Re: ? for the FT players or anyone with RW Naval Build Times

["Eric Foley" <stiltman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, here's also a point that needs to be appreciated here, and that's that
the scale of the starfaring nation you're dealing with has to be taken into
account.

The NAC (and other powers) are generally modelled as having no more
than half a dozen core planets, all of which have considerably smaller
populations than even present-day RW earth.    So the roughly 5,000 TMF
annual figure that was given for the building rate of the NAC has to be
considered in this light.

In Star Trek, you're looking at several dozen populated planets, many of
which are much more populated than present-day RW earth.  And if you
get into Star Wars... well, the planet of Coruscant alone probably has more
industrial power than the entire human sphere in FT canon.  (I mean, stop
and
think what the concept of an entire planet's surface being urbanized really
-means-...)

E
(aka StiltMan)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Evans" <devans@nebraska.edu>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: ? for the FT players or anyone with RW Naval Build Times


>
>
>
>
> Ok, I'd known that the concept of space-building not needing structures
was
> there, but I was avoiding even going there. Sort of like the next step
some
> would have: just dump a couple of buckets of the right varieties of
nanites
> on the right rock, and come back shortly to pick up your fleet, fully
> automated.
>
> Baja aside, of course.
>
> Sort of devalues the ships, not to mention the folks in them.
>
> Yes, you can build ships without the structures. Yes, modularity means you
> build a small piece, attach it, and it's flawlessly integrated. Will it
> necessarily the best way to do it? I'm not so sure. But that's a flavor
> thing as much as any.
>
> The_Beast
>