[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: starship-design: Re:Food in space
In a message dated 10/14/99 12:05:46 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
>"L. Parker" wrote:
>> There have already been several studies that showed it was more practical
>> carry consumables than to manufacture them in a closed loop system for
>> almost any limited duration mission. A permanent presence in orbit however,
>> is by definition not a limited duration mission. The cost of setting
>> initial self sustaining ecosystem can now be carried across dozens, even
>> hundreds of years.
>> Was there a break even point in the studies? At what point (how many
>> man-years) does it become preferable to build such a system?
>I can't say in man-years but it would depend on
>1) The population base. More people the better.
>2) The flexibility of the environment. A lunar complex vs a transport craft.
>3) The base level the system was designed with. A computer made up of TEL
>memory chips would be easier to maintain than a multimedia 986 with
Actually the newer computers are usually more reliable and cheaper. Beyond
that, you have no choice, they don't make old computers or parts to fix them.
Military learned that the hard way.
>4) The level of independence. How long can you survive with a transportation
>loss to earth. 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years,35 years,
Without access to Earth supplies, the city infrastructure will crash in
months to years.
>Build a few of the city-states here on earth is a good idea,
>and move to space some time later.
>A personal web site with ideas on space habitat I found on the net:
>"The Space Travel Web Site!
>This is not just science fiction. By Richard Doran"
>PS. Anybody watch "2050 After the warming?". One item suggested was getting
>cities to smaller compact units.
The idea is laughed off by experts. Everyone is moving to subburbs around
cities. Small towns and downtowns are losing folks. The whole show was out
to lunch. Way below Burkes early work.