Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest?

[kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo)]

Kelly St wrote:

>I deliberately refure to them as "suicide" missions for two reason.  First to
>emphasis that that is how they will be perceved as by the public.

Only if the public is like you (and remains like you).  The public
may have a different attitude.

>Secound because I beleve the odds of outliving the dieing ships
>systems decrease exponetially as you significantly extend the
>mission length.

In order to perform a 2-way mission, you have to double how long
it takes to reach the target system, and this is also how much time
it takes to get back.

In the case of a .2c 1-way mission, the one way mission lasts perhaps
60 years (about the time the crew die of old age).  In the case of
a .1c 2-way mission (this uses equivalent technology), the mission
lasts perhaps 60 years (about the time the crew die of old age).
They can't live the 80 years it takes to get there and back.  In
the case of a .2c 2-way mission (this uses more advanced technology),
the mission lasts perhaps 50 years (10 years in system).

>The later can be compensated for by an exponential
>increase in ship suplies and crew resources, but the later is unchangable.
-- 
    _____     Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo
 __|_)o(_|__
/___________\ "Mari-san...  Yokatta...
\=\)-----(/=/  ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi