Subject:
|
Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Sat, 31 Aug 2002 16:53:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
886 times
|
| |
|
|
"Trevor Pruden" <trevor_pruden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:H1oz95.CKr@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.space, Jude Beaudin writes:
> > What is the minimum length (studs) of a 'capital ship'?
>
> I follow the Shipyards (Jon Palmer's) site minimum stud lengh • specification
> of 75-100 studs. Given some of the ships out there, it should probably be
> over 100 studs at this point, but that would cut a lot of people out of • the
> cap ship building realm. My caps exceed 100 studs normally.
>
> >
> > Can a 'capital ship' land on a planet?
>
> I don't think it should be able to land. That's what elaborate landing
> craft are for. As stated earlier, the energy costs are not worth the • effort.
>
In StarWars technology, they use repulsorlifts for planitary travel, and
sublight engines for space travel. All a repulsor lift does is repulse
gravity.
--
Markham Carroll
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Defining the term "Capital Ship"
|
| (...) I follow the Shipyards (Jon Palmer's) site minimum stud lengh specification of 75-100 studs. Given some of the ships out there, it should probably be over 100 studs at this point, but that would cut a lot of people out of the cap ship building (...) (22 years ago, 31-Aug-02, to lugnet.space)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
