Re: Re: starship-design: Numbers needed for Colonization

[Kelly St <KellySt@aol.com>]

In a message dated 5/13/98 8:26:10 AM, f96bni@student.tdb.uu.se wrote:

>On Tue, 12 May 1998, Kelly St wrote:
>
>> Sorry to hear you were that sick.  Drink plenty of fluids and don't breath
on
>> the E-MAIL!!
>> 
>>    ;)
>> 
>
>I won't breathe, I'll cough... (And since you US types have absolutly NO
>imunity to our NEW european "Superflues" you'll surely DIE!)
>
>;=)

Good think I have virus protection on my computer.  ;)



>> >> We never could come up with a reason for a colony.  Resources are more
>> >> plentiful and easy to get to in space, and the danger of an ecology is
>> less.
>> >> But, this solar system is rich in stuff too, and its a lot easier to set
up
>> a
>> >> colony nearer to your spare parts suplier.  ;)
>> >> 
>> >
>> >Well, don't forget the most valuable comodity of them all: KNOWLEDGE!!!
>> >
>> >The amount of things that will be learnt from colonizing another solar
>> >system is probably the best economic incentive of them all!
>> >(This is espisially true of systems with alien lifeforms.)
>> >
>> >
>> >This is also how the Colony will yield "interest" to the investors back
>> >home! And the good thing is that "trade" of information/knowledge will be
>> >posible at Light-speed (and fairly low-cost), where as PHYSICAL trade will
>> >be quite a bit slower AND more expensive!
>> 
>> Given the danger of an alen world a orbital colony would be safer, easier,
and
>> have better access to resources.  On the other hand, you'ld learn as much
by
>> building it in our own solar system.
>> 
>> Scientific exploration is generally not very profitable.  It can't
generally
>> pay its own bills on Earth or our starsystem, so interstellar is a REAL
long
>> shot.
>> 
>
>Well, that depends on how you count... Many People would consider that the
>Apollo programs of the 60's generated a Big return if you include all the
>spin-offs and all the research based of it...

Thats actually more a PR myth then a reality.  Apollo generated very little
new technology.  Such R&D programs were avoided and existing technology used.
Many things credited to Apollo were actually developed for other reasons (like
electronics, weather sats, and space launch boosters).


>It all depends on which SCALE you look at it with... (Both in Time, and
>space)
>
>
>
>> >Another comment is that the same factors were in places for the Europeans
>> >coming to the new world and they fared much better...
>> 
>> The Europeans also lost most of their population to deseases they imported
>> back to Euroup.  Which was one reason most children died before the age of
6.
>> 
>> As to the new world deseases, they weren't as evolved as the ones recrited
>> from Africa to Japan by the Euros.  (Yes we planed it all HA!!)    ;)
>> 
>> 
>> >Bjorn...
>> 
>> 
>> Kelly
>> 
>
>Yeah, but the imparitive word is _MOST_ of their population... Those who
>did survive were generaly more resistent and "fit to live" and in a few
>generations the Population was back to normal... Happens all the time in
>nature...

The american Indian population has just started to return to its pre euro
levels of a few centuries back.


>Bjornie...

Kelly