Subject:
|
Re: biggest capital ship ever...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:05:58 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
426 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Jon Palmer writes:
> Regarding "capital-ships". This has always been a pretty nebulous term used
> on Lugnet. Some things to think about:
<snipped links>
>
> -Looking around on Google and Usenet brings up about 100 different
> variations of "Capital Ship". Every genre and hobby seems to have their own
> version. Generally most definitions include a military role. Most
> definitions also consider a "Capital Ship" to be a vessel that is capable of
> extended missions.
>
> I've been planning to write an essay on this issue for a while. I know that
> several among us don't think that the term is fitting for large LEGO ships.
> I can see the logic in this but I think it should also be considered that it
> is a pretty loose term to begin with. (If someone can shoot me down and give
> me an accurate, historical definition, that can still pertain to the larger
> scales of space faring ships, please do)
>
> Among other things, what I'm getting at is should we still use this term to
> describe all of our large LEGO ships? What are the pros and cons of using
> the term? What are our options? This is a great subject. I'd love to hear
> everyone's ideas.
>
> -Jon
> --
> | The Shipyard - http://zemi.net/shipyard
> | My Lego Creations - http://zemi.net/lego
Well, since you asked here's my take....
The term "capital ship" is, more or less, applied by the builder. The word
capital refers to the resources (usually monetary, but in this case bricks)
expended with regard to a project. What might be a large capital project for
me might not scratch the surface of the resources available to other
builders. A capital ship for the US could be the USS Nimitz whereas a
capital ship for, oh, I don't know.... Cuba, would be much smaller. This
reinforces the nebulous nature of the term.
A better way to classify ships would be to follow Navy standards such as
Carrier, Cruiser, Destroyer, Fighter, Troop Ship, etc. I've taken loose navy
descriptions and modified them to Space requirements (which are also loose).
Carrier: A large vessel that operates and supports aircraft (spacecraft)
attacks on enemies, protects friendly forces and engages in sustained
independent operations in war. No landing capabilities.
Cruiser: Large combat vessel with multiple target response capability. No
landing capabilities.
Destroyer: Smaller, faster warships that help safeguard larger ships in a
fleet or battle group. May, or may not incorporate landing capabilities.
Fighter: Small individual craft used in either offensive or defensive
pinpoint strikes. May, or may not incorporate landing capabilities.
Troop Ship: Smaller armoured warship used in terrestrial troop deployment.
Must incorporate landing capabilities.
I think that the definitions above help distinguish the differences between
major catagories of ship (although I'm positive that there are several gaps
in classification. Someone like LFB might be able to help me out there.).
To summarize:
In my opinion, size doesn't matter, it's the function that matters. Although
size does have a direct relationship to function, it's not a good benchmark
to use.
The term "Capital" is too judgemental and shouldn't be used as a classification.
Just my $.02.... Actually, more like $1.50 but size doesn't matter.
-Duane
http://www.geocities.com/dnjhess/lego.html
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: biggest capital ship ever...
|
| "Ross Crawford" <rcrawford@csi.com> wrote in message news:H1L0As.Mpn@lugnet.com... (...) Ahh thats one of Paul's 2 mystery ships :-) All I can say is I'm just glad he keeps these built. Seeing them pop up in the random LUG or event photo is almost (...) (22 years ago, 29-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
