2nd Ed Ship Design

[-Daniel-]

I want to say THANKS for the deckplans. I most especially want to thank you for making them hi-res.

I printed out the Scout/Courier on 24x36" paper and the lines were still crisp and clean!

SO VERY HAPPY!

Just curious, what scale minis are you using with your print out?

 

[phavoc]

What's the point of that though?

The outer hull has a greater diameter than the inner hull, and as mentioned one needs a minimum diameter of the spinning hull to avoid serious medical problems.
Making the outer hull the spinning one simply saves volume and material.

Let me illustrate this better:

This is a Lab Ship:

I'm saying that either:

1) the entire ship rotates. The whole thing spins around the central axis. That's "the outer hull spinning". The cutter is at 0g, the ring is at 1g.

Or

2) The entire ship doesn't rotate. Instead, a separate inner hull inside the circular ring (like an inner tube in a bicycle tyre) is what's rotating. This is what I would think of as a "double hull".

In the second case, the inner hull (the internal spinning ring) still has that minimum diameter required to avoid health issues, because its radius is the same as the outer hull.

(granted I'm assuming that this is how a Lab Ship works. For all I know it's got gravity plates in the whole thing and doesn't need to spin at all!).

The lab ship rotates around the middle ring, which does not rotate (it's locked to the rotation of the ship). Here is a link to a video of the B5 Omega class destroyer, which has the rotation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3eSXfhL9AA

Antigravity lifters just counter the pull of gravity - they don't affect a ships mass. So inertia is still there, and you still have to expend X amount of energy to move.

The Thruster plates in SOG were specific to DGP's interpretation of how grav thrusters worked for spacecraft. Though they aren't canonical (and it seems fair for them to offer an explanation since one didn't exist before. DGP had some excellent supplements).

 

[Sigtrygg]

If you look in the Death Station adventure the lab ship rotation is described.

 

[fusor]

So the spoke and central hub don't rotate, but the whole ring rotates? That's what it seems to say in Death Station (thanks for the pointer on that).

I guess the the inner surface of the ring must not be rotating then? Otherwise how does the spoke and hub not rotate while the rest of the ring does?

So I guess I'm back to square one on what a Double Hull means. Or if this is a double hull, then why? I don't really get what differentiates it from a Close Structure.

 

[rust2]

So I guess I'm back to square one on what a Double Hull means.

It is really not that mysterious, just take another look at the description in High Guard:

"Double Hull: This is a two-hulled cylinder where the outer hull (the whole, or at least a part) spins to create gravity and the inner hull does not."

It has nothing to do with the lab ship, the double hull is a cylinder, not a wheel like the lab ship. The inner cylinder (remember my pasta example: the spaghetti) does not rotate, around the inner cylinder is a second cylinder (the macaroni) which rotates. This second, rotating cylinder contains the habitat elements of the ship.

What you get is very similar to the Babylon 5 station from the series of the same name.

 

[fusor]

So I guess I'm back to square one on what a Double Hull means.

It is really not that mysterious, just take another look at the description in High Guard:

"Double Hull: This is a two-hulled cylinder where the outer hull (the whole, or at least a part) spins to create gravity and the inner hull does not."

It has nothing to do with the lab ship, the double hull is a cylinder, not a wheel like the lab ship. The inner cylinder (remember my pasta example: the spaghetti) does not rotate, around the inner cylinder is a second cylinder (the macaroni) which rotates. This second, rotating cylinder contains the habitat elements of the ship.

As described that's a huge waste of space though. If you have two cylinders (one inside the other, the outer one rotating only) then most of the ship be in low or zero-g - why have that? It makes no sense to me. I think it makes far more sense for the inner cylinder to be rotating and for people to be living on the inner walls, with the outer cylinder being stationary (so people can dock and move around on it, for engines and guns to be mounted on, etc). At least that would be advantageous over having a single rotating cylinder.

And the Bab5 Earthforce cruiser example is a variant on the Hamster Cage, isn't it? How is that a Double Hull? And the Bab5 station itself had a hollow rotating spherical section at the front, didn't it?

 

[rust2]

And the Bab5 Earthforce cruiser example is a variant on the Hamster Cage, isn't it? How is that a Double Hull?

