<< BACK TO RELAY ONE LOG


###INCOMING TRANSMISISON###
From: Dr.Ing. James Addams
To: Ministry of Defense
Subject: Starship Destroyer design.

Let me go on the record here and say that I completely disagree
with the "latest" modern design of our cruisers. Only utter moron
would design a ship in a way that is seen in popular culture media.
Just because it is "cool" doesn't mean you should compromise
structural integrity by deliberately adding more weakneses. If I
was piloting an enemy ship, and saw one of these "Star destroyers"
as you call them - the fact that they're more of a frigate than
actual destroyer but naval terminology aside - it wouldn't take a
genius to figure out that I should aim for the giant protrusion
that shines like beacon of designer's blind nostalgic idiocy. Those
designs might have made sense on planet's surface were a battle
would take on a same plane/level, NOT in space where you could
approach your target from ANY direction. And don't get me started
on the screaming impracticality - or three in this case - that are
those three massive thrusters mounted in the back - you would spend
half of the journey accellerating facing your destination - that's
fine and all, but then the other half of the journey would be spent
breaking facing in the opposite direction - while all your weapons
face in the opposite direction safe for a couple of turrets.
But the point of this message isn't just to ramble on the
outrageous death-trap that is your fancy ship design. I propose a
few solutions to this design. You can find the full details in the
attacment, but just to summarize here are a few highlights:
1) No windows - seriously you can achieve the same effect by simply
   mounting a couple of cameras around the hull, and linking them
   to various screens inside WITHOUT COMPROMISING HULL INTEGRITY -
   plus it allows for extra layer of protection against UV
   radiation - you can merely adjust the filters or simply turn the
   screen off.
Which brings me to
2) Move bridge into the center of the hull - the reason behind this
   is obvious - Bridge is the most crucial component of the ship,
   right after sustainable life-support. It is the heart and the
   brain. Without it, all you have is hunk of metal floating
   through space. Much like skull protects your brain, the ship's
   hull should protect the brige.
3) The ONLY good reason to have something sticking out would be
   turret emplacements - if you really want to have a pylon or a
   freaking beacon sticking out of your silhouette, it would be so
   you can mount turrets at the end of each - this will allow you
   to aim in almost any direction without ship's own hull
   obstructing the target, and eliminates the problem you would
   have with hardpoints pointing towards "the front" of the ship.
4) Ballance the thrust - This is more of an addendum - I think that
   the previous point is the cheaper alternative but regardless:
   Since you have massive engines mounted on the "back" why not
   also put some engines to the "front" to eliminate the need to
   turn the ship around in order to perform breaking maneuver?

I hope that this letter will be handed over to someone more
competent than that cretin who greenligted the original desing.

Sincerely,
Dr.Ing. James Addams

###END TRANSMISSION###