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

Re: RE: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]

In a message dated 3/14/00 6:28:47 AM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes:

>As Steve already pointed out is isn't necessarily how simple the technology
>is, but how robust and rugged. The two are not equivalent. My entire
>question when I posted the article was how are we going to design for
>robustness (or as someone else put it - mediocrity)? In a ship whose systems
>are supposed to last for several human lifetimes, adaptability, ruggedness
>and robustness become engineering design criteria that are more important
>than sheer cutting edge state of the art design.

Thats why I kept demanding short missions.  If you go past 20-30 years not 
only your crew burns out, but your ship does.  To scale both up to fully self 
supporting the ship becomes hundreds of times larger. Its easier to just burn 
more fuel and send a faster ship.

Besides, you'ld be an idiot to send a multi generation ship.  It would get 
passed up by newer ships from later generatins before it got anywhere, and 
the folks back home would't pay for a mission they'ld never see the results