-------------------------------------------- On Tue, 6/23/15, Knapp <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote: Subject: Re: [TML] Starship Berthing Philosophies? To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2015, 6:37 AM On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Peter Berghold <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote: I can attest those folding sinks were a marvel of engineering. I served at the Submarine Repair Facility in New London and used to marvel at how not a cubic inch of space was wasted on a submarine. How submarines were appointed is how I envision starships being constructed. The parallels between being underwater and out in space bear looking at. On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:33 AM Knapp <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote: The remaining officers were in staterooms that had three bunks and a folding sink. How do you fold a sink? Did folding it up really save that much space? I can't quite picture this as a real space saver. I think if spaceships do really need to be small then you are correct but do you really think spaceships would be so space limited? I don't see any reason for them to be that way once we don't have to lift out of a gravity well at high costs. If you can get asteroids with the raw materials and you can use the sun to power and melt, it should be quite cheap to build big rooms. The only reason I can see for them to be small would be to save mass, perhaps a cost of jump drives would be the mass or a military ship might want minimal mass to make it faster although I don't see much need for speed when you fight with lasers. -- Douglas E Knapp ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ As far as the TU is concerned the larger volume(DTons) would mandate higher operating costs due to larger drives & higher fuel requirements. But, then, there's always the example of the mystery ship from the 'Annic Nova' CT LBB adventure. It could charge it's JDrives for free. ==================================================================================================
