[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: starship-design: One way (again...)
> From: Kelly St <KellySt@aol.com>
> In a message dated 12/5/97 2:48:49 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >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...
> ;) Ah but that one would be impossible, or at least an order or two
> magnitude more expensive.
?? As follows from all our discussions,
the biggest problem is the propulsion.
And the one-way mission has only HALF of this problem.
So you calim that having half the problem makes
it impossible or more expensive?
I agree that the one-way outpost-building mission
will need more supplies (including a sort of factory
to build even more at the target), but I think
this additional cost will be negligible as compared with
the cost of engine/fuel needed for the way back.
The engine for a two-way mission must be made reliable
for twice the time and for two start-cruise-stop cycles.
> 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) ;)
Agreed. But they will pay less for the one-way mission...
(Take also into account the costs of awards, medals,
and retirement funds for the return crew ;-))