Re: size of ships...

On Tue, 17 Dec 1996 FieldScott@aol.com wrote:

> Some time back (I'm about a week behind in reading my list-mail)
Oerjan
> wrote,
> 
> > Escorts: up to about 4cm long, provided they're longish rather than
stubby
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.

Do you _want_ everything pointed forward? I'm not sure I do - in fact, 
broadside tactics (which allow me to break off far easier) seems as a 
good idea to me :) And, of course - how big are your weapons? Look at 
that pulse-torp-armed destroyer - the pulse torp takes up a _lot_ of 
space in it (...about 33% of the mass). Will the shape of the weapon 
affect the shape of the ship in this case? Those railguns - will 
they fit into a smallish spherical hull?

Does much of your equipment need surface mounts - not that I can think
of 
a good reason for it, except possibly for sub-packs (the Eagle Rocket 
Sloop, anyone? <g>) - so you need as much surface per volume as you can 
get? (...why am I thinking of NSL Battlecruisers all of a sudden...)

I think hull shape depends on a lot of things, from the basic unyielding

shape of those spinal mounts to pure estetics (...Eldar...). Since we
can 
come up with justifications for whatever hull shape we want, why
bother...

Later,

Oerjan Ohlson

"Father, what is wrong?"
"My shoes are too tight. But it does not matter, because
 I have forgotten how to dance."
- Londo Mollari