Page 1 of 10 Chatzy 2/24/2013 http://us11.chatzy.com/100yss

Transcription

Chatzy
Page 1 of 10
»100YSS February Forum«
Visible contents as of 24 Feb 2013 15:01 UTC-06:00 (209 KB)
Page 1 of 5 · From 0 to 51234 · Newest posts at the bottom
Forum Control cleared the room
9:14
Forum Control opened and joined the chat
12:02
DrMae joined the chat
12:03
12:05
J.R. joined the chat
12:05
Lynda Bradford joined the chat
DrMae: I’m Mae Jemison, the moderator today. Welcome to the 100YSS Virtual Forum--What If…
12:05
Starship 2020.
12:06
Mark K joined the chat
DrMae: I’m pleased you were able to join this first forum. I personally look forward to these 100YSS
Virtual Forums to discuss possibilities, explore new developments, share ideas, sort through nitty gritty
12:06
details and find ongoing community in developing the capabilities for human interstellar travel.
Robert Gitten joined the chat
12:06
12:06
tmusean joined the chat
DrMae: Today’s forum is about the possibility of actually developing an interstellar human mission that
would launch in 2020. No, 100YSS is not engaging in a stealth attempt to create such a mission, nor
12:06
does the technology for FTL (faster than light speed) travel already exist. Nope.
DrMae: The purpose of this exercise is to stand back and examine the challenge of human interstellar
12:07
flight from a completely different perspective.
12:07
Captain.Webber joined the chat
DrMae: A perspective that pushes the saying “Necessity is the mother of invention” The exploration of
this What If project forces those of us who “know” the answers and path to the stars to step back at
least for a couple hours and think differently. And it requires those who just want it to happen to focus
12:07
and understand that it probably won’t be like Star Trek, Star Wars or even Firefly…
DrMae: Ground rules. No miracles. The technology, knowledge or capabilities cited must exist now or
be reasonably expected be fully executable and in operation by the year 2020—that’s 7 years from now.
12:08 12:07
DrMae: From time to time I will call for "Reality Check" on concepts and tech.
12:08
DrMae: And I wil also open and close topics of discussion.
12:09
Forum Control sent out invitation(s)
12:10
tmusean: Nice to meet you Mae looking forward to the upcoming discussions
DrMae: There are breaks. ( I'm using term Zulu for GMT ) 18:55-19:00 Z; 19:45-20:00 Z; 20:45-21:00
Z
12:10
jbatt joined the chat
12:10
12:10
Mark K left the chat
12:10
blwanner joined the chat
12:11
Mark K joined the chat
12:11
DrMae: First Question: What s the biggest technological challenge in creating the mission???
12:11
StarshipEngineer joined the chat
12:11
blwanner: is there sound or only texting?
12:11
DrMae: There is only text.
12:11
Captain.Webber: Sounds good, is there a place to list the topics?
Robert Gitten: Propulsion plain and simple. It determines what kind of mission we're pulling off. 12:11
DrMae: For example, is the biggest challenge getting people to go?
12:11
12:12
Christopher joined the chat
http://us11.chatzy.com/100yss
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 2 of 10
StarshipEngineer: Money
Captain.Webber: Time/duration is a big factor
mpatton joined the chat
Otter joined the chat
tmusean: Funding
DrMae: I'll eke a tally of topics. Anyone else can as well.
Mark K: sustainable life support
Christopher: I'd think that that's two different questions
Christopher: biggest tech challenge vs. social/economic question
Simii joined the chat
Robert Gitten: The kind of mission we're planning. Are we a one way colony or a round trip? Also
where are we going?
J.R.: Shielding for human occupants, but the technology seems to be getting close.
Christopher: biggest tech challenge is propulsion (which relates to time in space, which relates to
amount of energy needed, generations to participate, etc.)
12:12
Chris Radcliff left this message:
12:14
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:13
12:13
12:13
Is it too soon to ask what the other constraints are, aside from "no miracles"? Time limited,
obviously. Are we money-limited? Is there a specific time goal for arrival, or a distance goal?
tmusean: I think the propulsion is huge, also the economic feasibility of all components required 12:14
jbatt: A possible topic is what are the criteria for those who go? Skills, temperament (this is a long trip
with a major social aspect), etc. What are the skills needed to sustain the mission and how do we ensure
12:14
those skills are reproduced in the future generations of the mission?
12:14
StarshipEngineer: Yes, I think some ground rules need to be established
12:14
tmusean: Agreed
12:14
DrMae: This is really an open ended consideration. We will put constraints as issues come up.
tmusean: We can assume then that within 7 years we wont have FTL
12:15
StarshipEngineer: Budget must be realistic, Don't think we can raise a Trillion $$ over 7 years
12:15
12:15
Simii: Getting the components into space to construct the ship would be the first pressing issue
Robert Gitten: Alright, with current technology, what is the longest duration space mission we could
12:15
possibly achieve?
Kathleen left this message:
12:15
Need to prepare society for this kind of exploration. Seven years is a short time, so need bang for
the buck.
tmusean: Unless there is some massive ground shaking breakthrough
StarshipEngineer: Think breakthroughs are outside the groundrules
StarshipEngineer: fusion
Otter: if humanity wishes it, it can raise trillions over a year alone. that is hardly an issue
Chris Radcliff joined the chat
Captain.Webber: In 7 years do we begin to build this Star Ship? Or is it launching in 7 years?
DrMae: Note that in some ways, miracles are not just technology.
tmusean: Its getting humanity onboard
12:15
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
12:16
That's the point, how do you get humanity to wish it?
tmusean: so public lobbying, getting people to see the importance of funding something over 7 years
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 3 of 10
12:16
Christopher: i don't think you need all of humanity to support a missioin... just enough to put it
together
12:17
DrMae: So lat's take the idea of why do we need such a mission in seven years as our first concrete
12:17
task.
12:17
DrMae: What is the reason for the mission?
Christopher: we don't need it in seven years... unless we know Earth isn't going to be here in 7 years
Simii: Exactly Christopher
12:18 12:17
12:18
J.R.: So, the biggest obstacle is getting public support. Like more than technological.
12:18
Christopher: its about exploration
12:18
Robert Gitten: We go because we can.
12:18
Christopher: its about preparation
Chris Radcliff: I can't think of a reason to launch by 2020 that doesn't fall in the "miracles" category.
12:18
12:18
Obviously, a major event like First Contact or a major asteroid impact would get people onboard
space exploration, for defense if no other reason. But need to look at more realistic scenarios.
StarshipEngineer: Not a lifeboat on a 7 year horizon, looming disasters not that imminent
12:18
mpatton: Possibly a first step in a much longer long-term mission.
12:18
12:19
tmusean: First step...
Chris Radcliff: A "wow" event from some nearby exoplanet would probably count, but we'd have to set
12:19
it as a given.
12:19
StarshipEngineer: Probably cheaper to avoid most disasters than launch a starship
Christopher: I don't think you'd need much to gain support... but if it meant getting the President to
12:19
sign off on billions of dollars... the people won't go for it
12:19
Kathleen joined the chat
12:19
Robert Gitten: What if Keppler found a planet that was 100% to be habitable?
tmusean: so we're not looking at a ship that will get to alpha centauri
12:19
Robert Gitten: And was like 10 ly away?
12:19
12:19
StarshipEngineer: How much would the wealthy pay to back the first starship?
tmusean: we're looking at construction of something to catch attention with the hope of expanding
12:20
upon over upcoming years
12:20
Kathleen: Ok, now I've got some of my technical problems cleared up...
12:20
Christopher: space exploration is inevitable
J.R.: If figured last week with the near miss asteroid and the one that blew up over Russia would be a
12:20
wakeup call for public support
12:21
Christopher: just have to decide when to do it... we can do it voluntarily or if we have to
Kathleen: historically, nothing is inevitable...all based on the choices we make
12:21
Chris Radcliff: Asteroid strikes are great for arguing the case of leaving Earth, but not for going
12:21
interstellar.
12:21
Christopher: JPL and NASA believes it has a handle on locating NEOs
Robert Gitten: Bouncing off of what tmusean said. Building a starship will really advance spaceship
technology. Compared to this, colonizing mars will be easy. Building a starship forces you to develop the
12:21
technology for everything that comes after.
Kathleen: Yes, a wakeup call for public support, but one that will quickly fade away in the news
12:21
headlines
StarshipEngineer: If the design included a plan to upgrade inflight, you could start at a lower
pricepoint and continue expanding over time
12:21
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 4 of 10
Mark K: also considering man made threats such as nuclear weapons, may be a good reason to have
an alternative direction to go
12:21
Chris Radcliff: Detecting some kind of solar-system-ending event would be necessary to drive the
"escape" goal.
12:21
12:22
StarshipEngineer: Solve the big problems and the little ones take care of themselves... maybe
12:22
Christopher: that's what's happening in low orbit space travel
tmusean: Robert: Build a cd player, downsize to an ipod, eventually streaming on phone
12:22
Kathleen: humanity needs to become aware of the intrinsic value of space exploration, but I agree that
12:22
the Lifeboat motivation is very strong. I just don't like using fear as the prime motivator.
Captain.Webber: There is no rational reason for this mission at present. Most "reasons" will be more
12:22
local such as a Moon or Mars base and asteroid mining - all which will help us learn.
Chris Radcliff: StarshipEngineer makes a great point. Anything we build in the next 7 years will need to
12:22
foster its own improvements in-flight.
12:23
DrMae: Is there any reason this group would rally around for developing such a mission?
Otter: Agreed with Kathleen here. we've become quite complacent as of late regarding exploration 12:23
tmusean: Start building something that may be limited but to grab attention and garner in support and
hopefully advances as we continue
12:23
Christopher: x-prize... million dollar ticket... tech development... launch pad... voila... space vacations
12:23
Robert Gitten: If the starship is in constant communication with Earth, it can be updated with
12:23
scientific breakthroughs as they become available.
StarshipEngineer: NERVA to get it going, nuclear pulse to keep it going, laser sail afterwards or
12:23
rendezvous with future tech
Kathleen: though space vacations work great if you have tens of thousands to spend...need to engage
12:24
regular people who vote, write Congress reps, etc.
12:24
tmusean: to get the ball rolling
Christopher: if you built a spaceship with a goal in mind... I have no doubt you'd be able to fill it with
people and support
12:24
12:24
tmusean: push the limits and encrouage breakthroughs
Chris Radcliff: Once there was a core reason for such a short timeframe, I definitely see the space
12:24
exploration community rallying around a mission.
Captain.Webber: DrMae, Expansion of our understanding of ourselves and environment by going on
12:24
this trip.
12:24
Christopher: absoulutely
Chris Radcliff: Just the mention of "100 year starship" in... 2011 was it? was enough to light a serious
12:25
fire.
Christopher: there would be a lot of tech advances
12:25
Kathleen: what's in it for everyday people? That's the first question I get asked when I do space
12:25
outreach
StarshipEngineer: Need to realize the return on investment is not the destination but the journey.
12:25
Tech to build a starship, gives us the solar system
mpatton: What if it was a long-term space tourism ship, that also worked on finding space
12:25
breakthroughs. It would profit from the tourist and still do research.
12:25
Robert Gitten: Also, at interstellar distances, I don't think robots alone could do the job.
Christopher: what about the idea that we'd be able to upload a crew's minds (and anyone else) to a
12:25
SS?
StarshipEngineer: robots, not in 7 years, 17 maybe
12:25
StarshipEngineer: mind upload eventually but not in 7 years
12:26
12:26
Chris Radcliff: Agreed. Robots aren't independent enough to do interstellar research.
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 5 of 10
tmusean: interesting...a live streaming SS?
12:26
J.R.: Personally, I wouldn't quite rally to develop a manned interstellar mission until we had a
destination.
12:26
12:26
Robert Gitten: That's an excellent point.
Kathleen: Robert, love the idea of mindfile uploading; could be way to engage public to see themselves
out among the stars
12:26
Robert Gitten: I don't know Kathleen if that will ever be possible.
12:27
Captain.Webber: Maybe a "quick" reality poll of who is willing to live and die in deep space?
12:27
12:27
DrMae: So I call a reality check on uploading minds
12:27
Christopher: its on the table... mind file upload
StarshipEngineer: build the ship w enough computer capacity to store human minds, then upload
12:27
enroute after departure when the tech is ready
12:27
Christopher: something like that
Chris Radcliff: I can see finding an exoplanet in the "sweet spot" (earth-sized, rocky, habitable zone,
oxygen signature) in 7 years. A stretch, but not a miracle. Would that be enough to drive this timeline?
Christopher: it would be a combination of different tech
12:27 12:27
J.R.: Isn't facebook a form of mind-file uploading :)
12:27
DrMae: Reality CheckNext minute please only post mindloading real or mindloading no in equation 12:28
12:28
StarshipEngineer: mindless-file uploading...
Kathleen: agreed, but is there something intermediate? something between mindfile and the simple
12:28
uploading of photos..Can the tech get somewhere with that in 7 years?
jbatt: Exploration and challenge might be enough of a reason to engage this group (potentially) and the
space exploration community at large. The community that needs to be convinced is the general public.
A general reason (found a habitable planet, etc.) still might not be enough to convince the general
public. Apollo happened because of the environment of national conflict and championing it from the
highest level possible.
12:28
Chris Radcliff: Uploading minds? Definitely not.
12:28
12:28
Robert Gitten: We can only send physical people.
12:28
Otter: I'd ask if mind-uploading equates to exploration really?
12:28
Robert Gitten: We probably can't even send frozen people either.
12:28
jbatt: Is a robotic mission first off the table if we're looking at launching in 7 years?
Chris Radcliff: The best we could expect in 7 years is some kind of "hall of humanity" with the best
recordings we can get, and the hope that the people on board can do something with them later. 12:29
12:29
DrMae: Reality check-- Need to decide Mindloading real for tech or not
12:29
Simii: Uploading minds is not a current technology and doesn't really fit the topic
Captain.Webber: Not
12:29
tmusean: agreed
12:29
12:29
Otter: I vote not
12:29
Robert Gitten: No go on the oploading
Kathleen: Right, jbatt, general public supported Apollo because of race to space; it was sold as a
defense program, not a space exploration program per se. Easier to get defense funding than science
12:29
funding
StarshipEngineer: Mind uploads may be the only way, the mass of a human w life support has a huge
12:30
energy cost, data far cheaper but again, not in 7 hears
12:30
Mark K: tele communication to robots?
Christopher: I disagree... may I make my argument for a moment...
12:30
jbatt: On Minduploading, it's future tech but still in its infancy and not a definite in the near future. So,
12:30
no, it's not tech for this exercise.
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 6 of 10
Christopher: thank you... Starship
12:30
12:30
tmusean: jump on the nearest asteroid and mine for materials bring them back
Christopher: we'd consider that we have enough tech right now for interstellar travel but we don't
believe we'd have the technology to copy my brain in a few years?
12:31
12:31
DrMae: Okay. So we will not be using mind loading...whatever it is.
12:31
tmusean: garner support and create a new economic market
Captain.Webber: People over robots due to the time considerations and our ability to adapt.
12:31
Robert Gitten: We really don't have a clue how the brain works. But we do have a clue how an Orion
12:31
pulse drive does.
12:31
Captain.Webber: Robots will be with us on this trip.
Christopher: regardless... I think mind uploading would be boring... in my physically connected
12:31
perspective on reality
12:31
Simii: It must be people. Otherwise it would just be a probe.
12:32
Robert Gitten: Also cosmic rays are as damaging to computers as they are to DNA.
jbatt: Tmusean's idea is good potential approach: using asteroids for materials and launching from
seems to be a great intermediary step to a long-range mission.
12:32
Kathleen: Much of this will come down to money and what is politically and economically feasible.
There's a strong reality check there for all of us. Any real ideas of how much money we're talking about
12:32
here to do this in seven years?
Kathleen: Much of this will come down to money and what is politically and economically feasible.
There's a strong reality check there for all of us. Any real ideas of how much money we're talking about
12:32
here to do this in seven years?
12:32
Christopher: I think if you need a reason... there's one and only... exploration
12:32
tmusean: Explorations what we all want
12:32
Kathleen: Sorry, think I hit enter twice
Captain.Webber: Agree with Christopher
12:33
Simii: It must be for profit.
12:33
12:33
tmusean: but i think the majority back home dont care
Robert Gitten: Kathleen, at the very least the budget of projects Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo
12:33
combined.
12:33
tmusean: and thats why we arent up there yet
12:33
tmusean: we need to show that we can make money and advances in technology doing it
12:33
Mark K: Are there existing ships that can be modified?
12:33
tmusean: id do it just to go
Chris Radcliff: Some rough numbers to play with: Apollo-level funding was 0.7% of US GDP, which
these days would be about 7x NASA's budget.
12:33
tmusean: we would need some heavy duty funding
12:34
12:34
Chris Radcliff: 1% of gross world product would be about 50x NASA's budget.
StarshipEngineer: Doubt that we can build an in-space manufacturing infrastructure in 7 years, think
12:34
most assembly needs to be ground based and launched at large expense.
DrMae: Okay. Let's do a summary and cue another topic. This will be a mission with people on board
12:34
and it will be done for exploration.
Captain.Webber: The ROI is a good point as what do you actually do in interstellar space that has
12:34
payback potential?
12:34
DrMae: Please agree or comment if this is what came from discussion
DrMae: We'll talk funding later.
12:34
Simii: people and exploration, Yes
12:35
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 7 of 10
Captain.Webber: Agreed - DrMae
12:35
12:35
Christopher: I agree that people will be on board and it will be done for exploration
12:35
Mark K: agreed
12:35
tmusean: i think thats what we all want, i dont beleive it will garner the widest net of support
12:35
StarshipEngineer: people yes,
12:35
Chris Radcliff: I agree that people on board came from discussion.
StarshipEngineer: exploration, maybe
12:35
12:35
jbatt: DrMae - agreed.
12:35
Robert Gitten: I would add colonization to exploration, but I basically agree.
12:35
Christopher: robert... that's actually a good point
12:35
StarshipEngineer: journey almost 100% one way
12:35
Kathleen: Agree, but exploration shouldn't exclude other benefits (spin offs, defense, etc.)
12:36
J.R.: agreed
DrMae: Okay, so before we jump into cost, lets think of what may e possible. What are the basic
12:36
requirements for a mission. Not money, but physical things.
Christopher: because exploration is great... but its for knowledge and space... our genetic need to
spread out
12:36
12:36
Christopher: people
12:36
Robert Gitten: Flight time must be less than 100 years.
12:36
mpatton: enough food or a way to produce it
12:36
Chris Radcliff: Physical requirements: propulsion (defines time/distance), life support, crew
12:36
Christopher: propulsion
12:37
StarshipEngineer: propulsion, long term isolated habitat, radiation, social stability
12:37
Christopher: a safe, sustainable craft
12:37
tmusean: radiation protection
Simii: The ship must be of sufficient size
12:37
Kathleen: food, water, etc. And let's not forget the clothes!
12:37
jbatt: Internally: Food production, waste management, sanitation management, social strategies 12:37
Otter: we're talking a lot about technology, but what about the psychological aspect of things.. years
12:37
cooped up in a tiny space can drive anyone nuts.
12:37
tmusean: self supporting life habitat in case the crew is stranded
12:37
Chris Radcliff: (we may have to forget the clothes.)
12:37
Christopher: social stability... something that should be discussed
12:37
J.R.: shielding
12:37
StarshipEngineer: earth itself is the only example of an isolated, self sustainable life support,
tmusean: psychology speaking many things
12:37
LA_SpaceX joined the chat
12:37
Robert Gitten: The ship needs to be light enough to be launched by current launch vehicles.
12:37
Remember the SLS won't be ready until 2017.
12:38
J.R.: artificial gravity
Christopher: haha... yes, in our future concept of space travel... there are no clothes... there just
12:38
wasn't room
12:38
LA_SpaceX: Oxygen,H20,food all must be self sustaining
12:38
jbatt: Health systems, medicine, and ability to research and develop
12:38
Christopher: has to have a greenhouse
Robert Gitten: Some sort of abort capability.
12:38
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 8 of 10
StarshipEngineer: assemble in orbit, put an engine on the ISS and start pushing :)
12:38
12:38
LA_SpaceX: yes the green house can also be used for O2 generation
12:38
Robert Gitten: Good (although delayed) communications to the Earth.
mpatton: depending on the time period of the mission, child care and support for the possibility of
12:38
children
12:38
Christopher: ha... abort!... press a button and the life raft will turn around!
Kathleen: ability to have relationships with the people back on Earth...hard to get people if you tell
12:38
them they will never see family again
LA_SpaceX: I was also under the assumption that any project on this scale would have to be
12:39
assembled in orbit.
12:39
Simii: families will have to come along
12:39
Robert Gitten: More like your Eden is discovered to be a Venus, try again.
12:39
Zantippy joined the chat
StarshipEngineer: fear of isolation is a modern issue, most of history, you left and never saw home
12:39
again
DrMae: Interesting point to consider now is one-way or possible to return?
12:39
Simii: A trip like this will take so long reproduction will be a must
12:39
jbatt: childcare, child support, psychological support, for a trip of this length the social dynamics and
12:39
conflict management issues could become exponential problems
12:39
tmusean: Families going poses ethical issues
Kathleen: at what level family, though? Bring spouse and kids, but leave parents, grandparents...still
12:40
hard choices to make
12:40
Captain.Webber: One Way
12:40
tmusean: They would have to be prepped for one way
12:40
J.R.: It's all part of maintaining physical, mental, and emotional well-being
Otter: I'd say a mix of both DrMae
12:40
Chris Radcliff: One way. It's a long journey anyway, and returning imposes a huge penalty.
12:40
Robert Gitten: I actually had a talk with Buzz Aldrin on this subject last year. He adamantly thought
12:40
that the first interstellar trip had to be one way.
12:40
tmusean: the risk of not returning would be extremely valid
12:40
Mark K: return if possible, but may not be likely
12:40
Robert Gitten: A one way starship is cheaper to build.
12:40
jbatt: To assist in isolation, etc., a myriad of entertainment would be essential.
12:40
mpatton: if one way they need supplies to set up a colony
12:41
Simii: People in the right sort family state must be chosen
Chris Radcliff: With 2020 technology, this crew has to be ready to settle this ship. No passengers.
12:41
Kathleen: To StarshipEng, not quite true...1/3 of immigrants to US returned to Europe in 19th12:41
early 20th century
Christopher: I don't think we'd find anything close enough for a single lifetime anyone... correct? 12:41
12:41
Robert Gitten: mpatton is right. Your return fuel mass can now be colonization mass.
Captain.Webber: The risk depends on the people - why do they want to go - but that is off topic of
12:41
what are the physical requirements are.
