Prev: RE: Who's out there? Next: hello

Re: DS2 Resins to FT or FTFB Mass

From: Thomas Anderson <thomas.anderson@u...>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 19:55:52 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: DS2 Resins to FT or FTFB Mass

On Mon, 23 Nov 1998, George,Eugene M wrote:
> Well listies here's my first post to new list (mmm the new list

it feels weird. and some weird stuff is happening with double-quoting of
the address in my mailer ... <crosses fingers>

> some Scout/couriers (MT-27 pics available)

looks similar to the Tholians from a paleolithic star trek episode.

> The
> only 1/300 scale ship from the microtac line I don't own is the MT-18
> "Apache" (no pics) so I can't say if that's supposed to look like the
> "Arapaho" class Corvette or not.

well, given that it costs the same as a platoon-size lander (6.50), i
would guess that it is not supposed to be a proper navy frigate. mind
the system defence gunboat is only 4.50, so that must be blinking tiny

> Anyway I think that maybe the big ol
> assault lander is supposed to be the 120 mass Assault Transport
described on
> pp42 of yon Fleet Book, at least I Hope it is, 'cause it would make
> nice and simple. Maybe it's the NAC "Galahad" Class?

if 1 mass is 100 tonnes (is that right?), then mass 120 is 12 000
figuring that a motor car is (for the sake of argument) 1 tonne, that's
000 times more massive, probably 12 000 times larger in volume, so
(12000)^(1/3) = 23 times longer. looking at the picture, this could
actually be right. i feel starships - especially those of mass 100 -
should be much, much bigger, but then i always used to rate 1 mass at
tonnes (until i read honor harrington and changed it to 100 000 ...).


Prev: RE: Who's out there? Next: hello