[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: starship-design: To FTL or not to FTL, that is the question.
In a message dated 6/9/97 2:05:00 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org (kyle) wrote:
>I know I just sent a post, but I had something that I would like to
>inform everyone of: I am creating my own starship design. I think most
>you will probably scoff at it, but I'm gonna do it anyways. The reason I
>think this is that it will be designed to travel to Tau Ceti, 11.9 ly
>in just 4 years. To put it simply, it involves FTL. Non-alcubierre FTL.
>better, faster and alot easier to do, something that we could have by
>the year 2050!
>No, I am not insane. Remember what people said to Columbus: "Impossible!
>off the world." He made it here. To the Wright bros.: "Man was not meant
>It's impossible." They flew. To NASA: "We'll never get to the moon. It
>We went. Why is it different with FTL? It isn't. If your interested,
>Later on I might post some of my ideas. Until then, I'll just help out
>conventional stuff. I also do habitats. I may only be 14, but I know
>what I'm talking
>about. (For unbelievers: I'm entering colledge). See ya later, and good
>from the Skytracker. (my nickname)
> Kyle Randall Mcallister
We generally droped FTL since:
1- their no solid idea how to do it (YET).
2- If we start basing designs on speculative guesses we'ld wind up debating
science fiction senarios, not a predictable future. (Interesting, but not