Re: Starship Passengers and...

[email removed] (Richard Johnson) writes:
> Subject: (3317) Re: Starship Passengers and...
>
> ... and even more on trade and commerce.
>
> Rob Dean asks about Mike Surman's observation that space flight costs so
> damn much.
>
> :What do you need to maintain life in space?  Food (cheap), air (cheaper),
> :water (cheap), power (lots of it on a ship), specialized equipment (already
> :included in the cost of the ship--extended life support isn't real cheap,
> :plus we pay annual maintenance on it.)
>
> Well, if I were running a little passenger line between say Efate and
> Bounghe, or some such, I'd also throw in:
>
>    salaries of people aboard
>    dead-head space (passengers who won't be there for a return flight)
>    routine bribes
>    PROFIT  (double all yer expenses...)

In fact, all of these costs _are_ already included in the system.  (Well, OK,
bribes would have to implemented by the GM, but that's no big deal.)  My
objection is to paying Cr2000 per occupied stateroom, _just for the life
support costs_, according to the rules.  A little extrapolation at those sorts
of rates would probably be interesting when applied to something like a current
SSBN, which may remain cruising submerged for a couple of months.

Rob Dean

Back to the trenches -- Richard has returned.  Sorry for the hiatus,
had a disk controller go TU and agora went down, and mid-winter feasting
etc.  Anyway - here's the first reply to my huge backlog.  Dated Dec.
19, A conversation between Rob Dean and me about starship econ 101 -
basically should it cost CR2000/mo for LIFE SUPPORT on a starship?


<Rob>
:> :What do you need to maintain life in space?  Food (cheap), air (cheaper),
:> :water (cheap), power (lots of it on a ship), specialized equipment (already
:> :included in the cost of the ship--extended life support isn't real cheap,
:> :plus we pay annual maintenance on it.)

<Me>
Of course you gotta lift 'em.  Which is why it's so damned expensive
now (TL7++).  But that's a feeble argument.

<Me back then>
:> Well, if I were running a little passenger line between say Efate and
:> Bounghe, or some such, I'd also throw in:
:>
:>    salaries of people aboard
:>    dead-head space (passengers who won't be there for a return flight)
:>    routine bribes
:>    PROFIT  (double all yer expenses...)

<Rob>
:In fact, all of these costs _are_ already included in the system.  (Well, OK,
:bribes would have to implemented by the GM, but that's no big deal.)  My
:objection is to paying Cr2000 per occupied stateroom, _just for the life
:support costs_, according to the rules.  A little extrapolation at those sorts
:of rates would probably be interesting when applied to something like a current
:SSBN, which may remain cruising submerged for a couple of months.

<Me (now)>
Ouch!  The idea that life support cost 2X to 4X a salary goes against
the sci-fi genre, IMHO.  This should be something already taken care
of -- sort of like item 1 in Maslow's heirarchy of needs.  We won't go
colonizing until we're sure we can survive on the way.

For MT:TNG why not something like just forgetting to include such a
ridiculous feature?  Call it part of the engine and jull maintenance.
- --
Richard Johnson     [email removed]
"We've learned a great deal about how to keep the American people
pacified."   Ex-CIA director William Colby after the Church hearings