Re: starship-design: FTL travel

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/16/00 4:02:48 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes:

>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
> 
>> This would cost a fortune!  You've got three times the servicing headaches,
>> plus three times the vehicle design and integratin headaches.  To lower
>costs
>> - keep it simple, servicable, and flying a lot.
>> 
>This is a simple design.. 1 segment does 1 job.
>Piloted craft, to carry Orbital pod,a 30 minute flight to provide
>a simple air launch. Because the launch is < the speed of sound a
>simple craft is needed. Orbital pod then has the advantage of better
>ISP for the rocket motors and being unmanned can follow a simple
>flight path with a simple autopilot, and not need the over head of
>manned life support. The capture stage provides the fine navigation
>control for space station docking. The higher ISP because this is 
>beamed energy rocket counter acts the mass of the capture craft,
>and saves weight on the orbital pod for guidance and reentry controls.
>The assume that the fueled capture craft always stays in orbit,
>and I have manned space station in orbit,with beamed energy collectors.

I realize.  the segments aremore effocent, but that doesn't mean cheaper or 
more relyable.  Energy or fuel costs to orbit are  trivial, its only the 
operating costs and relyability that are significant.  This system is more 
complex, and therefore likly to be less relyable or cheap to operate.


>This is not 100% bootstapable at the moment, is the really big flaw.
>Ben.


Kelly