Re: size of ships...

>>  Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 01:04:40 -0500
>>  From: FieldScott@aol.com
>>  Subject: Re: size of ships...
...
>>  Which brings up a point... am I the only one here who thinks long,
slender
>>  spaceships don't make sense? Yes, I know that all we're really doing
here is
>>  coming up with PSB to rationalize whatever we think *looks* cool.
>>  Nevertheless, it seems to me that except for ships designed for
atmospheric
>>  entry (including, probably, most of the aforementioned escorts), the
stubbier
>>  the better: keeps your mass more compact, your structure more
sturdy.

Different shapes have different justifications. A long, slender ship 
may house a half-mile long linear accelerator as a spinal mount. But
then again, a disk shaped or spherical ship might house some sort of
large cyclotron which fires out at a tangent from one spot on the hull.
The dispersed structure of something like 2001's Discovery or the ships
from Silent Running may be necessary to separate huge
radiation-generating
equipment from crew and sensors, or if launching and landing facilities
are external, swarms of fighters/battleriders could be launched/landed 
in a very short ammount of time. 

Justifying something like a Star Destroyer, the even sillier double-
wedge Narn light cruiser, Centauri winged battlecruisers, or almost
anything from Star Trek, etc., does stretch tha ability to create a
rational explanation a bit too thin, though.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
|  john_medway@zycor.lgc.com  |  Landmark Graphics Corp  |  512.292.2325
 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
|		 "I am not a user. I am a human being." 		
 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---