[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)
In a message dated 12/7/97 7:47:18 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>On Sunday, December 07, 1997 10:00 AM, Kelly St [SMTP:KellySt@aol.com]
>> That is an interesting mission profile, but has two problems.
>> One it assumes your sure you want to keeping going back to that star
>> on a regular basis. So far I never heard any credible reason we'ld want
>> 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
>> 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.
Sad but true.
>Two - Assuming that we found some reason to go in the first place, there is
>your answer for the next few decades...
Only if you assume the reason justified going back again. A plant-the-flag
expidition like Apollo, or a survey mission, would only need one trip.
>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.
You still run into the problem of needing a pretty much selfsuficent system.
That takes a lot more manufacturing stuff, which needs more parts, needs more
skilled people, and other geometric etc..
>> 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...
Then don't go by train. Most of our systems could get their once and back
easier and cheaper then going their and seting up infastructure.
>> Seariously a big question we've never gotten very far with is why anyone
>> send such a mission?
>See, above. I still haven't found a sound reason to send any mission.