Re: size of ships...

Scott Field wrote:
>Which brings up a point... am I the only one here who thinks long,
slender
>spaceships don't make sense? Yes, I know that all we're really doing
here is
>coming up with PSB to rationalize whatever we think *looks* cool.
>Nevertheless, it seems to me that except for ships designed for
atmospheric
>entry (including, probably, most of the aforementioned escorts), the
stubbier
>the better: keeps your mass more compact, your structure more sturdy.

Good point.  Dispersed structures and other shapes would probably be
cheaper
and easier to build if the ship does require atmospheric performance.

>In fact, you could argue that ships should be wider than they are long,
>rather than the other way around. This allows you to concentrate more
>firepower/ defences/ sensors/ whatever forward.

I would imagine it depends greatly on the function of the ship.  Having
a
large cross-section from the front might not be appealing if you wish to
keep your sensor signature to a minimum.

>If you stick a couple engines
>on either side of this mass, the elongated moment-arm makes it easier
to turn
>faster -- while the crew, near the center, is hit with less G-force.

Mounting engines far apart could create problems if one was disabled
such as
spinning about an axis.  A friend of mine found this out the hard way
with a
home made rocket mounting three F class engines far apart versus a
cluster.
When the rocket took off, one engine failed and the whole thing tipped
over
sideways skipping across the ground like a cheap guided missile.  Sure
enough he tried this again with all three engines mounted apart.  All
engines fired this time, but they burned at different rates.  This
caused
the rocket to perform another horizontal flight path, speeding towards a
passing car and scaring the wits out of its driver.  (Note the second
rocket
was a good 3 feet long unlike the first which was about 6 feet in
length.)

Mike Miserendino