Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5012
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:45 pm

Inspiration: HMS Camden Lock

Image

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz-1c2o1Dxw
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5012
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:14 pm

Starships: Sectionalizing

You can partition a spaceship, but how useful would that be for a standard hull, either mass manufactured or in inventory?

Bridges are standardized, if you take the ship design process at face value, to the point that you practically can slot them in, depending on the hull tonnage. Warships or specialized ships may have a larger cavity, to add in fire control and sensor stations, but for most commercial ships, it will be ten or twenty tonnes.

Engineering is more ambiguous, since the size of the motors are very much dependent on desired performance.

Now, my take on crewing is that one harassed engineer can look after one hundred and five tonnes of engineering, but the rules say it's one per thirty five.

So you can make an engineering section exactly sized to thirty five tonnes.

At technological level twelve, you can squeeze, after some weight loss, enough performance for a monogravving monojumper for a seven hundred tonne hull [fifteen three quarters/four nine tenths/fourteen].

At technological level nine, you can squeeze, enough performance for a monogravving monojumper for a four hundred sixty tonne hull [sixteen and a half/four and three fifths/thirteen and four fifths].
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5012
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:47 pm

Spaceships: Skimming Off The Top

Here's a thought.

How fast and how much gas can you skim once your spaceship enters a gas giant's atmosphere?

What speed would be appropriate?

This would indicate the window of vulnerability tankers or appropriately equipped craft have to have protection, or High Guarding, for.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5012
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:36 pm

Spaceships: Accommodating the Crew

Image

For all those thin tubular hulls.
wbnc
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1551
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby wbnc » Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:58 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:36 pm
Spaceships: Accommodating the Crew
For all those thin tubular hulls.
It would work great for a Cutter or other small craft outfitted as a personal transport/mobile office
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5012
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:05 am

Spaceships: Airlocks

The Quest Joint Airlock, previously known as the Joint Airlock Module, is the primary airlock for the International Space Station. Quest was designed to host spacewalks with both Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) spacesuits and Orlan space suits. The airlock was launched on STS-104 on July 14, 2001. Before Quest was attached, Russian spacewalks using Orlan suits could only be done from the Zvezda service module, and American spacewalks using EMUs were only possible when a Space Shuttle was docked. The arrival of Pirs docking compartment on September 16, 2001 provided another airlock from which Orlan spacewalks can be conducted.

Design[edit]

The Quest Airlock consists of two segments, the "Equipment lock" that stores spacesuits and equipment, and the "Crew Lock" from which astronauts can exit into space.[1] It was derived from the Space Shuttle airlock, although it was significantly modified to waste less atmospheric gas when used. It was attached to the starboard CBM of the Unity during STS-104. It has mountings for four high-pressure gas tanks, two containing oxygen and two containing nitrogen, which provides for atmospheric replenishment to the American side of the space station, most specifically for the gas lost after a hatch opening during a space walk.
Quest was necessary because American suits will not fit through a Russian airlock hatch and have different components, fittings, and connections. The airlock is designed to contain equipment that can work with both types of spacesuits, however, it is currently[when?] only able to host American spacewalks because the equipment necessary to work with Russian space suits has not been launched yet, which required the Expedition 9 crew to take a circuitous route to a worksite because of problems with the American space suits.
Camp-out procedure[edit]
Quest provides an environment where astronauts can "camp out" before a spacewalk in a reduced-nitrogen atmosphere to purge nitrogen from their bloodstream and avoid decompression sickness in the low-pressure (5 psi, 34 kPa) pure-oxygen atmosphere of the spacesuit.[2] The previous method of preparing for spacewalks involved breathing pure oxygen for several hours prior to an EVA to purge the body of nitrogen. In April 2006, Expedition 12 Commander Bill McArthur and Expedition 13 flight engineer Jeffrey Williams tested a new method of preparing for spacewalks by "camping out", or spending the night, in the Quest Airlock.[3] In the chamber, the pressure was reduced from the normal 14.7 to 10.2 psi (101 to 70 kPa).[2] Four hours into the Expedition 13 crew's sleep period, an error tone prompted mission controllers to cut short the activity, but the test was still deemed a success. American spacewalk activities thereafter have employed the "camp-out" pre-breathing technique.[2][3][4]
High-pressure gas tanks[edit]
Ambox current red.svg
This section needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (September 2016)
Two oxygen and two nitrogen high-pressure gas tanks are attached externally to the airlock. These tanks provide a replenishable source of gas to the atmosphere control and supply system and 900 psi (6.2 MPa) oxygen for recharging the space suits (EMUs).
Recharging the high-pressure tanks was accomplished by the Space Shuttle fleet until its retirement. When an orbiter was docked to the station's Pressurized Mating Adapters (PMA-2 or PMA-3), oxygen was routed through pressure lines from the PMAs to the Quest Airlock. The pumping of the oxygen from the docked spacecraft tanks into Quest's high-pressure tank was accomplished by the Oxygen Recharge Compressor Assembly (ORCA).[5] After the retirement of the Space Shuttle fleet, the Nitrogen Oxygen Recharge System (NORS) and spacecraft from the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program will take over this task.[6][7]
Construction[edit]
The airlock and tank systems were built out of aluminium and tested at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama by the Boeing Company.
Airlock specifications[edit]
Material: aluminium
Length: 5.5 meters (18 ft)
Diameter: 4 meters (13 ft)
Mass: 6,064 kilograms (13,369 lb)
Volume: 34 cubic meters (1,200 cu ft)
Cost: $164 million, including tanks


Image
Image
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5012
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:51 pm

Spaceships: Airlocks

Image

Image

A revolving door airlock seems interesting.

In sequence two, air can be pumped out or added, or just transferred to the the east sub chamber.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5012
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:30 pm

Starships: Eery

Image

Possibly, a tail sitter.
wbnc
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1551
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby wbnc » Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:35 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Fri Mar 17, 2017 3:51 pm
Spaceships: Airlocks


A revolving door airlock seems interesting.

In sequence two, air can be pumped out or added, or just transferred to the the east sub chamber.
It could work, keeping the seals pressure tight might be a bit tricky.It would definitely work for structures that have to deal with contaminated, or toxic air. put high volume blowers in the sections that seal, extract any contaminated air and blow in filtered air.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5012
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:23 pm

if it's continuous, you'd have to decrease the door access width, so that the air has the chance to be completely sucked out; or each is really a quarter turn, giving enough time for the air to get sucked out, before rotating to the open frame.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5012
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Mar 19, 2017 4:04 pm

Spaceships: Engineering and Propulsion

You've got three possible types of realspace propulsion, not counting fusion rockets, sailing, and paddling:

1. Orbital range - which is basically gravitational modules to create an anti gravity field

2. Limited range - which can be described as repulsors, since they push away from significant gravitational fields, or somehow inverse that to accelerate towards them

3. Unlimited range - or thrusters, that somehow create something out of nothing, and push the spaceship along
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5012
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Mar 20, 2017 10:41 pm

Spaceships: Engineering and Orbital Range Propulsion

1. Orbital range propulsion is good for two disadvantage, which means you could incorporate it into your spaceship at technological level seven.

2. Yeah, I didn't think that equipping An Apollo moon capsule with an anti gravity motor sounded quite right either.

3. Anyway, you can convert those disadvantages into either making the anti gravity motor cheaper (budget), smaller (ten percent), and/or more energy ficient (twenty five percent per).

4. Can you use another propulsion system together with the anti gravity motors? I'm going to say yes, as long as you first minus off the local gravity field.

5. I somehow doubt, except for a few instances, most shipbuilders will bother to install a bigger anti gravity motor than factor three, one or one plus is most common factors, since the idea is to create buoyancy for most human inhabited worlds, and it's much good beyond close orbit.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5012
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:12 pm

Spaceships: Accommodating the Crew

Image
Image

These are forty foot containers, which the Solomani could adjust to twelve metres long by two hundred thirty nine centimetres wide by two hundred fifty nine centimetres high, with an internal capacity of about four and a quarter tonnes in internal volume.

A little larger than your typical stateroom.

You could place them in two rows in the hold, add some scaffolding and pile them up even higher.

Should be considerably cheaper than the default stateroom, life support could be self contained.
wbnc
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1551
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby wbnc » Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:38 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:12 pm
Spaceships: Accommodating the Crew

These are forty foot containers, which the Solomani could adjust to twelve metres long by two hundred thirty nine centimetres wide by two hundred fifty nine centimetres high, with an internal capacity of about four and a quarter tonnes in internal volume.

A little larger than your typical stateroom.

You could place them in two rows in the hold, add some scaffolding and pile them up even higher.

Should be considerably cheaper than the default stateroom, life support could be self contained.
I built a batch of utility modules for "Ships of Gold" you can do this for quarters, workshops, even hanger space with repair and spare parts storage.

It would also be very useful for quick building a colony or facility like a mining outpost where the buildings would need to be self-supporting.a Prospector could carry the entire outpost in its cargo bay, unload it mine the area until the vein is depleted then move the entire setup
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5012
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:58 pm

Since each would have a self contained life support, you have redundancy.

With the hold empty, the mining ship could transport the ore.

I estimate that a bare container should cost between two to five hundred CrImps, not counting life support and furnishings.
wbnc
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1551
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby wbnc » Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:57 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:58 pm
Since each would have a self contained life support, you have redundancy.

With the hold empty, the mining ship could transport the ore.

I estimate that a bare container should cost between two to five hundred CrImps, not counting life support and furnishings.
lightweight non-gravity hull:
Stateroom:
Reactor and fuel...of course, you could cheat and buy a portable fusion reactor from Central Supply....
No bridge is needed, but you do need a basic computer system.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5012
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:13 pm

You might be assuming you need a spaceship hull.

Add twenty percent waste, and you could sculpt out a planetoid chunk with gravity and life support, at about twenty five kay schmuckers total for five tonnes.

A twenty foot container costs a thousand plus bucks, which I estimate means two hundred CrImps.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5012
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:23 am

Spaceships: Engineering and Dean Drive

http://i.imgur.com/GrrHXFV.gifv
wbnc
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1551
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby wbnc » Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:44 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:23 am
Spaceships: Engineering and Dean Drive

http://i.imgur.com/GrrHXFV.gifv
I think they use flywheels for some control systems in satellites, instead of attitude thrusters.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5012
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:45 pm

Image

Whenever you need an orbital correction, all astronauts on deck and seated on their stationary bicycles, pedalling furiously.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Hansdampf and 11 guests