Suspension of Disbelief.

Let us not forget 2000 + plus years of building code changes.Building codes are written with the blood of victims of building failures.

cthia wrote:

Somtaaw quote="kzt wrote:You know what architects and structural engineers do with ridiculously strong materials? They make things much thinner and more open. You might have noticed that people don't make the steel columns holding up a high rise the same size as the brick column you would need if you were to use bricks?

Yes I'm aware, I work construction (ugh rebar installation day today). But the Honorverse Cerama-crete is used in minimum pours of about a foot thick I think for external walls.

Whats-his-face, the Detweiller son/clone that survived Green Parks, was behind at best a 1-foot thick wall, and the transparant aluniminum (whatever David calls it transparisteel, whatever) glass wall. Nuke goes off, he only suffered some light thermal burning, enough he was hospitalized. But not enough physical damage he wasn't up and moving less than two weeks later. And the Noveau Paris towers are more of the same, relatively thin walls, built out of the cerama-crete, multiple nukes gone off and they haven't had to tear them down and rebuild.


With how tough all these towers are, they could be built between 3 and 6 inches thick, and still do everything they do now (until you start blowing nukes up, or throwing KEW's through them from directly above)

JeffEngel wrote:The materials are dirt-cheap. If the savings in materials, labor, equipment availability, equipment wear, etc., would be trivial between "good enough" and "bring on Ragnarok", it's plausible that they over-build just because they haven't enough reason not to.

Cutting edge, very strong materials are NOT cheap. Hence, cutting edge. Many slipshod companies wish they were, then they wouldn't be forced into the dangerous, rampant practice of underbidding then cutting corners and costs by undermining the safety of the project in substituting non-standard design materials which either ends up costing the project possible years in delays, busts budgets and worst case, claims lives.[/quote]


It depends on cutting-edge for who, on Manticore it's old technology but on Grayson it's cutting-edge stuff. Look at the differences in building heights and construction methods. I remember reading about a 8 story building in NYC that used pressed stone in its construction where the outside wall was 7ft thick at the base versus a modern steel reinforced concrete building. IIRC the building was built in the early 20's but a decade later they were building the Chrysler and Empire State building's. Also look at HH musings in HotQ about Grayson's orbital construction methods IIRC they were using arc and laser welding along with rivet-guns of all things. Imagine what kind of reaction you would have if you showed up at NASA with a modern-day scientific calculator in 1965. They were still using slide-rules back then.

saber964 wrote: Imagine what kind of reaction you would have if you showed up at NASA with a modern-day scientific calculator in 1965. They were still using slide-rules back then.

Shades of Iron Sky?

jchilds wrote:

saber964 wrote: Imagine what kind of reaction you would have if you showed up at NASA with a modern-day scientific calculator in 1965. They were still using slide-rules back then.

Shades of Iron Sky?

Not quite that bad I remember a scene in Apollo 13 were Lovall was going on about the LEM's navigation computer having 1800 lines of code, my wrist watch has more computing power.

kzt wrote:You know what architects and structural engineers do with ridiculously strong materials? They make things much thinner and more open. You might have noticed that people don't make the steel columns holding up a high rise the same size as the brick column you would need if you were to use bricks?

Somtaaw wrote:Yes I'm aware, I work construction (ugh rebar installation day today). But the Honorverse Cerama-crete is used in minimum pours of about a foot thick I think for external walls.

Whats-his-face, the Detweiller son/clone that survived Green Parks, was behind at best a 1-foot thick wall, and the transparant aluniminum (whatever David calls it transparisteel, whatever) glass wall. Nuke goes off, he only suffered some light thermal burning, enough he was hospitalized. But not enough physical damage he wasn't up and moving less than two weeks later. And the Noveau Paris towers are more of the same, relatively thin walls, built out of the cerama-crete, multiple nukes gone off and they haven't had to tear them down and rebuild.


