Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:14 pm

Image

Starwarships: 8 Rarest Starfighters in the Galactic Empire

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48HNd0vS_mc



1. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

2. Do five wings work in an atmosphere? It's also more survivable that a Twin Ion Engine fighter.

3. Also, no charisma.

4. To maximize power for speed and agility, Kuat produced the starfighter without a pressurized cockpit. This required pilots to wear sealed flight suits equipped with life-support systems.[6] This flight suit also allowed a pilot to eject. A single clone trooper pilot flew the ship, and an independent Q7-series astromech droid backed up the clone. This astromech helped in-flight maintenance and navigation.

5. Blastboat is an interesting way of describing it, maybe jump capable and therefore having hardpoint(s).

6. Moving up the scale, maybe two to four hundred tonne fast patrol starship?

7. Four weapon pods.

8. Interesting if triple wing configuration gave any additional benefits.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Oct 22, 2021 9:47 pm

Image

Inspiration: The Starships & Vehicles of Dune

With the situation on Arrakis escalating, the Templin Institute makes some observations and speculates on the starships and vehicles deployed by each side.

00:40 | Spacing Guild Heighliner
02:12 | House Atreides Frigate
02:56 | House Harkonnen Frigate
03:33 | Imperial Frigate?
03:57 | Spacing Guild Frigate?
04:43 | Ornithopters
05:24 | House Atredies Ornithopter
05:59 | House Harkonnen Ornithopter
06:29 | Unknown Ornithopter
07:12 | House Harkonnen Troop Transport
07:48 | House Atredies Spice Harvester
08:40 | House Harkonnen Spice Harvester
10:09 | Carryall
11:02 | House Atreides Fighter
11:22 | Bene Gesserit Transport
11:35 | Arrakis Spice Transport

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5G9AWr3OX8



1. Worm; standard cylinder.

2. Angular stealth submarine?

3. Whale.

4. Looks saucerish, though the camera angle sucks.

5. Eggish; in case anyone is wondering, that's about what I'm aiming for for spherical configuration.

6. Looks cool; would have to study possibilities.

7. Probably just as cool.

8. Does resemble an insect.

9. Maybe it's a lifting body concept; not sure how the two balloon wings work.

A. Brutalist architecture style?

B. Tickish.

C. Wow - though I don't think our balloons can perform at the same level of efficiency.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Oct 27, 2021 11:47 am

Image

Inspiration: The Expanse: The Original Designs for the Rocinante

Spacedock is joined by #TheExpanse's Chris Danelon to look at some of the original concept art for the Rocinante.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6z4vF6F0WY



1. Zentreaedi; explains protoculture.

2. Tailsitter; potentially cheaper.

3. Epstein Drive air intakes?

4. Drive cone?

5. Streamlined versus detailed brutality.

6. Stable landing platform.

7. Bottom heavy?

8. Volume is such a factor with Traveller, that you have to wonder if pop ups are worth it, when designing your spacecraft.

9. Racing stripes.

A. Blast shields.

B. External cargo mounts.

C. Nose art.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Oct 27, 2021 9:40 pm

Starwarships: Armaments, Spinal Mounts and Arsenal Ships

1. First off, a warship is a platform for weapon system(s), primary, secondary or otherwise.

2. The best choice for a spinal mount is a meson gun, but the concept is to make a really cheap starwarship.

3. Largest railgun spinal mount is twenty one kilotonnes, technological level ten, medium ranged, six dice, three thousand power points, and three gigastarbux; two hundred tonne standard fusion reactor at two hundred megastarbux; twenty tonne round at a fifth of of megastarbux.

4. Compared to a meson gun at twenty two and a half kilotonnes, technological level twelve, long ranged, six dice, three thousand power points, and six gigastarbux, plus radiation and infinite armour piercing; two hundred tonne standard fusion reactor at two hundred megastarbux.

5. Inbetween is the particle accelerator at twenty one kilotonnes, technological level eleven, long ranged, six dice, six thousand power points, and six gigastarbux, plus radiation; four hundred tonne standard fusion reactor at four hundred megastarbux.

