Re: Re: Re: RE: starship-design: scoops and sails and something to push against

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/13/98 11:45:59 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:

>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>> 
>> In a message dated 10/9/98 10:06:44 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> 
>> >> From: KellySt@aol.com
>> >> 
>> >[...]
>> >> These would not actual support real colonies. They would just do
government
>> >> suported base station. Thats about as close to a space faring
civilization
>
>> >> as our Antarctica bases are to antarctic colonization or the late 
>> >> seabottom bases to ocean colonization.
>> >> 
>> >Possibly, but you must start from something.
>> >Starting with a base station seems quite reasonable to me.
>> 
>> But its not a start.  Its a conclusion to something very different.  Like
>> Apollo wasn't the start of Maned use of space.
>> 
>So what would you consider a start? 
>Building a viable starship from scratch?

What would I consider the start of manned use of space?  Commercial craft
going to and from space (or even suborbital hops) in some profitable way.  A
commercial, profitable, space station.  The comsats are a far bigger step then
Apollo.  So are the military aerospace craft in research (or possibly flying).
Space mining or manufacture would mean we had arived.


>> >> >Yes, and it should also settle my perennial quarrel with Kelly
>> >> >re one-way missions: by definition, most of these missions will 
>> >> >be one-way...
>> >> 
>> >> Not likely. ;)  
>> >>
>> >Not likely what?
>> 
>> That it will settle our perennial quarrel.
>> 
>So I suspected. You are sinking my last hopes... ;-)

Mawa ha ha!!  Drowned biold hope on a spit...   :)'



>> >> You idea was a suicide exploration mission. Send out a team
>> >> and abondon them there to die.
>> >> 
>> >That is foul [socialist, capitalist, anyother] propaganda!
>> >My idea was QUITE different. I often wondered why you seem not
>> >to understand that!
>> >Geez, should we start the quarrel again?  ;-))
>> 
>> Those were your cryteria, you just don't consider it the same if you give 
>> them the suplies to die of old age in the abonded ship/base/whatever 
>> after the missions over.  ;)
>> 
>I thing you should use the criteria of those who are willing
>to go for such a mission. If they want to go, it means the mission
>meets the acceptability criteria. 


Actually I ment those were the criteria you listed.

As for it being the acceptable criteria if the volenteers volenteer.
No, they don't count.  You can get people who'll burn themselves alive on
camera for the ten secounds of fame.  Its the criteria of those that fund, and
the society that supports it that counts.  I don't know about over in your
area, but in the west its hard to get public aproval of tourturing animals for
a good cause.



>> >> Further, if people want to propose reasons for interstellar colonization
>> >> missions, they'll have to have reasons and patterns that haven't failed 
>> >> on Earthly colonization projects.
>> >> 
>> >Or quite new reasons that may turn up in a quite different,
>> >interplanetary-space society.
>> 
>> Interplanetary societies of humans are unlikly to find any fudemental 
>> new laws of society, culter, psycology, or economics.
>> 
>Laying aside the question of finding new laws (it has been
>already discussed by others on the list), my main point was
>that that "quite different interplanetary-space society"
>will have different needs, technological means, and attitudes
>toward space and space exploration that today's Earth-bound
>(or even Earth-bend...) people. And these will be very different
>than in the times of "Earthly colonization projects" - 
>hence, they are likely to have also different attitudes toward 
>interstellar missions and different reasons to undertake them.

I tend to be sispicious of that.  Its assumed that just because people are in
space their society will be basically and radically different somehow.   So
far theres been no radical change (at least that fundemental) over the past
couple milenia.  So I fully expect my no profit, no perminent colony - or -
not unless run out by an army rules will hold into about any forceable future.



>That is not the question of "new laws".
>Simply, if you have, say, an airliner handy, you may consider
>a fast trip to Paris to see the latest fashion show quite
>reasonable - very differently if you have had only a "Santa Maria",
>like in the old days of Earthly colonization projects.
>Not speaking about the fact that in those times 
>there even were no fashion shows in Paris...

Oh, yeah.  If we do come up with a warp drive starship, or something that
allows interstellar travel on a lark, we'll send scouts otr the national
geographic society or something out to look around; but thats way down teh
line, and not colonies.



>-- Zenon

Kelly