12:41
Christopher: we have neither a close enough island to hop to nor fast enough propulsion
12:41
J.R.: I would figure the idea would be to colonize.
12:41
Kathleen: so we're looking at recreating whole societies on a Generation Starship, right?
Simii: Right
12:41
Robert Gitten: Does anyone know of the Mars One project?
12:41
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 9 of 10
DrMae: So need a decision, should mission be able turn back say within 10 years?
12:42
StarshipEngineer: Starting with kids wouldn't be ethical, but they almost certainly would be born
enroute unless hibernation is an option
12:42
12:42
LA_SpaceX: Societies or Society?
12:42
Mark K: unless the ship could be the colony and maintained for the duration
12:42
tmusean: no
Chris Radcliff: No turning back.
12:42
12:42
tmusean: if it just exploration we wont get any where within ten years
12:42
Christopher: seriously
12:42
Simii: Turning back is unlikely. I say no
mpatton: if it's going to take generations, I'd suggest we send additional DNA samples, to give the
12:42
future colony a chance at more diversity in the long run.
Robert Gitten: Unless something goes terribly wrong on the flight out and they need to turn back. It
12:42
should be one way.
12:42
Chris Radcliff: If anything, the option to continue on to another destination once they arrive.
Christopher: if we are going to talk specifics then we should consider distance here
12:42
Kathleen: Will we have hibernation in 7 years?
12:42
12:42
jbatt: mpatton - agree!
StarshipEngineer: What is the state of our understanding of hibernation? Could that be feasible in 7
12:43
years?
Christopher: what's the point in going out 10 years and turning back? need to go somewhere, right?
12:43 12:43
DrMae: Stay on should it have return capabiltites
tmusean: ship becomes a giant work table in space building other ships at checkpoints along the way
12:43 12:43
Captain.Webber: Could we get to the Ort Cloud in 10 years at current technology?
12:43
Kathleen: We wouldn't get very far in 10 years anyway, would we?
tmusean: it never returns but smaller ones can!
12:43
Mark K: it should if possible
12:43
12:43
StarshipEngineer: return cababilities, no, we need to go rescue them instead
Zantippy: There must be some kind of option to turn back - once we're able to do this at all, we'd be
12:43
able to see about dealing with what may go wrong, instead of just waving goodbye.
Robert Gitten: Maybe, but what are the advantages of it. A hibernating body still needs air,
12:43
occasionally food, and water. It's also still prone to radiation damage.
12:44
Christopher: and then we can build worm tunnel gateways
12:44
Christopher: shouldn't that be one of the big questions?
mpatton: A ship that becomes a station? Instead of a colony, a spaceship construction site, with people
living on it?
12:44
Christopher: how far is this going?
12:44
12:44
Christopher: where is this going?
J.R.: For peace of mind for the passengers, it seems like it should have return capability within 10 years
12:44
in case of unforeseen emergency. After 10 years it may be unrealistic
12:44
tmusean: yep
12:45
Christopher: I kind of like the idea of putting buoys out there
LA_SpaceX: Is this mission to gather information to transmit back to scientist on earth. Obviously this
would become a problem once in deep space. What is the end goal for the information from exploration
12:45
100YSS conducts?
Simii: 10 years would be a point of no return scenario
12:45
tmusean: it can keep moving on leaving behind other ships and technology as markers so to speak
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 10 of 10
Christopher: big winter cabins... toadstoals in space
12:45 12:45
12:45
Christopher: I mean lilly pads
Chris Radcliff: Turning back in 10 years sounds like a parent saying "I'll come get you if you want" to a
12:45
first-time summer camper.
StarshipEngineer: How high does the probability of getting their alive need to be in order to start?
Zantippy: About the bubble that could possibly move through space-time - how well right now do 12:45
physicists understand space-time, in terms of one day developing the ability to move in the bubble?
12:45 12:45
heath.rezabek joined the chat
DrMae: So I'm taking from this that the mission is basically one way with the ability to send smaller
return craft possibly. they would need to decide return prior to some point of time or distance. Yea or
12:45
Nay?
tmusean: then you allow for a one way trip...and answer the question of people possibly going home
12:46 12:46
StarshipEngineer: no warp drive in 7 years
12:46
Simii: Yea
12:46
Robert Gitten: Yes Dr. Mae
Chris Radcliff: Yea. One way.
12:46
Kathleen: I think the end goal question is important...like working a maze backwards...can help us find
12:46
the way back to Start
12:46
Otter: Yea
12:46
LA_SpaceX: Yea
12:46
tmusean: yes
12:46
Christopher: No
12:46
Mark K: yes
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 1 of 10
Christopher: smaller craft back?
12:46
Zantippy: Yea :D
12:46
Christopher: if we could build smaller craft for long distances... wouldn't we do that?
12:46
12:46
StarshipEngineer: need a landing craft anyhow, maybe it can be a lifeboat in the early days
12:46
Captain.Webber: yes, lifeboats are required
12:47
Robert Gitten: The end goal Kathleen is a human civilization around another star.
LA_SpaceX: @ Kathleen agreed. With an end goal in site or at least an objective to aim for. Reverse
12:47
engineering the mission would be easier
12:47
jbatt: yea
Christopher: I have to go but I think one of the biggest questions that we're starting to hit here is...
12:47
where is this going?
Otter: I assumed by interstellat the aim was a planet on another start system
12:48
Simii: To colonize we would have to send massive amounts of equipment. If you had to turn around
12:48
you could leave that equipment and you would have a smaller craft
Kathleen: If the end goal is colonization, returning defeats purpose; if exploration, then return makes
12:48
sense with interim exploration benchmarks set
LA_SpaceX: So you would have to be able to a smaller craft enter an atmosphere and land in and
12:48
environment humans have never encountered?
12:48
Otter: *interstellar
Chris Radcliff: In interstellar space at relativistic velocities, a lifeboat is just another word for your
whole ship travelling in another direction.
12:48
DrMae: So here's the status : a mission with humans, basically around exploration. One-way with
12:48
smaller life boats and minimal return capabilities for a few.
12:48
Christopher: no life boats?
12:48
Christopher: who said life boats?
12:48
Christopher: this isn't the titanic
Zantippy: We would probably send a few missions simultaneously or one right after the other, wouldn't
12:48
we? It will be heading into such an unknown that multiple missions would let it succeed.
12:48
Christopher: once you're out there... who is going to save you?
12:48
StarshipEngineer: 7 years does not get you a relativistic starship, 0.1C if you're lucky
tmusean: id say mini tech vessels , and markers along a one way trajectory
12:49
Robert Gitten: Christopher, if something goes wrong around Mars, would the public who is supporting
12:49
your mission be cool if we you let the crew just die?
Captain.Webber: 1 LY is 10 years of travel at 10% C => can we even get that fast with current tech?
12:49
heath.rezabek: (Greetings all.) The ability to turn back seems less an issue than the ability to
12:49
salvage the situation should crisis occur.
12:49
StarshipEngineer: slim chance of better with enroute upgrades
12:49
Kathleen: Agree Zantippy...multiple missions makes sense
12:49
Robert Gitten: Heath, that is a great idea!
Christopher: look... if you can come up with a viable way to get a crew out of danger once its millions
of miles from Earth... I'd love to hear it
12:49
heath.rezabek: This could be done by outfitting lifeboats for multiple purposes; each should be a self12:49
contained relay beacon, and archive, for instance, in addition to being a lifeboat.
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 2 of 10
tmusean: heath yes!
12:50
LA_SpaceX: I think the whole point is that this crew and ship would be on there own once past a
certain difference.
12:50
12:50
StarshipEngineer: think this is a succeed or die trying kind of mission
12:50
Simii: Agred
12:50
LA_SpaceX: *distance
Simii: Agreed
12:50
Robert Gitten: We're only talking about life boats that work up to a certain point. After that we would
12:50
have no choice but to solve our problems as they come.
heath.rezabek: Thus, multi-purpose, multi-function pods could be launched as buoys or beacons if that
was the stronger need, as bread-crumbs only if all systems were go, or as lifeboats only in greatest
12:50
need.
Kathleen: Don't want this to be a suicide mission, but people involved and public will need to be aware
12:50
that return might not be possible
12:50
LA_SpaceX: Life boats are more weight
tmusean: mentally the crew would have to be prepared for the most dire of situations constantly 12:50
LA_SpaceX: more tech, more money
12:51
12:51
heath.rezabek: LA - Not necessarily, if (for instance) 3d printed.
12:51
tmusean: thats why we build them in space
Julio Mendoza left this message:
12:51
hello
Zantippy: Christopher, it just seems to me that we will do this only at the time where it isn't a mission
where no help can everbe received, with no back-up support. By the time we do this, the notion of it
12:51
being a mission which essentially abandons Earth will hopefully be in the past.
12:51
tmusean: at certain points along trajectory
StarshipEngineer: only if the public funds it, private capital maybe has different priorities
12:51
tmusean: the ss workbench idea
12:51
LA_SpaceX: as were most of the early astronauts. This is a deep space exploration not a drive up the
12:51
coast.
12:51
Kathleen: Will 3d printing be where it needs to be in 7 years to reconstruct a starship?
Robert Gitten: They're only more weight if they are only lifeboats. However, if they had a regular use
aboard the spacecraft, they could be justified. It's like how the command module was the Saturn V's
12:51
control room an escape pod.
jbatt: The lifeboat presentation at the last Symposium raised some interesting approaches and
addressed the need. Even if it's just a few for the preservation of knowledge and "what went wrong,"
they are needed.
12:51
DrMae: We're getting close to break. This is the criteria for the mission that we will use after break.
One-way exploratory mission with people on board. Mission designed for resilience and ability yo
respond to unforeseen circumstances. There may be smaller craft that serve as lifeboats of some kind.
12:52
We do not know propulsion or other things. Will take up after break. Comments?
heath.rezabek: Kathleen - NASA is already exploring the printing of modular parts to construct remote
12:52
bases; my money says "Aye."
LA_SpaceX: you still need the raw materials for 3d printing dont you? You cant create something out
12:52
of thin air.
12:52
tmusean: sounds good
LA_SpaceX: or can you?
12:52
Kathleen: Sounds good, too...need coffee :)
12:52
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 3 of 10
tmusean: asteroid harvesting for materials
12:52
12:52
Captain.Webber: agreed
12:52
tmusean: but we will pick up shortly...
12:52
Otter: agreed
12:53
Julio Mendoza joined the chat
Robert Gitten: We would need the ability to dismantle obsolete parts and turn them into new ones.
StarshipEngineer: thin vacuum!
12:53 12:53
12:53
heath.rezabek: [afk]
mpatton: for 3d printing, you can probably melt back down some of the stuff you don't need anymore
12:53 12:53
Captain.Webber: Ort cloud may be a good rest stop :)
iainmacl left this message:
12:53
sorry was late....out photographing Vega and other stars..might be one of the target destinations...?
12:53
Robert Gitten: Comets are metal poor.
12:53
jbatt: coffe is a must
LA_SpaceX: could you create resupply ships? To meet, dock, and resupply the ship with necessary
items?
12:53
heath.rezabek: (Are we, indeed, on break? ^_^ )
12:53
12:53
Julio Mendoza: hello
Kathleen: Ok, coffee can wait...can parts be made modular...like Legos, so they can go into many
12:53
different configurations?
12:54
StarshipEngineer: afk
iainmacl left this message:
12:54
I thought you meant coffee as an essential supply on board.
DrMae: So after the break, let's put some bones on mission. Question will be, how many people and
12:54
what assortment?
Kathleen: That,too!
12:54
Robert Gitten: The resupply ships would have to catch up with the original starship. I think that could
12:54
only be done up to a certain point.
Chris Radcliff: Agreed that the ship should have everything it needs to potentially make another ship12:54
equivalent given raw materials (in the Oort or at the destination).
12:55
Forum Control closed the chat
12:55
Forum Control: CHAT WILL REPOEN AT 19:00 ZULU TIME
rickj left this message:
12:59
The supply ships can be sent out prior to the voyage, in order, to establish supply stations.
13:00
Forum Control opened the chat
DrMae: What is the maximum time to plan for vehicle being inhabited?
13:00
StarshipEngineer: Interesting idea but high speed rendezvous over interstellar distances would be
13:00
quite a trick!
13:00
Robert Gitten: At most 100 years.
heath.rezabek: (Realizing we may not come back to the logistics of 3D printing of lifeboats / buoys /
beacons, in response to LA_ I wanted to quickly just posit that at the very least, a space-filling module
would take up less room in the form of a spool of recycled or pristine matter than it would being shipped
as a fully built pod. Foamed filaments could conserve cubic feet even more effectively. And so on.) 13:00
13:00
StarshipEngineer: At least 50
13:01
tmusean: not sure i follow
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 4 of 10
Robert Gitten: Mir was only up for 30 years and it was an algae infested cesspool when it went down.
13:01
Chris Radcliff: I'd plan for "inhabited indefinitely", if at all possible. On the order of 100 years if
not.
13:01
13:01
tmusean: vehilc as in the starship?
13:01
mpatton: Two generations? One to leave and one to arrive?
13:01
DrMae: Yes, starship
tmusean: indefinitely
13:02
13:02
jbatt: At least 50. With current technology, likely 100+
13:02
Mark K: indefinitely
13:02
Captain.Webber: Indefinitely
tmusean: i think with travel and tiume constraints any time we set out on the ship, or others set apart
13:02
from it thers a very good chance we dont make contact again
13:02
Robert Gitten: Or leave as a teenager and arrive a senior citizen.
StarshipEngineer: I think so, I doubt that in 7 years we will be able to prove the existence of a habital
13:02
world around a nearby star
Chris Radcliff: Even if the journey itself is only a decade or so, plan for the ability to stay onboard as
long as necessary.
13:02
heath.rezabek: Here's an odd thought -- What if the forward modules (or aft, whichever) were
perpetually being upgraded, improved, tacked on like a new subway car, and the oldest modules on the
13:02
other end vacated, disassembled, and recycled into printmatter?
13:02
tmusean: generations pose ethical constraints...born into servitude aboard a starship?
13:03
LA_SpaceX: well you need some give and take her
13:03
LA_SpaceX: here
heath.rezabek: Thus, breakdown wouldn't be as big an issue and the space could keep evolving
13:03
indefinitely. As well as expanding as needed.
tmusean: heath nice i like where your going
13:03
StarshipEngineer: The ship may be an isolated space colony for a long time
13:03
13:03
Robert Gitten: Or tmusean, being one of the lucky few to explore a new star.
13:03
tmusean: i agree robert
13:04
Otter: depends on the point of view, as Robert says!
Chris Radcliff: Born into a starship community. It's up to us to make sure that doesn't mean servitude.
13:04 13:04
tmusean: but the ethical question remains...and its a hard sell
jbatt: in reflection on tmusean's comment, I'm not sure we can predict the reaction to those born on
13:04
the ship. It's a definite undefinable that needs be prepared for.
Robert Gitten: There have been closed societies before. Just think of the pilgrims or any sort of tribal
society.
13:04
StarshipEngineer: It's the generations stuck in the middle that have the biggest challenge I think.
13:04
Anyone familiar with Heinlein's Vanguard?
LA_SpaceX: I think it should be open to all ages, obviously there will need to be some form of
13:04
procreation on this ship or it will only last one generation
DrMae: Consider that immigrants moved there families and had children in lots of different new lands.
13:05
And they had no thought of return.
jbatt: How life is fashioned, not just work, but relaxation, social, education, etc., those will go far to
address whether being born in the ship feels like servitude or feels like being one of the "lucky ones"
13:05 13:05
Captain.Webber: And populationcontrol?
Captain.Webber: population control
13:05
Chris Radcliff: Yes, probably.
13:05
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 5 of 10
tmusean: then you pose an interesting debate
13:05
StarshipEngineer: A generation ship is almost by definition a heavily restricted society but one that
has been explored in fiction
13:05
13:05
tmusean: now...the ship needs to have its own..."society"
heath.rezabek: Also, I'd say, the depth and breadth of cultural archives you've managed to bring from
Earth, as well as folks' ability to experience them, and to sample from them in novel ways.
13:05
mpatton: birth control would need to be a default. You need to control the number of people on board
13:05
Robert Gitten: Captain.Webbler, there's a paper out there explaining how a base population of
180 people would pretty much remain at 180 people indefinately.
13:05
Zantippy: we could send immigrants, but would the first mission be about that? We'd have to have
scouts first.
13:06
13:06
DrMae: Scouts or immigrants...same thing.
Captain.Webber: So is 180 the number to send? What is the minimal population for a Star Ship? 13:06
13:06
Zantippy: I mean ... immigrants of whole families.
Chris Radcliff: mpatton: I'd put that as "the people on board need the ability to control their numbers"
13:06
LA_SpaceX: and then we could just use drones, but if its multi-generational something must be
worked out
13:06
13:06
Mark K: birth control would be best way to keep population in check
Robert Gitten: It's called "Genetic Considerations for Multi-Generational Space Travel" by Dennis
13:06
Rourke
heath.rezabek: Cultural archives and the ability to decode and feel a part of them, add to them, would
13:06
be key I think. I don't know if cultural heritage brought along has been discussed yet.
13:06
DrMae: How many people and what assortment?
13:07
mpatton: chris..fair enough
13:07
Chris Radcliff: Minimum population is still being figured out. Could be as little as a few dozen.
Mark K: depends on scale of vehicle but maybe 25?
13:07
Robert Gitten: Skimming through the paper, the 180 people need to be roughly gender balanced and
13:07
roughly the same age for this to work.
13:07
Chris Radcliff: I'd say "As many as we can fit without scuttling the mission".
StarshipEngineer: Any mission launched by 2020 will likely have less information about the destination
13:07
star system than we knew about our system in 1950
heath.rezabek: Benford suggests (albeit via fictional works) that a clave of 100 or so could be ideal...
13:07
LA_SpaceX: You would also need a redundancy with certain people. For instance lets say you
13:07
chief propulsions engineer has a heart attack and dies. The mission is screwed
13:07
Mark K: but keep in mind birth increase of population
Julio Mendoza: I was writhing a novel about men traveling from Alpha to earth and I had a design for
it
13:08
13:08
heath.rezabek: LA_ - Redundancy, or perhaps a very good Interning / succession system.
Chris Radcliff: As for assortment: Diversity as wide as possible, in everything other than overarching
13:08
goal.
13:08
LA_SpaceX: agreed
13:08
Robert Gitten: The paper also spells out how marriage would work in this society.
13:08
mpatton: the crew only needs to be gender balanced, if we aren't considering invitro
13:09
Julio Mendoza: it have to be possible to build so i have some ideas about
StarshipEngineer: Think a 2020 launch has to go with the idea that we will find means to reduce the
trip time after the journey starts and implement it.
13:09
Zantippy: oh that's a good idea! People who will learn to take over along the way.
13:09
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 6 of 10
Kathleen: what do we do about class? religion? race?sexual orientation? do we recreate Earth societies
or create new stellar ones?
13:09
heath.rezabek: Consider: Key functions working in duos, one senior, one junior and always learning.
Robert Gitten: Every person can be married, have at least 10 available spouses to choose from, 13:09
each spouse will be no more closely related than a 2nd cousin, and everyone can be a parent if they
wish.
13:09
J.R.: It would likely be a multinational endeavor, so you would need representatives from each nation.
13:09
Captain.Webber: After 10 years would the Ship have its own social order based upon living
together and not in our current understanding?
13:09
LA_SpaceX: yes training the nest generation of Crew, while they are onboard, is essential to the
13:09
success of this mission
13:10
Kathleen: is it ethical to micro-engineer the society?
13:10
Captain.Webber: in this casse yes
13:10
Captain.Webber: case
13:10
Captain.Webber: case
LA_SpaceX: wouldn't you have too
13:10
jbatt: While it's been abused, Dunbar's number provides a good focus for social arrangement. For
smaller groups, people organize in numbers of roughly 150 people. That's a poor summary but his
13:10
research provides a great indication for social arrangements.
13:10
heath.rezabek: Kath - Random sampling of a candidate pool would be one way to tackle that.
rickj left this message:
13:10
An instrument to determine capability would be necessary to match and mate a group. Diversity on
too wide a scale could be a negative.
13:10
Kathleen: Captain.Webber: yes, society is a social construct and is very fluid
DrMae: We need a number of people. I believe numbers to maintain genetic health and viability is
closer to 2000 than 180.
13:11
Chris Radcliff: Micro-engineering maybe, as long as you accept that the people on board are going to
13:11
go their own way once they're underway.
Robert Gitten: Kathleen, I think the crew should also be encouraged to alter how they live as the
13:11
mission unfolds.
LA_SpaceX: there would have to be a hierarchy are much as I hate to say it. Could it be based on a
13:11
democracy?
StarshipEngineer: What's the smallest self sufficient hi tech society possible, even on earth today?
13:11 13:11
iainmacl joined the chat
13:11
Kathleen: society is not constructed once and that's it. It's a continual process of recreation.
LA_SpaceX: thats a great question STARSHIP
13:11
heath.rezabek: So, perhaps smaller communities within a larger one, all of which scale to a factor of
13:11
10.
13:11
Chris Radcliff: I've also seen the 180 number, let me check in a paper I have here...
13:11
heath.rezabek: 10 communities of 200, each in access of each other...
Julio Mendoza: is easier to send human cells and do a cloning 21 years before the destination point
13:11
then rise them
13:12
Mark K: 180 is a rather large number, so this ship will have to be pretty big?
13:12
Robert Gitten: Why not 50 people with a bunch of frozen sperm and egg cells?
Kathleen: democracy is not always an efficient way to run a society; ideal, perhaps, but not always the
most efficient
13:12
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 7 of 10
heath.rezabek: Julio - Perhaps, but the premise is that the mission has human failsafe at launch,
which implies at least a few generations by the end.
13:12
13:13
Mark K: in 7 years, we won't have a ship ready to carry 180
13:13
tmusean: now we are talking a gigantic space hotel
Zantippy: There are studies that show the best size of groups that lets social interactions work the best
- kind of like a larger-size tribe that humans kept close to the best numbers that worked.
13:13
blwanner: sending cells should definitely be considered, especially for ensuring diversity
13:13
13:13
tmusean: thats down the line
Robert Gitten: I picture the onboard society being somewhat tribal or like a small rural town where
13:13
everything is decided through town meetings.
13:13
Mark K: exactly
heath.rezabek: Robert - The question is, what size 'failsafe crew' is large enough not to drive itself
13:13
batty but small enough not to be excessive?
LA_SpaceX: Thats why I was thinking there would have to be some command structure for the crew
13:13
and passengers.
Julio Mendoza: Cannot send a carnival cruise whit today means
13:13
Chris Radcliff: Can't find my source for that 180 number, but it was anthropological in nature.
