Andromeda

11 posts ยท Apr 26 2002 to Apr 30 2002

From: Thomas Barclay <Thomas.Barclay@s...>

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:27:41 -0400

Subject: Andromeda

One thing Binhan (I think it was B who posted the great info on Andromeda)
missed, or the site did, was the capability of Andromeda to deploy large (I'd
call them size 5 or oversize) assault walkers (armed with a variety of weapons
but multiple RFACs are a good start) from orbit to a planetary surface.

That's kind of a handy ability too and argues for even more internal space.

Like Jon, I imagine the Heavy Cruiser to be the principal line combatant
before the fall. Now, could there/will there be larger ships? Maybe, but
probably fairly rare. The HC looks like it has enough capability and crew
(including a pile of infantry aboard in proper crewing) to handle most
problems on its own. And a squadron of these would be quite terrifying. I'm
guessing BDN or DN size would be appropriate in FT.

Some of you who track FT scales (or notional ones), how big would

Length: 1301 m Beam: 976 m Height: 325 m

actually be as a model? What mass does that argue for?

> From capabilities alone, one might say (note this translates to a
Thrust 4 6 PDS 6 SML (maybe 2 rounds each?)
6 B-1 (360)
6 squadrons attack fighters 6 squadrons standard fighters 2 squadrons
Aerospace fighters 2 heavy drone squadrons 1 light drone squadron 3 firecons
No shields, but lots of armour and a decent amount of hull integrity Plus drop
troops and onboard infantry FTL

This model makes it look like a cross between an ordinance vessel, a marine
assault ship, and a heavy carrier.

From: Roger Burton West <roger@f...>

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 16:38:37 +0100

Subject: Re: Andromeda

> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:27:41AM -0400, Tomb wrote:

Taking a drone squadron as equivalent to a fighter squadron, 10 mass of
troops, 30 armour and 20% hull, I get 500 mass (1693 economic points,
3693 combat points). Not something I want on _my_ table very often. :-)

From: Tony Francis <tony.francis@k...>

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:11:59 +0100

Subject: RE: Andromeda

> -----Original Message-----

At 1/2400th, this comes out at a whopping 54cm long and 40cm wide (ie
five and a half tiems as long as an NAC SDN). I'm not even going to think
about the mass this represents....

From: B Lin <lin@r...>

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 13:50:55 -0600

Subject: RE: Andromeda

The original stats were:

Crew: 4,200

Length: 1301 m Beam: 976 m Height: 325 m

Mass: 96,408,876 kg or 96.4 kilotons (metric)

--------------------
Don't remember what the calculations for tons per mass unit were, but for
reference:

So at 10 tons per mass unit - 9,640 mass.

or 100 tons per mass unit - 964 mass.

Also remember that the outer dimensions describe a volume that is mostly empty
space, the Andromeda has long tubular structures around the perimeter but a
much smaller "main hull" volume.

--Binhan

> -----Original Message-----

From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@c...>

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 21:43:40 +0100

Subject: RE: Andromeda

In message <2E66F35C37F692459A7BCEC6CC9782B81F239C@exchange.kuju.com>
> "Tony Francis" <tony.francis@kuju.com> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
Well, going by the tonnage listed on the website (96.4 kTonnes), she's
_only_ 964 MASS :-)

I think the tonnages listed may be a bit low :-)

From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@c...>

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 22:38:34 +0100

Subject: RE: Andromeda

In message <a35af22e4b.Charles@nerik.monkslode.fsnet.co.uk>
> Charles Taylor <nerik@monkslode.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <2E66F35C37F692459A7BCEC6CC9782B81F239C@exchange.kuju.com>

From: Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@h...>

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:44:40 -0700

Subject: RE: Andromeda

> From: Charles Taylor <nerik@monkslode.fsnet.co.uk>

> Well, going by the tonnage listed on the website (96.4 kTonnes), she's

Not if she has a lot of hollow space inside her.

3B^2

From: Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@h...>

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:59:25 -0700

Subject: RE: Andromeda

> From: Charles Taylor <nerik@monkslode.fsnet.co.uk>

> What I forgot to add - the 1sr episode dialog gives an approximate

Ok... by "Actual Hull Volume", do you mean, "Actual volume of the material
from which the hull is constructed" (Which would make for a very thin hull
indeed), or does it mean the more logical "Actual volume of the internal

space of the hull" (In which case the "density of water" thing wouldn't be
that applicable to the hull material)?

3B^2

From: B Lin <lin@r...>

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:03:24 -0600

Subject: RE: Andromeda

Then again, remember that Andromeda has hangar space for over 100 craft.
Assuming that they aren't being launched, serviced and recovered in a
dinky launch tube, but the good old-fashioned sci-fi hangar, quite a bit
of enclosed volume is going to be empty space. In addition, from the few times
that I have seen the show, it seems that there is some sort of main hangar
that can accomodate a patrol craft or two.

--Binhan

> -----Original Message-----
<<SNIP>>

> What I forgot to add - the 1sr episode dialog gives an approximate

From: Ground Zero Games <jon@g...>

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 09:30:08 +0100

Subject: RE: Andromeda

> Then again, remember that Andromeda has hangar space for over 100

Well, for a start there's the huge hangar in which the Eurka Maru is kept
docked.....

Jon (GZG)
> --Binhan

From: Charles Taylor <charles.taylor@c...>

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 18:22:23 +0100

Subject: RE: Andromeda

In message <F94PcxBVspxEeUk3Ogk00004888@hotmail.com>
> "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >From: Charles Taylor <nerik@monkslode.fsnet.co.uk>
The latter - just the ratio of MASS to volume seems a bit low - even for
a largely hollow spacecraft... I could be wrong though :-)