[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re: starship-design: re: more thoughts on fusion reactor.




In a message dated 11/18/98 12:27:55 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca wrote:

>
>
> 
>
>> 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.

That misses the point.  Yes we now can't think past 2050 because we haven't a
clue what science and technology will be avalible then, but a real group
deciding to launch or not would know that they will develop better systems.
So they would not launch a ship that took to long to do its mission.



> 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.

Sorry, a promo like that will not get volenteers for the ship.

Kelly