Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Oct 09, 2021 2:46 pm

Image

Starwarships: The Incredible Fighter that replaced the X-Wing | Star Wars Lore

Today we take a look at the incredible starfighter that replaced the X-Wing -- a full breakdown of the E-Wing and more on today's Star Wars Legends Lore video and ship breakdown!

Render by ManPerson, based on a design by MultiH: https://twitter.com/MultiH4

Music by ALISON

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0_msz7nsBI



1. Avoid having either an engine directly behind your cockpit, or a cannon.

2. I'd say over economized.

3. I suppose you could work with that hull configuration, but move the upper cannon.

4. Moving most of the processing functions into the astromech does allow you to economize, depending how much starbux we're actually talking about.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Oct 09, 2021 8:21 pm

Image

Starwarships: All Greek Star Wars shuttles are stupid. (They're called Abecederian? Really?)

And, yes, all these shuttles are stupid. Deal with it.

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



1. High hangars.

2. Ornithopters.

3. Onboard gravitic lifters; atmospheric stabilizers.

4. Depends on whether the threat is mostly in the front or in the rear, and with Vader, he's attacking.

5. I think they employ shields, and shields are pretty much plot orientated.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Oct 10, 2021 12:25 pm

Image

Inspiration: Billionaire Star Trek - SNL

A new Star Trek spinoff follows the adventures of Captain Jeff Bezos (Owen Wilson) and his brother (Luke Wilson).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD66suMp3J4



If you're rich enough, you can go anywhere.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Oct 10, 2021 9:46 pm

Image

Starwarships: The Definitive Guide on How Starship Technology Worked in the Star Wars Universe

Traveling through hyperspace ain't like dusting crops, boy!

Chapters

0:00 Intro
0:39 A Brief History of Starships in Star Wars
1:42 Fundamentals
6:04 Navigation and Hyperspace
7:21 Deflector Shields
8:48 Outro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss-Vsz3Ijsw



1. Except that part about the communications and sensors (presumably in real time), sounds about how our starships operate.

2. Okay, so they have antimatter reactors.

3. They've got ions, we've pretty much generated gravitational thrust.

4. They have lifters, with us it's ambiguous.

5. We travel in straight lines through hyperspace, so our astronavigational programmes don't need to be that sophisticated; and if there are collisions, we've never heard of them.

6. Deflector screens would be useful from frontal collisions with space debris.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Oct 10, 2021 10:08 pm

Spaceships: Bridges, and Detachability

1. This bridge design can be ejected from the ship in an emergency to become a lifeboat for the command crew. The bridge has two weeks of life support and battery power, while emergency thrusters give it basic manoeuvring capabilities, equivalent to Thrust Zero. A detachable bridge is even capable of soft–landing on a planetary surface.

2. A detachable bridge can be made larger or smaller as normal.

3. Which begs the question, what is the formula?

4. Since a ten tonner is fifteen tonnes an a twenty tonner thirty tonnes, we could assume that twenty tonnes and below is fifty premium.

5. Smallest viable would be for a one and a half tonne cockpit, which would be two and a quarter tonnes, and three and a quarter tonnes for a double cockpit.

6. Cost for the cockpit variants can't be eight hundred kilostarbux, but probably one hundred thirty percent of listed cost.

7. Six tonner would follow fifty percent premium, so you end up with nine tonnes.

8. It's a bit more vague for above bridges above twenty tonnes.

9. Forty tonner is one hundred twenty five percent at fifty tonnes, while a sixty tonner is one hundred sixty sixish percent, so not consistent.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Oct 11, 2021 11:16 am

Spaceships: Bridges, and Detachability

10. So we know are informed that a detached bridge has two weeks of life support, presumably thrust zero. and battery power (though one assumes without which you'd have have neither life support nor motivation).

11. Thrust zero would be easy, based on time and space, basically how long it lasts, and the volume of the now now breakaway hull.

12. Complicated by the fact that I've never seen an explanation of thrust zero in Traveller.

13. Great, two weeks life support.

14. But, for how many personnel?

15. Going by Core, does that include six months of powered non paid for life support?

16. Is battery power based on basic hull tonnage, plus manoeuvre drive thrust one, basically what solar panelling would supply?

