Re: (FT) Point Value for Hulls

Laserlight wrote:

>>>Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.  Volume is a function of
>>>radius cubed, surface is only a function of radius squared.
>>>Therefore bigger ships will be able to pack in more stuff per square
>>>meter of hull.  That hurts escorts rather than helping them.
> 
> Oerjan said:
>>Do the Alarishi measure hull volume in *square* meters? Ah well, I
>>always thought their warship designs were a bit two-dimensional ;-)
> 
>Nope, we measure hull *surface* is square meters.  Hull surface is
>what we wrap around the payload.  If we can fit in more payload
>(cubic) per hull surface (area), then we're more efficient.

But the ship's Mass (TMF) isn't proportional to its hull *surface*, and
neither is the basic FBx hull cost. The hull cost is proportional to
the ship's *Mass* (equal to the TMF), and the Mass is roughly
proportional to the *volume*...

The effect of your proposal is that the average *density* of a TMF 100
ship is 0.0001 times the average *density* of a TMF 1 ship. That sounds
rather unlikely, don't you think?

Regards,

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."