13:13
tmusean: 7 years we are talking small crew sole purpose exploration n setting down trails of later ships
13:13 13:13
blwanner: cells can also eb used to grow organs, mayeb in the not too distance furture
Robert Gitten: Chris, it's from a conference called Interstellar Travel and Multigenerational Starships.
13:13 13:13
rickj joined the chat
StarshipEngineer: IDK, how much mass can we push to another star by 2020? That's really the key
13:14
question.
13:14
Mark K: but it's not realistic for a starship built in the next 7 years
13:14
jbatt: Chris: are you referencing Robert Dunbar?
Zantippy: oooh town meeeting get nasty lol
13:14
Chris Radcliff: Thanks, Robert! I'm pretty sure I have that on my computer... jbatt: Yes.
13:14
13:14
Robert Gitten: It's not a matter of how much mass we can move, it's how fast we can move it.
LA_SpaceX: Would need almost a military like command structure so people are sure to know their
13:14
roles and obey orders?
Zantippy: yeah it seems like a military structure may work the best at first, so people don't rebel
13:15
because what they want isn't being implemented.
13:15
LA_SpaceX: exactly
heath.rezabek: LA - Any command structure will be destiny to the worldview and mindset of its
13:15
members...
Captain.Webber: Does sending 3 ships help with the society aspects?
13:15
LA_SpaceX: Not my ideal society but one that can complete a mission with objectives
13:15
13:15
Mark K: military format would be required agreed
jbatt: I think it would have to be a unique blend of both. A strict command structure for efficiency, but
with a town hall mechanism to make sure that people maintain their engagement and connection to the
13:15
mission.
13:15
heath.rezabek: So at the very least, it'd be nice if several parallel approaches were being tried.
Robert Gitten: No a military, structure could lead to tyranny. Make it more like a kibbutz, where you do
your job for the good of the community and feel that what you are doing is important for the whole.
StarshipEngineer: If you extrapolate the maximum kinetic energy for transportation curve out to 13:15
even 100yrs assuming even an exponential growth, it's only about 1000kg by 2110
13:16
drctaylor left this message:
13:16
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 8 of 10
I think there must be structure and hierarchy when it comes to command and leadership. You can
not have petty rivaries and arguments stop the life support crew from performing their tasks. I think
there must be some sort of list of essential tasks that answer to this hierarchy so things get done.
heath.rezabek: Captain - I agree with where you're headed in that sending several smaller vessels,
particularly if their approaches differ a bit, would be good for hybrid vigor.
13:16
LA_SpaceX: There would have to be some type of "checks and balances" system
13:16
DrMae: Okay. We need number folks on board. We can figure out society later. Also, it may be possible
to build larger ships. Let's not get rid of that option yet. I'm going to put upt he number 1500 people.
Zantippy: How do kubbutzes work?
13:16 13:16
iainmacl: how do democratic and ethical principles fit with a multigenerational model if only the first
generation were the ones to actually sign up for the mission? To what extent can you rightfully commit
your children and their children to a mission you volunteered for?
13:16
mpatton: maybe have the whole crew live together for the years before launch, to work out some
potential issues before hand?
13:16
Chris Radcliff: 1500 would certainly be a reasonable number for stability.
13:16
13:16
tmusean: now the game changes
13:17
13:17
Chris Radcliff: 1500 is a small town.
heath.rezabek: << nods, while picturing how 1500 might break down into groups of 150 and 15...
tmusean: 1500 people, multi generational, set up schools with intense rigorous training and its a 13:17
13:17
one way mission
13:17
tmusean: the information they send back will set the groundowkr for generations to come
jbatt: iainmaci: it would seem the pioneer mentality that sent people to the new world and out west
tackled that concern. It may not be ethical but people have committed their children to a mission and
13:17
location/destination the children didn't commit to.
Kathleen: is this 1500 on one ship or on multiple ships (redundancy in case of disaster?)
13:17
rickj: There could be a number of legal guidelines to determine the responsibilities of the parties
13:17
occupying the ship and their jobs. It is a mission to accomplish an outcome.
13:17
tmusean: or...the have a disaster and we have now lost 1500 people
Robert Gitten: Zantippy, they are small communal town/farms that only exist in Isreal. They are
corporations in which everyone who works there is a shareholder. Unlike other collective agricultural
13:17
attempts, a Kibbutz is voluntary.
thjackson@cox.net left this message:
13:17
Starship Laboratories Established 1962 signing in..Sorry I am late..login problems.. I will listen for a
while and then join in as I have the requested starship technology existing now that can be built and
launched within two years to seven years.
Opening the forum guidelines in word pad left much good text and also some garbled text so IF I
violate one I could not read I am sure Mae will correct me. Using individual inititive, I genearly do
want I want and beg forgiveness after the fact :) ..where is forum spell checker?......testing 5 minute
introduction link
...
https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/ProposalV...
I have no problem talking for 6 hours on the subject, but promise not to dominate this chat as others
may have existing starship technogy and I do enjoy just listening.
Please anyone let me know if the dropbox link to pdf file works..
Tom
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 9 of 10
LA_SpaceX: So we need to know dimensions, actual engineer capabilities, ect in order to figure out
crew size. And lets be honest we are talking about high tech top secret entities involved here, would we
actually get to know what are full capabilities would be at this point in time?
13:18
Captain.Webber: I was thinking 10,000 but would agree with 1500 only because I have not data 13:18
Mark K: 1500 if realistic, would be far easier to digest for the community as a whole for the long term
mission
13:18
drctaylor left this message:
13:18
I agree with ian, children are definitely an ethics question! I do not think I have the right to decide
my children's fate.
Captain.Webber: no data
13:18
13:18
Julio Mendoza: Have to build robot factory at earth that send chunks to the space
J.R.: I agree with DrMae. Higher numbers increase genetic diversity, which is crucial for species survival.
13:18 13:18
Datoraki joined the chat
13:18
Robert Gitten: http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/Contest/R...
13:19
Robert Gitten: Here's my starship proposal if anyone is interested.
jbatt: 1500 provides options for social connections, genetic diversity, and various micro-communities
that people could engage in, negating some of the isolation issues.
13:19
13:19
rickj: We determine our children's fate and destiny now.
StarshipEngineer: The ISS weighs in at 450,000kg, supports 6 and isn't self sufficient. scale up 250X
13:19
and you're at 10^8kg, likely 10^9kg for self sufficiency
LA_SpaceX: How can we come up with a population number when we don't even know the
13:19
engineering specification we are dealing with here?
Zantippy: so what do we have going on right now in terms of space flight that we could think of for the
13:19
exercise of it launching in 2020?
Julio Mendoza: and then directed to the target, later the crew will be send and assembly the starship
Robert Gitten: The population number determines the size of the starship.
13:19 13:19
Mark K: if we don't accept the children in space fact, there can be no long term mission
13:19
13:19
LA_SpaceX: really?
13:20
LA_SpaceX: I would think engineering restraints would do that
Kathleen: want to make sure I've got this: if we're looking at 1500, we're looking at colonization then
13:20
as the goal and not exploration?
13:20
Zantippy: I don't know much about flighttechnology so don't know what is cutting-edge.
13:20
heath.rezabek: DrMae - 1500 on a single monolithic vessel, however it's arranged?
13:20
DrMae: LA_SpaceX we trying to get the number in order to decide on the specs for th vehicle.
13:20
LA_SpaceX: ok
Robert Gitten: People and the equipment to support them take up mass. The more people the heavier
your starship no matter how advanced your life support equipment is.
13:20
13:20
tmusean: Robert, very cool will give a read
13:20
Chris Radcliff: There seems to be an open question: One craft or multiple?
Datoraki: Have you played the game Alpha Centauri? I sure hope there will be no mindworms... 13:20
13:21
Robert Gitten: I still vouch for 180.
13:21
heath.rezabek: Or is the option of, say, two vessels on the table?
rickj: We guide our children and the culture they're raised in dictate the directions they might go in.
13:21 13:21
Mark K: I like the idea of more than one
13:21
heath.rezabek: (750 each?)
tmusean: one craft
13:21
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 10 of 10
heath.rezabek: Ok. Eggs, All-In. Got it.
13:21
13:22
tmusean: i think more than one craft poses more issues
13:22
tmusean: but it is a nice idea
Kathleen: 150/180 seems to make sense for initial exploration. Columbus, et al discovered the New
World because mass colonization efforts...and there was a several hundred year lag between discovery
13:22
and colonization
Sagar joined the chat
13:22
13:22
tmusean: a team of vessels
13:22
J.R.: Yes, I also think 1500 would be colonization.
Robert Gitten: tmusean, once we have the industrial base to build one ship, what's stopping us from
13:22
building more. In fact, building many may lower the cost through economies of scale.
Julio Mendoza: the whole thing can't be moved at speed need to move small parts of it and assembled
13:22
in space
heath.rezabek: (Some may feel it solves some issues as well, via hybrid vigor, but it's moot if the
13:22
scenario is 1500 in one.)
Kathleen: Oops, meant to say BEFORE mass colonization efforts
13:22
jbatt: Kathleen: I think one of the potential reasons for the 1500 number is sustainability, long-term, of
13:22
the mission (I may be quite wrong here). But yes, 1500 does lean towards a colonization focus.
13:22
tmusean: robert, still on the 7 year time spread
DrMae: So we have not decided on the shape the mission vehicle would take. Let's open that up.
Baseline. ONe way with minimal return capabilities, self-sufficient and able to address complications.
1500 people. Now lets talk about how to make that happen from engineering perspective. We'll get back
13:23
to society.
StarshipEngineer: Just to get a payload of 10E10kg to 0.1c is 5E22 joules! but you need to carry extra
13:23
mass to slow down at the other end!
LA_SpaceX: that would also be an issue to figure out. Are were talking exploration or colonization. The
end goal must be decided.
13:23
13:23
Julio Mendoza: wile traveling to Alpaha
heath.rezabek: << makes mental note not to forget the idea of printing new modules as needed by
13:23
recycling the matter from decommissioned modules...
iainmacl: quality of life , particularly for psychological well-being but also physical needs and
13:23
development would mean plenty of scope for diverse life experiences, and sustainability
Robert Gitten: Does 1500 have the same population stability as 180? We could always grow the
13:23
population upon arrival at the star through frozen sperm and eggs brought from earth.
rickj: The possibility of setting up outpost, space-stations, would solve a lot of the supply-side
problem,s and also, possibly personnel.
13:23
Captain.Webber: 3 ships joined together 500 people each
13:24
LA_SpaceX: that what I was thinking. Start with crew then once objective is met, grow crew population
13:24
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 1 of 10
Mark K: how big would a ship have to be to carry 1500? spare feet?
13:24
LA_SpaceX: enormous
13:24
Robert Gitten: StarshipEngineer, slowing down can be done through drag with the destination star's
magnetic field.
13:24
13:24
heath.rezabek: A lightweight structure would seem to be key... Gravity via spin...
iainmacl: is it possible, therefore to use quality of life as a design constraint in terms of size, capacity ,
13:24
resources, etc
13:24
Julio Mendoza: yes have to send cargo forward that have to move at same speed than the SS
13:24
Robert Gitten: Well, how much room does each person get?
Chris Radcliff: Throwing this out to start: An asteroid as vehicle, mined and processed into mobility.
13:25 13:24
LA_SpaceX: aren't we at talking at least a structure as big as an modern Aircraft carrier?
iainmacl: asteroid option is probably best actually in terms of radiation protection also
13:25
13:25
StarshipEngineer: a 1 megaton nuke is 4E15 joules
13:25
Kathleen: Asteroid option is very creative idea, but feasible in 7 years?
Sagar: Re:asteroid Cool idea - the trouble would be getting enough force in a consistent way for it to
13:25
move in the direction we would want.
Robert Gitten: My Kon Tiki Interstellar Vehicle carried 180 and was about the mass of an aircraft
13:25
carrier.
13:25
Captain.Webber: Use inflatables to manage comfort as opposed to fixed structure, time share
13:25
heath.rezabek: Mark / LA - That depends on the compactness of their living.
J.R.: With 1500 people, the overall size and weight would be similar to the "Build The Enteprise"
concept.
13:25
Mark K: there would have be enough room to not only transport 1500, but also have living space 13:25
Chris Radcliff: Propelling an asteroid becomes a big problem, but the rest seems about as feasible as a
13:26
LEO-built ship big enough for 1500.
13:26
heath.rezabek: Julio - 'Cargo up front' -- an interesting idea...
Sagar: I think to figure out how much space you need, you have to break it down into
13:26
residential/recreational, engineering, office, cargo, etc.
Sagar: I think to figure out how much space you need, you have to break it down into
13:26
residential/recreational, engineering, office, cargo, etc.
iainmacl: does solar sail tech give enough for initial acceleration of asteroid model?
13:26
Chris Radcliff: If we're slushy about launch goals, we can launch the asteroid at a tiny velocity and
13:26
give them the ability to "level up" propulsion on the spot.
13:27
Chris Radcliff: So once Dr. White gets warp drive perfected we upload them the plans. ;)
heath.rezabek: If private space is minimized and precious square feet are preserved for common
13:27
recreational space, that will shape the structure as well.
13:27
Zantippy: :)
Julio Mendoza: have to send the SS in pieces forward and then collect them via next star all traveling
13:27
%light speed
13:27
Robert Gitten: Solar sails can get you to like 0.02c but need to be HUGE to do so.
Sagar: Start with residential... say, 700 sq ft for every two people. you're already talking about ~500K
sq ft, just for living space.
13:27
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 2 of 10
Captain.Webber: Find an asteroid the size of a Nimitz class carrier and gut it and bolt some engines on
it.
13:28
13:28
Julio Mendoza: and assemble it
13:28
Phil_S joined the chat
DrMae: I'll give the mission a bit more elbow room. Has to be ready through design to start build in
2020. And needs to be on its way by 2015.
13:29
StarshipEngineer: 10 million 1 megaton H bombs of energy to move the payload, never mind the
mass of the propulsion system itself! We're not launching a 1500 person starship in 7 years!
13:29
heath.rezabek: It does seem like to answer questions about engineering, we'd need to decide some
things about the overall form and shape of the vessel that are one-way decision gates...
13:29
Robert Gitten: However, Kon Tiki was very very liberal with the living spaces. If we made the interior
more like a nuclear sub, it could be much much smaller.
13:29
heath.rezabek: Ie, if we start hollowing out an asteroid, that means we're definitely not building a
lightweight glider solar sail and changes everything.
13:29
13:29
StarshipEngineer: volume doesn't matter much, it's all about the mass
LA_SpaceX: Could you imagine living your life in the area the size of a sub? I se problems with that.
Social Problems
13:30
heath.rezabek: So, if the premise is "This gets done in 2020", maybe the practicalities of our nearfuture (current, really) engineering needs to decide the overall form, and not vice-versa...
13:30
Sagar: Keep in mind that if the starship isn't going to be in an atmosphere, it doesn't have to be
aerodynamically shaped at all.
13:30
13:30
tmusean: ok im not a scientist but energy n propulsion still biggest problem
Robert Gitten: Once again, all the mass does is determine how much acceleration the propulsion
13:30
system exerts on the ship. A solar sail could still move an asteroid.
13:30
drctaylor joined the chat
Chris Radcliff: The only point of bagging an asteroid is to start with mass-already-in-space. We can
still choose how much mass.
13:30
13:30
LA_SpaceX: I was assuming solar and some nuclear would be used to power the ship
tmusean: hat about some type of galactic radiation converter that acts as both a shield and converter
13:30
to fuel energy?
Sagar: No, not just that... you also can have access to water and critical metals with an asteroid. 13:30
mpatton: odd idea, but do we have to have all the people on board at launch? Can we get the ship in
13:31
space and then crew it fully, next by launching the people up there, over months?
heath.rezabek: Chris - To the extent that we could even grind up and reprint the entire asteroid if
13:31
need be? If so, then I see...
StarshipEngineer: plenty of energy to fry your genes, not so much for moving a starship
13:31
Captain.Webber: I agree with LA_SpaceX on power
13:31
LA_SpaceX: then you have to completely change the astroids trajectory, or would you find one going in
13:31
your direction and just hop along for the ride?
13:31
Robert Gitten: Doesn't it require concentrated heat to mine an asteroid?
Julio Mendoza: it seems clear to me that the engine in development will move near 10 ton of cargo at
13:31
10% light speed
13:31
tmusean: thanks starship
13:31
heath.rezabek: (DrMae - Did you mean 2025?)
13:31
Julio Mendoza: as much
StarshipEngineer: changing an asteroids trajectory in the solar system is peanuts compared to getting
it to 0.1C
13:32
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 3 of 10
Sagar: Yes, that's the hardest problem. There's no stationary asteroid... they're moving along quite fast;
so it would be extraordinarily difficult (and expensive) to get it to slow down and move in the direction
we might want.
13:32
Robert Gitten: What kind of propulsion systems can we build in 10 years? Obviously chemical is no go.
13:32 13:32
heath.rezabek: Sagar - Unless it already is...
13:32
DrMae: I meant 2025. Yes. (Don't want to make us do time travel as well)
13:32
13:32
heath.rezabek: Then we just give it a little boost.
Chris Radcliff: Heath: Exactly. Probably makes sense to leave some of the asteroids materials raw, for
13:32
development on the way.
13:32
StarshipEngineer: nuclear pulse is the only high energy option in 10 years.
Zantippy: I'm concerned about the fuding, even internationally, because NASA butalso others keep
13:32
having funding problems. It would be an international effort but the world is so unstable.
heath.rezabek: (DrMae - "The impossible can always be broken down into small possibilities." :) 13:32
Sagar: @Heath... good point. But we'd still have to break it out of the solar orbit, right? So it would
require immense propulsion.
13:32
heath.rezabek: Anyone here know how much?
13:33
StarshipEngineer: start mass producing the little nukes (hmm, I think there's a non-proliferation treaty
13:33
out there somewhere...)
13:33
Sagar: I agree with StarshipEngineer
LA_SpaceX: I was assuming funding would not be an option with this project. If you are going to build
13:33
a 100YSS you shouldn't skimp on the building of it
Robert Gitten: An asteroid still contains scrag that is useless. We should refine what we need first and
13:33
only take the pure metals with us.
Captain.Webber: If there is no time limit on the ship then speed to destination is not a high prioirty
Sagar: Nuclear propulsion is the only thing that could give us enough bang for our buck within a 13:33
decade.
13:33
Zantippy: so let's say, launching in 2025 ... I'm just thinking how it could be safegarded from political
13:33
messes affecting it.
J.R.: The size and weight of a spaceship to accomodate 1500 people may be around 50,000 tons. Very
13:33
difficult to accomplish by 2020.
Chris Radcliff: Robert: A society needs more than metals, though. Never know when that scrag will
13:33
come in handy.
heath.rezabek: 2020 is still right around the corner. I move we step back to considering here-and-now
13:34
possibilities.
Julio Mendoza: that another 10% of the speed of light will come from an moving asteroid and
nanotubes
13:34
13:34
heath.rezabek: Upcycling an asteroid seems like it's a bit ahead of us...
LA_SpaceX: What kind of reactor vessel would be used. You need water to cool it and then the
13:34
containment unit weights a ton lot as well
13:34
Julio Mendoza: fishing it in space
13:34
Robert Gitten: I think the propulsion system and the power system will be independent.
Chris Radcliff: I disagree that asteroid development is in the "miracle" category. There are many
13:35
people working out the dirty details right now.
13:35
DrMae: Let's do "Reality Check". Asteroid in the consideration or no asteroid?
Julio Mendoza: the rest of an laser sail to get 30% light speed
13:35
Mark K: no asteroid
13:35
13:35
Robert Gitten: But requires a laser pumping out 10 TW of energy.
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 4 of 10
Sagar: I think asteroid could be in consideration, but not necessarily as a hollowed out spaceship itself.
It would be much more feasible to tether one along for resources...
13:35
13:35
Chris Radcliff: I say yes to the asteroid.
13:35
LA_SpaceX: what the feasibility with actually wrangling an astroids and colonizing it?
13:35
Phil_S: no asteroid - what are odds we can hitch a ride where we want to go?
13:35
StarshipEngineer: no asteriod
Zantippy: Chris what are the details being worked out about the asteroid.
13:36
heath.rezabek: Phil - There's a lot of stuff in motion... but then again getting people to it is tricky.
13:36 13:36
LA_SpaceX: I assumed this was a StarShip
13:36
J.R.: No asteroid. It seems to be outside the timeframe for development.
Robert Gitten: I agree with Starship Engineer. There are basically 2 kinds of asteroids, metal rich ones
13:36
and volatile rich ones. You would need to have both for a starship.
heath.rezabek: I don't know if questions of here-and-now mindshare are on the table, but there's
certainly enough awareness and activity around asteroids that using them in at least some way could
13:36
give the project a boost.
LA_SpaceX: I would say no asteroid for now
13:37
Sagar: @LA_SpaceX: yes, building a ship would be fine, but Heath is right as well. It's right around the
13:37
corner. What could we build of enough size in the next few years?
13:37
DrMae: So. add to baseline. No asteroids.
Julio Mendoza: asteroid yes, have to throw a long nanotube line and have a huge town at 70.000m/s
StarshipEngineer: NERVA to get out of LEO, nuclear pulse to get it going while we develop laser 13:37
sail technology to help along the way. but still have to slow down at the other end without real laser
13:37
help...
13:37
Chris Radcliff bows to consensus
heath.rezabek: We could split the difference and mine 3d foam from the moon, launch from there...
13:37
Robert Gitten: The thing needs to be built on Earth where the industrial base already exists.
13:37
Captain.Webber: Given current lift capacity and increasing it for 7 years with a 5 year lift plan
(2020 - 2025) how much can we actually lift into orbit? And would that meet the needs of the Star Ship?
LA_SpaceX: I would say take nothing off the table, but concentrate on more feasible goals for the 13:37
13:38
time being.
13:38
tmusean: agreed
StarshipEngineer: the energy cost of getting stuff off the earth is nothing compared to the cost to get
13:38
to 0.1C
Datoraki: at 0.1c, wouldn't the smallest impact blast the ship to pieces? We couldn't detect the huge
13:38
meteor that hit Russia the other day. Will we have the technology to avoid such impacts?
heath.rezabek: Robert - But what about projects to 3d print on the moon, using matter there? The
extra advantage would be synergy with renewed lunar efforts and a staging ground.
13:38
DrMae: Next let's table form of mission. Is it multiple ships launched simultaneously, spread out? Or
13:38
one single big ship? I promise we'll get to propulsion. Just stay with me.
Robert Gitten: Even Planetary Resources only wants to mine platinum in space. The actual conversion
13:38
of that platinum into products will stil be done on earth.
