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 » Mon Nov 01, 2021 1:54 pm

Spaceships: Valiant Class Battlecruiser

Paragraph

1. New type, capital cruisers; seems to be a primarily presence ship, planetary landing being a visual demonstration of power projection.

2. Lots of mention of coupling together bays and turrets into battery conglomerations, which I'm still hunting down in the rules.

3. Command suite, internal citadel.

4. Image

5. Jump drive looks split.

6. They think they have a robust design; mobile interstellar bases.

7. Bulk accommodation blocks are set up to house 18 personnel with most living in ‘racks’ consisting of little more than a bunk and locker, although a couple more senior personnel in the block have their own private closet-like chamber.

8. Decisive range; dictate range; armament and armour distribution.

9. Where is the Resolute?
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:41 pm

Spaceship: Light Torpedo Bomber

1. Six tonne planetoid; armour factor two; twenty four kilostarbux.

2. One and a half tonne single cockpit; computer/five; basic sensors; forty kilostarbux.

3. Armaments torpedo grapple; two advanced torpedoes; 283'3333.34 starbux.

4. Two hundred forty kilogramme chemical power plant; 7.142857 kilogrammes per hour fuel consumption; sixty kilostarbux.

5. Reactionary rockets factor nine; 1.08 tonnes; two hundred sixteen kilostarbux.

6. Fuel 1.98 tonnes; thirty three percent; one hour twenty eight minutes full thrust.

7. 563'333.34 starbux.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Nov 02, 2021 12:46 pm

Spaceship: Light Torpedo Bomber

Commentary

1. It's not a mistake that neither the torpedo grapple nor the naked torpedoes don't take up volume, that is how it's written.

2. It is, however, a mistake in High Guard design.

3. There are options for stuffing in a torpedo into a turret, which would bypass the barbette.

4. In the case of weapon pods, they'd need a firmpoint, but arguably the six tonne limitation might not apply, since they are external to the spacecraft; with the grappled torpedoes, though they are external to the spacecraft, they are naked.

5. Another option is the torpedo pylon, costs the same, takes up hundred kilogrammes, and holds only one torpedo for a firmpoint, two for a hardpoint.

6. Going by the Gripen class aerospace/close orbit interceptor, there are no apparent limitations to the number of dirtside weapon system installations.

7. However, spacecraft weapon systems are more efficient when installed on spacecraft.

8. Assuming you can pare down the virtual crew programme to one bandwidth for two hundred kilostarbux for autopilot/zero, that's still a major proportion of the overall cost.

9. Pretty tempting to try and crowbar in a Vehicle design variant, costing between two to fifteen kilostarbux.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Nov 02, 2021 11:20 pm

Spaceship: Light Torpedo Bomber

Commentary

10. In a way, six tonnes looked a little familiar.

11. Just to be sure, I looked up Rampart fighters, and they were still fifteen tonnes.

12. Then I checked up on the Broadsword mercenary cruiser, and there was an option for a modular fighter frame, each holding four six tonne fighters.

13. A 3.636363636363636 tonne spacecraft would fit into a four tonne docking space.

14. This could substitute for an air/raft.

15. You'd need 3.636 tonne streamlined ungravitated hull, 109'080 starbux.

16. Single cockpit, ten kilostarbux; computer/five, thirty kilostarbux; acceleration bench, ten kilostarbux; two and a half tonnes, fifty kilostarbux.

17. Early fusion reactor, one power point, one hundred kilogrammes, fifty kilostarbux; 926.92 kilogrammes cargo and/or fuel.

18. Manoeuvre drive, factor three, 109.08 kilogrammes, 218'160 starbux.

19. 427,240 starbux.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:01 pm

Image

Starwarships: Battlestar Galactica: Orion Class Stealth Battlestar | Ship Breakdown

Spacedock returns to #BattlestarGalactica for a look at the Orion Class Stealth Battlestar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPVFxD9SnDg



1. Stealth costs a mint, especially when you start multiplying that in tens and hundreds of thousands of tonnes.

2. I think I'd have to study the sensor algorithms to figure out the ideal volume, that drops you just below that detection penalty, and is still large enough to do stuff with.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:29 pm

Starships: Engineering and Minimalistic Jump Drive

1. Ten tonnes: five tonnes overhead, five tonnes core; one hundred diameters.

2. One and a half megastarbux per tonne, fifteen megastarbux.

3. Disadvantage, one hundred thirty percent energy inefficiency; one and one eighth megastarbux per tonne, eleven and a quarter megastarbux.

4. Advantage, thirty percent size reduction, seven tonnes, one and seven eighths megastarbux, thirteen and one eighth megastarbux; bonus three tonnes.

5. Advantage, seventy diameters early jump, eighteen and three quarters megastarbux; bonus, transit time.

6. Advantage, fifteen percent decreased fuel consumption, eighteen and three quarters megastarbux; bonus, three tonnes.

7. Advantage, energy efficiency; counter batteries.

8. Advantage, stealth; clandestine, usually military, espionage or smuggling.

9. Disadvantage, late jump; probably not worth considering.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Nov 06, 2021 1:44 pm

Starships: Engineering and Minimalistic Jump Drive

10. Disadvantage, twenty five percent increased size; one and one eighth megastarbux per tonne, eleven and a quarter megastarbux.

11.Twelve and a half tonnes, two hundred parsec tonnes; 14'062'500 starbux.

12. Six and a quarter tonnes overhead, three and three quarters tonnes core, one hundred twenty parsec tonnes; eleven and a quarter megastarbux.

13. Disadvantage, additional, one shot; twenty percent size reduction, ten tonnes; seventy five percent cost reduction, 281'250 starbux per tonne; increasing penalty to engineering check.

14. Ten tonne one shot increased size jump drive, 2'812'500 starbux.

15. Usage, lifeboat or kamikaze.

16. Alternatively, emergency secondary jump drive.

17. Advantage, thirty percent decreased size, seven tonnes; disadvantage, one hundred thirty percent energy inefficient; disadvantage, additional, one shot.

18. Seven tonnes, one and seven eighths megastarbux megastarbux per tonne; five and three fifths tonnes, 468'750 starbux per tonne.

19. Seven tonnes, two hundred fifty parsec tonnes, 3'281'250 starbux.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Nov 06, 2021 2:03 pm

Image

Spacestations: Spaceports: Ascending to the Stars

For centuries we've sailed from ports across the deep blue sea, and to sail into the ocean of the night to new worlds and stars, we will need some Space Ports.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BCnEtOTFTY



1. Noise pollution.

2. How much noise does a manoeuvre drive, or gravitational motors, make?

3. Multiple tethers, one spaceport.

4. Easily assembled spaceports.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Nov 07, 2021 12:30 pm

Image

Starships: An Architect Reviews the 400i Yacht - Star Citizen

I employ my skills as a professional Architectural designer to critically examine and critique the newly released Origin 400i Yacht. This video is not meant to be negative, but is instead meant to provide positive feedback while viewing the new ship both inside and out. You might also learn a bit about Architecture and Design process along the way!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvVAMuHzDC4



1. Cargo hatch and elevator.

2. Entrance stairs.

3. Lockers.

4. Nothing smacks of luxury than an overabundance of common areas.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Nov 07, 2021 12:59 pm

Starships: Engineering and Minimalistic Jump Drive

20. One variant of the lifeboat is emergency escape.

21. In this scenario, you're dirtside, and need to leave the parsec in a hurry.

22. If you're really desperate, you accelerate to one planetary diameter and jump (minus eight engineering).

23. If you have a little more time, you accelerate to ten diameters and jump (minus four engineering).

24. One shot being ideal, the circumstances should happen rarely, and you're likely to damage or destroy your jump drive.

25. Speaking of which, any starship could include a one shot as an emergency drive, if the other one fails.

26. On the other hand, acting in a way that would severely damage your primary jump drive, may incentivize having a one shot, so that you take the primary off line and engage the one shot, which is then disposed off.

27. Going by the rules, you could have your one shot installed in a breakaway hull, which in theory is then added to the jump potential of the entire starship; how that works out during engineering calculations, I can only speculate.

28. You can also install a one shot in a monitor, which technically makes it a starship, and does allow it to jump to safety, once the battle tender has left the system.

29. The rendezvous can't be too far away, since the major consumer of volume are the fuel tanks allocated for jumping.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Nov 10, 2021 11:16 pm

Spaceships: Electronics and Minimalistic Computer

1. In theory, you could have a computer/zero available.

2. Library and manoeuvre/zero have zero bandwidth, as well as being free.

3. While admittingly I'm pulling this number, five thousand, from thin air, it seems to be in line if you try a little extrapolating.

4. Technological level six might be appropriate.

5. Jump control specialization would grant a specific five bandwidths that can only be utilized for a jump control programme, in this case, it would be limited to factor one.

6. In the grand scheme of things, there's not much financial difference between thirty and five kilostarbux, especially compared to the engineering costs.

7. However, at the micro end, if you need to replace the computer, where you likely need to use actual hold card cash, and not get it on hire purchase, saving twenty five kilostarbux starts looking attractive.

8. Engineering costs tend to scale to hull volume, but electronics do not; so computer/zero would be a suitable option for commercial, or private, spacecraft.

9. So it's five kilostarbux for default, seven and a half for either hardened or jump specialization, and ten kilostarbux for both.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Nov 11, 2021 8:35 pm

Image

Spaceships: Can Spinlaunch Throw Rockets Into Space?

