Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6521
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:24 pm

Spaceships: Life Support and Importing Short Term Support

Oops, off by a factor of ten.

Maintenance is five hundred per month, four days would sixty seven schmuckers per set.

Maintenance is fifty per month, replacements cost six and two thirds schmuckers, every four days, per twenty personnel.

Theoretically, you could stretch it out for a smaller number of air breathers, but it probably is a matter of diminishing returns.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6521
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Apr 14, 2018 9:50 pm

Spaceships: How Fast Are The Ships of The Expanse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIaGXcE ... e=youtu.be

Image

I foresee a lot of LED lighting in our future; I think she also mentioned sixteen gees.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6521
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:54 pm

Starships: Longspaceships

Image

Reviewing some Saxy Viking history, I recalled that the reason they were successful was their capability to beach their ships very close to their objectives.

That would demonstrate a requirement for a starship that can easily manoeuvre in an atmosphere, rather than waste time standing off and launching smallcraft connectors.

Instead, nap of the earth, and launch grav powered vehicles.

The expensive ones would have stealth hulls.

Image
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 724
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:44 pm

It had more to do with the longships being able to travel across both ocean and river.
That would demonstrate a requirement for a starship that can easily manoeuvre in an atmosphere, rather than waste time standing off and launching smallcraft connectors.
Forgetting that the longship has size limitations and beaching is more like docking than trans-atmospheric operations.

In most cases it is less expensive and safer to use auxiliary craft for landing than land a 1,000t+ ship.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6521
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Apr 16, 2018 12:29 pm

I'm the first to declare you shouldnt risk the jump drive.

However, this would be ameliorated by the capability to get to the objective fast, drop the troops and their gear, but not use the ship's weaponry to engage defensive systems.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6521
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:51 pm

Spaceships: Why is the International Space Station 400 km above the Earth?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDlCTLYwvxc
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6521
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:30 am

Starships: Slow Boat To China

What would qualify it?

1. Monojumper: the jump drive would tend to be the most expensive piece of hardware, and the one almost everyone is concerned with. As a technological level nine artifact, it would be easy to source parts for, or make an ad hoc repair.

2. Wages would be really below average; except for the chief engineer.

3. The pilot and/or the Captain might be astro navigation skill level zero; if not, ild navigation tapes could be picked up at the flea market, or a newer black market one.

4. The bridge is likely to be cramped.

5. At best, staterooms are clean, but basic.

6. Escape capsules and other emergency equipment might be present. but not necessarily recently maintained.

7. Armament might be for show.

8. The hull could be technological level ten; the price doesn't change.

9. Passages and freight rates are cheaper; how that's arranged within the context of possible fixed pricing would be upto the dungeon master to figure out.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6521
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Apr 23, 2018 9:22 pm

Spaceships: Nuclear Propulsion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm7PNlK5Aco
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6521
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Apr 25, 2018 6:15 am

Astronaut Chris Hadfield Debunks Space Myths

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6rHHnABoT8
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6521
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:18 pm

Space Jerks: Not Safe For Workspace

Image

The first episode of a Classic Traveller podcast by people who don't know how to podcast or play Traveller.

Featuring:
Dan Cox as Chance McWashbourne
Gavin Lockman as Harlan Zekiel
Sharon Long as Ravi
Tony Rogers as Reuel Lucinia
And Liam Norris as The Referee

Episode One
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97wQ1jI82vA

Episode Two
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJWrEcOKaDI

Episode Three
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pioWtJ1O_-0

Working my way through episode one.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6521
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Apr 27, 2018 7:58 am

Starships: Bunkerage and the Oukhaha class

Pop Up fuel tanks.

Minimum tonnage two tonnes, can collapse to one tonne volume.

Capacity might be a tad short, maybe ninety eight percent of stated tonnage.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6521
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:37 pm

Spaceships: Hulls and Windscreens

Transparent Aluminum - Star Trek Technology is now Real

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DduO1fNzV4w
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6521
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu May 03, 2018 9:31 am

Starships: Home Sweet Home, and Size

They way the game is structured, a hundred tonne scout can be run by one person, and a two hundred tonne free trader should be the Millenium Falcon, including whatever got knocked off the nose.

The desirable size of the party ship should be dependent on available capital, operating expenses, income, and the number of protagonists, anything beyond that would require henchmen.

As a commercial venture, considering the hazards of the game, i'd increase the number of ships, rather than upgrade the place of residence.

The exception would be for a paramilitary campaign, since damage and loss of ship would be calculated in, and you'd want the best equipment available.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6521
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed May 09, 2018 9:13 pm

Spaceships: Accommodations and Sleeping pods on planes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfyD6N3BpiE

Airbus recently filed a patent for a sleeping box system for its A350 and A380 aircrafts. The 31" x 31" beds would feature all the amenities of an airplane seat, but in a reclining bed. However, if you get cramped, a standard airplane seat isn't included in the ticket price.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6521
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed May 09, 2018 9:16 pm

Spaceships: Accommodations and Lower Deck Modules

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV6KYe4zbWA

Airbus and Zodiac Aerospace have partnered to develop and market lower-deck modules with passenger sleeping berths.
SSWarlock
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:26 pm
Location: Fulacin/Rhylanor/Spinward Marches

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby SSWarlock » Wed May 09, 2018 9:24 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 9:16 pm
Spaceships: Accommodations and Lower Deck Modules<snip>
Airbus and Zodiac Aerospace have partnered to develop and market lower-deck modules with passenger sleeping berths.
No hand rails on the stairs. No way to secure carry-ons in the luggage slots. Normal house-hold chairs.

One word: turbulence.

Gotta be only for 5+ hour flights with little chance for bouncing up and down. And how long will it take to clean and prep the plane at the gate for the next flight? Gate turnaround time is the life blood of airlines.
Sir Dhaven Hevelin, IOD, Baronet of Fulacin
Owner/Captain - S.S. Warlock

Playing Traveller/RQ/D&D since 1977
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6521
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri May 11, 2018 11:15 pm

Image

As far as I can tell, thirteen hour flights have a daily turnaround.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6521
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri May 11, 2018 11:35 pm

Spaceships: Hulls, Pop Up Turrets, and Double Hulls

Popping a turret increases volume by a tonne; thought I think if should occupy more than two tonnes, since not only do you have to accound for the turret, but also for the machinery and the power cables and possibly telescoping missile rack.

Anyway, having this option means you can pop up hull sections and increase hulled volume. The question would be volume and price.

The machinery could be similar to that used by double hulling a spaceship: one percent extra cost per percent of hull, and ten percent volume for machinery.

So the question becomes whether you would need to construct this around a hard point.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6521
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun May 13, 2018 8:54 pm

Spaceships: Hulls, Pop Up Turrets, Double Hulls, and Bunkerage


Image

What you could do during the jump ignition, is a Chinese puzzle, in that as the fuel is expended, the fuel tanks are drawn in, balanced by lounge areas popping out.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6521
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon May 21, 2018 7:50 am

Why Single Stage to Orbit rockets SUCK. The wacky history and future maybes of SSTOs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfc2Jg1gkKA

Rockets are HUGE, complicated and expensive. As a matter of fact, the rocket that took humans to the moon, the Saturn 5, was 111 meters or 363 feet tall, and had more separation events than dating teenagers.

So why do rockets always split themselves into multiple parts. Isn’t that complicated and risky? Why throw so much away? I mean, there’s got to be a better way!!!

Well how about if rockets were only ONE stage? How awesome would that be? Well this idea isn’t new… it’s called single stage to orbit or SSTO and it’s often considered the holy grail of rocketry.

Well, today, I’m going to SMASH THAT HOLY GRAIL and explain why I think SSTO’s SUCK.

In order to drill this point in we’ll teach you all about the tyranny of the rocket equation and help you understand why every orbital rocket, well, ever is multistage.

Then we’ll take a stroll down SSTO history and look at some crazy designs that in some cases almost worked...

And not to be a huge downer, we will take a look at some SSTO designs that MIGHT actually work, including the Skylon spaceplane that uses the awesome SABRE hybrid engine.


If stages are reusable and you have a critical mass of spaceships and/or starships using them, it's viable, whether as drop tanks or some other subhull.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: doktor57, JMISBEST and 16 guests