[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: RE: starship-design: Interstellar mission within fifty years
> From: KellySt@aol.com
> In a message dated 10/13/98 12:08:21 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org 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.