It is of course not. As I wrote above, the Babylon 5 station is a double hull, not the cruiser.

 

[fusor]

And the Bab5 Earthforce cruiser example is a variant on the Hamster Cage, isn't it? How is that a Double Hull?

It is of course not. As I wrote above, the Babylon 5 station is a double hull, not the cruiser.

Maybe you missed my edit - parts of the station weren't rotating, but the front spherical part was and it looked like that was hollow (isn't that where the zen garden bit was? or was that along the axis?.
Then again, the bridge of Bab5 is just above the front on the axis of rotation, so technically Ivanova et al should have been floating around in zero-g .

 

[Sigtrygg]

Remember when Sheridan is travelling through the zero - g tube that runs through the center of the station only for a bomb to go off - he jumps out in the nick of time but unfortunately starts to slowly drift towards the 'ground' since the ground is moving fast enough to generate an effective artificial gravity Sheridan hitting it would kill him due to the relative velocity difference - he is saved by the Vorlon.

 

[phavoc]

And the Bab5 Earthforce cruiser example is a variant on the Hamster Cage, isn't it? How is that a Double Hull?

It is of course not. As I wrote above, the Babylon 5 station is a double hull, not the cruiser.

Maybe you missed my edit - parts of the station weren't rotating, but the front spherical part was and it looked like that was hollow (isn't that where the zen garden bit was? or was that along the axis?.
Then again, the bridge of Bab5 is just above the front on the axis of rotation, so technically Ivanova et al should have been floating around in zero-g .

You are right. B5 isn't double-hulled. The station rotates, but has a rigid structure it's attached to a rigid structure. It's the habitat ring that rotates, the rest does not:

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEVi2cI7ZXkWIAk74nnIlQ?p=babylon+5+station&fr=yhs-mozilla-001&fr2=piv-web&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001#id=2&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smikesworld.dk%2Fsmworld%2Fb5universe%2Ftechnical%2Fstation%2Fb5map.gif&action=click

 

[phavoc]

So I guess I'm back to square one on what a Double Hull means.

It is really not that mysterious, just take another look at the description in High Guard:

"Double Hull: This is a two-hulled cylinder where the outer hull (the whole, or at least a part) spins to create gravity and the inner hull does not."

It has nothing to do with the lab ship, the double hull is a cylinder, not a wheel like the lab ship. The inner cylinder (remember my pasta example: the spaghetti) does not rotate, around the inner cylinder is a second cylinder (the macaroni) which rotates. This second, rotating cylinder contains the habitat elements of the ship.

As described that's a huge waste of space though. If you have two cylinders (one inside the other, the outer one rotating only) then most of the ship be in low or zero-g - why have that? It makes no sense to me. I think it makes far more sense for the inner cylinder to be rotating and for people to be living on the inner walls, with the outer cylinder being stationary (so people can dock and move around on it, for engines and guns to be mounted on, etc). At least that would be advantageous over having a single rotating cylinder.

And the Bab5 Earthforce cruiser example is a variant on the Hamster Cage, isn't it? How is that a Double Hull? And the Bab5 station itself had a hollow rotating spherical section at the front, didn't it?

I may have confused you by posting the Omega cruiser. I didn't catch all the argument. But yes, it would be akin to a hamster-cage design.

I don't know where you'd use a double-hulled design, at least for a spaceship. Conceivably for a station, where you could put the inner hull to use with industrial needs or whatever. But a spacecraft would use the hamster-cage (ugh, I still hate that term). I've seen some illustrations with pretty large habitats spinning and smaller central hulls (the Space Park from BSG remake is one - https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=battlestar+galactica+space+park&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001).

Is that more of what is being discussed?

 

[Reynard]

"So the spoke and central hub don't rotate, but the whole ring rotates? That's what it seems to say in Death Station (thanks for the pointer on that). "

I'm reading the Lab ship descriptor in Death Station and see nothing about the ring rotating independent of the spoke and pinnace. "The lab ship is built as a ring structure which is rotated to provide centrifugal gravity simulation."

"The ship itself has minor thrusters positioned along the ring; they allow the ship to institute spin, or to stop it as desired."

