I'm not saying I don't like it. It just isn't even close to CT HG ship design rules.
Bulkhead thickness query
- Thread starter Icosahedron
- Start date
I'm not saying I don't like it. It just isn't even close to CT HG ship design rules.
No question about that - it just means that if you're going to be sticking with the OTU HG paradigm, you've got to come up with different assumptions about how hulls are built (and how ships retain structural integrity) than Thrasher-what's-his-face does.
I, for one, like tiny eggshell-fragile starships in MTU...
Correct. One would have to use the assumptions as to hull "toughness" that CT implies. Something Thrasher didn't use.
Actually, CT B2 has the same implied "toughness"...
Really? I'd have thought that the range of hull sizes in LBB2 jibed nicely with Thrasher's spiel, and that HG assumed something rather different (thus permitting ships of hundreds of thousands of tons to behave with as much agility as fighters, if you threw enough money at 'em.)
Again, I haven't the books in front of me, so it may be that I'm not letting fiddly facts get in the way of following my gut. :eyesroll:
Not where he went off the rails. He didn't correctly estimate hull toughness* (* his definition) based on the clearly implied qualities in B2 OR HG... See interstellar travel & travel formula + kinetic energy formula. It's as simple as 1+1+1=3
