Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
leopard
Weasel
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 7:26 pm
Location: Wolverton, Milton Keynes

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby leopard » Wed Dec 11, 2013 8:10 pm

Remember doing some cheap merchants many many moons ago, figured it just needed to get off a surface to 100D then jump and be able to navigate a bit at the other end.

Did this in two ways, two separate craft with similar ideas.

Craft #1:
Fitted two power plants, only used one at a time, one was configured to run the thrusters etc at full power (no weapons). This got you to and from orbit and the jump point. Second plant ran the life support, gravity systems etc and was used during the jump, used less fuel. Cost a bit more on the ship build but gave extra space for payload. This sort of worked but was a bit 'meah'

Craft #2:
Dug up "Hard Times", getting to and from orbit was handled by a fusion drive, rest of the ship apart from the jump drive and computers was low tech stuff. Pretty cheap to build, had 2G performance for liftoff and landing, but just about enough fuel to do it with a bit spare (easy to add a fuel pod in the cargo bays). Huge advantage, when unloaded by gork that thing could shift...

You can make huge savings on fuel by avoiding the "30 days" ability to drive your ship at its full power rating.

Normally design craft using the MT UCP rules (sort of enjoy it in a masochistic way) tend to heavily optimise the fuel usage, operating power plants at different levels to cut fuel burns or running multiple power plants. Don't care that the rules say only one can run at a time - I tend to have one to power the drives (a big one), warships get a second one for the weapons suite and they all get one for the normal loads. Craft thus get three or four power levels:

1. Emergency loads only (life support, grav in a few places maybe, radios etc, low berths)
2. Hotel loads only (craft sitting on a planets surface or in orbit, not thrusting)
3. Hotel + drives, cruise mode in effect
4. High power: take off and landing, combat systems etc

All came about due to the high power plant fuel needs for a MT craft. Where possible the ships gets 30 days at hotel, 90 days at emergency dedicated fuel (can easily handle a year or two at this level using other fuel, you won't have the food for it). Add for a merchant say 5 days of cruise thrust, a warship would get more at 1G/2G. then add maybe 24 hours at 'combat' full power.

Seriously drops the amount of fuel you need to carry, for low tech craft that means less mass to move so better performance, for grav craft its either longer endurance or more payload.


Also if you want a combat craft that will infuriate people for a short time, a fusion drive and an un-armoured craft can easily exceed 6G
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8357
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Dec 13, 2013 7:49 pm

Smallest possible civilian smallcraft

Rocket Sled

1. Two ton hull at 0.2 Mcr.
2. Reinforced structure 5% is 0.1 tons at 20'000 Cr.
3. Cockpit compact 1.125 tons at 0.15 Mcr (based on 20 tons, otherwise 42'000 Cr); standard electronics suite and iPod.
4. Chemical battery factor one (1.2 tons/10) 0.12 tons at 1.2 MCr for one hour activity, plus 0.003 tons at 30'000 Cr for twenty five hour standby.
5. High Burn Thruster sA 0.05 tons at 0.1 MCr.
6. Thruster fuel consumption 0.0125 tons for an hour burn at 125 Cr.
7. Flight crew of Pilot.
8. 1.5005 tons//1.7 MCr.
9. Cargo/unallocated 0.4995 tons

Performance 10 gees for one hour.
User avatar
SSWarlock
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1052
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:26 pm
Location: Fulacin/Rhylanor/Spinward Marches

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby SSWarlock » Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:08 am

Condottiere wrote:Smallest possible civilian smallcraft

Rocket Sled
To infinity..and beyond! :wink:
Sir Dhaven Hevelin, IOD, Baronet of Fulacin
Owner/Captain - S.S. Warlock

Playing Traveller/RQ/D&D since 1977
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8357
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:33 am

1. High Burn Thruster
a. I don't note the TL they first become available, which provides the basis for more miniaturization, or cost reduction.
b. If you install two examples, they can switchover hourly to allow one to cool down, giving you constant thrust; this is still cheaper even at forty percent of mass and cost.
c. This type of engine would be suitable for disposable ships, as it's cost is less than either grav or fusion variants, but it's fuel cost is a lot higher.
d. Exactly what drives are missiles and torpedoes using? I'd certainly substitute this in, which would extend range, increase speed, and/or shrink size.

2. Hot Rod

1. Two ton streamlined hull at 0.22 Mcr.
2. Reinforced structure 5% is 0.1 tons at 20'000 Cr.
3. Cockpit holographic 1.5 tons at 0.155 Mcr (based on 20 tons, otherwise 42'500 Cr.); standard electronics suite and iPod.
4. Chemical battery factor one (1.2 tons/10) 0.12 tons at 1.2 MCr for one hour activity, plus 0.003 tons at 30'000 Cr for twenty five hour standby.
5. High Burn Thruster sA 0.05 tons at 0.1 MCr.
6. Thruster fuel consumption 0.0125 tons for an hour burn at 125 Cr.
7. Aerofins 0.1 tons at 10'000 Cr.
8. Reflec at 0.2 MCr.
9. Self-Sealing at 20'000 Cr.
10. Heat shielding at 0.2 Cr.
11. Radiation shielding at 0.5 MCr.
12. Flight crew of Pilot.
13. 1.8855 tons//2.415 MCr.

14. Cargo/unallocated 0.1145 tons

3.Suicide Drone at 17.7 gees
1. Four point five ton streamlined hull at 0.495 Mcr.
2. Armour crystaliron 4 points 5% is 0.225 tons at 90'000 Cr.
2. Reinforced structure 5% is 0.225 tons at 45'000 Cr.
3. Drone command unit TL12 2.5 tons at 7.05 MCr.; basic civilian electronics suite and Computer 3.
4. Chemical battery factor one (1.2 tons/10x2.25) 0.27 tons at 2.7 MCr for one hour activity, plus 0.00675 tons at 67'500 Cr for twenty five hour standby.
5. High Burn Thruster sD 0.20 tons at 0.4 MCr.
6. Thruster fuel consumption 0.028125 tons for an hour burn at 282 Cr.
7. Armament One 1-ton Bomb-Pumped Laser Torpedo Warhead at 0.1 MCr.

8. 4.454875 tons//10.947782 MCr.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8357
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 17, 2013 8:43 pm

Ultralite Flyer

1. Five ton streamlined hull at 0.55 Mcr.
2. Reinforced structure 5% is 0.25 tons at 50'000 Cr.
3. Cockpit holographic 1.5 tons at 0.155 Mcr (based on 20 tons, otherwise 61'250 Cr.); standard electronics suite and iPod.
4. Two emergency power plants factor four sAep 0.12 tons at 0.3 MCr (0.24 tons at 0.6 MCr) for one hour activity.
5. Chemical battery 0.003 tons at 30'000 Cr for ten hour standby.
6. Fusion Rocket sC 0.75 tons at 1.5 MCr.
7. Fuel 2.003 tons for an hour burn at 1'001.50 Cr.

9. Reflec at 0.5 MCr.
10. Self-Sealing at 50'000 Cr.
11. Heat shielding at 0.5 Cr.
12. Radiation shielding at 1.25 MCr.
13. Flight crew of Pilot.
15. 4.746 tons//4.635 MCr.

16. Cargo/unallocated 0.254 tons
17. Performance 12 gees
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8357
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:47 am

Car Ferry (or Smallcraft Ferry)

1. What would differentiate this service from from just labelling your smallcraft as cargo and getting passage from a freighter, is that the smallcraft must have the requisite life support for a hyperspace jump, and the hatch to the ferry won't be opened unless the master of the smallcraft declares an emergency.

2. The smallcraft would be limited to thirty tons maximum to take advantage of the one ton docks.

3. In fact, the Ferry company could sell or rent a range of suitable smallcraft that would fit within their requirements, and to sweeten the deal, provide a discount for their clientele on ticket prices, possibly even allowing access to an onboard lounge and other facilities.

