Prev: Re: Questions regarding NAC ground units, was SG IF morale Next: Re: Questions regarding NAC ground units, was SG IF morale

Re: Wet Navy in the future was Re: Questions regarding NAC ground units, was SG IF morale

From: Roger Burton West <roger@f...>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 16:35:40 +0000
Subject: Re: Wet Navy in the future was Re: Questions regarding NAC ground units, was SG IF morale

On Sat, Dec 01, 2001 at 08:28:14AM -0800, John Atkinson wrote:
>As a side note, what's the difference between a
>starship and a submarine?  Both have to be
>water/vacuum proof--what's to stop a streamlined ship
>from splashing into an ocean and hiding on the bottom
>of the sea for a while, then flying out to launch
>hit-and-run strikes on the enemy?

The spaceship needs to resist up to one atmosphere of negative pressure
(1 atm inside, vacuum outside), and should rarely if ever encounter
positive pressure. A submarine doesn't need to resist negative pressure,
but does need to resist 40+ atmospheres of positive pressure (450m is
the official maximum depth for the Los Angeles class, which is over 44
atmospheres above surface pressure). While a streamlined ship may well
be capable of shallow-water lurking, I suspect that the internal bracing
is entirely different. (There'll be more overlap than I've mentioned
here, since one of the effects of a nearby warhead explosion is
overpressure, but the basic design goals are distinct.)

Roger


Prev: Re: Questions regarding NAC ground units, was SG IF morale Next: Re: Questions regarding NAC ground units, was SG IF morale