Re: Gundam Fleet Composition Examples

Mark Nguyen (
Thu, 07 Jan 1999 14:10:23 PST

[GMs and Columbus-class transports]

> I guess they were just crammed in Cargo holds then? Then they really
>didn't have any hangars or 'resupply' areas where they could be
>That's like flying F/A-18s off of supertankers! Sure you can do it...

I think it's more analogous to slying Harriers off of bulk cargo ships.
I think the Royal Navy planned for contingencies in light of their own
carrier defficiency...

>> _never_ at full strength anyway. I could see them cramming in the
>> and its booster someplace funky, then housing it and the Nu Gundam in
> It's not that big with the boosters and stuff is it? I always
>that transformable MS were simply stored in MS mode with 'extra bits'
>hanging on gantries or something like that.

The Lar Kaillum spent no time in gravity conditions, right? Supposedly,
you could use storage space a lot more efficiently without that annoying
gravity stuff in the way...

Tangent: how did the Neue Ahgama work its "upside-down" catapults when
in a gravity field? Did it launch MS from those things? I suppose the
same question could be asked of the Dogos Gear or Alexandria...

>> space vacated by lost Jegans...
> Conveeeenient!

Alas, poor Jegan. I knew it well...

I'm not going to rewatch it right now, but does anyone have a clue as to
how many MS Londo Bell lost during the opening melee? Luna 5 was an
abandonned rock, was it not? I don't suppose there were any sentry
forces aboard.

While I'm at it, when the thing hit Tibet, You have to wonder about the
lasting global repercussions that were apparently ignored. Tibet is at a
very high altitude, and most of the rock up there would be very old (the
local mountains were pushed up there by the Indian subcontinent) and
brittle (all that cold, with lots of rock ice fracturing and aeolian
weathering over millions of years).

[My degree is in environmental physics, with a focus on kinetics and
geology; go figure :P]

Anyway, when the rock hit, tens of thousands of tons of rock would have
been vapourized on impact. This is assuming that a largely nickel-iron
asteroid impacted at minimal velocity, ie. by "dropping" it out of a
decaying low orbit. This was apparently not the case, as they used Nukes
to slow it down from a much higher orbit. Destruction of rock occurs
through kinetic impact, superheated explosion of water-ice within the
fractured metamorphic rock, and a bunch of other stuff I can't quite

A substantial portion of the dust and heat is thrown into the
atmosphere, and a lot more makes it into the stratosphere where it's
tough to get down, due tothe high altitude of the impact area; this is
in addition to all the material that burnt off during atmospheric
descent. This dust would spread far and fast all over the planet,
turning the sky a smoggy blue-brown. Temperatures would drop, seasons
would alter, and stuff would be generally unpleasant for quite some

I'm not saying this is one of those "Armageddon"-size asteroids; that's
a bit of overkill. But if you remember the lasting global environmental
consequences from the Kuwait oil fires, and the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo
and St. Helens, you gotta wonder why this stuff isn't mentioned, or
really shown. I'll shut up now...


Get Your Private, Free Email at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Jan 08 1999 - 07:08:55 JST