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

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

In a message dated 3/17/00 7:45:52 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes:

>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>> Always?!  Lewis and clark, Stanly and Livingston, Coulumbus, etc.  Where
>> you get always?  Or even frequently?
>Remember that Women are not permitted in the NAVY and or ARMY or as
>DOCTORS in those prehistoric times. I guess I have been reading to much
>of "Geodyssey" series by Piers Anthony.  

Try reading more real history.  ;)

>> 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.
>Rotary Rocket and LightCraft are the only ones that look to be ready in
>the near future.+3 years. The other SSTO's are still several years away.

Actually neiather are doing that well.  Space Access is doing pretty well, 
and they completed the ground tests of the most critical parts.  Namely the 
ejector ramjets.  They alone are a dramatic improvement over Rotary or most 
of the other designs.  Who's lightcraft by the way?

>> You don't want to take a jump back to cruder dsigns, and of course you
>> use the 1950's expendables dsigns, or '60's70ish  shuttle.
>The shuttle's design is that way because of political influence,
>a smaller lighter fully reusable shuttle could have been built then, but
>USA had/has no plans for a permanent space station. 

And still hasn't.

>> >> And how do you pay for that antimater?  Just make a straight fusion
>> >> 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 is real now...Boom !!! was real.
>Fusion is not.

We've done fusion, and can do so in larger quantity then antimater.

>> >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.
>That fusion has always been "10" years away since the 1960's. Your
>fusion designs seem to the most probable of the lot of designs.

Since no one has any pressing reason to build on, no one ever really started 
the 10 year program.

>> Then what do you propose?  They can't live there, the ship can't support
>> forever?  So where do they go?  Out the airlock?
>  That is one of the advantages of self- suffentcy, you can build a new
>habitat.   ==

Sorry, you can't do self suficency in any feasably sized mission.  Even if 
you could, abandoning a crew in a deralict ship in orbit around another star 
is not going to go over well with the public back home.

>> 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
>> a one way missin.
>Funding is a big problem as investors always think of the next 6 months
>rather than the next 6 years.

Interstellar exploration won't interest any investors.  It couldn't return 
anything marketable.