Page 101 of 159

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:39 am
by Condottiere
Starships: Contractor Class

With the centre doughnutted, engineering becomes somewhat of an issue, since you have the manoeuvre drive, like Gaul, divided in three parts, and removal of that part of the starship means a central location for the power plant is not an option.

One variant I can think of is having battery packs attached to each, and having them be recharged from an off set power plant, but let's simply choose one of the landing struts, and place the jump drive and power plant next to it, which only requires the establishment of two power mains to the other two landing struts.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:08 am
by baithammer
Since the design uses a sphere it would be better to maintain the four strut setup as it would be more stable.

J-drive, power plant and the respective fuel could be housed in the lowest floor of the sphere with m-drive and its fuel moved to the struts. ( Since controls are from the distributed computer, there placements are less of an issue.)

Place the cargo deck above the J-drive / Power Plant deck and below the midpoint of the sphere, from there move the marshaling deck to mid point of the sphere so it overhangs the j-drive / Power Plant deck which would allow cargo doors with the use of cargo doors between the struts. ( Could use extendable tubes with grav floaters for elevators and grav vehicles for direct transport.)

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:19 am
by Condottiere
Experience with office chairs indicate five struts would be better.

You`ll notice I never mentioned tonnage. That was deliberate, since it could have gone both ways, a smaller version which would have had to sacrifice one cutter, hence the doughnut version, and a larger one that could have fit in an extra cutter, hence three struts.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:26 am
by baithammer
Experience with office chairs indicate five struts would be better.
Its more to do with four point x versus four point cross, the x arrangement is more stable then the cross.
You`ll notice I never mentioned tonnage.
Neither did I as I saw you were working with a concept rather than model.

The advantage to moving the marshaling area to the mid point is you have more room for storing things like cutters.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:54 pm
by Condottiere
In our particular case, it's more to do with the economical use of material. Not that the design sequence would account for that.

As for marshalling, that's not easy to answer, since in my opinion the modules seem pretty much in the way, if one of the features of this particular combination is a sort of Swiss Army Knife utility,

With the larger variant with three cutters, I was thinking of a carousel that is preloaded with various modules, and can pass through the launch tubes and let the approproate one be installed for each cutter.

For the single cutter variant, a revolver.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:42 pm
by Condottiere
Spaceships: Overactive Bladder

How many uses are there for a fuel bladder?

1. First of, unless there were subdivided internal cells, the bladder should be cheaper per tonne the more volume it was supposed to hold.

2. Using a skeletal framework, you could stretch the bladder material over it and create a leak proof internal environment, like a zeppelin.

3. Emergency airlock.

4. In regard to the zeppelin, maybe a steel conehead to minimize micro collisions holing the bladder.

5, Docking tube material.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:05 pm
by baithammer
Bladders use cargo space and don't have the equipment to feed directly into a jump drive, its meant to convert cargo space to temporary extra fuel.

Demountable Tank on the other hand have the equipment to feed fuel to the jump drive, trading quick setup / removal for pump system for fueling a ship.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:57 am
by Condottiere
Fuel bladders cost five hundred credits per, if you take them at face value, six square metres.

Plus some rudimentary pump.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:41 am
by Condottiere
Starships: One shot Jump Drives

First thought, jump torpedoes.

So, all things being equal at the Advanced and Primitive options, with the default ten tonnes, you can reduce tonnage by twenty percent at a quarter of the price, but at a dice modifier of two to engineering rolls compounded.

Well, a complete overhaul after every use could probably maintain the penalty at minus two; the default cost seems to be one thousandths of the manufactured cost. Which would probably too cheap, since you'd want to switch critical, if cutrate, components.

Second thought, life boats, in case a starship gets stranded in an empty hex.

Third thought, Doolittle Raid.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 10:45 pm
by Condottiere
Starships: Cheapest Possible Jump Drive
Condottiere wrote:
Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:40 pm
Starship: Basic Venture Design

. 120 tonnes
. 48 points
. technological level nine
. gravitated
.. MCI 6.0
. streamlined
.. MCI 1.2
. armour
.. none
. manoeuvre
.. factor one
.. technological level nine
.. budgeted
... increased size
.. one point five tonnes
.. MCI 1.8
. jump
.. factor one
.. technological level nine
.. budgeted
... increased size
.. ten tonnes
.. MCI 9.0

. power plant
.. early fusion
.. forty scotts
.. technological level eight
.. budgeted
... increased size
.. five tonnes
.. MCI 1.5
.. energy requirements
... basic
.... 24
... manoeuvre
.... 12
... jump
.... 12
... weapons
... screens
... systems
. bunkerage
.. thirteen tonnes
.. range
... one parsec
.. endurance
... eight weeks
. ten tonnes
.. MCI 1.0
. computer
.. bandwidth five
.. MCI 0.03
.. software
... library
... manoeuvre
... jump control one
.... MCI 0.1
. sensors
.. basic
... lidar
... radar
... dice modifier minus four
. hardpoints
.. turret
. firmpoints
. fuel scoops
. staterooms
.. ten
.. forty tonnes
.. MCI 5.0
. common areas
.. ten tonnes
.. MCI 1.0
. dry
.. thirty and a half tonnes

MCI 26.63
So basically, the cheapest possible jump drive is a single use budgeted ten tonner.

Funny thing, one hundred twenty percent multiplied by eight percent, brings you right back to the start.

So a ten tonne single use budgeted jump drive is rated for two hundred tonnes, and costs two and a quarter megabucks, with a dice modifier of minus two compounded for engineering rolls.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:56 am
by Condottiere
Spaceships: Interceptors

The classic interceptor that we tend to think of, in our case, would be a fast ten tonne light smallcraft, which with it's single weapon system chases down an errant miscreant, likely as part of a pack.

While you probably could modify a cockpit to provide facilities to extend endurance beyond human norms, like feeding tubes and waste elimination attachments, or just automate it, these really are meant for more point defence, with no more than a twelve hour patrol, chase and return to base.

The smaller size optimizes numbers for a crowded mothership, and linear costs for ship components based on tonnage.

But a planet based one doesn't have those limitation, cost maybe, but being larger may actually be more effective and have a crew that can stay on station longer, and outrun any miscreant.

In theory, the System Defence Boat represents the upper end of interceptors, though the descriptors tend to indicate their primary mission was system defence, and more likely are stealthed, so giving away their position would be a last resort.

System Defence Boats aren't monolithic, so you have a variety of capabilities, hull sizes and configurations, though towards the lower end they tend to bleed into what we could describe as attack ships, that tend to be on fire off the shoulder of Orion. Most probably don't require stealth, and the faster ones can serve as interceptors.

Or as customs cutters; it's a taxing deployment.

I think you could divide interceptors into roughly four categories.

Light ones would be about ten to twenty tonnes, reliant on a single weapon system.

Medium ones between thirty five to fifty, and can be handled by a single pilot, though not necessarily a single crewman.

Heavy interceptors would be hundred tonnes plus, with a single turret.

Ultra heavy interceptors, whose offence is centered around a bay weapon, and blurs the line between an attack ship and interceptor, based more on mission.

So that leaves us with the heavy interceptor as the ideal planet based interceptor.

What makes this superior to smallcraft interceptor, seeing that a larger crew and size inevitably leads to a larger capital outlay and operating cost.

The large size justifies the use of sophisticated electronics, as well as more powerful computers; most importantly, there's no dispute that the weapon systems aren't artificially limited in range, and you can engage the target really far away, and the larger size allows the inclusion of reactive rockets, which means you could potentially accelerate along at twenty five gees for a while.

Compare this to the short endurance of smallcraft, and short range of their weapon systems, since they'd be forced to get into close range.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 12:30 am
by Condottiere
Spaceships: Weapon Systems and Underclocking

The option to underclock your energy weapons would be interesting, if all potential targets move to close range.

While it's an issue that's been addressed, once you can intensify rate of fire by a factor of ten, every iota of power that can be squeezed from the power plant will become vital, and underclocking by twenty five percent to divert all energy to batteries bearing does help.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 10:43 am
by baithammer
Interceptor is more of a mission than a class of small craft as presented designs top out at m-drive thrust 9 ( Which be placed in most designs.), with all weapons but missiles / torpedoes limited to close range at most. ( No modifiers can be used.)

The only thing I can see a 10t - 20t desgin, is as close support mobile drone point defense.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:13 pm
by Condottiere
Ships can be optimized for specific tasks and missions.

As for missile weapon systems breaking the close range smallcraft rule, I don't believe that Mongoose has issued errata clarifying the issue, unless I missed it, which makes this logic assumption a house rule if applied.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:11 am
by baithammer
Considering Missiles don't have range classification and have a limitation in losing smart trait when fired closer than short range, not to mention directly vulnerable to EW and Point Defense.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:49 am
by Condottiere
When it comes to combat rules, you have to be explicit what something can and cannot do, as compared to roleplaying, where fuzzy logic may be more appropriate.

As an example, I don't expect a ruling on whether I could divide a fast drug into six doses, that will last ten days, as an alternative to the low berth; it may or may not work in Your Traveller Universe, it may or may not have side effect when mixed with a sedative, it's just an interesting extrapolation I came up with when I was studying the economics of interstellar travel that I shared.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:26 am
by Condottiere
Starships: Out of the Box Conceptual Drop Tanks


This would be the classic conceptualization of drop tanks. Basically, two standard cylinders costing fifty kay schmuckers per tonne.

So, I wondered if you could attach these to planetoids; probably not.

However, if you have a single drop tank attached to the rear of the planetoid, it might be possible to successfully eject from the fuel tubes and pumps embedded there.

This also opens up the option of changing the configuration of the cylinder to that of a sphere:


You can plug in the rear of the planetoid, or any other starship.

Furthermore, with a spherical configuration, the drop tank now costs twenty kay schmuckers per tonne.

If you thin the skin further, you save another twenty five percent on construction, at fifteen kay schmuckers per tonne. The downside is that it's more likely to get damaged, but easier to hammer back into shape.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:21 pm
by Condottiere
Condottiere wrote:
Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:51 pm
Cruisers: Grand Cruiser

The grand cruiser is a completely made up category from Forty Kay; it's mentioned that it's an older design that has been replaced by the battlecruiser.

By implication, this may have been a better thought out Deutschland class, since it's a larger evolved armoured cruiser with minimally sized battleship armament.

If it existed in the Imperium navy, the grand cruiser would be a feared long range commerce raider, or a comfortable flagship on a distant station, powerful enough to take out any ship fast enough to catch it (except battlecruisers and fast dreadnoughts), and fast enough to avoid those who that outgun it (except the aforesaid categories).
I think I'll revise this a little.

Grand cruisers are a sort of parallel development with the dreadnought armoured cruiser, but whereas dreadnought armoured cruisers emphasized speed and armament, grand cruisers used the smallest capital ship armament, but compensated with a better armoured hull.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:43 am
by Condottiere
Condottiere wrote:
Mon Aug 15, 2016 11:24 am
Starships: Battlecruiser

In real life, battlecruisers have always been a controversial and contentious issue, but I thought I'd approach this from a more statistical angle.

While the recognized features of the battlecruiser, firepower and speed at the expense of armour, could be universally and timelessly applied, it took Fisher to bring it to the fore.

The sweet spot appears to be twenty sevenish thousand tonnes, speed depending on (sub)tech level, and armament nine twelve inchers, eight to ten twelve inchers, eight thirteen to fourteen inchers, or six fifteen inchers. No larger "pure" battlecruiser was completed, some were converted to aircraft carriers

This translates in Traveller terms to hundred thousand tonnes, if you assume that at tech level twelve weight was at parity with battleships, but that most naval staffs started preferring to invest in more survivability, rather than speed and range, at tech level thirteen. The Solomani constructed the Zeuses at one fifty kay, while the Imperium designed the tech level fourteen Diaspora to weigh in the same as a battleship, at two hundred kay. Both were singular classes, though for different reasons. For the Solomani they were an intermediate step, while for the Imperium filled a niche requirement they felt they didn't need or actually want.

While battlecruisers are the perfect peacetime capital ship, providing a fast response to potentially critical situations, and power projection in low risk scenarios, arguably useful for short, sharp conflicts. Their roles would be taken over by higher teched super cruisers, which while they didn't match them in size and firepower, were more efficient in it's application.

Uparmouring and upgrading battlecruisers, especially at the expense of speed, tends to turn them into intermediate fast battleships, or if you try to reconcile Traveller, light high tech battleships. It should be noted, that means I see it viable to increasing the actual tonnage of the hull.

The Dunkerques and the Renowns were likely the only true battlecruisers at the start of the Great Patriotic War, and by the start of the Great War, the Splendid Cats had hit the sweet spot in nineteen ten, with eight thirteen and a half inchers, and weighing in at twenty seven kay tonnes.

While the Imperium might have commissioned battlecruiser classes prior to tech level fourteen, there are no canonical examples, and by the language used in books dealing with the Imperium Navy, they'd be reluctant to do so.

Likely, any remaining battlecruisers, outside of the Diasporas, would tend to be refurbished tech level twelves hundred kay and under, perhaps uparmoured to turn them into light battleships.
The purpose of a battlecruiser is to wipe the floor of all existing cruiser classes.

It's primary missions are to hunt down major surface combatants operating as commerce raiders, and reconnaissance in force.

It's secondary purpose is to make up the numbers in the line of battle, and act as the fast wing of a battle fleet.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:17 am
by baithammer
The original idea was your secondary description, ie to enable a cruiser to be able to stand in the line of battle in order to maximize the number of capital guns without the expense of an all battleship line.

It more or less moved to the primary description when the armour belt was discovered to be insufficient to stand in the line of battle.

Of course changes in technology were rapidly turning classifications in to word soup...