17. In fact, I'd install solar panelling as the principal power unit.

18. And instead of thrust zero, add a highly technologized acceleration one manoeuvre drive.

19. Breakaway hull is two percent of total hull cost, and detached bridge is one hundred thirty percent of default bridge cost based on per hundred tonne blocks.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Oct 11, 2021 11:38 am

Spaceships: Bridges, and Detachability

20. So a hundred kilotonne heavy cruiser would have a sixty tonne bridge costing five hundred megastarbux, and an eighty tonne detachable variant costing eight hundred megastarbux.

21. Let's assume hull armour factor fifteen, which is two hundred twenty percent of default, which we'll assume is gravitated standard configuration.

22. That would be default five thousand megastarbux, eleven thousand megastarbux modified.

23. Difference between detachable and non detachable bridges is three hundred megastarbux.

24. Two percent of hundred kilotonnes is two kilotonnes.

25. Two kilotonnes times two megastarbux is four thousand megastarbux.

26. You know, maybe it's cheaper to have more detachable bridges, suitably modified, than breakaway hulls.

27. The benefit that breakaway hulls provide is that their overhead cost is fixed, regardless of how many times you subdivide it.

28. Reasonably speaking, you probably don't want or need more than two detachable bridges to save the command staff.

29. Or suitably modified, to act as a landing shuttle, though a rather expensive one.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Oct 11, 2021 11:48 am

Image

Starwarships: Is the Razor Crest the best-designed ship in Star Wars?

Yes.

Yes it is.

Someone actually sat down and thought about their spaces, what they needed, and how make it all fit together.

Most images came from the Mandalorian series from Disney+. You should watch it.

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



1. Toilets, should be interspecies capable.

2. Could be bridge crew accessible.

3. Standardized loading arrangements.

4. Externalized manoeuvre drives are easier to maintain and repair.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Oct 11, 2021 9:34 pm

Spaceships: Bridges, and Detachability

30. One variant that's probably overlooked would be detachable small bridges or specialist control centres.

31. Of course, it would be a valid question to question whether you can fly a detached bridge from the controls available in a specialist control centre, with the possible exception of piloting.

32. A small bridge costs half of default, which would be two hundred and fifty megastarbux for our hundred kilotonne heavy cruiser.

33. That should come out to four hundred kilostarbux per hundred tonnes for a detachable small bridge.

34. On reflection, the forty tonner would be quite able to be considered a full bridge, in terms of control of it's detachable state.

35. Ahvin Class confirms that a dual cockpit can control a two hundred tonne spaceship, without penalty, though ambiguous about starships.

36. So a detachable dual cockpit would cost the same and take up the same amount of volume as that of a ten tonne jolly boat.

37. Basically, three and a quarter tonnes at twenty two and a half kilostarbux.

38. Ironically, the cockpit now has two weeks life support for two crew.

39. Instead of only twenty four hours.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Oct 12, 2021 11:15 am

Image

Starwarships: Star Trek: Inside the USS Enterprise 1701

So I have decided to create the iconic Enterprise 1701 from Star Trek. At this point, I have decided to take a different direction in creating a non-Star Wars theme animation. There is a mistake with the engine room, it's actually located near the Shuttlebay.

The USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) was a 23rd century Federation Constitution-class starship operated by Starfleet. It was also the first ship to bear the name Enterprise with this registry.

Starfleet commissioned the Enterprise in 2245. Robert April is the Enterprise's first captain, succeeded by Christopher Pike. Pike leads the Enterprise for about a decade Throughout the first live-action, Captain James T. Kirk commands the ship on an exploration mission from 2264 to 2269

USS Enterprise NCC-1701 is a starship in the Star Trek media franchise. Initially, a vision of the potential for human spaceflight, the Enterprise became a popular culture icon and has repeatedly been identified as one of the best-designed and most influential science fiction spacecraft.

The USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) was a 23rd century Federation Constitution-class starship operated by Starfleet. It was also the first ship to bear the name Enterprise with this registry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyf6auv-jMk



1. I got tired of the swearing; I think he got worse each video, and that was beyond old age crankiness.

2. So, moving on, deflector screens; you could have an armoured bow like an ice breaker.

3. Interesting cross section.

4. If you can't afford a tractor beam, I guess the next best thing is a harpoon.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Oct 12, 2021 10:19 pm

Image

Starwarships: 10 Lesser Known Starship of the Galactic Empire

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLv5SrCPagU



1. It's not how big your destroyer is, it's how you use it.

2. Law and Order: Arrested Development.

3. Are you not resource restrained?

4. I get no kick from champagne, Mere alcohol doesn't thrill me at all; So tell me why should it be true, That I get a kick out of you.

5. Looks like something from Dune.

6. Super carrier.

7. Kinda suspect enhanced force shields in front, as well.

8. Image

9. Looks like TIE Interceptor wing(lets).

10. Planetoid.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:32 am

Image

Starwarships: Star Wars: Inside the A-Wing

I have decided to create another inside-out animation of an iconic Alliance starship, the A-Wing from Star Wars, all in 3D. Enjoy.

* 3D model in this animation is based on RZ-2 A-Wing (Resistance) not the RZ-1 A-wing (Rebel Alliance)

The A-Wing first appears in Episode 7, Return of the Jedi, and became a classic starfighter in the Star Wars series. With its sleek, wedge shape, dual engine, and round cockpit, the fighter's iconic appearance inspired classic spaceship design for years to come.

Intended to be a quick, powerful strike fighter, the A-wing easily outmatch the TIE fighter in one-to-one combat due to its impressive maneuverability, and the inclusion of an onboard shield generator.

Manufactured by Kuat Systems Engineering, and was used extensively throughout the Galactic Civil War, the A-wing’s strength was best demonstrated through missions that require speed: hit-and-run raids and surgical strikes. Due to its high speed and fast acceleration, this ability allows the pilot to penetrate deep into enemy territory and cause havoc before reinforcement can even be launched.

Faster than the TIE interceptor by a huge margin, the A-wing also comes better equipped than its Imperial counterpart. The addition of a hyperdrive system allows the quick, nimble starfighter to be highly flexible in its mission profile. Having dual engines not only gives the craft a higher top speed and acceleration but also improves the vessel’s survivability in the event of a direct hit that managed to bypass the shield system. Essentially a cockpit strapped to two engines, the A-wing was so fast that it became a challenge to maneuver effectively, even for a Jedi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiIz8VoqItU



1. Didn't know about the gimballed armament; an interesting option instead of a complete turret.

2. Missile armed.

3. I don't think Rebel pilots start off thinking kamikaze, regardless how reckless they might be.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Oct 14, 2021 9:42 pm

Image

Starwarships: The New Starfleet Ships in Star Trek: Lower Decks

The view from the lower decks is quite different from what's come before, but includes some new starship designs. In lieu of official information, the Templin Institute heads to spacedock to speculate on how the California Class, Parliament Class, Luna Class, Obena Class and others fit into the Federation's Starfleet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8FGlViDv0c



1. Due to the more militaristic nature and anticipated hostilities, the more larger and capable vessels would be kept within Confederation borders, and likely centralized.

2. Cheap and cheerful, called cost cutted California class.

3. You do need an upgrade in grade for the more important missions.

4. Black budget Solomani Security sloops.

5. Capable starship plus capable crew, fire brigade.

6. I actually thought it was an Excelsior class.

7. Crew camaraderie.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Oct 14, 2021 9:54 pm

Image

Starwarships: Klingon Bird of Prey - Interior Breakdown (Lower Decks)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vjj3bO0Pdo



1. Lighting and ambiance.

2. Spartan to the point of Age of Sail.

3. Periscope; maybe you could extend range or increase resolution on a tight beam sensor.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:52 pm

Image

Starwarships: Forgotten, Fatal, and Unethical Starfleet Bridges

This is the Finishing of the Starfleet Bridges Program

Trek Chapters

Intro - 0:00
Windows Rebuff - 0:52
Seeing Outside - 1:50
The Battle Bridge - 02:56
Freedom Class Bridge - 04:26
Kelvin Type - 06:25
Oberth Class Bridge - 07:30
Miranda Class Bridge - 08:45
Excelsior Class Bridge - 10:28
Prometheus Class Bridge - 10:28
Sovereign Class Bridge - 14:16
Luna Class Bridge - 15:58
California Class Bridge - 16:30
Nova Class Bridge - 17:03
Exploding Consoles and Outro - 17:14

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZyO-wn0ikM



1. We now know that Starfleet starships can unplug the viewscreen and have direct sight outside.

2. Transparent aluminum.

3. Cost Inflicted Cut.

4. The Kelvin bridge does look more militarily realistic.

5. In theory, the Miranda class makes more sense, unless there's something about the Constitution class configuration that's better in some way.

6. Excelsior station computer displays appear to be continuous.

7. Manpower shortages don't really make sense when you have populations of billions and trillions.

8. I guess the third chair could accommodate a Solomani Security officer.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Oct 17, 2021 2:28 pm

Image

Starwarships: 8 Lesser Known Starships Used By the Galactic Republic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5iS3i3Ih8k



1. Looks like a loafer. configuration is simple enough to convert to a military vessel.

2. This is probably the point of departure of the courier from the scout.

3. Similarity to the current Confederation starwarships designs.

4. And you couldn't stick tractor beams on a fat pedestal?

5. Stealth could be a form of energy shielding where the long hull allowed radiation to bounce off behind the vessel, and/or maybe behind it.

6. Why was it too expensive to operate?

7. Retconned to explain special effects oversight.

8. Not quite sure where the utility lies.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:55 pm

Image

Starwarships: Star Trek: 10 Secrets Of The Romulan Warbird You Need To Know

The D'deridex-class Romulan warbird: Star Trek's not-so-jolly green giant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUxmcLHezq4



1. Right angle twist.

2. It ain't easy being green.

3. Black hole would synchronize with stealth tendencies.

4. Subwarping.

5. Utilitarian.

6. Perspective.

7. Industrial espionage.

8. Probably because it's a repeat of Star Trek Three.

9. Friends of a feather: Klingon Bird of Prey.

A. It looks cooler than Federation starships.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:27 am

Image

Inspiration: 72 Missiles At Once! - 747 Cruise Missile Carrier

There is no doubt that the Boeing 747 in its various configurations has been one of the most successful and well-known aircraft designs in commercial aviation, used by both passenger and cargo airlines the world over.

It’s such an iconic plane that even the President of the United States flies around in a heavily customized version of one.

There’s a reason why the Boeing 747 was called ‘the Queen of the Skies’ soon after it first entered service in the colors of Pan Am on January 22nd, 1970.

But Boeing is not just a commercial aircraft manufacturer - it’s long been in the business of military aircraft too.

One example of a Boeing military aircraft is the legendary B-52 bomber, first introduced in 1955.

And so it was back in the late 1970s that Boeing actively lobbied the military and politicians in order to push its militarized version of the 747.

It would be called the Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft, or CMCA for short.

Why Boeing chose to push its 747 CMCA at that time is central to understanding the project and to also wonder: why did the military decide not to take up Boeing on its offer of a missile-bearing 747?

By the late 1970s, the economy of the United States was stagnant due to the global oil crisis earlier in the decade and the huge rise in inflation.

That’s why the administration of President Jimmy Carter
felt compelled to cancel the B-1A program due to fiscal concerns.

And so the corporation put forward its low-risk and relatively cheap cruise missile delivery project based on its 747.

The Boeing project was in fact punted by the Carter administration during 1979 as a viable, cheaper option for the country’s military.

Boeing’s proposal was very simple: turn its world-famous long-haul commercial aircraft into a flying arsenal delivery system capable of carrying between 50 and 100 air-launched cruise missiles, or ALCMs.

The AGM-86 winged cruise missile, which was 21 feet or 6.4 metres in length, was the popular choice of the U.S. military at the time. In fact, it remains in use today.

And it was that missile around which the 747 CMCA concept was developed by Boeing.

Context was everything: the United States was enjoying a significant advantage over the Soviet Union in the development of cruise missiles by this time.

Not surprisingly, the 1970s was marked by the U.S. military trying to find every way in which this advantage over the Soviets could be exploited for both air- and sea-launched cruise missiles.

The AGM-86 ALCM was also built by Boeing, by the way, so it made sense that Boeing would be confident of its aircraft’s ability to house the very missiles it also designed and manufactured.

It should be noted that the United States Air Force or USAF had contracts with several different aircraft companies at the time to investigate the feasibility of modifying so-called off-the-shelf aircraft for use as cruise missile carriers.

Besides the Boeing 747, the USAF was also considering Lockheed’s C-5, L-1011, C-141 and McDonnell Douglas’ DC-10.

There were also plans for a Lockheed super carrier that would have been a nuclear powered arsenal bird, but thats a video for another time

The CMCA was immensely simple as a concept, of course. What made the Boeing CMCA an appealing option was its configuration for the purpose of deploying missiles and, importantly, its potential payload.

After all, a single 747 CMCA could launch 72 AGM-86 cruise missiles in a single mission,
.
compared to the famous B-52 bomber which could only carry up to 20 missiles for a single sortie.

So how would it work? Well lucky for us, the patents are available online for free...

The configuration inside the 747 would be as straightforward as the overall design concept. It would be based on the 747-200C, which was a nose-loading cargo derivative of the famous airline.

The cargo hold would house nine rotary launchers mounted on tracks in the interior of the stripped-out cabin.

Each rotary launcher would contain eight missiles, with each missile sliding back into a launch position at the rear right of the aircraft.

This would be achieved with the aid of an overhead handling system.

As for how the missiles would launch, this would be via a bay door at the right of the 747's tail cone.

When needed, this bay door would open and an ejector system would punch the missiles out into the air stream. Missiles could be ejected either one at a time in either direction or they could be ejected out in rapid-fire succession.

Flight International has stated that Boeing also proposed both the 747-200F and the 747SP as potential cruise-missile carriers.

The 747-200F would have had a maximum missile capacity of 72 missiles, whilst the smaller 747SP could have carried 48 missiles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wko2Gh2Pugs



1. There's always that temptation to militarize a civilian product.

2. Presumably, production and operating costs would be more economical, still they'll share production lines, spare parts, and maintenance.

3. Large enough to add in all sorts of sensors, controls and equipment.

3. There's the question of a "cheap" and simple platform, delivering an expensive payload.

4. And then you have the deception, or Que Ship, aspect, that ironically argues against it.

5. In Traveller, defence forces would have the luxury of time to scan civilian registered spacecraft.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:43 am

Image


Starwarships: Star Trek: 10 Secrets Of The Next Generation Main Bridge

Watch for directions to the bathroom on the bridge of the USS Enterprise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1Dx24L12VU



1. Sixty tonnes? You could make it an open office with briefing room attached, or in this case, a hotel lobby.

2. Light emitting diode panels upgrade; micro, if possible; organic, optional.

3. Funny, I didn't realize they had benches on either side.

4. Th Roscinante had one, so, I guess, it's traditional.

5. Should have an easy corridor flow.

6. Acceleration bench with more comfy cushions.

7. See, no windows.

8. Pull out toilets, in case gravity goes.

9. Captain's chair has to be bolted down.

A. And raise it.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10024
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:52 pm

Spaceships: Armament, Torpedoes and Bayonettes

1. If you only have a torpedo armament, once the last salvo is fired off, you're not going to have much left to annoy the other side.

2. So, since a barbette is traversable, you have the last two or three torpedoes become housing for ordnance or energy weapons.

3. This weapon platform would be self contained, and for energy weapons would have it's own battery, or for ordnance a magazine.

4. As soon as the torpedo magazine is about to go dry, the launchers pull up the last salvo of torpedoes, and lock them in place.

5. In theory, if you don't want to fiddle around with moving around the barbette, you can lock that in place as well, and the pilot takes over targetting.

6. At some point, you'll run out of energy and bullets.

7. Ah right, the torpedo turns into a weapons pod.

8. At a third of a tonne, should be able to fit in a turret sized weapon system like a laser.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: arcador and 66 guests