> The high fuel to thrust numbers are kind of a given. However longer lifespans
> wouldn't really help. If the mission was going to be so slow you needed that
> many extra decades, everyone would just wait a couple decades until we could
> build faster ships. Besides, how many decades could the crew stand doing
> nothing in a little ship? How good would they be at their jobs after decades
> without hands on practice? Who'ld volenteer for a half century of
> imprisonment on route?
Thats based on the assumsion that faster ships are possible.
Right now I just have the numbers given here with fusion reactors @
2050. Anybody care to build a multi stage fusion reactor like a in a
red giant star or come up with antimatter source.
Not very likely at the moment. But with out hard numbers it is hard to design
a REAL spacecraft.
While cabin fever is a major problem
and that will be big factor on any spacecraft it is one of the hardships
of any synthetic envorment. The sole purpose in life is eat,sleep,breed
and not be lunch for somebody else, jobs are a side effect.
Now is a manned probe really needed? If the goal is simple information
then a unmanned (antimatter?) probe is the best bet The next star system
is too far as busness venture, with only a 50% chance of being a habbitable
very remote outpost... I can see it a planetary make work project ( starship
to the stars) as a matter of pride and friendship and history even if we launch the ship unmaned to say "Look we of 'planet terra' made it here".