[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver

In a message dated 11/18/97 2:03:16 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote:

>>> Maybe not, but IMO it's clearly sufficient for an interstellar probe
>>> flyby mission, which is all it's really good for anyway (my rule
>>> of thumb is that anything good enough to use for decelerating at
>>> an unprepared target system is good enough for the acceleration
>>> run.  Conversely, anything only good for the acceleration run
>>> doesn't really help if you want to stop at the target system.)
>>I'll buy that, but see your earlier argument _against_ the flyby mission.
>My argument against Starwisp specifically is that it's not clear
>it will ever be worth it, seeing as its sensor suite is so limited.
>Something with the capabilities of Voyager would easily provide much
>more detailed and reliable information on a nearby star system than
>we could expect from future telescopes.

But Telescopes can get results quicker and certainly can get as good a
optical resolution from here.  Given their greater flexiblity (use in multiple
 star systems with the same scop) and lower cost, they'ld probably prempt any
starwisp class stellar probe.

>>> IMO, 10%c is sufficent for interstellar flyby missions.
>>I wouldn't want to wait that long to get my data back.
>What, 50 years?  By the time we start throwing around interstellar
>probes, I'll bet average human lifespans are comfortably over 100

Does that mean people will have careers and lives that much more sedentary?
 Or funding sources that much more patent?  If it take a half century to get
results, a inteligent person will wait a couple decades for faster cheaper