With how tough all these towers are, they could be built between 3 and 6 inches thick, and still do everything they do now (until you start blowing nukes up, or throwing KEW's through them from directly above)

JeffEngel wrote:The materials are dirt-cheap. If the savings in materials, labor, equipment availability, equipment wear, etc., would be trivial between "good enough" and "bring on Ragnarok", it's plausible that they over-build just because they haven't enough reason not to.

cthia wrote:Cutting edge, very strong materials are NOT cheap. Hence, cutting edge. Many slipshod companies wish they were, then they wouldn't be forced into the dangerous, rampant practice of underbidding then cutting corners and costs by undermining the safety of the project in substituting non-standard design materials which either ends up costing the project possible years in delays, busts budgets and worst case, claims lives.

saber964 wrote:It depends on cutting-edge for who, on Manticore it's old technology but on Grayson it's cutting-edge stuff. Look at the differences in building heights and construction methods. I remember reading about a 8 story building in NYC that used pressed stone in its construction where the outside wall was 7ft thick at the base versus a modern steel reinforced concrete building. IIRC the building was built in the early 20's but a decade later they were building the Chrysler and Empire State building's. Also look at HH musings in HotQ about Grayson's orbital construction methods IIRC they were using arc and laser welding along with rivet-guns of all things. Imagine what kind of reaction you would have if you showed up at NASA with a modern-day scientific calculator in 1965. They were still using slide-rules back then.

It also depends on where on the cutting edge scale it is, on Manticore. I don't quite get the vibe that it is from the bottom feed materials bin. Probably not at the top tier, but neither at the bottom. Building materials go through phases of classification as the tech advances. An example...


1 cutting edge
2 high tech
3 advanced
4 standard

Cutting edge materials are going to represent the highest cost. Purchase price - where the company is recouping its cost in R&D, procurement, manufacturing, etc. etc. Then there's the cost in employing or hiring consultants who can design with and can better use the materials and are also familiar with its quirks. Then workers who are familiar with the cutting edge materials. The best local government engineers. They are all the best and their salaries add to the cost. My own salary is well over six figures. Lab Manager, Civil Engineering firm. Down significantly from the money made in Silicon Valley, but I'm quite secure financially and I'm doing what I love. I'm married now and thinking about retiring young and making lotsa babies!

The materials acquired from Manticore may not be cutting edge to Manticore, but may not be simple standard materials either and specialists across the board are required. You are not just paying for purchase price, you are paying for accompanying expertise across the board.

The calculator you mentioned would cost NASA millions, you'd have them by the balls. Tech that far advanced is worth millions - cough billions. You wouldn't just give it away. (Though you may be killed for it. lol) The freighters given Grayson represented a huge investment by the Manticoran government. The building materials may not have cost them as much as other materials could have, but it wasn't cheap. Somebody had to pay the cost to please the boss.

Late edit:
Cleaned up the scattered mess of skewed credits.
.

It could be that the stuff needs to be a foot thick to work. You get omni-strong or sand. Or becomes significantly more expensive at thinner pours due to treatments or handling issues.

the cerama-crete for Noveau Paris towers (and all other towers), along with the transparent steel used in the SkyDomes, all seem to be common-place technology.

noblehunter wrote:It could be that the stuff needs to be a foot thick to work. You get omni-strong or sand. Or becomes significantly more expensive at thinner pours due to treatments or handling issues.

And there might be something to the walls needing to be a foot thick. Recall, during the sabotaging of the tower over the Mueller school, they had to 'fuse' the ceramacrete to turn it into extensions of the bedrock, and locking the beams in place to support the glass. And the sabotage consisted of NOT doing the proper fusing. And those were some fairly large holes... if the equipment needed to fuse is pretty large, and it'd take specialized equipment to make thinner walls, and by building thick gives ridiculous strength?

Can't picture an architect, making walls be weaker, if the resources used are everyday, and it'd take specialized equipment to do the thinner and weaker. Or at least not for generic skyscraper, or apartment towers... private homes, possibly because it'd be a sign of wealth that you could afford to rent/use the equipment?

Somtaaw wrote:Can't picture an architect, making walls be weaker, if the resources used are everyday, and it'd take specialized equipment to do the thinner and weaker. Or at least not for generic skyscraper, or apartment towers... private homes, possibly because it'd be a sign of wealth that you could afford to rent/use the equipment?

People don't build hi-rises out of wood because that's all carpenters can build. If you can't build the design you won't get the construction contract. And they will find someone who can. Most construction companies (unless they are a massive globe spanning colossus like Bechtel or SCSEC) almost always lease or hire specialized equipment or subcontractors for a project.

Silverwall wrote:Along with the dumb as rocks computers and genetics mistakes my other pet peeve is a bit of a minor one.

I really dislike using the Washington Treaty era ship clasification system (FF, DD, CL, CA, BC, BB, DN, SD) given the roles of the ships and the way they are deployed along with the paralells to the Nelsonian period navies. It would have been much better in my mind to have used the Royal navy "Rate" system. The CA/CL distinction is particularly egregious but the DN/SD one is also fairly bad/

This would also make the discrepencies of a RMN dreadnought (Bellerophon 7.2 mtons) being considered inferior to a SL Superdreadnought (Scientist 6.9 mtons)

FF, DD, and CL would be below the rating system and called corvettes, sloops etc commanded by a LT to captain JG.

CA and BC would be 6th and 5th rates respectivly and called frigates and commanded by a senior grade captain of the list.

BB's are the obsolete 4th rates or the BCL nike's

DN and SD would be 3rd to 1st rate depending on weight and broadside.

To me this sould be a much better system as the CA, CL distinction only exists because of the washington and London treaties limiting cruiser armament and are far inferior to more natural titles used at the time such as protected, scout, destroyer leader etc.

maybe it's a petty gripe but I do find it jaring.

Did the Washington treaty have an FF classification? I thought the early modern FFs weren't developed until WWII, and that the classification wasn't based entirely on mass but rather the fact the early modern FFs were escort ships designed to be easily built in merchant shipyards rather then military yards and were significantly heavier then the Corvettes and Sloops which were being built by the same yards.


More on topic perhaps the reason more advanced military AIs aren't present is that someone experimented with them and thinks went so horribly wrong that no one wants to repeat the experiment. (Eridani Edict violation perhaps?)

And regarding religion if it hasn't disappeared now what makes you think it will vanish in a few thousand years? Perhaps there was some big back to religion movement at some point between now and the 19th or 20th century PD.

Roguevictory wrote:Did the Washington treaty have an FF classification? I thought the early modern FFs weren't developed until WWII, and that the classification wasn't based entirely on mass but rather the fact the early modern FFs were escort ships designed to be easily built in merchant shipyards rather then military yards and were significantly heavier then the Corvettes and Sloops which were being built by the same yards.

After a quick googling for the relevant treaty text, to refresh my memory, I can see the original Washington Treaty only defined 3 categories [and I'm glossing over some of the named exceptions to the below categories].
* "Capital Ship" (<= 35k tons; <= 16in guns)
* "Aircraft Carrier" ( > 10k tons, <= 27k tons, <= 8in guns)
* and then any warship that didn't fit into either of those two categorize (and any such ships were prohibited guns > 8in by Article XII).

It was the London Naval Treaty of 1930 that defined Heavy cruisers, Light Cruisers, and Destroyers, and also placed limits on submarines and carved out some exceptions for small ( < 2000 tons; < 6.1in gun; no more than 4 guns of > 3in; <= 20 knots; no torpedoes) and very small warships (< 600 tons; no additional restrictions)

But even the London Treaty did not define a Frigate.
FFs might fit into one of the small ship exceptions, but if not it would likely count as a DD (but I suppose in theory you could have something called a FF that crept into a CL or heavier category)