Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5182
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri May 26, 2017 8:04 pm

Say missile sized.

Even if they have to be refurbished every twenty four hours, more than enough time to power a very long ranged missile.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5182
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat May 27, 2017 10:27 pm

Missiles: Medium Endurance


Thrust 15 12 9 6 3

Technological Level 11 10 9 8 7

Default volume percentage 30 24 18 12 6

Default fuel tankage percentage 18.75 15 11.25 7.5 3.75


Notes:
You may be wondering, what good is a three gee missile? Well, going by the spacecraft acceleration table, in thirty minutes it would reach fifty thousand kilometres at three gee constant, which is just short of a kilometre or two of Distant Range.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5182
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon May 29, 2017 8:45 am

Spaceships: Missiles and Second Stages

Second stages to extend range aren't aren't an obvious option, and I'm not exactly thrilled on losing half my salvo every five rounds.

So you have spaceships acting as that first stage, and launch and targetting platform, or manned missile buses.

As i understand physics, the speed of the launched missiles would be their acceleration, plus velocity of the launching platform.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5182
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon May 29, 2017 10:44 pm

Starships: Acceleration and Azhanti

So what exactly is the Azhanti High Lightning class cruiser.

Well, it is a cruiser. But so is the ten tonne pleasure variant.

When it was constructed, it was roled as Fleet Intruder, a description I had never encountered before. Nor since.

Presumably, it was meant to be the equivalent of surface raiders, specifically the Deutschland class.

The Deutschlands had great range with (light) capital category primary guns, and were renowned for being to outgun anything that can catch up to them, and outrun anything that can outgun them. That's because the Germans cheated and certainly went beyond their treaty obligations. Speaking of which, treaty obligations also prevented the evolution of the supercruiser during the interwar years, and heavy cruisers were emasculated.

So what exactly were the Azhantis good for? Which is not the same question as for what the Azhantis were designed for. Whatever that was, with the rebooting of the ship design rules, certainly not as commerce raiders.

If you assume that the Azhantis are meant to be Deutschlands, they lack the required punch. They also lack the required acceleration, because with a scale of upto nine for manoeuvre drives, quite a lot can outrun them when arrive in an enemy system with empty tanks, or even half full tanks, since the enemy has the option of pursuit.

Acceleration factor two was a reasonable performance, back in the day when acceleration was capped at six, and you had to displace three times acceleration factor, minus one, in percentage hull volume. Five percent seems reasonable then; five percent gets you factor five acceleration and is within the range of line of battle ships. The ones that you dearly would like to avoid facing in combat.
Sigtrygg
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Sigtrygg » Tue May 30, 2017 8:44 am

Fleet Intruder - a class of capital ship (part of the fleet) designed to get behind enemy battle lines (hence the long legs of jump) and raid soft targets, civilian traffic, lightly defended bases that sort of thing.
Note another thing jump 5 fuel tankage allows - jump insystem with enough fuel to jump out again if enemy forces are stronger than expected. The PA spinal is a long range weapon with more than enough capability to make short work of civilian shipping and bases.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5182
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue May 30, 2017 11:09 pm

While the ideal military encounter is overwhelming force at the point of contact, commerce warfare is about just sufficient force to accomplish the mission.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5182
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:18 am

Missiles: Fragmentation

With the default propulsion of sixty seven and a half percent, fragmentation warheads only take up thirty two and a half percent, about a tad less than a third.

Considering that fragmentation warheads only need proximity, that speed may be excessive against incoming threats.

I wonder if three gees is sufficient to intercept fifteen gee, as the damage is area effect?
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5182
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:01 am

Image

Surround sound artificial gravity plated deck, ceiling and walls.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5182
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:54 pm

Spaceships: Engineering and High Burn Thruster

A high burn thruster is an auxiliary chemical rocket designed to give a temporary speed boost to a ship. This is easily mounted on a ship by adding an additional reaction drive. Ship architects should note that a reaction drive used as a high burn thruster is likely to require far less fuel than a ship that relies on a reaction drive alone for thrust. The effect of a high-burn thruster is cumulative with that of the ship’s regular drive system.


