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

Re: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)

In a message dated 12/4/97 3:09:55 PM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote:

>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>>In a message dated 12/3/97 7:23:07 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>>>> From: kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo)
>>>> I disagree.  If I were offered the chance to fly on a 1 way mission
>>>> to the Alpha Centauri systems at .2c (where I'd then spend the rest
>>>> of my life), I for one would jump at it. I'm sure there are many
>>>> others who'd be just as excited to do so.
>>>Hey, Isaac, I was one of the first on the list, quite a time ago, 
>>>to be excited to go.
>>As an asside it would be far cheaper to do a two way mission then a quicker
>>one way mission, since you'ld to launch a couple orders of magnitude less
>>stuff to build a sustainable colony....
>>Opps forget, you were happy with a one way suicide mission.  (I.E. no
>>no sustainable colony/life support, and the folks back home get to bet on
>>ship or crew dieing first on internation TV.)  
>It's not a suicide mission.  Suicide is purposefully dying prematurely.
>With a couple hundred years of life support supplies, there's no
>inherent reason why the crew would die prematurely.

Actually even if you had a couple hundred years of suplies its unlikely the
ship could stay functional for more then a few decades.  Normal systems on
that scale usually burn out after 40-50 years.  Given the lack of replacement
parts (stored parts also don't last forever), and the fact the crew would also
be wearing out (thus lowering their ability toservice the craft), the ship
probably wouldn't last as long as the crew theoretically could.  Humm.. then
again the crew isn't going to have access to top of the line medical
facilities (or non aging medical personel) so their life expectancy would be
shortened too.

>As for 2-way vs. 1-way, I gave as an example a .2c cruise speed.
>A 2-way mission at .1c would take at least 80 years to get there
>and back!  With current human lifespans, that sounds to me a
>hell of a lot worse than going one way in 20 years and then spending
>the next half century or so basking in the warmth of alien suns.

I don't follow the numbers.  First you state a .2c cruse speed vs a .1.  Why
would a 2 way mission use a slower ship?

Oh, and since your stuck in the same ship parked there, or on the flight back
(no you can't spend you years on an alien beach), I can't see how parked would
be prefereable.

>>I can't imagine why I thought it would never be aproved.  ;)
>>OH, did you know that Idea was proposed for Mars exploration at the 'Case
>>for Mars' conference last year?
>    _____     Isaac Kuo