6. The particle accelerator costs twice as much as the meson gun and the railgun.

7. Combat range for the railgun is medium compared to long for the other two, and lacks radiation.

8. The particle accelerator uses twice as much power as the other two.

9. The railgun can be stationed over the horizon, and chuck twenty tonne balls bearing down on dirtside targets.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Oct 27, 2021 10:30 pm

Spaceships: Accommodations and Excursion Bay

1. An excursion bay is designed to allow safe access to the external environment, whether that is space, an airless world’s surface or the parking area of a starport. The bay is designed for decontamination, maintenance and preparation of equipment as well as access to the ship and has security features making it suitable for commercial ships as well as exploration vessels.

2. I believe the default two tonne airlock allows two vacuum suited humans to cycle through.

3. Personnel excursion bay is minimum four tonnes and is accessible to four vacuum suited humans, optionally two hostile environment suited or combat armoured humans.

4. Which means a default airlock can be accessed by one battledressed human.

5. It costs five times more per tonne than an airlock.

6. Each tonne includes space for two sets of equipment and elbow room a technician to carry out maintenance on them.

7. I'm a little dubious as to the feasibility of that.

8. I think unless this is carried out within the personnel excursion bay, and speaking for myself, considering the toxic atmosphere that can be unleashed within, I'd be rather hesitant to spend more time than necessary within there.

9. I'd attach a workshop for that, possibly a morgue for extra suits.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:02 pm

Spaceships: Accommodations and Excursion Bay

10. There's an upgrade.

11. A large bay suitable for very bulky equipment or teams of hostile-environment operators.

12. Minimum ten tonnes that doubles access and triples support.

13. It's probably comparatively cheaper.

14. If you want to sterilize with extreme prejudice, that a ten percent tonnage requirement and costs three times as much.

15. Which reminded me, that we have an option to booby trap the airlock.

16. Booby trapped airlock requires no extra tonnage.

17. Each tier increases the damage, though doesn't explain how.

18. Still cheaper than that of the excursion bay, so it would become a question if that damage could be converted to be superficial, which would burn off the exterior contaminants.

19. And of course, outside having direct unprotected exposure to the sterilization, how the excursion bay can be used to kill off entrants.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Oct 28, 2021 1:23 pm

Starwarships: Armaments, Spinal Mounts and Arsenal Ships

10. Normally, I'd aim at the low end of the tonnage, but there is a major factor to consider.

11. The ammunition doesn't scale, so presumably you have the same ball bearing down on you, just faster.

12. That also means that proportionately, that round of ammunition would take up proportionately more percentage of volume onboard.

13. Taking the default price of hull volume, fifty kilostarbux per tonne for a gravitated hull, twenty one kilotonnes accounts for one thousand fifty megastarbux of the hull cost, plus any hull armour.

14. Using the technological level thirteen version would cost an additional nine hundred megastarbux, but saves forty two hundred tonnes, which would save at default two hundred ten megastarbux, possibly double that if you include hull armour.

15. As such, it would be cheaper to use the original technological level ten railgun spinal mount.

16. The other aspects to consider are the personnel manning the railgun.

17. Twenty one kilotonnes requires two hundred ten gunners, twenty one officers, two medics, three stewards, and arguably, twenty one administrators.

18. In theory, that's five hundred and fourteen tonnes of staterooms at sixty four and a quarter megastarbux.

19. Sixteen and four fifths kilotonnes requires one hundred eighty gunners, seventeen officers, two medics, twoish stewards, and maybe, seventeen administrators, domiciled in four hundred and eighteen tonnes of staterooms at fifty two and a quarter megastarbux.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Oct 28, 2021 9:50 pm

Starwarships: Hulls, Costs, and Arsenal Ships

1. Default is standard configuration, gravitated and hundred kilotonnes, being maximum structurally strengthened.

2. That's basically five billion starbux, not counting hull armour.

3. At factor fourteen that's eleven and one fifth percent, costing an additional five and three fifth's billion starbux.

4. You could sacrifice a fifth of the hull, and use a planetoid.

5. The planetoid would cost four hundred megastarbux, or five kilostarbux per usable tonne, gravitated.

6. Plus factor twelve armour, that's ninety six hundred tonnes costing three hundred eighty four megastarbux.

7. That's a difference of nine billion eight hundred sixteen million starbux.

8. You could half the difference using an ungravitated variant, but that's inadvisable for warships regularly exceeding two gravities in acceleration.

9. Most other hull tweaks are based on a direct per tonne cost, rather than pro rata.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Oct 28, 2021 10:36 pm

Spaceships: Accommodations and Excursion Bay

20. There are vehicular variants.

21. Shipping values being the go to yardstick.

22. Access is how large a vehicle you can squeeze through the hatch and park in the garage.

23. Support being the total size of the garage.

24. The minimum is twelve tonnes, and can nominally hold two air/rafts.

25. An equivalent docking space is eight and four fifths tonnes, at two and one fifth megastarbux.

26. This about similar in cost, and presumably, there's enough space and possibly equipment, to maintain and repair the vehicles.

27. The large variant starts off with a slight difference in starting access and support, though the costs are the same.

28. On the other hand, cargo holds are relatively free, and can be any size.

29. However, cargo hatches still cost.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Oct 29, 2021 10:50 am

Image

Starwarships: Star Trek: Inside the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D

So I have decided to create a 3D animation of the iconic Enterprise 1701-D from Star Trek from the Next Generation. Enjoy!

The USS Enterprise 1701-D is an updated and evolution to the original USS Enterprise 1701 from the Star Trek media franchise.

Under the command of Captain Jean-Luc Picard, it is the main setting of Star Trek: The Next Generation and server as the Starfleet flagship for seven years (1987–1994).

The Next Generation occurs in the 24th century, 78 years after the adventures of Captain James T. Kirk and the starship Enterprise.

Artist Andrew Probert was in charge of redesigning the Enterprise-D, which was an update to Matt Jefferies' iconic 1960s Enterprise designs, depicting a ship supporting a larger crew on a longer mission "to boldly go where no one has gone before."

The updated Enterprise retains the signature of Matt Jefferies' design for the original Enterprise: a saucer section, engineering section, and a pair of engine nacelles.

With a total of 42 decks, the Enterprise-D was twice the length and had eight times the interior space of the Constitution-class ships of over a century earlier. She carried a combined crew and passenger load of 1,012.

Defensive systems included 10 phaser banks, 250 photon torpedoes, and a high capacity shield grid; there are some 4,000 power systems in all aboard ships.

USS Enterprise 1701-D Blueprint

https://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rh3X3aODdo



1. Nominally dispersed structure configuration, but you could get away with close structure, moreso if you include breakaway hull.

2. Close structure. and since we don't have flattened sphere anymore, streamlined, considering the crash landing.

3. The lower part would be pretty much a fuel tank.

4. Restrooms.

5. Stellar cartography.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Oct 29, 2021 11:01 am

Image

Starwarships: What's In A Shuttlebay? (Star Trek)

This is not as dumb as it sounds. Maybe it is.

But Shuttles aren't the only thing that a Starship carries around in its hangers and this video looks at the reason for the different types of small craft that are canonically within a Federation Starship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLi3GcZcSY0



1, Captain's yacht.

2. Workerbees.

3. Cargo management units.

4. Grappling arms.

5. Shuttlepods.

6. Shuttles.

7. Well, gigs, ship's boat, pinnace cutter, (is there anything between fifty to ninety tonnes?), shuttles.

8. Runabouts, hundred (plus) tonnes?
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Oct 29, 2021 11:16 am

Spaceships: Accommodations and Excursion Bay

30. And finally, we come to the multiple access vehicular excursion bay.

31. Typically used for security rather than hostile environments, the bay can deliver four standard ground cars at the same time and house them in a workshop/garage. Allows a motorcade to deploy simultaneously, reducing the chance of an isolated vehicle being compromised.

