Subject:
|
Re: Bram Lambrecht 's spaceplane
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 29 May 2001 20:20:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1457 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Trevor Pruden writes:
> In lugnet.space, Mladen Pejic writes:
> > I guess it is all up to Bram and Jon to discuss...
> >
> > My "Valour" Advanced Gunship is barely 89 studs long, and it is classified as a
> > gunship too, yet I still asked Jon to put it in the capital ship section. Why?
> > Well probably because Jon set the minimal length limit for capital ships to be
> > 60 studs. Therefore, my ship, as well as Bram's "technically" belongs in the
> > capital ship section.
> <snip>
>
> Good point. And you're right - it's between Jon and Bram. But it's funny
> because this is essentially a pleasure transport/A to B plane. So does that
> classify it as a capital?
>
> So what classifies a capital anyway? I have an image in my mind, but that
> may not be the same what others perceive. It has to be more than just
> length in reality all of our big ships are under scale from a real-life
> point of view (depending on how you look at it). So that being said, there
> must be other things which classify a capital ship. Is is the number of
> people, the amount of living space, the number of different missions that
> the ship can perform? For example, the medical ships that we see on the
> galactic shipyard are classified sub-capital and I tend to agree because
> although they are not small and have several crew, the ship is largely
> mission specific.
>
> Is is the cross funtionality coupled with the size and numbe rof crew that
> makes a ship a "capital ship". Think of a US naval aircraft carrier and
> compare it to a Boeing 747. The boing 747 is big, but it only carries
> people from one place to the next. Every 747 is configured to be mission
> specific. It may seem at first glance that an aircraft carrier is mission
> specific, but it is also a city at sea (size and crew), and it can do many
> things and respond to many events (cross funtional: carry aircraft including
> helicopters, carry troops, labs can be set up on them, they can be missle
> platforms if need be, they can restock other craft and visa versa..etc etc).
> Space capital ships may have the ability to transport people and vehicles,
> tranport freight, do research (physical and medical), act like field
> hospitals, perform rescue, refuel other ships, do battle, defend others,
> command others, map stellar bodies, etc etc...the list goes on.
>
> Now, a capital does not have to have all of these characteristics, and
> perhaps you have to consider the primary functions as well as the secondary
> functions. A battleship may be totally cross funtional, but it's primary
> function is battle. The Valour gunship is large, and it's primary function
> is battle. But can it do anything else outside of a war sphere? What do
> you think? I don't know what kind of depate this will sprout, but it's
> interesting.
>
> Anyways, I love the Valour. I'd like to get building instructions if at all
> possible. Do you have the dat posted (I just installed MLCAD).
>
> ~Trev
I think that to "qualify" for "Capital Ship" not only requires size and
function, but also time. Your example of 747 vs aircraft carrier is a good
one in this relationship. A 747 can stay aloft for about 12 hours - maybe a
bit more - end of 'mission'. A "Capital Ship" - such as the carrier
mentioned - could stay afloat (away from any port) for months at a time.
This is why in my 'definition' of capital ship, craft size is not the only
criterion.
I also don't think that just because a craft is limited to a single purpose
- a battleship that does nothing else - should be disqualified because of
'limited' functionality. I'm sure that a patrol or picket ship which stays
on station for extended periods of time could be classified as a capital
ship if duration alone was used. I think this is where the size
specifications come into play.
So, for me, the definition of a Capital Ship is one in which the ship size,
crew size, mission/purpose and time duration all must be weighed together
for determination. I think that each category needs a (general) minimum
requirement, but that that minimum requirement could be waived based on how
much the ship fulfills (or exceeds) the other aspects. So that a ship which
meets all minimum requirements (1) qualifies automatically. Any other ship
would need evaluation.
I can see where a freighter could be classified as a CS with only a crew of
6, because it is large and requires weeks to perform its singular function.
I would, however, disqualify all fighter and patrol craft from
capitalization due mostly to crew size, ship size or mission duration.
(1) Suggestion of "minimum requirements":
Ship Size: 60 studs long, with relative width/cross-section/volume
Ship Crew: 20 beings
Facilities: Bridge/Flight Control, Engineering, Crew Quarters, Galley,
Access (airlock, shuttlecraft, etc.)
Mission: Open - no minimum
Duration: 30 Solar days
Just my 2-studs worth.
Wayne
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Bram Lambrecht 's spaceplane
|
| (...) <snip> Good point. And you're right - it's between Jon and Bram. But it's funny because this is essentially a pleasure transport/A to B plane. So does that classify it as a capital? So what classifies a capital anyway? I have an image in my (...) (25 years ago, 29-May-01, to lugnet.space)
|
42 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
