Re: [FTFB] Not ships, exactally. . .

[John's nifty defsats]

I hadn't thought of going this small with defasts. Not a bad idea.
However, if they are unmanned, they should have some limitations -
disruptable by ECM, beam range bands of 10" instead of 12", Die rolls at
-1, or something like that. IF they are manned, they certainly won't be
jobs of choice for the military.

I'm working on 5 types of orbital installations - all heftier than
defsats.
- Platforms are various sizes and are basically big MT missile racks. NI
has 2, and the 3 other largest pop. centers heach have one of some size.
- Bases are big stations - Cruiser to battleship armament. Possibly
fighter bays. (NI has 2, the second largest pop center, Masada, has 1)
- Stations are smaller - Destroyer-CL armament (2 at NI, 2 at Midbar, 1
each at Masada and Yafo, several more scattered through the three
systems)
- Outposts - More like a manned version of John's defsat's. Small lines
of defense for small colonies or strategic locations.
- Yards - Base or station+construction facilities (NI has 1, Masada has
1)
Larger worlds (like earth) could/should have DN/SDN size stations.

That said, I hadn't thought of these installations with any movement
capability at all - I was going to buy multiple arc beams and such. But
it makes sense to have maneuver thrusters. Seems to me that a station
that wants to roll/rotate should pay for thrust 1  engines at full mass
but 1/2 cost. They may be puny, but they have to overcome the same
inertia as ship's thrusters. Plus its a big savings not to have to buy
extra arcs for your heavier weapons.

Noam

Noam R. Izenberg		noam.izenberg@jhuapl.edu