Hey all. Anyone know what an acceptable Volume to Mass ratio would be for an asteroid? I realize it varries substancially based on what kind of ore is in it, but I was just wondering what an average might look like. (Kinda like how cargo is assumed to be 1:1 by default, unless specified otherwise.)
Thread: Volume:Mass for asteroid
19 posts.
Hey all. Anyone know what an acceptable Volume to Mass ratio would be for an asteroid? I realize it varries substancially based on what kind of ore is in it, but I was just wondering what an average might look like. (Kinda like how cargo is assumed to be 1:1 by default, unless specified otherwise.)
--- In , "Daryl Frewing" <daryl@...> wrote:
>
> Hey all. Anyone know what an acceptable Volume to Mass ratio would be for an asteroid? I realize it varries substancially based on what kind of ore is in it, but I was just wondering what an average might look like. (Kinda like how cargo is assumed to be 1:1 by default, unless specified otherwise.)
>
Typically about 3.3 grams per cubic cm for the common rocky asteroids. Anything significantly less is probably not a solid body but more likely a loose aggregate. Up to around 7.9 grams per cubic cm for the rarer solid iron-nickle asteroids.
can anyone here reach the 'evil Dr ganymede'? pretty much a guarantee he
will have the correct answer, unless we want to scoop the NASA web pages for
all the possibilites.
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 4:27 PM, far_trader_mail
<>wrote:
>
>
>
>
> --- In <>,
> "Daryl Frewing" <daryl@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hey all. Anyone know what an acceptable Volume to Mass ratio would be for
> an asteroid? I realize it varries substancially based on what kind of ore is
> in it, but I was just wondering what an average might look like. (Kinda like
> how cargo is assumed to be 1:1 by default, unless specified otherwise.)
> >
>
> Typically about 3.3 grams per cubic cm for the common rocky asteroids.
> Anything significantly less is probably not a solid body but more likely a
> loose aggregate. Up to around 7.9 grams per cubic cm for the rarer solid
> iron-nickle asteroids.
>
>
>
--
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to
think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Nikola Tesla
--- In , allen carpenter <justacarpenter@...> wrote:
>
> can anyone here reach the 'evil Dr ganymede'? pretty much a guarantee he
> will have the correct answer, unless we want to scoop the NASA web pages for
> all the possibilites.
Yeah, cause I totally pulled those numbers outta my as... teroid.
wth?
>
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 4:27 PM, far_trader_mail
> <far_trader_mail@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In <>,
> > "Daryl Frewing" <daryl@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey all. Anyone know what an acceptable Volume to Mass ratio would be for
> > an asteroid? I realize it varries substancially based on what kind of ore is
> > in it, but I was just wondering what an average might look like. (Kinda like
> > how cargo is assumed to be 1:1 by default, unless specified otherwise.)
> > >
> >
> > Typically about 3.3 grams per cubic cm for the common rocky asteroids.
> > Anything significantly less is probably not a solid body but more likely a
> > loose aggregate. Up to around 7.9 grams per cubic cm for the rarer solid
> > iron-nickle asteroids.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to
> think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
> Nikola Tesla
>
There's no guarantee that a poster has read a certain mail - spam filters can be hit-and-miss.
On the subject of Dr Ganymede - he posts over at SFRPG as EDG, and his Astrophysical info is impecable.
Starviking
--- On Sat, 22/5/10, far_trader_mail <> wrote:
From: far_trader_mail <>
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Volume:Mass for asteroid
To:
Date: Saturday, 22 May, 2010, 7:30
--- In , allen carpenter <justacarpenter@...> wrote:
>
> can anyone here reach the 'evil Dr ganymede'? pretty much a guarantee he
> will have the correct answer, unless we want to scoop the NASA web pages for
> all the possibilites.
Yeah, cause I totally pulled those numbers outta my as... teroid.
wth?
>
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 4:27 PM, far_trader_mail
> <far_trader_mail@...>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In <>,
> > "Daryl Frewing" <daryl@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey all. Anyone know what an acceptable Volume to Mass ratio would be for
> > an asteroid? I realize it varries substancially based on what kind of ore is
> > in it, but I was just wondering what an average might look like. (Kinda like
> > how cargo is assumed to be 1:1 by default, unless specified otherwise.)
> > >
> >
> > Typically about 3.3 grams per cubic cm for the common rocky asteroids.
> > Anything significantly less is probably not a solid body but more likely a
> > loose aggregate. Up to around 7.9 grams per cubic cm for the rarer solid
> > iron-nickle asteroids.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to
> think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
> Nikola Tesla
>
Hrm? What's the question again?
Sorry, I don't actually get any emails sent by this group at all now, I just read the archives on the webpage every now and then so I'm rather likely to miss anything targeted at me here.
Best bet is to find me at SFRPG ( http://www.sfrpg.org.uk/phpBB3/index.php ).
EDG
--- In , Eamon Watters <eamonwatters@...> wrote:
>
> There's no guarantee that a poster has read a certain mail - spam filters can be hit-and-miss.
>
> On the subject of Dr Ganymede - he posts over at SFRPG as EDG, and his Astrophysical info is impecable.
>
> Starviking
Oh nvm, found it:
> Hey all. Anyone know what an acceptable Volume to Mass ratio would
> be for an asteroid? I realize it varries substancially based on what
> kind of ore is in it, but I was just wondering what an average might
> look like. (Kinda like how cargo is assumed to be 1:1 by default,
> unless specified otherwise.)
Far Trader is mostly right. When it comes to materials, asteroids are generally either rocky or metallic, so you'd expect density to be about 3300 kg/m³ for the rockies or about 7900 kg/m³ for the metallics.
However, a lot of asteroids seem to be "porous" in that they have lots of spaces inside them, probably because they are actually "rubble piles" - lots of smaller bodies held together by their very low gravity and covered in a surface layer of dust. This 'porosity' decreases the density significantly, pushing it down to as low as 1300 kg/m³ for a porous rocky asteroid. Ice can lower the density too, but if an asteroid contains a lot of ice then it's probably better to call it a cometary body.
Oooops
I think I did my calculations wrong, then.
I was thiking (for the more dense material) of 7.9 grams per cm3 being equal to 7.9 kg per 10 m3.
(Just multiplying each by 1,000)
But I think I did the basic math wrong. Let me try that again.
7.9 grams * 1000 = 7900 grams = 7.9 kg
1 cm3 * 1000 = 10 m3
Wait, what am I missing?
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: "constantine_thomas_uk"
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 17:34:11
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Volume:Mass for asteroid
Oh nvm, found it:
> Hey all. Anyone know what an acceptable Volume to Mass ratio would
> be for an asteroid? I realize it varries substancially based on what
> kind of ore is in it, but I was just wondering what an average might
> look like. (Kinda like how cargo is assumed to be 1:1 by default,
> unless specified otherwise.)
Far Trader is mostly right. When it comes to materials, asteroids are generally either rocky or metallic, so you'd expect density to be about 3300 kg/m³ for the rockies or about 7900 kg/m³ for the metallics.
However, a lot of asteroids seem to be "porous" in that they have lots of spaces inside them, probably because they are actually "rubble piles" - lots of smaller bodies held together by their very low gravity and covered in a surface layer of dust. This 'porosity' decreases the density significantly, pushing it down to as low as 1300 kg/m³ for a porous rocky asteroid. Ice can lower the density too, but if an asteroid contains a lot of ice then it's probably better to call it a cometary body.
7.9 grams per cm3 equated to 7900 kg (or 7.9 tonnes) per cubic meter
Antony
From: []
On Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, 24 May 2010 3:26 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Volume:Mass for asteroid
Oooops
I think I did my calculations wrong, then.
I was thiking (for the more dense material) of 7.9 grams per cm3 being equal
to 7.9 kg per 10 m3.
(Just multiplying each by 1,000)
But I think I did the basic math wrong. Let me try that again.
7.9 grams * 1000 = 7900 grams = 7.9 kg
1 cm3 * 1000 = 10 m3
Wait, what am I missing?
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
_____
From: "constantine_thomas_uk" <>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 17:34:11 -0000
To: <>
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Volume:Mass for asteroid
Oh nvm, found it:
> Hey all. Anyone know what an acceptable Volume to Mass ratio would
> be for an asteroid? I realize it varries substancially based on what
> kind of ore is in it, but I was just wondering what an average might
> look like. (Kinda like how cargo is assumed to be 1:1 by default,
> unless specified otherwise.)
Far Trader is mostly right. When it comes to materials, asteroids are
generally either rocky or metallic, so you'd expect density to be about 3300
kg/m³ for the rockies or about 7900 kg/m³ for the metallics.
However, a lot of asteroids seem to be "porous" in that they have lots of
spaces inside them, probably because they are actually "rubble piles" - lots
of smaller bodies held together by their very low gravity and covered in a
surface layer of dust. This 'porosity' decreases the density significantly,
pushing it down to as low as 1300 kg/m³ for a porous rocky asteroid. Ice can
lower the density too, but if an asteroid contains a lot of ice then it's
probably better to call it a cometary body.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2891 - Release Date: 05/23/10
14:26:00
Argh. Looks like I was rating tonnes as kg.
I think that the way this would work then would be to have the Hector 'nudge' the asteroids towards the processing plant, refuel, nudge another one, etc.
It could still jump with 6,000 m3, but this would take the form of wraping the asteroid, nudging it in the right direction, refuling, catching up to the asteroid, attaching the ship to the ACT, and then jumping. Once at the destination the Hector would need to either re-nudge the asteroid in the desired direction, or call for pickup, or whatever.
I'll have to do some recalculations once I am back at my computer. Anyone able to provide any details on asteroid refuling?
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: "Antony Farrell"
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 03:55:14
Subject: RE: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Volume:Mass for asteroid
7.9 grams per cm3 equated to 7900 kg (or 7.9 tonnes) per cubic meter
Antony
From: []
On Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, 24 May 2010 3:26 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Volume:Mass for asteroid
Oooops
I think I did my calculations wrong, then.
I was thiking (for the more dense material) of 7.9 grams per cm3 being equal
to 7.9 kg per 10 m3.
(Just multiplying each by 1,000)
But I think I did the basic math wrong. Let me try that again.
7.9 grams * 1000 = 7900 grams = 7.9 kg
1 cm3 * 1000 = 10 m3
Wait, what am I missing?
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
_____
From: "constantine_thomas_uk" <>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 17:34:11 -0000
To: <>
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Volume:Mass for asteroid
Oh nvm, found it:
> Hey all. Anyone know what an acceptable Volume to Mass ratio would
> be for an asteroid? I realize it varries substancially based on what
> kind of ore is in it, but I was just wondering what an average might
> look like. (Kinda like how cargo is assumed to be 1:1 by default,
> unless specified otherwise.)
Far Trader is mostly right. When it comes to materials, asteroids are
generally either rocky or metallic, so you'd expect density to be about 3300
kg/m³ for the rockies or about 7900 kg/m³ for the metallics.
However, a lot of asteroids seem to be "porous" in that they have lots of
spaces inside them, probably because they are actually "rubble piles" - lots
of smaller bodies held together by their very low gravity and covered in a
surface layer of dust. This 'porosity' decreases the density significantly,
pushing it down to as low as 1300 kg/m³ for a porous rocky asteroid. Ice can
lower the density too, but if an asteroid contains a lot of ice then it's
probably better to call it a cometary body.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2891 - Release Date: 05/23/10
14:26:00
ok looking better ... hmmm seems that the hector's would nudge the asteroid in normal space (no jumps) ... if a jump were required, then what about rigging some fuel bladders into the equation, that way the hector would have the necessary fuel handy and not have to hunt for the asteroid time and again... specially if it were a prize of some note ... anyway looks like you're aware of the issue now so will let those with the stats and books hassle it out.
T
--- On Sun, 5/23/10, <> wrote:
From: <>
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Volume:Mass for asteroid
To:
Date: Sunday, May 23, 2010, 3:18 PM
Argh. Looks like I was rating tonnes as kg.
I think that the way this would work then would be to have the Hector 'nudge' the asteroids towards the processing plant, refuel, nudge another one, etc.
It could still jump with 6,000 m3, but this would take the form of wraping the asteroid, nudging it in the right direction, refuling, catching up to the asteroid, attaching the ship to the ACT, and then jumping. Once at the destination the Hector would need to either re-nudge the asteroid in the desired direction, or call for pickup, or whatever.
I'll have to do some recalculations once I am back at my computer. Anyone able to provide any details on asteroid refuling?
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
From: "Antony Farrell" <>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 03:55:14 +0800
To: <>
Subject: RE: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Volume:Mass for asteroid
7.9 grams per cm3 equated to 7900 kg (or 7.9 tonnes) per cubic meter
Antony
From: [Traveller_ ] On Behalf Of
Sent: Monday, 24 May 2010 3:26 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Volume:Mass for asteroid
Oooops
I think I did my calculations wrong, then.
I was thiking (for the more dense material) of 7.9 grams per cm3 being equal to 7.9 kg per 10 m3.
(Just multiplying each by 1,000)
But I think I did the basic math wrong. Let me try that again.
7.9 grams * 1000 = 7900 grams = 7.9 kg
1 cm3 * 1000 = 10 m3
Wait, what am I missing?
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
From: "constantine_ thomas_uk" <>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 17:34:11 -0000
To: <>
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Volume:Mass for asteroid
Oh nvm, found it:
> Hey all. Anyone know what an acceptable Volume to Mass ratio would
> be for an asteroid? I realize it varries substancially based on what
> kind of ore is in it, but I was just wondering what an average might
> look like. (Kinda like how cargo is assumed to be 1:1 by default,
> unless specified otherwise.)
Far Trader is mostly right. When it comes to materials, asteroids are generally either rocky or metallic, so you'd expect density to be about 3300 kg/m³ for the rockies or about 7900 kg/m³ for the metallics.
However, a lot of asteroids seem to be "porous" in that they have lots of spaces inside them, probably because they are actually "rubble piles" - lots of smaller bodies held together by their very low gravity and covered in a surface layer of dust. This 'porosity' decreases the density significantly, pushing it down to as low as 1300 kg/m³ for a porous rocky asteroid. Ice can lower the density too, but if an asteroid contains a lot of ice then it's probably better to call it a cometary body.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2891 - Release Date: 05/23/10 14:26:00
This is why I don't screw around with "grams per cubic centimetre" - keep it all SI, kilograms per cubic metre makes so much more sense :). It means that one cubic metre of metal has a mass of 7,900 kg, so 10 cubic metres would therefore have a mass of 79,000 kg.
Though remember that 10 cubic metres is NOT the same as a 10x10x10 metre cube, which has a volume of 1000 cubic metres and therefore a mass of 7.9 million kg (7,900 * 1,000, right?)
--- In , daryl@... wrote:
>
> Oooops
>
> I think I did my calculations wrong, then.
>
> I was thiking (for the more dense material) of 7.9 grams per cm3 being equal to 7.9 kg per 10 m3.
>
> (Just multiplying each by 1,000)
>
> But I think I did the basic math wrong. Let me try that again.
>
> 7.9 grams * 1000 = 7900 grams = 7.9 kg
>
> 1 cm3 * 1000 = 10 m3
>
> Wait, what am I missing?
>
>
> Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
From: "constantine_thomas_uk" evil_dr_ganymede@...
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 17:34:11
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Volume:Mass for asteroid
>
> Oh nvm, found it:
>
> > Hey all. Anyone know what an acceptable Volume to Mass ratio would
> > be for an asteroid? I realize it varries substancially based on what
> > kind of ore is in it, but I was just wondering what an average might
> > look like. (Kinda like how cargo is assumed to be 1:1 by default,
> > unless specified otherwise.)
>
> Far Trader is mostly right. When it comes to materials, asteroids are generally either rocky or metallic, so you'd expect density to be about 3300 kg/m³ for the rockies or about 7900 kg/m³ for the metallics.
>
> However, a lot of asteroids seem to be "porous" in that they have lots of spaces inside them, probably because they are actually "rubble piles" - lots of smaller bodies held together by their very low gravity and covered in a surface layer of dust. This 'porosity' decreases the density significantly, pushing it down to as low as 1300 kg/m³ for a porous rocky asteroid. Ice can lower the density too, but if an asteroid contains a lot of ice then it's probably better to call it a cometary body.
>
And to clarify, here's what you're missing :) :
You don't multiply each by 1000 to convert it to kg/m³.
There are 1,000 grams in 1 kg.
*But* there are 100x100x100 cubic centimetres in one cubic metre (one metre is 100 cm, right?), which is 1,000,000.
So, divide 7.9 g/m³ by 1,000 to get how many kilograms there are per cm³ (= 0.0079). Multiply 0.0079 by 1,000,000 to get how many kilograms there are per cubic metre, and you end up with 7,900 kg/m³ which is the correct answer.
Multiply that by 10 and you get a mass of 79,000 kg per 10 cubic metres.
If in doubt, just break it down step-by-step like this and the logic should be easier to follow :)
Hopefully that made things clearer?
On 23 May 2010 at 19:26, wrote:
>
>
>
> Oooops
>
> I think I did my calculations wrong, then.
>
> I was thiking (for the more dense material) of 7.9 grams per cm3
> being equal to 7.9 kg per 10 m3.
>
> (Just multiplying each by 1,000)
Nope, 1000 cc = 1 liter
1000 liters = 1 m^3
1 gram = 1 cc of water
1 kg = 1 liter of water
1 tonne = 1 m^3 of water
Density of X g/cc = X kg/l = X tonnes/m^3
--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com
uhm, by your counting maybe, but travellers uses displacement tonnes at a
standard of 14m^3 i believe? but displaing what? water or liquid hydrogen i
can't remember 8-)
help me EDG 8-)
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:05 AM, <> wrote:
>
>
> On 23 May 2010 at 19:26, <> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Oooops
> >
> > I think I did my calculations wrong, then.
> >
> > I was thiking (for the more dense material) of 7.9 grams per cm3
> > being equal to 7.9 kg per 10 m3.
> >
> > (Just multiplying each by 1,000)
>
> Nope, 1000 cc = 1 liter
>
> 1000 liters = 1 m^3
>
> 1 gram = 1 cc of water
> 1 kg = 1 liter of water
> 1 tonne = 1 m^3 of water
>
> Density of X g/cc = X kg/l = X tonnes/m^3
>
> --
> Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
> shadow at shadowgard dot com
>
>
>
--
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to
think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Nikola Tesla
Amen! All praise SI, keeping science simpler since 1960!
--- On Mon, 24/5/10, constantine_thomas_uk <> wrote:
From: constantine_thomas_uk <>
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Volume:Mass for asteroid
To:
Date: Monday, 24 May, 2010, 4:18
This is why I don't screw around with "grams per cubic centimetre" - keep it all SI, kilograms per cubic metre makes so much more sense :). It means that one cubic metre of metal has a mass of 7,900 kg, so 10 cubic metres would therefore have a mass of 79,000 kg.
Though remember that 10 cubic metres is NOT the same as a 10x10x10 metre cube, which has a volume of 1000 cubic metres and therefore a mass of 7.9 million kg (7,900 * 1,000, right?)
--- In , daryl@... wrote:
>
> Oooops
>
> I think I did my calculations wrong, then.
>
> I was thiking (for the more dense material) of 7.9 grams per cm3 being equal to 7.9 kg per 10 m3.
>
> (Just multiplying each by 1,000)
>
> But I think I did the basic math wrong. Let me try that again.
>
> 7.9 grams * 1000 = 7900 grams = 7.9 kg
>
> 1 cm3 * 1000 = 10 m3
>
> Wait, what am I missing?
>
>
> Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
From: "constantine_thomas_uk" evil_dr_ganymede@...
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 17:34:11
Subject: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Volume:Mass for asteroid
>
> Oh nvm, found it:
>
> > Hey all. Anyone know what an acceptable Volume to Mass ratio would
> > be for an asteroid? I realize it varries substancially based on what
> > kind of ore is in it, but I was just wondering what an average might
> > look like. (Kinda like how cargo is assumed to be 1:1 by default,
> > unless specified otherwise.)
>
> Far Trader is mostly right. When it comes to materials, asteroids are generally either rocky or metallic, so you'd expect density to be about 3300 kg/m³ for the rockies or about 7900 kg/m³ for the metallics.
>
> However, a lot of asteroids seem to be "porous" in that they have lots of spaces inside them, probably because they are actually "rubble piles" - lots of smaller bodies held together by their very low gravity and covered in a surface layer of dust. This 'porosity' decreases the density significantly, pushing it down to as low as 1300 kg/m³ for a porous rocky asteroid. Ice can lower the density too, but if an asteroid contains a lot of ice then it's probably better to call it a cometary body.
>
Hydrogen
----- Original Message -----
From: allen carpenter
To:
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Volume:Mass for asteroid
uhm, by your counting maybe, but travellers uses displacement tonnes at a standard of 14m^3 i believe? but displaing what? water or liquid hydrogen i can't remember 8-)
help me EDG 8-)
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:05 AM, <> wrote:
On 23 May 2010 at 19:26, wrote:
>
>
>
> Oooops
>
> I think I did my calculations wrong, then.
>
> I was thiking (for the more dense material) of 7.9 grams per cm3
> being equal to 7.9 kg per 10 m3.
>
> (Just multiplying each by 1,000)
Nope, 1000 cc = 1 liter
1000 liters = 1 m^3
1 gram = 1 cc of water
1 kg = 1 liter of water
1 tonne = 1 m^3 of water
Density of X g/cc = X kg/l = X tonnes/m^3
--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com
--
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Nikola Tesla
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 21:28, allen carpenter <>wrote:
>
>
> uhm, by your counting maybe, but travellers uses displacement tonnes at a
> standard of 14m^3 i believe? but displaing what? water or liquid hydrogen i
> can't remember 8-)
> help me EDG 8-)
>
Depends on your edition kinda. FF&S and TNE constructed in SI Cubic meters
and Tons, and described in Displacement Tonnes.
Don't worry it is easy to get confused.
--
Evyn
actually i remember now, it was actually described in classic travellers
LBBs in the ships and vehicles book. it did specifically state displacement
tonnes applied to Hydrogen.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Evyn MacDude <> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 21:28, allen carpenter <>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> uhm, by your counting maybe, but travellers uses displacement tonnes at a
>> standard of 14m^3 i believe? but displaing what? water or liquid hydrogen i
>> can't remember 8-)
>> help me EDG 8-)
>>
>
> Depends on your edition kinda. FF&S and TNE constructed in SI Cubic meters
> and Tons, and described in Displacement Tonnes.
>
> Don't worry it is easy to get confused.
>
>
> --
> Evyn
>
>
>
--
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to
think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Nikola Tesla