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

[Kelly St <KellySt@aol.com>]

In a message dated 12/11/97 12:02:40 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote:

>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.

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
>>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.

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
you.

>>The later can be compensated for by an exponential
>>increase in ship suplies and crew resources, but the later is unchangable.
>-- 
>    _____     Isaac Kuo


Kelly