Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:41 pm

Spaceships: Engineering, Parasitism, and Manoeuvre Drives

If a spacecraft is equipped with an orbital or limited range variant of a manoeuvre drive, that are beyond the appropriate planetary body that would enable activation, can activate if they happen to be in range of an appropriately sized spaceship, to either accelerate and/or decelerate.

If being close enough to them can affect jump transits, they can create a large enough gravitational field to affect these drives.

Am equivalent hundred metre diameter would extend ten kilometres for hundred orbits.

Could work out like upto nine extra gees used like an afterburner in a trench run.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:56 pm

There wouldn't be an increase in gs as the limited m-drive ship would need to stay within the 100d limit in order to continue accelerating, also the other ship would need to be larger than the ship with limited m-drive.

One possible use of this is a single large tender with several limited m-drive ships acting like a train.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:13 am

Two large ships could yoyo off each other.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:52 am

They are both still bound by the 100d limit and have to stay in sync otherwise they loss m-drive.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:17 am

If they exert gravitational force in the space time continuum, or that football indenting the trampoline, and the manoeuvre drives were in range of that.

Image
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:26 am

That would be a slingshot not a yo yo and only the smaller object would gain any benefit from the system.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Mar 28, 2018 7:20 pm

Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:19 pm

Starships: Engineering, Tweaking and Jump Drives

Okay, I may have gotten the original calculations for the Venture Drive wrong.

Venture
. budget
.. enlarged
.. technological level nine
.. two hundred parsec tonnes
.. twenty scotts
.. eleven and a quarter megaschmuckers
.. twelve and a half tonnes
... overhead
.... six and a quarter tonnes
..... casing
...... five tonnes
...... three and three eighths megaschmuckers
..... capacitors
...... one and a quarter tonne
...... fifty energy points
...... two and a quarter megaschmucker
... core
.... six and a quarter tonnes
..... nucleus
...... five tonnes
...... three and three eighths megaschmuckers
..... capacitors
...... one and a quarter tonne
...... fifty energy points
...... two and a quarter megaschmucker


Two and a half tonnes of capacitors are budgetted at four and a half megaschmuckers equals MCr 1.8 per tonne, instead of however I ended up with MCr 2.25.

So half a tonne of enlarged budgetted capacitors has a capacity of twenty energy points, which leaves four and a half for the jump nucleus.

Four and a half tonnes divided by two and a half equals one hundred eighty parsec tonnes, which requires an injection of eighteens scotts to initiate a transition. That leaves a margin of just a tad above ten percent for an energy surge, resolved with a four hundred and fifty kilogramme battery.

So that's nine megaschmuckers divided by eight tonnes overhead and nucleus, equals MCr. 1.125 per tonne.

Budgetted enlargement at MCr. 6.75 diivided by ten tonnes comes to MCr. 0.675.

Half a tonne of capacitors (MCr. 0.9) plus nine and a half tonnes of overhead and jump nucleus (MCr. 6.4125) equals MCr. 7.3125.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Mar 30, 2018 1:27 am

Starships: Engineering, Tweaking and Jump Drives

So that's basically the smallest and cheapest jump drive, outside of one shots.

The really smallest would be reduced size times three, which negates enlarged size, and it would be really gaming the system if you permit both alternatives simultaneously, so the actual smallest size would be seven tonnes at one and a half times cost, which would really only get installed in yachts, where those extra three tonnes actually wouldn't matter, since the owner could afford just buy a larger ship.

For practicality, the Venture Drive would need a two hundred parsec tonne performance, so the overhead and nucleus would come to MCr. 6.75; attached would be a twenty five factor capacity, at 1.125 tonnes and MCr. 2.025, as well as a twenty two energy point battery, 0.55 tonnes and MCr. 0.055.

11.675 tonnes at MCr. 8.83.

You save about a tonne and two and a halfish megaschmuckers.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:39 am

Starships: Engineering, Tweaking and Jump Drives

Unless your usual stomping grounds whirl around small suns, you probably don't want delayed jump as a disadvantage.

That leaves inefficiency as the remaining option:

Overhead and jump nucleus are four tonnes each; drive requires twenty six energy points for two hundred parsec tonnes.

One additional nucleus tonne increases that two hundred fifty parsec tonnes and thirty three and a half energy points.

One tonne capacitors with forty energy points and costing MCr. 1.8 is sufficient.

Per tonne, it costs MCr. 0.84375, equals at nine tonnes MCr. 7.59375, for a total of MCr. 9.39375 for two hundred fifty parsec tonnes, at MCr. 0.037575/parsec tonne, compared to MCr. 0.04415/parsec tonne previously.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:22 pm

Spaceships: Hulls, Gravitation and Hybridization

Tanks and cargo holds don't really need artificial gravity, unless you're afraid that sloshing the water around at nine gravities will puncture the tank, and your ancestral family crystal wine glasses will crack under the strain. Though that seems more of an issue resolved with inertial compensation.

The only parts that actually need gravitation would be the bridge, the engineering compartment and accommodations.

You'd only have to pay for the gravitation of the hull, to volume specifically allocated for those areas, and a fifty percent discount for those areas that aren't.
Sigtrygg
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Sigtrygg » Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:59 am

If you don't put artificial gravity and acceleration compensation throughout the ship you will eventually fall apart due to the stresses and strains of maneuvering...
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:04 pm

The only limitation so far is at the semimegatonne level, so a Tigress could qualify.

At some point the local source for inertial compensation has to be pinned down, since twenty five gravities is a possible velocity.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Apr 04, 2018 6:13 pm

Spaceships: Life Support and Importing Long Term Support

Assuming one vehicle space is the equivalent of a quarter tonne, which would be sufficient for five people for ninety days for fifty thousand schmuckers. That's three months

Five staterooms, five kiloschmuckers; five occupants, five kay schmuckers; total, ten thousand credits per month.

Three months equals thirty kiloschmuckers for five people with their own staterooms.

I'd say that at default, it's cheaper to keep people alive on a spaceship.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Apr 05, 2018 12:29 am

Starships: Engineering, Supercavitating and Transitioning

Image

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83U8-E4yx98

How I'd imagine another option for transitioning could work.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Apr 05, 2018 9:34 pm

Spaceships: Hulls and Detection

Tonnage - Detection bonus
100'000 tonnes - DM+2
500'000 tonnes - DM+4

Couldn't find the table for smaller tonnage.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:25 am

Spaceships: Engineering and Overload Drive

By overloading the manoeuvre drive, the engineer can lend the ship extra speed and manoeuvrability ... will increase the ship’s thrust by one during
the next round.


I don't see it mentioned, but I'm inclined to believe that overclocking the drives requires the requisite energy being shunted from the power plant, or whatever energy source is available; possibly, more than would be required by a default higher factored drive.

You could possibly overclock the drive to an even higher velocity, if it had won the silicon lottery.

As regards the reactionary rockets. more fuel mass would have a similar effect, again, probably more than would be used by the next factored model.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:30 pm

Spaceships: Engineering and Overload Drive

Could you overclock a jump drive?

Usually accidentally, and falls under the general definition of misjump.

If it were done deliberately, under controlled conditions, you'd still have an increased chance of a misjump, but by having the requisite fuel and careful control of the energy pumped in, it might be possible and successful.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Apr 10, 2018 7:54 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 6:13 pm
Spaceships: Life Support and Importing Long Term Support

Assuming one vehicle space is the equivalent of a quarter tonne, which would be sufficient for five people for ninety days for fifty thousand schmuckers. That's three months

Five staterooms, five kiloschmuckers; five occupants, five kay schmuckers; total, ten thousand credits per month.

Three months equals thirty kiloschmuckers for five people with their own staterooms.

I'd say that at default, it's cheaper to keep people alive on a spaceship.
Apparently, I have to divide it by two hundred per month to get maintenance costs, the above being construction prices.

So it's five people for two hundred and fifty schmuckers per month; we'll assume that's only lodging, not board.

On the bright side, you can camp out in the cargo hold.

It should be noted, that after three months, you'll have to throw out the oxygen scrubbers.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6346
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:58 pm

Spaceships: Life Support and Importing Short Term Support

You only have to replace long term every three months; short term every four days. How much space do replacement oxygen scrubbers take up?

Anyway, presumably a quarter tonne for twenty personnel over four days.

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

Over a month, the cost would be twenty five schmuckers per person.

About half that of long term, possibly requiring more space for cheap oxygen scrubbers.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ochd and 22 guests