Re: FT-Starfire conversions

----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: FT-Starfire conversions

> In message
<2A5C49585B46EC42BB99D3000F725D470232EB46@col1smx01.dscc.dla.mil>
>	    "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" <Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil>
wrote:
>
> > I would disagree. In FT, I think that the power from the
> > Main Drives provides sufficient power for all the weapon
> > systems. I doubt that each Beam weapon would have its own
> > generator. But yes the power requirements are abstracted
> > out. However I would think that on a satelite without a
> > MD that is constantly running, something would have to
> > be added (1/2 size MD 1 drive?).
> >
> > -----
> > Brian Bell
> > -----
> >
> >
> >
> Well, I didn't think that every system has its own generator, but that
> the ships central generator is made big enough to power everything on
> the ship, and its MASS is 'hidden' in the MASSes of the systems it
> powers.
>
> Which is why we don't have to work out power consumption or anything
in
> FT (except for the Sa'Vas'Ku).
>
> Continuing this, a space station mounting a lot of systems (weapons,
> sensors, etc). will have the necessary power to run all those systems.
>
> But of course, it can't move (or even rotate).
>
> Your suggestion of adding a Thrust-0.5 drive should be sufficient for
> station keeping, and perhaps rotation?
>
> Charles
> --
>
Which is why I proposed adding a minimal engine in the first place.

BIF

PS-I`m getting "axcess forbidden from your server" when trying to goto
the