starship-design: Re: Comments on your site as if you need them and approval of your subject.

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/12/97 11:28:13 AM, you wrote:

>Dear Mr. Kelly St,
>
>
>
>The web is a neat place because it forms a permanent and instantaneous
>
>record
>
>so work on very long-range projects like developing the solar system have a
>
>chance
>
>from the outset, to be saved if they are of value.  Early thought is always
>
>of value
>
>later.
>
>
>
>I want to share the possible scenarios I see since you can include that if
>
>you
>
>see fit.  This is looking at it from the archaeological history of the
>
>world which
>
>persistently seems to imply that dynasties and empires won't move very fast
>
>
>
>in exploring and developing the solar system, but they will move
>
>determinedly, 
>
>persistently, and with as much certainty as possible, to become implacable.
>
>For spaceflight, this means we will probably be in near-earth exploration
>
>for a
>
>long time, sending unmanned missions to the planets for a long time (many
>
>decades) and won't send manned missions to the planets for somewhat longer
>
>time than most enthusiasts currently believe, probably more like thirty
>
>years 
>
>at least and then at high risk.  The most important manned missions will
>
>not
>
>even begin for upwards of a century, and the length of time for any serious
>
>development will not begin even on Mars for several centuries unless there
>
>are enormous breakthroughs in lift and propulsion.

This is curious given the far faster rates of exploration in more recent
frounteirs (africa, US west, north sea, etc) and the fast rates going on now
in space.

In general the critical factor in a frountier is money, I.E. how much can you
make there.  Space currently is relativly hard to access (I.E. no commercial
transport lines) but is fundamentally as easy and cheap to get to as another
continent and posseses effectivly unlimited resouces of easy access.  This
would tend to promote a faster development cycle.



>The lift and propulsion is really important.  If we discover some
>
>antigravity or
>
>gravity neutralizing system, then we will probably invest in exploration
>
>and
>
>development of the solar system heavily within decades of the discovery.
>
>If we don't, it will be really slow.

This would be helpfull, but unnnessisary.  Current fissil fuel technology
allows transit to and from space at a cost similar to trans-ocean air travel.
 Travel around in space, is easier and cheaper.

On the other hand their are a lot of technologies like fusion, or beamed
power that could greatly lower costs and increase speeds.  Ironicly fusion
rockets could prove a far bigger market, then fusion power systems.  This
could get some serious interest in fussion research again.



>And the extensive colonization and development of stable, self-sufficient
>
>or
>
>nearly self-sufficient colonies even on Mars will not take place for many 
>
>centuries, probably more like a millennium.  Kind of dry, but you know,
>
>the farmland ain't got water, and the air is thin...  We have not even
>
>begun
>
>to develop the Sahara or many of the other deserts of the Earth (I'm not
>
>condemning solar system work, it will merely take longer than is often
>
>believed, yet nonetheless is still infinitely important and quite exciting)
>
>and the deserts have all the air you want and water can be piped in from
>
>only a few hundred miles away at most.

I'm dubious about colonizing Mars or the other planets.  What for?  Mars is
at best a unhealthy area of high radiation, low gravity, and toxic soil.  All
that on the bottom of a gravity well making it far harder to economically
transport supplies and products back and forth.  I expect we'll bypass the
planets except for tourism and exploration.



>Getting to the stars is super of course.  It is disappointing that our
>
>solar system
>
>does not have more than one readily habitable planet (unless we discover
>
>that after
>
>all some kind of organism can adapt readily to conditions on one or more of
>
>the
>
>planets and that does not seem obvious).  (I'm trying to be cool and dry
>
>and look
>
>at the slowest case scenarios while sanctioning interest, fascination,
>
>excitement
>
>and enthusiasm for these projects.)  Anyway, finding at least one other
>
>habitable
>
>(and possibly inhabited) planet for life is as important to us as having
>
>another 
>
>door on our houses, or two eyes in the groups of the Japanese game of Go. 
>
>It's 
>
>serious business, close to the heart of survival, and there are areas where
>
>people
>
>become very serious about it in the long run--even in the very long run I
>
>have
>
>described.

People have often commented that if Mars had looked more like SF novels of
half a century ago thought it would, we'ld have a much more active space
program.  Bottom line, we didn't find anywhere people really wanted to go to
that badly.


>The Moon might be a different scenario, because it is very tempting to put,
>
>say,
>
>an astronomical observatory, or other installations, on the moon and this
>
>will
>
>probably be sort of the next big thing, probably in the coming century.
>
>
>
>Well, that's the scenario of the slow.
>
>
>
>Keep up the good work,
>
>
>
>
>
>Mike Lewis
>
>Seattle


Thanks for your interest in the site.

Kelly