Page 113 of 125

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:06 am
by AnotherDilbert
Ishmael wrote: The extra armor thickness is used as decks and bulkheads, given the scaled up distances between decks and bulkheads in the larger version. I can no longer check how FF&S1 did things, but if it was as you say, then it is wrong, and it would imply that as ship mass approaches infinity, then the mass ratio for load bearing structure approaches zero.
What I tried to say was that Armour is proportional to surface area and structure is proportional to volume (≈mass), so the mass ratio of armour approaches zero as ship size approaches infinity.

Checking, I see that I misremembered: Structure is proportional to surface area in TNE, not volume (≈mass) as I remembered. I would agree that is a strange choice.

Ishmael wrote: FF&S2 seems to be proper as far as it goes; ...
I have never looked at T4, from what little I have heard FFS2 is fairly similar to FFS.

Ishmael wrote: Of, course, that is irrelevant to MongTrav rules, eh?
Not entirely, it says something about canon, about how the universe is supposed to work before all the simplifications.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:05 pm
by Sigtrygg
GT:ISW has a simplified system for hardpoints that takes surface area and hull configuration into account to calculate hardpoints.

Over a decade ago on CotI there was this thread:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discus ... php?t=3797

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 11:31 pm
by Ishmael
Sigtrygg wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:05 pm
Over a decease ago on CotI there was this thread:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discus ... php?t=3797
That post seems to go with the following;
hardpoints ~= vol_dtons^(2/3) * .093 * 'area mod'

I use a slightly different method to find surface area*, but this is good too.

* posted years ago on this board.
https://sites.google.com/site/moukotige ... cles/hulls

Like many people, I use a spreadsheet.
My sheet, so far, has a couple of added bits relating volume, area and streamlining.
Its not MgT compatible, so I won't post it here.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:18 am
by Condottiere
Spaceships: Carriers, Tenders and Sortie Generation Rate

At some point, a warship just has so many smaller combat vessels stationed on it, that it just automatically becomes a carrier.

But before that, the difference between a spacecraft carrier and a tender, is that a tender's subsidiary craft can operate on their own, whereas carriers cater to spacecraft far more reliant on their maintenance services, not just simple resupply and the occasional once over, as well as more subjected to it's command and control.

Cockpitted spacecraft with default twenty four hour life support would tend to fall into this category.

Spacecraft with primarily ordnance orientated weapon systems, and non gravitated manoeuvre drives would rely on a carrier's sortie generation rate.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:12 pm
by Condottiere
Spaceships: Fighters and Sortie Generation Rate

It can be a fine line separating attack spacecraft from fighters, though it could come down to either having a cockpit or a bridge.

The advantage a bridge can give a small combat spacecraft is an increased endurance, at least in regards to it's very human crew. that would allow them to maintain a standing patrol, rather than require the time needed to launch from the mothership, assuming a fast launch if the aerospace wing was desirable.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:11 pm
by Condottiere
Starships: Astrogation

I think the simplest way to express astrogation is to state the desired exit point relative to the closest known significant gravity well in terms of predicted time, angle and distance.

The entry point would be in relation to the exit point, since it has to clear navigational hazards, or at least, you hope that your astrogator has done that.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 1:45 am
by Condottiere
Starships: Jump Drive Capacitors and Black Globes

You have to make two assumptions, that the five tonne overhead doesn't count towards total jump drive capacitor capacity, and that one point of damage is the equivalent to one point of energy.

Jump drive capacitors make up twenty percent of the volume, which would give it a redundancy of two hundred and fifty percent.

Considering that overloading the capacitors should lead to a catastrophic event, that is the jump drive explodes, redundancy may not be a bad thing.

I would think that there are two factors to consider, that power input spikes during the run up to transition, and the other one would be holding sufficient charge before it decays to below the threshold required for the programmed jump.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:43 pm
by Condottiere
Starships: Jump Drive Capacitors

Since there is a default two and a half times capacity to that actually required, you could effectively remove the excess, perhaps only keep it at twenty percent extra, essentially halving the capacitor capacity.

As a safety precaution, you could channel this first through a battery containing the correct charge, ensuring that there is no energy spike that could blow up the jump drive.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:33 pm
by Condottiere
Starships: Jump Drive Breakdown

Ten tonne jump drive, default:

. Overhead
.. five tonnes
.. 7.5 megacredits
.. technological level nine

. Jump core
.. four tonnes
.. 4.5 megacredits
.. technological level nine/eleven

. Capacitors
.. one tonne
.. 3.0 megacredits
.. fifty energy points
.. technological level nine

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:16 pm
by Condottiere
Inspiration: Spacestation Construction

https://youtu.be/Zn8b3MDMjQ4

Can't spot any thermal vents

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:05 am
by Condottiere
Starships: Jump Drive Breakdown

Ten tonne jump drive, default budget/enlarged:

. Overhead
.. six and a quarter tonnes
.. 5.625 megacredits
.. technological level nine

. Jump core
.. three tonnes
.. 2.025 megacredits
.. one hundred twenty parsec tonnes
.. technological level nine

. Capacitors
.. three quarters tonne
.. 1.35 megacredits
.. twenty two amd a half energy points
.. technological level nine

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:52 pm
by Condottiere
Inspiration: Clouds Across The Moon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL8AgEzg5fI

Telecommunications will likely suck over interplanetary distances.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:46 pm
by Condottiere
Starships: Jump Drive Breakdown

Ten tonne jump drive, default budget/enlarged, one shot:

. Overhead
.. five tonnes
.. 1.40625 megacredits
.. technological level nine

. Jump core
.. four tonnes
.. 0.675 megacredits
.. two hundred parsec tonnes
.. technological level nine/eleven

. Capacitors
.. one tonne
.. 0.5625 megacredits
.. thirty energy points
.. technological level nine

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:25 pm
by Condottiere
Spaceships: Weaponry and Sandcasters

Sandcaster range appears to be upto closem according the sandcutter variant. Unless there's an unmentioned propellant aspect to it.

So, theoretically, you can birdshoot boarders at close range.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2018 8:45 pm
by Sigtrygg
Nothing theoretical about it - see Striker and MegaTraveller.
Here is the Striker version:
6. Sandcasters: Sandcasters may be used as a sort of giant shotgun. They
attack all targets within their danger space, which is 4 cm wide at effective range,
8 cm at long range, and 12 cm at extreme range. Effective range in a standard
atmosphere is 50 cm with a penetration of 20 and an autofire DM of +8. Long
range is 100 cm with a penetration of 10 and an autofire DM of +6. Extreme
range is 200 cm with a penetration of 5 and an autofire DM of +4.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:54 am
by baithammer
In order for something as fine as sand to be effective in negating lasers its density per volume needs to be rather large, which precludes an energetic expulsion. ( Similar issue with the sand cutter as well.)

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:32 am
by Sigtrygg
Striker says its a shotgun, MegaTraveller says its a shotgun. Nor does a sandcaster fire sand, it fires a cloud of laser diffracting, ablative crystals. Judging by the info from a myriad of Traveller sources the 'sand' cloud is indeed blasted into the path of incoming laser fire. No idea if it is done by chemical propellants, electromagnetic or gravitic projection, but it can most definitely be used as a close range antipersonnel or anti-LAV weapon.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 3:22 am
by baithammer
I really find it interesting that MGT 2ed has a specific weaponized sandcaster munition but still uses the default munition as being anti-personnel.

But using past editions to inform on current rules isn't a good default, though its great basis when the current rules don't have or clarify a mechanic.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:56 pm
by Condottiere
Gravity and atmospheric friction would tend to be a factor.

Close range would be upto ten klicks in open space, so basically you could fire at a friendly target that is being boarded, without worrying about penetrating the hull.

Sandcaster launcher is listed at technological level nine availability, so mini mass driver is a possibility.

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 3:43 pm
by Sigtrygg
I've recently toyed with them being a variant of VRF gauss gun tech.