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

[Kelly St <KellySt@aol.com>]

In a message dated 12/8/97 1:34:50 PM, stk@sunherald.infi.net wrote:

>>>Several months ago I made the statement that there is more incentive to 
>>>stay in space where power is cheap, resources are plentiful and 
>>>(comparatively) easy to get at. So I really have a hard time seeing why 
>>>anyone would want to go to another star just to _settle_ on a planet.
>>>
>>>If you bear that in mind, and look at the mission profile as one that is 
>>>designed to begin building an outpost in orbit in that system for the 
>>>purpose of continuing exploration and creating a spaceborne infrastructure 
>>>for follow on missions, only some of which might be concerned with actually
>>>landing on a planet, then it is not a one way mission. Nor is it exactly a 
>>>colonization mission.
>>>
>>>It is a team of scientists, and engineers and technicians with a definite 
>>>purpose - build a fully self sustaining outpost in orbit around another 
>>>star. Once they have done that they can then build power stations to 
>>>produce more fuel so that 2-way travel becomes more practicable. There 
>>>would be additional personnel arriving on follow on missions and maybe 
>>>eventually some of the original personnel might even get to go home.
>>>
>>>Remember that most of the people who will be going on these missions will 
>>>probably have come from our off-planet population in the first place. They 
>>>aren't going to see a great deal of difference between a colony on Luna or 
>>>Ceres and one orbiting another star.
>>>
>>>Lee
>>
>>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.
>>
>>First you send Lewis and Clark, then the pioneers, then the rail roads.  ;)
>>
>>Seariously a big question we've never gotten very far with is why anyone
would
>>send such a mission?
>
>Because we are human. It is a driving motive in our lives, the need to
explore,
>to reach out. I for one would volunteer to go on a one way mission. I don't
like
>the condition of our planet anymore. Sice E-mail is so bad in its conveiance
of
>feelings, perhaps I should explain my next statement: The visionaries of our
world
>are nearly gone. What I mean by this is the ones that saw true worth in our
exploration
>and expansion, those such as Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, and the like are all
dying.
>The sad thing is, there seem to be few if any new visionaries like them. I,
being
>a teenager, spend considerable time with other teenagers, and can tell you
that
>the vision is gone. Arthur C. Clarke and Rober Bussard won't be around
forever.
>I just wonder where the human in humanity has gone.
>
>Forgive me if this is too 'wordy'.
>
>Kyle Mcallister

Thats why we would be interested in sending a mission and exploring, but it
doesn't answer why we would, in 50 years, spend hundreds (or at the very least
tens) of billions of dollars to send a mission like this.  We don't spend that
kind of money for science or curiosity.  Eventually, as the cost comes down,
it could drop to leavel that we do spend for such reasons.  But our ideas are
priced way out of market for such things.  

So, why would someone pay that much to send a mission like this?  Historicaly
national prestigue, or other major political reasons, could fund a single
expidition.  (and possibly once you've paid for the equipment a couple other
flights to other stars might be fundable.)  But beyond that credible reasons
are near nil.

Kelly