Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years

[Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>]

> From: KellySt@aol.com
> 
> In a message dated 10/13/98 12:08:21 PM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
> 
> >> >That's news. As far as I know, they said that some time it will  
> >> >Dbe possible... id they already get proper permits to haul antimatter 
> >> >on U.S. highways? I doubt that.
> >> 
> >> Well there obviously no law against it, so they wouldn't need permits. 
> >> I know we ship Anti from CERN to US accelerators every once 
> >> in a while too.
> >> 
> >Just because the amounts of antimatter contained and shipped is so
> >small that there is no real danger even when the container fails.
> >It will be another thing with larger amounts.
> >Hence my doubt if the fact of hauling the containers
> >on highways is a proof that we can make and transport
> >antimatter in bulk... 
> 
> Well yeah I can see the public geting a bit upset if we start creating 
> and storing tens of tons of anti particals in our starships Bose-Enstine 
> condesit tank.  Especial if we do it in low Earth orbit.  ;)
> 
That was exactly my point...


> >[...]
> >> >Yes and no. I think it will be easier to settle a planet 
> >> >(in the sense of building a permanent, self-sutained habitat 
> >> >for a significant number of people), that building equivalent 
> >> >artificial colony in space, at least in a foreseable future.
> >> 
> >> Big disagree. In space building a O'Niel is probably easier then landing 
> >> and building the infastructure for a similar sized city. In space your 
> >> not cut off from resources and free power, and transport and lift 
> >> costs are about nil.
> >> 
> >Only if you assume that all resources should be transported 
> >to the planet base from space/asteroid mines. However, a planet 
> >suitable for settling by definition should have the necessary 
> >resources on the surface - including such hard-to-find in space 
> >resources like gravity, atmosphere (providing additionally 
> >radiation shielding), running (or subsurface) water,  
> >appropriate temperature, base-building materials...
> 
> Materials are harder to get on a planet then in space 
> (water, ore, air subcomponents) 
>
Possibly harder to find, but easier to exploit.

> spining for grav isn't hard.  
>
Still not yet tested practically .

> Probably no real chance of
> finding a planet with 1 g, 
>
Say, 0.6 to 1.5 g will be equally good.

> right temp range, and non toxic but breathable air anyway.
> 
I am not asking for as much as air being breathable.
Having a decent atmosfere has other advantages than breathing it:
solar & cosmic radiation protection, no need for pressure suits
(oxygen masks suffice - provided it is not toxic through
skin contact: HCN or CS2 or the like are certainly rather bad,
but methane, CO2, nitrogen, even little ammonia are bearable),
lower temperature variation. 

-- Zenon