[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

> ----------
> From: 	kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu[SMTP:kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu]
> Subject: 	Re: RE: Re: starship-design: One way (again...)
> David Levine wrote:
> >Right.  In the original concept for this design group, we were
> assuming
> >some extremely pressing reason-to-go had come up.
> I can't imagine any extremely pressing reason to go which would also
> give enough time to develop interstellar travel capability.
> >I think the
> >assumption was the remote detection of life-bearing planets in the
> >target system, with a potential mission receiving large amounts of
> >popular support.
> That wouldn't be an extremely pressing reason to go, unless that
> life included intelligent life which are developing or have
> developed their own interstellar travel capability.
It doesn't matter if you believe that is not an extremely pressing
reason to go.  You need to assume the organization (probably government,
but not necessarily) requiring a starship design believes it to be so.
You see, we wished to discuss what it would take to get to a nearby star
(actually, the original idea was Tau Ceti or Barnard's Star, both more
likely to have planets than Alpha Centauri, but significantly further
away) in the relatively near future.  We recognized at the time there
would need to be some sort of reason for this to occur.  We weren't as
concerned with the reason itself, just given the requirements of
designing a workable system soon, how would one go about doing it?  If
you feel that the reason we used is not pressing, fine.  It doesn't
matter.  It was hoped that using this assumption would allow us to have
some frame of reference for discussions.  In fact, it does help you
decide what kind of equipment to bring and what kind of mission you
would expect to perform once there.

Ultra-long-baseline astrometry doesn't always cut it.

But you're right, there's no believable reason to go, so let's not even
make such assumptions to discuss it with.  Thought experiments suck.  I
agree with Isaac and say we should end this and disband.

After all, with no pressing reason to design a starship, I see no
pressing reason to discuss designing a starship.


David Levine                     david@actionworld.com
Director of Development    http://www.actionworld.com/
ActionWorld, Inc.                       (212) 387-8200
Professional Driver.  Closed Track.  Do not attempt.