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

[Kelly St <KellySt@aol.com>]

In a message dated 12/7/97 7:47:18 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net wrote:

>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.

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
>> would
>> send such a mission?
>
>See, above. I still haven't found a sound reason to send any mission.
>
>Lee

Me neiather.

Kelly