How much less fuel?

Why not a variant with extra manoeuvre drives?

Or manoeuvre drive variants that are limited to orbital and hundreder orbital range.
h1ro
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:06 pm
Location: Co Front Range

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby h1ro » Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:28 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:54 pm
Spaceships: Engineering and High Burn Thruster

A high burn thruster is an auxiliary chemical rocket designed to give a temporary speed boost to a ship. This is easily mounted on a ship by adding an additional reaction drive. Ship architects should note that a reaction drive used as a high burn thruster is likely to require far less fuel than a ship that relies on a reaction drive alone for thrust. The effect of a high-burn thruster is cumulative with that of the ship’s regular drive system.


How much less fuel?

Why not a variant with extra manoeuvre drives?

Or manoeuvre drive variants that are limited to orbital and hundred orbital range.
I can't see rhyme nor reason for chemical rockets in the 3I setting.

If you add M drives with limits in gravity wells (orbit to 100D) then it might be an idea to explain how anti gravity works for vehicles, as to my mind, this crosses over.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5182
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:07 am

It depends on the design rules.

In Mongoose First, it was worth it to build a pint defence interceptor around them.

Now they only cost one fifth as much as the equivalent manoeuvre drive, and weigh twice as much.
h1ro
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:06 pm
Location: Co Front Range

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby h1ro » Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:31 pm

I can see why a setting neutral design sequence would have them.

It would be good to see the crossover between ships, small craft, grav vehicles and aircraft described for the Third Imperium.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5182
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Jun 14, 2017 10:33 pm

I suspect the presence of a great deal of ingenueity.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5182
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:00 am

Spaceships: Yachts and Black Swan Events

Image

Let's assume the open areas are covered by clear plexiglass.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5182
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:44 pm

Starships: Subsidized (Armed) Merchant Cruisers

The classic view of this would be fast passenger liners that are paramilitarized enough to deal with small commerce raiders and light warships, who bring two advantages, not just speed but sustained speed, and range, besides the fact that you have an available platform that you just have to stick on a set of four to six inchers.

Design rules give you a hardpoint every hundred tonnes that can easily support a turret, which is basically the equivalent of a flyswatter, and every ship can easily be equipped that way.

To really develop some firepower, the Admiralty subsidizes ships that include fifty or hundred tonne weapon bays in their hulls, which any yard could fairly swiftly fill with an appropriate weapon system, perhaps one bay for every one or two thousand tonnes.

During peacetime, the weapon bays could be used as storage or even carry appropriately sized cargo.
h1ro
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:06 pm
Location: Co Front Range

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby h1ro » Sun Jun 18, 2017 1:38 pm

Or make the space on a ship modular and mothball the bay weapons till time of crisis when they can be fitted. In peace time cargo, passenger or fuel modules could be used. Also avoids heavily armed civilian ships wandering around and makes the ship cheaper and more able to pay its mortgage thru regular trade.
h1ro
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:06 pm
Location: Co Front Range

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby h1ro » Sun Jun 18, 2017 2:22 pm

In my forever quest for more detail, I wonder what the different bay weapons actually measure. I mean, we know their displacement but as someone recently posted, I figure that bays would be similar to smaller spinals rather than a collection of large turrets/barbettes. Would that make the modules an inappropriate shape for more general cargo modules?
AnotherDilbert
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2320
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:52 pm

Bays are standard mounts:
Weapons may be mounted in bays, large areas near the skin of the ship's hull. Bays are available in 100-ton and 50-ton sizes (the size indicates the tonnage required) and must be installed during construction. The weaponry in bays is easily removed and replaced by other bay weaponry as the need arises.
Hence they must be fairly boxy, quite unlike long drawn-out spinals.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5182
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:44 pm

Where as the mass driver is clearly going to resemble a miniaturized version of spinal railgun, the rest are clusters of weapon systems, so bays seem more of an abstraction.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 5182
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:12 am

Spaceships: Realistic Artificial Gravity, An Overview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHKQIC5p8MU

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests