Re: [FT] Scale in Full Thrust

----- Original Message -----
From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: [FT] Scale in Full Thrust

> Bif Smith wrote:
>
> >Oh, a HH SD would have a mass of 75000 mass (YES, 75 thousand!!!)
with
the
> >mass given in FT of 1 mass equals 100 tonnes. This is because the
mass of
a
> >SD in HH is given at 7.5 million tonnes. There is also the mass of a
> >fortress is given at 16 million tonnes. The only problem given is
that
> >someone worked out that the given masses for a HH SD is too low for
the
> >volume given. The desity of a SD would be the same as styrofoam! Not
exactly
> >battlesteel is it?
>
> Which do you think is the heaviest: a modern MBT (60-70 metric tons),
or a
> block of solid balsa wood with the same external dimensions (width,
length,
> height)?
>
> Hint: it's not the MBT...
>
> ...and I'm prepared to bet that the MBT has a far lower ratio of
internal
> empty space (accessways, cabins, fighting compartment etc.) to total
hull
> volume than the starship does.
>
> Regards,
>
> Oerjan
> oerjan.ohlson@telia.com
>
> "Life is like a sewer.
>   What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
> -Hen3ry
>
This raises a question, air/atmosphere weighs nothing when you consider
a
surface ship, but I always asumed that for a spaceship you would have to
consider the mass of the atmosphere onboard the ship for the crew to
breath
(plus the tanks, scrubbers etc).

BIF

"Yorkshire born, yorkshire bred,
strong in arms, thick in head"