Re: starship-design: What is savest?

[TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl (Timothy van der Linden)]

To Kelly,

>>In short, I'm not so much wondering what is cheaper, but more about what is
>>saver. Or to put is less subjective: What has a bigger chance of succeeding?
>
>Actually because staying in place requires you stay longer, and thus need more
>suplies, repairs, etc.  I do think the 2-way would be cheaper, smaller, and
>more relyable.

I hope you assume that for a 2-way mission the fuel/energy for the return
trip comes from the target system. If not, then you probably can carry more
than enough supplies instead of the fuel for the return trip.
So assuming we get the fuel in the target system, there has to be some not
so small unit (probably multiple units) that mines asteroids or planets for
fuel.
For a one-way mission that not so small unit can be replaced by many small
specialized units that can be used for all (un)thinkable repairs.

>In our case the engines are actually not a big factor.  You need the full set
>of engines to decel into the system, or you'ld overshoot.  On a boost back, if
>some of the engines fail, you drop them and burn the others longer until you
>use up the rest of the fuel.

This assumes we have multiple engines. But OK, that about the engines was
just a whim of mine.

Timothy