Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
-Daniel-
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2317
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:20 pm
Location: Burbank, CA

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby -Daniel- » Mon Sep 05, 2016 8:07 pm

Condottiere wrote: The first option is to strew sand around, ....
But wouldn't the sand become an issue for the fleet that is scattering it around?
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7304
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Sep 05, 2016 11:26 pm

Probably too scattered for direct damage, and the idea is if you can't see them, they can't see you.

Ostrich gambit.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7304
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Sep 06, 2016 7:40 pm

Spaceships: Engineering and Outmanoeuvring

I calculated that with three gees per tech level starting off at seven, reaction rockets cap out at twenty seven gee at tech level fifteen.

That would default to fifty four percent of volume, and might close to close range before the other side has a chance to fire on the ship.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7304
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Sep 06, 2016 8:39 pm

Spaceships: Engineering and High teched Early Prototypes

So basically, you manufacture an early prototype three tech levels above introduction.

You accept that you have two disadvantages, but offset that with three new advantages.

The issue is cost, since at face value you'd have to pay fifteen times above the default price, though in theory, you should getaway with twenty five percent above default.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7304
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Sep 08, 2016 12:02 pm

Spaceships: Hulls and Breaking Bad

Image

Image
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7304
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Sep 08, 2016 12:29 pm

Spaceships: Engineering and Propulsion

Image
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7304
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Sep 08, 2016 10:57 pm

Spaceships: Fire Control and Targetting

In theory, you could dictate a fire control console and one set of sensors for one target, for a dee emm bonus.

In fairness, probably for only one type of weapon systems, though multiple examples, during the same round.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7304
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:15 pm

Spaceships: Down and Out in Mos Eisley

https://vimeo.com/181856947

Sad, yet oddly relevant.
-Daniel-
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2317
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:20 pm
Location: Burbank, CA

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby -Daniel- » Fri Sep 09, 2016 9:49 pm

Condottiere wrote:Spaceships: Down and Out in Mos Eisley

https://vimeo.com/181856947

Sad, yet oddly relevant.
That was most interesting from both a game and just pure human interest point of view. :D
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7304
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Sep 11, 2016 6:11 am

Spaceships: Engineering, Rocket Raccoon, and Tubthumping the Night Away

A high technology model of a raccooned rocket factor fifteen would only consume one percent of vessel volume multiplied by the acceleration factor per hour.

That's thirty percent for the raccooned rocket, plus fifteen percent per hour of hydrogen.

That's still a hefty percentage, but rather irritating if it's a missile chasing you around.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7304
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:50 am

Spaceships: Precipitation and Attraction

Since I'm now on a gravity minimum trajectory, I thought this video on, towels, always a vital piece of equipment, and dihydrogen monoxide, is rather fascinating.

https://youtu.be/O9gBPnObkHA
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7304
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:39 pm

Spaceships: Hulls and Weight Watchers

If structural integrity is the criteria for determining the minimum size of a spaceship, a reinforced hull would reach four points at nine point one tonnes.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7304
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:23 am

Spaceships: Hulls and Weight Watchers

The problem with putting a minimum weight limit on spaceships, is that at ten tonnes, we find there's still a lot of slack that can be tightened, and fat cut.

It's always easiest to look for historical or contemporary analogues, and ours would be the Spitfire, the Bf-109, the Fishbed and the F-5.

The reason you have light fighters, is that not everyone can or wants to pay extraordinary purchase or operating costs involved with cutting edge fightercraft, though this is probably less an issue with our primary five interstellar polities; the Aslan have more clan based military budget constraints.

Since a light fighter can't outgun a medium or heavy fighter, or in theory shouldn't be able to, it's there to mission kill them, if not actually do so.

The other roles would be short range reconnaissance (though an unmanned drone would probably be better suited), point defense interception, and ground attack (most likely in counter insurgency).

I define a heavy fighter as having three firm points, medium as two, so a light fighter could range in size between ten to thirty four tonnes, though pragmatism would limit that to twenty.

Cost benefit is also an issue, since costs can really spiral out of control in relation to their actual usefulness.
wbnc
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1552
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby wbnc » Wed Sep 14, 2016 12:58 pm

Condottiere wrote:Spaceships: Hulls and Weight Watchers

The problem with putting a minimum weight limit on spaceships, is that at ten tonnes, we find there's still a lot of slack that can be tightened, and fat cut.

It's always easiest to look for historical or contemporary analogues, and ours would be the Spitfire, the Bf-109, the Fishbed and the F-5.

The reason you have light fighters, is that not everyone can or wants to pay extraordinary purchase or operating costs involved with cutting edge fightercraft, though this is probably less an issue with our primary five interstellar polities; the Aslan have more clan based military budget constraints.

Since a light fighter can't outgun a medium or heavy fighter, or in theory shouldn't be able to, it's there to mission kill them, if not actually do so.

The other roles would be short range reconnaissance (though an unmanned drone would probably be better suited), point defense interception, and ground attack (most likely in counter insurgency).

I define a heavy fighter as having three firm points, medium as two, so a light fighter could range in size between ten to thirty four tonnes, though pragmatism would limit that to twenty.

Cost benefit is also an issue, since costs can really spiral out of control in relation to their actual usefulness.
A basic 10-ton fighter is very cheap and fairly limited in combat. Squeezing in batter drives, sensors, and advanced computer software sends the cost screaming skyward. It's insanely easy to have a fighter with advanced drives and weapons that is still cheaper than the computer and associated software crammed into the cockpit.

but adding point defense software, broad spectrum Electronic warfare, and military grade sensors on a small fighter turns it into a rather effective point defender. and Hostile salvo within long range is subject to an EW action by every fighter equipped with the Broad spectrum system within log range. and then every fighter so equipped gets to take a shot at any salvo targeting any ship within close range of the fighter. however, the cost of the fighter is nearly doubled by the extra hardware and software needed for the fighters.

In order to get missiles through the screen ,the enemy has to dedicate resources to taking out the swarm of 10 ton fighters surrounding a target.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7304
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Sep 14, 2016 4:57 pm

Going by a recent example, the electronics and programming seem to eat up half the development cost, and then you have to debug them.

At some point, you want that investment protected, which means a larger craft to soak up more damage.
IanBruntlett
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1016
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:18 pm
Location: Northumberland, England

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby IanBruntlett » Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:11 pm

Condottiere wrote:Going by a recent example, the electronics and programming seem to eat up half the development cost, and then you have to debug them.
Personally I feel that regarding computers and programming, we're living in a strange time - things keep changing rapidly.

I am no ship architect but, by the time of the 3rd Imperium, a lot of the ship control hardware and software will be fairly solid, reliable and tested. It is when you need to customise things or attempt previously untried things that problems can creep in.
-- My writings : https://sites.google.com/site/ianbruntlett
-- ACCU - Professionalism in programming - http://accu.org
-- Free Software Page : https://sites.google.com/site/ianbruntl ... e-software
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7304
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:20 pm

I disliked the alphabet soup engineering, mostly because it didn't coincide with my design parameters, but likely a lot of equipment will be off the shelf, and plug and play.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7304
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:31 pm

Spaceships: Engineering, or Power to the People!

The most cost effective power plant might be a budget tech level eight fusion plant.

It's highly likely, municipalities aren't going to bother upgrading them once they have them installed; unlike spaceships, they have relatively large volumes that they can fill with them, and presumably our homes and existing industries are going to become increasingly energy efficient, if not soaking up free energy from the sun.

Of course, naval architects aren't going to have that luxury, since every cubic metre tends to count.

Unless the rules present us the horns of a dilemma, we don't need that much space, but are required to fill it with something.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 7304
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:23 pm

Spaceships: Hulls and Weight Watchers

On the counter insurgency role, the examples to look at would be most prominently the Warthog, though you'll never be permitted to add on all that ordnance; the exception appears to be groundscale weaponry, which unlike firmpoints do seem to take up an excessive amount of volume, especially considering my estimate of one eighth of a tonne per fixed turret mount.

Or perhaps the Warthog goes into the medium fighter category, and we get to putter around with Super Tucanos or the Skyraider.

Simce fighters do seem to get up close and very personal in space combat, you have to wonder how effective groundscale armament is against barely armoured targets or other small spacecraft.
wbnc
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1552
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby wbnc » Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:11 am

Condottiere wrote:Spaceships: Hulls and Weight Watchers

On the counter insurgency role, the examples to look at would be most prominently the Warthog, though you'll never be permitted to add on all that ordnance; the exception appears to be groundscale weaponry, which unlike firmpoints do seem to take up an excessive amount of volume, especially considering my estimate of one eighth of a tonne per fixed turret mount.

Or perhaps the Warthog goes into the medium fighter category, and we get to putter around with Super Tucanos or the Skyraider.

Simce fighters do seem to get up close and very personal in space combat, you have to wonder how effective groundscale armament is against barely armoured targets or other small spacecraft.
a few ground scale weapons can do a good bit of damage the limiting factor being range. a Fusion cannon, or tac missile armed pod would do damage on another small craft but unless it can stay within adjacent range it's going to be outmatched by the longer ranged starship grade weapons.

And on a side not woe unto thee who mocks the firepower of a Tucano/"sandy"....for their days will be short and full of sorrows. they are primitive, lightweight, and basically an improved WWII fighter but in the ground suppression and anti-insurgency they are perfectly suited to the role. 20mmm cannons and rockets are more than enough to ruin the day of anyone caught in the open when one rolls in on them.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AnotherDilbert, Welf and 9 guests