Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6343
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:05 pm

A lot depends on capacity.

If a shipyard's order books are overfull, they can subcontract the components that bring in least value added, and are relatively foolproof to construct, to possibly a generic level.

If I recall correctly, the Suleiman class scout used to be listed at technological level eleven, artificial gravity can be installed onboard at technolofical level nine, the same as a factor one jump drive, and factor one computers are available at technological level seven.

Am interstellar trader that only has a one parsec range can be constructed ay a technological level nine spaceyard.

Deciding to retrofit it with a larger jump drive to increase the range to two parsecs, you could have a technological level eleven manufacturer build it, swap it out with the existing one, increase the bunkerage, and upgrade the computer.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:06 am

The point is the standard for commercial production is TL 12 which means there is a large amount of both construction and infrastructure to support this; Further, there is a large market of TL12 used vessels which make lower TL ones less attractive.

The only time it makes sense to go low tech is a world that is not served by the commercial market, either through embargo or through local government policy.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6343
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:38 am

Manufacturing processes tended to evolve to what's perceived as optimum, minimum outlay for maximum profit.

Economics is nit Traveller's strength, and this edition fails to demonstrate any benefit or penalty got using a lower technological level manufacturing process for, in this case, building standardized commercial hulls.

You'd have to assume salaries for a lower technological facility would be cheaper than that if a higher one, not that it's mentioned at except hinted at, by, I think, Striker and Trillion Credit Squadron based on exchange rates.

Electronics would likely use more advanced manufacturing processes, but again, this edition neither benefits nor penalizes this.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6343
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Feb 28, 2018 1:48 am

Spaceships: Accommodations, Staterooms, Cargo Holds, Nooks and Crannies

Hong Kong is so expensive that architects are building 100-square-foot 'tube homes' made from concrete water pipes
Leanna Garfield

Jan. 20, 2018, 4:00 PM 71,747

For the past seven years, Hong Kong has held the title of the world's priciest city for homebuyers, according to the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey.

James Law, a Hong Kong-based architect, thinks his micro-homes could help alleviate the city's housing crisis. But his tiny-home designs are anything but typical — they are concrete water pipes outfitted with all the amenities of a modern home.

Law explains more about his "tube home" design below.

View As: One Page Slides

Called the OPod, the "tube homes" measure 100 square feet. For perspective, a standard one-car garage is about 200 square feet.
Law's firm, James Law Cybertecture, manufactured the tube home pictured below from a water pipe with a diameter of 8.2 feet.
It includes a sofa that folds out into a bed, as well as shelves, a mini-fridge, a microwave, and a bathroom with a shower.

Right now, the home design is only a prototype. But Law said he planned to start selling the homes soon — his team is seeking permits from the city to start building.

Each tube home will cost $15,000. That's not cheap, but it's much less than the average price of a new home in Hong Kong: $1.8 million for a 600-square-foot unit, according to one estimate.

Law sees his tube homes as one temporary solution to Hong Kong's housing shortage. The pods could stack in unused urban space, like shipyards ...

Since the pipes weigh nearly 22 tons, they don't need bolts to stay together when stacked. Law said that would keep installation costs low.
"In Hong Kong, many people live in squalid conditions or in partition dwellings, as there are extremely high rents, housing costs, and inadequate public housing," he said.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/hong-kong ... ernative-9


Image
Image
Image
Image

Weight isn't an issue, only volume, and compensating for life support.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:46 am

Should've squared the interior as it would give space for running services and storage space.
You'd have to assume salaries for a lower technological facility would be cheaper than that if a higher one
Not true as it still requires a lot of work and with the commercial standard being TL12 there would be a far smaller pool of workers / engineers / architects.
Sigtrygg
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Sigtrygg » Wed Feb 28, 2018 8:32 am

Since when is TL12 commercial standard? Standard for which setting?

The 3I began its existence at TL12 and spread TL12 fusion+ and maker technology to the worlds that joined up in the early days. Within a couple of centuries T13 was standard as the industrial base of the 3I. Now I accept that civilian tech may lag a bit behind leading edge military stuff in a few critical areas (weaponised electronics being the main one) but there is nothing in the setting to say civilians build at a lower TL.
By 1105 the Third Imperium has been solidly TL15 for over two hundred years, its military had been using experimantal TL15 stuff as far back as 700. We know from MegaTraveller times that many worlds in the Imperial core sectors are TL16 and the IN has TL16 designs being evaluated.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:08 am

Look at all the commercial designs in mgt 2ed, all of them are TL12. TL13 tends to be used by system defense/ Scout service designs and TL15 tends to be Imperium military designs.
Sigtrygg
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1028
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Sigtrygg » Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:42 am

So what do the examples in MgT books have to do with the economics of the setting?

MegaTraveller had all civilian designs as TL15, CT has civilian designs at TL9 for the 1-400t stuff, all the way up to TL15 for the 1000t-5000t megacorp tradeships.

If these discussions are to be setting specific then the details of the setting have to conform to established setting canon and make sense within the setting.

It could be different regions of the Imperium build to a different average TL.

In the core sectors where MT was mostly set TL15 civilian construction is common. Out in the Spinward Marches TL12 is more common.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6343
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Feb 28, 2018 7:55 pm

Those are the defaults; you have air/rafts at technological level eight (really?).

I don't think the grav modules improve, though the power sources do (or could), the chassis probably not.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:00 am

Sigtrygg wrote:
Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:42 am
So what do the examples in MgT books have to do with the economics of the setting?

MegaTraveller had all civilian designs as TL15, CT has civilian designs at TL9 for the 1-400t stuff, all the way up to TL15 for the 1000t-5000t megacorp tradeships.

If these discussions are to be setting specific then the details of the setting have to conform to established setting canon and make sense within the setting.

It could be different regions of the Imperium build to a different average TL.

In the core sectors where MT was mostly set TL15 civilian construction is common. Out in the Spinward Marches TL12 is more common.
Which by default would be the latest edition of the rules, which has all the commercial ships / boats at TL12.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6343
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:32 am

Spaceships: Engineering and Orbital Range

This manoeuvre drive only functions when the ship is within short range (up to twelve hundred twenty five kilometres) of a planetary body. Orbital range requires two disadvantages.

Since grav modules appear to have been introduced at technological level eight instead of two disadvantages, the technological level for a default lifter should just be one less.

That means that the penalties to cost etcetera for a prototype would be eliminated, and the reset would allow a prototype at technological level seven.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:12 am

MGT 2ed has grav tech at TL9 with jump drives starting to appear at the end and TL10 being when jump drives started to be a common item.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6343
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:40 am

The Plankwells have crystaliron armour plating.

As I recall, they were supposed to have been built using a modular production method.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:30 am

I believe it was the first capital ship to use modular construction technique usually reserved at the time for commercial designs.

The armour looks to be an artifact of CT which had a greater variance in armour points and materials.

Not to mention both the plankwell and Kokirrak are both phased out designs ...
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6343
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:55 am

Spaceships: Armaments, Spinal Mounts, and Weapon of Choice

So I took out the clipboard and penned down a series of comparisons of the three different varieties on offer.

Long story short, unless I missed something about armour plating, meson screens and ground bombardment, at least at technological level fourteen and taking into account any number of tweaks and opportunity costs, pretty much the meson gun wins out, certainly as the best overall performance.

Ignoring the slightly larger volume, it costs the same as the particle accelerator though double that of the railgun, requires the same energy input as the railgun, but half that of the particle accelerator, plus it's radioactive and armour isn't an issue.

The only area left is at the lowest tier, thirty five hundred tonnes default, where it's just between the two losing guns.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:30 am

Spinal Railgun has a single area where it has an advantage, and that is planetary bombardment as both the spinal meson and spinal particle lose there radiation trait and are at 1/2 damage.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6343
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Mar 03, 2018 1:58 am

You can scale up the meson gun to make up the difference, and it has an inherently greater range, not that should matter against a sitting duck.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 2969
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sat Mar 03, 2018 12:42 pm

Condottiere wrote: Long story short, unless I missed something about armour plating, meson screens and ground bombardment, at least at technological level fourteen and taking into account any number of tweaks and opportunity costs, pretty much the meson gun wins out, certainly as the best overall performance.
Meson Guns can be entirely negated by Meson Screens, Particle can only be about half negated by armour.
The minimum size of Particle is much smaller, hence much smaller ships can carry a Particle spinal.

In squadron combat several meson guns can fire at the same target ship, but the screens can only be used once; it is not economical to carry enough meson screens to negate several attacks; Hence Meson Gun superior.

In single ship combat the Meson Gun can be negated; Hence Particle can be superior.


I would use Meson Guns (and no screens) on battleships, but consider Particle (and screens) for cruisers, raiders, and other dispersed ships.
baithammer
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:21 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby baithammer » Sat Mar 03, 2018 2:02 pm

Particle Spinals can give good displacement value when used for odd number of damage die, for example at 3DD Particle Spinal would be 8,400t versus 4DD Meson Spinal at 12,000t.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6343
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Mar 03, 2018 10:19 pm

I think it probably does become a matter of cost benefit in specific circumstances.

Though it's trying to balance an odd tonnage, as I recall you usually have to build the warship around the spinal mounts, with the exception being planetoids,

In my opinion, it's really the thirty five hundred slot that's interesting, if you compare it with it's greater destructive potential of a factor of a thousand, to the bay one of ten.

Cost was a big concern for me leading up to this exercise, but once you look at it in combination to that of other components, less so.

In context of logistics, once you've decided on the type, range and size of your armaments, you stick with it.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JMISBEST and 18 guests