Ship Design Philosophy

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Armaments, Ordnance, and Newton's Third Law

A. Casters are probably the easiest weapon system to obtain.

B. Giving it a bigger bite would allow commercial spacecraft to deter opportunistic hijackings.

C. At a cheaper cost than either missiles or lasers.

D. Default defence against energy weapon systems.

E. You need an option against missiles.

F. And a way to attack, if only at close range.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Armaments, Ordnance, and Newton's Third Law

G. I think that a caster is a mass driver variant.

H. In theory, should have a lower muzzle velocity than a railgun.

I. Especially, since there is no discernible power requirement.

J. Based on quadruple turret configuration, the caster itself shouldn't be more than one eighth of a tonne.

K. As for ready rounds, your guess is as good as mine.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Armaments, Ordnance, and Newton's Third Law

L. There's also the option of solid shot.

M. Effect very much depends on mass and velocity, the part that we don't really know.

N. However, we know that the mass would be fifty kilogrammes, and going by mass driver ammunition, five hundred starbux.

O. Damage would be two dice, and, I suspect, orbital bombardment would be a feature.

P. Though, might be quite fun shooting solid shot through hulls.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Armaments, and Missiles, Torpedoes, Acceleration, and Cognitive Dissonance

1. Assuming that missiles and torpedoes use reactionary rockets as propulsion.

2. And if not, what do they use?

3. Since, I'd like that as an alternative to aforesaid reactionary rockets.

4. Their propulsion performance doesn't usually mirror the minimum required technological level.

5. Since, a standard missile is acceleration factor/ten, the missile is technological level seven, and the minimum required for that performance would be ten.

6. Unless, they're using early prototype, and that would seem prohibitively expensive.

7. Of course, this is all based on legacy rules.

8. As a compromise, I'd say that the warhead and guidance package is manufactured at the listed technological level.

9. But the propulsion unit, at a later one.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Engineering and Manoeuvre Drive Factor/Zero

1. The smallest canonical manoeuvre drive, default, would be factor/one for a five tonne spacecraft.

2. Fifty kilogrammes at a hundred kilostarbux, using half a power point.

3. Five thrust tonnes.

4. You add an external cargo cage and fill it with five tonnes, it suddenly doesn't become a manoeuvre drive factor/zero.

5. You half the acceleration to factor/point five, not factor/one milligravity.

6. If you install a factor/zero manoeuvre drive on a megatonne spacestation, with a semimegatonne of external cargo cage cargo, then explosively bolt them into infinity, and suddenly find you now have a factor/one manoeuvre drive.

7. Now, overclocking a manoeuvre drive factor/zero to factor/one for six minutes, is somewhat in a gray area.

8. There probably is a limit to how far you can stretch a manoeuvre drive given thrust, to push volume it, theoretically, wasn't designed for.

9. If we did spread that to one milligravity, that would mean that fifty kilogramme manoeuvre drive could push to five kilotonnes.

 

[Condottiere]

Apollo spacecraft used reaction control system (RCS) thrusters for maneuvering, specifically for attitude control and small translational adjustments. These jets were located on the Command and Service Module (CSM) and the Lunar Module (LM), and were used to maintain a desired orientation, change attitude, and make minor adjustments to the spacecraft's position.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

CSM Reaction Control System (RCS):
The Service Module (SM) housed 16 RCS thrusters, grouped into four quads. These jets were used for attitude control (maintaining or changing orientation) and small translational maneuvers (adjusting position). The Apollo Guidance Computer could interface with these jets, either automatically or through pilot input, to perform these maneuvers.

LM Reaction Control System (RCS):
The Lunar Module also had its own set of RCS thrusters for similar purposes during lunar orbit and descent. The LM's descent engine was also gimbaled, allowing for thrust vectoring and control of the spacecraft's attitude during descent.

Maneuver Types:
The RCS thrusters were used for a variety of maneuvers, including:
Attitude Control: Maintaining a specific orientation or rotating the spacecraft.
Small Translation: Making minor adjustments to the spacecraft's position.
Rotational Maneuvers: Changing the spacecraft's orientation.

Major Propulsion:
While the RCS thrusters were used for smaller adjustments, major propulsive maneuvers (like orbital changes) were handled by the main SPS engine on the Service Module.

Example:
After docking with the Lunar Module, the Command and Service Module might use its RCS thrusters to make small adjustments to the combined spacecraft's attitude or position.

AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Armaments and Concrete Bombs

A concrete bomb is an aerial bomb containing dense, inert material (typically concrete) instead of explosive. The target is destroyed using the kinetic energy of the falling bomb, making it a kinetic energy weapon. Such weapons can only practically be deployed when configured as a laser-guided bomb or other form of smart bomb, as a direct hit on a small target is required to cause significant damage. They are typically used to destroy military vehicles and artillery pieces in urban areas to minimize collateral damage and civilian casualties.[1]

Guided or unguided concrete bombs may also be used for training pilots and ground personnel, due to the advantages of cost (no explosives or fusing), ease of precise and accurate point of impact determination, minimized bombing range damage, and increased safety (when the bomb is deployed, it is inert).[2] Concrete bombs are also used in testing and evaluation of aircraft and bombs, such as the BDU-50.[3]

Concrete bombs have been used by the United States during the Iraqi no-fly zones conflict, and by France during the 2011 military intervention in Libya.[4][5]

Blocks from clods.

You just have to figure out how that translates into damage.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Armaments, and Missiles, Torpedoes, Acceleration, and Cognitive Dissonance

A. The advanced missile is about perfect in terms of making sense.

B. Technological level eleven rocket highly technologized to optimum fuel consumption by technological level fourteen.

C. At technological level eleven, default, thirty percent rockets, and thirty seven and a half percent fuel tank.

D. In practice, you could drop that down to twenty four minutes of acceleration, using the same fuel tank allocation.

E. In theory, one disadvantage could push that to nineteen minutes and twelve seconds.

F. Which, to be fair, would fall neatly within Confederation Navy missile doctrine.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Armaments, and Missiles, Torpedoes, Acceleration, and Cognitive Dissonance

G. For civilians, I wonder if there is a discernible change in performance for acceleration factor/nine, from ten?

H. You can drop that one technological level lower, from ten to nine.

I. I sort of suspect you'll run out of gas before you reach distant range.

J. Or, at least, be somewhere halfway through that range band.

I. If long range is five rounds, you wouldn't need to half that salvo until after that's passed.