Chryssostomtdts 
sidering seakeeping characteristics. 
REPLY TO DISCUSSION 
Chryssostomos Chryssostomidis 
Massachusetts Instttute of Technology 
Cambrtdge, Massachusetts, U.S.A. 
Thank you, Mr. Leopold ; I fully agree with your conclusions 
in the case of conventional ships with conventional missions, If there 
are not going to be large changes in the owner's requirements I do not 
believe it is profitable to include seakeeping considerations in the op- 
timization scheme of the first iteration of the proposed methodology. 
For unconventional ships however, I believe seakeeping considerations 
should be introduced as early as possible in the decision making pro- 
cess because they might determine feasibility. We have a recent 
example of this in the form of a small catamaran vessel. I also be - 
lieve that in unconventional missions even with conventional ships one 
must introduce seakeeping considerations as early as possible in the 
decision making process because they might influence the final solu- 
tion. Recently I was involved in the design of a deep ocean mining ship 
where seakeeping considerations forced me to accept as "optimum" a 
much larger ship than I would have accepted if no seakeeping conside- 
rations were introduced in the investigation, 
DISCUSSION 
: Michel K. Ochi 
Naval Shtp Research and Development Center 
Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A. 
The author has brought up an important subject in the first 
iteration of the proposed design methodology, namely, the speed re- 
duction due to ship motion. As part of the criteria to estimate the 
speed reduction due to ship motion, the author considers the probabi- 
lity of occurrence of deck wetness at Station 1 and the probability of 
1624 