LA_SpaceX: What about building on earth, using raw materials from earth, but assembling on the
13:38
moon to have a base of operations?
13:39
tmusean: space x i like!
heath.rezabek: I feel strongly about multiple ships. Not just personally, but from the need for hybrid
vigor and multiple approaches, multiple chances.
13:39
Robert Gitten: Why not Earth Orbit Spacex?
13:39
13:39
Sagar: @DrMae: I think that one big ship is a huge risk.
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 5 of 10
Robert Gitten: NASA has always gone for tripple redundancy, so why not three ships?
13:39
13:39
tmusean: but then again we would still need to lift off moon?
13:39
Captain.Webber: Multiple ships but joined in some fashion
drctaylor: I think multiple ships is the way to go. Redundancy, multiple capabilities, and different
13:39
cultures
Sagar: Multiple smaller ones better - greater autonomy, great ability to divert in case of issues, extra
redundancy, etc.
13:39
13:39
tmusean: ok dr maes question ships
13:39
Mark K: I agree, if 1500 are going, more than one ship is best
13:39
drctaylor: They should work in synergy though
heath.rezabek: Sunshine, a terrible movie in the end, had some brilliance in the middle, and one of the
13:39
most fascinating parts was the way the first ship could be used by the second mission.
13:39
Zantippy: yeah, multiple ships, redundant ones :)
mpatton: multiple ships would help with the lifeboat situation. There would be someone there to help
13:40
another crew
Sagar: Not to mention that it's easier to build that way, rather than one huge Battlestar Galactica-esque
ship.
13:40
Chris Radcliff: Redundancy seems to be the best bet, if it doesn't mean three incapable ships traded
13:40
for one capable one.
StarshipEngineer: 3 ships, one destination, or 3 ships, 3 destinations? The target may be the biggest
13:40
risk!
13:40
J.R.: Yeah, more than one ship. Just like Columbus. :)
13:40
drctaylor: Each ship would have to be able to carry all the ship's crew member though
13:40
Zantippy: And with multiples, they can do so much more exploration if they all survive.
Robert Gitten: Why don't we divide our 1500 between 3 ships? A distributed starship perhaps? If they
flew in formation, the crew could maybe EVA between the ships.
13:40
LA_SpaceX: I would say three different destinations
13:40
drctaylor: if you have 3 ships, and 2 are disabled then one ship would have to carry the entire
13:40
population
Sagar: 3 ships, one destination. You have to be unified, or they may as well just be totally separate
13:40
ships.
heath.rezabek: It allows you to right-size each one for nimbleness, as well as leave a viable blueprint
13:40
behind. Said blueprint should be openly licensed, imo.
13:41
drctaylor: I agree 3 ships, 1 destination
13:41
Sagar: totally separate missions*
Captain.Webber: One destiantion
13:41
Kathleen: 3 ships, one destination
13:41
Robert Gitten: It also solves the whole lifeboat problem because your lifeboats are the other two
13:41
starships.
13:41
LA_SpaceX: It would be the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria of our times =P
13:41
Otter: 3 ships, one destination
Chris Radcliff: Three ships, one destination makes some sense. I wouldn't count on them being able to
13:41
reach each other, though.
heath.rezabek: drc - Or, if you have 3 ships and 2 are disabled, then the 3rd ship IS carrying the
13:41
entire (remaining) population.
13:41
mpatton: one destination means more people for the colony
13:41
13:41
LA_SpaceX: you wouldnt carry the remaining popultions
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 6 of 10
Sagar: Yeah. And you crew them at, say, 66% capacity, so that if one is disabled, that disabled ship can
split its population across the other two
13:42
heath.rezabek: But, as they said in Sunshine, "Two last chances are better than one."
13:42
13:42
Julio Mendoza: Multiple ships is better, have smaller engine to develop, have redundancy safe
13:42
mpatton: the 3rd ship could drag a damaged one, while it repaired itself?
13:42
Robert Gitten: As a lifeboat you could, if only for a short time.
drctaylor: @Heath - true, but I was thinking that they're acting as a lifeboat as well to "save" the
13:42
disabled ships
Mark K: and if it were 3 ships, 1500 total, 500 per ship, I'd go for it if I had the option to join that
13:42
mission and I think you'd find support of such a mission to be more palletable to the masses
13:42
drctaylor: you'd have to plan for that capacity
rickj: The concept of modular parts being spread to outpost along a particular route in space to
13:42
upgrade principal ship and construct additional ships.
13:42
Kathleen: can't account for all possibilities...but three ships give more chances of sucess
13:42
drctaylor: @Rickj, I like that idea
Chris Radcliff: 3 ships with the same destination would probably be able to communicate in real-time.
13:42
Zantippy: and multiples would probably mean that the crews may have different mass-thinking,
13:42
which would help to solve problems and challenges that affect all the ships.
DrMae: Have to jump in the Sunshine wisdom. It was their deviation from course that almost scuttled
13:43
the whole thing.
LA_SpaceX: These ships are going to be built to specifically handle their Crew. They should not be
designed to take on other crews. Yeah in sunshine with 15 people it was feasible...With 150-1500 people
13:43
its not
heath.rezabek: LA - I'd challenge your 3 destinations and argue that whoever builds next based on the
lightweight design will pick a different destinations. 3 ships to one destination allows us to benefit from
both diversity and unitry.
13:43
Robert Gitten: If each ship were modular, we could salvage the parts of the disabled ship to increase
13:43
the carrying capacity of the other two.
13:43
drctaylor: good point Robert
13:43
Julio Mendoza: 12 ships for 12 crew each but only 6 aboard for rescue the others
Kathleen: each ship has to carry everything it would need for exploration/colonization; can't split it
13:43
among ships in case one or more is disabled or worse
tmusean: three ships, conjoined for long distance travel, detachable and self sustaining for exploration
drctaylor: Perhaps, the living and supply quarters could be modular so they're easily transfered if 13:43
13:43
something happens
heath.rezabek: DrMae - Fair point!
13:43
LA_SpaceX: I like tmusean
13:44
13:44
Kathleen: definitely like the modular part
tmusean: maybe each ship carries an engine component allows for a greater mass not all at once 13:44
13:44
Zantippy: oh drctaylor,yeah! they all can be designed to be interchangable.
13:44
Chris Radcliff: Joining the ships loses some of the redundancy.
tmusean: they can breakaway for shorter travel and colonization then return, join and turn engines for
13:45
long distance travel
Robert Gitten: I love the idea of formation flying better. Only because it makes each ship a bit more
13:45
independent in case something goes wrong. Also it would look really cool. :)
LA_SpaceX: I agree Chris
13:45
Zantippy: yeah they need to be fully functional separately
13:45
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 7 of 10
heath.rezabek: 3 ships with built in space is intriguing. As time passed, each might fill its available
space... But early on, perhaps when the stakes are highest, the highest chance for lifeboating exists.
Zantippy: :D
13:45 13:45
13:45
Kathleen: maybe ships can be joined, but don't have to be
13:45
Sagar: +1 to Robert
Chris Radcliff: Robert: As long as you're OK with the "formation" spanning a few AU. Orbital
mechanics are hard.
13:45
13:45
Mark K: interchangable parts certainly increases potential for success
drctaylor: I think of it like Voltron. Each part operates on its own, but has greater ability together 13:45
13:45
StarshipEngineer: who gets to claim the last open room?
13:45
Julio Mendoza: Yes to the reunion point for the ships and to travel together from there
Robert Gitten: There have been plans for satellites that orbit a few hundred meters from each other.
13:46 13:46
StarshipEngineer: I suspect at 0.1 C it will be more than a few AU
DrMae: Break scheduled now, but since things moving along I will postpone until 19:55, then for 5
13:46
mins.
LA_SpaceX: ok
13:46
heath.rezabek: drc - Modular parts that could be salvaged makes good sense. And we remember the
13:46
importance of flexible modules for unforseen purposes by remembering Apollo 13...
13:46
LA_SpaceX: this convo is extremely interesting. wish we had more than 4 hours lol
rickj: Redundancy isn't a bad thing, if within the elemental confines of the mission, with variability in
13:47
design and function. A slight difference in what outpost they would be located.
Kathleen: Voltron? Is that like Power Ranger zords or Transformers that connect to make a greater
13:47
vehicle?
13:47
StarshipEngineer: how many meetings planned btw?
13:47
Julio Mendoza: swarm of probes to search the destination target
Zantippy: Something soeone mentioned, about the ships communicating in real time - that would be
essential, wouldn't it? But at the same time, it would put all the ships in the same neighborhood if there
13:47
was a physical danger.
drctaylor: Voltron - the 5 different lions that connected together to make the big robot to combat evil
13:47
heath.rezabek: All of this points to 'spindly' overall shapes that can be printed, redirected,
13:47
recycled, moved around...
13:47
tmusean: yeah pretty much kathleen
LA_SpaceX: like drones controlled from the ships to go out and explore seperate from the ship. Almost
13:47
like space ROVS
Chris Radcliff: Zantippy: real-time communication (say, a few light-seconds apart) still allows a huge
separation.
13:48
Mark K: probes make sense
13:48
13:48
Chris Radcliff: Oh, definitely. This is a ship that'll have lots of robot pets.
rickj: The key to multiple efforts by different ships or outposts would be determined by time-frames of
13:48
construction and functional operation for mission support.
heath.rezabek: And interestingly enough, the cry for multiple smaller ships sure seems to be
13:48
widespread here.
13:48
LA_SpaceX: =)
13:48
mpatton: could probes/drones be used as a way to send items between ships?
Zantippy: that's true - do we know what is between us and Alpha Centauri that could mess things up.
mpatton: if unattached
13:49 13:48
Zantippy: yay robot pets!
13:49
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 8 of 10
heath.rezabek: (In one formation, headed towards the same goal.)
13:49
Chris Radcliff: Imagine arriving in the Solar System, orbiting Jupiter, then wanting to know what this
blue planet is about. Send a probe!
13:49
jbatt: swarms of probes as an advance would provide a great exploration tool and help in the overall
sustainability. This is a ship going into the "unknown." Reducing risk with micro-exploration vehicles is a
great strategy.
13:49
LA_SpaceX: If DARPA is involved you know there will be robots. lol
13:50
heath.rezabek: By the way, when reading the theme of this forum, it also occurred to me that it'd be
nice and useful to build some 3d sims of whatever ideas come out of this. Rapid prototyping is a good
thing...
13:50
Zantippy: yay! gosh,
13:50
rickj: The goal of a mission determines the behavior of the crew. Independent thinking only exists
within the function of the task.
13:50
DrMae: Baseline: multiple ships, starting journey close together headed in same direction, able to
communicate with each other and perform some type of limited lifeboat capacity for each other. Yea or
Nay?
13:50
Zantippy: yay @ the probes lol
13:50
13:50
drctaylor: yay
Robert Gitten: I think it would be like project Apollo where NASA also funded the Surveyor missions
13:50
first to learn more about the moon.
13:50
Kathleen: yea
13:50
mpatton: yay
13:50
Captain.Webber: Yea!
13:50
LA_SpaceX: im not sold on the life boating yet
13:50
Chris Radcliff: Yea.
Zantippy: yea
13:50
Mark K: yea
13:50
Sagar: Imagine if we could build out von Neumann devices to be sent out ahead of time to selfreplicate and fill the space between Earth and our destination... probably wishful thinking for the near
13:50
future, though.
13:50
J.R.: Yea
13:51
heath.rezabek: Yea
13:51
StarshipEngineer: yea, but I don't think the energy budget for 2020 will support it...
Chris Radcliff: (The lifeboats will probably be the first thing to go in design revisions, but why not start
13:51
with them?)
LA_SpaceX: but if everyone else is...i guess I will have to go along lol
13:51
Sagar: Yea
13:51
heath.rezabek: LA - But, it seems that's potentially just a question of final scaling... how much spare
13:51
room to leave.
13:51
rickj: yea
13:51
Robert Gitten: But the other two spacecraft are your lifeboats.
13:51
tmusean: why 3?
13:51
tmusean: not 5?
13:52
tmusean: or any other number for that matter?
13:52
StarshipEngineer: Apollo only had 1 ship at a time...
Robert Gitten: Even if your abort mode is to push on to your destination.
13:52
Zantippy: tradition?
13:52
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 9 of 10
heath.rezabek: 1500 is easily divisible by 3. :)
13:52
Chris Radcliff: Robert: I assume "lifeboat" means getting to the other craft somehow. That's a
capability with a cost.
13:52
13:52
Kathleen: could be any number, but what is feasible to fund and build in our time frame?
13:52
DrMae: So lets decide on number of ships with people before break. 3 or 4 or 5 or 10?
13:52
tmusean: gotcha!
Julio Mendoza: There is the "quantum entanglement , in YouTube
13:52
13:52
Chris Radcliff: 3
13:52
Mark K: 3
13:52
Robert Gitten: NASA has always built tripple redundancy into their systems.
13:52
tmusean: i guess 3 is extremely solid
Sagar: Whatever is the best balance between feasibility from a financial standpoint and greatest help.
13:52 13:52
J.R.: 3
13:52
Sagar: Three creates a good balance.
13:52
drctaylor: 3
StarshipEngineer: 3 but I think it's moot for 2020
13:52
heath.rezabek: My heart says 3 but my head says 4.
13:52
LA_SpaceX: I feel the life boating should only be used for equipment. Other wise you compromise the
13:52
other ships if things start turing into a human rescue mission
13:53
Zantippy: i guess 3 would be best, in terms of cost.
Robert Gitten: How close together should they fly. I think with enough guidance systems, they can be
13:53
way more than 1 AU.
13:53
Julio Mendoza: Allows 0 wait time in communications in development
13:53
Zantippy: lol @ hesth. yeah I WANT 10.
13:53
heath.rezabek: 3 does allow for tiebreakers. :)
Kathleen: i think 3 is easier to wrap our minds around...and sell to the general public...Columbus tie in
should help (at least for US)
13:53
13:53
tmusean: hahah
Sagar: @Julio... entanglement would be incredible, but I think that harnessing that is far out in the
13:53
future
13:53
StarshipEngineer: don't get caught in your neighbors h-bomb stream!
rickj: Yea, lifeboats or outposts could be the difference between success or failure. They could be
13:53
looked at as heralds or point-people setting up a trail.
13:53
heath.rezabek: 3 is a dynamic number; 4, a stable number.
13:53
DrMae: So 3 ships flying in some yet to be determined "close" proximity.
Captain.Webber: 3
13:53
Robert Gitten: Remember in interstellar space the ships don't exactly orbit anything as much as they
13:53
follow a straight 3d vector towards their destination.
13:53
Chris Radcliff: StarshipEngineer: True that. Or their cloud when everything goes up boom.
13:54
Captain.Webber: yes, close together
13:54
tmusean: yes
13:54
tmusean: with the ability to break away
heath.rezabek: This is just a premise, so there's no harm in going with the premise to see where it
13:54
takes us.
13:54
Mark K: close enough for constant communication
Robert Gitten: Doesn't the Dragon just float next to the ISS for a few hours while ti waits to be
grabbed by the robot arm?
13:54
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 10 of 10
DrMae: Forum Control says 5 min break now. When return let's deal with propulsion!
Zantippy: k! :)
Forum Control: will return in 5 min!
13:54
14:02
13:55
13:55
13:55
Robert Gitten your starship link did not work for me ..feel free to e-mail the pdf file to me. I would
like to hear more fo what you have to say after this forum..
The math and physics of atomic rockets traveling at a constant one g for inside this solar system
travel looks good even when scaled up to the size of the earth's largest water ship formally known as
the Happy Giant.... launched to deep space at just above 1 gravity constant acceleration
Round trip to Mars is 5.3 days plus 1 day or minus 3 days depending when we launch where Mars
relative to earth using line of sight navigation..
Round trip to Alpa Centoria is 7 years ship time with same size ship.
14:03
Forum Control: ....and we'e back
DrMae: Baseline: One-way exploratory mission with 1500 people, that is composed of three main
passenger vehicles, that each may have capability for limited lifeboat support for the others. Vehicles are
launched nearly at same time in same direction or destination.
14:03
14:03
14:03
Robert Gitten: Time to log onto project RHO.
rickj: Three ships, similar construction, leaving at close time-frames with possibly the same problems in
14:03
the propulsion system end of missions. Outposts could become critical.
DrMae: Propulsion. First need some definitions for non-propulsion folks. Let’s tackle in order. What is
NERVA? Describe what solar sails are. Describe the benefits and hazards of nuclear powered engines.
How much fissionable material will be needed. This will last for f 5 minutes on each topic. Then we will
14:03
discuss how to use.
DrMae: What is NERVA?
14:04
Robert Gitten: NERVA is only slightly better than chemical rockets. It essentially uses a nuclear pile to
14:04
heat reaction mass.
14:04
DrMae: Discussion on benefits of NERVA open for 4 more minutes
14:04
Captain.Webber: Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application
14:04
Robert Gitten: There are 3 basic types, solid core, liquid core, and gas core. We've only built the solid
14:04
core type.
14:05
StarshipEngineer: developed up until the nuclear test ban treaty was signed
14:05
Chris Radcliff: So a NERVA has been built?
Robert Gitten: In the 1960s yes.
14:05
StarshipEngineer: it has some history which makes it attractive for a 2020 launch date
14:05
14:05
Robert Gitten: Why not Orion?
14:06
Chris Radcliff: Can anyone compare NERVA and Orion? I know more about the latter.
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 1 of 10
Zantippy: how is NERVA different from other nuclear powered crafts?
14:06
14:06
Zantippy: or is it the same?
14:06
14:06
Robert Gitten: Orion uses a massive shock absorber to ride the blast wave a nuclear bomb.
StarshipEngineer: Orion is a concept that ejects small nukes out the back and absorbs the shock on a
14:06
pusher plate for thrust
14:06
StarshipEngineer: too dirty IMO to use close to earth
14:07
DrMae: StarshipEngineer. What makes NERVA attractive for this ?
14:07
Robert Gitten: A test version was built using hand grenades in the 1960s.
StarshipEngineer: Some engineering has been done, the reactor can serve as onboard power source
14:07
as well
14:07
Nerva was a failed atomic rocket from 1962 blown up on the launch pad. As it used a atomic thermal
reactor its engine was limited to the melting point of the metals used. therfore very inefficient way to
convert mass to energy giving efficincy rating of below 0.00001 percent limiting its power to only
twice that of chemical rockets of the same size. My invention solved that problem in 1988.
jbatt: From a non-engineer perspective, are there comparative maximum speeds for NERVA and Orion?
Julio Mendoza: I mixed laser sail and nuclear propulsion and ropes made of nanotubes
14:07 14:07
14:08
LA_SpaceX: Nuclear is very dirty
14:08
StarshipEngineer: nuclear thermo electric is another possibility but thrust is low
DrMae: Describe what solar sails are and how they are used?
14:08
LA_SpaceX: any use of nuclear could result in contamination of crew,food, and water so it would have
14:08
to be a highly contained unit
14:09
Chris Radcliff: (I'd include a class of solar sails that use beamed power.)
14:09
Zantippy: what is beamed power?
StarshipEngineer: solar sails are my preferred approach (beamed laser) but I question if the tech
14:09
could be ready in time.
Chris Radcliff: In general, solar sails use light pressure against a large, thin film to propel the craft.
14:09
14:09
NERVA was a failed atomic rocket from 1962 blown up on the launch pad. As it used a atomic
thermal reactor its engine was limited to the melting point of the metals used. therfore very
inefficient way to convert mass to energy giving efficeincy rating of below 0.00001 percent limiting
its power to only twice the velocity that of chemical rockets of the same size. My invention solved
that problem in 1988.
14:10
StarshipEngineer: beamed power - usually laser
14:10
StarshipEngineer: thjackson - what is your invention?
14:10
DrMae: I don't recall who was the solar sail advocate. Need you to speak up for your tech.
14:10
tmusean: thjackson what was your invention?
14:10
Julio Mendoza: A laser beam is used to push a sail from an asteroid
rickj: The key to any propulsion system considered should be based on ultimate accessible power and
the longevity of the energy source.
14:10
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 2 of 10
Robert Gitten: There has recently been a plan to build an orion cannon. You dig a shaft, put a 10
megaton bomb at the bottom and put your spaceship on top. The blast can launch something like
200,000 tons. Since the explosion occurs underground, there is no fallout or EMP. Humans cannot
survive such acceleration, but electronics and structural parts can.
14:10
Chris Radcliff: The light can be from the Sun, or it can be beamed by concentrating sunlight or
powering a laser. (I'm not the solar sail guy, but I have a book here.)
14:10
StarshipEngineer: solar sails don't need to carry reaction mass, so that's a big plus.
14:11
DrMae: Describe the size of solar sails and how close we are to having the materials and mechanisms
to make really big sails feasible. What are the benefits?
14:11
Zantippy: what kind of power does it take to use the laser beam, the way it would need to be used in
interstellar space?
14:11
Robert Gitten: Anyone ever heard of Photonic Laser Propulsion? It's like a laser sail, but way more
efficient.
14:11
LA_SpaceX: Which would be more a more realistic power supply
14:11
StarshipEngineer: challenge is keeping a useful level of power over interstellar distances and stopping
at the destination.
14:11
Chris Radcliff: A benefit to beamed solar is that the folks back home can get better at beaming it. A
drawback is that you're relying on them to keep beaming.
14:11
14:12
Zantippy: lol that orion sounds like From the Earth to the Moon cannon
Chris Radcliff: No idea what the tech readiness level is for solar sails. I don't know of any successful
14:12
trials.
14:12
tmusean: cannon....one way...no direction control..meh
Kathleen: Chris Radcliff: how far will beams from Earth reach? Can it get ship to another star system?
14:13 14:12
DrMae: Let's stay on solar sails.
StarshipEngineer: I understand there will be one tested this year, way too small for interstellar
applications
14:13
Robert Gitten: The laser needs to pour out terrawatts of energy. However, since the laser stays with
the Earth, it can be upgraded as technology advances. However, beaming power to 3 ships may be
14:13
difficult.
LA_SpaceX: Nuclear or Beam...I still see nuclear as the more viable source, more self sustaining, less
14:13
reliant on earth, and also an existing technology
14:13
Zantippy: oh wait - so the beam originates from Earth?
14:13
Robert Gitten: Solar sails make way to little thrust to use on their own.
mpatton: can ships work together, to provide each other some propulsion (solar sails or other method)
14:13
Julio Mendoza: a solar sail receives push from our sun an is stoped from the light of the
destination star
14:13
Robert Gitten: Or a satellite orbiting the sun.
