Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Sigtrygg
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Sigtrygg » Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:12 pm

339:
Movement Vector Can Be Changed
A ship can change its speed and direction while in jump
space. Vector change requires non-gravity-based drives or
devices; gravity-based drives (due to their need to interact
with gravity sources) are generally ineffective.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Dec 13, 2017 7:40 pm

Thank you.

But Mongoose doesn't appear to cap distance from a gravitational source for manoeuvre drives, which may have been the element missing in Tee Five.
Sigtrygg
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Sigtrygg » Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:20 pm

T5 is the trumping canon for the OTU set in the Third Imperium - if you deviate too much from it you are in ATU territory, much like the GTU.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:38 am

T5 also has g-drives which are different from m-drives.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:26 am

Primitive and advanced options seem to imply this.

Still, it's rather vague.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:43 am

Spaceships: Power Plants and Alchemy

So, we got a tank full of hydrogen, and another one of carbon.

Process them simultaneously through a variant fuel processor, we should have a synthetic hydrocarbon admixture, suitable for the onboard chemical plant.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:24 pm

There is no advantage to a chemical plant using carbon based fuel, honestly hydrogen is much more prevalent.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:23 am

Maybe as a form of stealth movement.

No stray neutrons giving away the location of a fusion reactor.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:35 am

It was in reference to the use of hydrogen or petro chem, the petro chem has no advantages in a universe with a well developed hydrogen infrastructure.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2999
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Dec 15, 2017 1:37 am

baithammer wrote: There is no advantage to a chemical plant using carbon based fuel, honestly hydrogen is much more prevalent.
Hydrogen has an energy density of ~140 MJ/kg or 10 GJ/Dt.
Petrol has an energy density of 47 MJ/kg or 33 GJ/Dt.

But you also have to carry the needed oxygen to burn the fuel.
Each kg of hydrogen requires about 8 kg of oxygen or ~0.45 Dt LOX for each Dt LHyd.
Each kg of petrol requires about 3 kg of oxygen or ~1.6 Dt LOX for each Dt petrol.

So totally we get:
Hydrogen: 10 GJ for 1 + 0.45 = 1.45 Dt, or 6.9 GJ/Dt.
Petrol: 33 GJ for 1 + 1.6 = 2.6 Dt, or 12.7 GJ/Dt.

So, if we use hydrogen we need about twice as much fuel as if we use hydrocarbon fuel.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Fri Dec 15, 2017 4:05 am

There is an error in the math shown.

140 MJ/kg = 140 GJ/dt as the conversion between MJ -GJ is 1/1000 whereas kg to dt is 1,000 to 1 therefore negating the difference between units.

While petrol is 47 MJ/kg = 47 GJ/dt.

Further, you need 2.98 kg of Petrol per 1 kg of Hydrogen to match energy potential, which still gives a lead to hydrogen when factoring in LOX as hydrogen only requires 2.67 kg to 1 kg for petrol.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2999
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Dec 15, 2017 2:16 pm

baithammer wrote: There is an error in the math shown.

140 MJ/kg = 140 GJ/dt as the conversion between MJ -GJ is 1/1000 whereas kg to dt is 1,000 to 1 therefore negating the difference between units.
Yes, that is correct, thank you.

Let me start over:

Hydrogen has an energy density of ~140 MJ/kg. 1 Dt = 14 m³ contains 1 tonne LHyd, so 1 Dt contains 140 MJ/kg × 1000 kg = 140000 MJ = 140 GJ.
Petrol has an energy density of 47 MJ/kg. 1 Dt = 14 m³ contains 14 × 0.7 ≈ 9.8 tonnes of petrol, so 1 Dt contains 47 MJ/kg × 9800 kg ≈ 460000 MJ = 460 GJ.

But you also have to carry the needed oxygen to burn the fuel.
Each kg of hydrogen requires about 8 kg of oxygen. 1 Dt LHyd = 1000 kg requires ~8000 kg LOX which is 8 / 1.3 ≈ 6 m³ or 0.45 Dt LOX.
Each kg of petrol requires about 3 kg of oxygen. 1 Dt petrol = 9800 kg requires 9800 × 3 = 29.4 tonnes of LOX, which at ~1.3 tonne/m³ takes 22.6 m³ or 1.6 Dt.

So totally we get:
Hydrogen: 140 GJ for 1 + 0.45 = 1.45 Dt, or 96 GJ/Dt.
Petrol: 460 GJ for 1 + 1.6 = 2.6 Dt, or 176 GJ/Dt.

I seem to have made the same mistake for both hydrogen and petrol, so the conclusion stands:
If we use hydrogen we need about twice as much fuel as if we use hydrocarbon fuel.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:22 am

Spaceships: Bridges to Nowhere

Now that spaceship bridges are capped at a default sixty tonnes for circa two kay tonnes and upwards, you have the discrepancy that at two kay tonnes, a bridge costs you ten megaschmuckers, and one for a hundred kay tonne spaceship costs a cool half a gigaschmuckers.

So what accounts for this discrepancy, since you can't really cram in more machinery?

While the capability to control ever larger ships might require more expensive machinery, I tend to think that the input output side of the equation remains the same, you just need better programmes and bridge personnel to handle the increased information inflow, and coordinate other ship departments.

The increased cost reflects the need to set up a widespread network that connects the bridge workstations to other ship components, and could take control of them directly, as well as the usual remote monitoring.

That means, that bridges could be interchangeable amongst most spaceships, if they are designed to strict common standards.

The price would remain, for the sixty tonne bridge, at ten megaschmuckers, and the remainder would be vested with the respective hull.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:26 am

Petrol has an energy density of 47 MJ/kg. 1 Dt = 14 m³ contains 14 × 0.7 ≈ 9.8 tonnes of petrol, so 1 Dt contains 47 MJ/kg × 9800 kg ≈ 460000 MJ = 460 GJ.
Can't use the 9,800 kg compared to 1,000 kg on the hydrogen side as the originating unit is MJ/kg (Both sides are required to use the same unit) , also where are is the 0.7 coming from?
Now that spaceship bridges are capped at a default sixty tonnes for circa two kay tonnes and upwards, you have the discrepancy that at two kay tonnes, a bridge costs you ten megaschmuckers, and one for a hundred kay tonne spaceship costs a cool half a gigaschmuckers.

So what accounts for this discrepancy, since you can't really cram in more machinery?
Probably the same as the 1t taken up by a turret, the 60t is the connection within the hull. All the rest of the bridge is an external volume.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2999
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Dec 16, 2017 6:16 am

baithammer wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:26 am
Petrol has an energy density of 47 MJ/kg. 1 Dt = 14 m³ contains 14 × 0.7 ≈ 9.8 tonnes of petrol, so 1 Dt contains 47 MJ/kg × 9800 kg ≈ 460000 MJ = 460 GJ.
Can't use the 9,800 kg compared to 1,000 kg on the hydrogen side as the originating unit is MJ/kg (Both sides are required to use the same unit) , also where are is the 0.7 coming from?
0.7 tonnes/m³ is roughly the mass density of petrol.

I'm comparing the same volume of fuel, since Traveller design systems generally use that as basic unit, 1 Dt ≈ 14 m³ (volume).

1 Dt = 14 m³ LHyd has a density of ~0.07 tonne/m³, so a mass of 14 m³ × 0.07 tonnes/m³ ≈ 1 tonne = 1000 kg.
1 Dt = 14 m³ petrol has a density of ~0.7 tonne/m³, so a mass of 14 m³ × 0.7 tonnes/m³ ≈ 9.8 tonnes = 9800 kg.

Once we have the mass of the fuel we can calculate the energy content as above.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Sat Dec 16, 2017 9:08 am

Figured out the missing piece of the puzzle, petrol isn't used in 1950s+ rocket fuel instead kerosene ( Refined from petroleum) is used in the mixture RP1 with LOX as the oxidizer but also requires an additional pressurization system using an inert gas such as nitrogen or helium. ( To displace kerosene.)
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2999
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:44 am

baithammer wrote: Figured out the missing piece of the puzzle, petrol isn't used in 1950s+ rocket fuel ...
I thought we were discussing fuel for chemical power plants, not rockets.

But, OK, petrol is perhaps not the best fuel available, I just used that since data was easily available, to demonstrate the disadvantage with hydrogen.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:55 am

baithammer wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 3:26 am
Now that spaceship bridges are capped at a default sixty tonnes for circa two kay tonnes and upwards, you have the discrepancy that at two kay tonnes, a bridge costs you ten megaschmuckers, and one for a hundred kay tonne spaceship costs a cool half a gigaschmuckers.

So what accounts for this discrepancy, since you can't really cram in more machinery?
Probably the same as the 1t taken up by a turret, the 60t is the connection within the hull. All the rest of the bridge is an external volume.
Sixty tonnes is a constant, unless you upgrade to a command bridge

It's the cost that you have to reconcile, and that would have to due to the networking of the hull itself.

There's no option given for a cheaper commercial variant, only that you could use a forty tonne bridge instead, and it would cost you only half as much but at a minus one penalty for most, if not all, tasks.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 673
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Sat Dec 16, 2017 12:29 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:44 am
baithammer wrote: Figured out the missing piece of the puzzle, petrol isn't used in 1950s+ rocket fuel ...
I thought we were discussing fuel for chemical power plants, not rockets.

But, OK, petrol is perhaps not the best fuel available, I just used that since data was easily available, to demonstrate the disadvantage with hydrogen.
You mentioned needing an oxidizer, which also requires in gasoline / kerosene fuel a pressurized system to fill the displacement of said gasoline/kerosene which isn't required for a hydrogen based system. ( Apparently hydrogen / LOX generate this sort of pressure when mixed.)

Petroleum has other uses that can't be replicated through hydrogen so it still has uses in the face of large scale hydrogen infrastructure.
Sixty tonnes is a constant, unless you upgrade to a command bridge

It's the cost that you have to reconcile, and that would have to due to the networking of the hull itself.
That space is the internal volume displaced by the bridge, but most likely like a turret it displaces further volume outside the hull which would lead to a higher cost for a larger ship.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:22 pm

There is no additional volume requirement.

The Death Star could be controlled from a sixty tonne bridge.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: paltrysum and 14 guests