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

[KellySt@aol.com]

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
>years.

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
systems.

Kelly