[GZG] FTquestionStreamlining [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

I actually think the streamlining costs in FT2.5 are too high. For the
mass involved, its just not viable to build warships.  If it was 5%/10%
I would actually consider "losing" that mass.

I've actually been thinking lately that streamlining should be part of the CPV
hull cost (so 2x for partial, and 3x for full) to scale with the size of the
ship (with a nominal amount of mass for it).

Its not completely the mass required for atmospheric entry, its distributing
the internal systems to use an appropriate hull shape. Some mass would be
required as aerofoil and control surfaces will dig into the available "combat"
mass.

Brendan 'Neath Southern Skies
http://home.pacific.net.au/~southernsk/

________________________________

	From:  On Behalf Of Ken Hall
	Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:23 PM
	Subject: Re: [GZG] FT question Streamlining [TO BE CLASSIFIED]

Brendan has answered the question from Midgard Herrding's Bureau
of Construction and Repair ;-) more than adequately, but permit me to
throw in my two cents for Roger Burton West's Shiptool suite of products (I
think they're at firedrake.org) for FT2.5. I don't think grasers or a couple
of the other latest and greatest zoomie vonder veapons are incorporated, but
the United Stars' BuShips would be lost without it. Handles everything on the
fly with a great deal of elegance.

Best regards,
        Ken

> On Thu, September 27, 2007 00:34, Robertson, Brendan wrote:

So very few warships are built with streamlining. It forces the role of
landing transports to dedicated troopships, which fits a lot of SF.

Alternatively, a ship with enough thrust wouldn't need any streamlining to
land on a planet (ignoring any possible structural limitations).