32. At first I thought, vehicular equivalent of launch tubes.

33. Not quite: vehicular equivalent of Galactica launch tubes.

34. In theory, the same as a docking space, with fifty seven percent plus volume premium, so presumably space enough to maintain and repair the vehicle.

35. If the air/rafts hadn't been mentioned as an example, I wouldn't have suddenly wondered if this is an alternative to spacecraft storage and launch facilities.

36. With vehicular, it's usually implied that the spaceship would be landed, to permit deployment of vehicles.

37. With air/rafts, it could be moving around in the upper atmosphere.

38. There is a difference between shipping value and actual volume.

39. I don't it's actually mentioned how long deployment takes, or driving back into the garage.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Oct 29, 2021 10:20 pm

Starwarships: Armaments, Weapon Bays, and Arsenal Ships

1. Once you have installed a spinal mount, weapon bays become secondary armaments.

2. My take is that the Confederation Navy's first choice would be large meson gun bays.

3. Costs a quarter of a billion starbux, and sucks up one hundred fifty power points.

4. So the question is whether you need large bays.

5. Combat range of the railgun spinal mount is medium.

6. So you'd want something that can engage at upto very long range.

7. That would mean a particle beam weapon with eight dice, two hundred power points and one hundred twenty megastarbux.

8. This would compete against one hundred twenty missile launchers with fourish dice, fifty power points, and one eighth of a billion starbux, plus ammunition.

9. And last, but not least, thirty torpedo launchers with sixish dice, twenty five power points, and thirty megastarbux, plus ammunition.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:07 pm

Image

Spaceships: Why Pilots Need to Drop Fuel Tank When Under Attack

Welcome back to the Fluctus Channel for a feature on the various ways aviation fuel is carried and transported in the aviation industry. From wing-based storage to external fuel drop tank, the many designs of fuel storage denotes its own purpose, pros, and cons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glxLcO68jqQ



1. Don't have a lot of unused space.

2. Is our fuel explosive?

3. Volume effects performance.

4. Increases sensor signature.

5. Instead of explosives bolts, could use magnetic hinges or locks.

6. I guess dirtside spaceships would be fueled through underground fuel pipes and tanks.

7. Maybe we could have graded refined fuel.

8. Fuel bladder, or flexibag.

9. Fuel bladders are transferable.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Oct 30, 2021 12:57 pm

Starwarships: Armaments, Weapon Bays, and Arsenal Ships

10. For medium sized bays, fusion guns seem the most attractive option, with twenty dice though only at medium range, but requiring eighty power points and costing sixteen megastarbux.

11. Mass driver offers the same damage, at short range, requiring twenty five power points and costing seventy megastarbux, plus ammunition.

12. The plasma pulse cannon is an improved railgun with automatic eight eight dice at medium range, but sucks up ninety power points at eighty megastarbux.

13. The torpedo and missile medium bays scale directly down from their large variants.

14. My take is that the Confederation Navy don't bother with medium bays.

15. You could have five medium sized bays for each large bay, though for energy weapons this would be at the expense of better targetting larger targets, more personnel, more power, and mo' money.

16. In theory, the bays are meant to balance the medium range of the railgun spinal mount, with a longer ranged weapon system, not necessarily to really damage enemy warships, more to keep them wary.

17. That would tend to limit choice to meson guns, particle accelerators, missiles and torpedoes.

18. I don't see much point in the tachyon cannon, compared with the meson gun.

19. Tractor beam's too experimental.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:49 pm

Starwarships: Armaments, Weapon Bays, and Arsenal Ships

20. At fifty tonnes. the fusion and meson guns would be the best selections.

21. Ion cannons are are an interesting choice, if you gave the space to spare.

22. Same as plasma pulse cannons, but again, it's a question of being able to reach out and touch someone.

23. Particle accelerator gets the shaft to simplify selection.

24. Between missiles and torpedoes, torpedoes' would be preferred for very very long range.

25. Hardpointed barbettes can fire a salvo of three barbettes, the same as a small bayed one.

26. I'm pretty sure we could come up with all sorts of perks that a bayed variant would have over a barbette, but you probably could apply them, if not quite equally, to both.

27. So if you use torpedoes, either fire them off from a barbette or from a large bay.

28. Each standard torpedo would cost fifty kilostarbux, a threeer salvo cost one hundred fifty kilostarbux, a thirtier one and a half megastarbux.

29. Which, on reflection, thirty time six dice weigh in at ten tonnes, half the volume, and cost seven hundred fifty percent more than a ball bearing with six thousand dice.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Oct 31, 2021 10:31 am

Spaceships: Armaments, Weapon Bays, and Capital Turrets

1. Someone's come u with the bright idea of making a weapon bay traversable.

2. Spaceships opting for this variant needs to have it's hull structurally strengthened during construction, at one percent of hull volume, at ten kilostarbux per tonne.

3. Since capital turrets take up about twice the number of hardpoints that their corresponding bays do, it has to be specified the type and number of capital turrets at the time of construction, or the spaceship has to undergo a major reconstruction, which at least is better than spinal mounts, where this wouldn't be an option.

3. You could leave the turret unused, in which case it becomes an attic.

4. It's doesn't appear to be mentioned, but since the capital turret is external, and if it isn't installed, spaceship volume would be extension also be reduced.

5. The advantage traversibility imbues, in this case, is that it lowers the targetting penalty to hit two kilotonne and below spacecraft by one.

6. Another advantage is inherent armoured bulkhead around it and it's mechanisms, reminiscent of battleship turrets of old.

7. You could repurpose the turret to contain other shipboard systems, at a slight penalty in volume, though if you could make the turrets larger, they could contain secondary sensor equipment for target acquisition.

8. Turrets require power to operate and traverse, though it does look rather minuscule.

9. Also, minimum spacecraft volume for each type to be installed, the hardpoint penalty being a natural limitation as to how many actually are.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Oct 31, 2021 10:59 am

Spaceships: Eff Three Ai Four Reaction Drive Interceptor

1. Could say that words fail me, but I'm sure I can manage.

2. It is about the smallest craft that can carry a significant combat weapon – in this case a pulse laser – and does so at the expense of operational endurance.

3. It's six tonnes in volume.

4. Presumably, that means a any six tonne plus spacecraft can be equipped with spacecraft sized weaponry.

5. It has a chemical power plant that occupies six hundred kilogrammes, produces three power points, and costs one hundred fifty kilostarbux.

6. If a missile is a spacecraft, considering it's probably using reactionary rockets, that would mean anything sixty kilogrammes plus would be a spacecraft.

7. One tonne divided by twelve, weight reduction thirty percent, 0.0583333333333333 tonnes.

8. It's an interesting question why no one at our end of the Rift has every caught on.

9. Since I'm pretty sure that someone, or somewoof, would try to figure out how low can you go.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Oct 31, 2021 10:30 pm

Spaceships: Armaments, Weapon Bays, and Mass Driver Cannons

1. Fires rod penetrators.

2. Additional penalty of two to hit anything.

3. Then you add range penalties in the event of a target moving about.

4. Infinite range, until the rod impacts something solid.

5. I can't figure out what the cost of the ammunition is.

6. At thirty dice for large bays, probably the largest damage maker.

7. Also, progressively more able to pierce armour.

8. It seems a rather attractive option for secondary armament.

9. Even the starwarship example doesn't appear to have a cost for the ammunition listed.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Nov 01, 2021 1:12 pm

Image

Starwarships: 10 More SECRET Features of the USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D

Hey Co-stars and welcome to this episode of Generations Films, and today we are looking at 10 secret features of the Enterprise D in Star Trek. Now in this video we are not going to cover the dolphins, the Yoga studio, the slide between decks 10 and 11. Ok that’s not a thing. But we covered many of those things in our previous video on the Generation Tech channel. So, I have been scouring the technical manual for 10 more, even lesser known features, that you may not know. And I have found some fun stuff, let’s go…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B15vsSs8jE



1. The luxury of empty space.

2. And common areas.

3. Gaggle mode.

4. Turbolift system.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests