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

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

In a message dated 12/5/97 2:48:49 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:

>> >-- Zenon
>> >
>> >PS. WARNING: Kelly is strongly against. 
>> >    He declares it his duty to the mankind to stop us by force,
>> >    possibly even by shooting us!   ;-)                    - Z
>> Nah, I just feel that to preserve any chance of geting the program approved
>> I'ld need to shoot anyone who'ld suggest it.   ;)
>> 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.)  
>Wrong. I never was happy with THAT.
>I was happy with a one-way non-suicide mission.
>That is, no return, colony/life support sustainable
>till natural death (say, 200 year supplies should suffice, huh?).
>An what the folks are doing back home... who cares?
>My home will be over there...
>-- Zenon

  ;)  Ah but that one would be impossible, or at least an order or two
magnitude more expensive.

Oh, the folks back home would have to pay the bills.  You have to care what
they want, or they woun't pay for it.  (Capitalism rule one)  ;)