Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2518
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby AnotherDilbert » Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:06 am

Ishmael wrote: The extra armor thickness is used as decks and bulkheads, given the scaled up distances between decks and bulkheads in the larger version. I can no longer check how FF&S1 did things, but if it was as you say, then it is wrong, and it would imply that as ship mass approaches infinity, then the mass ratio for load bearing structure approaches zero.
What I tried to say was that Armour is proportional to surface area and structure is proportional to volume (≈mass), so the mass ratio of armour approaches zero as ship size approaches infinity.

Checking, I see that I misremembered: Structure is proportional to surface area in TNE, not volume (≈mass) as I remembered. I would agree that is a strange choice.

Ishmael wrote: FF&S2 seems to be proper as far as it goes; ...
I have never looked at T4, from what little I have heard FFS2 is fairly similar to FFS.

Ishmael wrote: Of, course, that is irrelevant to MongTrav rules, eh?
Not entirely, it says something about canon, about how the universe is supposed to work before all the simplifications.
Sigtrygg
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 806
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Sigtrygg » Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:05 pm

GT:ISW has a simplified system for hardpoints that takes surface area and hull configuration into account to calculate hardpoints.

Over a decade ago on CotI there was this thread:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discus ... php?t=3797
Last edited by Sigtrygg on Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:05 am, edited 2 times in total.
Ishmael
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:27 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Ishmael » Fri Jan 12, 2018 11:31 pm

Sigtrygg wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:05 pm
Over a decease ago on CotI there was this thread:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discus ... php?t=3797
That post seems to go with the following;
hardpoints ~= vol_dtons^(2/3) * .093 * 'area mod'

I use a slightly different method to find surface area*, but this is good too.

* posted years ago on this board.
https://sites.google.com/site/moukotige ... cles/hulls

Like many people, I use a spreadsheet.
My sheet, so far, has a couple of added bits relating volume, area and streamlining.
Its not MgT compatible, so I won't post it here.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5646
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:18 am

Spaceships: Carriers, Tenders and Sortie Generation Rate

At some point, a warship just has so many smaller combat vessels stationed on it, that it just automatically becomes a carrier.

But before that, the difference between a spacecraft carrier and a tender, is that a tender's subsidiary craft can operate on their own, whereas carriers cater to spacecraft far more reliant on their maintenance services, not just simple resupply and the occasional once over, as well as more subjected to it's command and control.

Cockpitted spacecraft with default twenty four hour life support would tend to fall into this category.

Spacecraft with primarily ordnance orientated weapon systems, and non gravitated manoeuvre drives would rely on a carrier's sortie generation rate.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5646
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:12 pm

Spaceships: Fighters and Sortie Generation Rate

It can be a fine line separating attack spacecraft from fighters, though it could come down to either having a cockpit or a bridge.

The advantage a bridge can give a small combat spacecraft is an increased endurance, at least in regards to it's very human crew. that would allow them to maintain a standing patrol, rather than require the time needed to launch from the mothership, assuming a fast launch if the aerospace wing was desirable.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5646
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:11 pm

Starships: Astrogation

I think the simplest way to express astrogation is to state the desired exit point relative to the closest known significant gravity well in terms of predicted time, angle and distance.

The entry point would be in relation to the exit point, since it has to clear navigational hazards, or at least, you hope that your astrogator has done that.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5646
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:45 am

Starships: Jump Drive Capacitors and Black Globes

You have to make two assumptions, that the five tonne overhead doesn't count towards total jump drive capacitor capacity, and that one point of damage is the equivalent to one point of energy.

Jump drive capacitors make up twenty percent of the volume, which would give it a redundancy of two hundred and fifty percent.

Considering that overloading the capacitors should lead to a catastrophic event, that is the jump drive explodes, redundancy may not be a bad thing.

I would think that there are two factors to consider, that power input spikes during the run up to transition, and the other one would be holding sufficient charge before it decays to below the threshold required for the programmed jump.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5646
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:43 pm

Starships: Jump Drive Capacitors

Since there is a default two and a half times capacity to that actually required, you could effectively remove the excess, perhaps only keep it at twenty percent extra, essentially halving the capacitor capacity.

As a safety precaution, you could channel this first through a battery containing the correct charge, ensuring that there is no energy spike that could blow up the jump drive.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5646
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:33 pm

Starships: Jump Drive Breakdown

Ten tonne jump drive, default:

. Overhead
.. five tonnes
.. 7.5 megacredits
.. technological level nine

. Jump core
.. four tonnes
.. 4.5 megacredits
.. technological level nine/eleven

. Capacitors
.. one tonne
.. 3.0 megacredits
.. fifty energy points
.. technological level nine
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5646
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:16 pm

Inspiration: Spacestation Construction

https://youtu.be/Zn8b3MDMjQ4

Can't spot any thermal vents
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5646
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:05 am

Starships: Jump Drive Breakdown

Ten tonne jump drive, default budget/enlarged:

. Overhead
.. six and a quarter tonnes
.. 5.625 megacredits
.. technological level nine

. Jump core
.. three tonnes
.. 2.025 megacredits
.. one hundred twenty parsec tonnes
.. technological level nine

. Capacitors
.. three quarters tonne
.. 1.35 megacredits
.. twenty two amd a half energy points
.. technological level nine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests