Subject:
|
Re: F-2 Bat
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:48:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
577 times
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.space, Anthony Sava wrote:
> So it seems to me, the far {cheapest} option would be to have individual air
> locks and small bays for the ships to attach to.
If we're talking about small fighters, might it be cheaper to have your pilots
wear evac suits in a non-pressurized landing bay? Entry to the bay could be
through a single airlock, and the individual ships could be moored or clamped
into place by whatever mechanism is favored. Ships could even be kept in a huge
"file-drawer" storage locker and only rolled out for flights. They could even
be put into a secondary launch bay, I guess.
I suppose that this wouldn't be a good system for large-capacity passenger or
freight vessels, but it might solve part of the problem.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies: | | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) I love that idea. But Mark was talking about cost-effectiveness, and my belief is that this way would be a tad bit more expensive to build and maintain. --Anthony (21 years ago, 21-Jul-03, to lugnet.space)
| | | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) snip (...) If you will remember, the standard TIE fighter pilot had to wear and EVA suit during the entire flight. Most SW tech manuals that cover this small fighter point out that to make it cheap and fast, it has NO environmental systems (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jul-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) Again, I'm going to have to disagree, if we're going to dive into a 'realistic' rationalization here. For you see, from my perspective, normal landing gear in a zero gravity environment are totally useless. After all, landing gear serve only (...) (21 years ago, 21-Jul-03, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|