Re: Fighter Mounts

scipio@interlog.com on 05/30/98 07:38:55 PM

Please respond to FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk

To:   FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
cc:    (bcc: Jared E Noble/AAI/ARCO)
Subject:  Re: Fighter Mounts

At 06:24 PM 03-06-98 -0700, you wrote:
>>>
>>> At 00:09 5/31/98, scipio@interlog.com wrote:
>>> >The problem with fighter on the outside is that it is incredably
>awkward to
>>> >do anything with them. Imagine a surprise attack, you would have to
get
>>> >suited up and then `run` through an airlock. What about getting a
wounded
>>> >pilot out an into a sickbay, what if he needed first aid right
there?
>Doing
>>> >routine repair work would be slowed if you had to use a vacsuit. I
think
>>> >the cost of a fighter bay is justified.
>>>
>>
>>     The 'Inside' vs 'outside' debate is fun to watch but the most
>>likely (in my mind) scenario is one in which both are used.
>>Outside: the standard FT fighter and interceptor are deployed
>>	   on mounts that supply/resupply  the energy and fuel
>>	   needs of the  craft.
>>Inside:  The specilized attack, bomber, torpedo craft are carried
>>	   internally so that the expendable loads may be mounted in
>>	   more PROTECTED/controlled conditions.  These craft will
>>	   be serviced by robot/waldo crew chiefs  in vacuum.
>>Comments: The external mount will be the first to launch in a surprise
>>	   attack situation since only the pilot needs to mount his
>>	   craft and launch as an individual.	The internal bay
>>	   theory requires all pilots to man and ready their craft
>>	   prior to the pumpdown of the bay itself.   After all, how
>>	   many complete changes of air will a ship have?
>> Bye for now,
>>John L.
>>
>>
>I guess this can be considered a grey area in one respect, if a ship
has
an
>energy
>screen protecting it from attack then why not one at the opening of the
bay
>to prevent the air from escaping ala star trek?

Careful there - mentioning Star trek and 'Technology' in the same breath
can get one in trouble around here ;->

But seriously - this is something we are making progress on.  A Plasma
Window, as it is called, encloses hot plasma inside electromagnetic
fields
and can actually serve as a fairly effective Pressure/Vacuum barrier -
Now
there would obviously be a power cost, but I imagine that is not an
insurmountable problem - I can't envision these starships operating on
anything less than a small Tokamak Fusion generator.  And no one said
you
can't still have a bay door to shut during routine cruising operations.

See the web page below, from Brookhaven National Lab's site:

http://www.pubaf.bnl.gov/pr/bnlpr080896.html

Now I'm not saying this is a solved problem by any means. You still need
to
drop the Window to get out- maybe a double window 'Airlock' would at
least
obviate the need for depressurizing completely - but the you are still
susceptible to explosive docmpression when you lose power to the Window
-
no fun.  And I for one have no interest in flying my fighter through the
active Plasma Window - ionized gas at 12,000 degrees C?

I imagine it would at least scour the dirt off the paint...

Jared