Nothing saying separate structural movement but the second statement seems to imply the entire ship spins. There's also mention that the central spoke arraignment makes docking and undocking the pinnace easier when the ship is rotating.

 

[fusor]

Nothing saying separate structural movement but the second statement seems to imply the entire ship spins. There's also mention that the central spoke arraignment makes docking and undocking the pinnace easier when the ship is rotating.

Yeah, you're right I think:

Top of page 10:

APPROACHING THE SHIP
When the lab ship is approached, the most striking feature observed is the rotation of the ring. The play of light and shadow constantly reveals new facets of
the exterior hull. Not rotating, however, is the pinnace and its docking ring. The structure at the end of the single spoke is specifically mounted to counteract the
rotation of the ship, making docking easier for lesser skilled pilots.

Huh... so the spoke and the outer ring spin, but the little collar around the pinnace doesn't spin (and so the pinnace wouldn't either).

That seems like an awfully fiddly arrangement. I'd hate to be the pilot who has to guide the pinnace into a form-fitting ring like that.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, one of those fluffy non-rule descriptors. From decades ago when I originally bought the adventure I definitely saw the ring assembly within the spoke counter spinning though it would have to lock for a time to align the airlocks. It could have easily been possible to give the pinnace a matching spin when using the ring. It was a sciency cool factor to counter rotate.

 

[-Daniel-]

So to return to the overall topic of the 2nd Ed Ship Design, I have a question.

Now that folks have been able to play with the 2nd Ed Ship Design from HG, I am curious. Do you feel it has gotten easier, harder, or is just different slightly from 1e HG?

All conversation of double hulls aside, is the overall design system clearer?

Thoughts?

 

[wbnc]

So to return to the overall topic of the 2nd Ed Ship Design, I have a question.

Now that folks have been able to play with the 2nd Ed Ship Design from HG, I am curious. Do you feel it has gotten easier, harder, or is just different slightly from 1e HG?

All conversation of double hulls aside, is the overall design system clearer?

Thoughts?

Well after doing dozens of the same ships in both set ups, The new process takes a bit more math and some juggling to get things right. But it is a Lot more flexible and friendlier to smaller craft. At least in my opinion.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

MgT1 had several design sequences. MgT2 is most like the Capital Ship system in MgT1, but even more like LBB5.

There is only one system for spacecraft, covering everything from small craft to multi-megaton behemoths, and a near identical system for space stations.

I would recommend to use a spreadsheet, as I would for any ship design system, including LBB2. Once you have set up the basic calculations in a spreadsheet, you never again have to look at it, or ever again look at a drive table.

I find the new system much easier, you do not have to constantly refer to tables spread over several different books. A M-2 drive is 2% of the craft, for any craft size, much simpler than a few different drive tables.

There are fewer artificial design constraints, e.g. you can have as many weapons or screens as you want, it is not limited by PP number, instead if you want more screens, just make the PP a little bigger.

If you find that you do not have enough space in a ship, just make it a little bigger. A 125 dT ship works just as well as a 100 dT ship.

So, in conclusion, it is easier to make ships, and much easier to make just exactly the ship I want.


MgT2 is intentionally vague in many places, so it is not clearer. You have to make your own judgement calls sometimes.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I want to say THANKS for the deckplans. I most especially want to thank you for making them hi-res.

I printed out the Scout/Courier on 24x36" paper and the lines were still crisp and clean!

SO VERY HAPPY!

Just curious, what scale minis are you using with your print out?

I wasn't using miniatures. I was testing the resolution of the images.

I use 25mm when I play

 

[-Daniel-]

I want to say THANKS for the deckplans. I most especially want to thank you for making them hi-res.
I printed out the Scout/Courier on 24x36" paper and the lines were still crisp and clean!

Just curious, what scale minis are you using with your print out?

I wasn't using miniatures. I was testing the resolution of the images.

I use 25mm when I play

Ah, well printing them out blown up would test that. :lol:

I have toyed several times with moving to 25mm but I just can't quite let go of my 15mm horde. Maybe someday, but the idea of painting and collecting a whole new horde just sits wrong with me right now. :mrgreen: