Re: Backflow of Colonists

> But assuming the colony transports aren't designed for a 1-way voyage,
they'd be in ballast on the way back. Costs would be negligible. Now of
course, the colonial administration might want to put a 10,000,000%
surcharge on the fares.. or at least require returnees to pay back their
(subsidised) fare there, plus admistration costs, plus handling fees,
plus
landing tax, plus emigration tax, plus... But the cost to the shipping
company would be negligible, just life-support costs.

You are assuming negligible life support costs and two way transports -
perhaps drawing a long bow IMHO. No commercial transport will dead head
over
interstellar distances - (Interstate trucks won't do it!), I feel that
ships
would be one way and be consumed at point of termination or would be two
way
with raw product coming back  - an incredibly affluent colonisation
project
could pay for a 1/2 empty trip, but it would be unlikely that anyone is
going to be that well off and still want or need to send out colonists.
However, even if there are minimal costs involved in a return trip, most
if
not all colonists are going to have literally nothing to pay for their
return trip - in addition, a colonist will not work out his/her
"unsuitablity" (for want of a better word) in a short period - it would
be
unlikely for a two way vessel to hang around for very long - after the
ship
leaves, he/she doesn't get to ring the port authority and say "I'm sorry
but
I want to go home".

> Of course the colony transports might well be designed for just a
single
voyage, with the materials recycled at the other end. In which case all
bets
are off.

Which is how I see most colonisation projects operating.

Brendan