14:13
14:13
StarshipEngineer: agree, nuclear is closer to ready
14:13
Chris Radcliff: Kathleen: The beams have to be aimed; not sure how good we are at that yet.
wamchicago left this message:
14:14
are magsails (e.g. m2p2) in cluded in this conversation?
Kathleen: what if some disaster befalls Earth: natural or manmade? Would ships be stranded?
LA_SpaceX: yes
DrMae: Describe m2p2
StarshipEngineer: we can currently deliver a small # of photons to the moon
StarshipEngineer: Only the dead live without risk...
14:14
14:14
14:14
14:14
14:14
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 3 of 10
Chris Radcliff: This book has something called a "powered perihelion maneuver" that uses solar sails to
help a traditional drive. There's more math than I can reasonably type here, though.
14:14
14:14
J.R.: Solar sails with sundiver type mission could accelerate to a decent starting speed.
heath.rezabek: wrt solar sails and beaming - Could a series of buoys dropped at regular intervals help
with amplifying the beam and, perhaps, with mitigating the risk of the originating beam ceasing?
14:15
jbatt: Kathleen: great question! Is there a possibility to have two systems? Solar at launch and
NERVA/Orion for backup or when out of range?
14:15
Robert Gitten: Hey guys, what about using multiple propulsion systems? You use the system that
works best for a given part of the mission.
14:15
Chris Radcliff: In short: dive toward the sun, sail to gain speed, use your drive at the same time. 14:15
LA_SpaceX: I would like to see a solar sail tested sucessfully before relying on it as a drive. Has this
been done?
14:15
14:15
Robert Gitten: Radcliff, a sundiver gets you to like 0.02c.
14:15
Julio Mendoza: Better have redundant systems nuclear and sails mixed
14:15
StarshipEngineer: you need to use every trick in the book, sundiving, gravity assist...
wamchicago left this message:
14:16
m2p2 was developed by Dr. Robert Winglee at U of Washington back around 2000. NASA worked
with it awhile, but I don't know whatever became of it.
14:16
Kathleen: makes sense to have multiple redundancy in propulsion
rickj: What difference would it make, if the ship was stranded with no earth. The need for outposts for
14:16
supplies and experimental construction of useful parts or replacements of systems is crucial.
Robert Gitten: I like plasma sails better than solar sails, they take up less space and work out to Pluto.
14:16
Plasm sails are pushed by the solar wind.
14:16
Zantippy: what are solar sails made of?
14:16
DrMae: Let
Robert Gitten: All you need for a plasma sail is a solenoid, a solar sail needs kilometers of perfectly
stretched foil. Also, I heard that an interstellar solar sail would need to be 10 times lighter than any solar
14:17
sail yet flown.
StarshipEngineer: latest thinking on solar sails is, I think, a carbon nanotube mesh. don't think it's
14:17
been implemented yet
LA_SpaceX: You answered your question...the ship would be stranded with no earth. mission failed
DrMae: Oops. Let's discuss gravity assists that were implied in dive to sun. Should they be apart 14:17
14:17
of the plan. Does anyone want to describe gravity assist?
14:17
LA_SpaceX: no colonization...no chance of colonization
14:18
Robert Gitten: You dive towards the sun an deploy your sails at closest approach.
J.R.: @StarshipEngineer. I agree every trick to get started is needed. Will substantially reduce onboard
fuel.
14:18
Kathleen: yes, need to make sure replacement of crew is also available. Think of what one flu epidemic
14:18
could do to a ship's crew.
14:18
Captain.Webber: Thermal considerations on the ship?
Robert Gitten: The ship would experience 14.6 g acceleration as it swung by the sun and have a final
14:19
velocity of 0.01c.
14:19
StarshipEngineer: gravity assist is like planetary billiards in a sense.
jbatt: "Redundancy" seems to be the keyword for every aspect of the ship from propulsion to crew, etc.
Chris Radcliff: From what I understand, a gravity assist: Diving near some mass, boosting at the 14:19
"bottom", and using the fact that you're lighter on your way out to make the energy balance out in your
favor.
14:19
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 4 of 10
Captain.Webber: 14g?
14:19
14:19
StarshipEngineer: Chris, yes
heath.rezabek: Kathleen - We've got our other 2 vessels for backup. They all have to pull off all the
14:19
propulsion as well though...
Robert Gitten: That number comes from "The Starflight Handbook" which has a whole chapter on the
sundiver manuver.
14:19
Chris Radcliff: Robert: That's the book I have here. Now we're both experts! :)
14:20
heath.rezabek: Which raises the question; We want many possible techniques, but given 3 ships in the
premise, do we also want simplicity for risk reduction? Fewer potential failure points?
14:20
14:20
StarshipEngineer: that makes 3 of us!
14:20
Chris Radcliff: << Is not an expert, in case that was unclear.
14:20
LA_SpaceX: Dont humans black out at 10 g?
14:20
Robert Gitten: Too bad it's 30 years out of date :)
14:21
J.R.: 14g? Wow! Would an approach a little further out still work but lower g?
Robert Gitten: A lower acceleration would mean a lower final velocity. At that point, the solar sail
might just not be worth it.
14:21
heath.rezabek: (Is ion propulsion on deck?)
14:21
DrMae: Humans black out way before 10 G and the longer you hold the G the more likely you are to kill
14:21
them.
14:21
Chris Radcliff: 14g is a bit much for people, yes. 9g for short times, more like 3g sustained.
StarshipEngineer: DrMae - is there anyway to assist with getting journal articles that are behind
14:21
paywalls? Not everything is open on the net...
14:22
Robert Gitten: http://eetimes.com/electronics-news/4074...
14:22
Mark K: so even if we had a warp drive the acceleration would kill us?
DrMae: Not sure of "behind prying walls", but what I think we will take away for continued thoughts
about this is to find specific info on topics.
14:23
Robert Gitten: What about a non-orion form of fusion?
14:23
14:23
tmusean joined the chat
Zantippy: But I thought the plan was to accelerate more slowly, or - we culd use the idea of creating
acceleration ramps around the ship, and the ship could "step" onto the next level up, the humans could
14:23
be safe.
14:23
StarshipEngineer: tech isn't there yet
14:23
Chris Radcliff: As much as I hate to say it, fusion is in the "miracle" category for the next 7 years.
14:23
Robert Gitten: Robert Bussard in addition to working out the interstellar ramjet, designed a
series of lightweight fusion reactors for use in rockets.
14:23
StarshipEngineer: look at ITER or the national ignition facility
14:23
14:23
Julio Mendoza: plasma engines don't accelerate mouch and stays on long time
14:24
Zantippy: oh right, this is for 2020 - sorry
14:24
rickj: if we could construct a space station in space why not aship?
Robert Gitten: Bussard's reactor design, the Pollywell, has made net power (It just blew out its coils in
14:24
the process)
14:24
Julio Mendoza: too big engine to develop on time
14:24
Chris Radcliff: Robert: Absolutely. I'm a big fan of the polywell. I just can't count on it. Yet.
14:24
Robert Gitten: A Pollywell is so simple, people build them in their garages.
StarshipEngineer: we would have to assemble in orbit for any conceivable scenario, I think..
14:25
DrMae: Describe Pollywell.
14:25
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 5 of 10
Kathleen: realistically, is there anything we have in the pipeline that could do the job in the next 7-10
years? Gives a concrete place to work from...
14:25
StarshipEngineer: any peer reviewed articles on Pollywell performance that would make it plausible
for a starship in 7 years?
14:25
Chris Radcliff: Polywell is an inertial-confinement fusion reactor design currently in development under
DOE and Navy grants.
14:25
Chris Radcliff: It has been shown to create power, and in theory could use a Boron (?) reaction that
doesn't produce as much radiation as we'd expect.
14:26
jbatt: Robert: Bussard's design has great potential for the actual 100yss. Wish it was further along for
this exercise!
14:26
Chris Radcliff: It's designed to be a replacement for the kind of reactors used on subs. Bussard wanted
them for spaceships.
14:26
14:26
LA_SpaceX: is it cold/ colder fusion or hot?
heath.rezabek: Going from the idea of increasing / rampinc accelleration, what about ranking these
14:26
methods not only in terms of their viability but of their max speeds?
Robert Gitten: A Polywell loks like a cage made out of silver doughnuts. These doughnut coils create a
huge negative potential at the reactor's center. Fuel is injected in the form of ions. These positively
charged ions accelerate in the potential and smash into each other. The collide with such energy that
they fuse.
14:26
Chris Radcliff: A full-size Bussard-style reactor has not been built yet as far as I know.
14:26
14:26
14:27
Chris Radcliff: Where "full size" = net power production.
Julio Mendoza: my approach is made of space containers with an engine each launched ahead to form
14:27
post
DrMae: From my perspective: we know types of chemical propulsion, could probably get some idea of
solar sail capability, ion propulsion engines that can be powered by various sources, nuclear fission
gravity assist.
14:27
14:27
Julio Mendoza: that move at the same speed of the ship
14:27
DrMae: Please comment on feasibility of theses
14:27
Zantippy: how big a chamber is used for this fusion?
jbatt: Here's the wiki link with the model for the Polywell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell There's
a great Google Talk where Bussard explained his research and approach in detail - it's a definite must14:27
watch.
Robert Gitten: Yeah, but with 10 years and a serious budget commitment, it could probably be pulled
14:27
off. From what I've read about the US Navy tests, it's a matter of scale.
LA_SpaceX: How big must the containment be for the chamber as well
14:27
Chris Radcliff: Have we talked about ion engines? What's the tech level for high-thrust ion engines
14:27
like... what was it called?
14:28
Robert Gitten: VASIMR
14:28
Chris Radcliff: Dr. Chang-Diaz has a group. Can't remember the name.
14:28
Zantippy: thanks for link! :)
14:28
Chris Radcliff: ^ Yes, that.
Julio Mendoza: You load them turn them on and have more speed, take the load use the fuel and
14:28
discard
LA_SpaceX: Could chemical be used to start travel, then revert to another source once at speed? 14:28
Chris Radcliff: I heard there was going to be a VASIMR test on the space station, but no idea if that's
"ready" enough for us.
14:28
14:28
DrMae: Chang Diaz company--Ad Astra Rocket Company
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 6 of 10
Robert Gitten: VASIMR is like fusion rocket lite
14:29
14:29
wamchicago joined the chat
heath.rezabek: Stages of propulsion does seem to make sense... and give us that diversity of
14:29
approach in a controlled manner.
StarshipEngineer: Net story though is to push 1500 people to ~0.1C you need about 100x the energy
production of the world...
14:29
Robert Gitten: Once again, I really like beamed energy because it makes the Earth responsible for
upgrades.
14:30
heath.rezabek: Plus any failures would contribute to science. ;)
14:30
DrMae: I ask someone to propose a propulsion profile, whether single tech or mix. We'll discuss for
next 5 mins.
14:30
14:30
heath.rezabek: Starship - we're premised on 3 vessels of 500 each though now, yes?
StarshipEngineer: beamed energy also helps with earth energy requirements. If we're beaming
terrawatts to a starship, we can spare a few for earth too...
14:30
Kathleen: but we're not pushing 1500 people; we're pushing 500X3, right?
14:30
LA_SpaceX: the only problem with beam is being totally reliant on earth.
14:31
Chris Radcliff: Multple kinds of propulsion would be ideal, with "not invented yet" propulsion upgrades
a possibility.
14:31
14:31
Julio Mendoza: ten ton space container self propelled, ahead: load, push and throw
14:31
StarshipEngineer: doesn't matter, total kinetic energy is the same
Robert Gitten: Why is that a problem? I don't expect civilization to collapse in 100 years? Also, if the
14:31
system got all of it's energy from the sun, it could be very self sufficient.
14:31
DrMae: I was asked to do "Reality check" on Pollywell. Yea can use it. Nope not ready.
heath.rezabek: LA - What of dropping relays, amplifiers? Could even give each some means of
14:32
gathering and generating power on its own...
heath.rezabek: LA - What of dropping relays, amplifiers? Could even give each some means of
gathering and generating power on its own...
14:32
14:32
LA_SpaceX: then you are at the whim of governments, weather,natural disaster, etc
14:32
heath.rezabek: (sorry for re.)
Kathleen: Not sure about having success of endeavor based on continual beaming from Earth...very
14:32
risky
14:32
J.R.: beamed propulsion could be an early part of staged propulsion
Chris Radcliff: Strawman: Some kind of nuclear rocket (best thrust we can get), plasma sails for
gravity assist and "please beam us energy", and a good shop on board for building better drives when
14:32
Earth sends us info.
StarshipEngineer: polywell - don't know, need to evaluate the literature
14:32
Chris Radcliff: Polywell: nope. For now.
14:32
14:32
Chris Radcliff: Stock parts for it just in case.
Kathleen: How long are we talking about needing the beaming from Earth? Months? Years? Decades?
14:33 14:33
Robert Gitten: With a serious program, I absolutely think it could be ready in 10 years.
14:33
Chris Radcliff: A big on-board fission reactor gives us whatever a Polywell might, IMO.
StarshipEngineer: profile - something to get out of earth orbit (nerva, chemical, ion)..start (stardive +
14:33
nuclear pulse), after departure develop sail and get them moving
Robert Gitten: It all depends on your acceleration. If you want to pull 2gs, a few months could get you
14:33
to 0.75c. If you're more modest it could take years.
LA_SpaceX: could be an early part, but I would like the ship to be more self sufficient. IMO
14:34
DrMae: Please vote on Pollywell. Then will get back to others. Right now I'm inclined to take Pollywell
14:34
off the possible list.
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 7 of 10
Zantippy: I don't know engineering, but I do know religious nuts all too well, and could see some group
taking an Earth-based beam hostage.
14:34
14:34
Chris Radcliff: Polywell: no.
14:34
Captain.Webber: NoGo on Pollywell
Robert Gitten: Here's an article on using photonic thrusters for starships
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/roadmap...
14:34
iainmacl: Polywell? not likely ...too much 'is just around the corner' for too long?
14:34
14:34
StarshipEngineer: fusion tech besides bombs too imature for consideration
14:34
Mark K: not an engineer so can't say
14:35
jbatt: Polywell: great potential, but a no for the purpose of this exercise.
14:35
Zantippy: not for 2020
LA_SpaceX: Lets be real. Corps hit tech and buy pattens. Things are kept from the publics eyes.
Without everything on the table its hard to know exactly what our capabilities really are at this point
14:35
Robert Gitten: Fission reactors need to refueled every few months or so. Do you want to carry
14:35
centuries worth of enriched uranium onboard?
LA_SpaceX: *hide
14:35
Chris Radcliff: Robert: Yes. I think carrying that much uranium is a solvable problem.
14:36
14:36
StarshipEngineer: working with radiation will be a fact of life aboard starships, IMO
DrMae: Strawman Update: Nuclear power for leaving earth orbit and baseline; use gravity assist as
possible to speed trajectory away from earth. Then solar sails to assist engines and beg earth for a
14:36
beam propulsion for as long as they will?
Robert Gitten: Fusion reactors require much less fuel mass than fission. A pollywell could make like
300 megawatts with about 29 kg of fuel a year. The actual electrical output would be like 190
14:36
megawatts.
rickj: Given the various propulsion systems mentioned with a ship capable of hold 750 people, which
propulsion system would take that ship farthest in the most risk-free fashion?
14:36
Zantippy: that's true - although with known technology, people tend to start developing new things in
the same ways, a lot of times. Look at the patent races. So probably ther isn't some hidden tech that is
14:36
way beyond eveyone else
14:37
LA_SpaceX: DrMae- like most of it except for the begging of earth lol
14:37
StarshipEngineer: except that you need petawatts...
heath.rezabek: The worst that can happen with the beam is that it ceases... Which also conveys
14:37
information, so at least there's that.
14:37
Captain.Webber: agreed DrMae
heath.rezabek: Therefore, if there's not much risk in including beamed energy, why not include as you
gain something from it?
14:37
Kathleen: is there a way to do it without the beaming from Earth?
14:37
14:37
Chris Radcliff: sounds good DrMay
14:38
StarshipEngineer: will almost certainly be beamed from space
14:38
Robert Gitten: You build the power generator in space.
Chris Radcliff: Kathleen: The sails can be used without beamed power as long as you're still in the
14:38
solar system.
14:38
J.R.: begging the earth keeps mass down, which can make other alternatives more viable
jbatt: Dr. Mae - Yes, with a backup option assuming the worst - Earth-based beam propulsion is too
14:38
risky to depend in the "middle-part" of the journey.
StarshipEngineer: you will need a VERY large optic to focus over interstellar distances
14:38
Chris Radcliff: (*Mae. I know how to spell, even if my fingers don't.)
14:38
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 8 of 10
Robert Gitten: Why not a swarm of thousands of solar power satellites soaking up terrawatts of power
and beaming it to a huge free electron laser?
14:38
DrMae: Baseline: One-way exploratory mission with 1500 people, that is composed of three main
passenger vehicles, that each may have capability for limited lifeboat support for the others. Vehicles are
launched nearly at same time in same direction or destination. Nuclear power for leaving earth orbit and
baseline energy source; use gravity assist as possible to speed trajectory away from earth. Then solar
sails to assist engines and beg earth for a beam propulsion for as long as they will.
14:39
StarshipEngineer: likely a solar power sat in close solar orbit...
14:39
14:39
Captain.Webber: not in 7 years :(
14:39
14:39
StarshipEngineer: would add in nuclear pulse for consideration
heath.rezabek: Can we focus in on that "beg earth" part? I'm seeing some interesting ideas popping
14:39
up (orbital generators) not dependent on earth...
14:40
Chris Radcliff: Look at us, narrowing things down!
14:40
LA_SpaceX: @DrMae-its a start =)
Zantippy: :)
14:40
iainmacl: don't think beaming capability possible in timeframe given requirements for energy, beam
14:40
control/optical etc.
rickj: What could be a reasonable backup for information sharing, without using beam technology? Why
14:40
not some signal space bouy technology to extend the range?
14:40
Kathleen: It's a start
14:40
StarshipEngineer: don't have to beam in 7 years, still helps if it starts at year 17
14:40
heath.rezabek: << nods at rickj
14:40
StarshipEngineer: the light will catch up!
14:41
Captain.Webber: Sounds good DrMae
LA_SpaceX: Maybe we could take some more time and research propulsion methods,and also approach
engineers in these fields to get a better idea of what might work well for this mission
14:41
Chris Radcliff: Right. The "home office" can send us anything that travels at light speed. Information
14:41
(probably) and energy (maybe).
14:42
heath.rezabek: Perhaps they can be combined, the communication providing some incentive...
14:42
heath.rezabek: Perhaps they can be combined, the communication providing some incentive...
StarshipEngineer: The responsibility to maintain the beam could have a stabilizing effect on the
14:42
society that stays home...
14:42
heath.rezabek: (Argh. re.)
DrMae: So we're go with above scenario. Will come back to more detail after we figure out size of ship
(s). Info-- Apartments in NYC are often smaller than 500 Sqft. in TX more than 1000 expected. We get
to choose.
14:42
rickj: Concept of life-boat technology of outpost is essential to add to success of mission even if the
14:42
principal starship has to leave those lifeboats or outposts as they past a certain point.
Kathleen: will also need to create multiple redundancies for Earth-based signals...as well as plenty of
14:42
security for them..would make attractive target
Julio Mendoza: the exploratory part is the beginning you need to know the destination point well if
14:42
there is something
Robert Gitten: The Japanese IKAROS probe had the solar panels weaved into the solar sail. I recently
read a JPL report about how we could build SSPS that could be rolled up in a similar way. You could fit
dozens of these things on a single rocket.
14:42
heath.rezabek: Actually, that brings up some fascinating cultural possibilities. Remember what it
14:42
looked like, after 9/11, during the time when those beams shot up into space?
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 9 of 10
Chris Radcliff: An X Prize for propulsion concepts could be built into the run-up to 2020, within the
broad outlines we already discussed
14:42
Zantippy: starshipengineer, do you mean sine we all would have a stake in it, it would make our
societies work things out better?
14:43
heath.rezabek: It was breathtaking. A monument. What if the transmitter were treated in such a way?
14:43
LA_SpaceX: living in such confined spaces for decades would be miserable and i believe
detrimential to the crews mental and physical health.
14:43
14:43
Zantippy: that's true, kathleen
14:43
LA_SpaceX: I like that idea chris. An X prize for propulsion systems
14:43
StarshipEngineer: space (volume) isn't a limit, it's only the mass that matters...
Kathleen: Zantippy: we all have a stake in world peace, but that hasn't always forced people to work
14:44
together
mpatton: find ways to make the internal space reconfigurable to lessen the crew's sense of
14:44
confinement
14:44
Captain.Webber: Agreed StarshipEngineer!
Robert Gitten: http://space.alglobus.net/papers/Towards...
14:44
J.R.: someone previously mentioned an overall square footage of 350 sq ft / person
14:44
14:44
Robert Gitten: Why couldn't we build these like Model Ts?
Chris Radcliff: This ship should definitely be a fixer-upper at launch. More for the crew to do, and
14:44
more autonomy for them.
Kathleen: Know this is facetious, but too bad we can't have it like the Tardis - bigger on the inside than
14:45
it is on the outside
iainmacl: indeed...apartment in NYC might be small, but spending your entire life in it? with a couple of
14:45
generations added on? hmm...
14:45
Datoraki joined the chat
StarshipEngineer: cheap enough so the factory workers can afford to buy one?
14:45
Zantippy: yeah kathleen:(
14:45
jbatt: Chris: Fantastic idea! That's actually a great potential initial step for this entire endeavour! If a
major leap could be made in propulsion by 2020, just the opportunity to use it would drive interest in
14:45
the mission.
14:45
Captain.Webber: Is that 350 sq ft in a 1 g env or can we use all 6 walls?
14:45
Zantippy: lol kathleen
14:45
Mark K: sense of confinement could be eased a bit by virtual technology?
14:45
Robert Gitten: If a factory worker wants to buy a power plant, sure.
mpatton: if it was possible to move people between ships every so often, that could also cut down on
the sense of confinement
14:45
Zantippy: oh cool, Chris!!! great idea!
14:46
14:46
Datoraki: volume is a limit. Larger volume means largest risk of impact with space dust
Kathleen: still physically confining...very stressful...if raising children, does stifling physical space have
14:46
longterm emotional impact? could affect stability of crew
heath.rezabek: Larger spaces for common recreation would help in several ways (social cohesion as
14:46
well).
Robert Gitten: It could be an international energy project with a starship launch as a final show off of
14:46
what the technology could do.
Captain.Webber: I think living space should be different than what we are used to on earth. It could
mean vast amounts of open zero G space and a small half G eating and sleeping space
14:46
J.R.: cubic feet would be more realistic, but spacial living surface area is figure in sq ft
14:46
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 10 of 10
Chris Radcliff: There is a difference between space available and personal space. I'd argue the latter
can be small if the former is available.
