Re: FT3, details of needed changes

[MUNCH]

Samuel Penn wrote:
> Mass of hull and armour increases slower than the amount of mass
> that can be invested in drives. 25% volume of drives on a small
> ship might equate to 25% mass, but on a big ship to only say 10%
> mass. So your thrust to mass ratio has just gone up, so the ship
> is 'faster'.

This is assuming that a thrust to mass ratio is important in the 
type of drive system you're using.  Since FT is so wonderfully vague,
it could very well be that the effeciency of the drive depends only 
on the mass of the ship that you're trying to move.  Remember, we 
might not be using Newtonian concepts in terms of movement.  

For example- I develop an inertialess drive.  Problem:	The power curve
goes up asymptotically versus mass.  In this case, big ships WILL be 
slower than small ships, because, even though I can cram more power 
generation units into the big ships (hamsters on treadmills, let's say
(8-) ), my demand for power for a given thrust grows even faster.

I won't do the math, but I think I've made my point.  (8-)

"Captain, the hamsters canna take it!"

Sorry.	(8-)

J.

-- 
     Jerry Han - jhan@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca - I disclaim
everything
     Double Honours Applied Math/Computer Science, University of
Waterloo
		   http://www.uunet.ca/~jerry - TBFTGOGGI
 "Let your soul be your pilot - Let your soul guide you on your way." -
Sting