Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Jan 25, 2019 5:58 pm

Starships: Hulls and Space/balls

32. The computer model would depend on how much bandwidth you need, and presumably your budget.

33. If your software costs more than the carft it is supposedly crafted for, wouldn't it be smarter to just have more skilled crewmembers, or just celebrate the fact that you could buy more balls for the money saved?

34. Evade one costs a million schmuckers, and fire control one bimegaschmuckers; interestingly, jump control only costs a hundred thousand schmuckers per factor, for a calculation that should be increasingly complex.

35. A barebones space/ball probably costs a quarter of a million schmuckers.

36. A bandwidth five computer costs thirty kiloschmuckers, but if you can't take full advantage of that bandwidth, can you downgrade it for a lower cost variant, as library and manoeuvre require no bandwidth?

37. Virtual crew has a requirement of five bandwidth and costs a megaschmucker, the more specialized virtual gunner has a similar bandwidth requirement and cost, but needs half the bandwidth per virtualized crewmember; if you can break that up, you only need one virtual gunner if it's decided to outsource that function, costing a hundred kiloschmuckers and half a bandwidth but possibly saving a crew space; it's possible that other crew functions require more bandwidth, having to cater for and deal with passengers being rather complex.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Jan 26, 2019 6:27 pm

Starships: Hulls and Space/balls

38. Despite appearances, having fixedly mounted your weapon system in the hull doesn't mean it takes up on volume, only that as a fixtures it requires no additional space.

39. The fact that High Guard doesn't feel it necessary to spell out the exact tonnage of turretted and barbetted weapon systems allows this illusion, though practically it does mean no space is taken at face value.

40. Smallcrafted drill lasers cost only one hundred and fifty kiloschmuckers, a beam laser costs three times more, has the same range but deals out only a quarter of the damage; though admittingly, is far more accurate.

41. A budgetted variant one hundred twelve and a half kiloschmuckers (any size increase for a mounted fixture is still only virtual).

42. A technological level ten variant can have a slight accuracy increase, modifying by plus one, or an intensified focus cutting through an additional two armour plated factors, or a rather high yield; I'd go for accuracy. This would be at the nominal price, assuming you still budget, of a hundred and fifty kiloschmuckers.

43. Is it worthwhile to make it energy efficient at high technology, it only saves you three quarters of an energy point and would bump up the price to one hundred eighty seven and a half kiloschmuckers; your energy budget would have to be very tight, or you might be considering continuous fire during dogfighting, since you still have to pull power for each shot taken, since turns are now happening a lot faster, but shouldn't ignore the laws of physics.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Jan 27, 2019 4:49 pm

Starships: Hulls and Space/balls

43. Basic sensors cost nothing, and require no tonnage, though you're penalized with a minus four modifier.

44. They are listed as radar and lidar; possibly that's a laser pointer twirling around, and the ship's cat identifying any reflected red spot.

45. Civilian grade halves that but at a cost of three megaschmuckers and a tonne of space.

45. A BALL Fighter, which capitalizes on being the cheapest combat craft, would be unnecessarily burdened financially and spatially.

46. That would necessitate a closer tie with a command and control centre for tactical information and direction.

47. You could have a dedicated reconnaissance variant.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:15 pm

Starships: Hulls and Space/balls

48. Depending on intended function, which corresponds to expected energy budget, you can tailor the type and output of the onboard power plant(s) and energy banks.

49. While it's not mentioned in High Guard, the minimum tonnage for a power plant for the default energy output is one tonne; it's approximately half that from about five to nine tenths of a tonne.

50. The most bang for buck is an early fusion reactor at technological level eight.

51. However, in this specific instance, a case can be made for a budgetted enlarged one tonne chemical plant, if the designer's intent is for a short range, short endurance vehicle that has access to a fuel supply, for two possible reasons, initial capital cost and a wish to keep the space/ball on a short leash.

52. Not an issue for planetary operations, orbit to dirtside connector, or short range taxi (because I expect a shuttle to have a bit more capacity).

53. Batteries are an option, if propulsion is by rocket, and for a BALL fighter, the armament is primarily ordnance.

54. A BALL fighter would need a fusion reactor to power armament and the manoeuvre drive, because it's at minimum double energy output at a very efficient fuel rate, though that does make that one tonne fuel tank seem like a waste of space, with the possibility of it being used as a turbocharger if you add in a rocket booster, for those times when you might want to outrun a missile.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:29 pm

Starships: Hulls and Space/balls

55. Reactionary rockets are available from technological level seven onwards, and are always a bad choice, since they suck gas at an unconscionable rate.

56. At best, at technological level ten you can have a factor three rocket that has a sustainable fuel consumption, though by then, you have manoeuvre drive factor three.

