Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives
Phil Pugliese 05 Nov 2014 19:10 UTC
--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 11/4/14, Richard Aiken <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [TML] Reflections on LBB2v2 versus HGv2 for drives
To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2014, 7:28 PM
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 7:39
PM, Grimmund <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
wrote:
. . . unless you are planning to
build enough ships to reduce the
share of
the architect's fee per ship to something manageable.
But
that's still a bad financial
decisions.
Does that still apply if you're a megacorp building
the hulls in-house?
I always assumed the standard design discount
represented a megacorp pumping out pre-built cookie-cutter
hulls and then calling on low-bid subcontractors to
actually install the working bits of the ship. The corp
could easily stockpile not-as-yet needed hulls (especially
in an orbital yard), only fitting these out when the current
market called for it. Also, a certain precentage of these
hulls (particularly along the fringes) would be
"re-manufactured" models; hulls of salvaged or
repossessed standard designs, with the old working
guts removed and replaced with "as new"
components.
-- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably find alot of the in vargr-land....