Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:24 am

Starships: Is the Razor Crest A Modified Clone Wars Dropship?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DKs01B1jUc


Image


1. Neat; I have a ninety nine tonne (assault) shuttle concept.

2. I thought he meant the carbon freezing.

Image
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:13 pm

Spaceships: Weaponry, Macross Missile Massacre, and I'm Ready For My Close Up

Image

1. Close escorting is getting defined.

2. Only ten percent of the hull volume of the defended ship may be the total of subsidiary vessels dedicated to it's defence.

3. Seems arbitrary, maybe any more and the possibility exists that some missiles relock onto one of the close escorts, and that escort needs at least a round to reacquire the target, during which time it doesn't fire at that missile/salvo.

4. In any event, each close escort can only target one missile, regardless of the number of weapon systems allocated to interception, though you get a bonus.

5. Each larger vessel can target one threat per turret, though I'm not sure what defines a larger vessel, non-smallcraft?

6. Vessels dedicated to area defence appear to have no limitations in terms of tonnage or numbers of weapon systems.

7. So, definition of close escort now is a vessel capable of directly defending another ship by being in close proximity and using it's weapon systems to intercept incoming ordnance.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:24 am

Spaceships: Accomodations, Pop Up Acceleration Benches and How Airplane Oxygen Masks Work Given They Aren't Hooked to Tanks & How Planes Get Oxygen at Altitude

Ever wonder why the plastic bag attached to the drop down emergency airplane oxygen masks don't necessarily inflate? Well, wonder no more- it turns out how this system works is extremely interesting. To begin with, because the economics of having large oxygen tanks aboard airliners simply doesn’t work out (not to mention that the air quality inside the plane would rapidly become unpleasant if fresh air wasn’t constantly supplied, regardless of the oxygen levels), commercial airplanes have a very clever system installed to solve the problem of ultra-low pressure atmosphere at cruising altitudes....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi2KKtnLDyI



1. These should be placed around the spaceship, and in an emergency, instead of oxygen masks dropping down from the roof, these pop up, together with their own (possibly limited) oxygen supply, not just pressure loss, but also toxic fumes.

2. To save oxygen, breathe through your left nostril.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Dec 15, 2019 4:15 am

Spaceships: Hulls, Breakaways and Performance

With breakaway hulls, even if one section is loaded with most of the drive(s), while volume ratio of the engines might not be higher so that the spacecraft could accelerate faster and or jump further, performance cannot exceed that for which that particular drive was factored at that particular technology level.

So, if a manoeuvre drive on a combined hull makes up three percent built at technology level ten, one where a split might give the breakaway hull a volume of five percent manoeuvre drive, the best acceleration it can muster remains at factor three, at default values.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Dec 16, 2019 3:35 pm

Inspiration: Star Wars Anime (Full episode)

We did not animate this! This is a Fan Re-edit! The Galaxy of Adventures animation team went all in for these 50 sec star wars kids videos. The animation style begs the question, what if we had a whole show in this anime inspired feel? We took clips from half a dozen videos from Galaxy of Adventures and crafted an episode from empire strikes back and over dubbed it in Japanese of course. (you have no idea how hard it is to find Japanese dubbed star wars BUT we did it anyway!)
Many fans have made anime openers from GoA clips (like the original opener for this video by Ivan Ortega) but no one had actually made an episode, so it had to be done. Thanks for watching!
Let us know what you think in the comments and subscribe if you want to see more! (We have an idea to actually make a series or full 22min episode based on a New Hope!)
Share this video with someone who would appreciate it.
Thanks again, and may the force be with you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gEoFNYKW30
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:40 pm

Starships: Confederation Cutter, Modular or Otherwise

After reading Space Viking, I was never really able to reconcile ye Traveller Modular Cutter, though I gave the Broadsword a pass (I wondered if the class name itself was a nod to the Sword worlds).

Most blatantly, it was capable of interstellar travel, which fits in with the terrestrial one, that was ocean going.

So what follows is the template of the Solomani Confederation of the lower end default jumpless variant, without optimization or cost cutting:

Ninety nine point five tonne technological level nine self sealing, unarmoured, streamlined and gravitated hull with thirty nine point eight hull points, costing 5.97 megabux.

Two and a half tonne dual cockpit acts as primary bridge [note one] at fifteen kilobux, with free basic sensors, and a technological level seven factor five onboard computer at thirty kilobux; total 45 kilobux.

Software package includes a library and manoeuvre zero.

The option exists for three separate firmpoints, to which can be attached either a fixedly mounted virtual weapon system, or a technological level seven single turret [note two], at respectively 100 kilobux and 200 kilobux each; the default has a single mounted fixture, for but not with a sandcaster weapon system.

Freebie [note three] two tonne airlock at 200 kilobux.

One tonne technological level nine factor one manoeuvre drive has a hundred tonne thrust, costing 2 megabux and requiring ten power points, combined with a two tonne technological level nine factor one reactionary rocket [note four]with a hundred tonne thrust at one hundred fifty kilogramme fuel consumption per round, costing 400 kilobux. Hard limited to six burns.

The power plant is a technological level eight early fusion reactor, weighing in at two tonnes, costing 1 megabux, and producing twenty power points per round [note five].

One tonne fuel tankage, enough to run the power plant at full blast for fourteen days.

Cargo space would be eighty nine and a half tonnes.

Default life support for the two pilots is twenty four hours.

Total cost would be 9.715 megabux.


Notes:

One though it's unclear if two pilots would be mandatory

Two for a hardpointed fixture, upto three different weapon systems can be attached without additional cost; in theory, if firmpointed turrets are limited to single weapon systems, they don't require so much volume, nor cost as much.

Three seems inconsistently applied in Traveller, so the additional two tonnes and 100 kilobux is accounted for as you couldn't make it part of the overhead of any other ship component.

Four two disadvantages translate into forty percent fuel efficiency; combined, this ensures that the cutter can leave any planetary object with a gravitational pull of less than two standard gravities. Consumption figures are a tad off by maybe half a percent more than actually required, but technological level limitations still apply at a hard factor one per, two if combined.

Five usually installed as two one tonne modules.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:40 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:40 pm
Starships: Confederation Cutter, Modular or Otherwise

After reading Space Viking, I was never really able to reconcile ye Traveller Modular Cutter, though I gave the Broadsword a pass (I wondered if the class name itself was a nod to the Sword worlds).

Most blatantly, it was capable of interstellar travel, which fits in with the terrestrial one, that was ocean going.

So what follows is the template of the Solomani Confederation of the lower end default jumpless variant, without optimization or cost cutting:

Ninety nine point five tonne technological level nine self sealing, unarmoured, streamlined and gravitated hull with thirty nine point eight hull points, costing 5.97 megabux.

Two and a half tonne dual cockpit acts as primary bridge [note one] at fifteen kilobux, with free basic sensors, and a technological level seven factor five onboard computer at thirty kilobux; total 45 kilobux.

Software package includes a library and manoeuvre zero.

The option exists for three separate firmpoints, to which can be attached either a fixedly mounted virtual weapon system, or a technological level seven single turret [note two], at respectively 100 kilobux and 200 kilobux each; the default has a single mounted fixture, for but not with a sandcaster weapon system.

Freebie [note three] two tonne airlock at 200 kilobux.

One tonne technological level nine factor one manoeuvre drive has a hundred tonne thrust, costing 2 megabux and requiring ten power points, combined with a two tonne technological level nine factor one reactionary rocket [note four]with a hundred tonne thrust at one hundred fifty kilogramme fuel consumption per round, costing 400 kilobux. Hard limited to six burns.

The power plant is a technological level eight early fusion reactor, weighing in at two tonnes, costing 1 megabux, and producing twenty power points per round [note five].

One tonne fuel tankage, enough to run the power plant at full blast for fourteen days.

Cargo space would be eighty nine and a half tonnes.

Default life support for the two pilots is twenty four hours.

Total cost would be 9.715 megabux.


Notes:

One though it's unclear if two pilots would be mandatory

Two for a hardpointed fixture, upto three different weapon systems can be attached without additional cost; in theory, if firmpointed turrets are limited to single weapon systems, they don't require so much volume, nor cost as much.

Three seems inconsistently applied in Traveller, so the additional two tonnes and 100 kilobux is accounted for as you couldn't make it part of the overhead of any other ship component.

Four two disadvantages translate into forty percent fuel efficiency; combined, this ensures that the cutter can leave any planetary object with a gravitational pull of less than two standard gravities. Consumption figures are a tad off by maybe half a percent more than actually required, but technological level limitations still apply at a hard factor one per, two if combined.

Five usually installed as two one tonne modules.

Starships: Confederation Cutter, Modular or Otherwise

Next up, a light sphere configuration, that could fly within an atmosphere, but only when necessary; artificial gravity is not installed.

Ninety nine point five tonne technological level nine self sealing, unarmoured, partially streamlined and non gravitated hull with thirty five point eight two hull points, costing 1.4925 megabux.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:31 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:40 pm
Starships: Confederation Cutter, Modular or Otherwise

After reading Space Viking, I was never really able to reconcile ye Traveller Modular Cutter, though I gave the Broadsword a pass (I wondered if the class name itself was a nod to the Sword worlds).

Most blatantly, it was capable of interstellar travel, which fits in with the terrestrial one, that was ocean going.

So what follows is the template of the Solomani Confederation of the lower end default jumpless variant, without optimization or cost cutting:

Ninety nine point five tonne technological level nine self sealing, unarmoured, streamlined and gravitated hull with thirty nine point eight hull points, costing 5.97 megabux.

Two and a half tonne dual cockpit acts as primary bridge [note one] at fifteen kilobux, with free basic sensors, and a technological level seven factor five onboard computer at thirty kilobux; total 45 kilobux.

Software package includes a library and manoeuvre zero.

The option exists for three separate firmpoints, to which can be attached either a fixedly mounted virtual weapon system, or a technological level seven single turret [note two], at respectively 100 kilobux and 200 kilobux each; the default has a single mounted fixture, for but not with a sandcaster weapon system.

Freebie [note three] two tonne airlock at 200 kilobux.

One tonne technological level nine factor one manoeuvre drive has a hundred tonne thrust, costing 2 megabux and requiring ten power points, combined with a two tonne technological level nine factor one reactionary rocket [note four]with a hundred tonne thrust at one hundred fifty kilogramme fuel consumption per round, costing 400 kilobux. Hard limited to six burns.

The power plant is a technological level eight early fusion reactor, weighing in at two tonnes, costing 1 megabux, and producing twenty power points per round [note five].

One tonne fuel tankage, enough to run the power plant at full blast for fourteen days.

Cargo space would be eighty nine and a half tonnes.

Default life support for the two pilots is twenty four hours.

Total cost would be 9.715 megabux.


Notes:

One though it's unclear if two pilots would be mandatory

Two for a hardpointed fixture, upto three different weapon systems can be attached without additional cost; in theory, if firmpointed turrets are limited to single weapon systems, they don't require so much volume, nor cost as much.

Three seems inconsistently applied in Traveller, so the additional two tonnes and 100 kilobux is accounted for as you couldn't make it part of the overhead of any other ship component.

Four two disadvantages translate into forty percent fuel efficiency; combined, this ensures that the cutter can leave any planetary object with a gravitational pull of less than two standard gravities. Consumption figures are a tad off by maybe half a percent more than actually required, but technological level limitations still apply at a hard factor one per, two if combined.

Five usually installed as two one tonne modules.
Starships: Confederation Cutter, Modular or Otherwise

Speaking of a light sphere configuration, we now take a planetoid that been laser polished to a spherical shape and hollowed out equally (if you didn't just pour liquid nickel iron in a mold].

Ninety nine point five tonne technological level nine self sealing, natural armour factor two, (in theory) unstreamlined but gravitated hull with forty four point seven seven five hull points, costing 298'500 bux.

Cargo space would be sixty nine point six tonnes.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Dec 20, 2019 12:04 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:40 pm
Starships: Confederation Cutter, Modular or Otherwise

After reading Space Viking, I was never really able to reconcile ye Traveller Modular Cutter, though I gave the Broadsword a pass (I wondered if the class name itself was a nod to the Sword worlds).

Most blatantly, it was capable of interstellar travel, which fits in with the terrestrial one, that was ocean going.

So what follows is the template of the Solomani Confederation of the lower end default jumpless variant, without optimization or cost cutting:

Ninety nine point five tonne technological level nine self sealing, unarmoured, streamlined and gravitated hull with thirty nine point eight hull points, costing 5.97 megabux.

Two and a half tonne dual cockpit acts as primary bridge [note one] at fifteen kilobux, with free basic sensors, and a technological level seven factor five onboard computer at thirty kilobux; total 45 kilobux.

Software package includes a library and manoeuvre zero.

The option exists for three separate firmpoints, to which can be attached either a fixedly mounted virtual weapon system, or a technological level seven single turret [note two], at respectively 100 kilobux and 200 kilobux each; the default has a single mounted fixture, for but not with a sandcaster weapon system.

Freebie [note three] two tonne airlock at 200 kilobux.

One tonne technological level nine factor one manoeuvre drive has a hundred tonne thrust, costing 2 megabux and requiring ten power points, combined with a two tonne technological level nine factor one reactionary rocket [note four]with a hundred tonne thrust at one hundred fifty kilogramme fuel consumption per round, costing 400 kilobux. Hard limited to six burns.

The power plant is a technological level eight early fusion reactor, weighing in at two tonnes, costing 1 megabux, and producing twenty power points per round [note five].

One tonne fuel tankage, enough to run the power plant at full blast for fourteen days.

Cargo space would be eighty nine and a half tonnes.

Default life support for the two pilots is twenty four hours.

Total cost would be 9.715 megabux.


Notes:

One though it's unclear if two pilots would be mandatory

Two for a hardpointed fixture, upto three different weapon systems can be attached without additional cost; in theory, if firmpointed turrets are limited to single weapon systems, they don't require so much volume, nor cost as much.

Three seems inconsistently applied in Traveller, so the additional two tonnes and 100 kilobux is accounted for as you couldn't make it part of the overhead of any other ship component.

Four two disadvantages translate into forty percent fuel efficiency; combined, this ensures that the cutter can leave any planetary object with a gravitational pull of less than two standard gravities. Consumption figures are a tad off by maybe half a percent more than actually required, but technological level limitations still apply at a hard factor one per, two if combined.

Five usually installed as two one tonne modules.
Starships: Confederation Cutter, Modular or Otherwise

While adding the afterburner allows extra boost upon occasion, such as trying to escape the bonds of planetary gravity, gravitational lifters are a more expensive option, though usable as long as the spaceship has power.

One tonne technological level nine factor one manoeuvre drive has a hundred tonne thrust, costing 2 megabux and requiring ten power points, combined with a one tonne technological level nine factor one gravitational lifters [note alternate four]with a hundred tonne thrust requiring an additional five power points per round, costing 2 megabux.

alternate Four two disadvantages [orbital range] plus two technological advantages [energy efficient, energy efficient] cancel each other out and translate into fifty percent fuel efficiency; combined, this ensures that the cutter can leave any planetary object with a gravitational pull of less than two standard gravities. Technological level limitations still apply at a hard factor one per, two if combined while within one and a quarter megametres from the surface, and possibly 1.01 gees further afield, if you think the additional five energy points expenditure is worth it.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Dec 21, 2019 3:50 am

Condottiere wrote:
Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:40 pm
Starships: Confederation Cutter, Modular or Otherwise

After reading Space Viking, I was never really able to reconcile ye Traveller Modular Cutter, though I gave the Broadsword a pass (I wondered if the class name itself was a nod to the Sword worlds).

Most blatantly, it was capable of interstellar travel, which fits in with the terrestrial one, that was ocean going.

So what follows is the template of the Solomani Confederation of the lower end default jumpless variant, without optimization or cost cutting:

Ninety nine point five tonne technological level nine self sealing, unarmoured, streamlined and gravitated hull with thirty nine point eight hull points, costing 5.97 megabux.

Two and a half tonne dual cockpit acts as primary bridge [note one] at fifteen kilobux, with free basic sensors, and a technological level seven factor five onboard computer at thirty kilobux; total 45 kilobux.

Software package includes a library and manoeuvre zero.

The option exists for three separate firmpoints, to which can be attached either a fixedly mounted virtual weapon system, or a technological level seven single turret [note two], at respectively 100 kilobux and 200 kilobux each; the default has a single mounted fixture, for but not with a sandcaster weapon system.

Freebie [note three] two tonne airlock at 200 kilobux.

One tonne technological level nine factor one manoeuvre drive has a hundred tonne thrust, costing 2 megabux and requiring ten power points, combined with a two tonne technological level nine factor one reactionary rocket [note four]with a hundred tonne thrust at one hundred fifty kilogramme fuel consumption per round, costing 400 kilobux. Hard limited to six burns.

The power plant is a technological level eight early fusion reactor, weighing in at two tonnes, costing 1 megabux, and producing twenty power points per round [note five].

One tonne fuel tankage, enough to run the power plant at full blast for fourteen days.

Cargo space would be eighty nine and a half tonnes.

Default life support for the two pilots is twenty four hours.

Total cost would be 9.715 megabux.


Notes:

One though it's unclear if two pilots would be mandatory

Two for a hardpointed fixture, upto three different weapon systems can be attached without additional cost; in theory, if firmpointed turrets are limited to single weapon systems, they don't require so much volume, nor cost as much.

Three seems inconsistently applied in Traveller, so the additional two tonnes and 100 kilobux is accounted for as you couldn't make it part of the overhead of any other ship component.

Four two disadvantages translate into forty percent fuel efficiency; combined, this ensures that the cutter can leave any planetary object with a gravitational pull of less than two standard gravities. Consumption figures are a tad off by maybe half a percent more than actually required, but technological level limitations still apply at a hard factor one per, two if combined.

Five usually installed as two one tonne modules.
Being civilian, armouring the cutter is not an issue; in military service, especially when employed where it's likely to see combat, it would be; otherwise, it would be what is described as a softskin vehicle.

There are two points when armour is added, at technological level ten with crystaliron, with either factor eight or ten, at ten or twelve and a half percent volume, at forty or fifty percent hull cost.

The other point would at technological level fourteen with bonded super dense, with either factor twelve or fourteen, at nine point six or eleven point two volume, at ninety six or one hundred twelve percent hull cost.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Dec 21, 2019 3:21 pm

Starships: Engineering, Jump Drives and Minimums

1. The minimum volume for any jump drive is ten tonnes.

2. More advanced variants could by technological level twelve decrease that to seven tonnes.

3. This probably is due to miniaturization of component parts, which indicates that capacitors could at a premium of fifty percent squeeze in 71.42857142857143 power points per tonne.

4. Assuming that damage points are the exact equivalent to power points.

5. Except as noted in point [2], the minimum ten tonnage is not really an issue except for below two hundred tonne monojump starships, since at default performance you have two hundred parsec tonnes.

6. I'd lost interest in this niche configuration after a particular interpretation on calculating cost of tweaked engineering components was apparently canonized, and just set my sights on two hundred tonners.

7. However, once reperusing sourcebooks, I was reminded that the Arladu class utility boat had canonized dual cockpit for smallcraft below hundred tonnes, which peaked my interest in it's possibilities.

8. The Arladu class seems like an odd duck, especially if you include reactionary rockets without a hint of manoeuvre drives.

9. In theory, you could install a fifty five tonne jump drive for two thousand parsec tonne performance, and use drop tanks to carry two hundred tonnes of fuel, and still retain the dual cockpit as the bridge; that would allow the Confederation cutter to take along seventeen hundred tonnes in external cargo down the rabbit hole with it.

10. Fifty five tonnes was a conservative figure; balance it off with onboard power and manoeuvre drive, you could probably increase the size and/or performance of the jump drive, and carry a few hundred tonnes of freight more, still using a dual cockpit.

11. It's unlikely that the dual cockpit has facilities to control the jump drive, or to obtain the necessary astrogation data: it's likely that the jump drive would have to be monitored and controlled directly from engineering, whereas a one tonne astrogation workstation could be installed, though I rather doubt it would or should cost half a megabux, since for that price you already have a full ten tonne bridge.

12. If pressed, you can always purchase a library of jump tapes for the local star cluster , or a TomTom AstroNavigator.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Dec 22, 2019 12:32 pm

Starships: Engineering, Jump Drives and Minimums

13. The current breakdown of a jump drive at default minimum is four tonnes overhead at four and a half megabux, two tonnes capacitors at six megabux, and four tonnes variable core at four and a half megabux.

14. The actual requirement for a hundred parsec tonnes is four tonnes overhead, two tonnes core, and one hundred kilogrammes of capacitors (ten power points); 7.05 megabux.

15. That leaves a gap of three point nine tonnes in volume.

16. I have no objection in leaving this void and allocating ten tonnes total to the jump drive as a module, as long as the cost remains more or less a default seven megabuxish.

17. However, it is unknown if you can leave a void within the shell of the jump drive.

18. It's unknown if you could use a filler, like cement or styrofoam; so you have to presume not.

19. You could fill it up with something practical, like batteries.

20. As far as we know, only overhead, capacitors and variable core are present within the shell, so you could only safely increase their volume.

21. Budget variants can use the disadvantage of increased size to expand basic components, and at the same time cut costs, but at twenty five percent increase, that only brings us to 7.625 tonnes.

22. An early prototype doubles size automatically to twelve point two tonnes, not accounting for the other two disadvantages, but at ten times the default cost.

23. You could use dead capacitors as filler, presumably at default scrap and/or recycling price plus transport, installation and labour, salvaged from junked jumped drives.

24. Or very low binned capacitors, with a performance of three or four power points per tonne (depending on whether increased size disadvantage is used), which at ninety four percent degradation, don't believe would exist; also, they would have to be relatively dirt cheap.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Dec 22, 2019 6:03 pm

Starships: Engineering, Jump Drives and Minimums

25. Since batteries are cheap energy efficiency, or lack thereof, isn't really an issue unless you tie that to the flash a jump drive produces, which reflects the amount of energy that's being pumped into it.

26. Stealth really comes into it's own for clandestine activities, or the opposing side just wants to pull the wool over your sensors; basically, flash suppressor. Single disadvantager.

27. Late jump doesn't seem worth it, unless your local star cluster are dominated by dwarves; the one use case for it might be if you want to deliberately precipitate out of the rabbit hole at a more less known point being masked by a supposedly rather large gravity well.

28. That leaves us with fuel efficiency (to which there is no matching disadvantage, as at low jump factors a five percent fuel inefficiency might not matter), and size reduction, measured at five and ten percent per jump factor per technological level advantage, respectively.

29. Per hull volume, that's half a percent and a quarter percent, per jump factor per technological level advantage, respectively.

30. Fuel tankage is free, after accounting for default tonnage cost, the increased percentage cost for the advantage matches in either case, except if you calculate the cost per tonne of the each respective jump drive variant, since there would be less jump drive to account for for the decreased size of the reduced tonnage jump drive.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:03 pm

Starships: Engineering, Jump Drives and Minimums

31. Interstellar Wars introduced factor zero jump drives as experimental prototypes, that would be the same size as factor three jump drives.

32. This could be a system range singular point disadvantage.

33. It would limit range to a quarter parsec maximum, though still require default ten percent fuel usage.

34. While you could in theory go interstellar, chances are it would require a minimum of three jumps and a month to get to the nearest star; unless you live in a multiple star system.

35. Jump tapes get a mention; they appear to have been invented by the Vilani, and were an integral part of their astrogation protocol.

36. Coming back to late jump disadvantage, if you regularly jump within hundred diameters at a minus four engineering penalty, then doing so between fifteen and one hundred fifty diameters isn't going to f(ph)as(z)e you.

37. Apparently, you need to keep your astrogation plots fresh; they go bad within three to eighteen hours, if they aren't updated.

38. If jump currents an reoccurring phenomenon, then identifying and mapping them out becomes a priority, and could become the equivalent of a wormhole junction, making them strategic real estate that probably will be defended.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:14 pm

Starships: Engineering, Jump Drives and Minimums

39. Could you recognize a one shot jump drive?

40. It could be used as an assassination method or an insurance scam, assuming that starships and their cargo can be insured.

41. Playing Deadlock, I realized that there were times that your battlestar simply has to make a strategic withdrawal, especially when it's being shot to pieces; a one shot jump drive could be carried by any, usually non jump capable, warship, with a designated rendezvous point, especially battle riders.

42. It could also act as a spare tire onboard a starship, but if it's just to prop up the primary jump drive, which I'll assume is arranged in a series of standardized modules, than the one shot has to be calibrated and synchronized to harmonize with the rest of them, though maybe with only a minus one modifier to the engineering throw, instead of minus two.

43. While useful, it isn't small enough at eighty percent, not cheap enough at twenty five percent, to make it commercially viable.

44. If you have an excellent engineer, one use would be a jump just after ten diameters at minus six to the engineering modifier; chances are you're going to wreck the jump drive in any case.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:13 am

Starships: Engineering, Jump Drives and Minimums

44. If you assume that one tonne is the equivalent of fourteen cubic metres of hydrogen (in whatever state), than the jump bubble diameter is the cubic root of the hull volume in cubic metres, times twenty.

45. Which makes a lot more sense than the average of length, breadth and height of said hull, except possibly if the bubble can be deformed somewhat, while keeping it's total volume, whether deliberately through actively altering the jump field, through materials, or through hull configuration.

46. While the retraction of sensor arrays and solar panels make sense prior to jump, it shouldn't matter since a jump bubble is all encompassing, and more a matter if you used a lanthanum grid, where said grid might not extend to them (unless it would an aftermarket tweak).

47. If the issue is the fragile attachment to the main hull, the reason you can't accelerate, or at least, minimally and not for long, than any item not securely attached to the hull will be destroyed, like external cargo.

48. While it may be possible to gang together upto nine clusters of maximum nine jump drive modules each, the fact each module requires a five tonne overhead, even if the act of ganging them together has no additional cost or volume requirement, makes it inefficient.

49. The one advantage would be RAID configuration, in that by adding in redundancy, it lowers the engineering check, because any errors and/or failures are automatically corrected for, to the point that only snake eyes would indicate there is a misjump, and you might get an additional saving throw to attempt to correct that.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 24, 2019 10:13 am

Starships: Engineering, Jump Drives and Minimums

44. If you assume that one tonne is the equivalent of fourteen cubic metres of hydrogen (in whatever state), than the jump bubble diameter is the cubic root of the hull volume in cubic metres, times twenty.

45. Which makes a lot more sense than the average of length, breadth and height of said hull, except possibly if the bubble can be deformed somewhat, while keeping it's total volume, whether deliberately through actively altering the jump field, through materials, or through hull configuration.

46. While the retraction of sensor arrays and solar panels make sense prior to jump, it shouldn't matter since a jump bubble is all encompassing, and more a matter if you used a lanthanum grid, where said grid might not extend to them (unless it would an aftermarket tweak).

47. If the issue is the fragile attachment to the main hull, the reason you can't accelerate, or at least, minimally and not for long, than any item not securely attached to the hull will be destroyed, like external cargo.

48. While it may be possible to gang together upto nine clusters of maximum nine jump drive modules each, the fact each module requires a five tonne overhead, even if the act of ganging them together has no additional cost or volume requirement, makes it inefficient.

49. The one advantage would be RAID configuration, in that by adding in redundancy, it lowers the engineering check, because any errors and/or failures are automatically corrected for, to the point that only snake eyes would indicate there is a misjump, and you might get an additional saving throw to attempt to correct that.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Dec 25, 2019 9:49 pm

Spaceships: Engineering and Is hydrogen the future of flight?

With all the news about climate change and people being told to limit the number of flights they take, will changing from kerosene-based jet fuel to hydrogen start in earnest any time soon.

This is the story of how hydrogen will be the future of flight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imhla4eovcg



1. Hydrogen in it's pure form: vapourized.

2. Highest energy to weight ratio of all fuels.

3. Altitude upto hundred kilofeet.

4. Condensation trail: water vapour.

5. Liquid hydrogen containers at subzero temperatures become brittle.

6. Leakage one percent per day.

7. At room temperature, hydrogen gas will diffuse through carbon steel, making it brittle.

8. German technology and know how.

9. Three times the energy of kerosene at the same weight, but at four times the volume.

10. Flying wing configuration apparently optimal for hydrogen tanks.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Dec 25, 2019 10:01 pm

Starships: Engineering, Jump Drives and Minimums

50. With a lanthanum grid, or jump plates, it probably doesn't matter where the jump drive is positioned in the ship, as you could assume that electrical wiring can easily distribute whatever frequency pulse the jump drive is generating to the hull.

51. A jump drive generating a jump bubble, you'd have to wonder how it plans to create said bubble, as with the lanthanum grid, you could assume that all that hydrogen went down a separate rabbit hole within the jump drive.

52. So, would you need to place the jump drive near the hull, or at a specific place, say either behind where it's traditionally depicted, or in front, since it has to punch through space hard enough to create a dimensional portal.

53. If it's placed in the middle of the starship, could adequate plumbing be enough when you press flush and the hydrogen is emptied from the cistern?
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7837
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Dec 27, 2019 11:14 am

Starships: Engineering, Jump Drives and Minimums

54. Especially on known routes, you could off shore the astrogation function.

55. The Starport will have the jump tape database of the local cluster, and since the astrogation check doesn't turn stale until after three to eighteen hours, an astrogation check onboard the Starport traffic control could be conducted faster and more accurately than onboard a starship, the data then transmitted to said starship as it approaches the hundred diameter boundary.

56. Redundant Array of Independent Drives level Five could group together three upwards separate jump drive modules, of which performance will be based primarily on the lowest denominator, but which will equal that of total minus one.

57. RAIDing the jump drives will allow an error correction function and an elimination of disruption during the round when the jump drive is activated, timespace is ripped apart, and the starship leaves behind the Einsteinian universe.

58. Let's say, a plus one bonus to the engineering check.

59. RAID level One gives the same bonus, it's based on the lowest performance of two jump drives.

60. RAID level Zero combines the number of connected jump drives, times the performance of the lowest rated drive.

61. Maximum number of jump drives on one array is nine.

62. You can cluster together upto nine arrays of jump drives to increase overall performance.

63. It's possible to cobble together Just a Bunch of Drives to increase performance, though this practice is more likely to be carried out in regard to power plants; for jump drives, assuming that separate performance doesn't impact the distance to be travelled, could require a minus on penalty to the engineering check.

64. It needn't be mentioned that JBODing jump drives increases the chance that any misjump can become catastrophic.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], Reynard and 18 guests