Engineer: Star Trek's Enterprise ship could be built in 20 years at acost of $1 trillion

On 25/05/2012 4:47 AM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
Dr J R Stockton wrote:

In the 1800's, Canada turned from being largely a wilderness society to
largely a civilised society in 100 years.

Why, then, should not a society arriving on a reasonably Earth-line
planet with the knowledge-base needed to build and run an 0.1c starship
be able to build another without undue effort after 200 years?

The majority of the cost is in the development phase in many
transportation systems. Building to a known design costs far less.

Perhaps, if the design is capable of being reused in that way. One might
think it should be, but, for example, the USA couldn't even reuse the
Saturn V design now.

Also consider that having spacecraft capable of interplanetary trade
will be a very large benefit to a colony in a new stellar system. They
will need raw materials that are more easily mined from comets and
asteriods than planets.

I can't believe it's true that mining from comets and asteroids is
easier than planets. Given that there is currently no mining operations
on any comet or asteroid, the ease of doing so is an unknown. There is
also the non-trivial issue of applying the required delta-v to large
amounts of materials, and then getting them down to the surface of the
planet where they're needed.

They will want power stations near to their new
star. With an existing industry already in place to build spacecraft
the price will go even farther down.

They will want power stations close to where the power is needed - on
the planet.


Whether the effort is, or is not "undue",
there will still be a cost, with no return on the investment other than
the knowledge that the colonisation process has been continued.

Plus there could be some amount of trade among established colonies.

Most would be by radio or laser but building starships for long term
trade would not be out of the question. I suspect that when there are
several colonies in place continued colonization would be a side effect
of that trade not the main purpose as it started.

These colonies are, ex hypothesi, lightyears apart, with physical travel
between them taking decades or more, and even a typical communication
round trip is likely to be of the order of at least a decade. I can't
see there being any trade.

Sylvia.

On Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:43:17 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 25/05/2012 4:47 AM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
Dr J R Stockton wrote:

In the 1800's, Canada turned from being largely a wilderness society to
largely a civilised society in 100 years.

Why, then, should not a society arriving on a reasonably Earth-line
planet with the knowledge-base needed to build and run an 0.1c starship
be able to build another without undue effort after 200 years?

The majority of the cost is in the development phase in many
transportation systems. Building to a known design costs far less.

Perhaps, if the design is capable of being reused in that way. One might
think it should be, but, for example, the USA couldn't even reuse the
Saturn V design now.

I'd suspect the drive section would be largely used up. The habitat section
might be reuseable when refurbished. Certainly know how to do it could shorten
the turn around whatever it took for the next great leap.


Also consider that having spacecraft capable of interplanetary trade
will be a very large benefit to a colony in a new stellar system. They
will need raw materials that are more easily mined from comets and
asteriods than planets.

I can't believe it's true that mining from comets and asteroids is
easier than planets. Given that there is currently no mining operations
on any comet or asteroid, the ease of doing so is an unknown. There is
also the non-trivial issue of applying the required delta-v to large
amounts of materials, and then getting them down to the surface of the
planet where they're needed.

I am not sure what to believe. Mining is a messy thing as is processing.
I can believe that doing this in space for space provided it might if fully seeded/fully given an industrial base be the less expensive method/more
practical. Call it priming the pump for the next new civilization, whether
it is only a solar civ or one that can make the grand leap into the dark.


They will want power stations near to their new
star. With an existing industry already in place to build spacecraft
the price will go even farther down.

They will want power stations close to where the power is needed - on
the planet.

That may not be on planet or not Earth at least.



Whether the effort is, or is not "undue",
there will still be a cost, with no return on the investment other than
the knowledge that the colonisation process has been continued.

Plus there could be some amount of trade among established colonies.

Most would be by radio or laser but building starships for long term
trade would not be out of the question. I suspect that when there are
several colonies in place continued colonization would be a side effect
of that trade not the main purpose as it started.

These colonies are, ex hypothesi, lightyears apart, with physical travel
between them taking decades or more, and even a typical communication
round trip is likely to be of the order of at least a decade. I can't
see there being any trade.

A trade in ideas may work. A longer lived species may have the patience
to do real trade and that is in reach if we get Vatican and Salt Lake City types out of the way.

Sylvia.



On Thursday, May 24, 2012 8:43:17 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 25/05/2012 4:47 AM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
Dr J R Stockton wrote:

In the 1800's, Canada turned from being largely a wilderness society to
largely a civilised society in 100 years.

Why, then, should not a society arriving on a reasonably Earth-line
planet with the knowledge-base needed to build and run an 0.1c starship
be able to build another without undue effort after 200 years?

The majority of the cost is in the development phase in many
transportation systems. Building to a known design costs far less.

Perhaps, if the design is capable of being reused in that way. One might
think it should be, but, for example, the USA couldn't even reuse the
Saturn V design now.

Also consider that having spacecraft capable of interplanetary trade
will be a very large benefit to a colony in a new stellar system. They
will need raw materials that are more easily mined from comets and
asteriods than planets.

I can't believe it's true that mining from comets and asteroids is
easier than planets. Given that there is currently no mining operations
on any comet or asteroid, the ease of doing so is an unknown. There is
also the non-trivial issue of applying the required delta-v to large
amounts of materials, and then getting them down to the surface of the
planet where they're needed.

They will want power stations near to their new
star. With an existing industry already in place to build spacecraft
the price will go even farther down.

They will want power stations close to where the power is needed - on
the planet.


Whether the effort is, or is not "undue",
there will still be a cost, with no return on the investment other than
the knowledge that the colonisation process has been continued.

Plus there could be some amount of trade among established colonies.

Most would be by radio or laser but building starships for long term
trade would not be out of the question. I suspect that when there are
several colonies in place continued colonization would be a side effect
of that trade not the main purpose as it started.

These colonies are, ex hypothesi, lightyears apart, with physical travel
between them taking decades or more, and even a typical communication
round trip is likely to be of the order of at least a decade. I can't
see there being any trade.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
Dr J R Stockton wrote:

The majority of the cost is in the development phase in many
transportation systems. Building to a known design costs far less.

Perhaps, if the design is capable of being reused in that way. One might
think it should be, but, for example, the USA couldn't even reuse the
Saturn V design now.

You cite one experimental transportation system. I can start citing
well established ones and go on as long as you like. Reed boats.
Wooden boats. Ironclad boats. Cloth airplanes. Metal airplanes.
There are unlimited variations in and between each category.

The first starships will be experimental. They will be long established
technologies long before the experimental ones reach their first
destination.

Also consider that having spacecraft capable of interplanetary trade
will be a very large benefit to a colony in a new stellar system. They
will need raw materials that are more easily mined from comets and
asteriods than planets.

I can't believe it's true that mining from comets and asteroids is
easier than planets. Given that there is currently no mining operations
on any comet or asteroid, the ease of doing so is an unknown. There is
also the non-trivial issue of applying the required delta-v to large
amounts of materials, and then getting them down to the surface of the
planet where they're needed.

You assume that planets are the sole target of colonization. I don't.
I suggest that in several centuries the vast majority of the human
population will not be in the gravity well of a planet.

They will want power stations near to their new
star. With an existing industry already in place to build spacecraft
the price will go even farther down.

They will want power stations close to where the power is needed - on
the planet.

Beamed power. Plus your assumption of using a planet's surface.

Whether the effort is, or is not "undue",
there will still be a cost, with no return on the investment other than
the knowledge that the colonisation process has been continued.

Plus there could be some amount of trade among established colonies.

Most would be by radio or laser but building starships for long term
trade would not be out of the question. I suspect that when there are
several colonies in place continued colonization would be a side effect
of that trade not the main purpose as it started.

These colonies are, ex hypothesi, lightyears apart, with physical travel
between them taking decades or more, and even a typical communication
round trip is likely to be of the order of at least a decade. I can't
see there being any trade.

With voyages of a century or more the ships would have to be
generational. I'd call it cultural exchange by gypsy societies.

In sci.space.policy message , Fri, 25
May 2012 13:43:17, Sylvia Else posted:

On 25/05/2012 4:47 AM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
Dr J R Stockton wrote:

In the 1800's, Canada turned from being largely a wilderness society to
largely a civilised society in 100 years.

Why, then, should not a society arriving on a reasonably Earth-line
planet with the knowledge-base needed to build and run an 0.1c starship
be able to build another without undue effort after 200 years?

The majority of the cost is in the development phase in many
transportation systems. Building to a known design costs far less.

Perhaps, if the design is capable of being reused in that way. One
might think it should be, but, for example, the USA couldn't even reuse
the Saturn V design now.

Falcon 9 is fundamentally the same design as Saturn - several engines,
tanks above that, smaller second stage, pointy payload on top. The rest
is detail.

Also : Saturn was designed and manufactured when computers were feeble.
And the only parts of the system intended to be reusable were the crew;
almost all of the rest was abandoned before re-entry.

An 0.1c craft intended for colonisation will carry its entire design,
and designs for the machinery needed to make its specialised parts, and
self-replicating replicators, etc.; with corresponding for making new
crew (that only needs air, food, water, and time).

Given the resources of a habitable planet, ship and crew will know how
to bootstrap their successors.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.