First of all a typo in John Kim's study of ammonia vs. methane vs.
hydrogen: Water doesn't really boil at zero celcius.
I agree with George Herbert's analysis of the problems of the starship
design vis. reactionless drives, the densities of the ships now
varies quite widely. For example a tanker can have a density
as low as 0.30 MetricTonnes per kiloLitre, a scout ship 0.68, and
a Battleship 15.4.
With regards to using alternate fuel, the difference in mass of 4x for
the fuel doesn't change the density so significantly that it is not
benificial to change fuel storage, regardless of drive type. eg.
a scout ship's density would increase to 0.84, less than 30% increase
for double fuel storage.
In looking over Fighting ships, for the above I discovered that the
armour violations are there, but not as bad as someone ealier reported.
At tech 15 up to 75 points (15x5) can be *added* to the hull. This gives
a maximum of 40+75 or 115 armour. 6 of the 21 battleships exceed the
armour restrictions: (BH-15, BH-14, BM-15, BL-13 by 5, BB-12 by 10, and
BB-11 by 15). However the error could be on the listing, and the
actual ship values could use the correct weaights.
Finally, I was trying to go through some of the physics/math behind
this reactionless drive problem, and I am having problems, perhaps
someone of a better physics background coul e-mail me directly and
help me out. (This probably explains why I dropped out of physics
back in 2nd year)... The problem is work is dependant on distance, and
given an engine acceleration d=.5at^2, however energy use for the
engine is linear with t, therefore if t varies, the work done by
the engine is not a constant? Help! (More details via e-mail).
-Dan Corrin