How strong is my Starship Hull (was Starship Hulls)
- Thread starter atpollard
- Start date
rust said:
OK, so 9.5/13.5 or about 70% of a ship floats above the water line and 4/13.5 or about 30% of the ship is below the water line.
Water landings make a LOT of sense for any small starport or low tech world since meter-thick concrete slabs will be very expensive to build - especialy if a 3 meter deep pond will do the same job (for ships of 3 decks or less).
Yep, one only has to redesign the starships somewhat to ensure thatatpollard said:
even with their loaded weight all doors, cargo ramps and thelike are
above the waterline, and for ocean landings some means to stabilize
the ship (for example extendable "outriggers") and to prevent collisi-
ons with submarines (sonar sensors) are useful.
zero said:
They will not.
Your ship will have two heavy struts near the center of mass and a small strut for stability at the nose - just like 90% of all aircraft do.
Picture a jumbo-jet landing - the back wheels and struts support all of the weight and the nose gently touches down to provide stability.
Your 200 ton ship will need 4 heavy landing struts. If they place one at the front, one at the rear and two at the center (left and right sides) then the ship will be stable with no additional struts. If they locate all 4 struts near the center of mass (2 left and 2 right) then you will still need a light strut at the nose or tail for stability.
Another alternative would be a centipede-like craft with a strut and 1 meter square landing pad per 2.5 dTons of ship (40 landing pads under a 100 dT scout, or 80 landing pads under a 200 dT Free Trader) that would allow the ship to land virtually anywhere (except in mud). Even a heavy clay soil will support the ship and each strut will be fairly light (carrying only a 10 tonne load instead of a 200 tonne load) and needing 4 off-road or 6 standard tires per strut (since you can’t easily mount 5 tires on a strut).
Imagine a scout ship with 160 off-road tires tearing across the dunes.
Imagine a scout ship with 160 off-road tires tearing across the dunes.
far-trader
Mongoose
DFW said:
Indeed? It doesn't say so specifically anywhere does it? So how do you figure that? The listed TL of 6 perhaps? That's blatantly wrong given the performance ability. There's no way a reaction mass rocket is going to have the performance of Traveller missiles. The only logical solution is maneuver drive handwave technology and up the TL as errata. If you have another solution by all means let's hear it.
Just for the record, the Hercules requires the equivalent of a temporary runway. Though I love the U.S. C-130s and C-5s, the Russian Antonovs (22?, 124 and 225) on the other hand are designed to land on rough, totally unprepared ground. It shows too - massive amount of huge 'bubbly' tires attached to substantial landing struts. The 225 also has a massive load capacity and physically dwarfs the C-130 and even the C-5s.rust said:
Quick google:
Hercules (C-130) empty ~ 75,800 lbs; max takeoff ~ 155,000 lbs
An-225 empty ~ 385,800 lbs; max takeoff ~ 1,322,275 lbs
Wouldn't surprise if it was as big as a free trader - pretty sure it would at least be bigger than a scout.
Of course, with a sufficiently strong hull and gravitics, one could just, well, land - no struts or gear - just something (like displace-able plates) to level/stabilize the ship if the surface was streamlined (in the real world definition of such). This disperses the load, though it could be harder on surfaces overall
Of course, with a sufficiently strong hull and gravitics, one could just, well, land - no struts or gear - just something (like displace-able plates) to level/stabilize the ship if the surface was streamlined (in the real world definition of such). This disperses the load, though it could be harder on surfaces overall
And from near surface predators (ala giant squid) attracted to a nice warm radiating surfacerust said:
Which also might tend to attract exotic metal eating microbes and such starved for rare elements aside from the normal abuse from dissolved minerals (and corrosive salts).
Then there are those huge subsurface 'algae' like beds that latch on to a ship and make departures all the more exciting...
I've always loved water landings IMTU - lots of ref goodness - and 'floating' ships can be fun places to be on the rough waters, like say on certain waterworlds (with no buffering continents).
Relevant articles:
http://www.space.com/792-debris-shuttle-biggest-threat.html
http://www.aero.org/capabilities/cords/debris-risks.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9310-space-debris-impacts-on-shuttle-mission.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html
A lot of "take aways" in those articles for this thread. The 1 in 210 in 2006 was of particular interest. Those are the acceptable odds for NASA on losing a shuttle due to debris.
http://www.space.com/792-debris-shuttle-biggest-threat.html
http://www.aero.org/capabilities/cords/debris-risks.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9310-space-debris-impacts-on-shuttle-mission.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html
A lot of "take aways" in those articles for this thread. The 1 in 210 in 2006 was of particular interest. Those are the acceptable odds for NASA on losing a shuttle due to debris.
