On 28Nov2019 0204, Cian Witherspoon wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 04:37 Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> My '77 Book 2 talks about tons displacement, and 'displacement', so it's
>> clearly talking volume.
>>
> No, 77 is pretty explicitly mass based - yes, it’s mass displacement, but
> page 17 “all non starships consume fuel at a rate of 10 kilograms (1/100th
> of a ton)...”, while page 43 provides guidelines for determining how much
> of an item is present in a ton of its matching trade good, and also makes
> it clear that trade goods are measured by weight.

Which is the same language used on '81 Book 2, which is accepted to use
volume-based ship design.

By my reading, both editions are talking volume for spaceship design.
'77 talking about fuel consumption in mass doesn't change this, given
that a ton of fuel is a ton of mass and a ton of displacement. Also,
both appear to be using tons mass when discussing cargo and vehicle
masses. This means that the system seems to assume 14^3 per ton of cargo
mass, and the same for vehicles in their hangers. Low density, but not
insane, I suppose. Where it goes nuts is that it then assumes the same
for carried small craft.

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>