[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fwd: starship-design: HIGHLY OPTIMIZED TOLERANCE]
In a message dated 3/16/00 1:02:16 AM, email@example.com writes:
>> I remember the story, but the bottom line is why NOT use the new CPU's?
>> arn't really more expensive, they are easier to use, and are far more
> But only a few are space rated.
Few programs try to space rate chips. Pesumably a starship program would.
>> If their ain't a reason to bring people, we won't. We use better
>> because it saves having to bring more less capable stuff up instead.
>> fractal robotics could replace a ton of clamps, tooling, and robotics.
> Well then forget about people -- they have eat sleep and mate every so
>often. Just build a nice AI computer and send that to run the ship.
If it could do it, no one would be talking about people.
>> Ah, have you checked out the stuff NASA's been launching the last few
>Is bigger better?
Seems better/cheaper/faster isn't.
>> Where are you talking about going? Families?! For exploration?
>Yes Families for exploration, Man has ALLWAYS taken his family along.
Always?! Lewis and clark, Stanly and Livingston, Coulumbus, etc. Where do
you get always? Or even frequently?
>> --- space craft design ---
>> Thats awflly expensive and clubsey. We have a lot better and cheaper
>> collecting dust on the shelves.
>All the current stuff is disposable and expensive... 500 million for
>a shuttle launch. Can't wait for the "Fusion" powered launch vehicles.
NOI NO NO. I mean current designs like Space Access' Ejector ramjet to Mach
6 then boost to orbit or stage to orbit. DC-X designs. Etc.
You don't want to take a jump back to cruder dsigns, and of course you won't
use the 1950's expendables dsigns, or '60's70ish shuttle.
>> And how do you pay for that antimater? Just make a straight fusion reactor
>> and forget about it.
>I use a fusion reactor -- it is called the sun -- to make the
To expensive, and complex.
>Anti-matter catalyzed fusion will probability come before straight
Why? Regular fusion research (ignoring the DOE work) has shown excelent
results. Its generally assumed we could get fusin in a decades or two if we
tried. Space is thought to be a "Market" that could support it.
>> NO WAY. No one is going to fund one way missions! You can't kill off
>> crews at missions end to save yourself the fuel bill. And don't even
>> colony give. You bviously ae demanmding tech WAY below the level that
>> even think about independany colonies.
>I don't plan to kill off the people at the end of mission. ==
Then what do you propose? They can't live there, the ship can't support them
forever? So where do they go? Out the airlock?
>it will be a one way mission because of the long separation from Earth.
>My design plan is to start of with the minimum possible and then expand
>comfortable level. We just differ on what is comfortable.
We differ in what we consider acceptable and practical. If it takes to long
to get the crew back alive - build a faster ship. You can't get funding for
a one way missin.