Ship Design Philosophy

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
AndrewW
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4371
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby AndrewW » Sun Dec 04, 2016 4:58 pm

Condottiere wrote:3. Since only eighty percent of the planetoid is inhabitable, you actually only need to add seventy six point eight kilogrammes of bonded superdense armour plating.
The uninhabitable part is still subject to weapons fire.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8616
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:31 pm

I considered that.

Spaceships would need to have armour on the outside to protect their internals, but planetoids have that wastage as buffer, structural integrity and integral armour.

Unlike spaceships, you armour from the inside, since the skin of the planetoid doesn't need that armouring, and if it did, you might as well just use a spaceship.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4298
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby AnotherDilbert » Sun Dec 04, 2016 9:42 pm

Condottiere wrote:I considered that.

Spaceships would need to have armour on the outside to protect their internals, but planetoids have that wastage as buffer, structural integrity and integral armour.

Unlike spaceships, you armour from the inside, since the skin of the planetoid doesn't need that armouring, and if it did, you might as well just use a spaceship.
Even if the author of the rules says otherwise?

Armouring a lot of small compartments inside the ship would take a lot more armour, it would be very inefficient.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8616
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Dec 04, 2016 10:49 pm

Has this issue ever been addressed before?

You can externally armour plate a planetoid, and good luck with the buffered variant; if you evenly spread the armour, the volume of the vessel has to be increased, as well as the quantity of the armour, since it has to go in and out of the uneven surface and nooks and crannies. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's very inefficient, would create shell traps, or I guess energy beam traps that will allow any hit to be more effective in that area.

Consider the skin of the planetoid with it's organic factor two armouring to be the outer layer, used to absorb all or part of the initial blast. Once you minus that you only have to protect what's vulnerable, which according to High Guard is eighty percent of volume, or two thirds, for the buffered model.

If you're wondering how this effects turrets and bays poking out of the planetoid, they're still part of the eighty percent of the available volume, so you can armour them without violating that aspect.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8616
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:00 pm

Spaceships: Hullalujah and Stomaching Cast Iron

The four thousand schmuckers per tonne for a planetoid vessel includes standard plumbing, gravity plating and inertial compensation.

However, those interested in getting one from Home Depot and DIYing it yourself, you could get a planetoid for four hundred schmuckers per tonne from the spot market, and if you hollow out the interior, you get about a thousand schmuckers per tonne for the nickel iron, giving you a net profit of four hundred schmuckers per tonne.

However, to break even, total manufacturing costs to add in gravitational plating, inertial compensators, plumbing, and cover wages, equipment depreciation and whatever manufacturing overheads exist, you'd need to ensure it doesn't go above CrImp 4'400.00 per tonne.
Sigtrygg
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:23 am

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Sigtrygg » Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:03 pm

I agree with you.

In original CT HG2e, as clarified by TCS, the innate armour factor of a planetoid/buffered planetoid could be increased by adding armour up to the TL+innate AV.

I always assumed that the engineers who tunneled out the asteroid to make the spaces for drives etc added the armour to the 'boxes' they were tunneling, so the exterior remained planetoid but the inside was where the armour was added.
It is possible to select a planetoid as a hull, hollowing out spaces within it for
drives and equipment. Such planetoids are generally available for the finding.
However, a planetoid must allow 20% waste space (tonnage) for structural integrity;
a buffered planetoid has greater ability to withstand combat damage, but must
allow 35% interior waste space. Although a planetoid is essentially free, there is a
cost of Cr1,OOO per interior (non-waste) ton for fusion tunnelling and hollowing
of passages and compartments. In addition, there is a transportation charge (Cr100
per ton) to bring the planetoid into orbit above the shipyard.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8616
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Dec 05, 2016 3:03 am

Maybe when ship designs tend to be mostly abstract number constructions, this issue is less obvious.

So a mining drone costs two hundred kay schmuckers, and tunnels into one to six tonnes per day.

That averages out to three and a half tonnes per day, with a maintenance costs of CrImp 0.55 per day, or about CrImp 0.16 per tonne,or at eighty percent CrImp 0.126 per tonne, which is like peanuts, assuming raw peanuts cost between two to four hundred credits per metric tonne, in five metric tonne lots.

Let's say forty year mortgage on the drone, that would be a thousand schmuckers per month, or CrImp 32.88 per day, or CrImp 9.40 per tonne of ore.

Now, all we need to know is the cost of gravitational plating, inertial compensators, and standard plumbing.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8616
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:16 pm

Spaceships: Hullelujah, or I Have the Power!

