Re: Re: Re: starship-design: The Way ahead & Bugs

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/19/98 7:08:03 PM, paul_virak_khuong@yahoo.com wrote:

>>
>> 
>> In a message dated 10/18/98 10:12:28 AM, rmarlin@network-one.com
>wrote:
>> 
>> >> > IF WE DO MAKE THE SHIP RETURN CAPABLE,
>> >> > I DON'T THINK WE'D SEE IT AGAIN!!!
>> >> >
>> >
>> >I also agree. Interstellar travel is very taxing on resources, and
>I don't
>> think
>> >it is reasonable to send a two-way expedition. There is
>acceleration and
>> >deceleration, and then another acceleration and deceleration. If
>you are
>> sending
>> >people to another star, why just scout and then return them at over
>twice the
>> >cost and complexity, when you can just send colonists on a one-way
>mission?
>> 
>> You miss the point.  We can't send colonists.  To do that we would
>need a
>> selfsustaining mini civilization which is WAY beyond anything we
>could or
>> would do.  It would technically be virtually impossible, at least
>requireing a
>> population tens to hundreds of times larger.
>> 
>> The debate isn't between sending a scouting mission or sending a
>colony.  The
>> debate is between sending a say 8 year survey mission and returning
>them.  Or
>> sending a 8 year survey mission and leaving them there to die.
>
>About 28 years! Woah, you actually have to get an ecosystem working if
>you wanna have food. Oh, well anyone's got other ideas, than this??

Actually no, we found carrying 30 years of stored and frozen food (and a
decade or two of dehydrated emergency rations) weight much less then a closed
cycle farm.  IOt also provided more variety and safty in food suplies.

Kelly