Re: Long post - RE: [OFFICIAL] Freighters/Merchants question
From: Aaron Teske <mithramuse@y...>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:49:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Long post - RE: [OFFICIAL] Freighters/Merchants question
Well, I think it's 8'6" high now, which was IIRC out of the
USA... whatever, I guess. (See here for various links and
background: http://www.alteich.com/tidbits/t040104.htm Good
I think the main question of the debate is how much cargo do
people see shipping between the stars, and of what value?
If you will be shipping bulk low-cost items, like (generally
speaking) ocean shipping today, then there will certainly be
much larger ships that may have more general schemes -- not just
individual containers, but whole sub-ships of containers.
Perhaps you even have a point where the FTL cargo drive actually
just hauls around system-only ships that move the cargo to their
final destination... the FTL tug drops off the system ships and
picks up any that are ready at a specified point in a given
system. No need to waste time with the FTL drive sitting
idle... this also depends on how much you think an FTL drive
costs to make and/or operate, and exactly how the FTL drive
Alternately, if there is relatively little cargo shipping, but
it is high value (sending the machines to make the bulk cargo on
site, or to make more machines, etc.) then cargo ships would be
smaller and presumably better protected. This doesn't *seem* to
be the case, at least in the generic background, but I don't
think it is really called out specifically.
--- david smith <email@example.com> wrote:
> >From: ShldWulf@aol.com
> >ISO (International, not Interstellar :o) Randy
> The ISO bit was intentional. I know its international. After
> all, if I remember, it was britisg rail who originated the
> container standardisaton idea for its freightliner trains
> (20ft boxs, 8ft high).
> Could be wrong.
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!