Prev: Re: [OT] Re: Human aggression in space Next: Re: Kra'Vak 'house' rules for FB, long

Re: subs in spaaace

From: Charles Gray <cgray@j...>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 14:42:30 -0700
Subject: Re: subs in spaaace

Jonathan Jarrard wrote:
> 
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
> >
> > Erm, not quite. The SDF-1 was always a spaceship. It took two subs
with when the drive malfunctioned -- these subs were grafted onto SDF-1
itself (i.e. they didn't get their own drives etc.). And Pluto is pretty
much all the way across the solar system ;-)
> 
> I thought one was a supercarrier, and the other (the DAEDELUS, I
think)
> was an amphibious assault ship.
	They were both referred to as "semi-submersible" ships in the
perfect
manuels (maybe the carrier didn't have the "semi" in front of it.). 
OTH, neither ship was ever shown underwater, and the carrier would have
made a lousy sub in any case.  The implication was that this was
acceptable, since they were anti-alien weapons, and the submersible
aspect of the ship was just to allow them to mover around when the enemy
held orbital superiority.  Obviously, the designers didn't realize just
how much orbital superiority the bad guys were going to have :)


Prev: Re: [OT] Re: Human aggression in space Next: Re: Kra'Vak 'house' rules for FB, long