14:46
Julio Mendoza: I think that there is to many people to lost in the space if there is not well develop an
information sistem of what is ahead
14:47
Zantippy: robert, that would be SO amazing. it would bring us all together for SOME extent, anyway.
14:47 14:47
heath.rezabek: Agreed Chris.
LA_SpaceX: everyone would be at 0'gs for this entire journey
14:47
Chris Radcliff: At least some of the ship has to be under constant acceleration for "gravity". Current
14:47
tech doesn't get around that.
Robert Gitten: I think most spaces should be communal. I would even go so far as to have communal
14:47
baths like they do in Japan.
14:47
Robert Gitten: Public spaces encourage bonding.
14:48
Zantippy: have there been experiments on the ISS, on the effect of low gravity on embryos?
14:48
Robert Gitten: Why not VR technology for recreation?
14:48
Julio Mendoza: 4500 people for what?
LA_SpaceX: Has a human even been born or concieved in these conditions?
14:48
J.R.: for health of occupants you need to maintain some type of artificial gravity
14:48
14:48
LA_SpaceX: conceived
StarshipEngineer: crew living spaces are a detail at this point, without adequate energy, nobody's
14:48
going anywhere...
14:48
Chris Radcliff: StarshipEngineer: the current topic on the table is the size of this ship.
Kathleen: looks like we're talking about some major changes in concepts of space, community, etc.
Can't even get Red and Blue Americans to agree on anything...social considerations are significant here
14:49 14:49
StarshipEngineer: The only size that matters is the mass...
14:49
Zantippy: yeah, kathleen is right - it is THE aspect that could undermine the whole thing.
DrMae: So let's choose a number: 350sqft or 500 sqft or 10000sqft per person. Note that this also
reflects food production and all other requirements fro real-estate.
14:49
mpatton: some differences may not be to big of an issue ( we may not want to live beam election
14:50
results and geo-political conflicts to the ships at the start)
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 1 of 10
Zantippy: we need to figure out how to take the best of how we are emotionally at this time and meet
the challenge of the let's face it, jerks who are narcissists and wouldn't mind sabatoging everyting 14:50
Robert Gitten: Why would the crew even participate in Earth politics. They are their own society now?
14:50 14:50
Mark K: 500
LA_SpaceX: with food production it would have to be larger than 500sqft, but smaller than 10000 i
believe
14:50
Chris Radcliff: Food production is probably the biggest chunk of it. Anyone know that number for
Earth?
14:51
Datoraki: the ship would need to have a small surface exposed to the direction of travel
14:51
14:51
mpatton: having mental health care on board would be an important factor
J.R.: sleeping areas and general living quarters could be much smaller, to 350 to 500 square feet
(overall) could provide really large open areas.
14:51
DrMae: Regarding zero g and embryos...actually Spacelab J looked at effect in frog development from
egg to tadpoles. Surprisingly not so detrimental, but wouldnt say it would not have impact on bones.
Mission time s was limited .
14:51
Zantippy: politics is a weird animal - it wouldn't be surprising for some of thecrew to get upset by it.
14:51
Kathleen: don't need to beam election results; people will socially form into subgroups, create
14:51
own agendas, stage power plays,etc. If we're taking humans up, we have to prepare for that
Robert Gitten: It really depends on what kind of food you grow. For corn it could be a huge area. If
14:52
everyone ate spurlina, the space could be quite small.
heath.rezabek: Kathleen - Also, it's worth remembering that this ship isn't limited to American culture
as its representative sample (at least, I don't think it is?)... Some of the issues that assail us right now
are not necessarily the same the world over.
14:52
rickj: Let's assume there are "types and personalities" that fit the bill in existing in limited space and
executing specialized tasks. Could this possibly maximize space and efficiency?
14:52
jbatt: I'll have to check the source, but one study (either Mars500) or a previous one for the ISS,
referenced that both public spaces and a personal space was required for combating isolation and
encouraging bonding. Not having adequate privacy space actually can force people to isolate even when
in the group setting.
14:52
LA_SpaceX: You could use vertical growing techniques to maximized the food produced with the
allotted sqft. given
14:52
Zantippy: oh -that's good about there bieng actual results about embryos! And bone density may not
be too big a problem if everything else worked well, like cardio-vascular.
14:52
14:52
Mae.
Project NERVA was a failed atomic rocket made with a thermal reactor that was blown up on the
launch pad in 1962. As it's engine temperature was confined to less than the melting point of it's
casing it only a small fraction of the mass was converted to energy limiting it's max velocity to only
twice that of chemical rockets while the power ratio of chemical rockers versus atomic rockets is
more than a million to one the rocket iwith the samne masss made but not reduced to practice
(made practical) and not improvable with existing technology
Project Orion is not considered (existing) made or reduced to practice as the inventer has not
described in sufficient detail how to build the minerature atomic bombs powering it and even if that
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 2 of 10
was done you are not going to get to very fast as your engine is off more than 99.9999 percent of
the time while the pusher plate cools down.
Both of the above convert mass to energy with an eficenncy of less than 0.00001 while efficincy for
starships need to be in the range of 1 to 10% efficient. At 100 percent efficient they can accelerate
at 1 g for over 350 years while it only takes 49 years to get to farthets star accelerating at one g 1/2
way and then decellerating at 1 g the remainder, though the crew would age less than 2 years that
trip using Einstein's relativity theory so one can get anywhere in the universe and back less than 4
years ship time with atomic rockets reaching light speed in 355 days at a constant one g..
Anti matter rockets are worse than NERVA and ORION as the cost of anti matter if it does exist is 2.8
quaddrillon dollars a ounze so not existable and reducable to practice.
Solar powered star ships--existable but just silly
My exiting invention in 1988 solved the above problems and can get mankind to anywhere and back
in less than 4 years ship time and is made and reduced to practice and buildable with two years
construction time...
Tte atomic rockets of Russia, China, Iran, India and others are black projects with no buildable
details furnished so consider non-existing nor made and reducable to practicefor all intents and
purposes.
Kathleen: heath: absolutely agree! When you add in multinational aspect of this, it makes it even more
socially challenging to accomplish
14:52
Robert Gitten: I wouldn't even use soil,I would make everything hydroponic or aeroponic.
14:53
Captain.Webber: @DrMae - 1500 sq ft per person for everthing
14:53
Chris Radcliff: Random googling gave me 4000 sq ft for food production per person
14:53
LA_SpaceX: Hydroponics would be obvious
14:53
StarshipEngineer: What would it take to demonstrate a self sufficient ISS in the next few years? Is the
air recycled or is fresh O2 shipped up on the supply ships?
14:53
Julio Mendoza: I´m checking in the net carnival cruisers
14:53
heath.rezabek: Re spatial size 14:54
Chris Radcliff: So... Call it a generous 5000 sq ft per person, all inclusive?
14:54
Datoraki: I bet if one country tries to do this one way, other countries will try to do it their way
14:54
jbatt: The multicultural is a big issue. One of the reports of team cohesion from MIR noted that the
russion cosmonauts maintained tight connections but that other visiting astronauts struggled with feeling
excluded, leading to their sense of isolation
14:54
14:54
rickj: Are we talking about food that the human body can handle on Earth or in space.
LA_SpaceX: A new biodome built here on earth could act as a simulation experiment for the 100yss
14:54 14:54
Datoraki: like a race
DrMae: Break time. When we come back we will vote on final volume per person and discuss things like
life support, shielding, recruitment, money, society and destination and what to do on the way? Back at
14:54
top of the hour.
14:54
LA_SpaceX: iron out everything before sending it to space
heath.rezabek: Christopher Alexander, in his work A Pattern Language, runs down some scenarios for
personal space; At its most intense, a one-room house would be 300 to 400 feet. For one person in a
14:54
compact space, 500 seems reasonable.
14:55
Zantippy: i thought ISS had own O2?
14:55
heath.rezabek: For larger clusters, you can cluster 400 to 600 sw ft rooms for families.
14:55
Forum Control: ...and we are back for the final hour!
15:02
15:02
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 3 of 10
DrMae: Welcome back. I caught something that I overlooked in the voting from per person space
allotment, that was mentioned repeatedly—its volume not square feet. So here are the space allotments
to vote on. 40 X 10 X 30 ft volume (12,00cubic feet) or 40 X 10 X 20 ft volume (8,000 cubic feet). Or
5,000 cubic feet—arbitrary Used height as trees may be part of this.
15:02
heath.rezabek: This is strictly per-person private space? Or broken down in some other way?
15:04
Zantippy: And per person includes everything, power, food, etc?
15:04
LA_SpaceX: how is this broken down?
15:04
Robert Gitten: According to "The Millennial Project", 1.6 gallons of water can grow enough algae to
keep a person supplied with air and food for a day. In the proposal, the algae is fed with byproducts of
the sewage treatment system. Don't worry, these byproducts are sterile. The water is treated using a
super critical water oxidizer.
15:04
DrMae: Per Person includes everything?
15:04
Captain.Webber: Bigger is better = 12,000 cu ft
15:04
15:05
LA_SpaceX: I agree
rickj: what are the charateristics of the human body in space that should be supported , designed and
maintained. Have mission success perameters been set .
15:05
heath.rezabek: I'd vote 8,000.
15:05
15:05
LA_SpaceX: bigger is better if it can be done
15:05
Robert Gitten: Yes. But that's only if you want to get all your protein and carbs from spurlina.
heath.rezabek: I believe there are economies of scale that we will find when sharing resources, and
15:05
indeed that we'd better find (have incentive to find) to make the project sustainable.
Mark K: 8000 per person, but that number would need to be increased if we intend to increase
15:05
population over time with child birth
15:05
LA_SpaceX: fish farms could provide protein
15:05
Zantippy: algae's cool, but it has some things that wouldn't make it really good as THE staple.
J.R.: I'd go with 8,000 cubic feet.
15:05
heath.rezabek: So allow some 8000 cu expansion modules.
15:06
15:06
Robert Gitten: But algae can be used to feed the things you do want to eat.
15:06
Chris Radcliff: I'd go even bigger. 40 x 50 x 20 = 40,000 cubic ft
15:06
Chris Radcliff: growing food takes a lot more cubic than personal space
15:06
StarshipEngineer: What's the per person volume on the ISS at full occupancy?
DrMae: Food can be in many different forms. There are possibilities to solve weightlessness, which we
15:06
should discuss. Humans need all the things they need down here in space.
15:06
Captain.Webber: growing food is where the 4000 sq ft per person came from earlier
15:06
mpatton: grow plants as part of personal space
Zantippy: ture, but feeding animals would waste so much space, we would need maybe 10 times more
space, to feed critters to then eat, than we would eating the plant stuff ourselves.
15:06
Robert Gitten: Marshall Savage, the author of the Millenial Project, was really confident in his book
15:07
that with enough technology you could reproduce any taste or texture with algae.
heath.rezabek: I guess I have a hard time picturing how much of the space is personal and how much
15:07
is person-supportive.
15:07
Mark K: me too
15:07
Captain.Webber: I agree with heath
Julio Mendoza: Is the destination planet subject of terraformation, colonization or a superior race?
15:07
heath.rezabek: And I still wonder if we're taking shared production and space into account in
setting out one volume measure per person.
15:07
DrMae: Not sure ISS is good model as it gets resupplied regularly from earth.
15:07
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 4 of 10
rickj: What should the human body be like? Should it weigh X amount of pounds? Should we have
energy for X period of time? What foods would best sustain that?
15:07
heath.rezabek: But, if common space intersects this measure, then I could vote for the larger option,
with reservations.
15:08
15:08
StarshipEngineer: agreed on the ISS but it sets a floor, shouldn't be less
15:08
Robert Gitten: Just look at the choose my plate website.
LA_SpaceX: there must be some comfort. We are talking a long term mission here.
15:08
15:09
LA_SpaceX: you might end up having the crew kill themselves if they are miserable.
15:09
Zantippy: yes, what SE said. This will be their life
15:09
thjackson@cox.net joined the chat
heath.rezabek: Zant - Bioprinting of cartilage has already been accomplished. Bioprinting of meat,
15:09
such that animals are not needed for it, is I believe realistically 7 years out.
15:09
Datoraki: what if the target destination has no nice food? Will the ships be like noah's ark?
15:09
heath.rezabek: Which is mindblowing when you stop to consider the repercussions...
StarshipEngineer: If hibernation was made a priority, could it be ready in 7 years? That could reduce
space requirements considerably.
15:09
Zantippy: raboert, I LOVE algae and eat it, but it can't be relied on as a staple, it has too-high levels of
15:09
some minerals and not other things humans need.
15:09
Robert Gitten: Doesn't the printed meat lack the same texture as a real cut?
15:10
Julio Mendoza: A passenger cruise for 1500 persons may have 30.000 tons
15:10
Zantippy: really heath??? WOW!!! that's pretty darn cool
15:10
DrMae: Several conversation going on. Let's think and vote: Vegetarian or non-veg?
15:10
heath.rezabek: http://www.prsnlz.me/articles/3d-printed...
15:10
StarshipEngineer: Think we need some GMO type foodstuffs for a starship...
15:10
Chris Radcliff: ISS is 30,000 cubic feet for 6 people with regular supplies
heath.rezabek: This is not the best article for this, but that is meat, plain and simple.
15:10
J.R.: you can decrease personal spaces and provide wide open spaces for crops, but make the open
15:10
spaces look like parks.
15:10
LA_SpaceX: Didnt a scientist in Japan make meat from Fecal matter?
15:10
Mark K: vegetarian
Robert Gitten: Why not use the algae to feed shrimp, lobsters, fish, poultry, and small mammals? 15:10
15:11
Chris Radcliff: I say no to imposing a vegetarian restriction.
15:11
Kathleen: vegetarian makes most sense
15:11
drctaylor: non-vegetarian
15:11
Mark K: unless bioprinting works
LA_SpaceX: both
15:11
Zantippy: vegetarian, unless we can "print" it
15:11
Chris Radcliff: The ship is likely to become vegetarian due to constraints, but don't artificially impose
15:11
it.
15:11
heath.rezabek: vegetables and bioprint.
mpatton: I'd say both veg and meat less danger of allergy restrictions and problems with only one
15:11
affecting diet
15:11
Zantippy: oh my god spaceX
15:11
J.R.: non-veg.
15:11
Zantippy: nonono
LA_SpaceX: why? They have had fish tanks in space?
15:11
Datoraki: vegetarian, but bring a few of each animal
15:11
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 5 of 10
Robert Gitten: Why can't we rear small animals onboard? Won't a permanent colony want livestock?
15:12 15:11
heath.rezabek: (And, how does this debate impact our cu topic on the table?)
15:12
LA_SpaceX: that can provide protein right there.
15:12
Julio Mendoza: Did anybody read Rama?
15:12
Captain.Webber: non-veg, as vegi too limiting for our current understanding
DrMae: Even here on earth, one of the greatest burdens on energy and resources is eating meat. Note
that energy will be needed to grow plants to feed animals that we would then eat.
15:12
StarshipEngineer: bioprinting in 7 years? probably a few years short of being ready but with enough
15:12
$$$$ maybe
Kathleen: Vegetarian would be difficult to impose on Americans; other cultures may be more
15:12
responsive to it
rickj: A space-station/outpost three years out could satisfy the ability to restock/resupply the principal
15:12
ship with both food and supplies for systems on the ship.
15:12
live pigs and fish are my choice to fertilize my tomatoes :)
mpatton: what are the issues with disease jumping from ship animals to people?
15:12
Astronist left this message:
15:12
Vegetarian, with meat products synthesised from soya or algae.
15:12
heath.rezabek: Starship - As in link above, it exists now. Commoditization will not take long.
heath.rezabek: There are also huge impacts for artificial organs w/o rejection etc. But... Point is,
though it's assertive to do so, I think we could actually plan not to have livestock draining our cu
15:13
requirements.
Zantippy: really, the thing is - yes, a lot of people would want meat, but if they take this job they need
to accept what kind of space can grow their food. Raising food for critters would be soooo wasteful of
15:13
space.
Kathleen: bioprinting food could be something to get general public engaged in process; like when
microwaves first came out, everyone was curious
15:13
Robert Gitten: If you choose your animals wisely, you don't waste as much as you might think. Pigs
15:14
and goats have a higher food intake to meat ratios than cows for example.
heath.rezabek: While I do think animals should be brought, I think an approach more like Benford's
15:14
Library of Life approach will be needed.
15:14
Astronist joined the chat
15:14
mpatton: what about growing plants for use as part of medicine? Or use in producing clothing
heath.rezabek: Or stem cell preservation, zygote preservation, and so on. Plants on the other hand
15:14
have some synergetic benefits...
DrMae: Let's settle baseline veg vs. non-veg, then go onto other uses.
15:14
15:14
15:15
Zantippy: heath, what is that, library of life approach?
Robert Gitten: mpatton, that in my mind, is the greatest challenge. How do you bring the
15:15
pharmaceutical industry with you in space?
Chris Radcliff: Animals can be a crucial part of an ecosystem. Ruling out food animals entirely seems
15:15
too drastic. Resources will, of course, limit them dramatically.
heath.rezabek: If humans are biophilic creatures, plant life around us may directly benefit our mood,
15:15
sanity, well being, not ot mention air, etc.
15:15
Zantippy: veg
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 6 of 10
Julio Mendoza: You have to send artificial ports forward whit food like an small Starship only whit
cargo
15:15
15:15
heath.rezabek: It'd take a moment to explain so I'd want permission to briefly explain.,
15:15
Mark K: veg as primary, unless bioprinting proves viable
rickj: Where is the concept of discipline, dedication, and determination? When choosing the members of
the crew? Do we have to have butter with the potatoes?
15:15
Robert Gitten: Why not?
15:15
15:15
Zantippy: heath - YES. Plant lifecalms people immensely
LA_SpaceX: I say a mixture of a veg and non veg diet. we have the capabilities to produce a self
15:15
sustaining environment on board.
15:15
StarshipEngineer: veg, can think of a lot more important things to have along besides meat!
15:15
Captain.Webber: Do we need worms to help with the soil? Can you eat worms?
15:15
heath.rezabek: Let's see if I can sum up in one short segment.
15:16
Zantippy: oh interesting, julio!
15:16
J.R.: prefer veg and meat, but veg only may be more practical.
Robert Gitten: how about a diet where meat exists, but it is not the meal's main event like it is on
Earth?
15:16
heath.rezabek: In 1992, Gregory Benford proposed a thought experiment as well as practical
experiment in answer to the rapid die-off of biodiversity. This was the sampling, in situ, of biomass, and
15:16
its cryogenic preservation for future recovery.
Kathleen: agree with Mark K - veg unless we can bioprint...though still may have issue of animals as
15:16
pets...can help deal with loneliness, etc.
15:16
DrMae: Worms would probably have to come along.
15:17
Captain.Webber: non-vegi :)
15:17
Robert Gitten: You don't need worms or soil if your growing with hydroponics.
heath.rezabek: 'Recovery' here means many things, depending on our cabailiities. They point was that
we ought to set aside taxonomy and focus on preserving biodiversity itself, as embodied information,
15:17
before it was lost.
15:17
Captain.Webber: insects?
15:17
Zantippy: oh heath!!!wow yeah, maybe that could work.
15:17
J.R.: worms. there's our meat :)
StarshipEngineer: think library of life is a good idea, since best scenario probably includes
15:17
terraforming of some sort at the destination
15:17
Datoraki: animals can beuseful for a bunch of reasons except for food
Kathleen: are we recreating Noah's Ark here? Ok if we are, but that needs to go into our mission
objective
15:17
mpatton: insects - useful for plants, and full of protein
15:18
Zantippy: kathleen - that really is something to consider, pets. Again with the space, but emotionally
15:18
pretty important for their new life.
heath.rezabek: It was, shall we say, controversial. But it may not even be necessary if biotech
continues to improve. I just hope we're not woefully off topic and that we can bring this thought to bear
15:18
on the Q of cu per person...
Chris Radcliff: We're building a one-way mission, decades long, for hundreds of people. Sounds ark-ish
15:18
to me.
DrMae: Problem with hydroponics is the microbial environment that we have to take along that we do
not know how it survives for long periods without being refreshed. Would not bet hydroponics alone are
self-sustaining.
15:18
15:18
StarshipEngineer: just remember - Never Eat Sour Worms!
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 7 of 10
Robert Gitten: I think we would need different types of animals at our destination than we do during
our flight out. It may then be a good idea to bring along frozen embryos from a wide range of creatures.
Julio Mendoza: every month you reach one that is in the path it will push your space chip like a 15:18
tug too
15:18
Julio Mendoza: every month you reach one that is in the path it will push your space chip like a tug
too
15:18
Robert Gitten: Where do you think synthetic biology will go in 10 years?
15:18
15:19
heath.rezabek: Much further than most people are prepared for.
15:19
Zantippy: SE - lol what does the sour worm thing mean?
15:19
J.R.: Is this building into worldships?
StarshipEngineer: I think assuming we will know how to build a self sustainable space environment in
15:19
7 years is a high risk proposition.
15:19
Julio Mendoza: yes it is
15:19
Zantippy: robert, fantastic! (frozen critter embryos)
15:19
Datoraki: mind worms..
StarshipEngineer: how my kids learned North South East West
15:20
rickj: As far as, food animals are concerned, this would be a good place to incorporate embryos, eggs,
15:20
and sperm frozen to be introduced on the target planet.
15:20
StarshipEngineer: North east south west
15:20
Robert Gitten: Could we artificially bring frozen embryos to term by then?
Captain.Webber: We have to come up with a list of acceptable "food" list and how it fits into the eco
15:20
system as opposed to what we eat?
DrMae: Okay I'm calling it form baseline vegetarian and 8,00 cubic feet. Worms and accidental animal
15:20
death is meat opportunity intermittently.
15:20
Julio Mendoza: Especially if is for 1500 people
Zantippy: SE oh lol
15:20
Kathleen: JR: I think so; if we're taking it there in our brainstorming, it's likely the 1500 member crew,
15:20
plus animals, later children, plants, etc. will all be creating a worldship
15:21
Robert Gitten: I still think that animals will still be a vital part of the life support system.
15:21
LA_SpaceX: Would we be looking to create an ecosystem in the ship, or just grow food?
15:21
I heard of a fellow that grows 6 million pounds off foodsuff per year on 5 acres of fish farms that can
be mineraturized.
15:21
Zantippy: oh man, worm meat. At least only the die-hard will apply
15:21
LA_SpaceX: we should decide on that cause that basically makes the choice for you
Mark K: I wouldn't mind bringing a few pets along if it was allowed
15:21
Kathleen: good question LA...need a different balance for an ecosystem
15:21
15:21
LA_SpaceX: exactly
15:22
jbatt: LA: Great question!
15:22
J.R.: @Kathleen Worldship kinda takes this out of the realm of reality.
heath.rezabek: Archives of all kinds, biological as well as cultural, will be needed; but they needn't be
15:22
vast to be comprehensive. My 100YSS 2012 paper was on this, which I hope is ok to say.
Robert Gitten: Not an ecosystem. More along the lines of having shellfish eat the stuff coming out of
15:22
your sewage digestor.
15:22
DrMae: Next topic is whether weightless or not and how to generate weight if decided upon.
jbatt: Can food growth be maintained for a trip of this length without some form of an ecosystem? 15:22
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 8 of 10
Robert Gitten: We need artificial gravity.
15:22
15:23
LA_SpaceX: is that something that can be done?
15:23
Captain.Webber: We need gravity but not full time and not 1 G
heath.rezabek: Strawman: Weightless maintenance core with centrifugal pods extended outwards.
rickj: The key is to this process is primarily a "committed job description" for each crew member. 15:23
15:23 15:23
Robert Gitten: If the ship is round, we can spin it.
Kathleen: what has ISS done with artificial gravity experiments?
15:23
Zantippy: we have to have artificial gravity! Can you imagine trying to corral a free-floating toddler?
15:23 15:23
Robert Gitten: There is a small centrifuge.
15:23
Chris Radcliff: Rotate at least some areas of the ship for weight. Lots of it can stay weightless.
LA_SpaceX: thats what I was thinking robert, but did we decide on a food/ecosystem before we moved
15:23
on to this topic?
Julio Mendoza: In my point of view is a space fleet, that must have a point of return to our star or
15:23
another
heath.rezabek: (JR and Kathleen - 'worldship' has connotations that a lean, mean, Earth-originating
life sending machine need not take on as baggage... We can be comprehensive without needing to be
massive.)
15:24
15:24
Mark K: will need weight to successfully develop growth for child birth?
Robert Gitten: It's easier to spin the whole ship. It avoids the nasty problem of rotating pressure seals
15:24
and counterweights to keep the rest of the ship stationary.
15:24
Robert Gitten: If you spin the ship along its axis of thrust, the engines will still work just fine.
heath.rezabek: DrMae: Okay I'm calling it form baseline vegetarian and 8,00 cubic feet. Worms and
15:24
accidental animal death is meat opportunity intermittently.
J.R.: without regular access to 1 g, the occupants could end up at the destination with the bone
15:25
structure of a slug.
StarshipEngineer: A human lifetime in zero g is an experiment that has never been tried, not sure it's
ethical to try it out on the crew first time.
15:25
15:25
LA_SpaceX: hahaha humans will have turned into the worms!
15:25
Mark K: haha
Robert Gitten: Most potentially habitable planets we're finding have surface gravities of 1.5 to 2 g.
15:25 15:25
J.R.: more meat:)
heath.rezabek: Any comments on strawman? Central cylinder or core that is weightless, with pods
15:25
extended outwards and spinning, akin to a circus ride?
15:25
Zantippy: LOL SpaceX!
Chris Radcliff: Spinning the whole ship is fine, and probably simpler. As a requirement for people, only
some access to weight is necessary.
15:25
Captain.Webber: I think about Discovery from 2001 as a good design
15:26
Kathleen: Robert G: good point - is the end goal here to live on the destination planet? or to stay in the
15:26
ship? That will affect how we need to prepare for gravity
15:26
Chris Radcliff: My guess is that Heath's core + rotating pods is also doable in 7 years.
StarshipEngineer: A spinning ship will be more massive as there will be additional loads. On the other
15:26
hand, if it's built for a 14g sundive that won't be a problem!
15:26
Robert Gitten: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/ro...
Robert Gitten: The centrifuge from 2001 is way to small. The coriolis forces would knock you off your
15:27
feet.
Mark K: personally I'd rather not float for the rest of my life on a ship, so I'd prefer gravity for sanity
Astronist: The designs I have been considering include two toruses rotating in opposite directions 15:27
15:27
in order to preserve zero net angular momentum.
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 9 of 10
Julio Mendoza: Spining is ok for me, could be a disk whit an axis tube like a dandelion seed
15:27
15:28
15:28
contant acceleration at 1 g for 355 days to light speed provides for gravity then the engine can be
turned off and the ship sploit into two egual masses on 450 foot teather rotating at 2 rpm will do
nicely for continued one g till destination if i recall the right figures
thjackson@cox.net joined the chat
15:28
StarshipEngineer: & hope like hell the bearings don't ever seize!
15:28
Chris Radcliff: StarshipEngineer: We'll get the engineering dept right on those seized bearings, sir.
15:28
LA_SpaceX: its the gravity can be created. it must. leave the rest up to the numbers and
engineering guys lol
15:28
rickj: maybe a chamber that can focus a gravitational field or the area of the ship that h
15:29
thjackson@cox.net: found join chat button :) thanks sys op repeating
15:29
thjackson@cox.net: contant acceleration at 1 g for 355 days to light speed provides for gravity then
the engine can be turned off and the ship sploit into two egual masses on 450 foot teather rotating at 2
rpm will do nicely for continued one g till destination if i recall the right figures
15:29
Robert Gitten: Reality check on gravity field generators.
15:29
Datoraki: if we are spinning the ships, this is another readon for the ships shape to be long and narrow
15:29
Zantippy: maybe we won't need bearings. The whole thing could be molded, like corian, but
15:29
maybe with something magnetic so it doesn't have to be joined.
15:29
J.R.: @Astronist: that's an interesting concept. Do you have a link that explains it?
15:29
Robert Gitten: mg=mv^2/r
15:29
Forum Control: glad to help out @thjackson
15:29
Julio Mendoza: All spinning
15:30
Robert Gitten: sorry, mv/r^2
heath.rezabek: One may not need all the mass of flat planes (toruses or trays) if pods of space can be
spun...
15:30
15:30
DrMae: So need weighet environment
Kathleen: not a physicist or engineer, but how much is the crew feeling the spinning? Or are they at
15:30
all?
15:30
Astronist: J.R., thanks. Not yet. Something I'm working on for a paper for JBIS.
Captain.Webber: I vote for gravity of some kind, how we do it and how much - does it matter? 15:30
15:30
LA_SpaceX: gravity here too
15:30
Mark K: yes to weighted environment
heath.rezabek: Consider a hollow cable with a pod of space at the end... Gravity decreases as you
climb it from the end pod to the central core...
15:30
Datoraki: the gravity has to be about the same at all living areas
15:30
15:31
mpatton: yes to gravity
15:31
DrMae: Error. Plan to have weighted environment in at least some areas of vehicle.
15:31
Robert Gitten: Gravity
15:31
J.R.: yes, gravity
Chris Radcliff: Kathleen: Depending on the difference from the center, it can be dizzying (small
15:31
distance) or only occasionally disorienting (large distance)
thjackson@cox.net: at 2 rpm with the 450 foot teatcher no vertigo or other effects are noticable 15:31
15:31
Captain.Webber: Agreed DrMae
Zantippy: yes gravity
15:31
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 10 of 10
drctaylor: I vote gravity
15:31
15:31
Mark K: yes
15:31
Chris Radcliff: yes gravity
heath.rezabek: Ideally, a mix of gravities, and even the option of slowly modifying gravity to suit
15:31
target destination.
15:31
Kathleen: yes gravity
StarshipEngineer: agree
15:31
15:32
thjackson@cox.net: agree
15:32
rickj: yes
DrMae: Baseline: Nuclear power for leaving earth orbit and baseline energy source; use gravity assist as
beam propulsion for as long as they will. 8000 cubic feet allotted per human, that includes allotment for
everything. Crew baselined vegetarian. Other animals and higher organisms on board but not as
groceries. Plan to have weighted environment in at least some areas of vehicle. Next –several
15:32
suggestion of prepositioning of supplies. Realistic? What would be prepositioned?
Astronist: Can I please say that this issue is critical to human occupation of our own planetary system
as well as those of other stars, and hence to our prospects of long-term economic growth.
15:32
15:33
Datoraki: spinning such a huge ship for gravity would make it extremely loooong
Julio Mendoza: a spinning dish have different g at different radios and is ok the outer section if for
15:33
training
15:33
DrMae: Great point Astronist
thjackson@cox.net: now that that is settled atomic rockets are the only existing technologhy that can
15:33
provide that from accleeration
DrMae: Next –several suggestion of prepositioning of supplies. Realistic? What would be prepositioned?
Robert Gitten: The supply ships would have to achieve a higher acceleration than the 3 manned 15:33
ships to either catch up or be waiting ahead of time.
15:34
LA_SpaceX: nuclear fuel could be prepostioned
15:34
15:34
LA_SpaceX: it would take up less weight as well
15:34
Chris Radcliff: Pre-positioning supplies is not realistic.
Zantippy: prepositioned - maybe grains? They are heavy and owuld probably freze well while waiting
15:34
for us to get to them.
15:34
Kathleen: Robert Gitten: or be launched much earlier
15:34
Robert Gitten: Communications relays back to Earth could be dropped off like breadcrumbs.
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 1 of 1
Zantippy: jbatt - just Liked!
16:07
DrMae: Crew would be chosen from a range of people. Work to be done around multiple vehicle
mission with most important ability to be evolving. It will be a very long trip. Hoping to approach 0.75
light speed. Please comment and correct.
16:07
Zantippy: heath - just joined!
16:07
16:08
Robert Gitten: 0.75 c would require 1.21 MILLION TERAWATTS!
DrMae: In one bite. Baseline: Nuclear power for leaving earth orbit and baseline energy source; use
gravity assist as possible to speed trajectory away from earth. Then solar sails to assist engines and beg
earth for a beam propulsion for as long as they will. 8000 cubic feet allotted per human, that includes
allotment for everything. Crew baselined vegetarian. Other animals and higher organisms on board but
not as groceries. Plan to have weighted environment in at least some areas of vehicle. With some
prepositioning of supplies. Crew recruited with reinventing work on board. Launched to a destination
that will be chosen closer to the mission to have as much information as possible on location. Crew
would be chosen from a range of people. Work to be done around multiple vehicle mission with most
important ability to be evolving. It will be a very long trip. Hoping to approach 0.75 light speed. Please
comment and correct.
16:08
Robert Gitten: No, just more like a few dozen terawatts :)
16:08
16:09
Julio Mendoza: like more 33% of light speed
16:09
Astronist: Robert Gitten: terawatts over what period of time?
16:09
Robert Gitten: The 0.75 c brings up issues of relativity and collisions with interstellar debris.
DrMae: Look for more on 100YSS forums and we'll get this continued. Thank everyone for participating.
thjackson@cox.net: atomic rocket engines of good design need no assistance Mae
16:09 16:09
Forum Control: Oh yeah...don't forget the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/OnlineFor... 16:09
16:09
StarshipEngineer: Note, global cost of energy today is ~7T$
16:09
Chris Radcliff: Thanks!
16:09
Zantippy: anks!!!
16:09
Zantippy: *Thanks!
16:10
Astronist: Thanks.
16:10
16:11
Lynda Bradford left the chat
16:12
2/24/2013
Chatzy - 100YSS February Forum
Page 1 of 1
Visitor List
»100YSS
February
Forum«
My Preferences
No Alerts
Commands
Visitor List
One Recent PM
Review Mode
Save / Print
Help / FAQ
17 people are online. 28 others have visited the room the last 24 hours. In total, there are 60 people on the list. Only the room
administrator can view email addresses. Click here to log in as room administrator.
Back To Chat
Refresh
Visitor Alias
Edit Permissions
Clean up...
Status
Partial IP
Email
Last Action
iainmacl
-
x.x.x.192
[Hidden]
Entered 70 seconds ago
Lynda Bradford
-
x.x.x.70
[Hidden]
thjackson@cox.net
-
x.x.x.251
[Hidden] (your email)
Entered 5 minutes ago
Sagar
-
x.x.x.181
[Hidden]
Kathleen
-
x.x.x.94
[Hidden]
Astronist
-
x.x.x.119
[Hidden]
Andreas
-
x.x.x.99
[Hidden]
Chris Radcliff
-
x.x.x.226
[Hidden]
rickj
-
x.x.x.171
[Hidden]
Datoraki
-
x.x.x.252
[Hidden]
Julio Mendoza
-
x.x.x.223
[Hidden]
Forum Control
-
x.x.x.60
[Hidden]
drctaylor
-
x.x.x.2
[Hidden]
Entered 2 hours ago
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 1 of 10
thjackson@cox.net: existying supplies available are similar to fallout shelter supplies so they fould do
for the estimated 4 year trip time
15:34
DrMae: Why would prepositioning be unrealistic?
15:34
15:35
heath.rezabek: Can someone please define prepositioning?
15:35
Zantippy: aww a breadcrumb trail.
Chris Radcliff: Anything we can send before the 2025 launch date isn't likely to get very far, and it
15:35
suffers from a lot of the same issues we already have.
15:35
Robert Gitten: We would need to launch the supply caches NOW.
15:35
15:35
heath.rezabek: Oh.
15:35
DrMae: Pre-positioning is sending things ahead that can be picked up later.
heath.rezabek: Well... If we have 3 ships, why not make the 4th one a supply barge right ahead of
15:35
us?
StarshipEngineer: supply ships - the main ship can't stop to meet a stationary dump so you need to
15:36
rendezvous with a small, high speed target in a very large space
15:36
rickj: you simply send the supplies ahead not behind.
15:36
heath.rezabek: (Yes; got it!)
Zantippy: oh gosh yeah, and for a launch in 2025, it doesn't seem realistic, we aren't stable enough
15:36
geopolitically, and tech-wise would we be able to so soon?
15:36
mpatton: if a 4th is a supply barge, it might also be able to act as an emergency lifeboat
heath.rezabek: So, do both?
15:36
Robert Gitten: Why not have a 4 ship fleet with the 4th ship as a supply cache.
15:36
Julio Mendoza: Negative acceleration could be produced whit a elastic nanotube rope anchored at a
15:36
asteroid
StarshipEngineer: sending along unmanned supply ships that meet at the destination star might be
15:36
good - could carry stuff not needed in flight and not be bothered wiith life support
15:37
LA_SpaceX: is this where probes and ROV's could be used to bring the supplies too the ship?
DrMae: Can one consider that small vessels with certain payloads could be withstand higher G gravity
15:37
assists, and dole not have to be as sophisticated in some aspects.
15:37
Mark K: I agree with SE
heath.rezabek: And could get ahead faster due to the G's. But, the further ahead they are, the more
inaccessible to the rearguard in case of any emergency.
15:37
15:37
heath.rezabek: Maybe a feature not a bug though.
15:38
J.R.: Supply ships can do the sundiver mission at 14g
15:38
jbatt: Heath & Robert: Agreed to the idea of the fourth as a supply barge.
thjackson@cox.net: man is limited to 1 g acceleration for extended times however unmanned ships
can accelerate at a constant o g without dammagge so food resupply can be sent before or after
15:38
manned launch for rendevoues
Chris Radcliff: Supply ships definitely have higher tolerances, but where would the crewed ship meet
15:38
them?
Kathleen: so how far in advance would a supply ship need to be launched to be available to
rendezvous with the crew ships?
15:38
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 2 of 10
LA_SpaceX: So launch the supply barge first and then have the 3 ships meet it? What if something
happens to the supply barge?
15:38
15:38
StarshipEngineer: They can also be launched later with future tech and go faster
15:38
Robert Gitten: Depends on where you want to meet up.
Chris Radcliff: Sending them to the destination does make sense, but you're still doing without them
for the whole journey.
15:38
heath.rezabek: Heh. The ships would be pretty compelled to go wherever the cache went...
15:39
DrMae: Do we have the navigational expertise aka percision to be able to pre position in the vastness of
space?
15:39
15:39
heath.rezabek: Ok... one cache for each vessel?
15:39
Chris Radcliff: Anywhere other than the destination is going to be a fly landing on a bullet.
15:39
mpatton: send the barge ahead, but have it drop some supplies along the way
15:39
DrMae: Reality Check on prepositioning expertise?
15:39
thjackson@cox.net: 13 g or 14 g is doable
15:39
Zantippy: drmae, i was just thinking that too ...
Kathleen: Destination is too far away...need more of a stepping stone resupply model?
15:39
Julio Mendoza: supply space containers self propelled automatized no human error
15:39
rickj: Non-manned ships with supplies can be sent to a specific location to wait for the mission ship.
15:39 15:39
StarshipEngineer: It's a 4D problem and very challenging
Astronist: Navigation is probably one of the least of the problems. Consider the exquisite precision with
15:39
which Cassini is steered around the Saturn system.
LA_SpaceX: Could the supply vessels maintain orbit around other planets waiting for the ships to
15:39
arrive?
heath.rezabek: Reality check feedback: Surely if we're planning to get ourselves there it's worth trying
to get simpler detached caches there. But maybe not so far ahead of us that they're out of reach. 15:40
Chris Radcliff: We have trouble hitting Mars with a probe without cratering it. I don't think we have the
expertise to hit a cache.
15:40
15:40
Zantippy: yeahexactly, like astronist says - we can keep homing in on the supplies, adjusting
Kathleen: can we do inflatable space pods ejected from supply ship and picked up by crew ship en
15:40
route?
Mark K: prepositioning along the may not work, but sending them ahead to orbit a desination planet
15:40
might work
Captain.Webber: prepositioning or sending a smaller unmanned vessel a little before launch cuts the
main ship mass a bit. It is similar in the 3 ship idea. Can we dock with them or even find them, sure we
15:40
can still find the voyagers,
Zantippy: oh nice idea, kathleen!
15:41
heath.rezabek: (Let cache ship(s) have long tails, each segment a beacon, dropped at intervals.) 15:41
Robert Gitten: Satellite rendezvous is being actively pursued by both NASA and DARPA. If we can put
a probe on Titan, I think we can find a kilometer long spacecraft. The heat from its nuclear reactor will
15:41
be like a beacon to lock onto.
Kathleen: Thinking along lines of air drop resupplies done during World War II (i'm a historian, if you
15:41
can't tell!)
rickj: We have already sent robot-controlled space vehicles to specific locations. We have that
15:41
technology.
15:41
Captain.Webber: What are our consumables? Stuff that we can't recycle?
Zantippy: like a lizard tail
15:41
jbatt: Heath: good idea!
15:42
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 3 of 10
DrMae: Believe it or not our time is getting short and I want us to have something to go back and do
homework on. So next question. Should mission plan on reinventing itsself along the way?
15:42
StarshipEngineer: again, velocity matching at 0.1c has never been done. You lose 3 meters in position
for every nanosecond you're off in timing.
15:42
15:42
Chris Radcliff: Yes. The mission will almost certainly reinvent itself along the way.
heath.rezabek: Question - Do we assume the foresight to know what to put in a cache we can't open
for several hundred years (or decades)? Is this a time capsule??
15:42
15:42
Captain.Webber: Or is a prepositioning vessel there to keep the main ship mass down?
Julio Mendoza: First use unmanned drones to explore the planet and have the capabilities automated
15:42
thjackson@cox.net: SpaceX's chemical rocket test was proof of principle for landing ship rear
first even at same launch pad..great work space x neat video and even they got the streamlined shape
15:42
of starship required
15:42
LA_SpaceX: Yes it should
15:42
Mark K: it would have to, as nothing goes exactly as initially planned
jbatt: Dr. Mae: Based on the vast amount of unforeseeable opportunities or difficulties, yes, it would
have to.
15:42
Chris Radcliff: This crew is going to spend longer on the ship than we spend building it.
15:42
15:43
Julio Mendoza: later send the humans whit a goal
15:43
Kathleen: Yes, mission will be reinventing itself constantly...need to see mission as organic
15:43
LA_SpaceX: it one mission becomes compromised there should be plans A,B,C,D, ect
15:43
jbatt: Chris: Great point!
mpatton: If the mission is heading for a planet, could we drop off a group and keep going? The ships
15:43
are already out there. Could they have a second mission?
15:43
Robert Gitten: It needs to.
heath.rezabek: Aye. The allure of 3d printing upgraded modules is that you can apply lessons along
the way, perhaps reuse old material.
15:43
J.R.: It needs flexibility
15:43
Robert Gitten: I think the ship will leave looking shiny and new like the Enterprise and arrive looking
15:43
like the Serenity.
15:43
StarshipEngineer: excuse me, 0.3m error per nanosecond
Zantippy: yah, the crew can be adaptive, depending on what they actually find, in case the original
15:43
mission goals need to be thrown out.
Astronist: I believe the Voyager probes had their software updated during flight, so that they arrived
with greater capabilities than they had when launched. An interstellar flight would reinvent itself even
15:43
more along the way.
LA_SpaceX: adaptive=survival
15:43
DrMae: Destination is up next. Do we have to have a planet? Or just a star?
15:44
heath.rezabek: Though, upgrading your capabilities seems like a given and is different from the ability
15:44
to change the mission.
15:44
Kathleen: LA: I like evolutionary model - very appropriate
15:44
Julio Mendoza: all the ships are in a round mission they came and go
15:44
15:44
Mark K: Planet
Chris Radcliff: With the preponderance of planets we're finding, a star is probably OK. Still, we should
15:44
have some awesome choices of planets by 2025.
heath.rezabek: So is an option for the mission objective to be set, while the means can be ever
refined?
15:44
15:44
LA_SpaceX: planet
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 4 of 10
Julio Mendoza: planet to planet round trip
15:44
15:44
J.R.: Planet
Robert Gitten: Planet. NASA and JPL are actively developing the tools to directly image exoplanets.
15:45
Zantippy: well for 2025, the star system, but in 100 years we'll know a lotmore about the AC
15:45
system, and any planets there besides the one found.
Kathleen: planet: need to be able to "set foot" on something; more tangible than orbiting a star 15:45
DrMae: When do we have to have a destination?
15:45
15:45
jbatt: Planet
StarshipEngineer: Would we launch to a solar system like ours if everything was the same except no
15:45
earth?
heath.rezabek: I would be really bummed to be the ancestor of someone getting there, and then just
15:45
get to see it in orbit before circling back.
15:45
Mark K: before we leave
15:45
Chris Radcliff: Naive reaction: destination can be chosen very late in the game.
15:45
LA_SpaceX: would we be trying to find an earth-like planet.
Captain.Webber: What is the closest planet in the habitable zone (not mass wise)? For the 2025 I'd go
to one with a planet
15:45
Datoraki: 1500 ppl will all have the mission in their highest interest - it's a out their survival. The
15:45
mission will definitely reinvent
15:46
LA_SpaceX: Something that could sustain life, if it didnt have it already?
Robert Gitten: We need to know where we're going early in the planning stages. Our colonization
15:46
equipment must be designed to fit the destination.
15:46
Mark K: habitable planet would be best
15:46
Robert Gitten: You can't land on the Earth in a lander meant for Mars.
Kathleen: with no planet, it would be like circling in the air over Paris and never landing. You can't
really feel like you've visited!
15:46
drctaylor: I agree habitable planet
15:46
jbatt: Before launch. Knowing the destination would be a significant motivator to keep people on the
15:46
ship in the first place.
heath.rezabek: I would think habitable is the grail... Though they're finding that a lot of habitables
15:46
may be around red giants, and very very unlike what we're used to...
15:46
Zantippy: that's true, Chri
thjackson@cox.net: since we see only those planets that dim the stars light getting to us most planets
escape our detection so any star will do with likely success and as the star ship is self containd if not go
15:46
to next one
Zantippy: *Chris
15:46
jbatt: I meant "to get people on the ship in the first place"
15:46
DrMae: Question--just for thought...Does the lander have to be built prior to the mission leaving? 15:46
15:47
heath.rezabek: Not if it's 3d printed, yes if not...?
StarshipEngineer: landers could be built and sent later on a faster unmanned vessel. The ship can be
15:47
collecting data on the target as it goes.
15:47
LA_SpaceX: if we have the caches and 3-d printers no
Kathleen: Agree jbatt: need to define a destination, or at least a ballpark one if not an actually
15:47
confirmed Earth-like exoplanet
Chris Radcliff: A ship with this many people should be capable of designing and building a lander (or a
bunch of them) in flight.
15:47
jbatt: Dr. Mae: No. In fact, having a project to do for the crew while in mission could maintain team
15:47
cohesion and mission success.
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 5 of 10
mpatton: probably not. It might be better to build it in flight, so that it's new and working when they
get there
15:47
15:47
mpatton: *lander
15:47
heath.rezabek: Why not simulate / model the lander, improve it en route, and print at end?
15:47
LA_SpaceX: but just incase and to be redundant maybe a few should be build prior
J.R.: if we build a worldship, it's not as much of an issue about if a planet is at destination. If not, then
you need specific destination and time frame.
15:47
thjackson@cox.net: jbatt i am convined most will have to be draqed kicking and screaming to the
15:48
stars so highjacking remains a likley possibility.
15:48
Mark K: one prior
15:48
Robert Gitten: http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/hint-of... Get a load of this.
15:48
DrMae: Question: Is crew launched with vehicles or catch up later?
Julio Mendoza: A fine motivator for the space crew will be videos send by drones of new life form 15:48
Zantippy: yes and the crew needs to use thier intelligence just to say sane, really, so building the
15:48
lander would have that pro.
heath.rezabek: Maker vehicles on the way is my vote.
15:48
Mark K: catch up later if want to build mulitple
15:48
15:48
LA_SpaceX: these can't be built on earth right now right?
15:48
StarshipEngineer: later, reduces mass needed to launch in 2020
15:48
thjackson@cox.net: agree Julio
Chris Radcliff: I'd put the crew on board ASAP, even years before launch. Need to know if they'll gel
15:48
on the ship.
15:49
LA_SpaceX: yes they need to be on board before
15:49
LA_SpaceX: I agree
15:49
Chris Radcliff: Involve the crew in completing the ship.
StarshipEngineer: years before - that's next week!
15:49
Kathleen: build landers later, since may have to adjust to unforeseen conditions on planet
15:49
15:49
heath.rezabek: Ooh, completing the ship.
jbatt: Humans are makers. If we plan for them to make the vehicles on the way, the crew, and their
15:49
children, contribute significantly while en route.
Robert Gitten: We need to tow the ships near the asteroid belt or something for a year or two and let
15:49
the crew get used to living on their own.
15:49
Chris Radcliff: StarshipEngineer: I'll get my things ready...
15:49
DrMae: Do you all think it will be difficult to get an appropriate crew for a one way mission?
15:50
LA_SpaceX: or keep them in isolated simulators before they embark on their mission
Captain.Webber: Put the crew on first, they can gel on the 10 years it takes to get our of the solar
system.
15:50
jbatt: Chris: If not on board, at least begin choosing early on and testing the social dynamics. Social
15:50
connection is a make or break that is tough to engineer for.
heath.rezabek: Plus working together in shared spaces on a concrete project with serious stakes will
15:50
help them overcome any disappointment at the size of their sleeping pods. :)
Robert Gitten: No, just look at the Mars One foundation. They've already had thousands of applicants
15:50
for a one way mission to mars.
Kathleen: no, I think we will get adult crew. I think the children are a problem. Parents may be willing
15:50
to put themselves in harm's way, but not their children.
mpatton: I think a one way crew will be easier to get with a destination. Knowing there's something
after the ship will be helpful
15:50
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 6 of 10
Captain.Webber: define "appropriate"
15:50
Chris Radcliff: Crew volunteers won't be difficult to come by. Choosing the right crew is going to be a
challenge.
15:50
15:50
LA_SpaceX: what chris said
15:51
Mark K: I agree with Chris
15:51
Julio Mendoza: I like coach leather and assemble preposisioned parts too
Datoraki: It is better the more things are built on the ship. That will keep the societies skills active 15:51
jbatt: Robert: great example. There are people that want to go "out there." The big question is whether
they will work well together and whether they have the skill set and the temperament for this journey. It
15:51
will take a massive amount of work to choose the crew.
StarshipEngineer: Think we need a task force to define what skills this 1500 member crew have 15:51
thjackson@cox.net: there is no reason any are required to stay on ship as they can retern to earth in
15:51
robot star ship underwater at 13g and his or her replacement sent.
15:51
heath.rezabek: Or, developing scenarios they can work together through to self-select.
Zantippy: We can have best hopes for the crew, but realistically, we have to prepare for people to flake
out, no matter how ready they are. So a good crew would probably happen, because we would include
safeguards to deal with the less fun parts of the human mind.
15:51
Robert Gitten: Just like Mars One, we can generate some of the funds for our project by making a
15:52
reality TV show out of the selection and training process.
15:52
Captain.Webber: no beer
15:52
Julio Mendoza: working in space for a known place make easier to go and stay
heath.rezabek: If we want 3 500 person crews, it may make sense to start with 3 very large candidate
15:52
pools and a whole lot of exercises.
StarshipEngineer: Would like to see some examples of self contained 1500 people societies on earth
15:52
first...
Kathleen: Most groups that have colonized with families have done so because they had no other
choice (felt pushed out by prevailing social/cultural/political systems) Don't think we have the same
15:52
dynamic going on here
rickj: Have we sent out a probe to survey the target planet, seems necessary to determine what ideas
15:52
would best suit the environment.
15:52
LA_SpaceX: yep. just like the start of the space program
Robert Gitten: I guess we need to launch our completed ships into orbit in like 7 years to give the
15:53
crew time to train.
Chris Radcliff: The Earthbound production will probably be a big effort, so potential crew can start
15:53
getting involved there.
heath.rezabek: Kathleen - Interesting point. Though of course in case of crisis that'd change...
15:53
Robert Gitten: How do we launch these things into space in the first place?
15:53
beam propulsion for as long as they will. 8000 cubic feet allotted per human, that includes allotment for
everything. Crew baselined vegetarian. Other animals and higher organisms on board but not as
groceries. Plan to have weighted environment in at least some areas of vehicle. With some
15:53
that will be chosen closer to the mission to have as much information as possible on location.
jbatt: As a note, this is a great book on the social dynamics of space crews: "Choosing the Right Stuff:
The Psycholigical Selection of Astronauts and Cosmonauts" http://www.amazon.com/Choosing-RightStu...
15:53
15:53
LA_SpaceX: they would have to be built in space.
15:53
StarshipEngineer: there's usually 1500 people willing to leave after every election ! :)
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 7 of 10
Kathleen: Agree,heath: a major Asteroid impact would start people second guessing about the
longterm safety of living on Earth, but I'm none of us want to see that happen
15:54
thjackson@cox.net: overthinking the problem perhaps take all animals, stuff, crazy friends you want
as diversity is key to survival.
15:54
15:54
Zantippy: lmao SE
15:54
Robert Gitten: Even the pieces have to be launched.
heath.rezabek: Existential risk is a strong motivator.
15:54
jbatt: As well, here's another great full-length book in PDF that tackles the coping skills needed for
15:54
crews in space: Psychology of Space Exploration. http://www.nss.org/resources/library/spa...
heath.rezabek: We haven't talked about diversity of cargo yet (may not have time?) -- Will there be
15:55
future discussions on 'What of Earth do we take along?"
Kathleen: Thanks, jbatt: I'll take a look at that. Wonder if anything speculative has been done on
15:55
families ala Lost in Space?
DrMae: Just comment on psychology of 1500. I think it may be a very eWill need to include differnt
15:55
personalities for sure. group of people than current astronauts.
rickj: Some areas of consideration cannot be logically linked with others, without brainstorming the
various conditions to be encountered at each stage of consideration. There are those scenarios that are
likely and others that are unlikely. Which ones can be held in place pending additional information? 15:55
15:56
Chris Radcliff got this far without plugging his 100YSS paper on choosing a crew
Robert Gitten: I always felt that astronauts we're never very open with each other because they don't
want to appear as emotionally unstable. I think that our ship will have to be closer to each other than th
15:56
eISS clew.
15:56
LA_SpaceX: this is all uncharted territory...welcome to the future
15:56
heath.rezabek: Scenario gaming of all kinds would be a fine way to winnow candidates...
15:56
Zantippy: Chris:D plug!
DrMae: Rewrite.Just comment on psychology of 1500. I think it may be a very be different group of
people than current astronauts. Will need to include differnt personalities for sure.
15:56
15:56
Zantippy: i mean, if that's ok
15:56
Astronist joined the chat
thjackson@cox.net: dungeon and guns would be required on bridge and the commander with have
absolute authority under martime lae extended to deep space.. none of this singing kum by ya junk 15:56
Chris Radcliff: Yes. Astronaut types are a small segment of the people you need for a sustainable
15:57
society.
Robert Gitten: Why not an isolated test station in antarctica to test the social cohesion of the crew?
15:57 15:57
Julio Mendoza: the Yanomani are assembled in smaller groups
heath.rezabek: Random sampling of types, with subsequent self-sorting into clusters that 'just work
well' together, could help speed the process.
15:57
15:57
DrMae: Now how do we get the resources and wherewithal?
15:57
Mark K: creative minds beyond technical knowledge to keep things level
15:58
Zantippy: the yanomami also move between groups, if they have a huge conflict with anyone
jbatt: DrMae: Agreed. Diversity of personality would ensure that all of the various jobs that need
completed could be done and that everyone would have a potential "others" to social connect with 15:58
drctaylor: very true Mark K! The world has so much to offer in addition to our technical minds and
15:58
prowless.
15:58
Captain.Webber: Is there a study of people who have no ambition in a social hierarchy?
LA_SpaceX: ummm...the government
15:58
Zantippy: but they also don't have much aof a political structure
15:58
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 8 of 10
thjackson@cox.net: test study test study..stop the nonsense an go to the stars we will figure out the
detail enroute :0
15:58
heath.rezabek: Resources and wherewithall: First step is to create a kickstarter (or equivalent) which
everyone knows will be used as the first pot in the next round...
15:58
15:58
J.R.: needs to be multinational effort
15:58
StarshipEngineer: Sell tickets at $20M each would raise 30B...
LA_SpaceX: I don't see this ever existing as a private entity.
15:59
15:59
Mark K: global involvement of muliple governements
heath.rezabek: The next round is a kick whose prize tiers go to 1st, 2nd, and 3rds to generate
15:59
production-ready solutions that are also commercially viable here and now...
Kathleen: isolation projects I've read about have been done with trained adults? Need to consider
family dynamics here. Historically, isolated communities of families have own unique dynamics: ie.
15:59
Amish. Could we learn something from studying those types of communities?
15:59
Mark K: *governments
15:59
StarshipEngineer: might be a pretty mixed skill set though....
mpatton: ask companies to donate some of the components (3d printers)
15:59
Zantippy: big corporations spend a lot of effort on working together as a team, resolving work conflicts,
15:59
they' be a good resource
15:59
LA_SpaceX: with out huge government funding this will not happen
Robert Gitten: I think that you could turn this into a massive media event. If you could show the
drama of crew training and selection, I think you will get millions of viewers. It will be inspiring to see
15:59
them struggling to overcome such dire odds.
heath.rezabek: Modules of the ship and expertise (wherewithall) are generated both within and
15:59
around the crowdfunding effort.
15:59
LA_SpaceX: the government will contract out private work.
Julio Mendoza: A creative work place 3d printers computers recycling materials for adapting
16:00
jbatt: Heath: kickstarter is a great idea for the next stage of funding. Small projects have received
16:00
major funding. The question is what is being "kickstarted?" A tangible product is what sells.
heath.rezabek: jbatt: Yes; but please re-read. The first kick creates the pot. The second kick is
16:00
expressly for products that sell.
DrMae: Forum closing. Went really fast. Next steps are to try to distill down the conversation and then
see who would like to work on sections in more detail Plan was to make this into a thought project for
16:00
100YSS. Helps us to see where we need to push in order to really scope out issues.
rickj: Roles and responsibilities would be desinated, maybe one of those roles could be security,
16:00
protection, police. Could be permanent or revolving.
Forum Control: Don't leave yet! please take time to complete this very brief survey about your forum
experience today. https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/OnlineFor...
16:00
16:00
LA_SpaceX: it has to be a colaboration
16:00
DrMae: Any volunteers to lead some of the follow-up?
Robert Gitten: Fund it with a massive international consortium of governments of firms. The reward
for participating is forever being remembered as the founder of a new civilization. Your respective
16:00
organization would also have IP rights to what ever technology you contribute.
mpatton: do multiple kickstarters for different parts of the project. It would appeal to different people
16:01
in different areas of the mission
Kathleen: If we're looking at motivating and ground work activities, let's create a citizen science portal
just for projects related to interstellar travel. Can get hundreds of thousands working on projects,
increase motivation and maybe give us a base group to advocate for funding
16:01
16:01
Chris Radcliff: I'd be happy to work on follow-up, but I don't have the bandwidth to lead.
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 9 of 10
StarshipEngineer: Any guess at what the cost might be? $1T or more? Just the cost of energy to push
this at 0.1 C is enormous
16:01
heath.rezabek: Maybe first kick is unnecessary or hard to grasp. Point is, all of this energy needs to be
given outlets which allow it to turn into livelihoods for people, regardless of whether they end up 'on the
ship'.
16:01
thjackson@cox.net: well the first ship should cost more than a billion od public works project would
provide that easily
16:01
16:01
LA_SpaceX: great idea kathleen
Zantippy: kkckstarted give rewards to donors. That would be a fun thing, giving compelling rewards!
16:01 16:01
LA_SpaceX: what would be the follow up Dr. Mae?
heath.rezabek: By the way all, also remember you can grab the Transcript before you go, in chunks, in
16:02
the left top menu...
Kathleen: Agree heath! if everyone one of us could devote our energies to this full-time and multiply it
16:02
by thousands....this has a chance to work
16:02
Captain.Webber: Followup responsibilities? I can help.
jbatt: DrMae and Forum Control: Excellent forum! This went great!
16:02
Robert Gitten: I would love to talk with anyone about the propulsion and flight plan.
16:02
16:02
Robert Gitten: h
16:02
Mark K: I'd be open to help with follow up
DrMae: One of the projects would be to start to understand the tech needed. Energy, costing,
technology and science status. This could be done as additonal forums with assignments off line.
16:03
Direction would be flexible.
16:03
rickj: T
16:03
StarshipEngineer: ditto
16:03
jbatt: I'm open to help with follow-up.
Kathleen: Me too
16:03
rickj: Thank you for numerous insights, I really enjoyed this.
16:03
16:03
LA_SpaceX: I am always open to help.
16:03
Kathleen: DrMae, will we get a final wrapup of our baseline premises?
jbatt: As a suggestion, I'd be interested in having a discussion just on the psychological and social
16:04
aspects of crew choice and during the mission.
LA_SpaceX: Everyone was awesome today! Just wanted to say that. This was pretty amazing stuff!
16:04 16:04
DrMae: I will post the baseline in 1 minute
Forum Control: For follow up opportunities, please send an email to info@100yss.org subject line: Feb
16:04
Forum Follow up.
Zantippy: ^^^ what jbatt said
16:04
Kathleen: Jbatt, I'd like to get in on that
16:04
Chris Radcliff: I can help with energy/propulsion/technology water-carrying, and Karen (not in the
16:04
room) can help with researching crew, environment, and selection.
16:05
heath.rezabek: Agreed; great to work with you all.
16:05
Chris Radcliff: Jbatt: I'm in, but as an interested non-expert.
thjackson@cox.net: if not it can be financed privally for much less with the motivation of the crew to
declare under the legal principal of imminet domain all that property outside the 12 mile high legal
jurisdiction of earth's nation as the rest of the universe is their to do with as they wish and chare
16:05
eartlings to visis :0
Robert Gitten: If anyone wants to read my Kon TIki design, just shoot me an email.
16:05
StarshipEngineer: All very interesting, a lively discussion. Thanks Dr. Mae for organizing
16:05
LA_SpaceX: Nuclear tech/Agriculture and cultivation/water generating tech/ etc are all up my alley
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 10 of 10
Chris Radcliff: Yes, this was great. Dr. Mae is an excellent cat-herder. :)
16:05
16:05
mpatton: very interesting, thank you all
16:05
LA_SpaceX: thank you Dr. Mae this last 4 hours flew by
16:05
Julio Mendoza: I will send my outline of a voyage to another star
16:06
Kathleen: Society, culture, outreach all my areas
16:06
Zantippy: it really must have been like herding cats Chris lol! Thanks Drmae!
heath.rezabek: There is an open-ended 100YSS fan group on G+, for any interested in keeping in
16:06
touch. (Not official, just in appreciation.)
16:06
beam propulsion for as long as they will.
16:06
jbatt: And a plug for http://www.facebook.com/friendsof100yss
16:06
Robert Gitten: 100 YSS has 2 facebook groups if anyone wishes to continue there.
16:06
heath.rezabek: https://plus.google.com/communities/1117...
DrMae: 8000 cubic feet allotted per human, that includes allotment for everything. Crew baselined
vegetarian. Other animals and higher organisms on board but not as groceries.
16:07
DrMae: Plan to have weighted environment in at least some areas of vehicle.
16:07
DrMae: With some prepositioning of supplies. Crew recruited with reinventing work on board. Launched
to a destination that will be chosen closer to the mission to have as much information as possible on
16:07
location.
16:07
StarshipEngineer: I can be followed on twitter @StarshipBuilder
thjackson@cox.net: I checked you email but it said ubnknown what mine is my user name. any in this
16:07
group are free to email me for any reason and even join my contact list.
2/24/2013
Chatzy
Page 1 of 1
Zantippy: jbatt - just Liked!
16:07
DrMae: Crew would be chosen from a range of people. Work to be done around multiple vehicle
mission with most important ability to be evolving. It will be a very long trip. Hoping to approach 0.75
light speed. Please comment and correct.
16:07
Zantippy: heath - just joined!
16:07
16:08
Robert Gitten: 0.75 c would require 1.21 MILLION TERAWATTS!
DrMae: In one bite. Baseline: Nuclear power for leaving earth orbit and baseline energy source; use
gravity assist as possible to speed trajectory away from earth. Then solar sails to assist engines and beg
earth for a beam propulsion for as long as they will. 8000 cubic feet allotted per human, that includes
allotment for everything. Crew baselined vegetarian. Other animals and higher organisms on board but
not as groceries. Plan to have weighted environment in at least some areas of vehicle. With some
that will be chosen closer to the mission to have as much information as possible on location. Crew
would be chosen from a range of people. Work to be done around multiple vehicle mission with most
important ability to be evolving. It will be a very long trip. Hoping to approach 0.75 light speed. Please
comment and correct.
16:08
Robert Gitten: No, just more like a few dozen terawatts :)
16:08
16:09
Julio Mendoza: like more 33% of light speed
16:09
Astronist: Robert Gitten: terawatts over what period of time?
16:09
Robert Gitten: The 0.75 c brings up issues of relativity and collisions with interstellar debris.
DrMae: Look for more on 100YSS forums and we'll get this continued. Thank everyone for participating.
thjackson@cox.net: atomic rocket engines of good design need no assistance Mae
16:09 16:09
Forum Control: Oh yeah...don't forget the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/OnlineFor... 16:09
16:09
StarshipEngineer: Note, global cost of energy today is ~7T$
16:09
Chris Radcliff: Thanks!
16:09
Zantippy: anks!!!
16:09
Zantippy: *Thanks!
16:10
Astronist: Thanks.
16:10
16:11
Lynda Bradford left the chat
16:12
2/24/2013
Chatzy - 100YSS February Forum
Page 1 of 1
Visitor List
»100YSS
February
Forum«
My Preferences
No Alerts
Commands
Visitor List
One Recent PM
Review Mode
Save / Print
Help / FAQ
17 people are online. 28 others have visited the room the last 24 hours. In total, there are 60 people on the list. Only the room
administrator can view email addresses. Click here to log in as room administrator.
Back To Chat
Refresh
Visitor Alias
Edit Permissions
Clean up...
Status
Partial IP
Email
Last Action
iainmacl
-
x.x.x.192
[Hidden]
Lynda Bradford
-
x.x.x.70
[Hidden]
thjackson@cox.net
-
x.x.x.251
[Hidden] (your email)
Sagar
-
x.x.x.181
[Hidden]
Kathleen
-
x.x.x.94
[Hidden]
Astronist
-
x.x.x.119
[Hidden]
Andreas
-
x.x.x.99
[Hidden]
Chris Radcliff
-
x.x.x.226
[Hidden]
rickj
-
x.x.x.171
[Hidden]
Datoraki
-
x.x.x.252
[Hidden]
Julio Mendoza
-
x.x.x.223
[Hidden]
Forum Control
-
x.x.x.60
[Hidden]
drctaylor
-
x.x.x.2
[Hidden]
Entered 2 hours ago
2/24/2013

Page 1 of 10 Chatzy 2/24/2013 http://us11.chatzy.com/100yss

Transcription

Similar documents

Heathkit HP23a

Chris Bosh - Computer Science Education Week

Heathkit DX-100 “Official” Modifications and Other Info

Made in Sausalito

bissonette denise

Rydal Road, Lemington, Newcastle Upon Tyne

breakthrough your challenges with the sourena v. group

elcascabelfm

1. After making contact with the village Bolbo, the `Peace` sailed on