Re: starship-design: Re: Why go to the stars? - Kyle

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/4/97 5:19:58 AM, stk@sunherald.infi.net (kyle) wrote:

>L.Parker wrote:
>> 
>> Bogus or not, its not good enough for 1000 light years. For FTL to take 31
years
>> is ridiculous. Might as well go sublight at relativistic velocities. It
only
>take 12
>> years (ship time) that way.
>> 
>
>31 years (earth time) to travel 1000 ly is not unreasonable. If you use
>relativistic travel, sure you'd get there in less SHIP time, but it'd
>take over 1000 years earth time. Try getting funding for that! 31 years
>ain't that long. 
>
>You could go faster if you wanted to (just increase the ZPE generator
>section, explained in my upcoming design). My numbers aren't bogus, but
>come from "the man who started it all", Miguel Alcubierre. I'm simply
>applying his theory to design. He deserves the real credit.
>
>If you try going faster than 1g, even for FTL, its gonna be hard on the
>ship's integrity. So make the ship more durable, which increases weight,
>which increases energy usage...but not impossible.
>
>Kyle Mcallister

More critical then ships integroty would be crew health.  Prolonged high G
would be great for the cardio-vascular system, but be pretty exausting for
the crew.

Also, would that be applicable?  As I remember Alcubierre concept involved
moving a pocket of spacetime.  That would not involve acceleration in the
normal sence, so no g force on the crew or ship.

Kelly