I talked about Spinlaunch a few years ago, they wanted to reduce space launch costs by throwing the launch vehicles out of a spinning launcher at hypersonic speeds. I was somewhat skeptical as to the chances of solving the engineering problems inherent in this, but recently they demonstrated a mach 1 launch using their 1/3 scale launcher, so they're already making progress on developing a viable launch system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAczd3mt3X0



Mass driver? Launch tube?
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Nov 13, 2021 1:14 pm

Image

Inspiration: Javelin Capital Ship Tour in 4K [Star Citizen]

In this video, I take you on a guided tour of the UEE Warhammer, a Javelin class destroyer which is also the larges player purchasable capital ship in Star Citizen!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhm84tFjVI



1. Turret workstation, pop up.

2. Kinda dubious about double decker turret.

3. Mess hall common area.

4. Games area.

5. Stairs.

6. Curved corridors.

7. Holographic briefing room.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Nov 24, 2021 11:21 pm

Image

Spaceships: Engineering and Gravitational Illusions

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



1. There's probably some mathematical equation that would prove, or disprove, if pulsing the manoeuvre drive achieves faster acceleration.

2. I think it's more you're exceeding the rated acceleration for a short period; the problem is that that needs a continuous cycle of engineering checks every other round, with the downside that you could possibly, or probably, damage the manoeuvre drive.
Condottiere
Mongoose Superior
Posts: 10129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Nov 28, 2021 2:47 am

Spaceships: Zen and the Art of Neutron Neutrality


Carbon neutrality is a state of net-zero carbon dioxide emissions. This can be achieved by balancing emissions of carbon dioxide with its removal (often through carbon offsetting) or by eliminating emissions from society (the transition to the "post-carbon economy").[1] The term is used in the context of carbon dioxide-releasing processes associated with transportation, energy production, agriculture, and industry.

Although the term "carbon neutral" is used, a carbon footprint also includes other greenhouse gases, measured in terms of their carbon dioxide equivalence. The term climate-neutral reflects the broader inclusiveness of other greenhouse gases in climate change, even if CO2 is the most abundant.

The term "net zero" is increasingly used to describe a broader and more comprehensive commitment to decarbonization and climate action, moving beyond carbon neutrality by including more activities under the scope of indirect emissions, and often including a science-based target on emissions reduction, as opposed to relying solely on offsetting. Some climate scientists have stated that “the idea of net zero has licensed a recklessly cavalier 'burn now, pay later' approach which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar.”[2] (See Criticism)



Extendible solar panels provide backup power for a ship’s power plant. They are typically installed in scout or mining ships, extending their range and endurance.

The tonnage consumed by enough solar panels required to power a ship is equal to 10% that of the main power plant, to a minimum of 0.5 tons. Solar panels cost MCr0.1 per ton.

If the panels are fitted to a ship without a power plant, then assume the (non–existent) power plant is sized to the ship’s basic systems and a Thrust 1 manoeuvre drive. A ship equipped with solar panels consumes power plant fuel at one–quarter the normal rate so long as it is only engaged in minimal manoeuvring and does not fire any weapons. Minimal manoeuvring does not include long periods at full thrust, so solar power alone is useless for most commercial and military vessels.

No power plant fuel is consumed, and endurance is considered infinite, if the ship is not manoeuvring or refining fuel. Jump drives cannot be engaged with solar panels deployed.


1. The tonnage consumed by enough solar panels required to power a ship is equal to ten percent that of the main power plant, to a minimum of half a tonne - which is five tonnes of power planting; since no provision is made for primitivation nor a higher state of technologization, the assumption would be for the default reactor or internal combustion engine, since the costs of solar panelling is fixed without regard to the power plant it's based on.

2. Ironically, that means that a technological level six solar panelling is sixty percent more efficient than a technological levelled up one of seven.

3. The option for power plantlessness doesn't express a minimum size for it's inherent solar panelling; if you go by the minimum being half a tonne, then it's thirty power points per hundred tonnes, or it equals out at around one hundred sixty six tonne hull for early fusion, two hundred fifty tonne hull for standard fusion, three hundred thirty three tonne hull for advanced fusion, or one hundred thirty three tonne hull for a fission reactor.

4. A ship equipped with solar panels consumes power plant fuel at one–quarter the normal rate so long as it is only engaged in minimal manoeuvring and does not fire any weapons ... No power plant fuel is consumed, and endurance is considered infinite, if the ship is not manoeuvring or refining fuel - seems contradictory in terms of a power plant having an existential crisis; certainly in the sense that it's explicitly mentioned that the virtualized power output must match basic services plus manoeuvre drive factor one energy requirements.

5. Minimal manoeuvring does not include long periods at full thrust - long period would have to be defined, it quite easily be pulsing the manoeuvre drive on a six minute cycle, in which case you could couple two separate solar panellings together, and alternate energy production.

6. Minimal manoeuvring does not include long periods at full thrust, so solar power alone is useless for most commercial and military vessels - au contraire: commercially, it would cut operating costs; militarily, it would allow greater endurance on station, possibly, more stealthier.

7. No power plant fuel is consumed, and endurance is considered infinite, if the ship is not manoeuvring or refining fuel - this, plus does not fire any weapons indicates that power cannot be directly diverted from either the manoeuvre drive nor basic services.

8. However, it does leave open if you can divert power to recharge the batteries.

9. Jump drives cannot be engaged with solar panels deployed - doesn't say why; however, since the jump drive is disengaged immediately after dropping into the rabbit hole, what happens if you deploy the solar panelling immediately after and during reentry?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests