Launch Tubes

[phavoc]

In Trav, crew are in pressure suits. At TL's 11+ they will be "unbulky" enough. Also, in MGT the craft have grav drives so they can go over other craft. One 'door' for launch, another for recovery.

Yeah, pressure suits would be sufficient, and you can put gravity on the deck easily enough.

The only issue with one door in, another door out is you still have the same problems old-style flattops have. That is you are launching from the front, recovering from the back, and one wrong move and your aircraft can plow into the other group. Even with grav-assist that's still a risk.

Would be better to have a recovery bay, an interim hangar, then launch bay. Still occupies same amount of tonnage, but the separation at least gives you as much protection as you can hope to get from that sort of design. And, in a pinch, you could conceivably launch or recover simultaneously from both bays (i.e. two bays launch, then two bays recover)

 

[F33D]

The only issue with one door in, another door out is you still have the same problems old-style flattops have. That is you are launching from the front, recovering from the back, and one wrong move and your aircraft can plow into the other group. Even with grav-assist that's still a risk.

Well, not really. That was a problem on the flat tops because the approaching aircraft had minimum approach speed (or they drop out of the sky). That isn't the situation with spacecraft. They can enter the "hanger" as slowly as they want. Think of it more akin to a parking garage with autos. Two big open doors. One for cars leaving and one for cars arriving. They would have even more control than that. The oboard computer could ensure no collisions with anything in the immediate hanger area. A la Google autonomous car.

 

[phavoc]

Well, not really. That was a problem on the flat tops because the approaching aircraft had minimum approach speed (or they drop out of the sky). That isn't the situation with spacecraft. They can enter the "hanger" as slowly as they want. Think of it more akin to a parking garage with autos. Two big open doors. One for cars leaving and one for cars arriving. They would have even more control than that. The oboard computer could ensure no collisions with anything in the immediate hanger area. A la Google autonomous car.

Assuming everything went right on the flaptop (no trap failure, no damaged aircraft, no pilot error, no bad weather/seas) they didn't have that issue. Under perfect, non-combat conditions I agree with what you are saying. If the Germans can invent smart parking garages that stack, store and retrieve cars, auto-parking spacecraft should be easy.

But space craft, coming back from combat will face pretty much all the same issues ('cept they probably don't have to worry about space weather). The crafts drives or AG equipment may be damaged or non-existent, the pilot could be wounded, damaged instruments, etc. And a warship should always be built to assume the worst when it comes to combat conditions.

 

[Condottiere]

Umbilical tubes, leaving the ship floating in vacuum filled dock.

What's the exit speed of fighter leaving a launch tube? I think 1G is supposed to be 6000km/h.

 

[phavoc]

Umbilical tubes, leaving the ship floating in vacuum filled dock.

Not sure what you are referencing here. Do you mean to say have the fighters dock to umbilical tubes?

What's the exit speed of fighter leaving a launch tube? I think 1G is supposed to be 6000km/h.

MGT launch tubes don't have any reference regarding speed, nor do they mention anything about it being accelerated like a catapult. So one could say you launch at 1G and have to accelerate, or small craft launch at maximum velocity. Or anywhere in between.

 

[F33D]

But space craft, coming back from combat will face pretty much all the same issues ('cept they probably don't have to worry about space weather). The crafts drives or AG equipment may be damaged or non-existent, the pilot could be wounded, damaged instruments, etc. And a warship should always be built to assume the worst when it comes to combat conditions.

[/quote]

Ships in that bad of shape won't "land". They don't now. But, it is FAR, FAR easier under Trav spaceship conditions than under aeronautic flight conditions. SO far easier it isn't even funny.

Except in name, there is VERY little in common.

 

[GypsyComet]

Assuming the carrier isn't also bobbing and weaving, still has its landing assist tractors operational, and hasn't taken a meson hit somewhere important, sure.

Traveller's published carriers are still carrying a lot of weaponry, and many have spinal mounts. They are likely to be in the thick of things. The only carriers that want to be far, far away are Battle Tenders, since they dedicate so much space to their Riders that they tend to be more fragile AND are the only ride home for Line combatants.

The specific problems may look different, but the overall problem is the same: getting something that may have more delta-V relative to the carrier than is healthy into a small area for recovery.

 

[phavoc]

Ships in that bad of shape won't "land". They don't now. But, it is FAR, FAR easier under Trav spaceship conditions than under aeronautic flight conditions. SO far easier it isn't even funny.

Except in name, there is VERY little in common.

Yes, it's true that since they don't have to play with heavier-than-air craft they don't have to worry about minimum speed and lift, but it's not totally dissimilar. Damaged ships don't behave the same as non-damaged ones, and wounded pilots don't always fly the best (usually damaged ship and wounded pilot go together). That remains the same whether it's nautical or not.

Perhaps pilots can be recovered by rescue ships. I dunno. But I would think that the assumption is you may have less-than-optimal conditions and design your ships and operations accordingly.

Assuming the carrier isn't also bobbing and weaving, still has its landing assist tractors operational, and hasn't taken a meson hit somewhere important, sure.

MGT left out tractors and repulsors. Technically they don't exist in the MGT Traveller universe at the moment. Why they are gone I dunno.

Traveller's published carriers are still carrying a lot of weaponry, and many have spinal mounts. They are likely to be in the thick of things. The only carriers that want to be far, far away are Battle Tenders, since they dedicate so much space to their Riders that they tend to be more fragile AND are the only ride home for Line combatants.

Yeah, I kinda wondered about that. Some of those carriers are pretty heavily armed and armored, but for their tonnage they don't belong in a battleline or in range of the enemy's ships. That's what escorts and a CAP is supposed to be for. If something as big as them breaks through and starts to come after them, they are gonna be toast.

The specific problems may look different, but the overall problem is the same: getting something that may have more delta-V relative to the carrier than is healthy into a small area for recovery.

Agreed.

 

[GypsyComet]

Yeah, I kinda wondered about that. Some of those carriers are pretty heavily armed and armored, but for their tonnage they don't belong in a battleline or in range of the enemy's ships. That's what escorts and a CAP is supposed to be for. If something as big as them breaks through and starts to come after them, they are gonna be toast.

One thing to note is that "carrier" is not a black-and-white designator in many published ships. The AHL is a Cruiser that carries fighters, as just one example.

 

[F33D]

The specific problems may look different, but the overall problem is the same: getting something that may have more delta-V relative to the carrier than is healthy into a small area for recovery.

No, it isn't. With aircraft they HAVE to have more. There is NO, ZERO, ZIP, NADA choice. With spacecraft they can match. In fact the space carrier can slave the close fighters to its controls and automatically have them match PRECISELY its maneuvering, so as to make it automatic. So, apples and oranges.

 

[phavoc]

One thing to note is that "carrier" is not a black-and-white designator in many published ships. The AHL is a Cruiser that carries fighters, as just one example.

Yep, it carries 60 fighters and half a dozen gunboats. At least that's the standard loadout in the Arrival Vengeance book.

There are modern wet-navy examples of hybrid ships, like the IJN Mogami refit, the modern-ish Italian Vittoria Venetio. Newer hybrids have reduced or eliminated their cruiser-class armament in favor of heavier airwings. The older Russian Kiev-class mounted some ASM's, though their newer Kuznetov class dropped that.

 

[Condottiere]

Umbilical tubes, leaving the ship floating in vacuum filled dock.

Not sure what you are referencing here. Do you mean to say have the fighters dock to umbilical tubes?

What's the exit speed of fighter leaving a launch tube? I think 1G is supposed to be 6000km/h.

MGT launch tubes don't have any reference regarding speed, nor do they mention anything about it being accelerated like a catapult. So one could say you launch at 1G and have to accelerate, or small craft launch at maximum velocity. Or anywhere in between.

While that doesn't quite apply here, think of a submarine entering the lost city of Atlantis, sure they have an air bubble contained within the domed dock, but suppose they don't and they just use umbilical tubes to transfer goods and personnel. The dock shelters the smallcraft, and doesn't need to be continuously pressurized and depressurized.


A departing ship is going to have to be faster to get out of the way of the mothership and the one that thirty seconds behind it. Also unlike RL, the catapult launch could actually save fuel consumption.

 

[GypsyComet]

Space carriers don't need to launch into the wind, or straight off the bow, so getting out of the way can be simple on a large enough ship: point the tubes sideways.

 

[phavoc]

While that doesn't quite apply here, think of a submarine entering the lost city of Atlantis, sure they have an air bubble contained within the domed dock, but suppose they don't and they just use umbilical tubes to transfer goods and personnel. The dock shelters the smallcraft, and doesn't need to be continuously pressurized and depressurized.

Ah, ok. That would make sense. In this case it would sort of be something along the lines of having a portion of the small craft docked in a 'hood' of sorts? That would work for say crew access, but you'd still have to go outside in space to do any sort of repairs on the ship.

A departing ship is going to have to be faster to get out of the way of the mothership and the one that thirty seconds behind it. Also unlike RL, the catapult launch could actually save fuel consumption.

In theory just using their thrusters to leave the ship would be sufficient to attain escape velocity from the mothership. Small craft can now accelerate to more than double what larger ships can move at. Fuel's not really an issue for most ships. It's easy enough to have fuel endurance greater than pilot endurance.

 

[phavoc]

One thing to note is that "carrier" is not a black-and-white designator in many published ships. The AHL is a Cruiser that carries fighters, as just one example.

Just as an FYI, I was reviewing the old Supplement 5 design of AHL and noticed that the fighters are stored vertically, kind of like bullets in a chamber. 60 fighters and two launch tubes on the AHL. Makes for an interesting design.

I highly recommend picking up the DVD's for reference. Very handy! But I still prefer my dead tree reference's.

 

[GypsyComet]

I have three AHL boxes, though only one is complete. No need for the PDF.