Subject:
|
Re: F-2 Bat
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 21 Jul 2003 17:58:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3421 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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!
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) Expensive? Bah! I build my ships out of solid gold with platinum wiring and diamond-encrusted control surfaces. Phooey on your bean counting! Dave! (23 years ago, 21-Jul-03, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: F-2 Bat
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jul-03, to lugnet.space)
|
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
|
|
|
|
