Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum robocon@xxxxxx (09 Nov 2017 01:02 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Rupert Boleyn (09 Nov 2017 02:17 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Richard Aiken (09 Nov 2017 03:48 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Kelly St. Clair (09 Nov 2017 04:39 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Amber Witherspoon (09 Nov 2017 09:37 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Rupert Boleyn (09 Nov 2017 05:29 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Grimmund (09 Nov 2017 17:45 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum shadow@xxxxxx (09 Nov 2017 11:37 UTC)
Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Grimmund (09 Nov 2017 17:43 UTC)

Re: [TML] Materials InVacuum Rupert Boleyn 09 Nov 2017 05:29 UTC

On 09Nov2017 1648, Richard Aiken wrote:

> When you consider that higher-tech replacement electronics are very
> likely to be markedly small in volume than the originals, you've
> essentially got pre-built smuggling spaces scattered the length and
> breath of every recommissioned ship.

I expect they'd use the space to put more powerful systems in. However,
as they won't be the same shape as the originals, you're right. There
will be odd little void spaces all over the place.

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief