Re: design team

[VBra676539@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/16/99 7:36:21 AM, shawl@torchlake.com writes:

<<Mike I hope you are still there after that reply to the dead horsie. I 
noticed you forgot to mention subs in your letter to make it legal. :-)

Jon Shawl
>>

Unfortunately, I think the new edict will drive lots of folks toward personal 
emails and away from the open forum, which is too bad. The gab-fest of 
letters and questions and ideas was instructive and interesting. Now that we 
are all under pressure (sic) to perform to some specific (though nebulous) 
standard, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to have the free flow of 
ideas that made the site such an interesting and thought-provoking place in 
the first place. That is not to say that the generic sub design is 
impossible. Just that it won't have the personality it might have had, nor 
the potential for fun. Count me in, though. Shall we start with the sub's 
mission? A mission statement is needed to set the fundamental requirements we 
will  have to meet as to size, shape, capabilities, etc. Single-seater? 
Multi-seat? Observation? Light work? Free-swimming? Tethered? Fast? Slow? 
Small viewports? Big ones? Shallow or deep? Internal motor? External? Hard 
trim system? Soft tanks? And so on. How the heck do we decide on those sorts 
of things in a timely manner. Committees are large creatures with many arms 
and legs (and keepboards) and no brains, I have always been told. This could 
be puzzling psubbing at best.
Vance