That's why I specified the dimensions I did - if you assume mathematically
ideal zero-thickness surfaces for both the standard cylindrical cutter
module and the proposed box module, the latter is literally the bounding
box of the former, and thus would be interchangeable except where the
actual shape is mandated, such as for the parasite craft of the Mercenary
Cruiser or the Lab Ship.

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 21:02:20 -0500, Kurt Feltenberger <xxxxxx@thepaw.org>
wrote:

>On 11/25/2019 6:35 PM, Jeff Zeitlin wrote:
>> The standard cutter module is a cylinder, given as 15m long and 6m
>> diameter, for a displacement of 30dT. However, because of the shape, less
>> than the full 30dT is usable.
>>
>> What are the ramifications of building a module with cutter-compatible
>> fittings, but square in cross-section, 6m wide, 6m high, and 15m long, for
>> a total (and usable) volume of 40dT?
>
>One thing that I thought was sort of implied with the standard small
>craft is that they were considered "Industry Standard" in that a
>"cutter" made by company A will fit all the fixtures and modules of a
>"cutter" made by companies B, C, D, E, F, etc.
>
>If you deviate from the dimensions, while it may still be a "cutter" in
>job or capabilities, it is no longer considered standard.

®Traveller is a registered trademark of
Far Future Enterprises, 1977-2018. Use of
the trademark in this notice and in the
referenced materials is not intended to
infringe or devalue the trademark.

--
Jeff Zeitlin, Editor
Freelance Traveller
    The Electronic Fan-Supported Traveller® Resource
xxxxxx@freelancetraveller.com
http://www.freelancetraveller.com

Freelance Traveller extends its thanks to the following
enterprises for hosting services:

onCloud/CyberWeb Enterprises (http://www.oncloud.io)
The Traveller Downport (http://www.downport.com)