57. At technological level nine, with the introduction gravitational based drives, you could install all three variants, which would provide factor three in near orbit, factor two upto hundred diameters, and factor one to however far away from a gravitational well the current rule set allows.

58. Also, changing the size of the rockets made any rational for them nonviable, except on a pure tactical level.

59. The best role you can have is as a point defence fighter, and then only as an extension of a missile shield.

60. With a ten percent bunkerage, you could use a factor three rocket for three hours, a factor six for ninety minutes, a factor nine for an hour, a factor twelve for forty five minutes, or a factor fifteen for thirty minutes; finding thirty percent volume may be problematic, and again, seems only suitable as a missile platform.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:27 pm

Spaceships: Engineering, Chemical Power Plants, and Hydrogen Generators: Safer Solutions for Power Plants

High purity hydrogen is critical to reducing windage friction losses, increasing overall power plant efficiency. Some plants utilize bulk hydrogen while others produce hydrogen with on-site generators. Proton OnSite’s PEM hydrogen generators use only water and electricity, to generate gas on demand, eliminating exposure to hazardous materials and risk of personnel injury. A solid membrane separates the hydrogen and oxygen, ensuring a safe and consistent supply of ultra-high purity hydrogen for industrial use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mXa13CUMz0


Imagine if it's water in the tanks, which is practically free compared to my original choice, diesel. Also, would seem to resolve the oxygen problem as well.


Image

What is a Hydrogen Power Plant?
A hydrogen power plant is a concept design for a new widespread source of electricity. Essentially, it is a facility which uses hydrogen to produce electrical energy. It is being proposed that a large facility, not unlike a nuclear power plant in appearance, be constructed in the city of Peterhead, Scotland. Plans were first laid by GE in 2006; however, the logistics of supplying the power plant has delayed its construction. The cost involved with obtaining the hydrogen means that the overall cost of hydrogen-based electricity will be greater than that of current nuclear and petroleum-produced electricity.

How Does a Hydrogen Power Plant Work?
Large tanks of liquid hydrogen will feed into thousands of hydrogen fuel cells. These fuel cells are solid structures containing an electrolyte fluid and two terminals, much like batteries. The reactants flow into the cells, in this case hydrogen and oxygen. They intermingle with the electrolyte to produce an electrical charge and water as a byproduct. The water flows out another port while the electricity is siphoned off the terminals and held in gigantic multi-ton batteries. The electricity resides in the batteries until it is needed, in which case it is sent out through the local power grid just like any other type of power plant. In theory, this could be a near perfect source of energy as it has no dangerous byproducts and is just as fuel-efficient as the average internal combustion engine. The biggest problem is, and always has been, obtaining cheap supplies of hydrogen.

How Will The Hydrogen Be Obtained?
The reason this first hydrogen power plant is to be constructed in Scotland is because it is near the North Sea, where the Sleipner Field is found. This is a massive field of natural gas being worked and refined by the Norwegian company StatoilHydro. Natural gas can be processed into hydrogen with the greatest cost and energy efficiency with about 80% of the potential energy from the natural gas being retained in the form of hydrogen. This is done by a process called steam reforming. The natural gas is cooked at temperatures over 1,000 degrees Celsius and combined with water vapor. The result is hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The hydrogen can be harvested, bottled, and condensed into liquid for easy transport, while the carbon dioxide can be disposed of by re-injecting it back into the natural gas reservoir.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:59 pm

Starships: Engineering, Capacitors and Batteries

I think the basic difference between capacitors and batteries is the accumulation and discharge of energy.

Capacitors need to be able to be charge and discharge the energy required to power the jump drive within a turn, one reason they cost three megaschmuckers per tonne.

Batteries should have a limited performance in this regard, otherwise you might as well substitute them in the jump drive.

At best, batteries cost a hundred kiloschmuckers per tonne at eighty percent capacity of a capacitor, that's twenty four times cheaper.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:57 pm

Starwarships: Hulls and Escort Carriers

I tended to amuse myself by stating that an escort carrier is a propelled steel box, though in my imagination square like.

If you made it triangular, each side would be mutually supporting, and since only volume counts, may be not actually a factor in the efficient us of space onboard.

If you divide it into three parts, the peak could be bridge and accomodations, the middle what I would assume is the launch tube and recovery, and the bottom the hangar and engineering.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:06 pm

Spaceships: Hulls and Why SpaceX ditched lightweight Carbon Composites for Stainless Steel to make a sweaty Starship

SpaceX’s upcoming rocket called Starship Super Heavy formerly known as BFR, will no longer be made out of lightweight Carbon Composites, it’ll sweat a lot, and just MIGHT need a TON of WD-40.

So we’ll take a look at all of Elon’s most recent claims about stainless steel actually being the best option and see if we come to the same conclusion.

We’ll also take a look at some other rockets that are made of stainless steel and explain how SpaceX's use of this material is a little different as they’ll be using new manufacturing techniques and doing things that have never been attempted before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LogE40_wR9k


1. Stainless steel costs three bucks per kilogramme, which should be three fifths of a Credite Imperiale.

2. Can you cold form crystaliron?

3. Shiny surface resists heat better.

4. Stainless steel sandwich with varying layers optimizing specific performance.

5. Perforated hull; cooling.

6. Double you dee forty.

7. Balloon tank; how thin actually is the standard spaceship hull?
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:16 pm

Spaceships: Hulls and Why SpaceX’s Starship will fall like a skydiver and not fly like an airplane

Image

Ever since SpaceX tweeted this photo on September 13th, 2018, a lot of people fear the BFR is slowly turning into the space shuttle. Quoting ever growing wings and a giant heat shield covering the belly of the ship… so how is this any different than the Space Shuttle?


Today we’ll to cover three topics. First, we’ll compare the reentry of the space shuttle to the reentry of the BFS and show how they differ. Then we’ll explain what control surfaces allow the BFS to perform this reentry, and then we’ll compare the thermal protection systems of the Shuttle and the BFS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCCw_M8MAU0


I think that the fins while acting as airbrakes during reentry, and orientate the vehicle, they probably could give some form of lift during take off.

The fins are configurable, and it sort of makes the obvious comparison.

Image
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Feb 03, 2019 11:23 pm

Starships: Hulls and Space/balls

61. Configurable fins with embedded solar panelling could be rather useful to catch optimum rays from the sun.

62. They could also second as the landing gear.

63. Failing that, a telescoping tripod arrangement was my preferred choice.

64. I think the tripod legs could orientate themselves to the centre, and radiate outwards, more to stabilize the space/ball on the ground when the lifters are turned off.

65. A purely rocket propulsion would need to align the tripod land gear with the rocket, rather than the deck(s).
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:23 pm

Inspiration: Helsreach

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D4jr-0 ... 5LviaBosJ5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqUSHhWErdY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDwxnzHvhdo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyx-uwWc3_s


Probably one of the best fanmade works out there.

Apparently, it's also one big audition tape, and Games Workshop has commissioned him to do something named Angels of Death, a reference to the Blood Angels.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:10 am

66. I wonder how much radar, and by extension, lidar, reflection a sphere has, since you assume that except for the point facing said sensor, the beams should start steadily scattering even more along the curvature(s).

67. I understand that the TIE Fighter (the inspiration for the BALL Fighter), has a width of 6.3 metres, which is about the diameter of a space/ball.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:28 pm

Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:38 pm

Starships: Hulls and Space/balls

68. The important aspect of most of my design concepts are based on cost effectiveness, based on the current rules set.

69. A lot of computer programmes are expensive (comparatively) for smaller ship designs, and I don't see the option to pirate them.

70. At this point, it probably is cheaper to add more crew, though at the moment this is meant specifically for a cheap smallcraft, than to automate (further).

71. Commercial salaries are fixed in canon, and we know more or less life support costs.

72. With the military, less so, though a gunner is likely going to the equivalent of a private soldier or specialist's salt, which is probably around three to four hundred Credite Imperiale per month (divided by five from current going rates).

73. As I recall from Striker, it costs about base fifty thousand schmuckers per annum per soldier for care and feeding (and training), though cost accounting could probably spread the amount across various aspects of the military bureaucracy.

74. Apparently, it does cost the Pentagon a million bucks per annum per soldier to deploy them in Afghanistan, and I believe the implication is that is the direct cost involved, that includes support.

75. The extra guy could be given his own workstation, basically a double cockpit, where he acts as the weapons officer, or if you have a turret, up in there.

76. Let's be clear, the weapon's officer is there to save cash on having a dedicated fire control programme, which keeps down the cost of the computer as well, and as a second pair of eyes to supplement a rather measly sensor suite.

77. As regards to the military pay grade of either the pilot or weapon's officer, it doesn't necessarily have to be officer rank, but could be just two specialists, with relevant skills of zero.

78. Helicopter pilots have a warrant; smallcraft specialists with pilot one would get promoted to that rank, and probably transferred to a BALL Interceptor squadron.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:51 pm

Starships: Hulls and Ultima Thule Isn't A Snowman Any More

New images just downloaded from New Horizons show that the 2 lobes of MU69 are highly oblate spheroids, which really changes our view of the object, and simultaneously raises questions of formation process while providing clues as to why it's shaped this way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD8eVMXfsK4


Elemental class cruiser.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:01 pm

Spaceships: Engineering and Reactionary Rockets

Reactionary rocket

. Factor
.. fifteen
. Technological level
.. eleven
.. default
... cost adjustment percentage
.... 0%
. Displacement percentage
.. 30%
. Fuel usage percentage per hour
.. 37.5%

. Factor
.. fifteen
. Technological level
.. fourteen
.. high technology
... cost adjustment percentage
.... 50%
. Displacement percentage
.. 30%
. Fuel usage percentage per hour
.. 15%

. Factor
.. three
. Technological level
.. seven
.. default
... cost adjustment percentage
.... 0%
. Displacement percentage
.. 6%
. Fuel usage percentage per hour
.. 7.5%

. Factor
.. three
. Technological level
.. ten
.. high technology
... cost adjustment percentage
.... 50%
. Displacement percentage
.. 6%
. Fuel usage percentage per hour
.. 3%

. Factor
.. six
. Technological level
.. eight
.. default
... cost adjustment percentage
.... 0%
. Displacement percentage
.. 12%
. Fuel usage percentage per hour
.. 15%

. Factor
.. six
. Technological level
.. eleven
.. high technology
... cost adjustment percentage
.... 50%
. Displacement percentage
.. 12%
. Fuel usage percentage per hour
.. 6%

. Factor
.. nine
. Technological level
.. nine
.. default
... cost adjustment percentage
.... 0%
. Displacement percentage
.. 18%
. Fuel usage percentage per hour
.. 22.5%

. Factor
.. nine
. Technological level
.. twelve
.. high technology
... cost adjustment percentage
.... 50%
. Displacement percentage
.. 18%
. Fuel usage percentage per hour
.. 9%

. Factor
.. twelve
. Technological level
.. ten
.. default
... cost adjustment percentage
.... 0%
. Displacement percentage
.. 24%
. Fuel usage percentage per hour
.. 30%

. Factor
.. twelve
. Technological level
.. twelve
.. high technology
... cost adjustment percentage
.... 50%
. Displacement percentage
.. 24%
. Fuel usage percentage per hour
.. 12%

Thrust ten is the odd one out:

. Factor
.. ten
. Technological level
.. ten
.. default
... cost adjustment percentage
.... 0%
. Displacement percentage
.. 10%
. Fuel usage percentage per hour
.. 25%

. Factor
.. ten
. Technological level
.. thirteen
.. high technology
... cost adjustment percentage
.... 50%
. Displacement percentage
.. 10%
. Fuel usage percentage per hour
.. 10%

. Factor
.. ten - nine plus overload drive
. Technological level
.. seven
.. early prototype
... fuel inefficiency
.... 50%
... cost adjustment percentage
.... 1000%
. Displacement percentage
.. 20%
. Fuel usage percentage per hour
.. 37.5%


I think I'm repeating myself, but as regards missiles, I don't think I'd bother giving them more than a half an hour's worth of propulsion, as most of them tend to wander off after this point, so just max out acceleration and shoot within long distance.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:15 pm

Starships: Hulls and Space/balls

79. Ship's locker could and should include a technological level nine eight kilogramme Portable Airlock at a thousand schmuckers.

80. Considering that additional airlocks take up two tonnes (usually) and cost two hundred thousand schmuckers, just cutting a hole in the hull, and putting an airtight hatch on it begins to look appealing.

81.You could semi assemble a technological level ten Habitat Module in the hull, which includes survival rations, battery power, and life support for six occupants for one thousand man hours; weighs in a five hundred kilogrammes and costs twenty thousand schmuckers, though I'd suppose you could find something similar at technological level nine.

82. The other three options are acceleration benches, a four tonne brig, or a four tonne semi-stable.

83. A fresher is going to take up space, water bottles and diapers aren't likely to, though I believe that if you don't need to curtain off the area, a simple wall attachment with some form of negative pressure should work as well.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:29 pm

Inspiration: Mortal Engines

Image

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPeQ_24KnbU

Almost Forty Kayesque, if a hive city combined with an Imperial battleship.

The plot, acting, editing and script suck, despite being ripped off mostly from Bride of Frankenstein and Star Wars, with recognizable elements from other franchises like the Matrix and Mad Max, but just enjoy the special effects.
Condottiere
Chief Mongoose
Posts: 6807
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:14 pm

Spaceships: Engineering, Escape Velocity, and Reactionary Rockets

Well, obviously, you can turbonize the process by adding an appropriately factored rocket, since you'd want a minimum investment in space and cost, as rockets are twice as big as manoeuvre drives, though cost five times cheaper.

Or a high burn thruster, once you get actual performance specifications.

You could have an external rocket booster pack that drops off once you're in orbit, but I'm guessing the service would make quite a dent into operating profit.

A budget factor one variant is relatively very thirsty, at three percent per thrust hour, but if you use it only for a turn, that's 0.3% for presumably a technological level seven example, which may or may not be subject to some form of discount at higher technological level industrial bases.

This assumes a somewhat streamlined hull, not too sure how this works with a brick; I'd expect a planetoid would expect turbulence and quite a number of piloting checks.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests