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

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

In a message dated 3/14/00 12:00:50 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes:

>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>> Hate to tell you, but the Star Trek like tech would be to crude for a
>> decades from now, and a IC chip is a IC chip.  So using and old CPU is
>> going to bye you anything.
>True but is the latest computer technology required? A remember a nice
>short story about group of people using vacuum tubes computers in their
>space-ships and the captain of the star-ship landing on planet with
>a atmosphere toxic to the computers, to prevent the ship from being

I remember the story, but the bottom line is why NOT use the new CPU's?  They 
arn't really more expensive, they are easier to use, and are far more capable.

>> The tech would probably be designed for more adaptability.  Things like
>> Fractal robot systems, and general.
>I say why use all that crap...  build a reusable transport system (
>the REAL innovative idea and hard part) and use people instead. If you
>have computers and robots and other Shit like that what is left for
>people to do in space?

If their ain't a reason to bring people, we won't.  We use better equipment, 
because it saves having to bring more less capable stuff up instead.  The 
fractal robotics could replace a ton of clamps, tooling, and robotics.

>The main reason we use that is because we don't have a transportation
>yet. Pay load is still small and complex.
>( Come on RotoryRocket ... ). Man has not needed robots to advance
>and explore, just real HE MEN ( and women). 

Ah, have you checked out the stuff NASA's been launching the last few decades?

>After 40 years of space
>exploration by governments
>for propaganda and power struggles over space, we have not done any
>thing really
>For my designs that may not be practical ( Interplanetary travel ) 
>-- 1) No robotics at all other than initial observation.
>-- 2) Technology about 1980's and free, like linux software. 
>-- 3) Family groups about 6-8 per family and 10-15 families per
>      travel group.

Where are you talking about going?  Families?!  For exploration?

>-- 4) Priority that other life is requirement for a healthy
>      human life-style, and human relation ships.

Which means in english?

>-- 5) 2 stage transport shuttle/plane to space dock ... 
>      Chemical fueled rocket HC4-O2 -- To mach 2? and high altitude. ISP
>300? pilot.
>      Beamed energy propulsion from satellite or ground station, on a
>fractal antenna -wing  - HC4? ISP 900? auto-pilot. Dyna-soar skip flight
>path to orbit, and re-entry.
>      2000 kg payload to low-earth orbit.
>      2000 kg ship

Thats awflly expensive and clubsey.  We have a lot better and cheaper stuf 
collecting dust on the shelves.

>      Delta-v = 9,400 m/s - mach 2 = 8740
>      vexp = ISP * 9.8 = 8820
>      FMR=e^(Delta-v / vexp) + 1 = 3.75
>      15,000 kg second stage
>-- 6) High - speed transport ship to planetary ferry - ISP 2400. Beamed
>      antimatter/ fusion drive

And how do you pay for that antimater?  Just make a straight fusion reactor 
and forget about it.

>-- 7) Ferry - anti-matter/fusion drive
>      cargo - anti-matter/fusion drive, solar wind
>-- 8) Solar powered ( in orbit around the sun )
>      anti-matter production plants.
>-- 9) NO - FTL travel ...  deep space travel will require
>      genetically altered life for a long life span with hibernation
>      and several generations. One way travel... 

NO WAY.  No one is going to fund one way missions!  You can't kill off your 
crews at missions end to save yourself the fuel bill.  And don't even try the 
colony give.  You bviously ae demanmding tech WAY below the level that could 
even think about independany colonies.