4. You can configure the thirty tons to support a small party and their gear. While the concept has been buzzing around my mind for a while it crystallized when I heard VW was shutting down their Kombi production line in Brazil, though I believe the equivalent would be a twenty ton boat.

5. The thirty ton model seems more like an RV, especially if you cut costs by using the smallest engines, giving retirees, such as seven term veterans, the possibility to explore the galaxy at their own pace and in comfort.
User avatar
Reynard
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3537
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Reynard » Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:44 pm

There are designs for jump ferries that carry low jump ships across jump gaps. This makes sense where lucrative markets are blocked by such a gap.

Who would own these RV spacecraft that need to jump so often? Even spacecraft are very expensive and not the best VW bus to cross the universe in. The price to ferry such a vessel would be 1000cr per ton per parsec plus 200cr per additional parsec. A vessel specifically designed to carry small craft and have the necessary docking clamps is gambling a half million credits per small craft it could carry on having enough traffic to make a profit in the near future and that means a lot of people needing their small craft transferred between systems. I don't see those ships very common because the small craft RV market wouldn't either.

That said, small craft are probably hauled as cargo between systems as product all the time. I'd say a more realistic avenue would be having small craft carried within the hold of a large cargo vessel at the standard freight cost.You would be at the mercy of finding an available and willing ship with the capacity going your way. I'm sure you would not be allowed to occupy your vessel during the trip for safety reason and have to pay passage as well as a freight charge.

A small craft as an adventuring ship is not the best idea.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8357
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Dec 19, 2013 10:47 am

1. Car Ferry

It's a thought, though more viable within a more active trade routes core, even if the idea is to make it more affordable for characters to move around the fringes of Empire.


2. Containerization

The twenty-foot equivalent unit (often TEU or teu) is an inexact unit of cargo capacity often used to describe the capacity of container ships and container terminals.[1] It is based on the volume of a 20-foot-long (6.1 m) intermodal container, a standard-sized metal box which can be easily transferred between different modes of transportation, such as ships, trains and trucks.[1]
There is a lack of standardisation in regards to height, ranging between 4 feet 3 inches (1.30 m) and 9 feet 6 inches (2.90 m), with the most common height being 8 feet 6 inches (2.59 m).[2] Also, it is common to designate 45-foot (13.7 m) containers as 2 TEU, rather than 2.25 TEU.


For reasons of grid paper tradition:

6 metres long, by 3 metres wide by 3 metres high; short of four tons.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8357
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Dec 20, 2013 8:58 am

1. Tandem charge Missile at 60 gees

1. One point five ton streamlined hull at 0.165 Mcr.
2. Armour crystaliron 4 points 5% is 0.075 tons at 30'000 Cr.
2. Reinforced structure 5% is 0.075 tons at 15'000 Cr.
3. Smart missile 0.08 tons at 0.0025 MCr.
4. Chemical battery factor one (1.2 tons/20x1.5) 0.09 tons at 0.9 MCr for one hour activity, plus 0.00225 tons at 22'500 Cr for twenty five hour standby.
5. High Burn Thruster sC 0.15 tons at 0.3 MCr.
6. Thruster fuel consumption 0.02775 tons for forty four point four minutes at 278 Cr.
7. Armament One 1-ton Bomb-Pumped Laser Torpedo Warhead at 0.1 MCr.

8. 1.5 tons//1,51475 MCr.

Notes: No idea the cost or weight of the smart missile guidance system, so integrated the entire weapon system, so you have a tandem warhead. What damage effect this has is hard to forecast. That means that you could squeeze in fuel for an hour burn.


2. Launch Tube as Missile Launcher

1. 1.5 ton missile: thirty seven point five ton launcher at 18.75 MCr.
2. Ten missiles per turn.
3. Theoretically, you have ten people manning it.
4. For a normal 0.08 ton missile, the launcher would be two tons at one million smackers.
Old timer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:37 pm
Location: Oxford, U.K

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Old timer » Fri Dec 20, 2013 9:26 am

Odd weapon, it seems to to do the same thing as a smart, nuclear bomb pumped torpedo but costs far more. Tandem warhead is unlikely to work as by high guard, bomb pump torpedo warheads detonate outside the normal detonation range of smart missiles (hence the negative DM to use point defence against them) so the smart warhead would not be able to detonate as it would be destroyed in the blast as the nuke goes off to fire the x ray laser at the target.
Purely on cost you could buy/launch about 85 nuclear bomb pumped torpedoes for 1 of the above weapons.
Somebody
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1359
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Somebody » Fri Dec 20, 2013 10:47 am

Wouldn't an open frame with multiple grapples in the 100dton class be a more flexible ferry? The most costly part of a starship is the jump drive so at least on medium to high traffic "circuits" such a "Jumpship" could work out.

In-system boats, maybe even high accelleration ones that dock with a sheduled Jumper. The Jumper never goes in-system but stays near a convenient fuel source. Payment is per "occupied or blocked grapple" so even a sub 100dton craft could be carried but would cost the same as a 100dt one.

Granted, the concept is closer to a Dockwise ship ferrying big yachts across the Atlantik but it eliminated the hangar bay overhead and allows for rather large boats to be carried.

The navy might want to borrow one as a "Jeep tender" in case of war transporting replacement battle tenders from the interior to the fleets, in turn offering a subsidize.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8357
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Dec 20, 2013 5:32 pm

1. Car Ferry - The reason I tend to emphasize so much on hundred ton hulls is because they are so unexplainably cheap. It's part of my ongoing campaign to bring interstellar travel to the masses.


2. Tandem charge large missile - A natural development in trying to lower the size of the platform. If you remember that the price for the nuclear pumped warhead is alone 100'000 Cr, then a retail price for a 2.5 nuclear pumped warhead torpedo at 18'000 Cr. must be wrong; probably the cost of all torpedoes are probably off by a factor of ten, and considering RL examples, could actually be more.

The nuclear pumped warhead was chosen as a base since it is mentioned in Mongoose, but it could easily be any of the other payloads. I'd even try 14 cubic metres of depleted uranium and turn it into a kinetic kill weapon which at forty gees (I miscalculated sixty) should be very interesting to behold. The tandem part is because I could separate the 80 kilo smart missile into it's component parts, and figured an initial explosion to clear off the first layer of armour couldn't hurt.

Smart guidance system as opposed to the others, because it would allow pilots to concentrate on their flight skills.


3. Theoretically, using a launch tube as a missile launcher wouldn't require a hardpoint, and at ten missiles per turn, rival the firepower from bays.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8357
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Dec 22, 2013 7:41 pm

Mercenary Cruiser

1. While I'm not sure the eight hundred ton Broadsword class Mercenary Cruiser is either iconic or efficient, but rather inspired by Piper's Enterprise/Nemesis, inclusive the cutters. Let's see if I can give it more or less the same capabilities at half the size (okay, that will screw with the firepower). So four hundred ton hull streamlined at 17.6 MCr, with factor four twenty tons of crystaliron armour at 3.2 MCr.

2. While I'd rather bring it up to Imperium fleet standard (TL13), I'll stick with TL12. G drive suite, so that 75/88 tons at 154/168 MCr (reaction/reactionless), 162 tons fuel (six weeks power and jump), twenty ton bridge with Model 4/fib at 9,2 MCr and two tons of basic military electronics at 1 MCr. Four tons of harpoints at 4 MCr.

3. Basically, it's primary function is to transport a platoon of soldiers, and their equipment and vehicles, for which we still have 104 tons left.

4. Captain, pilot, navigator, two engineers, medic; four gunners; platoon commander, platoon sergeant, runner, twenty four troopers. Nineteen staterooms at seventy six tons. That leaves us with 28 tons for ATVs, armouries, briefing room, manoeuvring fuel (if necessary) and magazine.

4. First, we get rid of the cutters, flatten the sphere, and streamline the structure, so that the ship can land the troops directly, which give or take,

5. So that's a basic cost of 193.5/207.5 MCr, not counting what else you can squeeze in, compared to 433.44 MCr listed for Broadsword.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8357
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:58 pm

Orbital Combat Ship

The orbital combat ship (OCS) is a class of relatively small space vessels intended for operations in the planetary orbit (close to planets) by the Imperium Navy. It was "envisioned to be a networked, agile, stealthy space combatant capable of defeating anti-access and asymmetric threats in planetary orbits."
OCS designs are slightly smaller than the Imperium Navy's Fleet Escorts, and have been likened to corvettes of other navies. However, the OCS designs add the capabilities of a small assault transport with a flight deck and hangar large enough to base two cutters, the capability to recover and launch smaller boats from a stern dock, and enough cargo volume and payload to deliver a small assault force with fighting vehicles to a roll-on/roll-off starport facility. The standard armament for the OCS are Mk 110 Meson bay and missile turrets. It will also be able to launch autonomous drones. Although the OCS designs offer less point defense and anti-ship capabilities than comparable destroyers, the OCS concept emphasizes speed, flexible mission module space and lower tonnage.
The concept behind the littoral combat ship, as described by former Grand Admiral of the Navy I. M. Seatwarmer, is to "create a small, fast, maneuverable and relatively inexpensive member of the DD(X) family of ships." The ship is easy to reconfigure for different roles, including anti-raider warfare, mine countermeasures, anti-ship warfare, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, system defense, space intercept, special operations, and logistics.
Due to its modular design, the OCS will be able to replace slower, more specialized ships. The OCS is reconfigured for various roles by changing mission modules. These include weapon systems, sensors, carried craft and mission crews.
Module changes were envisioned to allow a single OCS to change roles in a matter of hours at any starport allowing a group of OCS' to optimize their effectiveness against a developing threat very rapidly. A report from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) based on the results of a January 1101 sustainment wargame is reported to state that, possibly for logistics reasons, the mission module changes may take as long as weeks, and that in the future the navy plans to use OCS ships with a single module, with module changes being a rare occurrence.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8357
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 24, 2013 9:55 am

1. Fission Power Plant

a. Fission plants produce half the power of an equivalently sized fusion plant, which mans Fission A is actually sE.

b. In the Solomani Module, it's mentioned that Fission plants are stealthier than Fusion ones; space mine drones attack non chemical plant targets - this means that either they can't detect them, detect them with difficulty, or aren't programmed to target them.

c. We have a natural fear of radiation, but a raider or a system defense boat powered by a fission plant must be an attractive option, especially combined with grav drives.

d. Don't see the amount of fuel a fission plant consumes in capital ship design. I'm guessing half the tonnage of the engine per year?


2. U-Boot aesthetic

a. Having a rather less detectable secondary power plant goes well with the theme of submersibles.

b. Developments in scientific research show that real-world cloaking devices can obscure objects from at least one wavelength of EM emissions. Scientists already use artificial materials called metamaterials to bend light around an object.[2]

c. RL SSKs probably prefer the VLS concept but I have a fondness for opening the torpedo hatch, and having a bunch of guys manoeuvre one in.
Old timer
Banded Mongoose
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:37 pm
Location: Oxford, U.K

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Old timer » Tue Dec 24, 2013 10:17 am

High guard page 42 has the amened rules on fission power plants. The core rule book has the consumption of fuel for ships up to 2000 tons (page 109), i think it is assumed that capital ships will be using fusion in high guard.
Infojunky
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2202
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 10:19 pm
Location: North of Center California

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Infojunky » Wed Dec 25, 2013 5:40 am

Condottiere wrote: c. We have a natural fear of radiation
ER!?! No. We as terrestrial uneducated humans have a learned fear of radiation as portrayed by the mass media.
Evyn
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8357
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Dec 25, 2013 9:03 am

1. Merry X'Mas to all.


2. Orbital Combat Ship

a. Civilian specifications; the intent was to have it buildable at most starports.

b. Size is to be the largest possible for the Adventure Class ships, with the lowest possible crew, modularity and tonnage being large enough to provision upgrades and mission changes.

c. However, the concept allows optimization for a single mission, and experience has shown that module changes tend to be measured in weeks and months, rather than hours and days.

d. This tends to conclude that most ships won't be subjected to module changes, but allows new ships to be upgraded to state of the art equipment as they are completed and fitted with the module/mission that naval staff believe is most needed.

f. While intended to operate close to the planetary orbits, in actuality it's high speed and fleet of secondary craft and drones will allow to complete it's missions at a secure distance and disappear when confronted with threats it's onboard weaponry can't easily overcome.

g. The OCS is jump capable, allowing Sector Admirals to speedily dispatch a disposable naval asset to systems to show the flag, presence projection and with a minor mission capability.


3. Venture Class Ships

a. Sometimes referred to as the Frisian class, a reference to it's original nickname of the Frisbee, and it's unspectacular performance and attempt to milk out every possible cubic metre for profit by start up venture capitalists.

b. A three thousand year old Solomani design, it's clean lines and flattened sphere silhouette harks back to a simpler, more practical era of Terran expansion.

c. Imperial spacers tend to refer to the Venture Class rather disparagingly as Flea Traders, despite the fact that examples range through all tech levels and many different uses.

d. Features include a tripod arrangement of landing legs; double decks of (11.2 squares) 16.8 metres diameter, 2.5 metre height, 0.25 metre roof/floor; underneath ramp for cargo.

e. Options: a more or less central personnel lift/airlock extending from underneath the ship, through two decks and upto the top of the ship. Ships optimized for trade remove part of the floor for cargo containers.

f. Cheap variants are still built with TL7 titanium steel hulls [presumably, by the time we get to TL13, there's a thirty percent discount].

g. While far more common in the Solomani Rim, examples have found their way to the Spinward Marches.

h. The Jupiter series were optimized as family friendly recreational vehicles.
Last edited by Condottiere on Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8357
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Dec 26, 2013 6:10 am

1. Battle Riders/Tenders

a. For the larger riders, having single occupancy jump shuttles might be a better tactical solution.

b. Or a cheap commercially built tender for a maximum of four riders.


2. Venture Class

a. Having telescoping legs would allow the vessel post landing to lower the body closer to the ground, making an underneath ramp redundant, and a side cargo door more attractive.

b. A modular variant could have a round rather than a rectangular shape, so that when it's unoccupied, the ship looks like a doughnut. Or it could be squarish, from which you get the expression, a square peg in a round hole.


3. Fission Power Plant

a. Fissionable material seems unaffordable, at a million credits per ton, whose warranty runs out by the end of the calendar year.

b. The Ford class reactors are expected not to need refueling for thirty five years.

c. As an example, four tons of radioactives are needed to power factor Bs for a year, which comes out four million credits over a year or 10'959 credits per day, compared to Fusion A, which needs fifty two tons of hydrogen per year, or 143 kilos per day at 72.50 credits per day.

d. If the above is correct it would be my opinion the fission power plant option needs to be revised.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4914
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby phavoc » Thu Dec 26, 2013 6:53 pm

Choosing a fission power plant is a bit of a min/max view that people have, but it's not necessarily the most economical.

A jump-capable ship must utilize hydrogen for the jump in the MgT universe. Therefore using a fission powerplant with its high fuel cost is not necessarily a reasonable choice. How much additional revenue a merchant could make by offsetting the powerplant fuel tonnage is going to be the economic deciding factor. We also don't have any idea on the general availability of fissionable fuel. Has anyone seen any discussion on what the additional maintenance time would be for fueling the reactor? I would assume that would be taken care of during the annual maintenance work for a commercial ship at least.

For the most part hydrogen fuel is cheap and plentiful whereas fissionables seem to be the opposite. A commercial shipping concern will look at what's cheapest and most efficient over the long term. But I think we can all agree players don't necessarily take that view. :)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests