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

["L. Parker" <lparker@cacaphony.net>]

On Sunday, December 07, 1997 10:00 AM, Kelly St [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com] 
wrote:
>
> That is an interesting mission profile, but has two problems.
>
> One it assumes your sure you want to keeping going back to that star
> systems
> on a regular basis.  So far I never heard any credible reason we'ld want
> to.
>
> Two - your sure you want to keep using that system for decades.
>
> Three - it assumes you want to come back and forth so often that you'ld
> pay to
> send a much (10-100 times?) bigger construction expidition, and not just
> a
> couple exploration expiditions.

One - Well, actually, there really isn't any credible reason for going 
there in the next 1,000 years if you get right down to it. I was assuming 
we were going, period. The lack of justification is global and doesn't just 
apply to my limited concept. Ask yourself this: what possible motive would 
any group have for mounting such an expensive enormous undertaking? What 
possible reward does it offer. You and Isaac were talking about breakeven 
on fusion - well this is a lose money/lose more money proposition.

Two - Assuming that we found some reason to go in the first place, there is 
your answer for the next few decades...

Three - I don't think a well planned engineering outpost would mass as much 
as a planetary colony expedition. This is more of a bootstrap proposition, 
a limited amount of engineering resources and the tech base to build more 
once you are there. It obviates the argument of component failure after 
decades of use since we would be building new ones by then. Of course, the 
systems still have to last long enough to get you there and then some.

>
> First you send Lewis and Clark, then the pioneers, then the rail roads.
>  ;)

I will grant that is the way it was done in the past but this isn't 
comparable. The FACTORY has to go first to build the railroad so that Lewis 
and Clark can go...
>
> Seariously a big question we've never gotten very far with is why anyone
> would
> send such a mission?

See, above. I still haven't found a sound reason to send any mission.

Lee

                                                      (o o)
--------------------------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo---------

PLEASE NOTE: Some Quantum Physics Theories Suggest That When the Consumer 
Is
Not Directly Observing This Product, It May Cease to Exist or Will Exist 
Only
in a Vague and Undetermined State.