Re: starship-design: Massively Distributed Computing for SETI

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 3/18/01 9:29:35 PM, bfranchuk@jetnet.ab.ca writes:

>KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>>> I was getting significantly better speed numbers.  More importantly
>a mulit
>> generation ship is a collosal waste.  It requires a vastly larger, heavier,
>> more complicated ship.  So much so, that the same propulsion gear could
>get
>> you there in a fraction of the time.  Hence a small craft that would
>get
>> there in years, would be easier to do then one that would get there in
>> decades.
>
>I favor the slower ships because I can't see a practical high speed drive.

Same drives work about as well for a small fast ship, or a big slow ship.

I was figuring up to 40% c for Fuel sail.


>> Also trips that take generations are assured to get their AFTER ships
>sent
>> out decades after it left.  Assuming anyone would bother to send them.
>
>That is based on the premise a FAST drive is possible. 

If you can get a multigeneratin ship out at any non-laughable speed - you can 
get a small short duratin ship up to far faster speeds.


>Lets face it
>any interstellar travel will require pushing all known technology
>to the limit, and it is hard to say exactly what will be possible in the
>future because factors can change suddenly. I think several designs
>need to be studied. For example 
>suspension of life that is not possible now
>could be possible in the future with the study of DNA and other biological
>processes. This could favor slower ship for bulk transport and a high
>speed craft for living material.
>Ben.

For what purpose?  The risk goes up tremendosly, but adds little benifit.