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

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/16/00 1:02:16 AM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes:

>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>>
>  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 
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.
>> 
>
> 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
>decades?
>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
>stuf
>> 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
>anti-matter.

To expensive, and complex.


>Anti-matter catalyzed fusion will probability come before straight
>fusion,

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
>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.
>
>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?



>For practical
>purposes
>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
>to
>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.


>
>Ben.

Kelly