[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: Re: starship-design: What is safest?
In a message dated 12/11/97 12:02:40 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>Kelly St wrote:
>>I deliberately refure to them as "suicide" missions for two reason. First
>>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.
I spent 15 years in NASA and few more in other such things. This is an issue
with a lot of study by such folks. You do NOT, EVER, suggest astronuats or
crew are expendable, or ever put in a situation where every effort to support
their safe return wasn't taken. The political firestorm from violating those
rules is intense, and one sided.
>>Secound because I beleve the odds of outliving the dieing ships
>>systems decrease exponetially as you significantly extend the
>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.
Proven false on several occasions by several persons here.
>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).
Far slowrer than an mission suggested by anyone with the possible exception of
>>The later can be compensated for by an exponential
>>increase in ship suplies and crew resources, but the later is unchangable.
> _____ Isaac Kuo