High Guard...Flattened Sphere Hull?

Standard and sphere seem identical except one is cheaper. Am I missing errata?
 
Agreed with previous speakers; Streamlined is streamlined, regardless of shape.


Moppy said:
Standard and sphere seem identical except one is cheaper. Am I missing errata?
No, you are not missing anything.

Standard configuration is just a default, you didn't really make a choice. It's a perfectly valid choice, but may not be optimal.

Configuration Sphere may have other disadvantages, such as difficulty making good deck plans.
 
Maybe in a different world, spinal mount length and armor values would be affected by hull configuration.
 
149e0740948c7e7a1991beb51131b11f.jpg


Easily resolved.
 
THAT’S NO MOON!

It’s a....I don’t know what that is! :). And yes, we need deck plans!

As for my eco ship I ended up with a more assault transport (e.g. flying bus) like layout.

Sadly even with 10% discount, budget components, etc. still comes to 19.7 MCr for a J2 100 ton ship. Though if used.... :mrgreen:
 
AnotherDilbert said:
Agreed with previous speakers; Streamlined is streamlined, regardless of shape.


Moppy said:
Standard and sphere seem identical except one is cheaper. Am I missing errata?
No, you are not missing anything.

Standard configuration is just a default, you didn't really make a choice. It's a perfectly valid choice, but may not be optimal.

Configuration Sphere may have other disadvantages, such as difficulty making good deck plans.

From a structural standpoint a sphere may be stronger due to intrinsics of the geometry. Not sure why the shape gets a discount on cost...building a sphere normally involves more effort.
 
Rerednaw said:
From a structural standpoint a sphere may be stronger due to intrinsics of the geometry. Not sure why the shape gets a discount on cost...building a sphere normally involves more effort.

minimum surface area = less hull metal

advanced construction tech that doesn't care about shape

although that doesn't explain low tech spacecraft costing
 
Condottiere said:
Presumably, microgravity resolves structural construction stress.

Yes quite possible. Maybe they squirt liquid hull metal into space and it naturally forms a bubble in the "absence" of gravity.
 
Hmmm.... What about outgassing? Won’t that turn the surface of the bubble porous as metal boils away in vacuum?

Also wondering about cooling - specifically cooling too fast. Will metals cool faster in a coolant media (water, oil, etc.) or in vacuum?
 
Linwood said:
Also wondering about cooling - specifically cooling too fast. Will metals cool faster in a coolant media (water, oil, etc.) or in vacuum?

Conductive heat transfer is potentially much faster than radiative heat transfer, so metals will cool much slower in vacuum, faster in air, and much faster in liquid.
 
This suggest the liquid metal in the “bubble” will solidify in the fully-annealed state - so likely peak ductility but lower hardness and tensile strength. That may not be an ideal condition for structural hull elements.
 
Traveller metals are “smart” or atomically “massaged” somehow. Bonded Armor has some “electrical current that strengthens the atomic bonds”

I think we are supposed to believe the cost modifiers at TL 7 are a rules/mechanical simplification an uncommon situation (TL 7 in space) that realistically won’t happen, or if it does they just auto-lose to a type S anyway so the stats don’t matter.
 
I suspect the config mod is not all that carefully considered...

As Moppy hinted before, the config mod is somewhat connected to surface area (and hence needed armour mass). As usual MT and especially TNE and T4 were more detailed.
 
Back
Top