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

[Kelly St <KellySt@aol.com>]

In a message dated 12/11/97 8:11:58 AM, TLG.van.der.Linden@tip.nl wrote:

>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.---

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
>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.

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
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


Kelly