So if we sell the bypdroduct of our litle DIY project, we'll make a gross profit of CrImp 390.00ish per tonne of nickel iron that we tunnelled out.

What we have is a series of halls and corridors, that presumably someone had competently architected out, without gravitational plates, inertial compensators, powered doorways, lights, and connected wiring and plumbing.

Essentially, without the wiring and plumbing, you have the equivalent of an ungravitated hull, valued at twenty five thousand schmuckers per tonne. And you're gifted nearly four hundred credits per tonne.

Only if power drops to below half basic, will onboard powered facilities start to stop working.

Batteries that can generate sufficient power for ship systems aren't usually worth it, compared to the power even the lamest of fusion plants can generate over a period of time; however, commercial variants should be more than adequate to keep a network of LED lights and and the ship intercom functioning, for weeks or months; laptops and tricorders can be plugged into USB C slots of local electronic equipment, and power them with their internal batteries, as well as interface with them. Doors can be manually operated

The problem comes down to firstly life support, and gravity. Life support could be supplemented with oxygen/filter masks and tanks; movement would be assisted with hand rails.

One thing that puzzles me is that the opinion of the forum is that without air conditioning, body chemistry will ensure the ship will heat up; High Guard states that without life support, the characters will start to freeze up; this could solve the problem with stealth in space and heatsinks, by occasionally switching life support off.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8616
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:42 am

Spaceships: Hullelujah, or Liiiiiiiife (nanananana)

When we all give the power
We all give the best
Every minute of an hour
Don't think about the rest
And you all get the power
You all get the best
When everyone gets everything
And every song everybody sings
Life is life (nanananana)


The boring part.

Stables have a construction cost CrImp 2'500.00 per tonne, and a CrImp 250.00 monthly upkeep.

Multi environmental space cost nothing, but one tonne of environmental equipment is required per twenty tonnes of volume so designated at MCrImp 0.5 each tonne and juiced with one scott per.

Which means in the absence of calling in the gravitational tilers, per twenty tonnes of living space you pay fifty thousand schmuckers to furbish it, another half million for the environmental equipment, and it has an operating cost of one scott per round, and five thousand schmuckers per month to keep it livable.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4921
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby phavoc » Tue Dec 06, 2016 2:34 pm

A drawback to using planetoids is that you have to pay extra for all that wasted space (i.e. the rock you aren't using).

Your internal costs would remain the same (plumbing, wiring, air).
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8616
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 06, 2016 5:36 pm

I already figured that using default costs you arrive at five thousand schmuckers per habitable tonne; not peanuts, but very affordable.

For the buffered variant, my calculator says CrImp 6'153.85 per habitable tonne.

I should point out the real issue is that for any percentage based component, it would have to be comparatively larger, twenty five percent for a planetoid, and about fifty percent for the buffered variant.
wbnc
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1553
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby wbnc » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:06 pm

phavoc wrote:A drawback to using planetoids is that you have to pay extra for all that wasted space (i.e. the rock you aren't using).

Your internal costs would remain the same (plumbing, wiring, air).
I would think a lot of the excess would be removed. No one says you can't sculpt a rock to the shape you want Of course another way to do it would be to pulverize the rock powder it. then cast it into shape using ice or some form of space-age cement.

The tird chooicw would beto core out the section you want..along the lines of coring an apple and use that section alone...
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8616
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:57 pm

I think you'd have to choose a planetoid that suggests that final form, much like a sculptor carefully selects a marble.

If you scoop out the centre, there isn't so much wastage but the need to keep structural integrity that won't allow you to completely utilize the mass. Whether or not that gives a bonus armour factor, I couldn't say except if the wastage is again twenty percent, then you should have the full two armour factors.

My take on it would be if you allow five percent wastage, you have structural integrity but no inherent armouring.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8616
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:40 pm

Starship: Basic Venture Design

Hull
. 120 tonnes
. 48 points
. technological level nine
. gravitated
.. MCI 6.0
. streamlined
.. MCI 1.2
. armour
.. none
Engineering
. 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
Bridge
. 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
Weapons
. hardpoints
.. turret
. firmpoints
Craft
Systems
. fuel scoops
Accommodations
. staterooms
.. ten
.. forty tonnes
.. MCI 5.0
. common areas
.. ten tonnes
.. MCI 1.0
Cargo
. dry
.. thirty and a half tonnes

MCI 26.63
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8616
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:01 am

Spaceships: Applying Primitive and Advanced Spacecraft Budgeting Formulas

I realized I made a fundamental mistake when trying to calculate the actual cost of a budgeted item, in this case engineering.


- Venture class Jump Drive

- Factor One

- One hundred twenty tonne volume

- Five overhead plus three tonnes

- Eight tonnes equals twelve megaschmuckers default

- MCI 9.00 with twenty five percent discount

- The budget price has to be based on default price, not calculated per tonne on the penalized weight increase
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8616
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:47 am

Starship: Basic Venture Design

Image

Now that I partially fleshed out the Venture class, as a basis for future subclasses, here's the likely civilian armament:

Weapons
. hardpoint
.. turret
... technological level nine
... triple
... one tonne
... MCI 1.0
. firmpoint
.. turret
... technological level seven
... single
... one tonne
... MCI 0.2

.. energy requirements
... weapons
.... turrets
..... 2

Systems
. fuel scoops
. ship's locker

Notes:
1. The Venture class is optimized for monojumps using a budgeted ten tonne jump drive; anything with a greater range can either move down to a hundred tonnes, or move up to two hundred.
2. This represents a slight deviation from trying to design the smallest possible starship in terms of volume, to one that completely utilizes the cheapest available jump drive; well, until the rules changes again.
3. The firmpoint turret is too large for the power drain and capability of smallcraft sized weaponry; it should be half a tonne and maybe cost MCI 0.15 as a compromise.
4. I can only think of emplacing either a laser drill or sandcaster, since neither range nor actual combat efficiency would be effected by being scaled down, and a turret allows a great field of fire; the laser drill option should make it a favourite for prospectors, and would be a nasty surprise for a boarding party, while the sandcaster would allow a more defensive stance.
5. Any missile racks should be in the hardpoint turret, or any other weapon system with a range greater than short.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8616
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Dec 09, 2016 3:28 pm

Starships: Crossing Bridges

Bridge size and cost are very much determined by hull volume in multiples of a hundred tonnes.

The smallest deafult bridge size for a starship is ten tonnes; you can shrink it to six tonnes, but with a dice modifier penalty of one for any action performed within it's cramped quarters, including piloting and strogation.

An interesting question is if you need to be on the bridge when calculating out the astrogation data, that the jump programme crunches and then coordinates the relevant ship systems for that trip down the rabbit hole?

All you need is really access to an interface that is connected to the ship's computer, where you can draw the data out and input the correct formulas.

Or you can stick in the pre-programmed jump tape into the cartridge slot.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8616
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:02 pm

Starships: Crossing Bridges

What you could also do, is shave off some of the tailfeathers from the scout, and replace the turret with a pop up variant.

When you depop the turret, at ninety nine tonnes, the six tonne bridge is default, and since it's already been established that it has everything required to jump, you can astrogate on the six tonne bridge to your heart's content without penalties; when it's time to jump, you pop up the turret and have the hundred tonne minimum volume required for a stable hyperjump.

I believe you can have the engineer sitting in the relatively spacious engineering compartment and do his computing from there; and if not, you only pop up the turret after the engineering check is completed.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 8616
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby Condottiere » Sat Dec 10, 2016 8:11 am

Starships: Crossing Bridges

With a ninety tonne hull, you could switch to the three tonne bridge, though at a penalty.

The question is, could this be used to initiate a hyperspace transition?

The immediate gut response would be no, though the cost of the bridge is exactly the same, and it has less hull volume normally it is in control of.

So a three tonne bridge can control a ninety nine hull in normal space, it's just creating a rabbit hole through another universe logic would indicate it couldn't perform.

However, a three tonne bridge can control a fifty tonne hull without penalty, and you can replace that with one and a half tonne cockpit, which also can control a fifty tonne hull without penalty, and at only a fixed cost of ten thousand schmuckers.

Nothing really stops a sub hundred tonne hull from initiating a hyperspace transition, it's just that in order to maintain a jump bubble, it requires a minimum hundred tonne volume. You could weld together two fifty tonne hulls, one would be empty, while the other has the required engineering, bunkerage and bridge to successfully initiate and complete the transition, while the other fifty tonne hull provides the required ballast to maintain jump bubble stability.

So you could have a one a half tonne cockpit for normal space, and an added three tonne bridge just for the transition control; after all, it's going to cost half a million, one way or another.
AndrewW
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4371
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: Ship Design Philosophy

Postby AndrewW » Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:02 am

Condottiere wrote:You could weld together two fifty tonne hulls, one would be empty, while the other has the required engineering, bunkerage and bridge to successfully initiate and complete the transition, while the other fifty tonne hull provides the required ballast to maintain jump bubble stability.
One could use docking clamps or breakaway hull.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests