Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Sep 26, 2021 6:05 am

Spaceships: Accommodations and Life Support

1. Suffocation - A spacecraft or self-contained, sealed structure with power can usually sustain life support for one person per stateroom for one month comfortably, and for six months at a stretch (number of staterooms time five thousand person/hours). Without power, this drops to two weeks at most. Various shelters will list the amount of air and life support available if they differ.

2. The implication here seems to be, is if you provide power to life support equipment, but don't pay for their operating cost, beyond the initial first month, you can eke out life support for the next six months.

3. If that's the case, what prevents corner cutting cost conscious captains from implementing that standard operating procedure?

4. Outside of Imperium regulations, probably nothing that can be discerned from reading Core or High Guard.

5. Ostensibly, it might wreck life support, that it would require extensive repairs or replacement, of which we have no idea of that cost on spacecraft.

6. But no hint of such an outcome in Core, or High Guard.

7. Another interesting titbit is that without power, life support lasts two weeks.

8. Two weeks is about the planned turnaround for most commercial starship operations.

9. Or, you spend about a week down the rabbit hole.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Sep 26, 2021 11:48 am

Spaceships: Accommodations and Life Support

10. While I, personally, wouldn't want to travel on a starship that cuts power to presumably basic functions after dropping down the rabbit hole, it does suddenly open up options in ship design.

11. The reason that we never thought a battery powered starship was viable, was because basic functions sucked up a lot more power than viable could be supplied by an onboard battery.

12. You now could conceive of solar panelled or diesel driven starships.

13. While I don't think that in the long term you can derive much advantage from rockets in Mongoose Second, or any, short term might have possibilities in terms of initial outlay.

14. For a purely solar powered starship, it might have been possible to divert the power from the manoeuvre drive to the jump drive, if it wasn't explicitly stated that you have to furl up the solar panelling during the transition.

15. I'll assume you'll need a running start of about one month of powered life to get those two weeks of unpowered life support.

16. I estimate the average length of time from a ten kiloklix diameter planetary body to transition border at one gee is six and a half hours, plus return, so that needs about thirteen to thirty and a half percent fuel tanks.

17. Though it's hard to find a use case for rockets, once manoeuvre drives become generally available, and by sheer coincidence, their introduction coincides with jump drives.

18. Considering that an equivalent manoeuvre drive costs five times more than a rocket, but weighs in at half the size, and could in theory, run infinitely on air and sunshine.

19. Outside of cost, the other advantage rockets have are a greater potential acceleration, though it's still a mystery to me exactly how the crew will survive the uncompensated inertia.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Sep 26, 2021 12:04 pm

Starships: Lost in Space and Lifeboats

1. So you misjumped and ended up in an empty hex.

2. Your starship is large enough to have a jump capable lifeboat.

3. Ye default scout costs thirty sixish megastarbux.

4. Outside of the initial capital layout, one assumes even if it's vacuum packed, annual maintenance cost still applies, at thirty sixish kilostarbux, which represents a dead loss.

5. Engineering by itself is valued at twenty three megastarbux, which represents nearly two thirds of the scout cost.

6. So if you can minimize the costs of engineering, you'd pay a lot less for the scout and it's annual maintenance.

7. Being in an empty hex doesn't apply itself well to solar panelling.

8. Add in enough batteries, and the fact that power will be cut during the transition, you don't have to pay for an expensive fusion reactor.

9. And for the cherry on the sundae, a one shot jump drive at around a quarter of the cost.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Sep 26, 2021 1:58 pm

Starships: Engineering and One Shot Jump Drives

1. Default jump drive, 1.5 megastarbux per tonne; minimum ten tonnes.

2. One shot jump drive, 0.375 megastarbux per tonne; twenty percent size reduction, minimum ten tonnes.

3. One shot jump drive, budgetted, 0.28125 megastarbux per tonne; thirty percent energy inefficient; twenty percent size reduction, minimum ten tonnes.

4. One shot jump drive, budgetted, 0.28125 megastarbux per tonne; twenty percent size reduction, twenty five percent size increase, neutralized, minimum ten tonnes.

5. One shot jump drive, budgetted, 0.28125 megastarbux per tonne; twenty percent size reduction, twenty five percent size increase, neutralized, minimum ten tonnes.

6. One shot jump drive, budgetted, highly technologized, 0.46875 megastarbux per tonne; fifteen percent fuel reduction; twenty percent size reduction, minimum ten tonnes.

7. One shot jump drive, budgetted, highly technologized, 0.46875 megastarbux per tonne; early jump, seventy diameters; twenty percent size reduction, minimum ten tonnes.

8. One shot jump drive, budgetted, highly technologized, 0.46875 megastarbux per tonne; thirty percent size reduction, twenty percent size reduction, total forty four percent reduction, minimum seven tonnes.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Sep 26, 2021 2:24 pm

Starships: Engineering and One Shot Jump Drives

Ten tonnes, technological level twelve, thirty percent reduced size, 357.14285714 parsec tonnes.

One tonne core, 71.428571428571 parsec tonnes.

Four hundred parsec tonnes, 2.8 tonnes overhead, 5.6 tonnes core; 8.4 tonnes total.

Three hundred parsec tonnes, 2.8 tonnes overhead, 4.2 tonnes core; 7.0 tonnes total; 3.28125 megastarbux.

Three hundred parsec tonnes, 4 tonnes overhead, 6.0 tonnes core; ten tonnes total; 2.8125 megastarbux.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Sep 26, 2021 9:58 pm

Starships: Lost in Space and Lifeboats

10. While I'd have preferred a dead simple monoparsec drive, that wouldn't be using the one shot to it's potential optimum.

11. At technological level twelve, the default monoshotter ten tonner has a potential range of three parsecs at three hundred parsec tonnes.

12. Most empty hexes are within three parsec range of an unempty hex, and the vast majority within six parsecs.

13. The inaugural transition will be penalized by two on the engineer checks.

14. The subsequent transition would be subject to minus four on engineer checks.

15. Th last viable transition has to account for a minus eight on engineering checks, and you probably have to be really desperate to try that.

16. In theory, you could try again for a fourth time, and I'll speculate the penalty is now minus sixteen, which is considered unsurvivable, or possibly, crossing the event horizon.

17. Despite the urgency of their situation, the crew of the lifeboat is likely to have more than enough time to extend engineering checks to minimize the penalties imposed by a planned obsolescence jump drive.

18. It could well be that the true limitation would be sufficient fuel to lubricate the turbines of the jump drive.

19. Each trijump would require thirty percent by volume fuel tanks.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:34 am

Image

Spacestation: The Sojourn: Wanderer Class Explorer Platform | Official Ship Breakdown

Avalon designed by Gabriel Fonseca and modelled by EC Henry.

Video Editing by Matthew Richards, Sojourn Soundtrack by Sam Redfern.

Narration by Shakira Shute.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2M_A58p9os



Could also be just an orbital base.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:41 am

Image

Starwarships: 7 Best Diplomatic Vessels in Star Wars

We list some of the best Diplomatic star ships in the galaxy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kaUpIGpO8E



1. Aesthetic messaging.

2. Dual purposed vessel.

3. I'm going with survivable courier?

4. And, finally, what's available.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:21 pm

Starships: Lost in Space and Lifeboats

20. One option would be having the drive in the ship's locker, and having two fifty tonne modular cutters.

21. Attach the two cutters together as catamarans, install the monoshot jump drive in one, pop out the module and replace it with a thirty tonne fuel tank.

22. You could also install another thirty tonne fuel module in the other, and a fuel hose between the two cutters.

23. If you want to go for three jumps, install a drop tank on the jump cutter with a thirty tonne tank.

24. The odds that you land outside a nine parsec range of the nearest inhabitable system are really slim.

25. The upside is, that you can utilize the cutters in the meantime, just keeping the monoshot jump drive in case of that black swan event.

26. I'd stick with the default technological level twelve model, which would cost you 2.8125 megastarbux, and annual maintenance of 2.8125 kilostarbux per annum, which you could consider insurance.

27. Arguably, if it remains vacuum packed and unused, do you have to pay maintenance?

28. I always assume that jump drive controls are integral to the overhead interface, which mans you don't have to go out of your way to ensure there is a suitable bridge (controls).

29. You also have to ensure a suitable power conduit linking the jump drive to the primary (jump) power source(s).
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:48 pm

Starships: Lost in Space and Lifeboats

30. Emergency escape starships need not only be carried on larger motherships.

31. You could also have them on standby dirtside, when you plan to ignite the jump drive within ten diameters, and the possibility of wrecking it, or at least, damaging a default jump drive that would make repairing it uneconomical.

32. And for those who want to use it as an interstellar kamikaze planet killer, which would only need to use one once.

33. Commercially, you'd need to recover the capital and a hefty profit of the cargo on the initial jump, with the subsequent one being regarded as bonus, and the third, rather speculatively.

34. Plus labour, tools, and garage space.

35. On the other hand, you could deinstall the monoshot after the second jump, and offer to Russian roulette enthusiasts.

36. Or just the truly (randomly) adventurous.

37. Or a virgin one, attempting a jump within one diameter.

38. Jumping within hundred or ten diameters, might be the price for express delivery.

39. Slip drive engineer.

Image
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:31 pm

Starships: Lost in Space and Lifeboats

40. You need thirty power points per three hundred parsec tonnes.

41. That would be three quarters of a tonne of technological level ten high efficiency batteries, that's seventy five kilostarbux.

42. One tonne of technological level seven diesel engines delivers five points of power, at a quarter of a megastarbux, and blowing through ten tonnes of fuel in two weeks.

43. Fuel being really one of the crucial elements for such situations.

44. Moving up one rung on the technological ladder gives us a one tonne early fusion reactor that produces ten power points for double the cost at half a megastarbux and requires only a hundred kilogrammes of fuel per month.

45. This is mentioned for completeness, since if you use an existing smallcraft, or two or more, they have onboard, likely fusion, reactors, and the crew might have to install batteries and the monoshot jump drive, plus what they need to survive for however long before they reach civilization, or civilization finds them.

46. Solar panelling as an add on cuts five consumption by three quarters, at ten percent of the volume of the power plant, minimum half a tonne of solar panelling, at a hundred kilostarbux per tonne.

47. Probably more impactful for diesel engines, eking out fuel consumption to five percent per month, or from two hundred to fifty times that of an early fusion reactor.

48. I think the difference between diesels and and any reactor is that it should be easier to kickstart the motor, and install the engine.

49. While I like saying diesel, it's probably an air independent propulsion.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:06 am

Starships: Lost in Space and Lifeboats

50. Oops, forgot I deefficiencized energy requirement for monoshotters.

51. That means you need thirty nine power points for three hundred parsec tonnes.

52. Thus, might as well have a full tonne of technological level ten high efficiency batteries of forty power points and one hundred kilostarbux.

53. You don't really need two fifty tonne modular cutters, but it is the easiest way to demonstrate the possibilities.

54. It should be quite simple to install external cargo mount which can act both as framework for an external fuel tank, and also the extra buoyancy you need to get the minimum volume required for jumping.

55. Once you've identified a planet to land on or an orbiting installation to dock at, you don't need the ballast.

56. A modular cutter costs around ten megastarbux, and usually has a three tonne early fusion reactor.

57. You would need to upgrade the computer to at least computer/15. in order to utilize a jump/three programme.

58. Or computer/10.bis.

59. Or invest in an ordinary jump drive, after you get gifted a modular cutter.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:17 am

Image

Inspiration: Vader's Hallway Scene | Rogue One [4K HDR]

Hope you enjoy the clip!

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



1. Speaking of diplomacy, we do get to see the Imperial Shuttle, and the blockade runner.

2. The effects of a plasma weapon system in a confined space.

3. And, I suppose, a personal force field.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:44 am

Starships: Lost in Space and Lifeboats

60. It is clear that in this case, having a low acceleration manoeuvre drive is far preferable to any souped up rocket.

61. A mitigating factor would be that if they don't need to refuel (before the monoshotter is basically burned out), is they aren't likely to need to move around until they jump into an unempty hex.

62. It's a struggle to justify or find a case for using rockets, about the only one that is clearcut is for spacecraft entering into dogfights, in which the fuel consumption remains the same, but time is stretched out by a factor of sixty.

63. The monoshotter is meant to be disposable; so, in my view, are rocket propelled spaceships once manoeuvre drives are introduced.

64. If you are forced to have minimum sized fuel tank, in our case it was one tonne, then you try to leverage it.

65. Once you get down to a ten tonne hull, the one tonne fuel tank represents ten percent.

66. But, even that minimum has been eliminated.

67. It's really now purely to minimizing additional costs, or if you know there's a high likelihood it would be destroyed or heavily damaged, such as a light fighter.

68. Or really short haul passenger or freight services.

69. In the end, it really is about the money.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Sep 29, 2021 11:26 am

Starships: Engineering and Cruising

1. I notice that dirtside vehicles have a cruise mode, one speed band down.

2. Cruising implies an optimum point between acceleration (or range) and energy usage (or fuel consumption).

3. For reactionary rockets, it comes down to highly technologized variants with a sixty percent reduction in fuel usage.

4. Since this tends to be calculated in hours, I think we can ignore this.

5. Highly technologized manoeuvre drives starts at technological level twelve with manoeuvre drive factor one, that reduces energy usage by seventy five percent, tiering up to acceleration three at thirteen, acceleration five at fourteen, and acceleration seven at fifteen.

6. Combine this with an independent solar pannelled power source, whose excess power output beyond basic hull requirements, is more than sufficient to provide a continuous stream of energy, four times more than required, for acceleration factor one.

7. In theory, this could be extended to acceleration factor four.

8. In practice, there seems to be some implication of power dips using solely solar sourced power.

9. Hence, acceleration one is a safe bet, and acceleration three probably safe operating speed.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:00 pm

Starships: Engineering and Cruising

10. With the jump drive, it becomes a matter of priorities.

11. Since you only need to provide power to the jump drive once during transition, rather than continuously as with the manoeuvre drive, actual power usage doesn't matter.

12. The rules now allow non fusion reactor sources.

13. Size reduction of the jump drive is more a question minimizing cost per tonne, though a thirty percent reduction of something that's two and a half percent of volume per jump factor is not to be sneezed at.

14. However, fifteen percent of ten percent per jump factor for bunkerage, is double the volume, saved.

15. For power plants, it has been pointed out that an independent solar pannelled one is the cheapest option, and it doesn't use fuel.

16. Combining a solar panelling with a default power plant, cuts fuel usage in half, and I'm going to guess smooths out power output and eliminates dips.

17. There's no mechanism in Traveller that can throttle the power output of power plants, so it becomes more of a matter of turning on and off power plants to regulate fuel usage.

18. As such, you can have a series of power plants, presumably homogenous, that can be brought online as required.

19. You'd use batteries to take cover if power usage suddenly spikes.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Sep 29, 2021 10:09 pm

Image

Spaceships: Engineering and Would it work? RAILGUN Assisted Orbital Launcher

“Fact – rockets are just too expensive and dangerous. Here at subject zero laboratories, we focus our attention on technologies that are safer, not necessarily cheaper but can get you from A to Space in record time. Allow me to introduce to you our latest development. The Railgun Assisted Orbital Launcher or the RAOL. The best and safest way to get to space.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb6sxy3f7VE



1. OSHA.

2. Florida: of course.

3. Non player characters: wenty gees for ten seconds, or around two combat rounds; ten gees for one minute or ten combat rounds; six gees for ten minutes, or let's be generous, two turns.

3. Protagonists: thirty eight gees for half second; nine gees for two minutes, or twenty combat rounds; seven and a half gees for five minutes, or let's say a turn.

4. You're going to need a continent sized desert for one gee launch pad.

5. A little discomfort goes a long way.

6. Rocket propelled.

7. And third option, we have manoeuvre drives.

8. Presumably, carbon free.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Sep 29, 2021 10:17 pm

Image

Starwarships: Stuffing Whales into a Spaceship!

The Klingon Bird-of-Prey is a small ship. Can it fit two humpback whales inside its cargo bay! Let's find out!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WUAldRvUY0



1. Deep freeze the whales.

2. Or place them into a holodeck.

3. Adjustable fuel/cargo bay.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Sep 29, 2021 10:41 pm

Starships: Engineering and Cruising

20. How would this serve us?

21. COmbined Manoeuvre or Manoeuvre.

22. Combined gas or gas (COGOG) is a propulsion system for ships using gas turbine engines. A high efficiency, low output turbine is used for cruising speeds with a high output turbine being used for high-speed operations. A clutch allows either turbine to be selected, but there is no gearbox to allow operation of both turbines at once. This has the advantage of not requiring heavy, expensive and potentially unreliable gearboxes. The reason that a smaller turbine is used for cruising is that a small turbine running at 100% power is more fuel efficient than a bigger turbine running at 50% power.

23. Part of this is due to game mechanics capping acceleration.

24. Combined steam and gas (COSAG) is a propulsion system for ships using a combination of steam turbines and gas turbines to power the shafts. A gearbox and clutches enable either of the engines or both of them together to drive the shaft. It has the advantage of the cruising efficiency and reliability of steam and the rapid acceleration and start-up time of gas. This system was mainly used on first-generation gas-turbine ships such as the Royal Navy's County-class destroyer and Tribal-class frigate.

25. High burn thrusters.

26. A CODLAG system employs electric motors which are connected to the propeller shafts (usually 2). The motors are powered by diesel generators. For higher speeds, a gas turbine powers the shafts via a cross-connecting gearbox; for cruise speed, the drive train of the turbine is disengaged with clutches.

27. This arrangement combines the diesel engines used for propulsion and for electric power generation, greatly reducing service cost, since it reduces the number of different diesel engines and electric motors, requiring considerably less maintenance. Also, electric motors work efficiently over a wide range of revolutions and can be connected directly to the propeller shaft so that simpler gearboxes can be used to combine the mechanical output of turbine and diesel-electric systems.

28. This would be a combination of orbital ranged variant, and the default manoeuvre drives, which would work that way within twelve hundredish klix from dirtside.

29. Or with a limited range hundred diameter variant.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10153
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Sep 30, 2021 10:55 am

Starships: Engineering and Cruising

30. Does COmbined Manoeuvre and Manoeuvre work?

31. Yes, as demonstrated by the breakaway hull option.

32. What's not really clarified is when you use manoeuvre drives with differing acceleration potentials, and therefore capped at different speeds.

33. One would assume lowest common denominator.

34. Same issue with reactionary rockets.

35. Difference seems to be that you can throttle them by restricting the amount of fuel you feed them, as compared to manoeuvre drives where the power plant produces the same amount of energy, and what happens is just it's allocation to various ship systems.

36. Which does beg the question, what happens to the unallocated energy, and could it blow up the spacecraft?

37. You could feed it to the jump capacitors, but outside of an actual jump and without Black Globes, can you discharge them?

38. I suppose you could have an economy rocket that uses only forty percent, and a combat one, that can accelerate to whatever maximum that's consistent with the base technological level.

39. Seems illogical that with raw thrust, lowest common denominator rule would prevail, but would just get added on.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Condottiere, OrdosMalleus and 37 guests