each space flight, and the nessecity to explore not just a planet or two; but to do a detailed exploration and cataloging of everything in an entire starsystem that you'ld ever want to look at (since your likely the only craft that will ever go there in the 21st century). I felt forced to assume a bigger ship. >> > >> The robot probes mihgt not be able to bring back much more > >> data then large > >> telescope from Here, but they'ld be far more expensive, and slower. > >> >My point exactly, of course we have been over this before... True. > >> Any farther in the future then 2050 and we couldn't clearly > >> guess what kind of > >> technology we'ld have to work with. (Even physics mihgt be > >> changing.) So > >> we'ld be reduced to debating science fiction senerios about > >> what kind of warp > >> drives, or hyperspace tricks might be developed. > >> > >> Also, any then 2050 and we'ld clearly not have the space > >> infastructure to do a > >> mission on this scale. > >> > > > > > >Thank you, not being one of the founding members, I had never heard the > >reasons for the selection of criteria. They make sense. Thanks, sorry we never thought to mention them. > >> Construction and such of the Explorer and Fuel/Sail craft > >> wouldn't be that > >> expensive, probably in the tens of billions of dollars, > >> certainly not more > >> then a couple hundred billion. The killer is the launcher or > >> microwave > >> emmiter satelights. They need to be on such a huge scale > >> you'ld need self > >> replicating robotic construction systems to go forth and eat > >> a fewthousand > >> (100 thousand) asteroids and fill the skies with microwave > >> systems. Other > >> wise the projects dead, and you wait for the next technology > >> wave to simplify > >> things. > >> > >> You don't need to wait for Type-I or type-II civilization status. > >> > >> > >> >> But if you plan interstellar colonization before have gathered any > >> > > >> >> experience with interstellar travel at all - Well, you will > >> > > >> >> inevitably run into problems... > >> > >> Actually the idea of interstellar colonization was a sore > >> spot. Some really > >> wanted to go that route, others figured any colony would be > >> to small to be > >> self suficent, and intersteller distences are to expensive to > >> support a > >> colony. Also their didn't seem to be any real need. > >> > >> Actually, why anyone would pay for these missions was also a > >> sore spot. Why > >> not just explore the solar system and ignore the stars until > >> you can do it > >> cheaper and faster? We couldn't really answer that, but for > >> the purpose of > >> the exersize we assumed their was a reason. > > > >Kelly is glossing over the truth here. After LOTS of discussion, we couldn't > >find ANY reason to go period. Unfortunately, our purpose here was to design > >a way to get there. Kind of shot ourselves in the foot. True. :( >Actually, I prefer to think of it more like the parable of the man and the > >mountain: > > > >We will go because it is there. > > > > > >> > >> I have serious qualms about that statement. Your drive > >> system doesn't seem to > >> have any real performance edge over my fusion concepts > >> (fusion produces only > >> so much power per pound of fuel) but your expecting orders of > >> magnitude better > >> performance. > >> > > > >See above. I expect orders of magnitude improvement from any system before > >we can go.... > > > >> > >> > >> Actually NASA and the Air Force are considering funding > >> experiments to build > >> crude ones now. Fusion motors are far easier then fusion reactors. > >> > > > > > >The engine I described is the one the Air Force is funding. > > > > > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> It depends on how expensive the anti-protons are. ;) > >> > > > >For both our sakes I hope they become very plentiful and cheap... Personally I'm hoping for nerw physics tricks. Zero-point energy, direct mass/energy conversion, etc. >Lee Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Apr 25 13:01:17 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1186" "Sat" "25" "April" "1998" "15:49:00" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "55" "starship-design: Re: Re: LIT home page, brochure and membership..." "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA03165 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 13:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.34]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA03158 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 13:01:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id 7RWNa03521; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 15:49:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <80b3c12a.35423e2e@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1185 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: bj0rn@kemi.uu.se, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Re: LIT home page, brochure and membership... Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 15:49:00 EDT In a message dated 4/24/98 3:33:36 AM, you wrote: >Since you didn't answer any of my questions I'll try again... > >i) The link to the "brochure" is down... Is there some way I could get it? > >ii) Are you accepting any new "students"??? If so, how do I join??? > > >Thanks in advance > >Bjorn Nilsson... Sorry, I never receaved the questions. So I never answered them. I don't know where the "brochure" is any more. We don't really have students, but if you check ftp://ftp.efn.org/pub/users/stevev/starship-design/ It has a link to subscribe to the mailing list. There should also be one in the Newsletter section of the starship design newsletters section of the main site, but it sounds like you may have tried that. Kelly Starks >At 23.46 1998-04-23 EDT, you wrote: >> >>In a message dated 4/20/98 3:31:56 AM, you wrote: >> >>>I sent a letter to one of the adresses on your splendid page a few days ago, >>> >>>but since I haven't recived an answer I'll try yours instead! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Bjorn... >> >> >>Hi, >>hope you liked the site. Its a little low on maintence, but I think the >>contents not bad. >> >>Kelly Starks From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Apr 27 13:19:51 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2227" "Wed" "22" "April" "1998" "22:59:56" "+0000" "Stephen Harley" "stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com" nil "62" "Re: starship-design: Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA06706 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 13:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monsoon.dial.pipex.net (monsoon.dial.pipex.net [158.43.128.69]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA06304 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 13:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 12496 invoked from network); 27 Apr 1998 20:18:23 -0000 Received: from userm301.uk.uudial.com (HELO dial.pipex.com) (193.149.78.97) by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 27 Apr 1998 20:18:23 -0000 Message-ID: <353E685B.59FF6F8C@dial.pipex.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000201bd67ed$17212480$cd4431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Stephen Harley Content-Length: 2226 From: Stephen Harley Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" CC: "'Christoph Kulmann'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: Re: starship-design: Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 22:59:56 +0000 L. Parker wrote: > By the way, I want to stake out a new ship class. Kelly is calling his class > Explorer. I want to delineate one called Pathfinder with a crew of only ten > to twenty specialists. More later on design and mission profile... > Good idea but as Christopher says in a later email flawed because it's only twentypeople. I reckon a small ship than Explorer is nesscary perhaps with a crew of say 50. And instead of sending one ship send two or three. Now I don't mean build two ships and have one for supplies and one for crew I mean have two more or less identical ships. You've then got two ships that can help each other out if things go wrong. > I think we also need a class for a heavy colonization vessel called Caravan > that would be a follow on to the Explorer mission. > > The sequence of events I had in mind was Pathfinder -> Explorer -> Caravan. > I disagree with this policy of building huge 700+ people crewed ships and sending them off by themselves. First of all the bigger the ship the more problems you create with your designs, and the fewer propulsion systems are open to you. Second of all if you lose one ship you have a massive loss of life on your hands, along with huge economic impact on the world. If you lose one Explorer class ship your going to end interstellar exploration for hundreds of years. I also disagree with the idea of having a heavy colonization vessel. Just outfit Explorer size ships for colonization and build up the number of people on your colony slowly. If you must colonize in large numbers use an Explorer with a caretaker crew of say a hundred or two hundred people and put the rest in suspended animation of some kind, dead people don't eat, produce much waste or need private quaters, you could probably get an Explorer to haul 1000 people including the crew if you put 800-900 of them in suspended animation. In fact my opinion would be to send probes followed by two or three small 50-75 crew ships to set up a colony and then send two Explorers with 3/4 of the compliment in suspended animation. Big ships are just too much like putting all your eggs in one basket. Stephen. -- stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com http://ds.dial.pipex.com/s.harley/ From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Apr 27 16:28:03 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3373" "Mon" "27" "April" "1998" "18:22:10" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "97" "RE: starship-design: Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA04648 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 16:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA04603 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 16:27:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p42.gnt.com [204.49.68.247]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA20097; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 18:27:33 -0500 Message-ID: <000901bd7234$05c36800$f74431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <353E685B.59FF6F8C@dial.pipex.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 3372 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Stephen Harley'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 18:22:10 -0500 Stephen, > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Stephen > Harley > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 6:00 PM > To: L. Parker > Cc: 'Christoph Kulmann'; 'LIT Starship Design Group' > Subject: Re: starship-design: Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System > > > Good idea but as Christopher says in a later email flawed > because it's only > twentypeople. I reckon a small ship than Explorer is nesscary > perhaps with a > crew of > say 50. And instead of sending one ship send two or three. > Now I don't mean > build two ships and have one for supplies and one for crew I > mean have two > more or less identical ships. You've then got two ships that > can help each other > > out if things go wrong. I based my design on current ocean survey vessels designed for extended unsupported survey work - and then doubled the crew complement. Some of the larger ones do go up to fifty crew. I also had to factor in the probable effect of computer technology and artificial intelligence. Admittedly, all I can do is guess, so I split the difference. AI will be advanced enough with human assistance close by but not advanced enough to run the mission alone. It seemed a reasonable compromise. > > I disagree with this policy of building huge 700+ people > crewed ships and > sending > them off by themselves. First of all the bigger the ship the > more problems you > create with your designs, and the fewer propulsion systems > are open to you. > Second > of all if you lose one ship you have a massive loss of life > on your hands, along > with huge > economic impact on the world. If you lose one Explorer class > ship your going to > end > interstellar exploration for hundreds of years. > Yes and no. Explorer has a place here. As you point, out some systems may just be too much work for a small survey ship. Also, before ANY colonization attempt, I would want a thorough survey right down to the microbial and viral level. This is clearly beyond the reach of a twenty man survey crew. Of course if you don't mind the concept of sending colonists out as just so much cannon fodder, then... > I also disagree with the idea of having a heavy colonization > vessel. Just outfit > Explorer > size ships for colonization and build up the number of people > on your colony > slowly. > If you must colonize in large numbers use an Explorer with a > caretaker crew of > say a > hundred or two hundred people and put the rest in suspended > animation of some > kind, > dead people don't eat, produce much waste or need private > quaters, you could > probably > get an Explorer to haul 1000 people including the crew if you > put 800-900 of > them in > suspended animation. A colonization vessel would have to carry 10,000 people minimum. Explorer can't do it with or without suspended animation. > > In fact my opinion would be to send probes followed by two or > three small 50-75 > crew > ships to set up a colony and then send two Explorers with 3/4 > of the compliment > in suspended > animation. Big ships are just too much like putting all your > eggs in one basket. I had already dismissed robotic probes as unproductive due to an earlier round of discussions. In fact, I myself had proposed a whole fleet of "Starwisp" probes and was thoroughly shot down in flames. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Apr 27 20:25:37 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3302" "Mon" "27" "April" "1998" "23:24:57" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "98" "Re: Re: starship-design: Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA09740 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 20:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA09732 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 20:25:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UOGCa02231 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 23:24:57 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <2fd475c.35454c0b@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 3301 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 23:24:57 EDT In a message dated 4/27/98 2:21:42 PM, stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com wrote: >L. Parker wrote: > >> By the way, I want to stake out a new ship class. Kelly is calling his class >> Explorer. I want to delineate one called Pathfinder with a crew of only ten >> to twenty specialists. More later on design and mission profile... >> > >Good idea but as Christopher says in a later email flawed because it's only >twentypeople. I reckon a small ship than Explorer is nesscary perhaps with a >crew of >say 50. And instead of sending one ship send two or three. Now I don't mean >build two ships and have one for supplies and one for crew I mean have two >more or less identical ships. You've then got two ships that can help each other > >out if things go wrong. We had oriigionally considered that, But the need for a 1-G centrafuge habitation deck demanded a very large diameter wheel. Which made for a pretty big ship. Also its difficult to launch two ships at the same time with most of the drive concepts we came up with, and sheilding mass is proportionate much less on larger ships. So we drifted toward one large ship, but with a lot of internal redundancy. >> I think we also need a class for a heavy colonization vessel called Caravan >> that would be a follow on to the Explorer mission. >> >> The sequence of events I had in mind was Pathfinder -> Explorer -> Caravan. >> > >I disagree with this policy of building huge 700+ people crewed ships and >sending >them off by themselves. First of all the bigger the ship the more problems you >create with your designs, and the fewer propulsion systems are open to you. I can't think of anything like that we ran into. >Second >of all if you lose one ship you have a massive loss of life on your hands, along >with huge >economic impact on the world. If you lose one Explorer class ship your going to >end >interstellar exploration for hundreds of years. Not nessisarily (we lose hundreds in many accidents but it doesn't greatly effect the use of the systems. Also 700 in one ship might be a lot safer then 700 in 7 ships. >I also disagree with the idea of having a heavy colonization vessel. Just outfit >Explorer >size ships for colonization and build up the number of people on your colony >slowly. >If you must colonize in large numbers use an Explorer with a caretaker crew of >say a >hundred or two hundred people and put the rest in suspended animation of some >kind, >dead people don't eat, produce much waste or need private quaters, you could >probably >get an Explorer to haul 1000 people including the crew if you put 800-900 of >them in >suspended animation. Ignoring the fact we haven't a clue on how to do suspended animation. To make a selfsuficent colony you'ld need millions of people, and a major O'Neil sized space station (no you can't colonize planets). A non-selfsuficent colony would be a MAJOR expense to ship suplies to (and very unsafe). >In fact my opinion would be to send probes followed by two or three small 50-75 >crew >ships to set up a colony and then send two Explorers with 3/4 of the compliment >in suspended >animation. Big ships are just too much like putting all your eggs in one basket. > >Stephen. > >-- >stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com >http://ds.dial.pipex.com/s.harley/ Kelly Starks From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Apr 27 23:13:38 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["437" "Mon" "27" "April" "1998" "23:12:48" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "12" "starship-design: ACMF & µCF" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA02598 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 23:13:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA02584 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 23:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [205.163.58.96] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA1368 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 1998 23:15:46 -0700 Message-ID: <354502DF.12EC@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 436 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: starship-design: ACMF & µCF Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 23:12:48 +0100 Five questions. At the particle level, how does ACMF work? (I did check the web btw, no info) How does having the p-bar there make the (fusion?) reaction easier? Do the p-bars ever get used up? I recall hearing something once about "muon catalyzed" fusion, does anyone here know how this works? (again, i checked the web, and didn't understand it) Is the catalyzation similar for muons and p-bars? Space apps? 220,284 Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Apr 28 02:01:36 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3571" "Tue" "28" "April" "1998" "11:01:15" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "100" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System)" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA00029 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 02:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (RLn67H8NK58AvQ1uKs2N3e+FjGRzBUx/@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA29878 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 02:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost) by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id LAA21446; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:01:16 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se In-Reply-To: <000901bd7234$05c36800$f74431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson Content-Length: 3570 From: Bjorn Nilsson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" cc: "'Stephen Harley'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 11:01:15 +0200 (MET DST) First off, I'm new to this list so If i kinda "mess up" please try not to hurt me (too much) :-) A litle bit about myself: I'm a soon to bee Engineer (Msc in Engineering Physics with a Materials science specialization). Just finishing up my thesis right now... I live in Uppsala, sweden. So english is NOT my first language so if I make linquistical errors, that's probably why... I have a Keen interest in Astronomy, Space physics and Space Engineering, I've also tried to take a few courses in those areas (Not too many though, there are not many Well-PAYING jobs in those areas, at least not in sweden.) My other interests consists of Basketball, role-playing and Boardgaming... Well, enough the introduction... On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, L. Parker wrote: > > I also disagree with the idea of having a heavy colonization > > vessel. Just outfit Explorer > > size ships for colonization and build up the number of people > > on your colony slowly. > > If you must colonize in large numbers use an Explorer with a > > caretaker crew of say a hundred or two hundred people and put the rest > > in suspended animation of some kind, > > dead people don't eat, produce much waste or need private > > quaters, you could probably > > get an Explorer to haul 1000 people including the crew if you > > put 800-900 of them in suspended animation. > > A colonization vessel would have to carry 10,000 people minimum. Explorer > can't do it with or without suspended animation. > > IMO, there are TWO main things which needs to be considered for determining how large a "colonization force" has to be. These are in turn affected of which colonization SCENARIO is availible. I'll try to iron out the 3 main "crude" clasifications of scenarios first: 1) We find a FUNCTIONING Eco-system, which provides most of our needs (food, air, water, etc) and which DOES NOT kill us (by Diseases or other micro-organisms). Chances of having this kinda luck is propably small, but if it occurs should OF COURSE be taken advantadge of!!! (This is like winning the "Sweepstakes prize".) 2) We decide to build a totaly SELF-CONTAINED colony, either in space or in a SEALED structure on a planet surface. (This is probably the most likely case IMO) This will probably be posible for almost ANY system which we would be interested in. 3) We decide to introduce Life-forms into an otherwise DEAD or UNEVOLED Eco-system, in essence terraforming the planet in question. (This will probably be WAY beyond our resources and Knowledge for quite a while.) In any case, this kind of colony would almost certanly be preceeded by one built as in scenario 2... SO, which are the two main criteria??? First: We must bring enough INDIVIDUALS to ensure that we have enough "genetic diversity", to protect vs Inbreeding and such things. Unfortunatly my Biological/medical knowledge is way to poor to know have many this is, maybe someone else knows??? In addition, in both scenario 2 and 3, we must also bring enough of all SUPORTING life-forms to ensure the same diversity. Secondly: We must bring enough INDIVIDUALS or have a high enough REPRODUCTION rate to make the colony grow "fast enough" to be "economicly" viable and self-suporting... Personally I'd think that WITHOUT any special measures we could propably DOUBLE (This is just 4 kids per couple after all.) the population each generation. (about 1/3rd of a century) And that could maybe be improved a lot trough "artificial" breeding programs or "cloning"... Any ideas??? Well, this is just my ideas anyway... Bjorn Nilsson From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Apr 28 07:26:21 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["814" "Tue" "28" "April" "1998" "15:19:01" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "27" "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_starship-design:_ACMF_&_=B5CF?=" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA29463 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 07:26:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.xs4all.nl (smtp2.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA29442 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 07:26:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tim (es01-02.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.50.3]) by smtp2.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA28533 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 16:26:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980428151901.007e8100@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <354502DF.12EC@olywa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 813 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_starship-design:_ACMF_&_=B5CF?= Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 15:19:01 +0100 Nels, >Five questions. Of which 4 have the same answer: Supply energy >Do the p-bars ever get used up? Yes. >Is the catalyzation similar for muons and p-bars? A p-bar, which means anti-proton, annihilates with a normal proton and thus releases energy. A muon won't directly annihilate (since normal matter doesn't contain anti-muons) but it will decay and release energy. Energy to heat up the plasma to maintain fusion temperatures, that is the goal. An advanced fusion reactor wouldn't need such artificial energy injection, but keeping the temperature high is not an easy task, since heat/energy likes to get away. Of course you could also find another way to heat up the fusion reactor/engine, but a container with antiprotons or muons isn't heavy an inserting particles is relatively easy. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Apr 28 17:44:45 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1315" "Tue" "28" "April" "1998" "19:37:44" "-0500" "Jonathan J Jay" "jon_jay1@juno.com" nil "30" "starship-design: Starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA15357 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x13.boston.juno.com (x13.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.27]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA15297 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:44:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jon_jay1@juno.com) by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id UYA03307; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 20:42:40 EDT Message-ID: <19980428.193945.6326.3.jon_jay1@juno.com> References: <000201bd67ed$17212480$cd4431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2,4-5,9,13,15-20,22 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Content-Length: 1314 From: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 19:37:44 -0500 >In fact my opinion would be to send probes followed by two or three small 50-75 >crew ships to set up a colony and then send two Explorers with 3/4 of the >compliment in suspended animation. Now the we gotten back on the subject, I've had a theory, but I haven't figured the details. I heard from a friend of mine of a surgical procedure that freezes part of the body so that the blood runs as a thick fluid, very slowly, so they don't lose much blood. With this procedure in mind, I was wondering if it would be possible to freeze the bodies at the given temperature and use nitrous oxide, ether, etc (some sort of anesthetic) to put them to sleep, using IVs and such to provided the needed nutrients to the body. I'm not trained in any sort of medication or freezing processes, so I just thought I'd ask. Jonathan ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The beginning is the most important part of the work. -Plato _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Apr 28 17:54:41 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2460" "Tue" "28" "April" "1998" "19:52:40" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "48" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System)" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA18059 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA18050 for ; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:54:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p29.gnt.com [204.49.68.234]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA31307; Tue, 28 Apr 1998 19:54:20 -0500 Message-ID: <001001bd7309$54908820$f74431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 2459 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Bjorn Nilsson'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 19:52:40 -0500 Bjorn, Welcome to the group. We always welcome fresh blood here . Actually, this discussion group is a forum for ideas and plans that will enable us to build a starship sooner rather than later, so any sane contribution is welcome. In defense of my colony ship numbers, I must first admit that I don't remember the EXACT number of colonists required, but that I seem to remember it was around ten thousand. This is because of genetic diversity, not because of ship size or planetary climate or any of the reasons you mentioned. In fact a planet is not even really necessary, but the ten thousand person gene pool is an absolute requirement. Without a deep enough gene pool ANY settlement will eventually die. This gene pool does not necessarily have to be in the form of live human bodies though. Frozen semen and ova are also acceptable but must be from different genetic stock than the "live" bodies on board. This however creates a few moral and ethical problems which are outside of the scope of this discussion, so for clarity I will omit them for the moment. This option is a good one for the livestock though. I expect Caravan to be large because in part you are right, someone last week already mentioned that it would be suicidal to send the colony out in parts, and they were right also. You may send multiple colony ships out if you want, but each one must be completely self sustaining with all machinery, livestock, knowledge, etc. that they will need to survive on their new home. Which brings us back to the need for survey. Without a good prior survey, we won't have any idea what we need to colonize a planet with. Face it, some amount of Terraforming is going to be necessary no matter how Earth like a planet may seem. Kelly is correct in as much as an Explorer class vessel can do a much more thorough job than a Pathfinder. My purpose in proposing Pathfinder was not to replace Explorer but rather to serve as a precursor to Explorer. Explorer class vessels will cost much more than Pathfinders and given the same propulsion technology for each, will be more massive and unlikely to achieve the same velocity as a Pathfinder. I think the ability to deliver even a limited survey crew quickly is important. We can survey a hundred times as many systems with the same quantity of personnel using Pathfinders as the first survey and following up the 20 percent or so that prove out with Explorers prior to sending a Caravan. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Apr 29 01:59:57 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4364" "Wed" "29" "April" "1998" "10:59:37" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "92" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System)" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA14966 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:59:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (7IWFJeafcpjFTuzl9YYyRekPc0bDFI5o@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA14911 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 01:59:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost) by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id KAA13029; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:59:40 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se In-Reply-To: <001001bd7309$54908820$f74431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson Content-Length: 4363 From: Bjorn Nilsson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" cc: "'Bjorn Nilsson'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:59:37 +0200 (MET DST) On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, L. Parker wrote: > Bjorn, > > Welcome to the group. We always welcome fresh blood here . Actually, this > discussion group is a forum for ideas and plans that will enable us to build > a starship sooner rather than later, so any sane contribution is welcome. > > In defense of my colony ship numbers, I must first admit that I don't > remember the EXACT number of colonists required, but that I seem to remember > it was around ten thousand. This is because of genetic diversity, not > because of ship size or planetary climate or any of the reasons you > mentioned. In fact a planet is not even really necessary, but the ten > thousand person gene pool is an absolute requirement. Without a deep enough > gene pool ANY settlement will eventually die. Genetic Diversity _WAS_ one of the two factors I presented wasn't it??? aproximatly 10 000 is good enough for me... if it's actually 8 000 or 12 000 aint as important. Just the right order of magnitude is OK. And YES a planet is maybe NOT neccesary for the colony to survive, but it probably IS neccisary for the endevour to make "economic sense" even in the long run. (If the target star system doesn't have planetary bodies you wanna exploit, why go there???) The other factor, the GROWTH RATE of the colony neccesary is more a question of how "long-term" the people back on earth view the investment. I.e. when it is neccesary that the colony starts to be a net producer... > > This gene pool does not necessarily have to be in the form of live human > bodies though. Frozen semen and ova are also acceptable but must be from > different genetic stock than the "live" bodies on board. This however > creates a few moral and ethical problems which are outside of the scope of > this discussion, so for clarity I will omit them for the moment. This option > is a good one for the livestock though. Yes, it probably is a better solution for Livestock etc... It might also be a good "back-up" in case of any large "Disaster" happening to the colony and wiping out part of the gene pool, though I agree with you that the social/moral/ethical concerns may be a factor to prohibit it's use as "standard procdure". You also have the question of giving birth to all theese "frozen embryos", every woman can only be excpected to carry so many babies espesially since in the early stages you'll probably need every adult member of the colony as a productive worker as well... > > I expect Caravan to be large because in part you are right, someone last > week already mentioned that it would be suicidal to send the colony out in > parts, and they were right also. You may send multiple colony ships out if > you want, but each one must be completely self sustaining with all > machinery, livestock, knowledge, etc. that they will need to survive on > their new home. > > Which brings us back to the need for survey. Without a good prior survey, we > won't have any idea what we need to colonize a planet with. Face it, some > amount of Terraforming is going to be necessary no matter how Earth like a > planet may seem. Actually I disagree with this... It's probably MUCH more easy to adapt the colonists than the planet if the changes are small. For exsample with Vaccines, imunization or other "artificial" bio-medical solutions then to try to change the whole microbiological Eco-system of the planet. This may of course also have large social/moral/ethical concerns as well as practical problems. (For one thing, it might be inposible for "Earth" humans and "colony" humans to interact personally w/o risk of plagues.) > Kelly is correct in as much as an Explorer class vessel can > do a much more thorough job than a Pathfinder. My purpose in proposing > Pathfinder was not to replace Explorer but rather to serve as a precursor to > Explorer. Explorer class vessels will cost much more than Pathfinders and > given the same propulsion technology for each, will be more massive and > unlikely to achieve the same velocity as a Pathfinder. > > I think the ability to deliver even a limited survey crew quickly is > important. We can survey a hundred times as many systems with the same > quantity of personnel using Pathfinders as the first survey and following up > the 20 percent or so that prove out with Explorers prior to sending a > Caravan. > > Lee > > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Apr 29 03:49:35 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2796" "Wed" "29" "April" "1998" "03:49:00" "PDT" "Christoph Kulmann" "guderiak@hotmail.com" nil "68" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA29031 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 03:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f61.hotmail.com [207.82.250.147]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id DAA29026 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 03:49:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 29167 invoked by uid 0); 29 Apr 1998 10:49:01 -0000 Message-ID: <19980429104901.29166.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.102.12.109 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 03:49:00 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.102.12.109] Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Christoph Kulmann" Content-Length: 2795 From: "Christoph Kulmann" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 03:49:00 PDT Hi Bjorn, >And YES a planet is maybe NOT neccesary for the colony to survive, but it >probably IS neccisary for the endevour to make "economic sense" even in >the long run. (If the target star system doesn't have planetary bodies you >wanna exploit, why go there???) ==> A very, very good idea... >> >> Which brings us back to the need for survey. Without a good prior survey, we >> won't have any idea what we need to colonize a planet with. Face it, some >> amount of Terraforming is going to be necessary no matter how Earth like a >> planet may seem. > >Actually I disagree with this... It's probably MUCH more easy to adapt the >colonists than the planet if the changes are small. For exsample with >Vaccines, imunization or other "artificial" bio-medical solutions then to >try to change the whole microbiological Eco-system of the planet. This may >of course also have large social/moral/ethical concerns as well as >practical problems. (For one thing, it might be inposible for "Earth" >humans and "colony" humans to interact personally w/o risk of plagues.) > > ==> As a biologist, it seems rather strange to me how many people think of colonizing a terran world with it's own biosphere. In my opinion one of two things will happen: 1. The alien ecosphere and the genetic/biochemical composition of it's species is closely similar to ours; this is the worst case, for it means that the colonists will encounter millions of microorganisms and other small creatures AGAINST wich they don't have any resistancy, but FOR wich they are the most ideal place to start their own colony... Look at Africa for similar scenarios and remember HOW LONG it might take to develope a vaccine even against a virus known in as much detail as HIV. And still on a terran world there is the possibilty of large (say T-Rex-sized) predators which don't make any racial difference in choosing their dinner... 2. If the alien biosphere is fundamentally different form ours (e.g. a planet with microbial ecosystems miles beneath the surface or a surface environment with a different temperature regime, much higher pressures or a different atmospheric composition) then there is no problem with contamination; but why should we found a colony on a world as comfortable to humans as the entrance to Hell?? In case of colonization, it seems much better to choose a Mars-like, but sterile Planet/Moon. I think its much, much easier just to warm a planet and install a thicker atmosphere than to fight against alien lifeforms every single day. You can still explore the aliens from your base on a terraformed world. Christoph P.S.: in all other points, you are right. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Apr 29 04:45:01 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5995" "Wed" "29" "April" "1998" "13:44:48" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "152" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA06267 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 04:45:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (aPyPw5LlSCIAhRpCckhCoxjBJHcr4C+8@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA06260 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 04:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost) by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id NAA27736; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:44:49 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se In-Reply-To: <19980429104901.29166.qmail@hotmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson Content-Length: 5994 From: Bjorn Nilsson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Christoph Kulmann cc: f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 13:44:48 +0200 (MET DST) On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Christoph Kulmann wrote: > Hi Bjorn, > > >And YES a planet is maybe NOT neccesary for the colony to survive, but > it > >probably IS neccisary for the endevour to make "economic sense" even in > >the long run. (If the target star system doesn't have planetary bodies > you > >wanna exploit, why go there???) > ==> A very, very good idea... > Yes Indeed... :-) Personnaly, I doubt if humanity will even be prepared to pay the cost of much more than a "plant the flag" mission as long as there is not at least SOME ideas for how to exploit other star systems availible... > >> > >> Which brings us back to the need for survey. Without a good prior > survey, we > >> won't have any idea what we need to colonize a planet with. Face it, > some > >> amount of Terraforming is going to be necessary no matter how Earth > like a > >> planet may seem. > > > >Actually I disagree with this... It's probably MUCH more easy to adapt > the > >colonists than the planet if the changes are small. For exsample with > >Vaccines, imunization or other "artificial" bio-medical solutions then > to > >try to change the whole microbiological Eco-system of the planet. This > may > >of course also have large social/moral/ethical concerns as well as > >practical problems. (For one thing, it might be inposible for "Earth" > >humans and "colony" humans to interact personally w/o risk of plagues.) > > > > First, I'm NOT a biologist so this is in kind of "laymans" terms... > ==> As a biologist, it seems rather strange to me how many people think > of colonizing a terran world with it's own biosphere. In my opinion one > of two things will happen: > > 1. The alien ecosphere and the genetic/biochemical composition of it's > species is closely similar to ours; this is the worst case, for it means > that the colonists will encounter millions of microorganisms and other > small creatures AGAINST wich they don't have any resistancy, but FOR > wich they are the most ideal place to start their own colony... > Look at Africa for similar scenarios and remember HOW LONG it might take > to develope a vaccine even against a virus known in as much detail as > HIV. 1) assuming how FAST medical/biochemical reserch is going at the moment (IMO), I do not think that it'll be imposible somehow "give" the colonists some kind of resistency. There are many (Hypothetical) ways to do this, for example it might be posible to introduce "local" genes concerning Imuno systems trough genetic engineering... I'm sure there are LOTs of others as well... Even so, there probably WILL be setbacks and thoughout it's history diseases propably WILL be a large threat to the colony, BUT i personnaly think that the advantadges of using a "terran" world are worth the risks! There are also two other important points. 1) Diseases and parasites are Often (IIRC) quite particular about their hosts. (We don't get infected by contact with other sick Earth mammals very often. Do we???) 2) Most diseases are usually EITHER very virulent OR very deadly, but usually not both. (IIRC) That would NOT usually be in their Evolutionary interest... This should give the colonists the neccesary time to develop imunno systems capable of defending them. This will probably have some cost in lives lost, but i still feel it would work with good medical care, quarantine procedures etc... > And still on a terran world there is the possibilty of large (say > T-Rex-sized) predators which don't make any racial difference in > choosing their dinner... I would say that this is the least of our problems... There are LOTs of large dangerous predators on Earth, but most of them are on the way to becoming extinct! I'm perfectly confident that we could do the same on purpose on another world that we have managed to do by "accident" here. When it comes to large life-forms, I'd be much more concerned with what we'd do to their chances of survival then the other way around. (Unless they are Sentient of course... That's an entirly different matter.) > > 2. If the alien biosphere is fundamentally different form ours (e.g. a > planet with microbial ecosystems miles beneath the surface or a surface > environment with a different temperature regime, much higher pressures > or a different atmospheric composition) then there is no problem with > contamination; but why should we found a colony on a world as > comfortable to humans as the entrance to Hell?? > Because as long as it produces MOST of what we need to survive (food, water, air) it's a lot Cheaper/less industrially tasking than terraforming a "dead" planet... $$$ not Comfort is likely to be the deciding factor (IMO). > In case of colonization, it seems much better to choose a Mars-like, but > sterile Planet/Moon. I think its much, much easier just to warm a planet > and install a thicker atmosphere than to fight against alien lifeforms > every single day. You can still explore the aliens from your base on a > terraformed world. Sure, I agree that it is EASYIER... But it's also MUCH more resource intensitive and mor expensive... You'll have to transport a LOT of extra payload to Terraform a world even if you can use raw material from the target star system... (Mostly biological stuff, i would guess) Besides, a planet with a long Ecological history is much more likely to have more interesting resourses for exploitation. (I.e. the different Chemical conpounds there will be much more complex than the simple Oxides & silicates comon to lifeless worlds.) > > Christoph > > P.S.: in all other points, you are right. > > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > Just a few thoughts... Bjorn... PS: If we're just gona Terraform a lifeless "rock". Why just not pick Mars??? Makes all this several LY star-voyages kinda unneccesary... (and there are LOTs of other candidates in the solar system as well.) From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Apr 29 07:51:46 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["8520" "Wed" "29" "April" "1998" "07:51:01" "PDT" "Christoph Kulmann" "guderiak@hotmail.com" nil "247" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA10480 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 07:51:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f147.hotmail.com [207.82.251.26]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA10379 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 07:51:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 17143 invoked by uid 0); 29 Apr 1998 14:51:06 -0000 Message-ID: <19980429145106.17142.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.102.12.130 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 07:51:01 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.102.12.130] Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Christoph Kulmann" Content-Length: 8519 From: "Christoph Kulmann" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 07:51:01 PDT Hi Bjorn, >> >And YES a planet is maybe NOT neccesary for the colony to survive, but >> it >> >probably IS neccisary for the endevour to make "economic sense" even in >> >the long run. (If the target star system doesn't have planetary bodies >> you >> >wanna exploit, why go there???) >> ==> A very, very good idea... >> > >Yes Indeed... :-) > >Personnaly, I doubt if humanity will even be prepared to pay the cost of >much more than a "plant the flag" mission as long as there is not at least >SOME ideas for how to exploit other star systems availible... ==> If there aren't at least SOME ideas, no starship will ever be build. And the major idea is the close exploration of a foreign planetary system and alien biosphere. The alien lifeforms themselves offer the most promising way to become RICH... >> >> >> >> Which brings us back to the need for survey. Without a good prior >> survey, we >> >> won't have any idea what we need to colonize a planet with. Face it, >> some >> >> amount of Terraforming is going to be necessary no matter how Earth >> like a >> >> planet may seem. >> > >> >Actually I disagree with this... It's probably MUCH more easy to adapt >> the >> >colonists than the planet if the changes are small. For exsample with >> >Vaccines, imunization or other "artificial" bio-medical solutions then >> to >> >try to change the whole microbiological Eco-system of the planet. This >> may >> >of course also have large social/moral/ethical concerns as well as >> >practical problems. (For one thing, it might be inposible for "Earth" >> >humans and "colony" humans to interact personally w/o risk of plagues.) ==> see below... >> > > >First, I'm NOT a biologist so this is in kind of "laymans" terms... > > > >> ==> As a biologist, it seems rather strange to me how many people think >> of colonizing a terran world with it's own biosphere. In my opinion one >> of two things will happen: >> >> 1. The alien ecosphere and the genetic/biochemical composition of it's >> species is closely similar to ours; this is the worst case, for it means >> that the colonists will encounter millions of microorganisms and other >> small creatures AGAINST wich they don't have any resistancy, but FOR >> wich they are the most ideal place to start their own colony... >> Look at Africa for similar scenarios and remember HOW LONG it might take >> to develope a vaccine even against a virus known in as much detail as >> HIV. > >1) assuming how FAST medical/biochemical reserch is going at the moment >(IMO), I do not think that it'll be imposible somehow "give" the colonists >some kind of resistency. There are many (Hypothetical) ways to do this, >for example it might be posible to introduce "local" genes concerning >Imuno systems trough genetic engineering... ==> Sure, biochemical research is going fast, but this kind of exponential growth certainly cannot last forever. And you shouldn't overestimate the possibilities of biotechnology. There are some limits of practical feasability, although today no one knows where the ultimate limits will be. But managing millions of unknown and probably dangerous organisms might be one of them. ==> Implanting ALIEN genes into humans?? They certainly will require a different reading frame and translation code, which the human cells cannot offer... I'm sure there are LOTs of >others as well... Even so, there probably WILL be setbacks and thoughout >it's history diseases propably WILL be a large threat to the colony, BUT i >personnaly think that the advantadges of using a "terran" world are worth >the risks! ==> Putting the colony at the very brink of extinction...??? > >There are also two other important points. > >1) Diseases and parasites are Often (IIRC) quite particular about their >hosts. (We don't get infected by contact with other sick Earth mammals >very often. Do we???) ==> BSE, Plague, Worms...... > >2) Most diseases are usually EITHER very virulent OR very deadly, but >usually not both. (IIRC) That would NOT usually be in their Evolutionary >interest... ==> Ebola (and all other filo-viruses) is shockingly deadly AND virulent AND it is not adapted to humans or any other primates. So it is a good "working example" of what we might encounter on another planet. >This should give the colonists the neccesary time to develop >imunno systems capable of defending them. ==> This usually takes from 200 years to a million years. >This will probably have some >cost in lives lost, but i still feel it would work with good medical care, >quarantine procedures etc... > >> And still on a terran world there is the possibilty of large (say >> T-Rex-sized) predators which don't make any racial difference in >> choosing their dinner... > >I would say that this is the least of our problems... There are LOTs of >large dangerous predators on Earth, ==> not larger than a Grizzly Bear today... >but most of them are on the way to >becoming extinct! I'm perfectly confident that we could do the same on >purpose on another world that we have managed to do by "accident" here. ==> Go to the stars for some new kind of big game hunt, and thus ruining the ecosystem you want to study??????????? >When it comes to large life-forms, I'd be much more concerned with what >we'd do to their chances of survival then the other way around. ==> Ever seen "Lost World"?? (Unless >they are Sentient of course... That's an entirly different matter.) ==> If they are sentient, they would shoot back....:-) >> >> 2. If the alien biosphere is fundamentally different form ours (e.g. a >> planet with microbial ecosystems miles beneath the surface or a surface >> environment with a different temperature regime, much higher pressures >> or a different atmospheric composition) then there is no problem with >> contamination; but why should we found a colony on a world as >> comfortable to humans as the entrance to Hell?? >> > > >Because as long as it produces MOST of what we need to survive (food, >water, air) it's a lot Cheaper/less industrially tasking than terraforming >a "dead" planet... ==> When I said "different" I meant it DOESN'T produce most of what we need to survive... >> In case of colonization, it seems much better to choose a Mars-like, but >> sterile Planet/Moon. I think its much, much easier just to warm a planet >> and install a thicker atmosphere than to fight against alien lifeforms >> every single day. You can still explore the aliens from your base on a >> terraformed world. > >Sure, I agree that it is EASYIER... But it's also MUCH more resource >intensitive and mor expensive... ==> If it's easier than it means it is less resource intensive and less expensive... ==> Terraforming in its very essence is a gargantuan task. But operating cities and infrastructure in an environment where the local lifeforms are engaged in a struggle about how fast they can eat you won't be much easier... >You'll have to transport a LOT of extra >payload to Terraform a world even if you can use raw material from the >target star system... (Mostly biological stuff, i would guess) > >Besides, a planet with a long Ecological history is much more likely to >have more interesting resourses for exploitation. (I.e. the different >Chemical conpounds there will be much more complex than the simple Oxides >& silicates comon to lifeless worlds.) > > >> >> Christoph >> >> P.S.: in all other points, you are right. > >Just a few thoughts... > > >Bjorn... > > >PS: If we're just gona Terraform a lifeless "rock". Why just not pick >Mars??? Makes all this several LY star-voyages kinda unneccesary... >(and there are LOTs of other candidates in the solar system as well.) > ==> Terraforming of Mars will be feasible with 21rst century technology. You could create a 500 mbar atmosphere within a few hundred years - but it will take 100,000 years before a breathable amount of oxygen could be accumulated. This is due to the efficiency of plant growth and photosynthesis. (http://www.crosswinds.net/bremen/~guderiak/terra.html) So before we could spent our summer vacations on the shores of a beautiful Martian lake we would have screened dozens of star systems. Maybe we would have found a world better suited for terraforming than Mars??? Whith Caravan Starships we could easily transport all the equipment. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Apr 29 18:23:04 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["503" "Wed" "29" "April" "1998" "19:57:26" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "20" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA10067 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:22:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA10052 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p43.gnt.com [204.49.68.248]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA22930; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 20:22:27 -0500 Message-ID: <001201bd73d6$6ff896c0$f74431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <19980429104901.29166.qmail@hotmail.com> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 502 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Christoph Kulmann'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:57:26 -0500 Christoph, > >And YES a planet is maybe NOT neccesary for the colony to > survive, but > it > >probably IS neccisary for the endevour to make "economic > sense" even in > >the long run. (If the target star system doesn't have > planetary bodies > you > >wanna exploit, why go there???) > ==> A very, very good idea... There is more to exploit in any system than just planets. In fact, once free of the gravity well of a planet and loose in the richness of space, why would you want to go back? Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Apr 29 18:24:18 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3319" "Wed" "29" "April" "1998" "19:52:11" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "77" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System)" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA10403 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:24:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA10381 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 18:24:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p43.gnt.com [204.49.68.248]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA22913; Wed, 29 Apr 1998 20:22:21 -0500 Message-ID: <001101bd73d6$678e0c40$f74431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 3318 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Bjorn Nilsson'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 19:52:11 -0500 Bjorn, > And YES a planet is maybe NOT neccesary for the colony to > survive, but it > probably IS neccisary for the endevour to make "economic > sense" even in > the long run. (If the target star system doesn't have > planetary bodies you > wanna exploit, why go there???) Actually, given the fact that resources not on planetary bodies are much more plentiful and easier to get at than those on said bodies would argue against settling planets once you were in space.... > The other factor, the GROWTH RATE of the colony neccesary is more a > question of how "long-term" the people back on earth view the > investment. > I.e. when it is neccesary that the colony starts to be a net > producer... Umm, well that was a given in the original problem statement. ALL colonies must be self-sufficient, therefore they are either net producers or at least non-negative. I'm afraid the concept of trade or commerce is out of the picture, at least until someone invents a much faster way of getting there. > Yes, it probably is a better solution for Livestock etc... It > might also > be a good "back-up" in case of any large "Disaster" happening to the > colony and wiping out part of the gene pool, though I agree > with you that > the social/moral/ethical concerns may be a factor to prohibit > it's use as > "standard procdure". > > You also have the question of giving birth to all theese > "frozen embryos", > every woman can only be excpected to carry so many babies > espesially since > in the early stages you'll probably need every adult member > of the colony > as a productive worker as well... Well, that kind of goes with being a pioneer and always has. You are reasoning from a modern western viewpoint, and I am afraid that is all it is - a single point of view. It is by no means the only one, much less the correct one. The other ninety percent of the world's women can tell you all about giving birth to lots of babies and working all the while. > Actually I disagree with this... It's probably MUCH more easy > to adapt the > colonists than the planet if the changes are small. For exsample with > Vaccines, imunization or other "artificial" bio-medical > solutions then to > try to change the whole microbiological Eco-system of the > planet. This may > of course also have large social/moral/ethical concerns as well as > practical problems. (For one thing, it might be inposible for "Earth" > humans and "colony" humans to interact personally w/o risk of > plagues.) You seem confused on what adapt means. Genetic changes to the basic human genome constitute adaptation and I would not expect to see much of that, though I could be wrong. After all, that is also just a viewpoint and not necessarily the right one... Vaccines and immunizations are not adaptations, but they will certainly be necessary. If planetary colonization becomes a question, that is the purpose of the Explorer class. It will take years for a 700 person crew to fully catalog and identify the biosphere of a planet. In fact, we have not yet completely done so on our own planet! In earlier discussions it was put forth that perhaps the best thing to do was to simply remain in space and exploit the resources of the system and avoid planetary surfaces altogether, at least those of Earth like planets at any rate. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Apr 30 00:21:43 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2934" "Thu" "30" "April" "1998" "00:20:51" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "59" "Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA18990 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA18980 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:21:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [205.163.58.226] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA7043 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:23:08 -0700 Message-ID: <3547B5D3.2656@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 2933 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:20:51 +0100 Bjorn Nilsson wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Christoph Kulmann wrote: > > > Hi Bjorn, > > >Actually I disagree with this... It's probably MUCH more easy to adapt > > the > > >colonists than the planet if the changes are small. For exsample with > > >Vaccines, imunization or other "artificial" bio-medical solutions then > > to > > >try to change the whole microbiological Eco-system of the planet. This > > may > > >of course also have large social/moral/ethical concerns as well as > > >practical problems. (For one thing, it might be inposible for "Earth" > > >humans and "colony" humans to interact personally w/o risk of plagues.) > > > > > First, I'm NOT a biologist so this is in kind of "laymans" terms... > > > ==> As a biologist, it seems rather strange to me how many people think > > of colonizing a terran world with it's own biosphere. In my opinion one > > of two things will happen: > > > > 1. The alien ecosphere and the genetic/biochemical composition of it's > > species is closely similar to ours; this is the worst case, for it means > > that the colonists will encounter millions of microorganisms and other > > small creatures AGAINST wich they don't have any resistancy, but FOR > > wich they are the most ideal place to start their own colony... > > Look at Africa for similar scenarios and remember HOW LONG it might take > > to develope a vaccine even against a virus known in as much detail as > > HIV. > > 1) assuming how FAST medical/biochemical reserch is going at the moment > (IMO), I do not think that it'll be imposible somehow "give" the colonists > some kind of resistency. There are many (Hypothetical) ways to do this, > for example it might be posible to introduce "local" genes concerning > Imuno systems trough genetic engineering... I'm sure there are LOTs of > others as well... Even so, there probably WILL be setbacks and thoughout > it's history diseases propably WILL be a large threat to the colony, BUT i > personnaly think that the advantadges of using a "terran" world are worth > the risks! Bjorn and Christoph, In this "worst case" scenario, terraforming the horribly biohazardous planet could be accomplished through the use of orbital bombardment, chemical, and finally biological warfare against the native ecosystem. First, drop several 20km asteriods onto the planet over a short period. Simultaneously alter the climate with lasers and orbital mirrors. This alone should be enough to cause mass extinction. Next, drop as much poison as you can into the air and waters. Finally, introduce microbes, fungi, plankton, etc. which are engineered to destroy the last remnants of the native lifeforms. While the result won't be _completely_ earthlike, the result should be much easier to manage. If we really don't like the result we could simply repeat the process.......Ethics?!...Where??? 220,284 Nels Lindberg P.S. Personally, I am nauseated by the above proposal. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Apr 30 01:29:46 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1222" "Thu" "30" "April" "1998" "01:29:07" "PDT" "Christoph Kulmann" "guderiak@hotmail.com" nil "33" "Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA21543 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 01:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f19.hotmail.com [207.82.250.30]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA21536 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 01:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 4425 invoked by uid 0); 30 Apr 1998 08:29:07 -0000 Message-ID: <19980430082907.4424.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.102.12.105 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 01:29:07 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.102.12.105] Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Christoph Kulmann" Content-Length: 1221 From: "Christoph Kulmann" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lindberg@olywa.net Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 01:29:07 PDT Nels, >Bjorn and Christoph, > In this "worst case" scenario, terraforming the horribly biohazardous >planet could be accomplished through the use of orbital bombardment, >chemical, and finally biological warfare against the native ecosystem. >First, drop several 20km asteriods onto the planet over a short period. >Simultaneously alter the climate with lasers and orbital mirrors. This >alone should be enough to cause mass extinction. Next, drop as much >poison as you can into the air and waters. Finally, introduce microbes, >fungi, plankton, etc. which are engineered to destroy the last remnants >of the native lifeforms. While the result won't be _completely_ >earthlike, the result should be much easier to manage. If we really >don't like the result we could simply repeat the >process.......Ethics?!...Where??? ==> Why should we go to the stars when we destroy everything that is worth the voyage? I honestly hope this was the LAST statement of this kind!!! >220,284 >Nels Lindberg >P.S. Personally, I am nauseated by the above proposal. > ==> Then why do you make it???????????? Christoph ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Apr 30 09:37:03 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil t nil nil nil nil] ["1915" "Thu" "30" "April" "1998" "06:33:13" "-0400" "Paul Anderson" "madhobby@geeky1.ebtech.net" "" "51" "Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA21536 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA21515 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 09:36:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bootes.ebtech.net (root@bootes.ebtech.net [206.152.142.12]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA08450 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 03:27:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bootes.ebtech.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with UUCP id FAA29977; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 05:37:28 -0400 Received: from localhost (madhobby@localhost) by geeky1.ebtech.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA11424; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 06:33:15 -0400 In-Reply-To: <3547B5D3.2656@olywa.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Paul Anderson Content-Length: 1914 From: Paul Anderson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Lindberg cc: SSD Subject: Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 06:33:13 -0400 (EDT) On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Lindberg wrote: > First, drop several 20km asteriods onto the planet over a short period. > Nah, nah that wrecks the terrain! You'll hafta millenia before the huge pits are gone, and you may not even get total annihilation. A couple of well-aimed neutron bombs, though, only kill and leave terrain(and more importantly) metals and oil that may be undergound undisturbed. > Simultaneously alter the climate with lasers and orbital mirrors. This > alone should be enough to cause mass extinction. > Remember man, scalpels, not clubs. Climate alteration is better produced using un-manned stations producing various gases(carbon dioxide and ozone in necessary proportions to bring planet inline). > Next, drop as much > poison as you can into the air and waters. > Using the club again. Remember, scalpel, scalpel! You'll have to wait another good millenium for the poison to pass. Life cleansing should have been completed with the neutron bombs, if not you need another volley. > If we really > don't like the result we could simply repeat the > process.......Ethics?!...Where??? > You only need to repeat the operation if you're sloppy and don't plan things properly. By this stage you should be ready to put together a very basic ecosystem, and then build up in complexity. > P.S. Personally, I am nauseated by the above proposal. > Well, to be the devil's advocate, it _IS_ practical, especially if you just conquered the lifeforms inhabiting said planet. It makes a nice Darth Vader-like insult to wipe out an imputent enemy's world, the more brutally the more resonance it gives the act. Kind of like mass-torture, but easier. TTYL! --- Paul Anderson madhobby@geeky1.ebtech.net "BETTER LIVING THROUGH RECKLESS EXPERIMENTATION" - Motto of The Mad Scientist "Less talk, more synthahol." - Worf FREE mailing lists setup, for more info e-mail newlist@geeky1.ebtech.net From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Apr 30 15:46:27 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1868" "Thu" "30" "April" "1998" "17:45:05" "-0500" "Jonathan J Jay" "jon_jay1@juno.com" nil "39" "Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA19925 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 15:46:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x13.boston.juno.com (x13.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.27]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA19896 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 15:46:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jon_jay1@juno.com) by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id SDU03307; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:45:23 EDT Message-ID: <19980430.174506.8718.1.jon_jay1@juno.com> References: <000201bd67ed$17212480$cd4431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> <19980428.193945.6326.3.jon_jay1@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 1-2,4,6-19,24-31 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Content-Length: 1867 From: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: jon_jay1@juno.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 17:45:05 -0500 Hello? Is anyone even listening to me. At least 10 e-mails ago I sent the following: >>In fact my opinion would be to send probes followed by two or three small 50-75 >>crew ships to set up a colony and then send two Explorers with 3/4 of the >>compliment in suspended animation. > Now the we gotten back on the subject, I've had a theory, but I >haven't figured the details. I heard from a friend of mine of a >surgical procedure that freezes part of the body so that the blood >runs as a thick fluid, very slowly, so they don't lose much blood. >With this procedure in mind, I was wondering if it would be possible >to freeze the bodies at the given temperature and use nitrous oxide, >ether, etc (some sort of anesthetic) to put them to sleep, using IVs >and such to provided the needed nutrients to the body. > I'm not trained in any sort of medication or freezing processes, so >I just thought I'd ask. Was anyone paying attention or did I just humiliate myself in front of the many newsletter members. If it must be more in depth, I also heard from another that slower blood may mean slower brain function and possibly slower groth rate. The anesthetic (by the way, it doesn't have to be an anesthetic) is only used to get them to sleep. Jonathan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will speak ill of no one, And all the good I know of everybody. -Andrew Jackson --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.S.: If I did humiliate myself, don't rub it in. _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Apr 30 18:02:08 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1529" "Thu" "30" "April" "1998" "19:58:30" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "40" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA21982 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:02:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA21943 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:02:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p77.gnt.com [204.49.84.78]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA16095; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 20:01:53 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bd749c$b690b920$4e5431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <3547B5D3.2656@olywa.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 1528 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Lindberg'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:58:30 -0500 Nels, Did you ever consider that most of what makes a planet habitable is the inhabitants? Terra like planets don't just instantly spring into existence, it is a gradual process of reinforcement over millions of years. You might as well attempt to terraform an airless asteroid as follow the procedure you mention. The end result will be the same... Lee > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Lindberg > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 6:21 PM > To: SSD > Subject: Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization > > > In this "worst case" scenario, terraforming the > horribly biohazardous > planet could be accomplished through the use of orbital bombardment, > chemical, and finally biological warfare against the native ecosystem. > First, drop several 20km asteriods onto the planet over a > short period. > Simultaneously alter the climate with lasers and orbital mirrors. This > alone should be enough to cause mass extinction. Next, drop as much > poison as you can into the air and waters. Finally, introduce > microbes, > fungi, plankton, etc. which are engineered to destroy the > last remnants > of the native lifeforms. While the result won't be _completely_ > earthlike, the result should be much easier to manage. If we really > don't like the result we could simply repeat the > process.......Ethics?!...Where??? > 220,284 > Nels Lindberg > P.S. Personally, I am nauseated by the above proposal. > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Apr 30 18:16:27 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2930" "Thu" "30" "April" "1998" "20:15:34" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "85" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System)" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA27390 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA27353 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:16:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p77.gnt.com [204.49.84.78]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA18578; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 20:16:16 -0500 Message-ID: <000201bd749e$b86c4500$4e5431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <3548B8B7.842DF44F@dial.pipex.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 2929 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Stephen Harley'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 20:15:34 -0500 Stephen, After the last couple of messages I just read, at least this one sounds sane. > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Harley [mailto:stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 1998 1:45 PM > To: L. Parker > Subject: Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was > Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System) > > > > > > I'm not disputing that you need 10,000 people I'm disputing > the need to bring > them all at once > and in one large ship. Second if your gonna setup a colony I > think your going to > want a > two-world economy with people and minerals moving in both > directions eventually. > I see > no point in building a big colony and abandoning it to it's > fate. So why can't > we send ten > explorers over a period of ten years rather than build Caravan ? > There may not be another ship. Do you want to trust your and your children's future to the vagaries of politics back home on Earth? What if they send you out and then cancel the program? Oh well, too bad? No, I want it all in one boat. You may send as many boats as you like, but I would want everything I need in the boat with ME. > I hadn't thought about before but I think if you've got > people willing to > provide theirsperm and ova so that other people can have kids > I don't see why > this should become > anymore of a problem if your giving it so humans can spread > off this planet and > secure > the future of the human race. Well, there is the problem. Getting people to donate their genetic information for the use of strangers has not proven to be very attractive. And as someone pointed out, the female settlers still have to give birth to the chlordane. Their will have to be several paradigm shifts in our way of thinking first. > Your correct having separate ships that depend on each other > but why notones > that don't ? Surely it'd been easier to design and build > several smaller > ship than one large one ? I didn't suggest several ships that depend upon one another. I stated that each ship should be totally self sufficient. > I think the original Pathfinder was too small but the idea is > sound. I think the > Explorer > doesn't account for advances in computer technology and AI > properly I hold my > view > that it is too large for inital exploration purposes. It's > the sort of ship we'd > all love to build, > a do-anything ship. Well, this is where we get to opinions I suppose. I was trying to be compromising. Kelly is assuming that I will require the vast resources of an Explorer class vessel to catalog a new system sufficiently for potential colonization and he may be right. I think that AI will make a great inroad into the amount of human oversight that is required, but that AI will not be sufficiently versatile to handle unknown or unknowable situations. You are finding the need for humans to be just a little greater than I do and less than Kelly does. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Apr 30 18:29:57 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["396" "Thu" "30" "April" "1998" "20:29:26" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "14" "RE: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA01939 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:29:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA01904 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 18:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p77.gnt.com [204.49.84.78]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA20931; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 20:29:45 -0500 Message-ID: <000501bd74a0$9c437d60$4e5431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <19980430.174506.8718.1.jon_jay1@juno.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 395 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Jonathan J Jay'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 20:29:26 -0500 Jonathon, I don't think anyone is ignoring you, just off chasing other threads of the discussion. Most of the people on this list tend to be engineering oriented and you question probably just didn't strike a chord in any one. I have not heard that there have been any advances in suspended animation lately. If you know of something please post it. I'm sure we would all like to hear. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Apr 30 19:47:40 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6630" "Thu" "30" "April" "1998" "22:47:01" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "168" "Re: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA25412 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:47:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA25400 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:47:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UVCHa21249 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:47:01 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 6629 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:47:01 EDT In a message dated 4/29/98 5:45:08 AM, f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se wrote: >On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, Christoph Kulmann wrote: > >> Hi Bjorn, >> >> >And YES a planet is maybe NOT neccesary for the colony to survive, but >> it >> >probably IS neccisary for the endevour to make "economic sense" even in >> >the long run. (If the target star system doesn't have planetary bodies >> you >> >wanna exploit, why go there???) >> ==> A very, very good idea... >> > >Yes Indeed... :-) > >Personnaly, I doubt if humanity will even be prepared to pay the cost of >much more than a "plant the flag" mission as long as there is not at least >SOME ideas for how to exploit other star systems availible... > > > >> >> >> >> Which brings us back to the need for survey. Without a good prior >> survey, we >> >> won't have any idea what we need to colonize a planet with. Face it, >> some >> >> amount of Terraforming is going to be necessary no matter how Earth >> like a >> >> planet may seem. >> > >> >Actually I disagree with this... It's probably MUCH more easy to adapt >> the >> >colonists than the planet if the changes are small. For exsample with >> >Vaccines, imunization or other "artificial" bio-medical solutions then >> to >> >try to change the whole microbiological Eco-system of the planet. This >> may >> >of course also have large social/moral/ethical concerns as well as >> >practical problems. (For one thing, it might be inposible for "Earth" >> >humans and "colony" humans to interact personally w/o risk of plagues.) >> > >> > > >First, I'm NOT a biologist so this is in kind of "laymans" terms... > > > >> ==> As a biologist, it seems rather strange to me how many people think >> of colonizing a terran world with it's own biosphere. In my opinion one >> of two things will happen: >> >> 1. The alien ecosphere and the genetic/biochemical composition of it's >> species is closely similar to ours; this is the worst case, for it means >> that the colonists will encounter millions of microorganisms and other >> small creatures AGAINST wich they don't have any resistancy, but FOR >> wich they are the most ideal place to start their own colony... >> Look at Africa for similar scenarios and remember HOW LONG it might take >> to develope a vaccine even against a virus known in as much detail as >> HIV. > >1) assuming how FAST medical/biochemical reserch is going at the moment >(IMO), I do not think that it'll be imposible somehow "give" the colonists >some kind of resistency. There are many (Hypothetical) ways to do this, >for example it might be posible to introduce "local" genes concerning >Imuno systems trough genetic engineering... I'm sure there are LOTs of >others as well... Even so, there probably WILL be setbacks and thoughout >it's history diseases propably WILL be a large threat to the colony, BUT i >personnaly think that the advantadges of using a "terran" world are worth >the risks! > >There are also two other important points. > >1) Diseases and parasites are Often (IIRC) quite particular about their >hosts. (We don't get infected by contact with other sick Earth mammals >very often. Do we???) Actually we do. Ignoring some of the weorder venerial desases, theirs always thous swine and avian flus that keep hiting us. >2) Most diseases are usually EITHER very virulent OR very deadly, but >usually not both. (IIRC) That would NOT usually be in their Evolutionary >interest... This should give the colonists the neccesary time to develop >imunno systems capable of defending them. This will probably have some >cost in lives lost, but i still feel it would work with good medical care, >quarantine procedures etc... Not virelent or deadly TO THEIR HOSTS! Others get hit hard. Ebola comes to mind. Killed 99% of folks in a week, but is thought to be fairly harmless to its host. >> And still on a terran world there is the possibilty of large (say >> T-Rex-sized) predators which don't make any racial difference in >> choosing their dinner... > >I would say that this is the least of our problems... There are LOTs of >large dangerous predators on Earth, but most of them are on the way to >becoming extinct! I'm perfectly confident that we could do the same on >purpose on another world that we have managed to do by "accident" here. >When it comes to large life-forms, I'd be much more concerned with what >we'd do to their chances of survival then the other way around. (Unless >they are Sentient of course... That's an entirly different matter.) First rule of exploration. Bring bigger guns! ;) >> 2. If the alien biosphere is fundamentally different form ours (e.g. a >> planet with microbial ecosystems miles beneath the surface or a surface >> environment with a different temperature regime, much higher pressures >> or a different atmospheric composition) then there is no problem with >> contamination; but why should we found a colony on a world as >> comfortable to humans as the entrance to Hell?? >> > > >Because as long as it produces MOST of what we need to survive (food, >water, air) it's a lot Cheaper/less industrially tasking than terraforming >a "dead" planet... $$$ not Comfort is likely to be the deciding factor >(IMO). > > >> In case of colonization, it seems much better to choose a Mars-like, but >> sterile Planet/Moon. I think its much, much easier just to warm a planet >> and install a thicker atmosphere than to fight against alien lifeforms >> every single day. You can still explore the aliens from your base on a >> terraformed world. > >Sure, I agree that it is EASYIER... But it's also MUCH more resource >intensitive and mor expensive... You'll have to transport a LOT of extra >payload to Terraform a world even if you can use raw material from the >target star system... (Mostly biological stuff, i would guess) > >Besides, a planet with a long Ecological history is much more likely to >have more interesting resourses for exploitation. (I.e. the different >Chemical conpounds there will be much more complex than the simple Oxides >& silicates comon to lifeless worlds.) > > >> >> Christoph >> >> P.S.: in all other points, you are right. >> >> >> ______________________________________________________ >> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >> > >Just a few thoughts... > > >Bjorn... > > >PS: If we're just gona Terraform a lifeless "rock". Why just not pick >Mars??? Makes all this several LY star-voyages kinda unneccesary... >(and there are LOTs of other candidates in the solar system as well.) Why not build your own orbital worlds from spaced based resources. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Apr 30 19:47:43 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4554" "Thu" "30" "April" "1998" "22:47:04" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "128" "Re: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA25429 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:47:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.42]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA25413 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:47:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UZJGa19024 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:47:04 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <59d01acd.354937a9@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 4553 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:47:04 EDT In a message dated 4/28/98 3:01:08 AM, f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se wrote: > >First off, I'm new to this list so If i kinda "mess up" please try not to >hurt me (too much) :-) > >A litle bit about myself: > >I'm a soon to bee Engineer (Msc in Engineering Physics with a Materials >science specialization). Just finishing up my thesis right now... >I live in Uppsala, sweden. So english is NOT my first language so if I >make linquistical errors, that's probably why... > >I have a Keen interest in Astronomy, Space physics and Space Engineering, >I've also tried to take a few courses in those areas (Not too many though, >there are not many Well-PAYING jobs in those areas, at least not in >sweden.) My other interests consists of Basketball, role-playing and >Boardgaming... > >Well, enough the introduction... Welcome to the group. >On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, L. Parker wrote: > > >> > I also disagree with the idea of having a heavy colonization >> > vessel. Just outfit Explorer >> > size ships for colonization and build up the number of people >> > on your colony slowly. >> > If you must colonize in large numbers use an Explorer with a >> > caretaker crew of say a hundred or two hundred people and put the rest >> > in suspended animation of some kind, >> > dead people don't eat, produce much waste or need private >> > quaters, you could probably >> > get an Explorer to haul 1000 people including the crew if you >> > put 800-900 of them in suspended animation. >> >> A colonization vessel would have to carry 10,000 people minimum. Explorer >> can't do it with or without suspended animation. >> > > >IMO, there are TWO main things which needs to be considered for >determining how large a "colonization force" has to be. These are in turn >affected of which colonization SCENARIO is availible. > >I'll try to iron out the 3 main "crude" clasifications of scenarios first: > > > >1) >We find a FUNCTIONING Eco-system, which provides most of our needs >(food, air, water, etc) and which DOES NOT kill us (by Diseases or other >micro-organisms). >Chances of having this kinda luck is propably small, but if it occurs >should OF COURSE be taken advantadge of!!! (This is like winning the >"Sweepstakes prize".) Yeah this one would be at least 1,000,000 to 1 odds. >2) >We decide to build a totaly SELF-CONTAINED colony, either in space or in a >SEALED structure on a planet surface. (This is probably the most likely >case IMO) This will probably be posible for almost ANY system which we >would be interested in. Agreed, probably easier and safer in space. Certainly harder to mine and keep out contamination on the ground. >3) >We decide to introduce Life-forms into an otherwise DEAD or UNEVOLED >Eco-system, in essence terraforming the planet in question. (This will >probably be WAY beyond our resources and Knowledge for quite a while.) In >any case, this kind of colony would almost certanly be preceeded by one >built as in scenario 2... Also true, but you have to be REALLY patient! ;) >SO, which are the two main criteria??? > >First: We must bring enough INDIVIDUALS to ensure that we have enough >"genetic diversity", to protect vs Inbreeding and such things. >Unfortunatly my Biological/medical knowledge is way to poor to know have >many this is, maybe someone else knows??? In addition, in both scenario 2 >and 3, we must also bring enough of all SUPORTING life-forms to ensure the >same diversity. > >Secondly: We must bring enough INDIVIDUALS or have a high enough >REPRODUCTION rate to make the colony grow "fast enough" to be "economicly" >viable and self-suporting... >Personally I'd think that WITHOUT any special measures we could propably >DOUBLE (This is just 4 kids per couple after all.) the population each >generation. (about 1/3rd of a century) And that could maybe be improved a >lot trough "artificial" breeding programs or "cloning"... Any ideas??? > >Well, this is just my ideas anyway... > > Given all developed world countries are having to few kids to sustain their population, assuming they tripple to quadruple their birth rate on a colony might be unjustified. Cloning doesn't help to much since the problem is people not wanting enough kids. (Thou genetic stock miight be exented with frozen sperm and ovum if nessisary.) Another factor is you need enough indeviduals to sustain your technical society. Currently that takes millions, but its unlikely to take less then tens of thousands 50 years from now. (We've had many arguments on that point.) >Bjorn Nilsson Kelly Starks From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Apr 30 19:49:06 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3788" "Thu" "30" "April" "1998" "22:46:57" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "94" "Re: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "4" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA25772 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:49:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.33]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA25765 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:49:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UJOQa02863 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:46:57 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 3787 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 22:46:57 EDT In a message dated 4/29/98 4:49:47 AM, guderiak@hotmail.com wrote: >Hi Bjorn, > >>And YES a planet is maybe NOT neccesary for the colony to survive, but >it >>probably IS neccisary for the endevour to make "economic sense" even in >>the long run. (If the target star system doesn't have planetary bodies >you >>wanna exploit, why go there???) >==> A very, very good idea... We never could come up with a reason for a colony. Resources are more plentiful and easy to get to in space, and the danger of an ecology is less. But, this solar system is rich in stuff too, and its a lot easier to set up a colony nearer to your spare parts suplier. ;) >>> Which brings us back to the need for survey. Without a good prior >survey, we >>> won't have any idea what we need to colonize a planet with. Face it, >some >>> amount of Terraforming is going to be necessary no matter how Earth >like a >>> planet may seem. >> >>Actually I disagree with this... It's probably MUCH more easy to adapt >the >>colonists than the planet if the changes are small. For exsample with >>Vaccines, imunization or other "artificial" bio-medical solutions then >to >>try to change the whole microbiological Eco-system of the planet. This >may >>of course also have large social/moral/ethical concerns as well as >>practical problems. (For one thing, it might be inposible for "Earth" >>humans and "colony" humans to interact personally w/o risk of plagues.) >> >> >==> As a biologist, it seems rather strange to me how many people think >of colonizing a terran world with it's own biosphere. In my opinion one >of two things will happen: > >1. The alien ecosphere and the genetic/biochemical composition of it's >species is closely similar to ours; this is the worst case, for it means >that the colonists will encounter millions of microorganisms and other >small creatures AGAINST wich they don't have any resistancy, but FOR >wich they are the most ideal place to start their own colony... >Look at Africa for similar scenarios and remember HOW LONG it might take >to develope a vaccine even against a virus known in as much detail as >HIV. >And still on a terran world there is the possibilty of large (say >T-Rex-sized) predators which don't make any racial difference in >choosing their dinner... The T-rex senerio was why I always advocated armored and highly armed ground craft. ;) As to the microbs, a bit of American history. The term "Manifest destiny" was an old phrase in the American colonies refuring to a beleaf that god ment us to take over the continent from the indians. Where it first came from is the early colonists (not the first, but soon after) who found a continent of dead indians. Vilages recently abandoned or full of dead and deing. Old world deseases whiped out well over 95% of the tribal populations before they ever saw a white guy. All that from desaese they'ld only been isolated from for a few thousand years. >2. If the alien biosphere is fundamentally different form ours (e.g. a >planet with microbial ecosystems miles beneath the surface or a surface >environment with a different temperature regime, much higher pressures >or a different atmospheric composition) then there is no problem with >contamination; but why should we found a colony on a world as >comfortable to humans as the entrance to Hell?? What you don't like a chalenge?! ;) >In case of colonization, it seems much better to choose a Mars-like, but >sterile Planet/Moon. I think its much, much easier just to warm a planet >and install a thicker atmosphere than to fight against alien lifeforms >every single day. You can still explore the aliens from your base on a >terraformed world. > >Christoph > >P.S.: in all other points, you are right. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Apr 30 21:07:39 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1501" "Fri" "1" "May" "1998" "00:06:47" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "36" "Re: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA19086 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:07:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA19068 for ; Thu, 30 Apr 1998 21:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UKSVa21205 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 00:06:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1500 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 00:06:47 EDT In a message dated 4/30/98 4:46:41 PM, jon_jay1@juno.com wrote: >Hello? Is anyone even listening to me. At least 10 e-mails ago I sent the >following: > >>>In fact my opinion would be to send probes followed by two or three >small 50-75 >>>crew ships to set up a colony and then send two Explorers with 3/4 of >the >>compliment in suspended animation. > >> Now the we gotten back on the subject, I've had a theory, but I >>haven't figured the details. I heard from a friend of mine of a >>surgical procedure that freezes part of the body so that the blood >>runs as a thick fluid, very slowly, so they don't lose much blood. >>With this procedure in mind, I was wondering if it would be possible >>to freeze the bodies at the given temperature and use nitrous oxide, >>ether, etc (some sort of anesthetic) to put them to sleep, using IVs >>and such to provided the needed nutrients to the body. >> I'm not trained in any sort of medication or freezing processes, so >>I just thought I'd ask. > > > Was anyone paying attention or did I just humiliate myself in front of >the many newsletter members. If it must be more in depth, I also heard >from another that slower blood may mean slower brain function and >possibly slower groth rate. The anesthetic (by the way, it doesn't have >to be an anesthetic) is only used to get them to sleep. Thought we answered that? We don't have a clue on how to do suspended animation, and I have doubts about 50-75 person ships. >Jonathan Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri May 1 05:50:25 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1794" "Fri" "1" "May" "1998" "05:49:50" "PDT" "Christoph Kulmann" "guderiak@hotmail.com" nil "45" "Re: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA13704 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 05:50:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f99.hotmail.com [207.82.250.218]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id FAA13697 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 05:50:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 23455 invoked by uid 0); 1 May 1998 12:49:50 -0000 Message-ID: <19980501124950.23454.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.102.12.105 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 01 May 1998 05:49:50 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.102.12.105] Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Christoph Kulmann" Content-Length: 1793 From: "Christoph Kulmann" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 05:49:50 PDT > >In a message dated 4/28/98 3:01:08 AM, f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se wrote: > >>SO, which are the two main criteria??? >> >>First: We must bring enough INDIVIDUALS to ensure that we have enough >>"genetic diversity", to protect vs Inbreeding and such things. >>Unfortunatly my Biological/medical knowledge is way to poor to know have >>many this is, maybe someone else knows??? ==> In wildlife biology, it is generally agreed that any population must consist of more than 200 individuals to remain healthy. And if there are less than 50 individuals left, it's most likely that the population is doomed to extinction. Note: This is not true for zoos. There are cases in which a whole species (e.g. the onyx antelope) has been successfully recreated on the basis of only 9 specimen. So I think a colonization program starting with 10,000 people is a very safe proposal. In the Alpes or Pyrenees, there are mountain villages with less than 1,000 inhabitants, and it is supposed that at least a few of them have an uninterupted existence since prehistoric days; this is especially the case for the Western Pyrenees, where there are still Basque villages which can hardly be reached by foot or horse. But if you start a colony of 10,000 on the surface of a planet, it would still need support from Earth (at least one ship every 50 years), because it is unlikely that a small community can repair or rebuild vital large scale equipment (say a fusion power plant) on their own. In addition, in both scenario 2 >>and 3, we must also bring enough of all SUPORTING life-forms to ensure the >>same diversity. ==> Right, but don't start to clone your cattle... Christoph ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri May 1 19:19:23 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3136" "Sat" "2" "May" "1998" "03:14:38" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "59" "starship-design: Re: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA17037 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 19:19:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.xs4all.nl (smtp1.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.51]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA17030 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 19:19:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tim (es01-02.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.50.3]) by smtp1.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id EAA07185 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 04:19:04 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980502031438.007d41f0@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <19980501124950.23454.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 3135 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Sat, 02 May 1998 03:14:38 +0100 In response to Christoph Kulmann and others who wrote about this subject. >==> In wildlife biology, it is generally agreed that any population must >consist of more than 200 individuals to remain healthy. And if there are >less than 50 individuals left, it's most likely that the population is >doomed to extinction. >Note: This is not true for zoos. There are cases in which a whole >species (e.g. the onyx antelope) has been successfully recreated on the >basis of only 9 specimen. From several (probably) sf movies or series I saw, about 100 people always seems to be enough when they mention genetic variety. And in most countries marrying with anyone more distant than a direct niece or nephew isn't considered a problem, unless clear genetic errors are already visible. >But if you start a colony of 10,000 on the surface of a planet, it would >still need support from Earth (at least one ship every 50 years), >because it is unlikely that a small community can repair or rebuild >vital large scale equipment (say a fusion power plant) on their own. Some time ago I suggested that most everyday objects should be re-engineered to be made from a small amount of different substances, with the goal to need a minimal amount of equipment needed to produce the objects. Furthermore the objects should be easy to assemble by humans and parts should be easy (in a short time) to replace. I'm assuming that automatic assembly would need to much specific equipment. The human assemblers would have access to a database which explains how to assemble each object. This may mean that the objects don't look nice, or that they actually use a bit more plastic or copper. It probably also means that making bulk amounts of such objects will actually take much more time and energy than in today's normal production proces. (Eg. rather than making plastic molds for all kinds of objects, blocks of plastic will be milled into the right shape by an preprogrammed automatic miller.) My guess is that a lot of time can be gained by the above scenario. Also a way to automatically produce food would be a real time saver. I'm not thinking about a varied meal with all kinds of vegetables, meat and whatever. It may be a few square lumps of protein, sugar and fat. These substances probably could somehow be produced in bulk without the need of farming. (Think of tanks of bacteria that turn some substance in an other.) I'm not suggesting that this would be the diet for say 50 years, but that it should be a base to fall back upon when time is scarce. Likely other scenarios can be thought of to save time. Keep in mind that we do want to optimize small production amounts, rather than bulk amounts. Also that certain resources may not be considered as scarce as on Earth. (Eg. If we find a single oilwell, we'd have enough for thousants of years. A single vein of gold would suffice for a similar amount of time.) Also things like pollution control would make little sense. These are just some things that come to mind, there must be many others. So I do wonder if we need as large numbers of colonists as some think. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri May 1 20:38:10 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2940" "Sun" "3" "May" "1998" "00:34:20" "-0300" "Antonio C T Rocha" "arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br" nil "54" "Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA03572 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 20:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (srv1.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA03560 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 20:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsb.nutecnet.com.br (dl1202-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.202]) by srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (8.8.5/SCA-6.6) with ESMTP id AAA29836 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 00:38:23 -0300 (BRA) Message-ID: <354BE5BC.666F6892@bsb.nutecnet.com.br> Organization: is an autistic ideal X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000201bd67ed$17212480$cd4431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> <19980428.193945.6326.3.jon_jay1@juno.com> <19980430.174506.8718.1.jon_jay1@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Antonio C T Rocha Content-Length: 2939 From: Antonio C T Rocha Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 00:34:20 -0300 An acquaintance of mine underwent an accident last year and the doctors chose to put him under an "induced coma" to improve his chances of recovery. I was told that this also lowered his metabolic rate somewhat. This seems like a start. Also, I remember reading (about 10 years ago) about promising research was being done on mammal - not amphibian - hibernation. My internet searches have not revealed much about the progress attained since then. If research has not been suspended, I _suppose_ that another 50 years of it could bring about enough knowledge to induce multi-year long periods of "suspended animation" or "hypo-metabolic state". If a 9:1 ratio of "sleep time" to "waking time" can be obtained by then, the ship could function with "only" 20% of its complement "awake" at any time. I have the impression that, say, half of those would be undergoing exercise and recovery (or prep for their next sleep fase). Would 10% or 8% of the complement be enough to function as crew? Jonathan J Jay wrote: > Hello? Is anyone even listening to me. At least 10 e-mails ago I sent the > following: > > >>In fact my opinion would be to send probes followed by two or three > small 50-75 > >>crew ships to set up a colony and then send two Explorers with 3/4 of > the >>compliment in suspended animation. > > > Now the we gotten back on the subject, I've had a theory, but I > >haven't figured the details. I heard from a friend of mine of a > >surgical procedure that freezes part of the body so that the blood > >runs as a thick fluid, very slowly, so they don't lose much blood. > >With this procedure in mind, I was wondering if it would be possible > >to freeze the bodies at the given temperature and use nitrous oxide, > >ether, etc (some sort of anesthetic) to put them to sleep, using IVs > >and such to provided the needed nutrients to the body. > > I'm not trained in any sort of medication or freezing processes, so > >I just thought I'd ask. > > Was anyone paying attention or did I just humiliate myself in front of > the many newsletter members. If it must be more in depth, I also heard > from another that slower blood may mean slower brain function and > possibly slower groth rate. The anesthetic (by the way, it doesn't have > to be an anesthetic) is only used to get them to sleep. > > Jonathan > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I will speak ill of no one, > And all the good I know of everybody. -Andrew Jackson > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > P.S.: If I did humiliate myself, don't rub it in. > > _____________________________________________________________________ > You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. > Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com > Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri May 1 21:30:29 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1059" "Fri" "1" "May" "1998" "21:29:40" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "24" "Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA13947 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 21:30:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA13942 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 21:30:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [205.163.58.218] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA793 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 21:32:16 -0700 Message-ID: <354A30B4.1F50@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000001bd749c$b690b920$4e5431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 1058 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 21:29:40 +0100 L. Parker wrote: > > Nels, > > Did you ever consider that most of what makes a planet habitable is the > inhabitants? Terra like planets don't just instantly spring into existence, > it is a gradual process of reinforcement over millions of years. You might > as well attempt to terraform an airless asteroid as follow the procedure you > mention. The end result will be the same... > > Lee Lee, I agree with the above, however i think that transplanting an earthlife based ecosystem is much safer than atempting to co-exist with native microbes. We would provide the inhabitants, making the world habitable. The process should be fairly short, witness the rejuvenation of the terrain arround Mt. St. Helens here in Washington. BTW, some have mentioned the "T-Rex scenario." It shouldn't be a problem for long given the inevitablilty of exposure of the native environment to earth microbes and fungi. In fact, prolonged contact between earth and other ecosystems is bound (murphy's law) to end in disaster for both parties. Best Regards, Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat May 2 21:00:31 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["857" "Sat" "2" "May" "1998" "22:58:03" "-0500" "Jonathan J Jay" "jon_jay1@juno.com" nil "18" "starship-design: Air born Viruses" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA26269 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 2 May 1998 21:00:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x13.boston.juno.com (x13.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.27]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA26264 for ; Sat, 2 May 1998 21:00:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jon_jay1@juno.com) by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id XwR03307; Sat, 02 May 1998 23:58:24 EDT Message-ID: <19980502.225804.4382.0.jon_jay1@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 5-8,10 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Content-Length: 856 From: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Air born Viruses Date: Sat, 2 May 1998 22:58:03 -0500 In watching many Sci-Fi movie, I've come across two different points that contradict each other, and you probably have too. In WAR OF THE WORLDS, the invading aliens are killed by viruses and bacteria that they are not immune to; in another movie, however, I forget which, it said the viruses and other agent have not adapted to use of human cells. I was wondering which of these is more likely of happening. Jonathan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To know is nothing at all; To imagine is everything. -Anatole France _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 3 04:05:40 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1128" "Sun" "3" "May" "1998" "12:03:37" "+0100" "A West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "23" "Re: starship-design: Air born Viruses" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA29108 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 3 May 1998 04:05:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mserv1b.u-net.net (mserv1b.u-net.net [195.102.240.137]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id EAA29099 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 04:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (daishi) [195.102.195.60] by mserv1b.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yVwa9-00054Y-00; Sun, 3 May 1998 12:05:23 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980503120337.0083eac0@mail.u-net.com> X-Sender: andrew-hmm@mail.u-net.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <19980502.225804.4382.0.jon_jay1@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: A West Content-Length: 1127 From: A West Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Air born Viruses Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 12:03:37 +0100 At 22:58 02/05/98 -0500, you wrote: > In watching many Sci-Fi movie, I've come across two different >points that contradict each other, and you probably have too. In WAR OF >THE WORLDS, the invading aliens are killed by viruses and bacteria that >they are not immune to; in another movie, however, I forget which, it >said the viruses and other agent have not adapted to use of human cells. >I was wondering which of these is more likely of happening. Viruses that kill their hosts are not properly adapted - afterall, their "aim" in life is to multiply. Therefore the potentially dangerous ones are the ones that cannot be adapted to their new hosts. I expect that even if a virus is not adapted, it won't necessarily be able to survive, or if it does, do any harm, but the potential is there to do damage. Plus, there are millions upon millions of diferent viruses, and you're likely to be exposed to a fair few of those wherever you go. Even if the chances aren't that good that a given virus will do you any damage, if you're exposed to, say a hundred different viruses, only 1 has to be damamging... Andrew West From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 3 13:46:00 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2824" "Sun" "3" "May" "1998" "16:54:40" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "58" "Re: starship-design: Air born Viruses" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA13687 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 3 May 1998 13:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.xs4all.nl (smtp2.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA13588 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 13:45:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tim (es01-24.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.50.25]) by smtp2.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA18379 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 22:45:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980503165440.007d3e50@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <19980502.225804.4382.0.jon_jay1@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 2823 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Air born Viruses Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 16:54:40 +0100 Hello Jonathan, > In watching many Sci-Fi movie, I've come across two different >points that contradict each other, and you probably have too. In WAR OF >THE WORLDS, the invading aliens are killed by viruses and bacteria that >they are not immune to; in another movie, however, I forget which, it >said the viruses and other agent have not adapted to use of human cells. >I was wondering which of these is more likely of happening. This is a difficult question since we do know little about how foreign such virii and bacteria will be. Virusii need compatable DNA to multiply. Unless somehow our DNA is compatible, virusii won't make much of a chance. (The reason virii can cross species is that we have many genes that are the same or at least very similar.) So the question is whether life has a rather similar way to solve problems, thus whether it will use similar DNA sequences to create a biological being on Earth or on some distant planet. Then again if virii attack us at those similar points, our body likely has already some distant solution for it. About bacteria, they will be detected by our immune system, since virtually everything foreign is not accepted by our body. (Hence organs are sometimes rejected in after a organ transplantation. (They use medicine to counteract that.)) So detection of a foreign being usually is fast, and the body will react by changing its temperature (this usually will slow down they enemy's growth). Unfortunately our immunesystem may take a while to find a more effective way of stopping "nasty critters", but by then it may be too late. My guess is that the more foreign the critter, the longer it will take. This may sound as if bacteria make a good chance. And yes they would, assuming they would find our body comfortable enough to live in. I could conceive that if most creatures on the foreign planet had a bodytemp 10 degrees below ours, that only few bacteria would be able to thrive in our body. There are many other factors than temperature alone that need to be near an optimum for a bacteria to make much of a chance. So once again how creative is nature in finding solutions. So while virii may not be a danger if nature has found different DNA sets to solve the same problem. Whether that is true, has yet to be determined. However bacteria have a lot more chances, since they are less choosy. Especially if the larger creatures and circumstances are Earthlike (eg. warmblooded animals and an average global temperature of 15 degreesC) bacteria make a good chance. Timothy BTW. Why "AIR BORN" in the subject? As far as I know an airborn virus is the last mutation a succesful virus will go though to reach it fullest potential. It does this by creating relative large hairs that will make it float better. (Eg. like seeds blown by the wind) From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 3 16:30:40 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["717" "Sun" "3" "May" "1998" "16:29:48" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "17" "Re: starship-design: Air born Viruses" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA01709 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 3 May 1998 16:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA01702 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 16:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [205.163.58.159] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA788 for ; Sun, 3 May 1998 16:32:40 -0700 Message-ID: <354C8D6B.2800@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <19980502.225804.4382.0.jon_jay1@juno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 716 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: Re: starship-design: Air born Viruses Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 16:29:48 +0100 Jonathan J Jay wrote: > > In watching many Sci-Fi movie, I've come across two different > points that contradict each other, and you probably have too. In WAR OF > THE WORLDS, the invading aliens are killed by viruses and bacteria that > they are not immune to; in another movie, however, I forget which, it > said the viruses and other agent have not adapted to use of human cells. > I was wondering which of these is more likely of happening. > > Jonathan Jonathan, Don't forget the fungi and other sacrophages. They'll eat just about anything organic. To them, humans look like a big cheesecake. I have seen a piece of damp bread turn completely into a spongy mass in 20 days. yucko! Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon May 4 09:19:19 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1199" "Sun" "3" "May" "1998" "23:55:59" "+0000" "Stephen Harley" "stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com" nil "39" "starship-design: Spin-up Spin-down." "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA08683 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 4 May 1998 09:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monsoon.dial.pipex.net (monsoon.dial.pipex.net [158.43.128.69]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA08665 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 09:19:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 7181 invoked from network); 4 May 1998 16:19:09 -0000 Received: from userm335.uk.uudial.com (HELO dial.pipex.com) (193.149.78.131) by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 4 May 1998 16:19:09 -0000 Message-ID: <354CF5FE.1C5E5D80@dial.pipex.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Stephen Harley Content-Length: 1198 From: Stephen Harley Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: LIT Starship Design Group Subject: starship-design: Spin-up Spin-down. Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 23:55:59 +0000 Hi, Kelly pointed out that the size of a hab ring needed to provide a 1G gravity enviroment for the crew was so big that we might as well use all the space. This assumes this is the method we use to provide gravity but for arguments sake lets assume we use the spinning ring method. Would it be possible to use a small ring for a lower gravity enviroment on the ship and then when the crew return do one of two things. (1) by then we'd probably have colonies on the Moon and Mars, send the crew to live there since they have much lower gravity enviroments. (2) If the crew insist on returning to Earth build a full scale spinning hab ring in orbit and spend a few years bringing them slowly back up to Earth normal gravity. My question is if option (2) is medically feasible. If so my proposed crew of 75, will not have a rough time of it in the spin up ring since that ring could comforably hold 700 hundred for a voyage, so they'd have a large landscaped place to spend a couple of years and their relatives can come up and visit. They can write their books and sell the film rights etc... and be debriefed on the ring. -- stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com http://ds.dial.pipex.com/s.harley/ From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon May 4 09:19:19 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["6053" "Sun" "3" "May" "1998" "23:00:16" "+0000" "Stephen Harley" "stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com" nil "130" "Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA08653 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 4 May 1998 09:19:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monsoon.dial.pipex.net (monsoon.dial.pipex.net [158.43.128.69]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA08578 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 09:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 7162 invoked from network); 4 May 1998 16:19:00 -0000 Received: from userm335.uk.uudial.com (HELO dial.pipex.com) (193.149.78.131) by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 4 May 1998 16:19:00 -0000 Message-ID: <354CE8EF.9345CB7A@dial.pipex.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------B84E3CC80E5C421349893FF8" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Stephen Harley Content-Length: 6052 From: Stephen Harley Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 23:00:16 +0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------B84E3CC80E5C421349893FF8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -- stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com http://ds.dial.pipex.com/s.harley/ --------------B84E3CC80E5C421349893FF8 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <354CE87B.DD5A4839@dial.pipex.com> Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 22:58:21 +0000 From: Stephen Harley X-Mozilla-Draft-Info: internal/draft; vcard=0; receipt=0; uuencode=0; html=0; linewidth=113 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Antonio C T Rocha Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation References: <000201bd67ed$17212480$cd4431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> <19980428.193945.6326.3.jon_jay1@juno.com> <19980430.174506.8718.1.jon_jay1@juno.com> <354BE5BC.666F6892@bsb.nutecnet.com.br> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Antonio C T Rocha wrote: > An acquaintance of mine underwent an accident last year and the doctors chose to put him under an "induced > coma" to improve his chances of recovery. I was told that this also lowered his metabolic rate somewhat. This > seems like a start. > Also, I remember reading (about 10 years ago) about promising research was being done on mammal - not > amphibian - hibernation. My internet searches have not revealed much about the progress attained since then. > If research has not been suspended, I _suppose_ that another 50 years of it could bring about enough > knowledge to induce multi-year long periods of "suspended animation" or "hypo-metabolic state". If a 9:1 > ratio of "sleep time" to "waking time" can be obtained by then, the ship could function with "only" 20% of > its complement "awake" at any time. I have the impression that, say, half of those would be undergoing > exercise and recovery (or prep for their next sleep fase). Would 10% or 8% of the complement be enough to > function as crew? > This sounds like a good start, when Kelly says we have no-idea I think she means we have no idea how to completelystop and then start a body up again, perhaps "suspended animation" isn't the right name or not what we should be trying to do "deep sleep" or "induced coma" is probably the way to go. However we'd have to get some pretty sophisticated AI doctors to monitor the crew and make any changes, and have some specialist doctors in the crew. On the crew compliment side I reckon it really depends on how quickly you can bring someone out of their sleep state. I see no reason why a ship can't pretty much pilot and run itself for the most part it's just stuff like course corrections, and if your using onboard farms to produce food, that'd need human attention. But as Kelly keeps pointing out if something goes wrong your going to want as many people avalible to help out. It's no good if you've only got 10% crew awake and something goes wrong and you have to wait a week for the resident specialists to wake up. The other thing about crew numbers is how many your going to need Kelly says 700 to complete an exploration mission, I say under a hundred and Lee says twenty. I think Kelly means to do almost all the 'figuring out' on site, by this I mean when they discover something Kelly wants to record it, work out what it is, how it came to be etc... there and then. Well I reckon a hundred specialists can pretty much record everything and come up with working theories as to what it is and then send back the records, assuming the transmission is quicker than the ship (which is a fair bet.) back to Earth, where you can have the entire science community look at it. Okay your not going to get a message back saying "Well actually guys we all reckon its..." But they can wait until they get back to Earth and get debriefed. > Jonathan J Jay wrote: > > > Hello? Is anyone even listening to me. At least 10 e-mails ago I sent the > > following: > > > > >>In fact my opinion would be to send probes followed by two or three > > small 50-75 > > >>crew ships to set up a colony and then send two Explorers with 3/4 of > > the >>compliment in suspended animation. > > > > > Now the we gotten back on the subject, I've had a theory, but I > > >haven't figured the details. I heard from a friend of mine of a > > >surgical procedure that freezes part of the body so that the blood > > >runs as a thick fluid, very slowly, so they don't lose much blood. > > >With this procedure in mind, I was wondering if it would be possible > > >to freeze the bodies at the given temperature and use nitrous oxide, > > >ether, etc (some sort of anesthetic) to put them to sleep, using IVs > > >and such to provided the needed nutrients to the body. > > > I'm not trained in any sort of medication or freezing processes, so > > >I just thought I'd ask. > > > > Was anyone paying attention or did I just humiliate myself in front of > > the many newsletter members. If it must be more in depth, I also heard > > from another that slower blood may mean slower brain function and > > possibly slower groth rate. The anesthetic (by the way, it doesn't have > > to be an anesthetic) is only used to get them to sleep. > > > > Jonathan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I will speak ill of no one, > > And all the good I know of everybody. -Andrew Jackson > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > P.S.: If I did humiliate myself, don't rub it in. > > > > _____________________________________________________________________ > > You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. > > Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com > > Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] -- stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com http://ds.dial.pipex.com/s.harley/ --------------B84E3CC80E5C421349893FF8-- From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon May 4 09:19:19 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2127" "Mon" "4" "May" "1998" "00:15:03" "+0000" "Stephen Harley" "stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com" nil "57" "Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System)" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA08737 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 4 May 1998 09:19:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monsoon.dial.pipex.net (monsoon.dial.pipex.net [158.43.128.69]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA08685 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 09:19:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 7195 invoked from network); 4 May 1998 16:19:13 -0000 Received: from userm335.uk.uudial.com (HELO dial.pipex.com) (193.149.78.131) by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 4 May 1998 16:19:13 -0000 Message-ID: <354CFA76.55662498@dial.pipex.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000201bd749e$b86c4500$4e5431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Stephen Harley Content-Length: 2126 From: Stephen Harley Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" CC: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System) Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 00:15:03 +0000 L. Parker wrote: > > I think the original Pathfinder was too small but the idea is > > sound. I think the > > Explorer > > doesn't account for advances in computer technology and AI > > properly I hold my > > view > > that it is too large for inital exploration purposes. It's > > the sort of ship we'd > > all love to build, > > a do-anything ship. > > Well, this is where we get to opinions I suppose. I was trying to be > compromising. Kelly is assuming that I will require the vast resources of an > Explorer class vessel to catalog a new system sufficiently for potential > colonization and he may be right. I think that AI will make a great inroad > into the amount of human oversight that is required, but that AI will not be > sufficiently versatile to handle unknown or unknowable situations. You are > finding the need for humans to be just a little greater than I do and less > than Kelly does. > > Lee Lee it's not just an issue of how many people it takes to do the mission but also could you as a member of a crew on a small ship, that spends at least 20 probably 40 years of your adult life on a mission in deep space, so far from home that it's impossible to communicate with anybody from your family in realtime, live with interacting with only nineteen other human beings ? That's without getting to the mental state that when you arrive back on Earth you meet the president wearing your underpants on your head and having two pencils stuck up your nose, while doing an impression of a moo cow. :-) Stephen. Incidently if anybody on this group debating the size of the crew haven't read Kim Stanley Robinson's RED MARS I really suggest you do so. It's not only a reasonably good book (well it's passable.) but I reckon highlights some of the 'crew problems' your going to get on any voyage that takes longer than a year to complete. Or you could read Stephen Baxter's TITAN that's got a crew of six of which two die and one goes blind and insane by the time they reach Titan. Though RED MARS is more relevant to this discussion. -- stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com http://ds.dial.pipex.com/s.harley/ From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon May 4 09:19:19 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5521" "Sun" "3" "May" "1998" "23:39:02" "+0000" "Stephen Harley" "stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com" nil "154" "Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System)" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA08668 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 4 May 1998 09:19:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monsoon.dial.pipex.net (monsoon.dial.pipex.net [158.43.128.69]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA08631 for ; Mon, 4 May 1998 09:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 7173 invoked from network); 4 May 1998 16:19:05 -0000 Received: from userm335.uk.uudial.com (HELO dial.pipex.com) (193.149.78.131) by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 4 May 1998 16:19:05 -0000 Message-ID: <354CF204.15426C3B@dial.pipex.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000201bd749e$b86c4500$4e5431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Stephen Harley Content-Length: 5520 From: Stephen Harley Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" CC: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System) Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 23:39:02 +0000 L. Parker wrote: > Stephen, > > After the last couple of messages I just read, at least this one sounds > sane. > Thanks Lee I do try to keep myself on the right side of the thin line thatdevides genius from insanity. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stephen Harley [mailto:stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com] > > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 1998 1:45 PM > > To: L. Parker > > Subject: Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was > > Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System) > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not disputing that you need 10,000 people I'm disputing > > the need to bring > > them all at once > > and in one large ship. Second if your gonna setup a colony I > > think your going to > > want a > > two-world economy with people and minerals moving in both > > directions eventually. > > I see > > no point in building a big colony and abandoning it to it's > > fate. So why can't > > we send ten > > explorers over a period of ten years rather than build Caravan ? > > > > There may not be another ship. Do you want to trust your and your children's > future to the vagaries of politics back home on Earth? What if they send you > out and then cancel the program? Oh well, too bad? No, I want it all in one > boat. You may send as many boats as you like, but I would want everything I > need in the boat with ME. > We'll you can have everything you need to support you, remember my Explorerwould have most people in "deep sleep" or "suspended animation" if possible, so more room for supplies. And since your not going to need all that explorational junk Kelly wants to haul half way across the galaxy, I'd have sent a 75 person ship to do that before hand. I'm not suggesting we send all out people out on one ship and put the reactors and food on another. And besides if you got on the ship you knew the deal and the risks, if you arrive on the planet, set up camp and it looks like after your the only lot coming then don't have children. This would have to be explained to colonists, they must know what they are doing carries no money back warenty. These people must be prepared to die in space before they reach their destination. Back when thousands of people we're emmigrating from Europe to America the many colonists would die on the voyage because of poor conditions but these people were brave enough to go anyway. And as for politics I'd like to see any government explain to it's electorate that it was abandoning one thousand of its citizens to die who they put on a remote planet in another solar system. My view is that any government that ended a program that had gone that far would either have to be of a country in dire straits (quite a turn-around in a year from being able to send out a starship to perform the greatest mission mankind ever embarked upon.) or not care that next term they're going to get thrown out of government and replaced by another one. (one which will probably reinstate the program.) I'm not saying it's impossible for the program to be canceled and you left to die but at the very least its highly unlikely. If it was 100 people not 1000 then I'd agree you could explain that away, almost. > > I hadn't thought about before but I think if you've got > > people willing to > > provide theirsperm and ova so that other people can have kids > > I don't see why > > this should become > > anymore of a problem if your giving it so humans can spread > > off this planet and > > secure > > the future of the human race. > > Well, there is the problem. Getting people to donate their genetic > information for the use of strangers has not proven to be very attractive. Yeah but money makes the world go round offer enough hard cash for sperm & ovaand you'll be beating them off with a stick. It would nolonger be donation it'd be a sale which will benefit mankind. > And as someone pointed out, the female settlers still have to give birth to > the chlordane. Their will have to be several paradigm shifts in our way of > thinking first. > I'm sure we can find 1000 highly intelligent colonists who also happen to befanatics ;-) either that or we revert to treating women as property. Oopps, I've just gone over the line into insanity. Or have I ? > > Your correct having separate ships that depend on each other > > but why notones > > that don't ? Surely it'd been easier to design and build > > several smaller > > ship than one large one ? > > I didn't suggest several ships that depend upon one another. I stated that > each ship should be totally self sufficient. > > > I think the original Pathfinder was too small but the idea is > > sound. I think the > > Explorer > > doesn't account for advances in computer technology and AI > > properly I hold my > > view > > that it is too large for inital exploration purposes. It's > > the sort of ship we'd > > all love to build, > > a do-anything ship. > > Well, this is where we get to opinions I suppose. I was trying to be > compromising. Kelly is assuming that I will require the vast resources of an > Explorer class vessel to catalog a new system sufficiently for potential > colonization and he may be right. I think that AI will make a great inroad > into the amount of human oversight that is required, but that AI will not be > sufficiently versatile to handle unknown or unknowable situations. You are > finding the need for humans to be just a little greater than I do and less > than Kelly does. > > Lee -- stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com http://ds.dial.pipex.com/s.harley/ From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue May 5 06:34:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2927" "Tue" "5" "May" "1998" "20:10:42" "-0300" "Antonio C T Rocha" "arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br" nil "38" "Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA19935 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 06:34:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (srv1.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA19917 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 06:33:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsb.nutecnet.com.br (dl1149-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.149]) by srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (8.8.5/SCA-6.6) with ESMTP id KAA04150 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 10:34:19 -0300 (BRA) Message-ID: <354F9C72.340857AA@bsb.nutecnet.com.br> Organization: is a temporary solution X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <354CE8EF.9345CB7A@dial.pipex.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id GAA19930 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Antonio C T Rocha Content-Length: 2926 From: Antonio C T Rocha Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 20:10:42 -0300 Stephen Harley wrote: > -- > stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com > http://ds.dial.pipex.com/s.harley/ Neat. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation > Date: Sun, 03 May 1998 22:58:21 +0000 > From: Stephen Harley > To: Antonio C T Rocha > References: <000201bd67ed$17212480$cd4431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> > <19980428.193945.6326.3.jon_jay1@juno.com> <19980430.174506.8718.1.jon_jay1@juno.com> <354BE5BC.666F6892@bsb.nutecnet.com.br> > > (.........) > ... But as Kelly keeps pointing out if something goes wrong your going to want as many people avalible to help out. It's no good if you've only got 10% crew awake and something goes wrong and you have to wait a week for the resident specialists to wake up. It might not have to be that way. Automation can effectively multiply human capacity. That is what technology is really for. Within 50 years AI and robotics ought to permit at least semi-autonomous capacity in hydroponics, piloting, systems maintenance, biology and medicine. I imagine that AI databases and robots will surely be able to handle nearly all foreseeable procedures alone. Maybe engineering problem-solving AI will also be quite developed by then. Thus, in emergencies requiring human intervention, it will allow for 10 people do do the work of 100 or 1000. This, plus redundancy in waking-crew, supplies and "equipment" ought to be enough to allow the crew to fulfill their objectives. In other words. Within 50 years most of the resident specialists will possibly be in AI. That, plus the multiplying effect of semi-autonomous robots, ought to give a "skeleton" crew enough leeway in an emergency to solve the problem or keep it at bay until "great humans" are effectively awakened to tackle it. Perfect safety is inviable. It suffices for the chances of survival to be "good enough". (That means it would suffice for me). > (.......) > -- > stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com > http://ds.dial.pipex.com/s.harley/ From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue May 5 17:18:57 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1343" "Tue" "5" "May" "1998" "20:18:08" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: Re: starship-design: Air born Viruses" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA00670 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 17:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA00656 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 17:18:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id USXYa02449 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 20:18:08 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <59ded057.354fac41@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1342 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Air born Viruses Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 20:18:08 EDT In a message dated 5/3/98 5:05:49 AM, andrew@hmm.u-net.com wrote: >At 22:58 02/05/98 -0500, you wrote: >> In watching many Sci-Fi movie, I've come across two different >>points that contradict each other, and you probably have too. In WAR OF >>THE WORLDS, the invading aliens are killed by viruses and bacteria that >>they are not immune to; in another movie, however, I forget which, it >>said the viruses and other agent have not adapted to use of human cells. >>I was wondering which of these is more likely of happening. > >Viruses that kill their hosts are not properly adapted - afterall, their >"aim" in life is to multiply. >Therefore the potentially dangerous ones are the ones that cannot be >adapted to their new hosts. >I expect that even if a virus is not adapted, it won't necessarily be able >to survive, or if it does, do any harm, but the potential is there to do >damage. >Plus, there are millions upon millions of diferent viruses, and you're >likely to be exposed to a fair few of those wherever you go. >Even if the chances aren't that good that a given virus will do you any >damage, if you're exposed to, say a hundred different viruses, only 1 has >to be damamging... > >Andrew West Actually most of the super plagues are from viruses not adapted to humans. I.E. the whipe out all who are infected rapidly. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue May 5 17:19:01 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1554" "Tue" "5" "May" "1998" "20:18:11" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "50" "Re: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA00716 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 17:19:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.34]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA00696 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 17:18:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UHGSa14246 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 20:18:11 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <79029a5a.354fac46@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1553 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 20:18:11 EDT In a message dated 5/4/98 10:19:30 AM, stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com wrote: >> An acquaintance of mine underwent an accident last year and the doctors chose >to put him under an "induced >> coma" to improve his chances of recovery. I was told that this also lowered his >metabolic rate somewhat. This >> seems like a start. >> Also, I remember reading (about 10 years ago) about promising research was being >done on mammal - not >> amphibian - hibernation. My internet searches have not revealed much about the >progress attained since then. >> If research has not been suspended, I _suppose_ that another 50 years of it could >bring about enough >> knowledge to induce multi-year long periods of "suspended animation" or "hypo-metabolic >state". If a 9:1 >> ratio of "sleep time" to "waking time" can be obtained by then, the ship could >function with "only" 20% of >> its complement "awake" at any time. I have the impression that, say, half of >those would be undergoing >> exercise and recovery (or prep for their next sleep fase). Would 10% or 8% of >the complement be enough to >> function as crew? >> > >This sounds like a good start, when Kelly says we have no-idea I think >she means He by the way. >we have no idea how to >completely stop and then start a body up again, perhaps "suspended > animation" isn't the right name or not what we >should be trying >to do "deep sleep" or "induced coma" is probably the way to go. Induced coma is very hard on the nervious systems, and you still have full aging and life support loads. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue May 5 17:19:45 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["961" "Tue" "5" "May" "1998" "20:18:15" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: Spin-up Spin-down." "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA01073 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 17:19:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.41]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA01036 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 17:19:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UVUPa17533 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 20:18:15 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <3aff4fd9.354fac49@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 960 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Spin-up Spin-down. Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 20:18:15 EDT In a message dated 5/4/98 10:19:35 AM, stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com wrote: >Hi, > >Kelly pointed out that the size of a hab ring needed to provide a 1G >gravity >enviroment for the crew was so big that we might as well use all the >space. >This assumes this is the method we use to provide gravity >but for arguments sake lets assume we use the spinning ring method. > >Would it be possible to use a small ring for a lower gravity enviroment >on the ship >and then when the crew return do one of two things. (1) by then we'd >probably >have colonies on the Moon and Mars, send the crew to live there since >they have >much lower gravity enviroments. (2) If the crew insist on returning to >Earth build a >full scale spinning hab ring in orbit and spend a few years bringing >them slowly back >up to Earth normal gravity. Humans need 1G to stay in good health. Without it life expectancies drop and medical problems go up. Very bad on a long trip. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue May 5 17:20:06 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["784" "Tue" "5" "May" "1998" "20:18:13" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: Air born Viruses" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA01199 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 5 May 1998 17:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA01175 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 17:20:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UOLQa00148 for ; Tue, 5 May 1998 20:18:13 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <56b0b8d9.354fac47@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 783 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Air born Viruses Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 20:18:13 EDT In a message dated 5/2/98 10:02:16 PM, jon_jay1@juno.com wrote: > In watching many Sci-Fi movie, I've come across two different >points that contradict each other, and you probably have too. In WAR OF >THE WORLDS, the invading aliens are killed by viruses and bacteria that >they are not immune to; in another movie, however, I forget which, it >said the viruses and other agent have not adapted to use of human cells. >I was wondering which of these is more likely of happening. > >Jonathan Viruses need to have a reasonably similar genetic structure. Thou that would still allow humans, birds, and mamals to share viruses. Aliens would probably get off free. Bacteria on the other hand only need digestible tissues, so anyone protein based could have trouble. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 6 04:31:15 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5241" "Tue" "5" "May" "1998" "19:56:29" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "113" "starship-design: eMail Server meltdown" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA26125 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:31:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA26114 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p38.gnt.com [204.49.68.243]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA19065 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 06:31:06 -0500 Message-ID: <000201bd78e2$6b77d780$f34431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_01BD78B8.82F5BBE0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 5240 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: eMail Server meltdown Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 19:56:29 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01BD78B8.82F5BBE0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0004_01BD78B8.830684C0" ------=_NextPart_001_0004_01BD78B8.830684C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Apparently my eMail server was offline for several days. When I finally got mail again, there were several hundred messages awaiting me. I will try to respond to them as soon as I can. Please bear with me. Lee ------=_NextPart_001_0004_01BD78B8.830684C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Apparently my eMail server was offline for several days. When I = finally=20 got mail again, there were several hundred messages awaiting me. I will = try to=20 respond to them as soon as I can. Please bear with = me.
 
Lee
------=_NextPart_001_0004_01BD78B8.830684C0-- ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01BD78B8.82F5BBE0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Tech Tools.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <60425100@06051998-24f4> R0lGODlhIANyAKL/AAAAADMzM2ZmZpmZmcDAwAAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAEAAAQALAAAAAAgA3IAQAP/ SCqi/jAOQIcC8QmKMxSWJ45kaZ5oqq5s675wLM90bd94ru987/80SwPGAYQyRUeRAgIBn9CodEqt Wq/YrHbL3R4XSkBgNNgUA+UkYTyhZIbduHxOr9vv+Lx+jxt8MwMBFGMjHRFLHH98i4yNjo+QkZKT cW2IHoYegmKKEXCUoKGio6SlpqcxThCJBENngUuEImYOn62ouLm6u7y9vjxNlxccIpaZLQ2dv8vM zc7P0Hh+Jhy2qwqWyiUM0d3e3+Dh4i1l2g+smIDEJ4HW4+/w8fLzpscRm8qZANabHp/u9AIKHEiw YJQ/mcqsMoLkkD0ClmYZnEixosWLJfLtcxCI/6Obaw6HoPG4jiPGkyhTqhz3x9ogCRuVeGhjzpa5 lThz6tz5SMgJdIdEbJI1IhnPo0iTKpUzbYUZfUVfZry5tKrVq1jJPUyxhARQEQyzih1LtiyEplRL dK319OMbk2bjyp27s6lDt2ohbEJkaCtEuoADCzbYLkAAAYYR742FuHFiQY4VK+Yr5vBjy2kHa97M uVe+MHyJEvB712/mzqhTq5YUAuDoItxA4yUHd7Xt27gdkcZWEpMaF2FzCx9OvEvaiGAXzjahqrjz 59Cf7IbYG+Rf5duwRd/OvXsMRa6ryzz3sKS7097Tq4eu8G9bhkf8DAIRYkJ9P/iu/11cH6Lr9f8A BlicXR9ItRBCvnUiC3oCNuhgak39J95IF4C1nCcPZqghbhOowIFooxVyYUMblmhiYO2xkE2IIk53 y4kwxjhWOUSIpxyIZ/0n4448qjSEjsx9+MARsA0ySAgdMNjjkkzOYxccNhby2oftIXdPk1hmiZGC 1AU3ZCwdykaSlzgqqeWZaP5C4F0/eUJZTGnGKaeTxfBlQSCK2IMnZSSYOeefgLLmlZ1oIHhWocZ8 9UGgjDaKijmJwhYUNSPW5uilmEaiiGhAFUEkLJ6qwxCOQGZq6qmVOIDjlHeCsBgGLpJnyCd+omrr rT9YkORQTPz2xV6lkvAjrsQWi0VzmkQp5gv/7Rjr7LNArOmbl0GtSE6w0GarrQppbSKhrNgOWeu2 5JbLolqVnluLspiMa+67zt5pwlDJTXuCUfDmq+9ZtaDrlyEdYVcMNu7ua3CmX0hL0mfrbrrcHwUf LDHCqoqazpcPmeFauBN3jClCQAVMy6TkHUFhKyNG7PHKWiJrDCHxtYEob/eBOo28icLhh8os97yk wlO6s9xDbZz1hZ4+J32qtLLYONtWyp6n9NSX2rWqgeueMxPWJFLttaPDDop0hdNSleTXaMtJ408V dA1TuhxxnPbcGwLd4jGkKToTz3T3vZ3d/rpCBruW+m14jGG2sJe6b7sY6+GQr7cBDG2JbXbk/5iX 2AQMlqw6zGz2oWwE35mX3hngKBhjoVtrkW7665u1JoOk2n0OJ8Sw575efEZ7uBcbTKRRaX+6Fx8d ra21nVEDRqx1y1NvFW789Lnx8/ngztPepT2iuU7991UBNAYTGVBIpAZnOM84+OznZk5+1JS2hAWe e9/+/TndxEChed3DJxn4C6BmXCO8V9TLTXwBoAAXSBf61O5OoWlVNdLgqgmKbglDIB7qGMjBqqCl QIhIxlMYsIFgBE8Br1LeAzfYwRbyxByUAYhpUngyCbjwhlYxW2jctjc0/IeFOAziUYD3P62ZQGbF sJ8QlygPgMVCe+eqjzv6USYlMvGKztjUXf+OUDnbqRAJHwGRFbFIRl8krBOsgJKnMICsOsXkjGWM 40m0MUEzCKEajyMYvyAyRjn6ERe4W4Cv1kW4e/Hxj4gMCPGyp6xQfaePiYwka9qQDGr9pnx6U4ED JcnJcCTOjbuBIguo1clSPsNxcGse1zwESVO6Eg+lyuR4FkeOVr7yllx4ky53ycte7hKXwATkcdiV CeitIEXBTKYpPtkiKWGMlF6xpTKnOYVYEROM0ASLNKnJzWjF8ovWUU5mNtnNcmpKP6A8IAKP8yJz upMRxBPbAe1hR2GB4Z345MN95Hkx6rxNG7zLp0DvkLAfgnM8wwAjeGI20IbuwXOvkeEqxPj/xe5t 06EYPWI/QbhRlFmDkmsAxEUzStKZ5KhfDunoa0RFwJK6NJe2ONlB1/fFgM0UiC/NaQ0gpj6IGOZC 9OREDYfx0ZHqtKSKscyrLmMZX8biMoh5qlLldtSqHhM8D0MDZEhGnsOATFFGtapDAVK0NSRsaBbD hmgmJ9a29kAbI0tpOMkjAS4mzK14DYImRIdVTvlGojbMq2BfYL2F+W+uhBwBRAfLWBQg721gNOI/ ixLQxlpWo7UTVZ7OZy97ovOyoAXEPd3oEoSyKSOfDa1q9XhE8qkUNFQJ62qnubnWjsg0hWyFbGcL TGb2yWnNpMZueftKtqZOUXmDm2mJC9o2FLINTuuTFTuZe1mnWve616XuYBMAADvO3Ie7e6Vxi+qT zRfp5r1pnSde4ZOfwEpUxgHhxIncmtMShSWwNDkoZmycyrCSpJ5BLsyFyIrcNUSmLzvahEcSTJO4 4EcnsjhsJWIco4LQeJcaCSWT5tKhFRkZk9EIRTYwOqMbsVVEG6FpQSnyygs3ucXbAWsib/Rg1xbn lV9OiU5SGl4uS0YnVQ4JYSzblCNZqb7x9KmQDhMmSXI4mJ9VylL4ypyLJmcpjS1KV7iy2KHaN5ZN qUo8quIU9+CpKk3R01TKcdW8pvP/zZLgi1fj3BW5InLORUEmh+UcE3ZuFs1nWYmXvczUkH5GR/20 Czf/kokGG+OSaHHSkZf6ZHkE4lFO8iyTMYnYYUzppA2Sr5D1yqRRuMZLZ2qGoYQbVjPhxjUHimk7 cmFNu5CnyV2i52wJyhOJjikbjFiIXXn0UwuVWsnzjG+DaPLhNEFpoOE4LGJ9BF/FTDi7paKtOaNs DB9fyq6wLrSiY7mJMGVCShqp8I0KKmZLJ6nVEmmtWXvBV+5sqUiqcvJlsGPXVdCik0sVppaNkZJH Yyk8HHKksBcsz0MjpNgSsjGkf8sdT2nitAXuzpmfWV1Us6pVvB5lI4YR6Q0NWBMzWtVPlZKpCvq6 9KCtFooyPoUiLJ2227qIFGjsCyBlKxuwJAlphi4tkdN6GJVG+u5yyy3kAbe4V7G4DrCt7Z82gwvA qM7QtIUFamLsY9eaCHV1bZmnfOc732sEBAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_0003_01BD78B8.82F5BBE0-- From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 6 04:31:19 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1847" "Tue" "5" "May" "1998" "20:22:17" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "56" "RE: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA26141 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:31:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA26135 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:31:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p38.gnt.com [204.49.68.243]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA19091 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 06:31:14 -0500 Message-ID: <000801bd78e2$77408120$f34431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <59d01acd.354937a9@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 1846 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 20:22:17 -0500 > Given all developed world countries are having to few kids to > sustain their > population, assuming they tripple to quadruple their birth > rate on a colony > might be unjustified. Cloning doesn't help to much since the > problem is > people not wanting enough kids. (Thou genetic stock miight > be exented with > frozen sperm and ovum if nessisary.) > > Another factor is you need enough indeviduals to sustain your > technical > society. Currently that takes millions, but its unlikely to > take less then > tens of thousands 50 years from now. (We've had many > arguments on that > point.) > As Kelly says, we've had many arguements over this subject. I once pointed out that the crew of a modern nuclear aircraft carrier is the closest thing we have to a starship crew as currently proposed and tried to draw analogies from it: (1) Nuclear aircraft carriers can remain at sea for lengths of time equivalent to the missions we are talking about. Few other vessels can. (2) Even aircraft carriers have shore support nearby in an emergency, a starship won't. (3) This analogy only applies to nuclear aircraft carriers (someone was being picky). (4) Aircraft carriers are capable of maintenance and repair while under way. (5) Aircraft carriers have a similar size of crew complement. (6) How many barbers are necessary for a crew of ten thousand? Dentists? Grocers? Seamstresses? Basically, we need to send a small city with all of its many occupations. (7) The (dry) mass of the vessels is probably also comparable. (8) Unlike aircraft carriers, ALL water and food must be aboard initially. (9) Kelly established that for the mission durations we are typically talking about, it was more economical to store all food rather than plan on growing any onboard. Kelly, can you think of any points I left out ( I'm tired). Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 6 04:31:37 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["220" "Tue" "5" "May" "1998" "20:40:50" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "9" "RE: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA26192 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:31:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA26174 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p38.gnt.com [204.49.68.243]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA19124; Wed, 6 May 1998 06:31:25 -0500 Message-ID: <000f01bd78e2$7f911b00$f34431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <354BE5BC.666F6892@bsb.nutecnet.com.br> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 219 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Antonio C T Rocha'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 20:40:50 -0500 Antonio, Most of the crew requirement is at the other end. En route needs would actually be very small. In fact a bridge and engineering crew of twenty or thirty would probably suffice and they could be rotated. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 6 04:31:39 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["969" "Tue" "5" "May" "1998" "20:45:23" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "27" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA26197 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:31:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA26182 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:31:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p38.gnt.com [204.49.68.243]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA19139; Wed, 6 May 1998 06:31:30 -0500 Message-ID: <001001bd78e2$81c2a100$f34431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <354A30B4.1F50@olywa.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 968 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Lindberg'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 20:45:23 -0500 Nels, > I agree with the above, however i think that transplanting an > earthlife > based ecosystem is much safer than atempting to co-exist with native > microbes. We would provide the inhabitants, making the world > habitable. > The process should be fairly short, witness the rejuvenation of the > terrain arround Mt. St. Helens here in Washington. BTW, some have > mentioned the "T-Rex scenario." It shouldn't be a problem for > long given > the inevitablilty of exposure of the native environment to earth > microbes and fungi. In fact, prolonged contact between earth and other > ecosystems is bound (murphy's law) to end in disaster for > both parties. Which was exactly the point. If it is indeed that dangerous and difficult to exist on an Earth like planet, there is no point in bombing it back to asteroid status and starting over. Just pick a lifeless planet and start from scratch instead. Why would you want to commit gaiaicide for no reason? Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 6 04:31:45 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["772" "Tue" "5" "May" "1998" "20:47:14" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "27" "RE: starship-design: Air born Viruses" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA26233 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:31:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA26201 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:31:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p38.gnt.com [204.49.68.243]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA19160; Wed, 6 May 1998 06:31:33 -0500 Message-ID: <001101bd78e2$84407240$f34431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <19980502.225804.4382.0.jon_jay1@juno.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 771 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Jonathan J Jay'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Air born Viruses Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 20:47:14 -0500 Jonathon, Only time will tell. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of > Jonathan J > Jay > Sent: Saturday, May 02, 1998 10:58 PM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: starship-design: Air born Viruses > > > In watching many Sci-Fi movie, I've come across two different > points that contradict each other, and you probably have too. > In WAR OF > THE WORLDS, the invading aliens are killed by viruses and > bacteria that > they are not immune to; in another movie, however, I forget which, it > said the viruses and other agent have not adapted to use of > human cells. > I was wondering which of these is more likely of happening. > Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 6 04:31:50 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1616" "Tue" "5" "May" "1998" "21:00:32" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "46" "RE: Re: starship-design: Air born Viruses" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA26252 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:31:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA26243 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:31:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p38.gnt.com [204.49.68.243]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA19192; Wed, 6 May 1998 06:31:43 -0500 Message-ID: <001301bd78e2$89a6e480$f34431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <59ded057.354fac41@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 1615 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kelly St'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: Re: starship-design: Air born Viruses Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 21:00:32 -0500 Kelly brings up an important point. A well adapted organism does not wipe out its host or it ceases to exist itself. This is not an issue when dealing with an unknown organism. We are not the host that it evolved with and have not built in defense mechanisms. Likewise, the organism in question could prove to be excessively virulent (read fatal) to human hosts since we didn't evolve with it and are not part of the normal evolutionary system of checks and balances. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Kelly St > Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 1998 7:18 PM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Air born Viruses > > > > >Viruses that kill their hosts are not properly adapted - > afterall, their > >"aim" in life is to multiply. > >Therefore the potentially dangerous ones are the ones that cannot be > >adapted to their new hosts. > >I expect that even if a virus is not adapted, it won't > necessarily be able > >to survive, or if it does, do any harm, but the potential is > there to do > >damage. > >Plus, there are millions upon millions of diferent viruses, > and you're > >likely to be exposed to a fair few of those wherever you go. > >Even if the chances aren't that good that a given virus will > do you any > >damage, if you're exposed to, say a hundred different > viruses, only 1 has > >to be damamging... > > > >Andrew West > > Actually most of the super plagues are from viruses not > adapted to humans. > I.E. the whipe out all who are infected rapidly. > Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 6 04:32:03 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["182" "Tue" "5" "May" "1998" "20:53:22" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "7" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System)" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA26304 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:32:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA26279 for ; Wed, 6 May 1998 04:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p38.gnt.com [204.49.68.243]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id GAA19172; Wed, 6 May 1998 06:31:37 -0500 Message-ID: <001201bd78e2$874303e0$f34431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <354CFA76.55662498@dial.pipex.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 181 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Stephen Harley'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System) Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 20:53:22 -0500 At the risk of revealing my age, if you want a book that gives a good feel for the problems of relativity and time dilation in space travel, try Joe Haldeman's "Forever War". Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu May 7 17:01:16 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["997" "Wed" "6" "May" "1998" "17:04:34" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "30" "starship-design: CNN - Magazine predicts rocket failure will delay space station - May 6, 1998 (" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA00888 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 17:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA00869 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 17:00:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p9.gnt.com [204.49.68.214]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA01067 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 19:00:37 -0500 Message-ID: <001a01bd7a14$52fa1e60$f34431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01BD79EA.6A241660" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 996 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: CNN - Magazine predicts rocket failure will delay space station - May 6, 1998 ( Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 17:04:34 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BD79EA.6A241660 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kelly, I found this on CNN this afternoon...This news items hearkens back to several months ago when we were discussing reliability figures and mean time between failures (MTBF) and couldn't seem to convince certain members that the odds were as bad as we said they were. http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9805/06/science_space.reut/ ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BD79EA.6A241660 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="CNN - Magazine predicts rocket failure will delay space station - May 6, 1998.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CNN - Magazine predicts rocket failure will delay space station - May 6, 1998.url" [InternetShortcut] URL=http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9805/06/science_space.reut/ Modified=00E550843A79BD012A ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01BD79EA.6A241660-- From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu May 7 20:36:19 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["522" "Thu" "7" "May" "1998" "23:35:42" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "20" "Re: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11472 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 20:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo26.mx.aol.com (imo26.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11446 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 20:36:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo26.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UPWEa02436 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 23:35:42 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <37f9e303.35527d8f@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 521 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 23:35:42 EDT In a message dated 5/6/98 5:32:10 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >At the risk of revealing my age, if you want a book that gives a good feel > >for the problems of relativity and time dilation in space travel, try Joe > >Haldeman's "Forever War". > > > >Lee Just to add confusion, there is an old version that came out aboout 20+ years ago. AND their is a version he rewrote and reissued a couple years ago. The older was more origional. The newer changes Earth back home in more trendy and unlikely ways. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu May 7 20:36:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1891" "Thu" "7" "May" "1998" "23:35:34" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "88" "Re: RE: Re: starship-design: Air born Viruses" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11478 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 20:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11454 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 20:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id USMMa02408 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 23:35:34 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <65ebeba0.35527d8a@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1890 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: Re: starship-design: Air born Viruses Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 23:35:34 EDT In a message dated 5/6/98 5:31:46 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Kelly brings up an important point. A well adapted organism does not wipe >out its host or it ceases to exist itself. This is not an issue when dealing >with an unknown organism. We are not the host that it evolved with and have >not built in defense mechanisms. Likewise, the organism in question could >prove to be excessively virulent (read fatal) to human hosts since we didn't >evolve with it and are not part of the normal evolutionary system of checks >and balances. Opps! Teribly sorry! Thought you were a silver sea bat. Sorry about the genocide! >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > >> [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of Kelly St > >> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 1998 7:18 PM > >> To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > >> Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Air born Viruses > >> > >> > >> > >> >Viruses that kill their hosts are not properly adapted - > >> afterall, their > >> >"aim" in life is to multiply. > >> >Therefore the potentially dangerous ones are the ones that cannot be > >> >adapted to their new hosts. > >> >I expect that even if a virus is not adapted, it won't > >> necessarily be able > >> >to survive, or if it does, do any harm, but the potential is > >> there to do > >> >damage. > >> >Plus, there are millions upon millions of diferent viruses, > >> and you're > >> >likely to be exposed to a fair few of those wherever you go. > >> >Even if the chances aren't that good that a given virus will > >> do you any > >> >damage, if you're exposed to, say a hundred different > >> viruses, only 1 has > >> >to be damamging... > >> > > >> >Andrew West > >> > >> Actually most of the super plagues are from viruses not > >> adapted to humans. > >> I.E. the whipe out all who are infected rapidly. > >> > > > >Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu May 7 20:36:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["377" "Thu" "7" "May" "1998" "23:35:44" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "21" "Re: RE: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11483 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 20:36:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11469 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 20:36:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UBVGa25489 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 23:35:44 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 376 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 23:35:44 EDT In a message dated 5/6/98 5:31:42 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Antonio, > > > >Most of the crew requirement is at the other end. En route needs would > >actually be very small. In fact a bridge and engineering crew of twenty or > >thirty would probably suffice and they could be rotated. > > > >Lee To maintain a craft the size of a fleet of aircraft carriers? Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu May 7 20:36:19 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2472" "Thu" "7" "May" "1998" "23:35:39" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "121" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Ca" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11468 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 20:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA11445 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 20:36:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UEMMa02742 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 23:35:39 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <59e74184.35527d8d@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 2471 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Ca Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 23:35:39 EDT In a message dated 5/6/98 5:31:26 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >> Given all developed world countries are having to few kids to > >> sustain their > >> population, assuming they tripple to quadruple their birth > >> rate on a colony > >> might be unjustified. Cloning doesn't help to much since the > >> problem is > >> people not wanting enough kids. (Thou genetic stock miight > >> be exented with > >> frozen sperm and ovum if nessisary.) > >> > >> Another factor is you need enough indeviduals to sustain your > >> technical > >> society. Currently that takes millions, but its unlikely to > >> take less then > >> tens of thousands 50 years from now. (We've had many > >> arguments on that > >> point.) > >> > > > >As Kelly says, we've had many arguements over this subject. I once pointed > >out that the crew of a modern nuclear aircraft carrier is the closest thing > >we have to a starship crew as currently proposed and tried to draw analogies > >from it: > > > >(1) Nuclear aircraft carriers can remain at sea for lengths of time > >equivalent to the missions we are talking about. Few other vessels can. > > > >(2) Even aircraft carriers have shore support nearby in an emergency, a > >starship won't. > > > >(3) This analogy only applies to nuclear aircraft carriers (someone was > >being picky). > > > >(4) Aircraft carriers are capable of maintenance and repair while under way. > > > >(5) Aircraft carriers have a similar size of crew complement. > > > >(6) How many barbers are necessary for a crew of ten thousand? Dentists? > >Grocers? Seamstresses? Basically, we need to send a small city with all of > >its many occupations. > > > >(7) The (dry) mass of the vessels is probably also comparable. > > > >(8) Unlike aircraft carriers, ALL water and food must be aboard initially. > > > >(9) Kelly established that for the mission durations we are typically > >talking about, it was more economical to store all food rather than plan on > >growing any onboard. > > > >Kelly, can you think of any points I left out ( I'm tired). > > > >Lee Even carriers need to come in to port for major servicing ever few months (and have tons of spare parts flown out to them) and every few years they need a dry dock rework. Carriers have fleets of craft, which would be needed to explore a starsystem. Carriers still arn't big enough to make all their needed suplies, parts, etc with their crew of 10,000. Thats about all I can remember to add. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri May 8 06:14:54 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["366" "Fri" "8" "May" "1998" "08:04:19" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "16" "RE: RE: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA09381 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 06:13:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA09372 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 06:13:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p36.gnt.com [204.49.68.241]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA25332; Fri, 8 May 1998 08:13:29 -0500 Message-ID: <002001bd7a83$163ddf60$f34431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 365 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kelly St'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 08:04:19 -0500 Antonio, If our exploration vessel requires as much maintenance as even one aircraft carrier it won't make it there. Drawing analogies from other Earth (or water) bound vessels is always tricky. In some ways it would be better to use a nuclear submarine for comparison purposes. Lee > > To maintain a craft the size of a fleet of aircraft carriers? > > Kelly > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri May 8 06:23:55 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1308" "Fri" "8" "May" "1998" "08:23:28" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "26" "starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization " "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA10501 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 06:23:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA10493 for ; Fri, 8 May 1998 06:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p36.gnt.com [204.49.68.241]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA26672; Fri, 8 May 1998 08:23:49 -0500 Message-ID: <002101bd7a84$84f0fea0$f34431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <59e74184.35527d8d@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 1307 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kelly St'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 08:23:28 -0500 New comparison list incorporating changes by Kelly (1) Nuclear aircraft carriers can remain at sea for lengths of time equivalent to the missions we are talking about. Few other vessels can. (2) Aircraft carriers are capable of significant maintenance and repair while under way. However, aircraft carriers have shore support nearby in an emergency, a starship won't. Even carriers need to come in to port for major servicing ever few months (and have tons of spare parts flown out to them) and every few years (usually ten to fifteen)they need a dry dock rework. Carriers still aren't big enough to make all their needed supplies, parts, etc. with their crew of 10,000. (3) Aircraft carriers have a similar size of crew complement. How many barbers are necessary for a crew of ten thousand? Dentists? Grocers? Seamstresses? Basically, we need to send a small city with all of its many occupations. (4) The (dry) mass of the vessels is probably also comparable. (5) Unlike aircraft carriers, ALL water and food and spare parts must be aboard initially. Kelly established that for the mission duration's we are typically talking about, it was more economical to store all food rather than plan on growing any onboard. (6) Carriers have fleets of craft, which would be needed to explore a star system. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri May 8 09:57:33 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["256" "Fri" "8" "May" "1998" "09:54:41" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "6" "starship-design: paging Kevin Houston" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA17946 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 8 May 1998 09:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA17937 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Fri, 8 May 1998 09:57:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA16645; Fri, 8 May 1998 09:54:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13651.14545.182348.260756@darkwing.uoregon.edu> X-Mailer: VM 6.47 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Length: 255 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: paging Kevin Houston Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 09:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Kevin's email addresses at umn.edu have been bouncing for over a week now, so I've unsubscribed them. If anyone knows how to contact Kevin somewhere else, you might want to let him know that he needs to resubscribe at whatever his new address might be. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat May 9 09:53:35 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5266" "Sun" "10" "May" "1998" "11:07:30" "-0300" "Antonio C T Rocha" "arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br" nil "56" "Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA21486 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 09:53:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (srv1.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA21472 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 09:53:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsb.nutecnet.com.br (dl0125-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.125]) by srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (8.8.5/SCA-6.6) with ESMTP id NAA02614 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 13:53:49 -0300 (BRA) Message-ID: <3555B4A1.C9E4FDA6@bsb.nutecnet.com.br> Organization: is a temporary solution X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id JAA21478 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Antonio C T Rocha Content-Length: 5265 From: Antonio C T Rocha Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 11:07:30 -0300 Kelly St wrote: > In a message dated 5/6/98 5:31:42 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: > > >Antonio, > > > > > > > >Most of the crew requirement is at the other end. En route needs would > > > >actually be very small. In fact a bridge and engineering crew of twenty or > > > >thirty would probably suffice and they could be rotated. > > > > > > > >Lee > > To maintain a craft the size of a fleet of aircraft carriers? > > Kelly Hello Kelly, If you have good AI and semi-autonomous maintenance robots, there is no reason why not. Check out present-day oil tankers. Those guys navigate with a *lot* of low-activity, low-alert time on their hands. Of course, a watch on which nothing happens is usally a good watch. There is no _technical_ reason why robot oil-tanker "convoys" could not be launched today, with a full crew on one "main" tanker and token humans on the other "slave" tankers. Guess that goes for aircraft, too. Since the pilot is only really necessary for takeoff and landing, and since a runway can only land or launch one plane at a time, computer autopilots today could do the flying and circling - and one "head-plane" or "on-land" pilot could VR land or takeoff the planes. Given another 50 years..... Besides, most carrier space is taken up with R&R, supplies, and - believe it - printed manuals. A "suspended-animation" contingent could considerably reduce those first two items. And now: (Warning! Methodical lecture mode... :)) 1. AI and robots today: AI _today_ can routinely handle standard (intern level) medical diagnosis, oil prospection and stock-market prediction (this mostly on neural nets). Expert systems in operation today control complex procedures in industrial plants. There is a lot of developement going on in the areas of statistics, systems maintenance, troubleshooting... etc. Using an expert system today is like having the original persons skill available even when they are not there. Artificial specialized assistance is then available wherever needed, even far from the "donors" to the knowledge system. Robots today are being capable of real-life dynamic object location and tracking, as well as complex (but cautious) locomotion. Was it the DEA that recently showed a clutch of "Runaway"-like small "drug-sniffer" robots? 2. Low-metabolism daily food requirements, today: Lets not forget Suspended Animation (or coma-like reduced metabolism). 6500 (or so) KCalories were needed for a normal active adult about 50 or 100 years ago. Today, that need has fallen to 3500 KCals. or even less - unless you lead a very physically active life. The Chinese calculated in the 50s or 60s that the bare minimum to starve someone (political prisoners) without killing was in the order of (I think) 1350Kcals or so a day. (Funny, thats 100 KCals more than the diet my doctor put _me_ on. Hmmm....). A healthy person in a comatose and/or reduced-metabolism state would need even less, since he would not be walking around, moving much, seeing... etc. Ditto for oxygen and water consumption. A low-metabolism passenger would probably consume 1/3 to 1/10 of a waking passengers normal consumption. Standard maintenance today could be operated by AI and automation, multiplying the capacity of the human specialist nurses / doctors. A modern Intensive Care Unit is a limited version of this scenario. 3. Within 50 years (foot-in-mouth scenario): Ships control might look like a tekked-up version of a modern industrial control room (power utility, oil refinery, subway-control, oil tankers... general industrial C&Cs). Most hard-hat chores would be done by by semi-autonomous robots or drones with advanced AI, sensing and mobility - oriented by advanced expert-systems, coordinated by a human operative. The humans chore would be, basically, checking status reports and making decisions on those few exceptions the AI cannot handle. Since these systems would "bring along" the expertise of a wide range of prime specialists from earth, it is probable that the Human op need only pick and rubber-stamp the best option presented. The reduced-metabolism wards, capsules, tanks... whatever, would be tended by nurse-bots and medical-AI expert systems, supervised by a few humans. Advances in present-day on-chip radar and on-chip chemical analyzers would enable truly star-trek like medical scanners, operated by bots directed by expert systems mounted on earth - based on the _best_ medical specialists in each area. The local human doc would mostly just have to order the system about. Since neural networks can be programmed to improve and learn from experience, the human doc need not be swamped by routine but originally unforseen medical events, once he solves it the first time (or chooses the best option the AIs offer the 1st time). Continous transmission from the solar system could "update" the AIs on new discoveries. Ditto for entertainement. The ship could "drop" signal repeaters at regular intervals to ensure adequate reception of earth signals. Cargo ships, with no human crew, could be "slaved" to "main" ships and be run from them. By the way, if metabolism is reduced, does that mean that cellular life-time would be extended during "sleep"? Antonio From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat May 9 11:31:13 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4319" "Sun" "10" "May" "1998" "15:26:16" "-0300" "Antonio C T Rocha" "arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br" nil "104" "Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA13192 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 11:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (srv1.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA13124 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 11:30:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsb.nutecnet.com.br (dl0125-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.125]) by srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (8.8.5/SCA-6.6) with ESMTP id PAA13854 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 15:31:14 -0300 (BRA) Message-ID: <3555F148.D04E651A@bsb.nutecnet.com.br> Organization: is a temporary solution X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <002001bd7a83$163ddf60$f34431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------A0ADC37CA4CC78F9F741AAD6" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Antonio C T Rocha Content-Length: 4318 From: Antonio C T Rocha Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 15:26:16 -0300 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------A0ADC37CA4CC78F9F741AAD6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A marginally comprehensible (and slightly relevant) article among a store of 100s just found relating to present studies in hibernation.. Can hardly wait 50 years. Figure hibernation assisted cold storage is going to be The fad for the terminally ill. URL is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=6998740&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b --------------A0ADC37CA4CC78F9F741AAD6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1; name="query" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline; filename="query" Content-Base: "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post /Entrez/query?uid=6998740&form=6&db =m&Dopt=b" PubMed medline query = 3D"Entrez

=

Other Formats: 3D"[Citation 3D"[MEDLINE
Links: 3D"[172 Order this document

Fed Proc 1980 Oct;39(12):2969-2973

=

Water metabolism and renal function during hibernation and hypothermi= a.

Deavers DR, Musacchia XJ

Total water turnover in normothermic, cold-exposed 13-l= ined ground squirrels was about half that predicted from allometric relat= ionships of water loss and body weight. During hibernation pulmocuta= neous water loss and oxygen consumption were 1/77th and 1/52nd = of values during normothermia, respectively, in this species�= 46; Renal function during deep torpor with body temperatures of 8 C or lo= wer has also been assessed in ground squirrels and hamsters. The wei= ght of evidence suggests that glomerular filtration and urine formation a= re absent of undetectable in these animals. We feel that the reducti= on in arterial blood pressure may be the primary adaptation for eliminati= ng filtration. If filtration (which is not thermally vulnerable= , being dependent on hydrostatic pressure) occurred, it is= difficult to imagine how reabsorption (which has critical metabolic= steps such as ion transport that would be thermally vulnerable) cou= ld keep pace. Filtration and hypertonic urine formation occur at bod= y temperatures of 20 to 30 C during the arousal process. Marmots dif= fer from other hibernating rodents in that measurable filtration and hype= rtonic urine formation occurs during hibernation.

Publication Types:

  • Review

PMID: 6998740, UI: 81024350


the above report in = format
documents on= this page through Loansome Doc


--------------A0ADC37CA4CC78F9F741AAD6-- From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat May 9 12:39:37 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["5260" "Sun" "10" "May" "1998" "16:34:49" "-0300" "Antonio C T Rocha" "arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br" nil "121" "Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA00009 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 12:39:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (srv1.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA29965 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 12:39:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsb.nutecnet.com.br (dl0125-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.125]) by srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (8.8.5/SCA-6.6) with ESMTP id QAA15862 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 16:39:46 -0300 (BRA) Message-ID: <35560159.154E804D@bsb.nutecnet.com.br> Organization: is a temporary solution X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <002001bd7a83$163ddf60$f34431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------4B58C08C8A54148C4A9DBC42" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Antonio C T Rocha Content-Length: 5259 From: Antonio C T Rocha Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 16:34:49 -0300 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------4B58C08C8A54148C4A9DBC42 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ooops! Sorry about the HTML attachment to the previous message. Got carried away and overlooked the caveat against it. My apologies. Here are a few marginally comprehensible (and slightly relevant) article among a store of 100s just found relating to present studies in hibernation.. Can hardly wait 50 years. Figure hibernation assisted cold storage is going to be The fad for the terminally ill by then. Move over, Walt. :) URLs: Water use during hibernation in ground squirrels. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=6998740&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b Similarities and gradations between deep-sleep, hypothermia, and hibernation regarding energy conservation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=6395910&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b Dogs lung extended preservation for transplants using ground squirrel hibernation trigger compounds! The idea is to eventually use it for human lung transplants. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=8633964&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b Slower aging during hibernation. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=7221552&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b And sleep. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=162800&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b Hibernation could mitigate infections?! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=6538934&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b That ought to do it for now. Antonio --------------4B58C08C8A54148C4A9DBC42 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1; name="query" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline; filename="query" PubMed medline query
= 3D"Entrez

=

Other Formats: 3D"[Citation 3D"[MEDLINE
Links: 3D"[172 Order this document

Fed Proc 1980 Oct;39(12):2969-2973

=

Water metabolism and renal function during hibernation and hypothermi= a.

Deavers DR, Musacchia XJ

Total water turnover in normothermic, cold-exposed 13-l= ined ground squirrels was about half that predicted from allometric relat= ionships of water loss and body weight. During hibernation pulmocuta= neous water loss and oxygen consumption were 1/77th and 1/52nd = of values during normothermia, respectively, in this species�= 46; Renal function during deep torpor with body temperatures of 8 C or lo= wer has also been assessed in ground squirrels and hamsters. The wei= ght of evidence suggests that glomerular filtration and urine formation a= re absent of undetectable in these animals. We feel that the reducti= on in arterial blood pressure may be the primary adaptation for eliminati= ng filtration. If filtration (which is not thermally vulnerable= , being dependent on hydrostatic pressure) occurred, it is= difficult to imagine how reabsorption (which has critical metabolic= steps such as ion transport that would be thermally vulnerable) cou= ld keep pace. Filtration and hypertonic urine formation occur at bod= y temperatures of 20 to 30 C during the arousal process. Marmots dif= fer from other hibernating rodents in that measurable filtration and hype= rtonic urine formation occurs during hibernation.

Publication Types:

  • Review

PMID: 6998740, UI: 81024350


the above report in = format
documents on= this page through Loansome Doc


--------------4B58C08C8A54148C4A9DBC42-- From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat May 9 21:38:26 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["551" "Sun" "10" "May" "1998" "00:37:47" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA00550 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 21:38:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA00545 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 21:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UYJSa02231 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 00:37:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <87e8c77.35552f1c@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 550 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 00:37:47 EDT In a message dated 5/8/98 7:13:32 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Antonio, > > > >If our exploration vessel requires as much maintenance as even one aircraft >carrier it won't make it there. Drawing analogies from other Earth (or >water) bound vessels is always tricky. In some ways it would be better to >use a nuclear submarine for comparison purposes. > > >Lee Subs don't carry fleets of support vehicals. So a carrier might be a closer analogy. Kelly >> >> To maintain a craft the size of a fleet of aircraft carriers? >> >> Kelly > >> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 10 09:09:03 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2745" "Sun" "10" "May" "1998" "13:04:10" "-0300" "Antonio C T Rocha" "arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br" nil "37" "Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA06220 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 10 May 1998 09:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (srv1.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA06207 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 09:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsb.nutecnet.com.br (dl4164-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.95.164]) by srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (8.8.5/SCA-6.6) with ESMTP id NAA08868 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 13:09:21 -0300 (BRA) Message-ID: <3555CFFA.770452CC@bsb.nutecnet.com.br> Organization: is a temporary solution X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87e8c77.35552f1c@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Antonio C T Rocha Content-Length: 2744 From: Antonio C T Rocha Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 13:04:10 -0300 Kelly St wrote: > In a message dated 5/8/98 7:13:32 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: > > >Antonio, > > > > > > > >If our exploration vessel requires as much maintenance as even one aircraft > >carrier it won't make it there. Drawing analogies from other Earth (or > >water) bound vessels is always tricky. In some ways it would be better to > >use a nuclear submarine for comparison purposes. > > > > > >Lee > > Subs don't carry fleets of support vehicals. So a carrier might be a closer > analogy. > > Kelly > > >> > >> To maintain a craft the size of a fleet of aircraft carriers? > >> > >> Kelly > > > >> Automation and AI can make for a virtually self-running ship or fleet or airplane. Even applying present-day technology. It is not done because, on earth, people (and human life) are cheaper than machines. Habit is also a preponderant factor. Military craft tend to be built "people-intensive". A rational, peaceful, and commercial mission would resemble an oil tanker + industrial plant much more than a military craft. Oil tankers and automated industrial plants are, nowadays, very automated and - if anything - over-crewed in attention to tradition, politics (out-dated regulations, emotional issues, etc.), unions and so on. If a drastic efficiency-boosting event were to happen, such as another world war that drained the available work-force, automated sea and air convoys would quickly become the norm - dictated by necessity. The main problem seems to be supplying self-servicing ship (or fleet), not making it self-servicing. It would have to carry along its own raw materials and supply industry. Automated versions of something like Hong-Kong or Shanghais multi-purpose factories / "mini-" machine-shops (a sight to be seen) could make it work. Everything would not have to be made at the same time. The same space / resources could serve multiple functions, depending on necessity. Extensive raw materials might be "picked-up" from the asteroid belt and the Oort cloud. Or they could be "pushed" on ahead along the ship / fleets path. Mini automated factories (or pre-processing plants) might be sent along with them. You would not need people to do the hard-hat and technical work. Robots, AI, and expert systems "taken" from earths foremost specialist minds would do it. That includes maintaining the robots themselves. This includes work in envirnments much too harsh for humans, without the penalties for decompression, stress... etc. Humans might only be necessary from mid-management upwards. Since most management time is spent ministering human frailties and sensibilities, that requirement is also greatly reduced. Humans would be needed solely for upper-level decision and direction. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 10 12:42:11 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2077" "Sun" "10" "May" "1998" "15:40:57" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "96" "Re: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id MAA26403 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 10 May 1998 12:41:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA26392 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 12:41:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UJMVa02409 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 15:40:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 2076 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 15:40:57 EDT In a message dated 5/9/98 10:53:41 AM, arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br wrote: >Kelly St wrote: > > > >> In a message dated 5/6/98 5:31:42 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: > >> > >> >Antonio, > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >Most of the crew requirement is at the other end. En route needs would > >> > > >> >actually be very small. In fact a bridge and engineering crew of twenty or > >> > > >> >thirty would probably suffice and they could be rotated. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >Lee > >> > >> To maintain a craft the size of a fleet of aircraft carriers? > >> > >> Kelly > > > >Hello Kelly, > > If you have good AI and semi-autonomous maintenance robots, there is no reason >why not. > > Check out present-day oil tankers. Those guys navigate with a *lot* of low-activity, >low-alert time on their hands. Of course, a watch on which nothing happens is usally >a good watch. There is no _technical_ reason why robot oil-tanker "convoys" could >not be launched today, with a full crew on one "main" tanker and token humans on >the other "slave" tankers. > Guess that goes for aircraft, too. Since the pilot is only really necessary >for takeoff and landing, and since a runway can only land or launch one plane at >a time, computer autopilots today could do the flying and circling - and one "head-plane" >or "on-land" pilot could VR land or takeoff the planes. > Ships and aircraft normalls are pretty boring, but they need folk on hand to react to emergencies. Current attempts at remote controled military aircraft are embarasing. So embarsing that political backstabing is starting to be used to cancel bad press. (Seems the best high tech jobs crash ever tenth flight.) Nieather of these needs to operate for years at a time. That needs active repair crews, which are in your examples several times larger then the crew. > Given another 50 years..... > >---- >By the way, if metabolism is reduced, does that mean that cellular life-time would >be extended during "sleep"? Possibly, but given the unliklyhood of surviving prolonged comas.... >Antonio Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 10 14:04:57 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["140" "Sun" "10" "May" "1998" "12:59:36" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "8" "RE:: starship-design: CNN - Magazine predicts rocket fai" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA19785 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 10 May 1998 14:04:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA19767 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 14:04:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p36.gnt.com [204.49.68.241]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA30930; Sun, 10 May 1998 16:04:47 -0500 Message-ID: <004a01bd7c57$42e450a0$f34431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <54193adb.35552f1e@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 139 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kelly St'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE:: starship-design: CNN - Magazine predicts rocket fai Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 12:59:36 -0500 Kelly, Someone didn't quite understand it when I tried to tell them that the final probability was worse than the simple average... Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 10 14:04:58 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["463" "Sun" "10" "May" "1998" "13:05:53" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "15" "starship-design: Aircraft Carriers" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA19817 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 10 May 1998 14:04:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA19786 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 14:04:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p36.gnt.com [204.49.68.241]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA30940; Sun, 10 May 1998 16:04:50 -0500 Message-ID: <004b01bd7c57$459c1da0$f34431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <87e8c77.35552f1c@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 462 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kelly St'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 13:05:53 -0500 Kelly, > Subs don't carry fleets of support vehicles. So a carrier > might be a closer > analogy. For the most part, I do prefer to use Aircraft Carriers for comparison purposes. Occasionally, however, a different one is preferred. For MTBR purposes, a sub works better. The amount and type of maintenance a subs crew can and does perform is more in keeping with our needs - except we need those figures for a vehicle as large as an aircraft carrier... Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 10 17:43:40 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["977" "Sun" "10" "May" "1998" "17:42:49" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "16" "starship-design: Sail types" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA21982 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 10 May 1998 17:43:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA21931 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 17:43:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [205.163.58.141] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA15203 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 17:45:48 -0700 Message-ID: <3555D909.273C@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 976 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: starship-design: Sail types Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 17:42:49 +0100 I have a question about starships using some kind of sail for propulsion. All of the sail proposals i have seen rely on direct pressure for their drive. Although i realize that what i'm about to ask wouldn't work for light, could a directed relatavistic particle beam (or solar wind) be used to create an "aerodynamic" form of thrust? This has several advantages, at least at sea on earth, which is where i'm taking this from. A modern sailboat sails fastest when the wind is on its beam. It will sail much faster than a square rigged boat of similar hull, sail area, and waterline length running before the wind. Furthermore it is easier to control. Also, modern sailboats can sail up to 45 degrees (appx) into the wind. If this could be translated to space it could help fix the "return" problem for star sail trips. Anyway, all this is very nice, but i have no idea if it is even theoretically possible in space using charged particles instead of air. Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 10 17:54:52 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3539" "Sun" "10" "May" "1998" "21:50:00" "-0300" "Antonio C T Rocha" "arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br" nil "106" "Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA25225 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 10 May 1998 17:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (srv1.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA25159 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 17:54:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsb.nutecnet.com.br (dl4098-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.95.98]) by srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (8.8.5/SCA-6.6) with ESMTP id VAA08608 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 21:55:06 -0300 (BRA) Message-ID: <35564B37.A950F23A@bsb.nutecnet.com.br> Organization: is a temporary solution X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Antonio C T Rocha Content-Length: 3538 From: Antonio C T Rocha Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 21:50:00 -0300 Kelly, Remote control of a "steady push" starship on a b-line and at constant distance in unimpeded space, 50 years from now, will be quite more simple - and sure - than present-day control of manuvering military aircraft at variable range in the atmosphere. Its going to be as easy as controlling a present-day VCR. Redundancy could assure against failures. Critical manuvers could count with a temporary human crew from the "main" ship. Tugboat "command" ships, or a travelling attachable "bridge-ship" might suffice. Active repair crews would be composed of dozens or hundreds of year 2040 model maintenance bots and AIs for each human. Life-support, accomodations and R&R requirements would be correspondingly lessened. They would also multiply the human crews response capacity to emergencies. As in todays industries and stock brokers, expert systems and AI would allow the crew to "bring along" as earths best as consultants and managers. If asteroid mining spurs the development of automated mini-foundries, mini-refineries and mini-factories (or pre-processing plants) - and raw materials asteroids / comets are sent along with the ship / fleet - then the main foreseeable non-human obstructions to the mission will have been resolved. Antonio Kelly St wrote: > In a message dated 5/9/98 10:53:41 AM, arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br wrote: > > >Kelly St wrote: > > > > > > > >> In a message dated 5/6/98 5:31:42 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: > > > >> > > > >> >Antonio, > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >Most of the crew requirement is at the other end. En route needs would > > > >> > > > > >> >actually be very small. In fact a bridge and engineering crew of twenty or > > > >> > > > > >> >thirty would probably suffice and they could be rotated. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >Lee > > > >> > > > >> To maintain a craft the size of a fleet of aircraft carriers? > > > >> > > > >> Kelly > > > > > > > >Hello Kelly, > > > > If you have good AI and semi-autonomous maintenance robots, there is no > reason > >why not. > > > > Check out present-day oil tankers. Those guys navigate with a *lot* of > low-activity, > >low-alert time on their hands. Of course, a watch on which nothing happens is > usally > >a good watch. There is no _technical_ reason why robot oil-tanker "convoys" > could > >not be launched today, with a full crew on one "main" tanker and token humans > on > >the other "slave" tankers. > > Guess that goes for aircraft, too. Since the pilot is only really > necessary > >for takeoff and landing, and since a runway can only land or launch one plane > at > >a time, computer autopilots today could do the flying and circling - and one > "head-plane" > >or "on-land" pilot could VR land or takeoff the planes. > > > > Ships and aircraft normalls are pretty boring, but they need folk on hand to > react to emergencies. Current attempts at remote controled military aircraft > are embarasing. So embarsing that political backstabing is starting to be > used to cancel bad press. (Seems the best high tech jobs crash ever tenth > flight.) > > Nieather of these needs to operate for years at a time. That needs active > repair crews, which are in your examples several times larger then the crew. > > > Given another 50 years..... > > > > >---- > >By the way, if metabolism is reduced, does that mean that cellular life-time > would > >be extended during "sleep"? > > Possibly, but given the unliklyhood of surviving prolonged comas.... > > >Antonio > > Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 10 17:58:50 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1831" "Sun" "10" "May" "1998" "17:58:34" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "34" "starship-design: Sail types" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA27005 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 10 May 1998 17:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (hexadecimal.uoregon.edu [128.223.32.56]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA26993 for ; Sun, 10 May 1998 17:58:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA08876; Sun, 10 May 1998 17:58:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA23002; Sun, 10 May 1998 17:58:39 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13654.19770.947132.769912@localhost.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <3555D909.273C@olywa.net> References: <3555D909.273C@olywa.net> X-Mailer: VM 6.47 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Length: 1830 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Lindberg Cc: SSD Subject: starship-design: Sail types Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 17:58:34 -0700 (PDT) Lindberg writes: > I have a question about starships using some kind of sail for > propulsion. All of the sail proposals i have seen rely on direct > pressure for their drive. Although i realize that what i'm about to ask > wouldn't work for light, could a directed relatavistic particle beam (or > solar wind) be used to create an "aerodynamic" form of thrust? This has > several advantages, at least at sea on earth, which is where i'm taking > this from. A modern sailboat sails fastest when the wind is on its > beam. It will sail much faster than a square rigged boat of similar > hull, sail area, and waterline length running before the wind. > Furthermore it is easier to control. Also, modern sailboats can sail up > to 45 degrees (appx) into the wind. If this could be translated to > space it could help fix the "return" problem for star sail trips. > Anyway, all this is very nice, but i have no idea if it is even > theoretically possible in space using charged particles instead of air. Much of the capability of sailboats to sail into the wind depends on them being hydrodynamically inclined to move more easily forwards and backwards than sideways because they have long hulls. In space, there's no water to move through and no intrinsic preferred directions of motion for a ship in response to an impulse. Some light sail or particle sail designs take advantage of gravity as a force to "tack" against in interplanetary space; for example, a sail ship can lower or raise its orbit by reflecting sunlight along or against its direction of motion to decrease or increase its orbital velocity. In deep space you would have little to work with, though; the ship would pretty much have to go in the direction the beam pushed it, with a little flexibility to maneuver perpendicular to the beam. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon May 11 06:09:36 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1348" "Sun" "10" "May" "1998" "20:06:51" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "27" "RE: starship-design: Sail types" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA18586 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 11 May 1998 06:09:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA18568 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 06:09:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p25.gnt.com [204.49.68.230]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA07751; Mon, 11 May 1998 08:09:11 -0500 Message-ID: <004c01bd7cdd$fb610ca0$f34431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <3555D909.273C@olywa.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 1347 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Lindberg'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Sail types Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 20:06:51 -0500 Nels, Solar sails CAN sail exactly like a sailboat. More, since they can also use gravity, they can do things that sailboats can't, like sail into the wind. Solar sails don't use the Solar wind for propulsion however, they use the photon pressure of solar light itself which is MUCH greater. The solar wind is far too weak for what you are thinking of. If you can figure out how to build a directed relativistic particle beam capable of providing enough particles to push a sail, you don't need the sail. Put it on the ship and use IT for the drive. The problem with current particle beam drives is low thrust. They are extremely efficient and high ISP but their net thrust is low because we can't produce enough particles to do any good for bulk cargoes. Solar sails don't have a return problem, if they can accelerate enough to get there, they can decelerate enough to stop and then reaccelerate to get back, etc. The problem is that the best solar sail proposal going will only achieve around .3c and it used a gravity assist maneuver to do it. Said gravity assist was around the Sun and the heat and g forces associated with it would likely kill any living cargo...since you used gravity assist for an initial acceleration boost you will need to provide some extra deceleration thrust at the other end now. Solar aero braking anyone? Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon May 11 07:06:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1347" "Mon" "11" "May" "1998" "10:00:40" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "35" "RE: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA29432 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 11 May 1998 07:06:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA29420 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 07:06:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Mon, 11 May 1998 10:00:42 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Length: 1346 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 10:00:40 -0400 Right - the only reason subs don't carry support fleets is for military purposes - they'd defeat the purpose of being stealthy if a bunch of surface vessels followed them around. But a sub is much more akin to the kind of craft we're talking about. So imagine a sub as large as an aircraft carrier - maybe a research sub with a fleet of support vessels. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. > ---------- > From: L. Parker[SMTP:lparker@cacaphony.net] > Reply To: L. Parker > Sent: Sunday, May 10, 1998 2:05 PM > To: 'Kelly St' > Cc: 'LIT Starship Design Group' > Subject: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers > > Kelly, > > > Subs don't carry fleets of support vehicles. So a carrier > > might be a closer > > analogy. > > For the most part, I do prefer to use Aircraft Carriers for comparison > purposes. Occasionally, however, a different one is preferred. For MTBR > purposes, a sub works better. The amount and type of maintenance a subs > crew > can and does perform is more in keeping with our needs - except we need > those figures for a vehicle as large as an aircraft carrier... > > Lee > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon May 11 08:10:46 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2534" "Mon" "11" "May" "1998" "17:10:32" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "78" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA17539 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 11 May 1998 08:10:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (R9sUn0Od8uatfMfmzHteLBT7IdNkudxs@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA17528 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 08:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost) by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id RAA28618; Mon, 11 May 1998 17:10:32 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson Content-Length: 2533 From: Bjorn Nilsson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Kelly St cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 17:10:32 +0200 (MET DST) On Mon, 11 May 1998, Bjorn Nilsson wrote: > > I relize that theese coments MAY be a little late... > (I was home sick, all of last week.) > > But anyway, here goes... > > > > On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Kelly St wrote: > > > > In a message dated 4/29/98 4:49:47 AM, guderiak@hotmail.com wrote: > > > > >Hi Bjorn, > > > > > >>And YES a planet is maybe NOT neccesary for the colony to survive, but > > >it > > >>probably IS neccisary for the endevour to make "economic sense" even in > > >>the long run. (If the target star system doesn't have planetary bodies > > >you > > >>wanna exploit, why go there???) > > >==> A very, very good idea... > > > > We never could come up with a reason for a colony. Resources are more > > plentiful and easy to get to in space, and the danger of an ecology is less. > > But, this solar system is rich in stuff too, and its a lot easier to set up a > > colony nearer to your spare parts suplier. ;) > > > > Well, don't forget the most valuable comodity of them all: KNOWLEDGE!!! > > The amount of things that will be learnt from colonizing another solar > system is probably the best economic incentive of them all! > (This is espisially true of systems with alien lifeforms.) > > > This is also how the Colony will yield "interest" to the investors back > home! And the good thing is that "trade" of information/knowledge will be > posible at Light-speed (and fairly low-cost), where as PHYSICAL trade will > be quite a bit slower AND more expensive! > > > > > > > > > As to the microbs, a bit of American history. The term "Manifest destiny" was > > an old phrase in the American colonies refuring to a beleaf that god ment us > > to take over the continent from the indians. Where it first came from is the > > early colonists (not the first, but soon after) who found a continent of dead > > indians. Vilages recently abandoned or full of dead and deing. Old world > > deseases whiped out well over 95% of the tribal populations before they ever > > saw a white guy. All that from desaese they'ld only been isolated from for a > > few thousand years. > > > > > > Kelly > > > > Well, this is with basicly NO technology! I think modern medicine WILL be > able to cope EVEN with alien diseases... (Call me optimistic.) > > Another comment is that the same factors were in places for the Europeans > coming to the new world and they fared much better... > > > > Bjorn... > > PS: Kelly, For some reason your mails have no reply addres to the list... You know why??? From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon May 11 08:46:03 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2350" "Mon" "11" "May" "1998" "17:45:50" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "68" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System)" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA02804 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 11 May 1998 08:46:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (xtAiqfCG4jVX5+6Pbq5JP6iip7bvZLIt@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA02780 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 08:45:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost) by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id RAA02597; Mon, 11 May 1998 17:45:50 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se In-Reply-To: <001101bd73d6$678e0c40$f74431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson Content-Length: 2349 From: Bjorn Nilsson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" cc: "'Bjorn Nilsson'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System) Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 17:45:50 +0200 (MET DST) Again a little late... (sickness and all) On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, L. Parker wrote: > Bjorn, > > > The other factor, the GROWTH RATE of the colony neccesary is more a > > question of how "long-term" the people back on earth view the > > investment. > > I.e. when it is neccesary that the colony starts to be a net > > producer... > > Umm, well that was a given in the original problem statement. ALL colonies > must be self-sufficient, therefore they are either net producers or at least > non-negative. I'm afraid the concept of trade or commerce is out of the > picture, at least until someone invents a much faster way of getting there. > First: Trade of information is certanly feasible! Trade of Physical products may also be posible given that their Value is VERY high compared to their mass... (Prototypes, biological/chemical samples etc...) Personnaly I wouldn't consider a colony a net-producer UNTIL it starts to become independant of it's INITIAL "infrastructure" (i.e. the "stuff" brought along from Earth). Anyway, There are MANY reason why a colony would NEED to be a pretty large Net-producer in many areas.... 1) They would some how need to "repay" their investors... (Probably with research more than anything else!) 2) They would need Growth to increase the size of the colony... (Both # of people and Industirial and Infrastructure size.) 3) Unless the "light-barrier" can somehow be broken, it would be neccesary to "Planet-hop" to get to further systems... That would mean that the colony SHOULD be able to send out it's OWN colonizts in the forseeable future... (a few Centurys, MAX!!!) Now a few other Things: Time-scales: To most Humans, even a Century is gona seem a VERY long time even quite far into the future... Just look at the excitement about the upcoming Milenium shift and I think that most will agree that projects that take 1000s of years will NOT be feasible from a socio-economic POV. IMHO if something doesn't at least START to give results in a century, forget IT... Population Growth: As someone pointed out, most industialized countries have trouble keeping their population CONSTANT, never mind increasing it... Personally I'd think that the Knowledge of how having lots of kids is a NECCESITY for the colony will help somewhat. This is still one of the BIGGEST problems Though. Bjorn From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon May 11 21:14:14 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1845" "Tue" "12" "May" "1998" "00:13:31" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "54" "Re: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA11228 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 11 May 1998 21:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA11221 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 21:14:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id ULCDa02462 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 00:13:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1844 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 00:13:31 EDT In a message dated 5/10/98 6:54:58 PM, arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br wrote: >Kelly, > Remote control of a "steady push" starship on a b-line and at constant distance >in unimpeded space, 50 years from now, will be quite more simple - and sure - than >present-day control of manuvering military aircraft at variable range in the atmosphere. >Its going to be as easy as controlling a present-day VCR. Redundancy could assure >against failures. -- You don't need remotre control for steady bland flight, you need it for emergencies and judgement. Also since the ships would be moving away from one another over great distences the time lag eats you. >---Critical manuvers could count with a temporary human crew from >the "main" ship. Tugboat "command" ships, or a travelling attachable "bridge- ship" >might suffice. > Active repair crews would be composed of dozens or hundreds of year 2040 model >maintenance bots and AIs for each human. Life-support, accomodations and R&R requirements >would be correspondingly lessened. They would also multiply the human crews response >capacity to emergencies. As in todays industries and stock brokers, expert systems >and AI would allow the crew to "bring along" as earths best as consultants and >managers. > If asteroid mining spurs the development of automated mini-foundries, mini-refineries >and mini-factories (or pre-processing plants) - and raw materials asteroids / comets >are sent along with the ship / fleet - then the main foreseeable non-human obstructions >to the mission will have been resolved. > >Antonio AI has gotten good at dealing with routine things in a very limited relm. They are still pretty useless in an unconstraind environment like ship repair. So again I'm assuming the systems can't be much more then a couple orders of magnitude better then today. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon May 11 21:14:22 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1210" "Tue" "12" "May" "1998" "00:13:35" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "24" "Re: starship-design: Sail types" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA11261 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 11 May 1998 21:14:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo24.mx.aol.com (imo24.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.68]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA11242 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 21:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo24.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UXGKa02743 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 00:13:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <2b263a2e.3557cc70@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1209 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Sail types Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 00:13:35 EDT In a message dated 5/10/98 6:43:46 PM, lindberg@olywa.net wrote: >I have a question about starships using some kind of sail for >propulsion. All of the sail proposals i have seen rely on direct >pressure for their drive. Although i realize that what i'm about to ask >wouldn't work for light, could a directed relatavistic particle beam (or >solar wind) be used to create an "aerodynamic" form of thrust? This has >several advantages, at least at sea on earth, which is where i'm taking >this from. A modern sailboat sails fastest when the wind is on its >beam. It will sail much faster than a square rigged boat of similar >hull, sail area, and waterline length running before the wind. >Furthermore it is easier to control. Also, modern sailboats can sail up >to 45 degrees (appx) into the wind. If this could be translated to >space it could help fix the "return" problem for star sail trips. >Anyway, all this is very nice, but i have no idea if it is even >theoretically possible in space using charged particles instead of air. >Nels Lindberg Sail bosts can only do it because they use the leverage between the wind and the keel to force them forward. NO space keel, your out of luck. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon May 11 21:14:31 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["656" "Tue" "12" "May" "1998" "00:13:28" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "17" "Re: RE: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA11294 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 11 May 1998 21:14:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo28.mx.aol.com (imo28.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.72]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA11283 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 21:14:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo28.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UTQEa25489 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 00:13:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 655 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 00:13:28 EDT In a message dated 5/11/98 8:06:59 AM, david@actionworld.com wrote: >Right - the only reason subs don't carry support fleets is for military >purposes - they'd defeat the purpose of being stealthy if a bunch of surface >vessels followed them around. But a sub is much more akin to the kind of >craft we're talking about. So imagine a sub as large as an aircraft carrier >- maybe a research sub with a fleet of support vessels. >------------------------------------------------------ >David Levine But thats kind my point. Subs and carriers are essentially the same tech, but carriers operat fleets of support craft. A critical difference. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon May 11 21:15:40 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["274" "Tue" "12" "May" "1998" "00:13:32" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "17" "Re: RE:: starship-design: CNN - Magazine predicts rocket fai" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA11521 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 11 May 1998 21:15:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (imo22.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.66]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA11515 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 21:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UJJKa02409 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 00:13:32 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <57e6dcaa.3557cc6d@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 273 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE:: starship-design: CNN - Magazine predicts rocket fai Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 00:13:32 EDT In a message dated 5/10/98 3:06:16 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Kelly, > > > >Someone didn't quite understand it when I tried to tell them that the final >probability was worse than the simple average... > > >Lee Welcome to the dark side of probability. ;) Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue May 12 09:53:49 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3901" "Tue" "12" "May" "1998" "13:48:30" "-0300" "Antonio C T Rocha" "arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br" nil "89" "Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA28224 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 09:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (srv1.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.1]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA27939 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 09:53:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bsb.nutecnet.com.br (dl0124-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br [200.252.253.124]) by srv1-bsb.bsb.nutecnet.com.br (8.8.5/SCA-6.6) with ESMTP id NAA03797 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 13:53:49 -0300 (BRA) Message-ID: <35587D5E.70A4C21F@bsb.nutecnet.com.br> Organization: is a temporary solution X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Antonio C T Rocha Content-Length: 3900 From: Antonio C T Rocha Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 13:48:30 -0300 Kelly, Ship repair is an "easy" task for neural nets. You have a "target" state and the possible "paths" (methods, tools, etc.) to get there. "experience" databases and expert system AIs pare the alternatives down giving "weights" for each procedure - building the branches of your logic tree(s). It is a big problem divided into a lot of simple parts. Something similar happens today with IBM and other companies where the technician reads troubleshooting and repair procedure step-by-step from a screen / pad / whatever, being shunted to "higher-level" servers when rarer problems are encountered. At the top end end of this line, when a solution has not been found, lies top-notch human assistance. Aircraft mechanics work a lot like that. Auto-company car mechanics work like that. The problem today isnt "logic" or problem-solving. The problem is real-world sensing. The human technicians main job in this case is to provide real-world sensing and "common-sense". This is stiil too costly or incipient to put machines on it in everyday chores. Prototypes are being developed-used for nuclear plant and electric utility plant special jobs in very hazardous environments. But we already have seeing robots, flying-object catching robots, walking robots, best path choosing robots, face-fingerprint-handwriting recognition systems... etc. - and "common-sense" systems are coming along quite nicely. By 2010 they will have become useful / cheap enough for supply to fuel demand to fuel supply to fuel demand... and so on. Even in emergencies, the multiplying effect of AI, robots etc. will ensure that you will be able to do without the vast amounts of people needed today to operate and maintain fleet. They will also buy you buffer-time, doing the grunt-work and basic troubleshooting routines, enabling the humans to concentrate on the problem instead of "chasing consequences" when something goes wrong. Antonio Kelly St wrote: > In a message dated 5/10/98 6:54:58 PM, arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br wrote: > > >Kelly, > > Remote control of a "steady push" starship on a b-line and at constant > distance > >in unimpeded space, 50 years from now, will be quite more simple - and sure - > than > >present-day control of manuvering military aircraft at variable range in the > atmosphere. > >Its going to be as easy as controlling a present-day VCR. Redundancy could > assure > >against failures. -- > > You don't need remotre control for steady bland flight, you need it for > emergencies and judgement. > > Also since the ships would be moving away from one another over great > distences the time lag eats you. > > >---Critical manuvers could count with a temporary human crew from > >the "main" ship. Tugboat "command" ships, or a travelling attachable "bridge- > ship" > >might suffice. > > Active repair crews would be composed of dozens or hundreds of year 2040 > model > >maintenance bots and AIs for each human. Life-support, accomodations and R&R > requirements > >would be correspondingly lessened. They would also multiply the human crews > response > >capacity to emergencies. As in todays industries and stock brokers, expert > systems > >and AI would allow the crew to "bring along" as earths best as consultants > and > >managers. > > If asteroid mining spurs the development of automated mini-foundries, > mini-refineries > >and mini-factories (or pre-processing plants) - and raw materials asteroids / > comets > >are sent along with the ship / fleet - then the main foreseeable non-human > obstructions > >to the mission will have been resolved. > > > >Antonio > > AI has gotten good at dealing with routine things in a very limited relm. > They are still pretty useless in an unconstraind environment like ship repair. > So again I'm assuming the systems can't be much more then a couple orders of > magnitude better then today. > > Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue May 12 13:47:06 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["433" "Tue" "12" "May" "1998" "13:46:47" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@darkwing.uoregon.edu" nil "15" "starship-design: searching the starship-design archives" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA07504 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 13:47:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA07457; Tue, 12 May 1998 13:46:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13656.46391.696010.944393@darkwing.uoregon.edu> X-Mailer: VM 6.47 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Length: 432 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: searching the starship-design archives Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 13:46:47 -0700 (PDT) You can search the starship-design archives at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~stevev/sd-archive/ using the U of O's own local Alta Vista search engine. Connect to: http://search.uoregon.edu/ and enter your query -- I'd suggest starting with the keyword "starship-design" followed by the other search keywords. When I get some time I'll figure out how to put a search form on the archive index page that does this automatically. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue May 12 19:20:30 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2801" "Tue" "12" "May" "1998" "22:19:45" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "81" "Re: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA19121 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 19:20:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA19114 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 19:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UIRLa02431 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 22:19:45 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <7284e90.35590342@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 2800 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 22:19:45 EDT In a message dated 5/11/98 9:47:33 AM, f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se wrote: >Again a little late... >(sickness and all) Go home and rest, were not worth it. ;) >On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, L. Parker wrote: > >> Bjorn, >> >> > The other factor, the GROWTH RATE of the colony neccesary is more a >> > question of how "long-term" the people back on earth view the >> > investment. >> > I.e. when it is neccesary that the colony starts to be a net >> > producer... >> >> Umm, well that was a given in the original problem statement. ALL colonies >> must be self-sufficient, therefore they are either net producers or at least >> non-negative. I'm afraid the concept of trade or commerce is out of the >> picture, at least until someone invents a much faster way of getting there. >> > >First: Trade of information is certanly feasible! Trade of Physical >products may also be posible given that their Value is VERY high compared >to their mass... (Prototypes, biological/chemical samples etc...) Very hard to do as a profit making enterprize. >Personnaly I wouldn't consider a colony a net-producer UNTIL it starts to >become independant of it's INITIAL "infrastructure" (i.e. the "stuff" >brought along from Earth). Anyway, There are MANY reason why a colony >would NEED to be a pretty large Net-producer in many areas.... > >1) They would some how need to "repay" their investors... (Probably with >research more than anything else!) > >2) They would need Growth to increase the size of the colony... (Both # of >people and Industirial and Infrastructure size.) > >3) Unless the "light-barrier" can somehow be broken, it would be neccesary >to "Planet-hop" to get to further systems... That would mean that the >colony SHOULD be able to send out it's OWN colonizts in the forseeable >future... (a few Centurys, MAX!!!) To do the above you probably need a population in the millions, and a upfrount investment that would be beyond stagering. >Now a few other Things: > >Time-scales: >To most Humans, even a Century is gona seem a VERY long time even quite >far into the future... Just look at the excitement about the upcoming >Milenium shift and I think that most will agree that projects that take >1000s of years will NOT be feasible from a socio-economic POV. >IMHO if something doesn't at least START to give results in a century, >forget IT... Besides, with our tech growth rate if it doesn't work out in a couple decades its rediculasly obsolete. >Population Growth: >As someone pointed out, most industialized countries have trouble keeping >their population CONSTANT, never mind increasing it... Personally I'd >think that the Knowledge of how having lots of kids is a NECCESITY for the >colony will help somewhat. This is still one of the BIGGEST problems >Though. > > > > >Bjorn Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue May 12 19:22:01 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["326" "Tue" "12" "May" "1998" "22:19:37" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "12" "starship-design: Re: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA19544 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 19:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.41]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA19530 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 19:21:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id 7JVZa17533; Tue, 12 May 1998 22:19:37 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <2255279.3559033a@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 325 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: sunon@ebtech.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 22:19:37 EDT In a message dated 5/11/98 9:20:24 PM, you wrote: >The least you could do is have an FAQ that is actually there! Every FAQ >that I clicked I was met with the message "File Not Found". The bad thing >is, some of those FAQ's look mighty interesting. Get in gear guys! Ouch. Very sorry. OH SITE ADMINISTRATOR!!! Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue May 12 19:23:10 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2794" "Tue" "12" "May" "1998" "22:19:42" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "96" "Re: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA19887 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 19:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.42]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA19880 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 19:23:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UNLZa18945 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 22:19:42 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 2793 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 22:19:42 EDT In a message dated 5/11/98 9:10:35 AM, f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se wrote: >On Mon, 11 May 1998, Bjorn Nilsson wrote: > >> >> I relize that theese coments MAY be a little late... >> (I was home sick, all of last week.) >> >> But anyway, here goes... >> >> >> >> On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Kelly St wrote: >> > >> > In a message dated 4/29/98 4:49:47 AM, guderiak@hotmail.com wrote: >> > >> > >Hi Bjorn, >> > > >> > >>And YES a planet is maybe NOT neccesary for the colony to survive, but >> > >it >> > >>probably IS neccisary for the endevour to make "economic sense" even in >> > >>the long run. (If the target star system doesn't have planetary bodies >> > >you >> > >>wanna exploit, why go there???) >> > >==> A very, very good idea... >> > >> > We never could come up with a reason for a colony. Resources are more >> > plentiful and easy to get to in space, and the danger of an ecology is less. >> > But, this solar system is rich in stuff too, and its a lot easier to set up >a >> > colony nearer to your spare parts suplier. ;) >> > >> >> Well, don't forget the most valuable comodity of them all: KNOWLEDGE!!! >> >> The amount of things that will be learnt from colonizing another solar >> system is probably the best economic incentive of them all! >> (This is espisially true of systems with alien lifeforms.) >> >> >> This is also how the Colony will yield "interest" to the investors back >> home! And the good thing is that "trade" of information/knowledge will be >> posible at Light-speed (and fairly low-cost), where as PHYSICAL trade will >> be quite a bit slower AND more expensive! >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > As to the microbs, a bit of American history. The term "Manifest destiny" >was >> > an old phrase in the American colonies refuring to a beleaf that god ment us >> > to take over the continent from the indians. Where it first came from is the >> > early colonists (not the first, but soon after) who found a continent of dead >> > indians. Vilages recently abandoned or full of dead and deing. Old world >> > deseases whiped out well over 95% of the tribal populations before they ever >> > saw a white guy. All that from desaese they'ld only been isolated from for >a >> > few thousand years. >> > >> > >> > Kelly >> > >> >> Well, this is with basicly NO technology! I think modern medicine WILL be >> able to cope EVEN with alien diseases... (Call me optimistic.) >> >> Another comment is that the same factors were in places for the Europeans >> coming to the new world and they fared much better... >> >> >> >> Bjorn... >> >> > >PS: Kelly, For some reason your mails have no reply addres to the list... >You know why??? ???!! Not a clue? I never noticed since I don't read my posts. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue May 12 20:12:10 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3020" "Tue" "12" "May" "1998" "23:11:07" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "90" "starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA04538 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 12 May 1998 20:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.69]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA04527 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 20:12:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UXWa003032 for ; Tue, 12 May 1998 23:11:07 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <13b4849.35590f4c@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 3019 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 23:11:07 EDT Sorry to hear you were that sick. Drink plenty of fluids and don't breath on the E-MAIL!! ;) In a message dated 5/11/98 8:44:26 AM, f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se wrote: >On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Kelly St wrote: >> >> In a message dated 4/29/98 4:49:47 AM, guderiak@hotmail.com wrote: >> >> >Hi Bjorn, >> > >> >>And YES a planet is maybe NOT neccesary for the colony to survive, but >> >it >> >>probably IS neccisary for the endevour to make "economic sense" even in >> >>the long run. (If the target star system doesn't have planetary bodies >> >you >> >>wanna exploit, why go there???) >> >==> A very, very good idea... >> >> We never could come up with a reason for a colony. Resources are more >> plentiful and easy to get to in space, and the danger of an ecology is less. >> But, this solar system is rich in stuff too, and its a lot easier to set up a >> colony nearer to your spare parts suplier. ;) >> > >Well, don't forget the most valuable comodity of them all: KNOWLEDGE!!! > >The amount of things that will be learnt from colonizing another solar >system is probably the best economic incentive of them all! >(This is espisially true of systems with alien lifeforms.) > > >This is also how the Colony will yield "interest" to the investors back >home! And the good thing is that "trade" of information/knowledge will be >posible at Light-speed (and fairly low-cost), where as PHYSICAL trade will >be quite a bit slower AND more expensive! Given the danger of an alen world a orbital colony would be safer, easier, and have better access to resources. On the other hand, you'ld learn as much by building it in our own solar system. Scientific exploration is generally not very profitable. It can't generally pay its own bills on Earth or our starsystem, so interstellar is a REAL long shot. >> >> As to the microbs, a bit of American history. The term "Manifest destiny" was >> an old phrase in the American colonies refuring to a beleaf that god ment us >> to take over the continent from the indians. Where it first came from is the >> early colonists (not the first, but soon after) who found a continent of dead >> indians. Vilages recently abandoned or full of dead and deing. Old world >> deseases whiped out well over 95% of the tribal populations before they ever >> saw a white guy. All that from desaese they'ld only been isolated from for a >> few thousand years. >> >> >> Kelly >> > >Well, this is with basicly NO technology! I think modern medicine WILL be >able to cope EVEN with alien diseases... (Call me optimistic.) > >Another comment is that the same factors were in places for the Europeans >coming to the new world and they fared much better... The Europeans also lost most of their population to deseases they imported back to Euroup. Which was one reason most children died before the age of 6. As to the new world deseases, they weren't as evolved as the ones recrited from Africa to Japan by the Euros. (Yes we planed it all HA!!) ;) >Bjorn... Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 13 06:34:33 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["184" "Wed" "13" "May" "1998" "08:32:08" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "11" "RE: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA22748 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 06:34:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA22682 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 06:34:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p32.gnt.com [204.49.68.237]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA28842; Wed, 13 May 1998 08:34:21 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bd7e73$d204a320$ed4431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 183 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'David Levine'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 08:32:08 -0500 David, Thanks, that was pretty much the analogy I had in mind. Lee > So imagine a sub as large as an > aircraft carrier > - maybe a research sub with a fleet of support vessels. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 13 07:26:15 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2541" "Wed" "13" "May" "1998" "16:26:07" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "79" "Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA03311 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 07:26:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (L1FCw9JkITR0MQVPBZMQ3EOo3W7b/mgl@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA03299 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 07:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost) by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id QAA19940; Wed, 13 May 1998 16:26:07 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se In-Reply-To: <13b4849.35590f4c@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson Content-Length: 2540 From: Bjorn Nilsson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Kelly St cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 16:26:07 +0200 (MET DST) On Tue, 12 May 1998, Kelly St wrote: > Sorry to hear you were that sick. Drink plenty of fluids and don't breath on > the E-MAIL!! > > ;) > I won't breathe, I'll cough... (And since you US types have absolutly NO imunity to our NEW european "Superflues" you'll surely DIE!) ;=) >> > >> We never could come up with a reason for a colony. Resources are more > >> plentiful and easy to get to in space, and the danger of an ecology is > less. > >> But, this solar system is rich in stuff too, and its a lot easier to set up > a > >> colony nearer to your spare parts suplier. ;) > >> > > > >Well, don't forget the most valuable comodity of them all: KNOWLEDGE!!! > > > >The amount of things that will be learnt from colonizing another solar > >system is probably the best economic incentive of them all! > >(This is espisially true of systems with alien lifeforms.) > > > > > >This is also how the Colony will yield "interest" to the investors back > >home! And the good thing is that "trade" of information/knowledge will be > >posible at Light-speed (and fairly low-cost), where as PHYSICAL trade will > >be quite a bit slower AND more expensive! > > Given the danger of an alen world a orbital colony would be safer, easier, and > have better access to resources. On the other hand, you'ld learn as much by > building it in our own solar system. > > Scientific exploration is generally not very profitable. It can't generally > pay its own bills on Earth or our starsystem, so interstellar is a REAL long > shot. > Well, that depends on how you count... Many People would consider that the Apollo programs of the 60's generated a Big return if you include all the spin-offs and all the research based of it... It all depends on which SCALE you look at it with... (Both in Time, and space) > >Another comment is that the same factors were in places for the Europeans > >coming to the new world and they fared much better... > > The Europeans also lost most of their population to deseases they imported > back to Euroup. Which was one reason most children died before the age of 6. > > As to the new world deseases, they weren't as evolved as the ones recrited > from Africa to Japan by the Euros. (Yes we planed it all HA!!) ;) > > > >Bjorn... > > > Kelly > Yeah, but the imparitive word is _MOST_ of their population... Those who did survive were generaly more resistent and "fit to live" and in a few generations the Population was back to normal... Happens all the time in nature... Bjornie... From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 13 07:54:07 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["544" "Wed" "13" "May" "1998" "09:36:55" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "18" "RE: starship-design: Sail types" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA10924 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 07:54:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA10905 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 07:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p25.gnt.com [204.49.68.230]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA03247; Wed, 13 May 1998 09:53:59 -0500 Message-ID: <000201bd7e7e$f548a600$ed4431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <2b263a2e.3557cc70@aol.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 543 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kelly St'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Sail types Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 09:36:55 -0500 Kelly, > > Sail bosts can only do it because they use the leverage > between the wind and > the keel to force them forward. NO space keel, your out of luck. > Not true. Because it is a spaceship and not a sailboat, it is actually easier to sail against the wind so to speak. By using the sail to generate thrust on a vector that kills angular (orbital) momentum, the solar sail ship falls inward to a lower orbit, "against" the wind. It can tack, reach and sail before the wind as well as hover, something a sail boat could never do. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 13 07:54:08 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2847" "Wed" "13" "May" "1998" "09:25:51" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "63" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System)" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA10937 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 07:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA10922 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 07:54:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p25.gnt.com [204.49.68.230]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA03242; Wed, 13 May 1998 09:53:51 -0500 Message-ID: <000101bd7e7e$ec2ea1a0$ed4431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 2846 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Bjorn Nilsson'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Catalyzed Propulsion System) Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 09:25:51 -0500 Bjorn, > > First: Trade of information is certanly feasible! Trade of Physical > products may also be posible given that their Value is VERY > high compared > to their mass... (Prototypes, biological/chemical samples etc...) I'm not sure how you are going to manage the credit transfer for information trade. I guess it would have to be more of a barter system. Given the high cost of transport, I really don't see ANY cargo being valuable enough to transport back, maybe if the ship is going back anyway, but that is strictly a one time trade mission. > 3) Unless the "light-barrier" can somehow be broken, it would > be neccesary > to "Planet-hop" to get to further systems... That would mean that the > colony SHOULD be able to send out it's OWN colonizts in the forseeable > future... (a few Centurys, MAX!!!) Well, this is pretty much a given. In fact under the plan I foresee, it wouldn't necessarily take even that long. If the first infrastructure to go in is space borne mining and manufacturing, then the original ships could simply be refurbished over a period of fifty years or so and be ready to send out all over again. I had kind of expected that this would be thew case for a return trip as well. The explorers would put in place the beginnings of an orbital infrastructure focusing on the things needed to refurbish and refuel the ship first so that it could return to Earth as soon as possible. > Time-scales: > To most Humans, even a Century is gona seem a VERY long time > even quite > far into the future... Just look at the excitement about the upcoming > Milenium shift and I think that most will agree that projects > that take > 1000s of years will NOT be feasible from a socio-economic POV. > IMHO if something doesn't at least START to give results in a century, > forget IT... Well, what you don't tell them won't hurt them...Actually, all that is necessary (or possible) is to put in place a series of five, ten, twenty and fifty year plans. The rest will take care of itself. It is not a big deal if one particular colony fails to continue sending out ships, some other colony will. > Population Growth: > As someone pointed out, most industialized countries have > trouble keeping > their population CONSTANT, never mind increasing it... Personally I'd > think that the Knowledge of how having lots of kids is a > NECCESITY for the > colony will help somewhat. This is still one of the BIGGEST problems > Though. In a frontier economy, even a technological one, children are wealth. A family with more children can produce more, occupy more land, etc. This is a somewhat naive and simplified view, the actuality is more complex, but like the above argument, I think it will take care of itself. The biggest problem may actually be providing sufficient infrastructure to support such population growth. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 13 07:54:44 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3288" "Wed" "13" "May" "1998" "09:50:18" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "86" "RE: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA11074 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 07:54:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA11065 for ; Wed, 13 May 1998 07:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p25.gnt.com [204.49.68.230]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA03265; Wed, 13 May 1998 09:54:09 -0500 Message-ID: <000301bd7e7e$f71576c0$ed4431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <35587D5E.70A4C21F@bsb.nutecnet.com.br> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 3287 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Antonio C T Rocha'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 09:50:18 -0500 Antonio, Once upon a time I used to provide a great deal of computer hardware to Lockheed Space Operation's AI research unit. One of my best friends from school runs the operation and I can tell you that AI is a lot more difficult than commonly believed. The hardware is really the smallest part of the problem. Software is the real killer. Software development has always lagged behind hardware development and always will. It is not necessary to even develop an aware AI, simply one that can be depended upon to perform its job reliably time after time after time, no matter what input it is presented with. At the moment it is too easy to crash AI software by presenting it with input it was not programmed to handle. In a lab this is inconvenient, on a space craft, it could be terminal. Nevertheless, we have made great strides in recent years and I fill confident that AI will play some role, even if it is not as great as you envision. Lee > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > [mailto:owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu]On Behalf Of > Antonio C T > Rocha > Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 11:49 AM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation > > > Kelly, > Ship repair is an "easy" task for neural nets. You have a > "target" state and > the possible "paths" (methods, tools, etc.) to get there. > "experience" databases > and expert system AIs pare the alternatives down giving > "weights" for each > procedure - building the branches of your logic tree(s). It > is a big problem > divided into a lot of simple parts. > Something similar happens today with IBM and other > companies where the > technician reads troubleshooting and repair procedure > step-by-step from a screen / > pad / whatever, being shunted to "higher-level" servers when > rarer problems are > encountered. At the top end end of this line, when a solution > has not been found, > lies top-notch human assistance. Aircraft mechanics work a > lot like that. > Auto-company car mechanics work like that. > The problem today isnt "logic" or problem-solving. The > problem is real-world > sensing. > The human technicians main job in this case is to provide > real-world sensing > and "common-sense". This is stiil too costly or incipient to > put machines on it in > everyday chores. Prototypes are being developed-used for > nuclear plant and > electric utility plant special jobs in very hazardous > environments. But we already > have seeing robots, flying-object catching robots, walking > robots, best path > choosing robots, face-fingerprint-handwriting recognition > systems... etc. - and > "common-sense" systems are coming along quite nicely. > By 2010 they will have become useful / cheap enough for > supply to fuel demand > to fuel supply to fuel demand... and so on. > > Even in emergencies, the multiplying effect of AI, robots > etc. will ensure > that you will be able to do without the vast amounts of > people needed today to > operate and maintain fleet. They will also buy you > buffer-time, doing the > grunt-work and basic troubleshooting routines, enabling the > humans to concentrate > on the problem instead of "chasing consequences" when > something goes wrong. > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu May 14 07:44:53 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["838" "Thu" "14" "May" "1998" "10:38:38" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "22" "RE: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA13991 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 07:44:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com ([207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA13962 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 07:44:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Thu, 14 May 1998 10:38:39 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Length: 837 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 10:38:38 -0400 But are they? I thought we had decided that the conditions in a sub were closer to the conditions one should expect in a starship than the conditions on a carrier would be. More cramped, more cut-off, repairs while underway more difficult, etc. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. > ---------- > From: Kelly St[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 12:13 AM > Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers > > But thats kind my point. Subs and carriers are essentially the same tech, > but > carriers operat fleets of support craft. A critical difference. > > Kelly > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu May 14 20:20:39 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3138" "Thu" "14" "May" "1998" "23:19:48" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "100" "Re: Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA20813 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 20:20:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo30.mx.aol.com (imo30.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.74]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA20803 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 20:20:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo30.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UVJYa02448 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 23:19:48 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <5294ae88.355bb455@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 3137 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 23:19:48 EDT In a message dated 5/13/98 8:26:10 AM, f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se wrote: >On Tue, 12 May 1998, Kelly St wrote: > >> Sorry to hear you were that sick. Drink plenty of fluids and don't breath on >> the E-MAIL!! >> >> ;) >> > >I won't breathe, I'll cough... (And since you US types have absolutly NO >imunity to our NEW european "Superflues" you'll surely DIE!) > >;=) Good think I have virus protection on my computer. ;) >> >> We never could come up with a reason for a colony. Resources are more >> >> plentiful and easy to get to in space, and the danger of an ecology is >> less. >> >> But, this solar system is rich in stuff too, and its a lot easier to set up >> a >> >> colony nearer to your spare parts suplier. ;) >> >> >> > >> >Well, don't forget the most valuable comodity of them all: KNOWLEDGE!!! >> > >> >The amount of things that will be learnt from colonizing another solar >> >system is probably the best economic incentive of them all! >> >(This is espisially true of systems with alien lifeforms.) >> > >> > >> >This is also how the Colony will yield "interest" to the investors back >> >home! And the good thing is that "trade" of information/knowledge will be >> >posible at Light-speed (and fairly low-cost), where as PHYSICAL trade will >> >be quite a bit slower AND more expensive! >> >> Given the danger of an alen world a orbital colony would be safer, easier, and >> have better access to resources. On the other hand, you'ld learn as much by >> building it in our own solar system. >> >> Scientific exploration is generally not very profitable. It can't generally >> pay its own bills on Earth or our starsystem, so interstellar is a REAL long >> shot. >> > >Well, that depends on how you count... Many People would consider that the >Apollo programs of the 60's generated a Big return if you include all the >spin-offs and all the research based of it... Thats actually more a PR myth then a reality. Apollo generated very little new technology. Such R&D programs were avoided and existing technology used. Many things credited to Apollo were actually developed for other reasons (like electronics, weather sats, and space launch boosters). >It all depends on which SCALE you look at it with... (Both in Time, and >space) > > > >> >Another comment is that the same factors were in places for the Europeans >> >coming to the new world and they fared much better... >> >> The Europeans also lost most of their population to deseases they imported >> back to Euroup. Which was one reason most children died before the age of 6. >> >> As to the new world deseases, they weren't as evolved as the ones recrited >> from Africa to Japan by the Euros. (Yes we planed it all HA!!) ;) >> >> >> >Bjorn... >> >> >> Kelly >> > >Yeah, but the imparitive word is _MOST_ of their population... Those who >did survive were generaly more resistent and "fit to live" and in a few >generations the Population was back to normal... Happens all the time in >nature... The american Indian population has just started to return to its pre euro levels of a few centuries back. >Bjornie... Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu May 14 20:20:41 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1069" "Thu" "14" "May" "1998" "23:19:51" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "43" "Re: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA20832 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 20:20:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA20819 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 20:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UFBCa02231 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 23:19:51 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1068 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 23:19:51 EDT ==> > >> Population Growth: > >> As someone pointed out, most industialized countries have > >> trouble keeping > >> their population CONSTANT, never mind increasing it... Personally I'd > >> think that the Knowledge of how having lots of kids is a > >> NECCESITY for the > >> colony will help somewhat. This is still one of the BIGGEST problems > >> Though. > > > >In a frontier economy, even a technological one, children are wealth. A > >family with more children can produce more, occupy more land, etc. This is a > >somewhat naive and simplified view, the actuality is more complex, but like > >the above argument, I think it will take care of itself. The biggest problem > >may actually be providing sufficient infrastructure to support such > >population growth. Children were helpfull where you need a lot of unskilled labor. Now a days that isn't a factor. Now kids are a financial liability until they get well educated, at which point they move out and our no longer a factor for their parents economics. I.E. kids are a expensive hobby. >Lee Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu May 14 20:20:43 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["690" "Thu" "14" "May" "1998" "23:19:45" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "18" "Re: RE: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA20842 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 14 May 1998 20:20:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com (imo27.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA20831 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 20:20:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UMIa018656 for ; Thu, 14 May 1998 23:19:45 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 689 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 23:19:45 EDT In a message dated 5/14/98 8:45:07 AM, david@actionworld.com wrote: >But are they? I thought we had decided that the conditions in a sub were >closer to the conditions one should expect in a starship than the conditions >on a carrier would be. More cramped, more cut-off, repairs while underway >more difficult, etc. >------------------------------------------------------ >David Levine Hey none of my designs were cramped! ;) Certainly if you want a sane crew after a couple decades they need some space. Certainly going out and doing repairs on a starships easier then a sub or ship. comunication time lag would get bad, but at least heavy bandwidth would be avalible. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri May 15 18:19:00 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["882" "Fri" "15" "May" "1998" "18:58:31" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "31" "RE: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA28494 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 15 May 1998 18:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA28480 for ; Fri, 15 May 1998 18:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p33.gnt.com [204.49.68.238]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA18030; Fri, 15 May 1998 20:18:47 -0500 Message-ID: <000401bd8068$8e63c820$ed4431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 881 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kelly St'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 18:58:31 -0500 Kelly, You missed the operative word here. I said "frontier". Comparing it to "now a days" is not the same thing. Even in a technologically oriented frontier economy, children will be valuable. ANY six year old can run a computer keyboard if necessary. My five year old cracked his school's internal network security while in kindergarten ... and has no problem running the various applications on his own computer. The type of work being performed may have changed but the method of performing it will change also. This is called "Paradigm Shift". Lee > > Children were helpfull where you need a lot of unskilled > labor. Now a days > that isn't a factor. Now kids are a financial liability > until they get well > educated, at which point they move out and our no longer a > factor for their > parents economics. I.E. kids are a expensive hobby. > > > >Lee > > > Kelly > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat May 16 17:44:25 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["925" "Sat" "16" "May" "1998" "19:02:46" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "24" "starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (starship-design)" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA14247 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 17:44:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.53]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA14242 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 17:44:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tim (es01-00.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.50.1]) by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id CAA23645 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 02:44:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980516190246.0079eb70@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <000401bd8068$8e63c820$ed4431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet. com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 924 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (starship-design) Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 19:02:46 +0100 Hello Lee, You wrote to Kelly: >My five year old cracked his school's internal network security while in >kindergarten ... and has no problem running the various applications on his >own computer. The type of work being performed may have changed but the >method of performing it will change also. This is called "Paradigm Shift". Let me assume your five year old is a son (merely to avoid to much s/he her/his.) Pitty you didn't tell how he cracked to security. Did he do it by accident or was it a goal he had set himself to? I wonder if five year old can solve the problems that people at a mostly technical and possibly very dangerous frontier have to face. Merely being able to follow options that do present themselves (ie. buttons on a window) is not enough. Timothy P.S. I may have downsized the abilities of your kid since I haven't seen him in action, nor have you given me more clues to make my hypothesis. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat May 16 21:55:13 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["791" "Sun" "17" "May" "1998" "00:56:44" "-0400" "Paul Anderson" "madhobby@geeky1.ebtech.net" nil "25" "RE: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA19702 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 16 May 1998 21:55:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bootes.ebtech.net (root@bootes.ebtech.net [206.152.142.12]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA19673 for ; Sat, 16 May 1998 21:55:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bootes.ebtech.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with UUCP id XAA29218; Sat, 16 May 1998 23:58:52 -0400 Received: from localhost (madhobby@localhost) by geeky1.ebtech.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA01423; Sun, 17 May 1998 00:56:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: <000401bd8068$8e63c820$ed4431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Paul Anderson Content-Length: 790 From: Paul Anderson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" cc: "'Kelly St'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 00:56:44 -0400 (EDT) On Fri, 15 May 1998, L. Parker wrote: > > My five year old cracked his school's internal network security while in > kindergarten > Cracking school networks doesn't count. Trust me, the security of network's at schools is ALWAYS pathetic. 9 times out of 10 the server isn't even headless! AND they leave it in an unlocked room! In that kind of situation the power switch becomes a denial of service attack... Though, I do know of people that where programming in assembler at the age of 5. He also did trig math for fun at the age of 10. TTYL! --- Paul Anderson madhobby@geeky1.ebtech.net "BETTER LIVING THROUGH RECKLESS EXPERIMENTATION" - Motto of The Mad Scientist "Less talk, more synthahol." - Worf FREE mailing lists setup, for more info e-mail newlist@geeky1.ebtech.net From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 17 03:28:30 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["581" "Sun" "17" "May" "1998" "03:27:55" "PDT" "Christoph Kulmann" "guderiak@hotmail.com" nil "22" "starship-design: Radiation Shielding" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA10610 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 17 May 1998 03:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f192.hotmail.com [207.82.251.81]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id DAA10604 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 03:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 6566 invoked by uid 0); 17 May 1998 10:27:55 -0000 Message-ID: <19980517102755.6565.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.102.12.107 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 17 May 1998 03:27:55 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.102.12.107] Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Christoph Kulmann" Content-Length: 580 From: "Christoph Kulmann" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: KellySt@aol.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Radiation Shielding Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 03:27:55 PDT Hi Kelly, Sorry for the question, but I just read your web page about crew quarters and radiation shielding. There is a table in which you give the following mass numbers: Forward bulkhead 35,995 tons Rear bulkhead 35,995 tons Outer Circumference 27,646 tons This adds up to 99,636 tons. The two bulkheads together give 71,990 tons. So, where do you get your total mass of 72,017 tons from? What have I missed???? Christoph ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 17 11:22:25 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1025" "Sun" "17" "May" "1998" "19:03:20" "+0000" "Stephen Harley" "stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com" nil "27" "Re: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA27923 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 17 May 1998 11:22:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monsoon.dial.pipex.net (monsoon.dial.pipex.net [158.43.128.69]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA27913 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 11:22:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 16962 invoked from network); 17 May 1998 18:22:18 -0000 Received: from userl537.uk.uudial.com (HELO dial.pipex.com) (193.149.75.96) by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 17 May 1998 18:22:18 -0000 Message-ID: <355F2667.E92563F0@dial.pipex.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Stephen Harley Content-Length: 1024 From: Stephen Harley Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: David Levine CC: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: Re: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 19:03:20 +0000 David Levine wrote: > Right - the only reason subs don't carry support fleets is for military > purposes - they'd defeat the purpose of being stealthy if a bunch of surface > vessels followed them around. But a sub is much more akin to the kind of > craft we're talking about. So imagine a sub as large as an aircraft carrier > - maybe a research sub with a fleet of support vessels. > ------------------------------------------------------ > David Levine david@actionworld.com > Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ > ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 > Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. And you've got SeaQuest DSV ! Actually this maybe a silly question but did anybody ever do any research papers or designs of something like the fictional SeaQuest, (or did the show ?) while they will largerly be irrelevant perhaps we could find something useful in them. Stephen. -- stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com http://ds.dial.pipex.com/s.harley/ From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 17 11:22:25 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1215" "Sun" "17" "May" "1998" "19:12:11" "+0000" "Stephen Harley" "stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com" nil "48" "Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA27936 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 17 May 1998 11:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from monsoon.dial.pipex.net (monsoon.dial.pipex.net [158.43.128.69]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA27921 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 11:22:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 16971 invoked from network); 17 May 1998 18:22:21 -0000 Received: from userl537.uk.uudial.com (HELO dial.pipex.com) (193.149.75.96) by smtp.dial.pipex.com with SMTP; 17 May 1998 18:22:21 -0000 Message-ID: <355F287A.45BEB53D@dial.pipex.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Stephen Harley Content-Length: 1214 From: Stephen Harley Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Kelly St CC: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 19:12:11 +0000 Kelly St wrote: > In a message dated 5/10/98 6:54:58 PM, arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br wrote: > [SNIP] > You don't need remotre control for steady bland flight, you need it for > emergencies and judgement. > > Also since the ships would be moving away from one another over great > distences the time lag eats you. > [SNIP} > AI has gotten good at dealing with routine things in a very limited relm. > They are still pretty useless in an unconstraind environment like ship repair. > So again I'm assuming the systems can't be much more then a couple orders of > magnitude better then today. > > Kelly Kelly were talking about a starship fifty years into the future. Now if you went fifty years into the past and told people that before the end of the century there would be such a thing as computers controlling ships, factories, and to certain extent aircraft they'd call you nuts. The computer industry does exactly what your assuming it can't it jumps in orders of magnitude. Fifty years ago the first computer had just been invented, now we have the internet. Besides the industry is one in which research is well funded. Stephen. -- stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com http://ds.dial.pipex.com/s.harley/ From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 17 19:11:13 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["870" "Sun" "17" "May" "1998" "21:00:51" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "19" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (starship-design)" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA26080 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 17 May 1998 19:11:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA26037 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 19:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p23.gnt.com [204.49.68.228]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA17711; Sun, 17 May 1998 21:11:01 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bd8202$2ebb1540$e44431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980516190246.0079eb70@pop.xs4all.nl> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 869 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (starship-design) Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 21:00:51 -0500 Timothy, Actually I was just trying to illustrate the point that "children" are quite comfortable supervising the operation of electronics. Since this is mostly what will be required, even children will be valuable on the frontier. After all, its not like we are sending them out with a horse and a mule... As to how he did it, I can only guess. I _think_ that whomever instituted the password system at the school violated a couple of standard rules and assigned passwords according to some pattern. I know the username for log on was simply a room number - the password was probably something stupid like the teacher's name for that room. It really doesn't make any difference though. The teachers at the school had not realized it was that easy to break. It would have been easy for you or I to break - but now we are comparing ourselves to a five year old. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 17 19:13:01 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["173" "Sun" "17" "May" "1998" "21:02:59" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "9" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA26625 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 17 May 1998 19:13:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA26605 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 19:12:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p23.gnt.com [204.49.68.228]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id VAA17730; Sun, 17 May 1998 21:11:11 -0500 Message-ID: <000101bd8202$388dbb40$e44431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 172 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Paul Anderson'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 21:02:59 -0500 Paul, With the quality of equipment these schools are running, you don't have to worry about pulling the plug, just wait a couple of hours, the system will go down. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 17 19:20:22 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["862" "Sun" "17" "May" "1998" "22:18:49" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: Radiation Shielding" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA28739 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 17 May 1998 19:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo23.mx.aol.com (imo23.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.67]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA28731 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 19:20:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id PDKEa02232; Sun, 17 May 1998 22:18:49 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <40d4f0df.355f9a8a@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 861 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: guderiak@hotmail.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Radiation Shielding Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 22:18:49 EDT In a message dated 5/17/98 4:28:36 AM, guderiak@hotmail.com wrote: >Hi Kelly, > >Sorry for the question, but I just read your web page about crew >quarters and radiation shielding. There is a table in which you give the >following mass numbers: > >Forward bulkhead 35,995 tons >Rear bulkhead 35,995 tons >Outer Circumference 27,646 tons > >This adds up to 99,636 tons. The two bulkheads together give 71,990 >tons. >So, where do you get your total mass of 72,017 tons from? > >What have I missed???? > >Christoph Damed if I can remember. I think I was figuring you could use a U shaped structure so the bulkhgead and circumpherence mass would murge. But we later decided to just use extra fuel mass for rad shileding, so I may have just never finished it. Can't remember, I'll try to check on it when I can. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 17 19:20:56 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1616" "Sun" "17" "May" "1998" "22:18:58" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "66" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Ca" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA28896 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 17 May 1998 19:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo29.mx.aol.com (imo29.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.73]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA28869 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 19:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo29.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UTDa002462 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 22:18:58 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <370fd1df.355f9a9a@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1615 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Ca Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 22:18:58 EDT In a message dated 5/15/98 7:18:51 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Kelly, > > > >You missed the operative word here. I said "frontier". Comparing it to "now >a days" is not the same thing. Even in a technologically oriented frontier >economy, children will be valuable. ANY six year old can run a computer >keyboard if necessary. > > > >My five year old cracked his school's internal network security while in >kindergarten ... and has no problem running the various applications on his >own computer. The type of work being performed may have changed but the >method of performing it will change also. This is called "Paradigm Shift". > >Lee No thats exactly wrong. Children now can't do the kind of things workers and exploreres on a starship or space colony would need to know how to do. Ok, he cracked the internal security for his kindergarden. Could he design one? Could he do toxicitie research studies of alien microbes? Or develop a high level AI? All the normal routine things that kids could do (run errands, do routine work, check E-mail for letters from certain people, etc) can be automated out of existence. All that gets left is the high skill jobs that need more training and experience then a kid could have. Kelly >> > >> Children were helpfull where you need a lot of unskilled > >> labor. Now a days > >> that isn't a factor. Now kids are a financial liability > >> until they get well > >> educated, at which point they move out and our no longer a > >> factor for their > >> parents economics. I.E. kids are a expensive hobby. > >> > >> > >> >Lee > >> > >> > >> Kelly > >> > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 17 19:53:05 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1664" "Sun" "17" "May" "1998" "19:52:13" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "27" "starship-design: alien aesthetics" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA09570 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 17 May 1998 19:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA09547 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 19:53:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [205.163.58.184] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA5997 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 19:54:20 -0700 Message-ID: <355F312E.53B8@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 1663 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: starship-design: alien aesthetics Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 19:52:13 +0100 I was reading some of the old posts about hypothetical human-alien relations, especially he ones relating to Pellegrino's "Killing Star" and it occured to me that one of the major factors in our reaction to contact would be the aliens' physical appearence, were that information avaliable. If we assume that we meet through means other than our radiotelescopes (eg exploratory missions stumbling across each other or an inhabited planet) and neither side is overtly aggressive, then human attitudes will be greatly shaped by how "cute" or "hideous" the aliens appear should we decide to exchange video images. An alien whose appearence is unnerving to us (big, slimy, and made mostly of teeth) will recieve much less trust from us than something with a more benign appearence. Cute aliens need not follow any particular body plan, just _appear_ nonthreatening. With the above in mind, we should prepare to meet some aliens whose apperence is extremely unnerving, since the likelyhood of cute aliens is, in my opinion, rather low. This bodes ill for both our initial contacts as well as continued relations. Long term relations might prove even most difficult as the general public gives into a wave of xenophobia, as they surely will fear an alien race in any case and a "hideous" race especially. On the other hand, should we find a race which we find "cute" we should worry about letting down our guard. To use a terrestrial parallel, cats certainly fit many people's definition of "cute" and yet, they are extremely intelligent, aggressive, dangerous animals for their weight class. "Cute" aliens can be just as dangerous as the others. nels lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 17 20:55:01 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1663" "Sun" "17" "May" "1998" "23:40:28" "-0400" "Paul Anderson" "madhobby@geeky1.ebtech.net" nil "38" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Ca" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA28711 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 17 May 1998 20:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bootes.ebtech.net (root@bootes.ebtech.net [206.152.142.12]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA28690 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 20:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bootes.ebtech.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with UUCP id WAA15802; Sun, 17 May 1998 22:43:34 -0400 Received: from localhost (madhobby@localhost) by geeky1.ebtech.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA19103; Sun, 17 May 1998 23:40:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <370fd1df.355f9a9a@aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Paul Anderson Content-Length: 1662 From: Paul Anderson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Kelly St cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Ca Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 23:40:28 -0400 (EDT) On Sun, 17 May 1998, Kelly St wrote: > > No thats exactly wrong. Children now can't do the kind of things workers and > exploreres on a starship or space colony would need to know how to do. Ok, he > cracked the internal security for his kindergarden. Could he design one? > Could he do toxicitie research studies of alien microbes? Or develop a high > level AI? > Who are you to say a child couldn't? If given a chance, and not treated as though they're half-braindead, children can do some incredible things. The only seperation between a child and an adult is strength - a child can learn just as much as an adult. They usually don't have time to do it, and our culture being prejudiced against youth, don't get the chance. > All the normal routine things that kids could do (run errands, do routine > work, check E-mail for letters from certain people, etc) > No, you're wrong here. That sentance should read "the things a kid would normally be ENCOURAGED to do". I know a fellow that when he was in kindergarten he was programming assembler. _I_ can't program in assembler. At 10 he was doing trig. _I_ can't do trig. Why was he able to do such amazing feats? Because he was given a chance to do them and he was ENCOURAGED to do them. The only problem with children is that it takes time to learn things, and for the most complex things they're an adult before they're done learning about it. TTYL! --- Paul Anderson madhobby@geeky1.ebtech.net "BETTER LIVING THROUGH RECKLESS EXPERIMENTATION" - Motto of The Mad Scientist "Less talk, more synthahol." - Worf FREE mailing lists setup, for more info e-mail newlist@geeky1.ebtech.net From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 17 20:55:15 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["994" "Sun" "17" "May" "1998" "23:32:47" "-0400" "Paul Anderson" "madhobby@geeky1.ebtech.net" nil "26" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (starship-design)" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA28800 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 17 May 1998 20:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bootes.ebtech.net (root@bootes.ebtech.net [206.152.142.12]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA28750 for ; Sun, 17 May 1998 20:55:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by bootes.ebtech.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with UUCP id WAA15800; Sun, 17 May 1998 22:43:33 -0400 Received: from localhost (madhobby@localhost) by geeky1.ebtech.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id XAA19086; Sun, 17 May 1998 23:32:48 -0400 In-Reply-To: <000001bd8202$2ebb1540$e44431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Paul Anderson Content-Length: 993 From: Paul Anderson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "L. Parker" cc: "'Timothy van der Linden'" , "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (starship-design) Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 23:32:47 -0400 (EDT) On Sun, 17 May 1998, L. Parker wrote: > The teachers at the school had not realized it was that easy to > break. It would have been easy for you or I to break - but now we are > comparing ourselves to a five year old. > I do have a distinct feeling that children are capable of far greater intelligence than most attribute to them. The only thing that limits a child is lack of basic knowledge - things like reading and writing. It can make it hard at times for a child to get access to information, especially when no one encourages them to learn. TV shows like Barney, TeleTubbies and books like Dr. Seus don't help things. I feel that TV shows such as the two aforementioned have a significant hand in the mass stupidity of modern mankind. TTYL! --- Paul Anderson madhobby@geeky1.ebtech.net "BETTER LIVING THROUGH RECKLESS EXPERIMENTATION" - Motto of The Mad Scientist "Less talk, more synthahol." - Worf FREE mailing lists setup, for more info e-mail newlist@geeky1.ebtech.net From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon May 18 07:33:18 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1686" "Mon" "18" "May" "1998" "09:30:55" "-0500" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "35" "RE: starship-design: alien aesthetics" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA16032 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 07:33:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA16014 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 07:33:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pm3-163.gpt.infi.net (pm3-163.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.163]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA18112 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 10:33:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pm3-163.gpt.infi.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD823F.A9364AA0@pm3-163.gpt.infi.net>; Mon, 18 May 1998 09:30:56 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD823F.A9364AA0@pm3-163.gpt.infi.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id HAA16018 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Content-Length: 1685 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: RE: starship-design: alien aesthetics Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 09:30:55 -0500 ---------- From: Lindberg[SMTP:lindberg@olywa.net] Sent: Sunday, May 17, 1998 1:52 PM To: SSD Subject: starship-design: alien aesthetics >If we assume that we meet through means other than our >radiotelescopes (eg exploratory missions stumbling across each other or >an inhabited planet) and neither side is overtly aggressive, then human >attitudes will be greatly shaped by how "cute" or "hideous" the aliens >appear should we decide to exchange video images Agreed. It may be that we may encounter aliens that look extremely disgusting, but may not be as aggressive as more "cute" looking ones. I must agree with Carl Sagan that if an alien armada appears in our skies, we are likely to be very hospitable to them, especially if they are very highly advanced. (don't provoke those who may have a bomb bigger than yours). >On the other hand, should we find a race >which we find "cute" we should worry about letting down our guard. To >use a terrestrial parallel, cats certainly fit many people's definition >of "cute" and yet, they are extremely intelligent, aggressive, dangerous >animals for their weight class. Probably why I have a dog. Cats are just a bit TOO smart for my comfort. > "Cute" aliens can be just as dangerous >as the others. Correct. I seem to remember a book in which something like this happens: Two alien races are discovered, one is extremely ugly, the other is small, and "cute". Humans decide to befriend the "cute" ones, only to find out later that they are the aggressive ones, and the ugly ones were willing to help us out. By the end of the book though, it is too late for humans: we become pampered slaves. Kyle R. Mcallister From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon May 18 11:05:14 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1926" "Mon" "18" "May" "1998" "13:59:04" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "49" "RE: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA01278 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:05:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com (mail.actionworld.com [207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA01211 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Mon, 18 May 1998 13:59:06 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Length: 1925 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 13:59:04 -0400 Well, the one caveat I have on this is that it probably depends on the velocity and the design of the starship. In some combinations I can picture the external environment of a starship being an extremely hazardous place. Radiation being the main thing I can think of. As far as ease of repairs - if a carrier breaks down, no one's life onboard is threatened. If a sub breaks down, in certain situations it can be life threatening. Repairs on a sub stranded underwater (admittedly not very likely) are a lot harder than repairs on a stranded carrier. I was thinking that the repairs on a starship in motion are difficult and critical and hence are more akin to repairs on a sub than a carrier. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. > ---------- > From: Kelly St[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] > Reply To: Kelly St > Sent: Thursday, May 14, 1998 11:19 PM > To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu > Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers > > > In a message dated 5/14/98 8:45:07 AM, david@actionworld.com wrote: > > >But are they? I thought we had decided that the conditions in a sub were > >closer to the conditions one should expect in a starship than the > conditions > >on a carrier would be. More cramped, more cut-off, repairs while > underway > >more difficult, etc. > >------------------------------------------------------ > >David Levine > > > Hey none of my designs were cramped! ;) Certainly if you want a sane > crew > after a couple decades they need some space. Certainly going out and > doing > repairs on a starships easier then a sub or ship. comunication time lag > would > get bad, but at least heavy bandwidth would be avalible. > > Kelly > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon May 18 11:10:29 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2306" "Mon" "18" "May" "1998" "14:04:24" "-0400" "David Levine" "david@actionworld.com" nil "58" "RE: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA05242 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:10:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from action-bdc.actionworld.com (mail.actionworld.com [207.204.136.52]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA05042 for ; Mon, 18 May 1998 11:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ACTION-BDC with Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) id ; Mon, 18 May 1998 14:04:26 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8) Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: David Levine Content-Length: 2305 From: David Levine Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 14:04:24 -0400 Well, my undergraduate degree was in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering. I can picture some of my classmates being fascinated by SeaQuest enough to have done some sort of project relating to it, but this was before that show was on the air. However, it wasn't THAT long ago. We talked about ships for all sorts of purposes, but nothing that quite matched the purpose and design of SeaQuest, which is modelled more after the Enterprise on Star Trek than anything else. However, some ideas and technology mentioned in the show were extrapolated from current ideas and technologies - witness the closing comments made by Dr. Ballard in early episodes. That beind said, I really didn't like the show too much. ------------------------------------------------------ David Levine david@actionworld.com Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. > ---------- > From: Stephen Harley[SMTP:stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com] > Sent: Sunday, May 17, 1998 3:03 PM > To: David Levine > Cc: 'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu' > Subject: Re: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers > > David Levine wrote: > > > Right - the only reason subs don't carry support fleets is for military > > purposes - they'd defeat the purpose of being stealthy if a bunch of > surface > > vessels followed them around. But a sub is much more akin to the kind > of > > craft we're talking about. So imagine a sub as large as an aircraft > carrier > > - maybe a research sub with a fleet of support vessels. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > David Levine david@actionworld.com > > Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ > > ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 > > Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. > > And you've got SeaQuest DSV ! Actually this maybe a silly question but > did anybody ever do any research papers or designs of something like the > fictional SeaQuest, (or did the show ?) while they will largerly be > irrelevant > perhaps we could find something useful in them. > > Stephen. > -- > stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com > http://ds.dial.pipex.com/s.harley/ > > > > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue May 19 04:44:23 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1014" "Tue" "19" "May" "1998" "12:37:20" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "27" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA17825 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 04:44:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.53]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA17820 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 04:44:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tim (es01-14.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.50.15]) by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id NAA28624 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 13:44:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980519123720.007a3100@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 1013 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 12:37:20 +0100 Lee, In response to your 21:00 17-05-98 letter: >Actually I was just trying to illustrate the point that "children" are quite >comfortable supervising the operation of electronics. Since this is mostly >what will be required, even children will be valuable on the frontier. After >all, its not like we are sending them out with a horse and a mule... Hmm, I see what you are trying to say. We could have many routine but slightly changing and difficult to automate jobs. While supervising equipment may be such a job, I don't think it would be of much use to let children supervise it: If the equipment is critical then one wouldn't trust a child with such a responsibility, and if the equipment isn't critical then it wouldn't have to be supervised continuously. However children may actually help do similar tasks as they've done for a long time: Help prepare food, do cleanup chores and help doing many routine but often slightly changing jobs either at home or in laboratories and workplaces. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue May 19 05:52:08 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["728" "Tue" "19" "May" "1998" "07:51:11" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "26" "RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA26837 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 19 May 1998 05:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id FAA26825 for ; Tue, 19 May 1998 05:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p21.gnt.com [204.49.68.226]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA26188; Tue, 19 May 1998 07:51:51 -0500 Message-ID: <000e01bd8324$e48625e0$e44431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980519123720.007a3100@pop.xs4all.nl> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 727 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 07:51:11 -0500 Timothy, > Hmm, I see what you are trying to say. We could have many routine but > slightly changing and difficult to automate jobs. Basically, that is it > While supervising equipment may be such a job, I don't think > it would be of > much use to let children supervise it: If the equipment is > critical then > one wouldn't trust a child with such a responsibility, and if > the equipment > isn't critical then it wouldn't have to be supervised continuously. Well that is where the Paradigm Shift comes in. I maintain that children are capable of far more than we currently demand of them. (We being Americans and western Europeans.) In a frontier environment, we might actually have to require that they work! Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 20 10:21:30 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4504" "Wed" "20" "May" "1998" "18:07:30" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "105" "starship-design: NASA Selects Initial Members of New Virtual Astrobiology Institute" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA15112 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 10:21:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.53]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA15058 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 10:21:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tim (es01-00.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.50.1]) by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA17343 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 19:21:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980520180730.007bd920@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 4503 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: NASA Selects Initial Members of New Virtual Astrobiology Institute Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 18:07:30 +0100 This I received today, especially the "the identification and development of biomarkers to determine terrestrial and extraterrestrial biosignatures". May be of use to the SD project. Timothy ------------------------------------------------------------------ Douglas Isbell/Don Savage Headquarters, Washington, DC May 19, 1998 (Phone: 202/358-1547) RELEASE: 98-84 NASA SELECTS INITIAL MEMBERS OF NEW VIRTUAL ASTROBIOLOGY INSTITUTE NASA has selected 11 academic and research institutions as the initial members of the agency's new Astrobiology Institute, thus launching a major component of NASA's Origins Program. The selected institutions represent the best of 53 uniformly first-class proposals submitted, according to NASA officials. Given that the institute members will remain at their home organizations, the partnership among the members and NASA will be carried out primarily via the Internet. This electronic 'virtual' Institute will bring together astrophysicists, biologists, chemists, physicists, planetologists and geologists to conduct interdisciplinary research on the multifaceted issue of life in the Universe and its cosmic implications. It will also help to train young scientists in this emerging field. "These initial members of NASA's Astrobiology Institute will be at the forefront of the increasingly important link between astronomy and biology, which has been a fundamental interest of mine for the past several years," said NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin. "The 'office hallways' of this virtual institute will be the fiber optic cables of the Next Generation Internet, and the groundbreaking research that this group generates will help guide our space exploration priorities well into the 21st century." The selected initial members of the Institute are: *Universities Harvard University, Cambridge, MA University of California, Los Angeles University of Colorado, Boulder Arizona State University, Tempe Pennsylvania State University, University Park *Research Institutions Carnegie Institution, Washington, DC The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA *NASA Centers Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA NASA has developed the Origins Program with its Office of Space Science to search for signs of life in the Universe, both in our Solar System and beyond. The Astrobiology Institute will foster the interdisciplinary research and training necessary for future exploration of this theme. Funding for the Institute will begin with $9 million in 1999 and $20 million in 2000. This total is expected to grow as research directions are developed and the capabilities of the Next Generation Internet are expanded and fully utilized. The Astrobiology Institute members will conduct a broad range of interdisciplinary and synergistic research on topics including: the formation of organic compounds important to the origins of life, such as from meteorites; the formation and characteristics of habitable planets; the emergence of self-replicating systems and possible pre-biotic worlds; how the Earth and life have influenced each other over time, including the evolution of ancient metabolism and the interplay of evolved oxygen; the evolution of multicellular organisms and the evolution of complex systems in simple animals; organisms in extreme environments such as hydrothermal vents; and the identification and development of biomarkers to determine terrestrial and extraterrestrial biosignatures. The selection of the members, encompassing academic institutions and government labs, was based on a competitive evaluation process that began with the release of a Cooperative Agreement Announcement in October 1997. The next solicitation opportunity for new members will take place in about a year. For further information on the Institute and the field of astrobiology, see the following Internet site: http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/ The Institute's director and staff will reside at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA. NASA Ames will manage the Institute's operations for NASA's offices of Space Science, Earth Science, and Human Exploration and Development of Space at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC. - end - From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu May 21 19:22:25 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["621" "Thu" "21" "May" "1998" "21:19:08" "-0500" "Jonathan J Jay" "jon_jay1@juno.com" nil "15" "starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA05289 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 19:22:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x13.boston.juno.com (x13.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.27]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA05209 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 19:22:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jon_jay1@juno.com) by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id W_B04959; Thu, 21 May 1998 22:20:38 EDT Message-ID: <19980521.212023.9822.2.jon_jay1@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-8 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Content-Length: 620 From: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:19:08 -0500 I was just browsing the other day and I came across a promising site that hoped to develop "perfect suspended animation within 20 years http://www.prometheus-project.org/ Jonathan Jay ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The future has a way of arriving unannounced. - George F.Will _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu May 21 20:16:48 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1533" "Thu" "21" "May" "1998" "23:16:06" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "37" "Re: Re: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA21042 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 20:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.37]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA20989 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 20:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UYWWa25760 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 23:16:06 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <9899591a.3564edf7@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1532 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 23:16:06 EDT In a message dated 5/17/98 12:22:31 PM, stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com wrote: >> Right - the only reason subs don't carry support fleets is for military >> purposes - they'd defeat the purpose of being stealthy if a bunch of surface >> vessels followed them around. But a sub is much more akin to the kind of >> craft we're talking about. So imagine a sub as large as an aircraft carrier >> - maybe a research sub with a fleet of support vessels. >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> David Levine david@actionworld.com >> Director of Development http://www.actionworld.com/ >> ActionWorld, Inc. (212) 387-8200 >> Professional Driver. Closed Track. Do not attempt. > >And you've got SeaQuest DSV ! Actually this maybe a silly question but >did anybody ever do any research papers or designs of something like the >fictional SeaQuest, (or did the show ?) while they will largerly be irrelevant >perhaps we could find something useful in them. > >Stephen. I keep up on a lot of science fiction projects. Usually if a show does research they brag about it. SeaQuest never mentioned anything like that. Obviously the high drag hull shape shows their design wasn't very technically thought out. On the other hand the SeaQuest is about the same size (at least in length) as our current big trident subs, and some of them have been modified with mini sub hangers and remote sensor drones for special ops missions. So in a way, its kind of current tech. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu May 21 20:17:12 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1859" "Thu" "21" "May" "1998" "23:16:02" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "45" "Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiprot" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA21533 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 20:17:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo12.mx.aol.com (imo12.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.34]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA21472 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 20:17:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo12.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UIRYa14246 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 23:16:02 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <5be8a39b.3564edf3@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1858 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiprot Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 23:16:02 EDT In a message dated 5/17/98 9:54:52 PM, madhobby@geeky1.ebtech.net wrote: >> No thats exactly wrong. Children now can't do the kind of things workers and >> exploreres on a starship or space colony would need to know how to do. Ok, he >> cracked the internal security for his kindergarden. Could he design one? >> Could he do toxicitie research studies of alien microbes? Or develop a high >> level AI? >> >Who are you to say a child couldn't? If given a chance, and not treated >as though they're half-braindead, children can do some incredible things. >The only seperation between a child and an adult is strength - a child can >learn just as much as an adult. They usually don't have time to do it,-- Exactly my point. Even if a child did have the intelegence (ok obviously not realistic for a 5 year old or something) they would not have the physical time to learn enough to become proficent enough to do this kind of work. Lets face it. Anything routine enough to not need a highly trained generalist would probably be automated. > ---and our culture being prejudiced against youth, don't get the chance. > >> All the normal routine things that kids could do (run errands, do routine >> work, check E-mail for letters from certain people, etc) >> >No, you're wrong here. That sentance should read "the things a kid would >normally be ENCOURAGED to do". I know a fellow that when he was in >kindergarten he was programming assembler. _I_ can't program in >assembler. At 10 he was doing trig. _I_ can't do trig. Why was he able >to do such amazing feats? Because he was given a chance to do them and he >was ENCOURAGED to do them. The only problem with children is that it >takes time to learn things, and for the most complex things they're an >adult before they're done learning about it. TTYL! > > >--- >Paul Anderson Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu May 21 20:17:13 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2041" "Thu" "21" "May" "1998" "23:16:11" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "66" "Re: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA21558 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 20:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA21493 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 20:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UCDWa18333 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 23:16:11 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <5df1a31a.3564ee01@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 2040 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 23:16:11 EDT In a message dated 5/17/98 12:22:24 PM, stephen.harley@dial.pipex.com wrote: >Kelly St wrote: > >> In a message dated 5/10/98 6:54:58 PM, arocha@bsb.nutecnet.com.br wrote: >> > >[SNIP] > >> You don't need remotre control for steady bland flight, you need it for >> emergencies and judgement. >> >> Also since the ships would be moving away from one another over great >> distences the time lag eats you. >> > >[SNIP} > >> AI has gotten good at dealing with routine things in a very limited relm. >> They are still pretty useless in an unconstraind environment like ship repair. >> So again I'm assuming the systems can't be much more then a couple orders of >> magnitude better then today. >> >> Kelly > > >Kelly were talking about a starship fifty years into the future. Now if you went >fifty >years into the past and told people that before the end of the century there would >be >such a thing as computers controlling ships, factories, and to certain extent >aircraft >they'd call you nuts. -- They might, but even at that time mechanical computers were already controling quite complex systems, including navigation systems, within ships planes and missle well over a century ago. >--The computer industry does exactly what your assuming it >can't >it jumps in orders of magnitude. Fifty years ago the first computer had just been >invented, now we have the internet. Besides the industry is one in which research >is >well funded. I am very aware of the computer industries geometric progression. However over the last few decades of work, AI has been one of the few areas which has had very little real progress. I happen to think that now that we have computers with the capacties of the human brain, we may start making significant progress in AI. However, given our general rule here against assuming technologys for 2050 that we can't show a high probability for, and have some clear idea of their abilities and limits, AI and nano tech are high leverage technologies we can't really assume we'll have. >Stephen. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu May 21 20:17:29 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["347" "Thu" "21" "May" "1998" "23:16:08" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "22" "Re: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA21710 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 20:17:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA21695 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 20:17:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UMWWa00148 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 23:16:08 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 346 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 23:16:08 EDT In a message dated 5/17/98 8:42:15 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Paul, > > > >With the quality of equipment these schools are running, you don't have to > >worry about pulling the plug, just wait a couple of hours, the system will > >go down. > > > >Lee Hell sounds like every server based Windows PC network I ever worked on. ;) Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu May 21 20:17:38 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1999" "Thu" "21" "May" "1998" "23:16:14" "EDT" "Kelly St" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "38" "Re: starship-design: alien aesthetics" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA21750 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 21 May 1998 20:17:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo20.mx.aol.com (imo20.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.42]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA21731 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 20:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo20.mx.aol.com (IMOv14.1) id UGRVa19024 for ; Thu, 21 May 1998 23:16:14 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <5cb1ca1a.3564ee02@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Kelly St Content-Length: 1998 From: Kelly St Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: alien aesthetics Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 23:16:14 EDT In a message dated 5/17/98 8:53:12 PM, lindberg@olywa.net wrote: >I was reading some of the old posts about hypothetical human-alien >relations, especially he ones relating to Pellegrino's "Killing Star" >and it occured to me that one of the major factors in our reaction to >contact would be the aliens' physical appearence, were that information >avaliable. If we assume that we meet through means other than our >radiotelescopes (eg exploratory missions stumbling across each other or >an inhabited planet) and neither side is overtly aggressive, then human >attitudes will be greatly shaped by how "cute" or "hideous" the aliens >appear should we decide to exchange video images. An alien whose >appearence is unnerving to us (big, slimy, and made mostly of teeth) >will recieve much less trust from us than something with a more benign >appearence. Cute aliens need not follow any particular body plan, just >_appear_ nonthreatening. > With the above in mind, we should prepare to meet some aliens whose >apperence is extremely unnerving, since the likelyhood of cute aliens >is, in my opinion, rather low. This bodes ill for both our initial >contacts as well as continued relations. Long term relations might >prove even most difficult as the general public gives into a wave of >xenophobia, as they surely will fear an alien race in any case and a >"hideous" race especially. On the other hand, should we find a race >which we find "cute" we should worry about letting down our guard. To >use a terrestrial parallel, cats certainly fit many people's definition >of "cute" and yet, they are extremely intelligent, aggressive, dangerous >animals for their weight class. "Cute" aliens can be just as dangerous >as the others. >nels lindberg Hey they must have grown those big teath for some reason. ;) True, it would be an irony if the friendliest race in the galaxy looked like the Aliens in the Alein movie serries (then again some folks think they look sexy ). Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri May 22 18:15:54 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["652" "Fri" "22" "May" "1998" "20:12:41" "-0500" "Jonathan J Jay" "jon_jay1@juno.com" nil "15" "starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA29436 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 18:15:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x13.boston.juno.com (x13.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.27]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA29429 for ; Fri, 22 May 1998 18:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jon_jay1@juno.com) by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id VGL04959; Fri, 22 May 1998 21:14:16 EDT Message-ID: <19980522.201400.9038.1.jon_jay1@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-8 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Content-Length: 651 From: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 20:12:41 -0500 I may be asking to many questions, but has anyone ever seen Forever Young. The guy is frozen then accidentally brought back; afterwards, his age catches up to him. Would this actually happen? Age catching up to you, I mean. Jonathan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The average tourist wants to go wher there are no tourists. - Sam Ewing _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat May 23 17:27:10 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["637" "Sat" "23" "May" "1998" "23:07:08" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA08859 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 23 May 1998 17:27:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.53]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA08854 for ; Sat, 23 May 1998 17:27:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tim (es02-01.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.50.34]) by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id CAA12665 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 02:27:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980523230708.007b31b0@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <19980522.201400.9038.1.jon_jay1@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 636 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 23:07:08 +0100 Johnatan, >Would this actually happen? Age catching up to you, I mean. Well, what do you think? You must have some ideas that are pro and/or against it? Doesn't the movie give a plausable explanation? What age do you mean anyway: Mental or physical? (I didn't see Forever Young.) As far as I know physical aging is mainly caused by some genecodes (or something like that) which count down untill they stop producing certain proteins. These proteins are needed for regeneration and renewal of cells. Note that the research for stopping the countdown of counting-genes may be even more productive than suspended animation. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 24 06:13:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["10" "Sun" "24" "May" "1998" "14:05:44" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "2" "starship-design: Re: Re: v1(R) for a Flat Universe" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id GAA03266 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 06:13:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.53]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA03261 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 06:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tim (es01-28.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.50.29]) by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id PAA08644 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 15:13:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980524140544.007bd2e0@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 9 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Re: Re: v1(R) for a Flat Universe Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 14:05:44 +0100 Received From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 24 09:34:01 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["912" "Sun" "24" "May" "1998" "09:33:26" "PDT" "Christoph Kulmann" "guderiak@hotmail.com" nil "26" "Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA06180 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 09:33:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f132.hotmail.com [207.82.251.11]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA06171 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 09:33:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 23579 invoked by uid 0); 24 May 1998 16:33:26 -0000 Message-ID: <19980524163326.23578.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.102.12.103 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 24 May 1998 09:33:26 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.102.12.103] Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Christoph Kulmann" Content-Length: 911 From: "Christoph Kulmann" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: jon_jay1@juno.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 09:33:26 PDT Hi Jonathan, No, this wouldn't happen. The maximum age of an organisms depends upon the number of cell cycles possible for each different tissue. For example, a cell from a human lung can only divide up to 50 times. If you cultivate lung cells in a cell culture and deep-freeze them (in liquid nitrogen) after their 25th cycle (let's say, for 5 years), they will continue with cycle Nr. 26 when you thaw them up again - and will continue to grow at the same speed as before. For the cells, nothing has happened when they were frozen. Christoph > I may be asking to many questions, but has anyone ever seen >Forever Young. The guy is frozen then accidentally brought back; >afterwards, his age catches up to him. Would this actually happen? >Age catching up to you, I mean. > >Jonathan ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun May 24 14:59:38 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["137" "Sun" "24" "May" "1998" "16:57:35" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "12" "RE: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA22701 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 24 May 1998 14:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA22693 for ; Sun, 24 May 1998 14:59:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p2.gnt.com [204.49.68.207]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA05025; Sun, 24 May 1998 16:59:28 -0500 Message-ID: <001001bd875f$3805f7c0$cf4431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 136 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Kelly St'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Cataly Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 16:57:35 -0500 Kelly, The Server is a Mac.... Lee > > Hell sounds like every server based Windows PC network I ever > worked on. ;) > > Kelly > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 27 15:31:57 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1185" "Wed" "27" "May" "1998" "17:29:19" "-0500" "Jonathan J Jay" "jon_jay1@juno.com" nil "25" "starship-design: Tachyons" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA21214 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 15:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x13.boston.juno.com (x13.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.27]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA21167 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 15:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jon_jay1@juno.com) by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id SJM24298; Wed, 27 May 1998 18:29:28 EDT Message-ID: <19980527.172920.9126.0.jon_jay1@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-2,4,6-8,10-18 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Content-Length: 1184 From: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Tachyons Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 17:29:19 -0500 To be or Not to be? That is, in a way the question. Has anyone given serious thought as to the possibility of tachyons, or perhaps, ways of harnessing such power. If tachyons existed, I'm not saying they do or don't, but if tachyons existed and we had a way of controlling them, there would be a definite possibility of getting to other star systems in "record" time. Say there was a tachyon field between here and Alpha Centauri or Tau Ceti. If we had ways of using them to produce forward and reverse thrust, we could get there and back with plenty of time to spare. I'm not much of a physicist (I hope to be) but I believe that tachyons are quite possible. Any comments? Just trying to break the ice. Jonathan Jay ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We know what a person thinks not when he tells us what he thinks, but by his actions. - Isaac Bashevis Singer _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 27 16:27:18 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1343" "Wed" "27" "May" "1998" "18:24:55" "-0500" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "24" "RE: starship-design: Tachyons" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA20683 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 16:27:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA20661 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 16:27:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pm3-161.gpt.infi.net (pm3-161.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.161]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA04813 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 19:27:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pm3-161.gpt.infi.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BD899C.C04CBD00@pm3-161.gpt.infi.net>; Wed, 27 May 1998 18:24:57 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD899C.C04CBD00@pm3-161.gpt.infi.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by darkwing.uoregon.edu id QAA20664 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Content-Length: 1342 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" Subject: RE: starship-design: Tachyons Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 18:24:55 -0500 ---------- From: Jonathan J Jay[SMTP:jon_jay1@juno.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 5:29 PM To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: starship-design: Tachyons > To be or Not to be? That is, in a way the question. Has anyone given >serious thought as to the possibility of tachyons, or perhaps, ways of >harnessing such power. If tachyons existed, I'm not saying they do or >don't, but if tachyons existed and we had a way of controlling them, >there >would be a definite possibility of getting to other star systems in >"record" >time. First of all, yes, tachyons can exist. There is nothing that precludes them from existing that we know of. There has even been an experiment that reported to have detected tachyons, but I'm not putting money on it: it was a lone occurence. I do not believ tachyons would be of much help to space travel, as their mass would likely be incredibly small, and we would need record numbers to provide propulsion. Then theres the problem of containment... I would put my money on possibly developing a way to bend space infront of a star ship to provide a propulsive force. If done right *theoretically* you might be able to travel at relativistic velocity or faster, causality violations being unlikely in lieu of the plethora of experiments that do not support them. Kyle R. Mcallister From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 27 16:29:20 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1035" "Wed" "27" "May" "1998" "16:28:23" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "17" "starship-design: deepimpact" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA21956 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 27 May 1998 16:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA21916 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 16:29:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [205.163.58.95] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA500 for ; Wed, 27 May 1998 16:31:06 -0700 Message-ID: <356C3118.4312@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 1034 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: starship-design: deepimpact Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 16:28:23 +0100 well, i saw 'deep impact' this weekend, against my better judgement. as far as a plot and all that goes, it was a real stinkeroo. i can't believe it got three stars. as with every 'serious' sci-fi film they had a chance to educate their audience a little, but did a mostly awful job. however, they did mention 'explosive outgassing' on the comet's surface as making working on the comet's day side impossible. they mentioned the "orion'' type propulsion, but didn't elaborate except to say it was a nuclear, as opposed to chemical reaction engine. they even got the pusherplate thing on the back more or less right. the effects of the comet were a little exaggerated, i thought. the crowning glory of the entire movie tho was when the (manned?!) spacecraft approached the comet through the tail and in the process were buffeted by pieces of comet that they shouldn't have survived. 'Deep Impact' might do some good anyway by heightening public awareness of the impactor threat and spurring more space research. nels lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu May 28 18:16:35 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["954" "Thu" "28" "May" "1998" "21:14:56" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "28" "Re: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA19889 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 18:16:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.37]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA19756 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 18:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 2HRZa14383 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 21:14:56 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <3806ce31.356e0c11@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 953 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 21:14:56 EDT In a message dated 5/23/98 6:27:32 PM, Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl wrote: >Johnatan, > >>Would this actually happen? Age catching up to you, I mean. > >Well, what do you think? You must have some ideas that are pro and/or >against it? Doesn't the movie give a plausable explanation? > >What age do you mean anyway: Mental or physical? (I didn't see Forever Young.) >As far as I know physical aging is mainly caused by some genecodes (or >something like that) which count down untill they stop producing certain >proteins. These proteins are needed for regeneration and renewal of cells. > >Note that the research for stopping the countdown of counting-genes may be >even more productive than suspended animation. > > >Timothy There has been some serious medical speculation about genetically altering the clock, or in techniques to reset it to a younger age. If the cells think they are age X, they will regrow the body to match a person of that age. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu May 28 18:20:09 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["267" "Thu" "28" "May" "1998" "21:14:53" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Ca" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA21144 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 18:20:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.36]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA21104 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 18:20:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 2PHZa27465 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 21:14:53 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 266 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: RE: RE: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization (was Antiproton-Ca Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 21:14:53 EDT In a message dated 5/24/98 3:59:32 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote: >Kelly, > > > >The Server is a Mac.... > > > >Lee > >> > >> Hell sounds like every server based Windows PC network I ever > >> worked on. ;) > >> > >> Kelly > >> Then I am surprized. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu May 28 18:26:36 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["701" "Thu" "28" "May" "1998" "21:14:58" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "20" "Re: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA22523 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 18:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA22472 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 18:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 2ZXZa08936 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 21:14:58 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <5a4ea830.356e0c13@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 700 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Suspended Animation Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 21:14:58 EDT In a message dated 5/24/98 10:34:10 AM, guderiak@hotmail.com wrote: >Hi Jonathan, > >No, this wouldn't happen. The maximum age of an organisms depends upon >the number of cell cycles possible for each different tissue. For >example, a cell from a human lung can only divide up to 50 times. If you >cultivate lung cells in a cell culture and deep-freeze them (in liquid >nitrogen) after their 25th cycle (let's say, for 5 years), they will >continue with cycle Nr. 26 when you thaw them up again - and will >continue to grow at the same speed as before. For the cells, nothing has >happened when they were frozen. > >Christoph This being the celular clock Tim and I were refering to. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu May 28 23:15:06 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["192" "Thu" "28" "May" "1998" "23:14:13" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "4" "starship-design: news" "^From:" nil nil "5" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA22794 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 28 May 1998 23:15:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA22785 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 23:15:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [205.163.58.150] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA12762 for ; Thu, 28 May 1998 23:16:05 -0700 Message-ID: <356DE1B5.3BCE@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 191 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: starship-design: news Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 23:14:13 +0100 Goes to show what we could do with a few larger space telescopes: nels lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Jun 3 14:38:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["786" "Wed" "3" "June" "1998" "16:38:03" "-0500" "Jonathan J Jay" "jon_jay1@juno.com" nil "20" "Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Planetary Landing" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA04578 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 14:38:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x13.boston.juno.com (x13.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.27]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA04568 for ; Wed, 3 Jun 1998 14:38:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jon_jay1@juno.com) by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id RyK05878; Wed, 03 Jun 1998 17:38:06 EDT Message-ID: <19980603.163804.6886.0.jon_jay1@juno.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980603132428.007a3380@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-5,7-8,11-13 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Content-Length: 785 From: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:38:03 -0500 >>On the other hand, if it wasn't able to land >>and underwent system failure, etc. it could drift through space until >>by some lucky chance, if the crew were still alive, they could make >>first contact with an alien race and not be able to tell anyone about >>it. > >How can a mothership with a landing gear land when it has a system failure? I meant that it wasn't equipped with landing gear, not that it could land because of system failure. But that is another good point. Landing gear wouldn't be of much use if they didn't work. Jon _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Jun 4 20:38:40 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1299" "Thu" "4" "June" "1998" "01:51:13" "PDT" "Christoph Kulmann" "guderiak@hotmail.com" nil "32" "Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Planetary Landing" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA11205 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 20:38:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f26.hotmail.com [207.82.250.37]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA11193 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 20:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 23093 invoked by uid 0); 4 Jun 1998 08:51:13 -0000 Message-ID: <19980604085113.23092.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.102.12.130 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 04 Jun 1998 01:51:13 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.102.12.130] Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Christoph Kulmann" Content-Length: 1298 From: "Christoph Kulmann" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: jon_jay1@juno.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 01:51:13 PDT Would'nt a large fusion powered starship, when landing on or starting from a planet's surface, devastate a large area around it, comparable to a nuclear bomb??? Christoph > > I was curious as to the landing of the "mother ship" on a planet's >surface. Will the ship be able to land or will it send a shuttle to the >planet's surface? I favor not being able to land due to the extra work >in repairing the landing gear if needed and if the ship were to land >and underwent some sort of power failure or malfunction, they may >not be able to get back up. On the other hand, if it wasn't able to land >and underwent system failure, etc. it could drift through space until >by some lucky chance, if the crew were still alive, they could make >first contact with an alien race and not be able to tell anyone about >it. That's the bright side. You can probably think of something of the >opposite on your own. Any comments? > >Jon > >_____________________________________________________________________ >You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. >Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com >Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Thu Jun 4 21:18:06 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["486" "Thu" "4" "June" "1998" "16:18:59" "-0500" "Jonathan J Jay" "jon_jay1@juno.com" nil "16" "Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil "starship-design: Planetary Landing" nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA00429 for starship-design-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 21:18:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from r1.boston.juno.com (r1.boston.juno.com [207.205.100.71]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA00393 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 21:18:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x13.boston.juno.com (x13.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.27]) by r1.boston.juno.com (8.8.6.Beta0/8.8.6.Beta0/2.0.kim) with ESMTP id RAAAA17787 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 1998 17:22:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from jon_jay1@juno.com) by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id R|T05878; Thu, 04 Jun 1998 17:18:51 EDT Message-ID: <19980604.161900.9174.1.jon_jay1@juno.com> References: <19980604085113.23092.qmail@hotmail.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0,2-4,6-7,9,11-14 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Content-Length: 485 From: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: guderiak@hotmail.com Cc: jon_jay1@juno.com, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:18:59 -0500 >Would'nt a large fusion powered starship, when landing on or starting >from a planet's surface, devastate a large area around it, comparable to >a nuclear bomb??? It wouldn't necessarily have to use fusion, or at lest not when taking of or landing. It could use conventional rockets we use now. Though technology may be more advanced, we don't have to use it. If there was a more powerful rocket that wouldn't create much damage to the planet's surface, we could use that. Jon From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jun 5 11:10:41 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["746" "Fri" "5" "June" "1998" "16:54:33" "+0100" "A West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "20" "Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA02891 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 11:10:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA02877 for starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 11:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mserv1b.u-net.net (mserv1b.u-net.net [195.102.240.137]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA19656 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 08:54:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (daishi) [195.102.196.19] by mserv1b.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yhyoX-0001Kv-00; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 16:53:58 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980605165433.007a35d0@mail.u-net.com> X-Sender: andrew-hmm@mail.u-net.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <19980604085113.23092.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: A West Content-Length: 745 From: A West Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 16:54:33 +0100 At 01:51 04/06/98 PDT, you wrote: >Would'nt a large fusion powered starship, when landing on or starting >from a planet's surface, devastate a large area around it, comparable to >a nuclear bomb??? Wouldn't have thought so - depends what you're planning on using your fusion power for - you could just use it to heat some stuff up, then lob it out the back - you don't HAVE to set off an h-bomb underneath the ship to get going. What's the point in landing a large ship anyway? You need to make it aerodynamic (to a certain extent) and make it so the whole weight can be supported by one of the sides. You'll also need a lot of fuel to take off again (if you were planning to). Why would you want to land on a planet anyway? Andrew West From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jun 5 21:17:02 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["567" "Fri" "5" "June" "1998" "23:14:26" "-0500" "Jonathan J Jay" "jon_jay1@juno.com" nil "16" "Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA28660 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 21:15:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x13.boston.juno.com (x13.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.27]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA28654 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 21:15:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jon_jay1@juno.com) by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id AAU05878; Sat, 06 Jun 1998 00:14:24 EDT Message-ID: <19980605.231427.9718.0.jon_jay1@juno.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980605165433.007a35d0@mail.u-net.com> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-9 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Content-Length: 566 From: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: andrew@hmm.u-net.com Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 23:14:26 -0500 You wrote: >Why would you want to land on a planet anyway? You may be spending long amounts of time on one planet at a time; it would be easier just to bring the entire ship down to the planet rather than making plenty of ship to planet transports, and possibly cheaper, depending on the amount of planets you studied. Jon _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Fri Jun 5 21:44:03 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1518" "Fri" "5" "June" "1998" "21:42:20" "-0700" "Steve VanDevender" "stevev@efn.org" nil "34" "Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA04006 for starship-design-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 21:42:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (hexadecimal.uoregon.edu [128.223.32.56]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA03997 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 21:42:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tzadkiel.efn.org (tzadkiel.efn.org [204.214.99.68]) by hexadecimal.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA23486 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 21:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from stevev@localhost) by tzadkiel.efn.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA04307; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 21:42:22 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <13688.51372.573311.57367@tzadkiel.efn.org> In-Reply-To: <19980605.231427.9718.0.jon_jay1@juno.com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980605165433.007a35d0@mail.u-net.com> <19980605.231427.9718.0.jon_jay1@juno.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.49 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Steve VanDevender Content-Length: 1517 From: Steve VanDevender Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 21:42:20 -0700 (PDT) Jonathan J Jay writes: > You wrote: > > >Why would you want to land on a planet anyway? > > You may be spending long amounts of time on one planet at a time; it > would be easier just to bring the entire ship down to the planet rather > than making plenty of ship to planet transports, and possibly cheaper, > depending on the amount of planets you studied. No, that's not necessarily the case at all. Building an interstellar ship that can take the structural stresses of atmospheric entry and landing, and hold enough fuel to perform landing and return to orbit, and do this reliably more than once, is an amazingly difficult task. A ship that is built to stay in space, especially a large ship that can support a large crew on a multi-year journey, will be much, much lighter than one capable of landing itself, and therefore require less fuel for its journey. And so far one of the biggest technical problems we face in designing an interstellar starship is that, _at best_, a ship capable of fairly fast relativistic travel requires at least as much fuel mass as payload mass, and that's if you use antimatter as the fuel. At the scale we're talking about, I really do think the only viable option is to have landing craft carried on the ship. If we can build an interstellar spacecraft, I'm sure we can build self-powered orbit-capable landing craft. I really don't think we can build an entire large starship that can land itself. Stop watching _Star Trek: Voyager_; it's rotting your brain. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jun 6 07:46:31 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1903" "Sat" "6" "June" "1998" "16:46:17" "+0200" "Bjorn Nilsson" "f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se" nil "55" "Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA12750 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 07:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabik.tdb.uu.se (8SVQKb0l41dJVsTxHaJf2V3+QjCZWJ1i@sabik.tdb.uu.se [130.238.138.70]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA12738 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 07:46:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (f96bni@localhost) by sabik.tdb.uu.se (8.8.8/8.8.8/STUD_1.1) with SMTP id QAA00254; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 16:46:18 +0200 (MET DST) X-Sender: f96bni@sabik.tdb.uu.se In-Reply-To: <13688.51372.573311.57367@tzadkiel.efn.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Bjorn Nilsson Content-Length: 1902 From: Bjorn Nilsson Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Steve VanDevender cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 16:46:17 +0200 (MET DST) On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Steve VanDevender wrote: > Jonathan J Jay writes: > > You wrote: > > > > >Why would you want to land on a planet anyway? > > > > You may be spending long amounts of time on one planet at a time; it > > would be easier just to bring the entire ship down to the planet rather > > than making plenty of ship to planet transports, and possibly cheaper, > > depending on the amount of planets you studied. > > No, that's not necessarily the case at all. > > Building an interstellar ship that can take the structural > stresses of atmospheric entry and landing, and hold enough fuel > to perform landing and return to orbit, and do this reliably more > than once, is an amazingly difficult task. > Once we have decided WHERE we're gona put the colony, taking of again isn't really neccesary! > At the scale we're talking about, I really do think the only > viable option is to have landing craft carried on the ship. If > we can build an interstellar spacecraft, I'm sure we can build > self-powered orbit-capable landing craft. I really don't think > we can build an entire large starship that can land itself. Stop > watching _Star Trek: Voyager_; it's rotting your brain. > Personally I think ST:voyager is one of the best Science FICTION series there is.... Anyway, I agree that making the ENTIRE ship landable is probably a bit unneccesary, However the non-fuel/engine areas of our colony ship is probably gonna contain so much hardware (maintenance eq, Life support systems, workshops, etc, etc) that you probably will wanna make those parts such that it is at least posible to do a "controlled crash" of those parts of the ship... Personnally, I'd design any 'one-way' (such as the colony ship) ship such that once we're in the target star system, you jettison the parts of the ship wich holds the engines/fuel for interstellar travel! Bjornie... From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jun 6 10:27:19 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1920" "Sat" "6" "June" "1998" "12:27:05" "-0500" "L. Clayton Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "57" "Fw: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10808 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 10:27:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA10796 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 10:27:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p40.gnt.com [204.49.68.245]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id MAA04426 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 12:27:12 -0500 Message-ID: <005201bd9170$575513c0$f54431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Clayton Parker" Content-Length: 1919 From: "L. Clayton Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "LIT Starship Design Automailer" Subject: Fw: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 12:27:05 -0500 For those of you who get this twice, I apologize. I sent it to a group listing the first time rather than to the automailer. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bjorn Nilsson >To: Steve VanDevender >Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu >Date: Saturday, June 06, 1998 9:47 AM >Subject: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing > > >>On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Steve VanDevender wrote: >> >>> Jonathan J Jay writes: >>> > You wrote: >>> > > > >SNIP > >> >>Personally I think ST:voyager is one of the best Science FICTION series >>there is.... >> >> >>Anyway, I agree that making the ENTIRE ship landable is probably a bit >>unneccesary, However the non-fuel/engine areas of our colony ship is >>probably gonna contain so much hardware (maintenance eq, Life support >>systems, workshops, etc, etc) that you probably will wanna make those >>parts such that it is at least posible to do a "controlled crash" of those >>parts of the ship... >> >>Personnally, I'd design any 'one-way' (such as the colony ship) ship such >>that once we're in the target star system, you jettison the parts of the >>ship wich holds the engines/fuel for interstellar travel! >> > > >Unless you are planning on giving up access to space, why don't you just >leave the ship in orbit as the nucleus of your first space colony. As far as >getting large amounts of cargo one way to the surface, its a no brainer. >Inflatable re-entry pods can be made in all sizes and shapes. You could drop >entire pre-built factories housing, etc. from orbit if you wanted to. > >For that matter, you could mine the materials and build everything you need >for the surface colony in orbit and then drop it. For once the economics >work out better for the space colony. We would end up with a thriving space >borne industrial base and a planet without massive pollution....hmmm. > >Lee > From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jun 6 14:22:14 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["701" "Sat" "6" "June" "1998" "14:39:27" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "18" "Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA08908 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 14:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.53]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA08889 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 14:21:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tim (es01-24.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.50.25]) by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id XAA00917 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 23:21:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980606143927.007b62d0@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <13688.51372.573311.57367@tzadkiel.efn.org> References: <19980605.231427.9718.0.jon_jay1@juno.com> <3.0.1.32.19980605165433.007a35d0@mail.u-net.com> <19980605.231427.9718.0.jon_jay1@juno.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 700 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 14:39:27 +0100 Hi Steve, >Building an interstellar ship that can take the structural >stresses of atmospheric entry and landing, and hold enough fuel >to perform landing and return to orbit, and do this reliably more >than once, is an amazingly difficult task. What is so stressful about entering atmosphere or landing when the starship is capable of hovering above a planets surface (eg. capable of 1 g acceleration when above Earth's surface)? Such a ship can enter the atmosphere with virtually zero velocity and land without "bouncing". Of course when the starship isn't capable of this you may forget my question. In that case I can see some of the troubles that may arise when landing a starship. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jun 6 15:00:30 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["923" "Sat" "6" "June" "1998" "16:59:17" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "22" "RE: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA18987 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 15:00:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA18979 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 15:00:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p12.gnt.com [204.49.68.217]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA22558; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 17:00:03 -0500 Message-ID: <000001bd9196$6fb1ff20$d94431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980606143927.007b62d0@pop.xs4all.nl> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 922 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'Timothy van der Linden'" Cc: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 16:59:17 -0500 Timothy, A starship only has to be designed to accommodate acceleration stresses in one direction only. Any stresses that may be placed upon the structure of the ship in other directions than straight "ahead" are miniscule. A vehicle reentering the atmosphere however, is subjected to transverse stresses on several planes at once and these stresses can easily "peak" at hundreds of g's. The added weight of structural elements to resist these forces would double the weight of the ship easily. In addition, if it must be designed to support itself while on the ground, you can add even more mass. (This is one of the reasons why early science fiction authors liked to land their ships in water, it helped to spread out the structural load.) So far, based on known technology, the ship will probably mass between 400,000 and 4,000,000 million metric tons. I can't see trying to land something that size ANYWHERE. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jun 6 19:39:41 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["707" "Sat" "6" "June" "1998" "21:38:56" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "26" "starship-design: FINDING A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PATH (http://infinity.msfc.nasa.gov/Public/pp0" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA25807 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 19:39:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA25786 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 19:39:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p6.gnt.com [204.49.68.211]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id VAA10712 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 21:39:23 -0500 Message-ID: <000101bd91bd$786567c0$d94431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0002_01BD9193.8FC95B80" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 706 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: starship-design: FINDING A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PATH (http://infinity.msfc.nasa.gov/Public/pp0 Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 21:38:56 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01BD9193.8FC95B80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Here is an interesting site on the commercial development of space. http://infinity.msfc.nasa.gov/Public/pp01/AIAA.html Lee ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01BD9193.8FC95B80 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="FINDING A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PATH.url" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="FINDING A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PATH.url" [InternetShortcut] URL=http://infinity.msfc.nasa.gov/Public/pp01/AIAA.html Modified=E0D4B0FFBC91BD016E ------=_NextPart_000_0002_01BD9193.8FC95B80-- From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jun 6 21:53:45 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["454" "Sun" "7" "June" "1998" "00:52:55" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "15" "Re: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA22594 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 21:53:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo15.mx.aol.com (imo15.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.37]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA22583 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 21:53:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo15.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 2TZRa05134 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 00:52:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <44875e00.357a1ca8@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 453 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 00:52:55 EDT In a message dated 6/4/98 9:42:41 PM, guderiak@hotmail.com wrote: >Would'nt a large fusion powered starship, when landing on or starting >from a planet's surface, devastate a large area around it, comparable to >a nuclear bomb??? > >Christoph Well the surface would get a bit molten, and a big ship might kinda blast debre for a few miles, and their is the sound levels shattering rock in the local area, but its not entirely bomb like. ;) Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jun 6 21:53:47 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["807" "Sun" "7" "June" "1998" "00:52:59" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "21" "Re: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA22645 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 21:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo18.mx.aol.com (imo18.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.40]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA22622 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 21:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo18.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 2AAKa05237 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 00:52:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5a68c780.357a1cac@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 806 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 00:52:59 EDT In a message dated 6/5/98 10:17:11 PM, jon_jay1@juno.com wrote: >>Why would you want to land on a planet anyway? > >You may be spending long amounts of time on one planet at a time; it >would be easier just to bring the entire ship down to the planet rather >than making plenty of ship to planet transports, and possibly cheaper, >depending on the amount of planets you studied. > >Jon But since the survey teams are going to need to cover the whole planet, and be a tiny fraction of the ships crew, and noit need decades worth of suplies. It wouldn't be practical. Sort of like beaching a super tanker. Also contamination from the planets are the greates danger the crew could face (so survey teams may need to be abandoned if they become contaminated) so you wouldn't want to risk the whole crew. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jun 6 21:53:50 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["705" "Sun" "7" "June" "1998" "00:52:57" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "25" "Re: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA22584 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 21:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.39]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA22564 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 21:53:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 2EAKa05150 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 00:52:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <82b83980.357a1caa@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 704 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 00:52:57 EDT In a message dated 6/4/98 10:18:15 PM, jon_jay1@juno.com wrote: >>Would'nt a large fusion powered starship, when landing on or starting >>from a planet's surface, devastate a large area around it, comparable to > >>a nuclear bomb??? > >It wouldn't necessarily have to use fusion, or at lest not when taking of >or >landing. It could use conventional rockets we use now. Though technology >may be more advanced, we don't have to use it. If there was a more >powerful >rocket that wouldn't create much damage to the planet's surface, we could >use >that. > >Jon If landing a ship the size of a fleet of aircraft carriers, the down wash from rotor blades would lay waste to the landing site. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sat Jun 6 21:53:54 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1380" "Sun" "7" "June" "1998" "00:53:01" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA22714 for starship-design-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 21:53:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.41]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA22681 for ; Sat, 6 Jun 1998 21:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 2LNQa04364 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 00:53:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 1379 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 00:53:01 EDT In a message dated 6/2/98 8:51:47 PM, jon_jay1@juno.com wrote: > I was curious as to the landing of the "mother ship" on a planet's >surface. Will the ship be able to land or will it send a shuttle to the >planet's surface? I favor not being able to land due to the extra work >in repairing the landing gear if needed and if the ship were to land >and underwent some sort of power failure or malfunction, they may >not be able to get back up. On the other hand, if it wasn't able to land >and underwent system failure, etc. it could drift through space until >by some lucky chance, if the crew were still alive, they could make >first contact with an alien race and not be able to tell anyone about >it. That's the bright side. You can probably think of something of the >opposite on your own. Any comments? > >Jon The ships we were thinking off were to big to land. (Hundreds of meters wide!) So the down wash from any rockets would demolish whatevers down there, and the kind of designs that would work well in space wouldn't be very good on a planet. More importantly it wouldn't have any reason to land. Most of its stuff is designed to support the crew for decades, travel through deep space, and act as a base of operations for research expiditions throughout the starsystem. Littler shuttles carring the far smaller survey tems can do the landings. Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Jun 7 05:03:23 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["499" "Sun" "7" "June" "1998" "05:02:45" "PDT" "Christoph Kulmann" "guderiak@hotmail.com" nil "14" "Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id FAA10899 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 05:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hotmail.com (f114.hotmail.com [207.82.251.42]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id FAA10893 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 05:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 24988 invoked by uid 0); 7 Jun 1998 12:02:45 -0000 Message-ID: <19980607120245.24987.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 134.102.12.102 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sun, 07 Jun 1998 05:02:45 PDT X-Originating-IP: [134.102.12.102] Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Christoph Kulmann" Content-Length: 498 From: "Christoph Kulmann" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 05:02:45 PDT Hi Timothy, I think possible contamination is another good reason for not landing the mothership on an (Earth-like) planet. If something goes wrong on the expedition (especially if it goes REALLY wrong...), you only loose a few shuttles but you still have a starship which can bring you back home savely - so at least you have a good story to tell around a camp fire... Christoph ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Jun 7 07:03:22 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1715" "Sun" "7" "June" "1998" "14:29:14" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "39" "RE: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA17859 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 07:03:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.53]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA17785 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 07:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tim (es01-16.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.50.17]) by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA23252 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 16:03:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980607142914.007ac9d0@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <000001bd9196$6fb1ff20$d94431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet. com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980606143927.007b62d0@pop.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 1714 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 14:29:14 +0100 Hi Lee, >A starship only has to be designed to accommodate acceleration stresses in >one direction only. Any stresses that may be placed upon the structure of >the ship in other directions than straight "ahead" are miniscule. A vehicle >reentering the atmosphere however, is subjected to transverse stresses on >several planes at once and these stresses can easily "peak" at hundreds of >g's. Would the ship be subjected to transverse stresses even if the speed relative to the atmosphere would be virtually zero? I'm imagining a radial path towards the surface of the planet (just like these single stage X-crafts can land), so I'd guess only wind or turbulence creates stesses in other directions. >The added weight of structural elements to resist these forces would double >the weight of the ship easily. In addition, if it must be designed to >support itself while on the ground, you can add even more mass. (This is one >of the reasons why early science fiction authors liked to land their ships >in water, it helped to spread out the structural load.) The same frame that distributes the forces of the 1g boosters to the rest of the starship should also be able to distribute the forces from the landing gear. >So far, based on known technology, the ship will probably mass between >400,000 and 4,000,000 million metric tons. I can't see trying to land >something that size ANYWHERE. Oh, don't misunderstand me, I see no reason to land a starship. I'm convinced that when we can make a starship, we also have no problem making a few shuttles that could repeatedly do trips to the surface of an Eartlike planet. Timothy Please sent replies to the "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" addresse ONLY. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Jun 7 07:03:25 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["481" "Sun" "7" "June" "1998" "14:33:10" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "15" "Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA17988 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 07:03:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.53]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA17836 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 07:03:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tim (es01-16.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.50.17]) by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA23266 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 16:03:16 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980607143310.00805260@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <19980606213624.14146.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 480 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 14:33:10 +0100 Hi Christoph, >I think possible contamination is another good reason for not landing >the mothership on an (Earth-like) planet. If contamination is an issue, then I wonder how you could avoid it by having shuttles. The shuttles would land in the dirt and take some of it with it back to the starship. The researchers too would take some dust with them, even when they carried spacesuits. Timothy Please sent replies to the "starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu" addresse ONLY. From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Jun 7 15:35:40 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["952" "Sun" "7" "June" "1998" "17:33:44" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "28" "RE: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA10128 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 15:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA10103 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 15:35:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p4.gnt.com [204.49.68.209]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id RAA18599 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 17:35:24 -0500 Message-ID: <000b01bd9264$8e30f540$d14431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980607142914.007ac9d0@pop.xs4all.nl> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 951 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 17:33:44 -0500 Timothy, > Would the ship be subjected to transverse stresses even if the speed > relative to the atmosphere would be virtually zero? I'm > imagining a radial > path towards the surface of the planet (just like these single stage > X-crafts can land), so I'd guess only wind or turbulence > creates stesses in > other directions. X craft currently DO NOT follow a radial path to the surface. They enter the atmosphere in a conventional nose first aerobrake maneuver and then flip to tail first at some point. > The same frame that distributes the forces of the 1g boosters > to the rest > of the starship should also be able to distribute the forces from the > landing gear. Except that the landing gear must be designed to transfer the load to the center line of the ship and must be capable of supporting the same weight of the ship that the main structure is supporting. Sounds an awful lot like you just doubled the weight of the ship. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Jun 7 15:57:25 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1821" "Sun" "7" "June" "1998" "23:56:39" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "45" "RE: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA19950 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 15:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.53]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA19935 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 15:57:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tim (es01-05.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.50.6]) by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA09424 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 00:57:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980607235639.0079b320@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <000b01bd9264$8e30f540$d14431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet. com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980607142914.007ac9d0@pop.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 1820 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 23:56:39 +0100 Lee, >> Would the ship be subjected to transverse stresses even if the speed >> relative to the atmosphere would be virtually zero? I'm >> imagining a radial >> path towards the surface of the planet (just like these single stage >> X-crafts can land), so I'd guess only wind or turbulence >> creates stesses in >> other directions. > >X craft currently DO NOT follow a radial path to the surface. They enter the >atmosphere in a conventional nose first aerobrake maneuver and then flip to >tail first at some point. Sorry, I meant only that part when the X-craft land, ie. when the nose points up. The starship doesn't use aerobraking, it slows down to say 1000 km/h of radial velocity and keeps zero velocity with the horizontal plane of each particular part of the atmosphere. (Landing on a north or southpole would be ideal.) During the whole descend time its trusters would be pointed downwards like the X-craft during landing. >> The same frame that distributes the forces of the 1g boosters >> to the rest of the starship should also be able to distribute >> the forces from the landing gear. > >Except that the landing gear must be designed to transfer the load to the >center line of the ship Sorry, I don't understand why the frame that distributes the forces from the boosters, must be different when instead of boosters, a landing gear is attached. The boosters push with 1g against the rest of the ship. The landing gear does exactly the same. >and must be capable of supporting the same weight of >the ship that the main structure is supporting. Sounds an awful lot like you >just doubled the weight of the ship. The same frame that distributes the forces coming from the boosters will be used to distribute the forces of the landing gear. No large amounts of additional weight are needed. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Jun 7 16:33:03 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2288" "Sun" "7" "June" "1998" "18:32:21" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "56" "RE: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA04864 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 16:33:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA04852 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 16:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p3.gnt.com [204.49.68.208]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id SAA23053 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 18:32:55 -0500 Message-ID: <000c01bd926c$958e5be0$d14431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980607235639.0079b320@pop.xs4all.nl> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 2287 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 18:32:21 -0500 Timothy, > Sorry, I meant only that part when the X-craft land, ie. when the nose > points up. The starship doesn't use aerobraking, it slows > down to say 1000 > km/h of radial velocity and keeps zero velocity with the > horizontal plane > of each particular part of the atmosphere. (Landing on a > north or southpole > would be ideal.) During the whole descend time its trusters would be > pointed downwards like the X-craft during landing. I'm not an expert on orbital mechanics, but it sounds a great deal like you are trying to maintain a variable orbital speed (decreasing with altitude) and a constant airspeed all while you are descending vertically. I don't think that is possible. > > Sorry, I don't understand why the frame that distributes the > forces from > the boosters, must be different when instead of boosters, a > landing gear is > attached. > The boosters push with 1g against the rest of the ship. The > landing gear > does exactly the same. The engines/boosters, whatever are typically close to the centerline already and require a minimum of structure to transfer thrust evenly to the ship's frame. Landing gear on the other hand are transferring load from well away from the centerline and must withstand additional loading on different vectors. Simply put, the frame of the ship must be able to support itself plus the weight of the ship, the landing gear must support itself, the frame, the weight of the ship attached to the frame, and additional loads cause by the fact that all of this weight is now applied on a vector that is at an angle to the centerline of the landing gear. For small vehicles with relatively small distances between the load points, this is not severe. For large vehicles with hundreds of meters between load points the load on the structure of the gear can become enormous. This is why landing gear on aircraft are designed to act on the same vector as the forces being applied to them. I don't see how this would be feasible on a starship unless it is considerably broader than we envision. > > The same frame that distributes the forces coming from the > boosters will be > used to distribute the forces of the landing gear. No large amounts of > additional weight are needed. Except the weight of the landing gear... Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Jun 7 17:29:56 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["908" "Sun" "7" "June" "1998" "17:29:03" "+0100" "Lindberg" "lindberg@olywa.net" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: FINDING A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PATH (http://infinity.msfc.nasa.gov/Public/pp0" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA29502 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 17:29:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from valis.olywa.net (olywa.net [205.163.58.2]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA29493 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 17:29:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [205.163.58.76] by valis.olywa.net (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO203a ID# 0-36370U5000L500S0) with SMTP id AAA2376 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 17:31:30 -0700 Message-ID: <357ABF1C.7C8F@olywa.net> Organization: House Lindberg X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.02 (Macintosh; I; 68K) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <000101bd91bd$786567c0$d94431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Lindberg Content-Length: 907 From: Lindberg Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: SSD Subject: Re: starship-design: FINDING A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PATH (http://infinity.msfc.nasa.gov/Public/pp0 Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 17:29:03 +0100 L. Parker wrote: > > Here is an interesting site on the commercial development of space. > http://infinity.msfc.nasa.gov/Public/pp01/AIAA.html > Lee Lee, they mentioned EM launchers at this site, but restricted them to getting fuel material to orbit for the earth environment. There is some idea that a long (100 to 300km) launcher, near the equator could be sufficiently gentle to be an ultra cheap general purpose launcher. the "meteor in reverse" problem could be solved by suspending the launcher from hot air-balloons above much of the atmosphere (50% of the atmosphere is below 18,000ft). This proposal, though a difficult problem, doesn't strike me as being too terribly implausible. Another idea would be to use a hybrid EM/Rocket. A reusable SSTO is launched as a projectile to a given height, at some point, it lights its rockets and climbs the rest of the way to orbit. -Nels Lindberg From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Jun 7 17:59:13 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1157" "Sun" "7" "June" "1998" "19:58:32" "-0500" "L. Parker" "lparker@cacaphony.net" nil "28" "RE: starship-design: FINDING A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PATH (http://infinity.msfc.nasa.gov/Public/pp0" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA12323 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 17:59:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hurricane.gnt.net (root@hurricane.gnt.net [204.49.53.3]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA12307 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 17:59:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com (x2p3.gnt.com [204.49.68.208]) by hurricane.gnt.net (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id TAA30340 for ; Sun, 7 Jun 1998 19:59:07 -0500 Message-ID: <000d01bd9278$a1863560$d14431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <357ABF1C.7C8F@olywa.net> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "L. Parker" Content-Length: 1156 From: "L. Parker" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'LIT Starship Design Group'" Subject: RE: starship-design: FINDING A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PATH (http://infinity.msfc.nasa.gov/Public/pp0 Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 19:58:32 -0500 Nels, > Lee, > they mentioned EM launchers at this site, but restricted them > to getting > fuel material to orbit for the earth environment. There is some idea > that a long (100 to 300km) launcher, near the equator could be > sufficiently gentle to be an ultra cheap general purpose > launcher. the > "meteor in reverse" problem could be solved by suspending the launcher > from hot air-balloons above much of the atmosphere (50% of the > atmosphere is below 18,000ft). This proposal, though a difficult > problem, doesn't strike me as being too terribly implausible. Another > idea would be to use a hybrid EM/Rocket. A reusable SSTO is > launched as > a projectile to a given height, at some point, it lights its > rockets and > climbs the rest of the way to orbit. I think they are only being looked at for the moon because of the lower escape velocity and the presence of abundant cheap power. While such a scheme may be doable on Earth, it would be prohibitively expensive and would be restricted to small, durable payloads - such as raw ore. Hardly something we need to launch into space when it is so readily available there already. Lee From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Jun 8 07:53:52 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["2539" "Mon" "8" "June" "1998" "15:52:54" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "54" "RE: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA24140 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 07:53:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.53]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA24100 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 07:53:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tim (es02-02.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.50.35]) by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA07976 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 16:53:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980608155254.007fc770@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <000c01bd926c$958e5be0$d14431cc@destin.gulfnet.com.gulfnet. com> References: <3.0.1.32.19980607235639.0079b320@pop.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 2538 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: RE: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 15:52:54 +0100 Lee, >I'm not an expert on orbital mechanics, but it sounds a great deal like you >are trying to maintain a variable orbital speed (decreasing with altitude) >and a constant airspeed all while you are descending vertically. I don't >think that is possible. It seems the X-craft can do it. It can hover in the air, move to the left and right by a slight tilt and go up and down. >> Sorry, I don't understand why the frame that distributes the >> forces from the boosters, must be different when instead of >> boosters, a landing gear is attached. >> The boosters push with 1g against the rest of the ship. The >> landing gear does exactly the same. > >The engines/boosters, whatever are typically close to the centerline already >and require a minimum of structure to transfer thrust evenly to the ship's >frame. If the boosters are close to the centerline, then their load has to be transferred to the sides also. That is, unless most of the mass is along the centerline and little mass at the edges. Since most classical rockets are small tubes, there is hardly any other place to put the boosters. The Shuttle liftoff combination (ie. with external tank, and solid rocket boosters) has the boosters far from the centerline of the whole combination. Furthermore, these new (theoretical?) crafts with aerospike engines seem to have the exhausts in a line, where the outer edges are far from the centerline of the craft. So, I'm not convinced by your comment regarding the distribution of forces. >Landing gear on the other hand are transferring load from well away >from the centerline and must withstand additional loading on different >vectors. After landing, as long as the starship keeps its nose straight up there should be no additional forces. But yes, if the starship is tall and the wind starts play with it, then problems may arise quite fast. >For small vehicles with relatively small distances between the load points, >this is not severe. For large vehicles with hundreds of meters between load >points the load on the structure of the gear can become enormous. This is >why landing gear on aircraft are designed to act on the same vector as the >forces being applied to them. I don't see how this would be feasible on a >starship unless it is considerably broader than we envision. So far I haven't envisioned a lot regarding shape. Actually we haven't discussed shapes very often (if at all). Tube models usually are chosen to minize drag and maximize volume while moving quickly through the atmosphere. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Jun 8 16:35:33 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["753" "Tue" "9" "June" "1998" "00:31:16" "+0100" "A West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "19" "Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA23502 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 16:32:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mserv1b.u-net.net (mserv1b.u-net.net [195.102.240.137]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA23493 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 16:32:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (daishi) [195.102.195.216] by mserv1b.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0yjBOE-0005zC-00; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 00:31:47 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980609003116.008ef740@mail.u-net.com> X-Sender: andrew-hmm@mail.u-net.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19980607143310.00805260@pop.xs4all.nl> References: <19980606213624.14146.qmail@hotmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: A West Content-Length: 752 From: A West Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 00:31:16 +0100 At 14:33 07/06/98 +0100, you wrote: >Hi Christoph, > >>I think possible contamination is another good reason for not landing >>the mothership on an (Earth-like) planet. > >If contamination is an issue, then I wonder how you could avoid it by >having shuttles. The shuttles would land in the dirt and take some of it >with it back to the starship. The researchers too would take some dust with >them, even when they carried spacesuits. > You can avoid contamination relatively "easily" - people set up plenty of quarantines, clean rooms, bio-hazard rooms etc - you just have a dirty room which the shuttles land in, make sure it's isolated from the rest of the ship - keep it in a vacuum too - and have the crew properly washed down etc. Andrew West From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Mon Jun 8 20:38:30 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["507" "Mon" "8" "June" "1998" "23:33:57" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "17" "Re: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA19149 for starship-design-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 20:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo19.mx.aol.com (imo19.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.41]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA19137 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 20:35:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo19.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 2GJQa04364 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 1998 23:33:57 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <2f44018b.357cad26@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 506 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 23:33:57 EDT In a message dated 6/7/98 8:03:29 AM, Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl wrote: >Hi Christoph, > >>I think possible contamination is another good reason for not landing >>the mothership on an (Earth-like) planet. > >If contamination is an issue, then I wonder how you could avoid it by >having shuttles. The shuttles would land in the dirt and take some of it >with it back to the starship. The researchers too would take some dust with >them, even when they carried spacesuits. > >Timothy Docontamination 'airlocks'? From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Tue Jun 9 09:40:39 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["521" "Tue" "9" "June" "1998" "11:31:40" "+0100" "Timothy van der Linden" "Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl" nil "15" "Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA15888 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:40:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp3.xs4all.nl (smtp3.xs4all.nl [194.109.6.53]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA15871 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tim (es01-03.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.50.4]) by smtp3.xs4all.nl (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id SAA13760 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 1998 18:40:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980609113140.007c4630@pop.xs4all.nl> X-Sender: shealiak@pop.xs4all.nl X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: <2f44018b.357cad26@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Timothy van der Linden Content-Length: 520 From: Timothy van der Linden Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 11:31:40 +0100 Kelly, >Decontamination 'airlocks'? Are you sure these can get rid of that last single celled organism? Are you sure that a chemical shower, UV radiation and radioactive radiation can get rid of all unwanted guests? Anyhow I wasn't discussing contamination. I was merely making clear that decontamination problems won't be solved by merely using shuttles. In fact I'd think that the shuttles themselves have decontamination units, so that the crew gets the possibility to wash themselves every now and then. Timothy From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Jun 14 11:12:41 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["987" "Sun" "14" "June" "1998" "14:11:46" "EDT" "KellySt@aol.com" "KellySt@aol.com" nil "29" "Re: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA24003 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 11:12:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imo16.mx.aol.com (imo16.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.38]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA23996 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 11:12:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from KellySt@aol.com by imo16.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id 2VNMa04557 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 14:11:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Mac sub 79 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: KellySt@aol.com Content-Length: 986 From: KellySt@aol.com Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 14:11:46 EDT In a message dated 6/9/98 10:40:49 AM, Shealiak@XS4ALL.nl wrote: >Kelly, > >>Decontamination 'airlocks'? > >Are you sure these can get rid of that last single celled organism? Are you >sure that a chemical shower, UV radiation and radioactive radiation can get >rid of all unwanted guests? on something simple you could be fairly sure, we've a lot of experience with such things. On the other hand decoming something as complex as a shuttle (all those nooks and cranies) does worry me a lot. Losses amoung ground teams could get high. >Anyhow I wasn't discussing contamination. I was merely making clear that >decontamination problems won't be solved by merely using shuttles. >In fact I'd think that the shuttles themselves have decontamination units, >so that the crew gets the possibility to wash themselves every now and then. Every time they enter or leave the ship. Certainly before they are allowed to enter the living quarters, or exit their biosuits. >Timothy Kelly From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Sun Jun 14 14:01:57 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["668" "Sun" "14" "June" "1998" "21:58:56" "+0100" "A West" "andrew@hmm.u-net.com" nil "20" "Re: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA25173 for starship-design-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 14:01:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mserv1b.u-net.net (mserv1b.u-net.net [195.102.240.137]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA25168 for ; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 14:01:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from (daishi) [195.102.196.106] by mserv1b.u-net.net with smtp (Exim 1.82 #2) id 0ylJtg-00074n-00; Sun, 14 Jun 1998 22:01:05 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980614215856.0079ce70@mail.u-net.com> X-Sender: andrew-hmm@mail.u-net.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Precedence: bulk Reply-To: A West Content-Length: 667 From: A West Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: Re: starship-design: Planetary Landing Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 21:58:56 +0100 >>Kelly, >> >>>Decontamination 'airlocks'? >> >>Are you sure these can get rid of that last single celled organism? Are you >>sure that a chemical shower, UV radiation and radioactive radiation can get >>rid of all unwanted guests? > >on something simple you could be fairly sure, we've a lot of experience with >such things. On the other hand decoming something as complex as a shuttle >(all those nooks and cranies) does worry me a lot. Losses amoung ground teams >could get high. YOu wouldn't have to decontaminate the shuttles - let em stay dirty Then make part of the ship dirty, and clean anything that goes inbetween the clean and dirty areas. Andrew West From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed Jun 24 14:51:16 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["358" "Wed" "24" "June" "1998" "16:48:33" "-0500" "Kyle R. Mcallister" "stk@sunherald.infi.net" nil "16" "starship-design: Quantum Ramjets" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA19953 for starship-design-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 14:51:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fh101.infi.net (fh101.infi.net [208.131.160.100]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA19906 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 14:50:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oemcomputer (pm3-129.gpt.infi.net [207.0.193.129]) by fh101.infi.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA07906 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 17:50:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:48:36 -0500 Message-ID: <01BD9F8F.EE792B60.stk@sunherald.infi.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Content-Length: 357 From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: "'starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu'" Subject: starship-design: Quantum Ramjets Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:48:33 -0500 All: I was reading a paper by H.D. Froning, which can be found at: http://www.unitelnw.com/fronin02.htm This paper mentions a relativistic propulsion system called a "quantum ramjet." Does anyone here have any idea what this is, and where I could obtain more information on this? Kyle R. Mcallister Email: stk@sunherald.infi.net Phone: 228-875-0629 From VM Wed Jul 1 09:47:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3336" "Tue" "30" "June" "1998" "21:37:09" "-0500" "Jonathan J Jay" "jon_jay1@juno.com" nil "76" "Re: starship-design: crew" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 3336 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA07027 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 19:41:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from x13.boston.juno.com (x13.boston.juno.com [205.231.100.27]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA06970 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 19:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jon_jay1@juno.com) by x13.boston.juno.com (queuemail) id DG2QTHKH; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 22:36:56 EDT Message-ID: <19980630.213711.9006.1.jon_jay1@juno.com> References: <351571BF.6922@olywa.net> X-Mailer: Juno 1.49 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-21,23,25-32,34-50,52-55,57-60,62-63,65-70 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) From: jon_jay1@juno.com (Jonathan J Jay) Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: lindberg@olywa.net Cc: starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: crew Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 21:37:09 -0500 I was looking through some old e-mails, and I thought this might be worth talking about. On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:17:03 Lindberg writes: >I was thinking about crew distribution on a decades long interstellar >exploratory voyage for which the crew would not hibernate. Medical >and >mental health services would obviously need to be totally >self-contained. Combatting boredom would be a major challenge during >the entire voyage except the exploration of the destination starsystem. >maintaining excellent health would be imperative during the entire >voyage, especially before arrival. > with that in mind, i worked up a crew distribution chart for a > >hypothetical crew with 1000 crewmen who are science, engineering, >command, maintenance, and other "mission related" types. the following >are the "auxiliary" crew. >8 surgeons, 15 nurses, 3 anesthetists >1 oncologist (cancer may be a greater risk in spaceflight due to >radiation, closed air systems, chemical exposure, etc.) If you believe cancer could be a problem, I advise you take at least 2. If there were any catastrophic damages, or otherwise, life threatening happenings on the ship and one was lost, you need another. >2 internists >2 dentists, 2 dental assistants >1 veterinarian (because of the benefits to morale, physical health, >and mental health, i favor having pets on board...comments anyone?) I would favor pets, also, but for storages sake, I believe we shouldn't take what we personally would not need, e.g. dog or cat food. >20 psychologists/psychiatrists >5 exercise coaches >4 recreation specialists (this and the two above may be combined) >3 nutritionists/chefs, 3 sous chefs, 15 commies (frequent social >dining alternated with meals in quarters will boost morale) >3 barbers, 2 security guards, clergy as necessary. = total 1092 > The above list has errors, omissions, excesses, and big flaws. > >However, it is interesting to note that the "auxiliary staff" increased >crew size by 9%. Accounting for the positions i forgot may add >another few %. Reducing the number of auxiliary staff seems a > worthwhile activity, but on the other hand, certain positions (such >as the doctors and nurses) must be redundant because the cost >of losing them is so high. One solution is to have the existing crew >train others for their position during the voyage. this has the advantage >of increasing redundancy as well as relieving boredom a little. Perhaps >other solutions exist as well. It is agreeable that others should be trained during the voyage, but as you wrote earlier in the message, this is decades long. Taking others on the voyage would not be appropriate because, again, you would take more food than needed. If you think they should stay out of hibernation during this, most likely, many others will be born during the trip. A generation ship is more plausible because you could train the children when they become of age. If they didn't want to work on the ship, well, it may help the parents with moral,or maybe not. It's a matter of opinion. >Nels Lindberg Jonathan Jay _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From VM Wed Jul 1 09:47:42 1998 X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["4479" "Tue" "30" "June" "1998" "21:41:36" "-0700" "N. Lindberg" "nlindber@u.washington.edu" nil "92" "Re: starship-design: crew" "^From:" nil nil "6" nil nil nil nil nil] nil) Content-Length: 4479 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA29817 for starship-design-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 21:41:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jason01.u.washington.edu (root@jason01.u.washington.edu [140.142.70.24]) by darkwing.uoregon.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA29770 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 21:41:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dante05.u.washington.edu (nlindber@dante05.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.7]) by jason01.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.05) with ESMTP id VAA23714; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 21:41:37 -0700 Received: from localhost (nlindber@localhost) by dante05.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.07/8.8.4+UW97.04) with SMTP id VAA12192; Tue, 30 Jun 1998 21:41:36 -0700 In-Reply-To: <19980630.213711.9006.1.jon_jay1@juno.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "N. Lindberg" From: "N. Lindberg" Sender: owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu To: Jonathan J Jay cc: lindberg@olywa.net, starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Subject: Re: starship-design: crew Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 21:41:36 -0700 (PDT) Jonathan, when i wrote that list, i was trying to think of things that wouldn't come from the "Submarine/Aircraft Carrier model", especially the bit about redundancy and mental health. also, i don't think the naval crew-model is really very appropriate to large-scale, long term starflight; although it provides some useful pointers. On Tue, 30 Jun 1998, Jonathan J Jay wrote: > > I was looking through some old e-mails, and I thought this might be worth > talking about. > > On Sun, 22 Mar 1998 21:17:03 Lindberg writes: > >I was thinking about crew distribution on a decades long interstellar > >exploratory voyage for which the crew would not hibernate. Medical > >and > >mental health services would obviously need to be totally > >self-contained. Combatting boredom would be a major challenge during > >the entire voyage except the exploration of the destination starsystem. > >maintaining excellent health would be imperative during the entire > >voyage, especially before arrival. > > with that in mind, i worked up a crew distribution chart for a > > > >hypothetical crew with 1000 crewmen who are science, engineering, > >command, maintenance, and other "mission related" types. the following > >are the "auxiliary" crew. > >8 surgeons, 15 nurses, 3 anesthetists > >1 oncologist (cancer may be a greater risk in spaceflight due to > >radiation, closed air systems, chemical exposure, etc.) > > If you believe cancer could be a problem, I advise you take at least 2. > If there were > any catastrophic damages, or otherwise, life threatening happenings on > the ship > and one was lost, you need another. Actually, one oncologist should be sufficient because the other doctors and medical personnel will have extensive sufficient training to handle the problem. however, a study of the special risks should be made, and dealt with, > >2 internists > >2 dentists, 2 dental assistants > >1 veterinarian (because of the benefits to morale, physical health, > >and mental health, i favor having pets on board...comments anyone?) > > I would favor pets, also, but for storages sake, I believe we shouldn't > take > what we personally would not need, e.g. dog or cat food. If i may open another thread of discussion here, i have an idea (pet theory?) that large future colonies (not exploratory starships, which should be much neater) which grow their own grain & other foodstuffs will have vermin problems and will therefore _depend_ on cats, terriers, ferrets, and other small predators for their immediate survival. just an idea, tell me what you think. > >20 psychologists/psychiatrists > >5 exercise coaches > >4 recreation specialists (this and the two above may be combined) > >3 nutritionists/chefs, 3 sous chefs, 15 commies (frequent social > >dining alternated with meals in quarters will boost morale) > >3 barbers, 2 security guards, clergy as necessary. = total 1092 > > The above list has errors, omissions, excesses, and big flaws. > > > >However, it is interesting to note that the "auxiliary staff" increased > >crew size by 9%. Accounting for the positions i forgot may add > >another few %. Reducing the number of auxiliary staff seems a > > worthwhile activity, but on the other hand, certain positions (such > >as the doctors and nurses) must be redundant because the cost > >of losing them is so high. One solution is to have the existing crew > >train others for their position during the voyage. this has the > advantage > >of increasing redundancy as well as relieving boredom a little. Perhaps > >other solutions exist as well. > > It is agreeable that others should be trained during the voyage, but as > you > wrote earlier in the message, this is decades long. Taking others on the > voyage would not be appropriate because, again, you would take more > food than needed. If you think they should stay out of hibernation during > this, most likely, many others will be born during the trip. A generation > ship > is more plausible because you could train the children when they become > of age. If they didn't want to work on the ship, well, it may help the > parents > with moral,or maybe not. It's a matter of opinion. As i wrote in the beginning of the original message, assume no hibernation. As for generation ships, I find the idea of using them for exploration extremely implausible. Colonization possibly (has this ever been discussed?) > >Nels Lindberg > > Jonathan Jay Regards, Nels Lindberg