RE: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers

[David Levine <david@actionworld.com>]

Well, the one caveat I have on this is that it probably depends on the
velocity and the design of the starship.  In some combinations I can picture
the external environment of a starship being an extremely hazardous place.
Radiation being the main thing I can think of.

As far as ease of repairs - if a carrier breaks down, no one's life onboard
is threatened.  If a sub breaks down, in certain situations it can be life
threatening.  Repairs on a sub stranded underwater (admittedly not very
likely) are a lot harder than repairs on a stranded carrier.

I was thinking that the repairs on a starship in motion are difficult and
critical and hence are more akin to repairs on a sub than a carrier.
------------------------------------------------------
David Levine                     david@actionworld.com
Director of Development    http://www.actionworld.com/
ActionWorld, Inc.                       (212) 387-8200
Professional Driver.  Closed Track.  Do not attempt.

> ----------
> From: 	Kelly St[SMTP:KellySt@aol.com]
> Reply To: 	Kelly St
> Sent: 	Thursday, May 14, 1998 11:19 PM
> To: 	starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu
> Subject: 	Re:  RE: starship-design: Aircraft Carriers
> 
> 
> In a message dated 5/14/98 8:45:07 AM, david@actionworld.com wrote:
> 
> >But are they?  I thought we had decided that the conditions in a sub were
> >closer to the conditions one should expect in a starship than the
> conditions
> >on a carrier would be.  More cramped, more cut-off, repairs while
> underway
> >more difficult, etc.
> >------------------------------------------------------
> >David Levine 
> 
> 
> Hey none of my designs were cramped!  ;)  Certainly if you want a sane
> crew
> after a couple decades they need some space.  Certainly going out and
> doing
> repairs on a starships easier then a sub or ship.  comunication time lag
> would
> get bad, but at least heavy bandwidth would be avalible.
> 
> Kelly
>