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

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/22/98 9:03:21 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:

>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>> 
>> In a message dated 10/19/98 7:27:26 AM, zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl wrote:
>> 
>> >> >However, what Kelly proposes above are not suicide missions,
>> >> >but "kill'em missions" - we send them convinced that they will
>> >> >safely return, but upon their returning, when something does not 
>> >> >go to our liking, we simply do not turn on the decel beam, 
>> >> >and let them perish in space.
>> >> >Somehow, when they are willing to sacrifice their lives voluntarily,
>> >> >it is abhorrent to Kelly, but when WE willingly cause them 
>> >> >to perish in space, it is OK.
>> >> >Probably, you know, it is the matter of who rules here?
>> >> 
>> >> I one case we ask for people to volenteer to risk us having 
>> >> to kill them to protect Earth from potentially devastating plagues. 
>> >> In the other we ask for volunteers to die for buracratic convenence.  
>> >>
>> >Bureaucratic convenience? How come?
>> >Kelly, you are next to impossible at times... ;-))
>> 
>> To save the money or time nessisary to work up a two way mission.  
>> Staying longer has little other benifit.
>> 
>The one-way missions have the following advantages:
>- Are possible in many cases when a two-way is simply impossible
>  (lack of reliable technology; trips to farther stars).

Unlikely, and a transient problem.  One ways also need far greater resources
and equipment given their potentially greater mission times, and the systems
must be greatly upgraded so that they can function for long after most of the
crew is dead or unable to service them.  Its unlikelt that a one way (assuming
you allow for crew survival longer then origional two way mission) could be
done as easily as a two way.

Remember the mission length limit is probably the service life of the ship and
adult crew.  Give the crew will age, and become incapable or sustaining the
ship, just as fast parked or in flight; and the ship will wear out about as
fast eiather way.  The total mission length can only be extended by accepting
higher risks, or upgrading the ships systems considerably.


>- Are less prone to catastrophic ship & engine failures 
>  (two-times lower load on the engines, many times less fuel needed).

If an engine set can function long enough to get the crew there, its virtually
certain it could at least get tyhem back at reduced speed.  Even assuming the
engine service life was a real risk.  The crew is in far, far greater danger
of all other systems failing and killing them.  


>- Allow for much longer and thorough exploration at the destination.

Only with significant upgrading and increase of the survey equipment.  After a
few years in systems the shuttles, rover, etc will be geting really beat up,
and you can't carry enough gear to fix everything.


>- Will be positively preferred by many people (e.g., Bjorn and me -
>  for the reasons Bjorn finely described).

Frankly I find it difficult to beleave you would find the actual procpect of
going to spend a decade exploring, and half a century imprisoned in a dieing
deralict ship quiet so appealling.  Certainly the best and brightest we might
want to attract to such a project could find a much better option.


>For bureaucracy they will be a burden - it will be probably easier 
>to sell to the public the illusion of "returning'em home safely".

As opposed to the leaving them there to die on international TV?  OH YEAH!!


>> >> Big morality issue difference.
>> >> 
>> >Oh, yes. In favor of my one-way missions...  
>> 
>> I what sence?
>> 
>Compare the situation of volunteers living with the exciting
>job to do until natural death of old age, 
>to the situation of people given an illusion of safe return
>and then killed ruthlessly and prematurely just when they are 
>approaching their promised & dreamed-for home...

The former isn't an option.  The later would only be exercised if they had a
desease that was a threat to Earth.  Which they would be unlikly to survive
here, there, or on the way back.

Your still stuck with the dubuious situation of explaning why you sent a crew
to be abandoned to die along with there ship.  Hell armies never even abandon
there dead in wartime.  Abondoning the living to improsonment and slow death
is not the moral high ground.


>
>-- Zenon


Kelly