Re: starship-design: We need habitats

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/12/97 9:59:07 PM, you wrote:

>Hello,
>   
>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>> 
>> In a message dated 6/10/97 2:08:23 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net (kyle)
wrote:
>> 
>> >Greetings fellow LIT members.
>> >
>> >We need some serious thought on the aspect of habitats. Once we get to
>> >Tau ceti, we
>> >are probably going to want to set up a habitat on the surface of Tceti
>> (...)
>> 
>> Why settle on the planet?  Resorces are far more common and access able in
>> space then on a planet.  The danger of  contamination is less.  You can
>> always build a earth like space colony.  You can't always do that on a
>> planet.  Besides theirs a whole star system to explore.  You can't strand
all
>> your resources on one rock.
>> 
>> Kelly
>
>	Forgive me if this has already been answered but, what about
>debilitation from low-g or zero-g? Are we going to have "wheels" to
>maintain "g" in stationary orbit? 

The ships are designed with centrafuges for this reason and for the long
cruise times on route.

>	As for colonization or not, it would nice to see just us get there as
>soon as possible. Therefore, quick-and-dirty technology - preferably
>simple and tested - could be advisable.
>	I really do not understand the apparently immense population overhead
>necessary to colonize. The ship would probably be heavily automated and
>the crew would probably be trained as multi-specialists. Crew members
>with children would probably have as much time to be with them as
>working parents on earth do now. Would specialized child-rearing and
>caring for the aged and infirm take more than .25x to 0.75x the
>"operational" crew? Would the replacement ratio of children need be as
>great as 1.2x or 1.3x the same? Also, in a well automated environment,
>most of the work should be intellectual and "busy" work, at least until
>system entry and colonization.

Generally in a population now a days about 1/3rd the population works.  The
rest are children or in school.  Or retired or sick.  

The large over head was from a sociology study I read on the minimum numbers
of people needed to maintain a independant, self suficent, industrial nation
using present day tech.  (A few million)  With some down sizing for future
automation improvements.


>	By the way, look up on present research in hibernation. It probably is
>reasonable to estimate that, in 50 more years - with genetic, biological
>and technical advances - "cold sleep" or hibernation shall be viable for
>trimester or year-long periods, if not more.
>
>	Thats it. Thanks.
>
>				A.C.Rocha



Kelly