[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: starship-design: What is savest?
In a message dated 12/11/97 8:11:58 AM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote:
>>>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
>>Actually because staying in place requires you stay longer, and thus need
>>suplies, repairs, etc. I do think the 2-way would be cheaper, smaller, and
>I hope you assume that for a 2-way mission the fuel/energy for the return
>trip comes from the target system.---
Oh Yeah! I do not go quietly into a geometric weight growth. ;)
>-- 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
>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.
Possibly. If you alot a few thousand tons of specialized gear for mining and
refining, you could asume a similar amount for extra spares and suplies.
>>In our case the engines are actually not a big factor. You need the full
>>of engines to decel into the system, or you'ld overshoot. On a boost back,
>>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.