Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:29 am

Should We Colonize Venus Instead of Mars? | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios

Mars One. The Mars Rover. Bruno Mars. Mars Bars. It's pretty clear we're OBSESSED with the idea of Mars, especially in regard to it being a potential colony for earthlings. But is that really the best option? Is there a better place for us to colonize in our solar system? Well, how about Venus? Sure the surface temperature is over 450 degrees Celsius, with crazy pressure, but there might be a smart way around that, making Venus a better option for long term colonization than Mars! How? Watch this week's episode of SpaceTime and find out!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5KV3rzuag
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:41 am

Is This Geometric Structure The Theory Of Everything? | Answers With Joe

For 100 years, scientists have been searching for the "Theory of Everything", the elusive link between the physics of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. A team of researchers believe they may have the key, and it all lies in a geometrical design.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqu_uV-gIcU
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:39 am

Starships: Venture Class Jump Drive

Still tinkering with it, but having examined Advanced Micro Devices new chiplet design has somewhat inspired me (also, may force me to upgrade before I anticipated since it's rumoured they'll substitute eight core chiplets for the current four core modules).

My intent has always been to design the cheapest, smallest jump drive.

I've managed to separate the most expensive component, the capacitors, from the five tonne overhead. It should be noted that as long as the interface with the jump drive core remain in the same place, capacitorless overheads should be compatible with jump drives constructed at the same technology level, or less, since you have to take into account parsec range, as the jump governor is part of the overhead.

As it would be the budget variant, that would be five tonnes volume, costing 3.375 megacredits.

That leaves another five tonnes to fill out with the core and enough capacitors, which is more parsec tonnage than I actually want, enough for a single jump for the minimum tonnage.

So the question was if I could use an advanced shrink and still stuff in cheaper older technology.

The rules are clear that thirty percent shrink is possible even at minimum tonnage, meaning that the smallest possible volume is seven tonnes at fifty percent premium, though when the capacitors, core and overhead are separate, where would that premium apply?

Leaving that for later, seven tonnes might work for the five tonne overhead, and a two tonne budgeted core if minimum jump volume were eighty tonnes. So, that's two and a half.

A twenty percent shrink would give you eight tonnes at a twenty five percent premium, leaving you a half tonne for capacitors. That's twenty energy points for the budgeted variant, which is a fairly safe two hundred percent of targetted energy points for a hundred parsec tonnes.

Venture Class Jump Drive Module
. overhead
.. technology level
... nine
.. budgeted
... increased size
.. capacitors
... none
.. tonnage
... five tonnes
.. cost
... three and three eighths megaschmuckers
. core
.. technology level
... nine
.. budgeted
... increased size
.. tonnage
... two and a half tonnes
.. cost
... one and eleven sixteenths (1.6875) megaschmuckers
. capacitors
.. technology level
... nine
.. budgeted
... increased size
.. capacity
... twenty energy points
.. tonnage
... half tonne
.. cost
... one and one eighth megaschmuckers
. total tonnage
.. eight
. total cost
.. six and three sixteenths (6.1675) megachmuckers

All I can take from that is it would have to be assembled and the shell manufactured at a minimum technological level eleven facility, though what that would cost is unclear, and probably would involve shaving off some more costs off the above individual components, and then calculating a twenty premium on that.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Dec 06, 2018 8:38 am

Spaceships: Engineering, High Burn Thruster and Why Some 21st Century US Rockets Still Use Soviet Era Engines

The RD-180 is an exceptionally good engine, and a big part of that is down to it having a closed combustion cycle, compared to US designed engines which use an open cycle. Why did the US never develop a closed cycle Kerolox engine, and what problems did the soviet engineers solve decades ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGr1UVNBDLs


Secret sauce, oxygen.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:09 am

Spaceships: Fuel Scoops

Fuel scoops cost a flat million bucks.

That means for generic four or five hundred (or less) tonne hull, if you wanted to include this with a partially streamlined configuration, you might as well just stick to a streamlined variant, since there you get fuel scoops free.

It's a flat fee, which means a two hundred kay tonne Plankwell pays the same as a two hundred tonne sysem defence boat.

However small, it should require a percentage of volume and price prorataed.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:51 am

Starships: 10 Features that made the VENATOR CLASS the BEST STAR DESTROYER in Star Wars

We continue our 10 Flaws series by looking at why the Republic Venator Class Star Destroyer was the best .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcB3Z9rG2v0


It's very relateable.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:11 am

Spaceships: How Big Are The Ships of The Expanse?

As our Force Recon Scale Charts are now declassified, we can reveal the exact size of The Expanse's spacecraft!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERqBIsta_iE
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:33 am

Starships: Engineering, and Primitive and Advanced Capacitors

Force Field Generators project a spherical energy-absorbing shell around a ship, and are therefore known as block globe screens. All energy, whatever its form, that contacts the black globe is absorbed and diverted to the ship's capacitors, doing no damage.

The capacitors contained in the ship's jump drive may be used to store this energy; additional capacitors may also be purchased. The jump drive capacitors mass .5% of the ship's mass, per jump number; for example, a drive capable of jump-3 will include capacitors equal to 1.5% of the ship's mass. Additional capacitors may be purchased at MCr4.0 per ton. One ton of capacitors (in a jump drive or not) will hold 36 EPs.


That's Classic.

Damage points from attacks that strike the globe are absorbed by the globe's capacitors as hit points. The size of the capacitor bank is critical, as (he globe will discharge catastrophically when it overloads. Stored hit points may be drained and convened to energy and stored in other energy banks or used to power the ship's systems ... Maximum conversion rate is I% of capacity per second (240.000 HP or 960 MJ per dton per tum ... Ships that do not have separate energy banks may use their jump accumulators. Each jump-drive module includes accumulators capable of storing 24 GJ (or 6.000 HP). Black globes come with a rudimentary capacitor bank able to store 10.000 HP worth of energy.

That's GURPS; accumulators and capacitors are probably the same thing.

Capacitors are default technology level nine, and my or may not be zuchai crystals, they just happen to be exceptionally efficient at this, though brittly so, as they can't hold the charge more than two pr three hours without causing decomposition.

For the Mongoseverse, jump drive size reduction or increase are the only factors that effect capacitors, cost more of an issue if it's a budget or prototype model.

Since I'll assume that at default, budget option can only be used once, and production and prototype models are an either/or proposition, increasing the energy density is possible to upto thirty percent at technology level twelve at a fifty percent premium, economizing it knocks off twenty five percent from the cost, but increases the size required for that capacity by twenty five percent

Other advantages and disadvantages touch on other aspects of jump drive technology and control.

As the energy of attacks absorbed by the generator is channelled to capacitors, a ship must have sufficient capacitor capacity if it is to avoid overloading its systems and explode catastrophically. Fortunately, if a ship possesses a jump drive, it will have considerable capacitor capacity.

A jump drive will have capacitors equal to twenty percent of its size in tonnes. Additional capacitors may be purchased at a cost of three megacredits per tonne.

Each tonne of capacitor will absorb fifty points of damage.


So that's a possible seventy one and a halfish at technology level twelve.

If a ship with a black globe generator absorbs more damage than its capacitors can handle, the ship automatically explodes, destroyed instantly.

To avoid this, the capacitors can be discharged. For every combat round the black globe generator is switched off, the capacitors will discharge an amount of damage equal to one percent of the ship’s total tonnage multiplied by ten percent of the tonnage of the ship’s power plant.


Probably has to be rethought, since power plant output can and does vary.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Dec 10, 2018 12:14 pm

Condottiere wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:39 am
Starships: Venture Class Jump Drive

Still tinkering with it, but having examined Advanced Micro Devices new chiplet design has somewhat inspired me (also, may force me to upgrade before I anticipated since it's rumoured they'll substitute eight core chiplets for the current four core modules).

My intent has always been to design the cheapest, smallest jump drive.

I've managed to separate the most expensive component, the capacitors, from the five tonne overhead. It should be noted that as long as the interface with the jump drive core remain in the same place, capacitorless overheads should be compatible with jump drives constructed at the same technology level, or less, since you have to take into account parsec range, as the jump governor is part of the overhead.

As it would be the budget variant, that would be five tonnes volume, costing 3.375 megacredits.

That leaves another five tonnes to fill out with the core and enough capacitors, which is more parsec tonnage than I actually want, enough for a single jump for the minimum tonnage.

So the question was if I could use an advanced shrink and still stuff in cheaper older technology.

The rules are clear that thirty percent shrink is possible even at minimum tonnage, meaning that the smallest possible volume is seven tonnes at fifty percent premium, though when the capacitors, core and overhead are separate, where would that premium apply?

Leaving that for later, seven tonnes might work for the five tonne overhead, and a two tonne budgeted core if minimum jump volume were eighty tonnes. So, that's two and a half.

A twenty percent shrink would give you eight tonnes at a twenty five percent premium, leaving you a half tonne for capacitors. That's twenty energy points for the budgeted variant, which is a fairly safe two hundred percent of targetted energy points for a hundred parsec tonnes.

Venture Class Jump Drive Module
. overhead
.. technology level
... nine
.. budgeted
... increased size
.. capacitors
... none
.. tonnage
... five tonnes
.. cost
... three and three eighths megaschmuckers
. core
.. technology level
... nine
.. budgeted
... increased size
.. tonnage
... two and a half tonnes
.. cost
... one and eleven sixteenths (1.6875) megaschmuckers
. capacitors
.. technology level
... nine
.. budgeted
... increased size
.. capacity
... twenty energy points
.. tonnage
... half tonne
.. cost
... one and one eighth megaschmuckers
. total tonnage
.. eight
. total cost
.. six and three sixteenths (6.1675) megachmuckers

All I can take from that is it would have to be assembled and the shell manufactured at a minimum technological level eleven facility, though what that would cost is unclear, and probably would involve shaving off some more costs off the above individual components, and then calculating a twenty premium on that.

Another question would be just building a ten tonne, and leaving the twoish tonne empty, or if a filler is required, add that. Threadripper adds dummy die, less likely as maintaining communications between active modules and balance the heat distribution, more likely as place holders.

Filler for all intends or practical purposes would cost nothing, as a dummy die could be failed silicon and would be discarded.

If the shell can't be empty, you could add in dead capacitors, if it requires related machinery and equipment.

That way, you sacrifice volume, two plus tonnes, in exchange for paying only for exact size of jump drive core you need, in this case two and a half tonnes plus enough functioning capacitors.

I would have added the batteries, but felt I couldn't establish if anything not organic to the jump drive itself would be kosher.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:48 pm

Starships: Engineering, and Chemical Power Plants, huh, yeah, What are they good for, Absolutely nothing

Well, maybe not.

I wouldn't want to transition without a fusion reactor as the primary power plant; however, reactors tend to be closed boxes, and with fission ones, that's probably a good thing.

On the other hand, maintaining and/or repairing them, requires special tools and expertise. That's rather less so with a chemical based power plant.

I think it's a viable option for a scout sized vessel, as long as the crew has access to ready supplies of fuel.

Speaking of which, what fuel does the chemical power plant use?

For orbital trafficking, the short durations aren't an issue, and you'd assue that more advanced models could cut down on the gas guzzling aspect, so energy efficiency should be an advantage.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:03 pm

Spaceships: Engineering and Solar Panelling

Extendible solar panels provide backup power for a ship’s power plant. They are typically installed in scout or mining ships, extending their range and endurance.

The tonnage consumed by enough solar panels required to power a ship is equal to ten percent that of the main power plant, to a minimum of half a tonne. Solar panels cost a hundred kilocredits per tonne.

If the panels are fitted to a ship without a power plant, then assume the (non–existent) power plant is sized to the ship’s basic systems and a Thrust One manoeuvre drive. A ship equipped with solar panels consumes power plant fuel at one–quarter the normal rate so long as it is only engaged in minimal manoeuvring and does not fire any weapons. Minimal manoeuvring does not include long periods at full thrust, so solar power alone is useless for most commercial and military vessels.

No power plant fuel is consumed, and endurance is considered infinite, if the ship is not manoeuvring or refining fuel. Jump drives cannot be engaged with solar panels deployed.
Why?


Anyway.

1. Solar panels' default technological level and power output is directly connected to the power plant or conceptualized virtual power plant that they are supporting or supplementing. That makes a technological level fifteen model very bangish for the buck, since their cost is not dependent on the power plant's, just their volume.

2. At the other end of the scale, you have a dichotomy, as a fission reactor obviously radiates better than a higher teched chemical power plant, though one supposes it does slow down atomic reaction by seventy five percent.

3. I think one assumption that one should not make is that proxying a conceptualized power plant and thrust one manoeuvre drive does not mean that the solar panel actually outputs that amount of power, just that the solar panels would have to be ten percent of volume of the conceptualized power plant, which could well be just a tad of half of default power, basically ten power points for basic ship systems per hundred tonnes, plus ten percent. That would account for that rather precarious issue with running manoeuvre drives at length.
Sigtrygg
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Sigtrygg » Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:27 pm

Solar panels have one intrinsic limitation - they can not gather more energy than there is incident. There may be TL improvements that allow nearly 100% capture, but you are still limited to generating no more electricity than there is incident radiation.

For a ship in orbit around the Earth each square metre of panel:

TL6 125 W - 25% degradation per year of use
TL7 250 W - 10% degradation per year
TL8 500 W no degradation if maintained
TL9 750 W
TL10 1kW
TL11 1.25kW (this is the maximum you can get)

This lead me to the inescapable conclusion years ago that collector technology doesn't just gather light it must also absorb neutrinos, gravitational waves, particulate radiation (the solar wind) the lot in order to power a jump drive - the alternative is that there is some as yet unknown to the standard model particle that fusion reactors(and stars) and antimatter/matter annihilation produce that is used in the jump drive (you could handwave dark matter or dark energy at this point).
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:20 pm

Once i started looking seriously at ours, I came to the conclusion that they're supra-efficient, limited only by vague references to acceleration.

Degradation is pretty much linked to general maintenance, in our case one tenth of a percent per annum, and maybe a quirk perhaps every fifty years.

The best visualization I've had is that the ship pulse accelerates: after accumulating enough energy, the panelling is retracted, the thrusters are fired up for a turn or so, and the panelling is then extended again.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:02 pm

Spaceships: Aerospaceplane

For obvious reasons, I hardly bother looking at technology greater than fourteen, and usually the introduction of fusion reactors marks the lower boundary.

Now, I've no qualms of minimum one tonne power plants for spaceship designs, since they represent economies of scale, though less so with a minimum thirty seven hundred gallon tank. So, let's fill it with lemonade.

This is a technological level seven design, and has a ten tonne minimum streamlined titanium steel non gravitated light hull with aerofoils. Half a tonne at two hundred and thirty thousand schmuckers.

Sensors are limited to a Mark One Eyeball, and the operator is comfortably seated on a single cockpit, with a five bandwidth computer. One and a half tonnes at forty five thousand schmuckers.

A one tonne budgetted chemical power plant with a one tonne fuel tank, and a six hundred kilogramme factor three rocket. The power plant outputs four energy points and costs one hundred and fifty thousand schmuckers, and the tank lasts about thirty three and a half hours at full load, adding some solar panelling will quadruple that; the rocket costs one hundred and twenty thousand schmuckers.

Cargo fifty four hundred kilogrammes.

Optional would be half a tonne of solar panelling at fifty thousand schmuckers, acceleration benches, acceleration couches, brig, mounted or dismounted missile launcher, missiles and/or fuel. Not so sure about the airlock/cargo hatch, maybe a hatchback?

Base cost five hundred and twenty five thousand schmuckers.

Neat business jet and lunar transport.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests