Ship Design Philosophy

We did have a modular missile design sequence, i'd argue that short/mediumish duration ordnance would still use rockets as propulsion.

Part of the problem with modular is that if you use a standard launcher, everything has to be plug and play, compared to attaching them to wing pylons or a bomb bay.

As regards to sandcasters:

1. I think their potential is criminally under-used.

2. If I understand their range correctly, it's adjacent.

3. However, I'd dogfight and close to touch, and unload the entire magazine, if possible.

4. It's basically my vision of dive bombing in space, or

5. Close ground support.

6. If I were the opposing commander, my big fear would be if sandblaster armed fighters broke through and went after the baggage train, as opposed their more nimble escorts.
 
Speed of a freefalling sandblaster in space would be velocity of the dispensing spaceship, plus whatever boost the sandcaster launcher gives, if shot straight ahead.

On the other hand, as a caltrop mine, dropped in the path of the pursuer, you'd also want to minimize the time the other ship has to react.
 
Spaceships: Engineering and How Does a Star Destroyer FLY in Atmosphere?

Ever wonder how a massive Imperial Class Star Destroyer can fly in atmosphere? How does it survive entering a planets gravity well and flying out? Well we take a deep look at the science (space magic) of the star destroyer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYEm7Rq5fEs


1. Repulsor lifts

2. Inertial compensator bubble

3. Twenty three hundred gravities acceleration
 
Spaceships: Drop Ships

A common vehicle in Military Science-Fiction: A Drop Ship is a craft used to carry troops, vehicles and/or supplies from an orbiting ship to the surface of a planet or natural satellite and back, sometimes while under fire. Some are effectively a Military Mashup Machine between a space shuttle and a transport helicopter, while others are full-sized landing craft that are substantially larger. If the ship is armed and/or the troops involved happen to be reinforcements, it may be the vehicle of a Gunship Rescue. Drop ships can go by may different names. These include, but are not limited to: drop ship, assault shuttle, landing craft. In a proper sci-fi setting, the size and configuration is limited only by the author's imagination.

Truth in Television, given the fact that the physical requirements of "getting from a planet to orbit and back" are far, far different than those of "getting from orbit around one planet to orbit around another". Think of the lunar lander as a kind of Drop Ship and you'll get the idea.
For when the vehicle is not designed to go back up, see Drop Pod. Sometimes, deployment results in a rain of men.

...

One of the most famous, if not the Trope Maker, is the dropship from Aliens. The ship (maybe) and its pilot (definitely) were inspired by Starship Troopers, though the preferred method in the book for deploying the Mobile Infantry was literally to drop them from orbit. However, drop ships were used when the deployment was on a more relaxed schedule, and ships were used to take the MIs off the planet. The movie, though, played it straight.

...

Averted for Rule of Funny in Futurama.
Captain Zapp Brannigan: As you know, the key to victory is the element of surprise. [presses Big Red Button] Surprise!
[bay doors open under soldiers, dumping them onto the planet below.]

...

The closest real-life equivalents to this trope are military gliders. Granted, these works only in atmospheric conditions, but it was an accurate and pretty reliable way to get airborne soldiers and heavy equipment, such as artillery and vehicles, where they were needed. Unlike normal gliders, they did not truly soar, and had to be cut loose from their carrier planes a short distance from their destination. They were only used during World War II, after which they were replaced by helicopters.

As mentioned above, the Lunar Lander used in the American Apollo missions could be considered a dropship at its most basic, simplified elements: A vehicle capable of transporting people and cargo from an orbiting ship to the surface and back again. Granted, however, that the complete Lunar Lander does not return, only the crew compartment, and as such the lower portion of the Lander along with any cargo is left behind.

Almost-Real Life Example: The Small Unit Space Transport and Insertion concept of the U.S. Marine Corps is a serious proposal (though one not likely to become reality any-time soon) to deploy Marines to anywhere on Earth via a small sub-orbital Space Plane. The flight profile would be similar to that of a military glider, but with a portion of the time spent in space under rocket power.
 
Spaceships: Bridges, Space Stations, and Command

I was re-examining space station design, to see if I could pull out any chestnuts from there.

A command bridge can be installed in military space stations, and are capable of commanding fleets across an entire system. A bridge on board a space station can be given command bridge capabilities by doubling its cost. It functions as a normal bridge but also grants Dice Modifier Plus One to all Tactics (naval) checks made by Travellers within it.
 
Spaceships: Bridges, Space Stations, and Command

Actually, that could just mean adding another hundred kay schmuckers per hundred tonnes of hull.

Space station bridges wouldn't be able to do astrogation, and piloting would be pretty crappy, beyond sort of being to handle just a little waggling around; however, nothing against using them as a pure fire control, internal security, engineering and command centres.
 
Spaceships: Engineering and Budgetted Solar Panelling

At a hundred kay schmuckers per tonne, it probably doesn't matter.

But since minimum tonnage is half a tonne, and if you don't need that large a coverage, efficiency is lowered by twenty percent, and that means it costs thirty thousand schmuckers, instead of fifty, saving you twenty thousand, which in the scheme of things isn't a lot, though perhaps for more private users it would.
 
Spaceships: Engineering, Jump Drives, and Narrowing Down Range

There are three possible answers:

1. jump factor exactly and below

2. mathematically, jump factor plus forty nine percent of a parsec, and

3. Interstellar Wars, jump factor plus a quarter parsec.

I'm inclined to favour an Interstellar War interpretation of this, not because it seems a compromise between the other two possibilities, but primarily because in two weeks you could jump three parsecs with only a factor one jump drive.

Next up, I beieve that one way to control more or less exact jump range is by feeding the jump drive a precise amount of energy pro rataed to the exact distance calculated between the entry and exit points of the rabbit hole.

Since jump drives require the same amount of fuel regardless of how much the distance varies from the general parsec range, specifically experienced in insystem microjumps, this is not an issue.
 
Spaceships: Engineering, Jump Drives, and Narrowing Down Range


Or,

You have to have the required percentage to jump that far, as well as the additional the power boost, though the technological level limiter permits that extension to twenty five or forty nine percent of a parsec.

Of course, it would help if we knew the exact distances between destinations in order to extract the maximum usage of this mechanic.
 
Spaceships: Engineering and Customized Solar Panelling

.. Solar panelling
... technological level
.... nine
... tonnage
.... half a tonne
... output
.... power plant
..... rated fifty scotts
.... power plantless
..... virtual fifty scotts
...... one hundred and sixty six tonnes
... cost
.... 50'000 schmuckers

.. Solar panelling
... technological level
.... nine
... budget
.... increased size
... tonnage
.... half a tonne
... output
.... power plant
..... rated thirty seven and a half scotts
.... power plantless
..... virtual forty scotts
...... one hundred and thirty three tonnes
... cost
.... 30'000 schmuckers
 
Starships: Hulls, Armouring and Planetoids

Some time ago I had calculated that the formula for nickel iron armouring factor was five percent plus seven and a half per factor.

I was trying to reconcile interstellar costs between planetoids and standard starships, when the thought came to me that I'd gladly sacrifice an armouring factor in order to retrieve seven and a half, or even five percent back for planetoids.

Then the thought hit me, perhaps spaceships actually do need a minimum of armour factor two in order to operate in deep space.
 
Starships: Engineering, Fractional Jumping, and Fuel Usage

So, I've ended up with a jump drive that has a performance of one hundred and eighty parsec tonnes. What can I do with it?

Well, if I had a one hundred and eighty tonne hull, I can jump one parsec with a fuel usage of eighteen tonnes; or I could microjump, and still use eighteen tonnes of fuel.

If i had installed this on a default scout, I could jump one point eight parsecs, which might be a tad shorter than the distance to an neighbouring starport, and use up eighteen tonnes of fuel.

If a free trader had one of these, they'd only jump ninety percent of a parsec, though they'd still use twenty tonnes fuel. The rules are quite clear on this, the minimum default fuel usage is ten percent of volume. Which could correspond with a default minimum of ten tonnes for a jump drive.

However, after one parsec/ten percent fuel usage, that percentage can be pro rataed.
 
Spaceships: Armaments, Railgun Spinal Mounts, and Steel Ball Bearings

One interesting aspect of modifying the size of ordnance based weapon systems is how this effects the ammunition, which is why I've always drawn the distinction between the launcher and the missile.

You can squeeze in a smaller missile into a larger launcher, but unless it's like a spigot mortar, not a larger missile into a smaller launcher.

It would be interesting to know what precise material the ammunition for railgun spinal mounts is made from, since I'm pretty sue I can mine nickel iron ones from asteroids a lot more cheaply. And even if it turns out crystaliron, the nickel iron ones look like an interesting cheaper alternative.

Going through the technological level based modification process and ending up with larger, though same damage potential causing ammunition, would that mean the manufacturing process spat out balls that had a larger volume, but were less dense?

Things to consider.
 
Starships: Planetoids, Wasteage, and Transitional Cost Accounting

On the tactical level, planetoid hulled spaceships operating within a well established infrastructured environment, are probably the best bang for buck warships; commercially, ordinary spaceships can only compete by removing the gravitational plating.

Now, my view is that armouring tends to cost the same, with some minor variations, regardless of the hull shape, more in terms of actual tonnage used. Neat thing about planetoids is, it's based on a percentage of the cost of the hull, which for all intents and purposes is peanuts; while I'd dispute that the actual amount should be based on the non wasteage displacement, in terms of cost it isn't an issue.

Likewise, you can use the total amount of tonnage of the planetoid as hardpoints, meaning your density of fire certainly equals that of comparable standard hull ships. Get a hundred kay tonne planetoid, reinforce it, and pound for pound, it can take more pounding than a battleship.

Despite disadvantaged by being unable to skim a gas giant for fuel, normal operations tend to make fusion plants only sip at the brims of their bunkerage, which can be well extended by extending solar panelling, so the tank only needs occasionally filling up.

It's when it comes to jumping, that extra twenty percent does cost you in terms of a larger hyperdrive, and more fuel requirement. The only way that can get squared is there's a jump tender specifically assigned to two or three planetoids, passaging each individually, which would tend to favour rather long term military planning.

Commercially, it would be a rather barebones operation, basing it more on minimums dictated by the rules, rather than tonnage optimizations. You don't have to power wasteage, just the remaining four fifths of the ship, and even that could be limited to fragile cargo, vital ship systems, and personnel quarters.
 
Spaceships: Heat Shields - Things Kerbal Space Program Doesn't Teach

The science of Aerothermodynamics covers what happens during a spacecraft's fiery flight through a planetary atmosphere as it sheds speed, converting kinetic energy into thermal energy. This represents a complex interaction between fluid mechanics, thermal radiation and chemistry.
The engineering required to shield hardware against this intense heating is an equally complex multi disciplinary art.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLHo9ZM3Bis


Apparently, not an issue for manoeuvre drive equipped spacecraft. Though lifters are cheaper than coating the vessel with heat shielding.

How deep do you have to dip into a gas giant in order to skim that milk cow?

Could add parachutes, to either land the spacecraft, or slow it down on landing.
 
Spaceships: Hulls and Heat Shields

Atmospheric entry is the movement of an object from outer space into and through the gases of an atmosphere of a planet, dwarf planet, or natural satellite. There are two main types of atmospheric entry: uncontrolled entry, such as the entry of astronomical objects, space debris, or bolides; and controlled entry (or reentry) of a spacecraft capable of being navigated or following a predetermined course. Technologies and procedures allowing the controlled atmospheric entry, descent, and landing of spacecraft are collectively termed as EDL.

Animated illustration of different phases as a meteoroid enters the Earth's atmosphere to become visible as a meteor and land as a meteorite
Atmospheric drag and aerodynamic heating can cause atmospheric breakup capable of completely disintegrating smaller objects. These forces may cause objects with lower compressive strength to explode.
Crewed space vehicles must be slowed to subsonic speeds before parachutes or air brakes may be deployed. Such vehicles have kinetic energies typically between 50 and 1,800 megajoules, and atmospheric dissipation is the only way of expending the kinetic energy. The amount of rocket fuel required to slow the vehicle would be nearly equal to the amount used to accelerate it initially, and it is thus highly impractical to use retro rockets for the entire Earth reentry procedure. While the high temperature generated at the surface of the heat shield is due to adiabatic compression, the vehicle's kinetic energy is ultimately lost to gas friction (viscosity) after the vehicle has passed by. Other smaller energy losses include black body radiation directly from the hot gases and chemical reactions between ionized gases.
Ballistic warheads and expendable vehicles do not require slowing at reentry, and in fact, are made streamlined so as to maintain their speed. Furthermore, slow-speed returns to Earth from near-space such as parachute jumps from balloons do not require heat shielding because the gravitational acceleration of an object starting at relative rest from within the atmosphere itself (or not far above it) cannot create enough velocity to cause significant atmospheric heating.
For Earth, atmospheric entry occurs at the Kármán line at an altitude of 100 km (62.14 mi / ~ 54 nautical mi) above the surface, while at Venus atmospheric entry occurs at 250 km (155.3 mi / ~ 135 nautical mi) and at Mars atmospheric entry at about 80 km (50 mi / ~ 43.2 nautical mi). Uncontrolled, objects reach high velocities while accelerating through space toward the Earth under the influence of Earth's gravity, and are slowed by friction upon encountering Earth's atmosphere. Meteors are also often travelling quite fast relative to the Earth simply because their own orbital path is different from that of the Earth before they encounter Earth's gravity well. Most controlled objects enter at hypersonic speeds due to their suborbital (e.g., intercontinental ballistic missile reentry vehicles), orbital (e.g., the Soyuz), or unbounded (e.g., meteors) trajectories. Various advanced technologies have been developed to enable atmospheric reentry and flight at extreme velocities. An alternative low velocity method of controlled atmospheric entry is buoyancy[1] which is suitable for planetary entry where thick atmospheres, strong gravity, or both factors complicate high-velocity hyperbolic entry, such as the atmospheres of Venus, Titan and the gas giants.[2]

The concept of the ablative heat shield was described as early as 1920 by Robert Goddard: "In the case of meteors, which enter the atmosphere with speeds as high as 30 miles (48 km) per second, the interior of the meteors remains cold, and the erosion is due, to a large extent, to chipping or cracking of the suddenly heated surface. For this reason, if the outer surface of the apparatus were to consist of layers of a very infusible hard substance with layers of a poor heat conductor between, the surface would not be eroded to any considerable extent, especially as the velocity of the apparatus would not be nearly so great as that of the average meteor."[3]
Practical development of reentry systems began as the range and reentry velocity of ballistic missiles increased. For early short-range missiles, like the V-2, stabilization and aerodynamic stress were important issues (many V-2s broke apart during reentry), but heating was not a serious problem. Medium-range missiles like the Soviet R-5, with a 1,200-kilometer (650-nautical-mile) range, required ceramic composite heat shielding on separable reentry vehicles (it was no longer possible for the entire rocket structure to survive reentry). The first ICBMs, with ranges of 8,000 to 12,000 kilometers (4,300 to 6,500 nmi), were only possible with the development of modern ablative heat shields and blunt-shaped vehicles.
In the United States, this technology was pioneered by H. Julian Allen and A. J. Eggers Jr. of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) at Ames Research Center.[4] In 1951, they made the counterintuitive discovery that a blunt shape (high drag) made the most effective heat shield.[5] From simple engineering principles, Allen and Eggers showed that the heat load experienced by an entry vehicle was inversely proportional to the drag coefficient; i.e., the greater the drag, the less the heat load. If the reentry vehicle is made blunt, air cannot "get out of the way" quickly enough, and acts as an air cushion to push the shock wave and heated shock layer forward (away from the vehicle). Since most of the hot gases are no longer in direct contact with the vehicle, the heat energy would stay in the shocked gas and simply move around the vehicle to later dissipate into the atmosphere.
The Allen and Eggers discovery, though initially treated as a military secret, was eventually published in 1958.[6]
 
Spaceships: Hulls and Heat Shields

There are four critical parameters considered when designing a vehicle for atmospheric entry:
Peak heat flux
Heat load
Peak deceleration
Peak dynamic pressure
Peak heat flux and dynamic pressure selects the TPS material. Heat load selects the thickness of the TPS material stack. Peak deceleration is of major importance for manned missions. The upper limit for manned return to Earth from low Earth orbit (LEO) or lunar return is 10g.[52] For Martian atmospheric entry after long exposure to zero gravity, the upper limit is 4g.[52] Peak dynamic pressure can also influence the selection of the outermost TPS material if spallation is an issue.
Starting from the principle of conservative design, the engineer typically considers two worst case trajectories, the undershoot and overshoot trajectories. The overshoot trajectory is typically defined as the shallowest allowable entry velocity angle prior to atmospheric skip-off. The overshoot trajectory has the highest heat load and sets the TPS thickness. The undershoot trajectory is defined by the steepest allowable trajectory. For manned missions the steepest entry angle is limited by the peak deceleration. The undershoot trajectory also has the highest peak heat flux and dynamic pressure. Consequently, the undershoot trajectory is the basis for selecting the TPS material. There is no "one size fits all" TPS material. A TPS material that is ideal for high heat flux may be too conductive (too dense) for a long duration heat load. A low density TPS material might lack the tensile strength to resist spallation if the dynamic pressure is too high. A TPS material can perform well for a specific peak heat flux, but fail catastrophically for the same peak heat flux if the wall pressure is significantly increased (this happened with NASA's R-4 test spacecraft).[52] Older TPS materials tend to be more labor-intensive and expensive to manufacture compared to modern materials. However, modern TPS materials often lack the flight history of the older materials (an important consideration for a risk-averse designer).
Based upon Allen and Eggers discovery, maximum aeroshell bluntness (maximum drag) yields minimum TPS mass. Maximum bluntness (minimum ballistic coefficient) also yields a minimal terminal velocity at maximum altitude (very important for Mars EDL, but detrimental for military RVs). However, there is an upper limit to bluntness imposed by aerodynamic stability considerations based upon shock wave detachment. A shock wave will remain attached to the tip of a sharp cone if the cone's half-angle is below a critical value. This critical half-angle can be estimated using perfect gas theory (this specific aerodynamic instability occurs below hypersonic speeds). For a nitrogen atmosphere (Earth or Titan), the maximum allowed half-angle is approximately 60°. For a carbon dioxide atmosphere (Mars or Venus), the maximum allowed half-angle is approximately 70°. After shock wave detachment, an entry vehicle must carry significantly more shocklayer gas around the leading edge stagnation point (the subsonic cap). Consequently, the aerodynamic center moves upstream thus causing aerodynamic instability. It is incorrect to reapply an aeroshell design intended for Titan entry (Huygens probe in a nitrogen atmosphere) for Mars entry (Beagle-2 in a carbon dioxide atmosphere).[citation needed][original research?] Prior to being abandoned, the Soviet Mars lander program achieved one successful landing (Mars 3), on the second of three entry attempts (the others were Mars 2 and Mars 6). The Soviet Mars landers were based upon a 60° half-angle aeroshell design.
A 45° half-angle sphere-cone is typically used for atmospheric probes (surface landing not intended) even though TPS mass is not minimized. The rationale for a 45° half-angle is to have either aerodynamic stability from entry-to-impact (the heat shield is not jettisoned) or a short-and-sharp heat pulse followed by prompt heat shield jettison. A 45° sphere-cone design was used with the DS/2 Mars impactor and Pioneer Venus Probes.

Ingreso_reentrada.svg
 
Inspiration: Flash Gordon 1936 serial, fan edit - 2 hour movie

Fan edit of the first Flash Gordon sci fi serial from 1936. 13 episodes (4 hours of footage) edited down to a 2 hour movie. Gets kind of janky when they're escaping from the palace after rescuing Dale from marrying Ming, but other than that I think it turned out good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc3n7sMHsnM
 
Starships: Engineering, Jump Drives and Capacitation

So, twenty percent of the volume of a jump drive consists of capacitors, holding the charge necessary to push a starship into the rabbit hole.

Now, my calculations are not and probably never be verified by official sources, but not counting the five tonne overhead, that's enough capacity to take two and a half times the default energy charge necessary to max out any jump drive.

Any commercial organization would probably cut some corners, and capacitors, since capacitors are actually the most expensive part of the jump drive ship system; the reason it hasn't been done might be OSHA regulations. Essentially, jump drive are actually military grade equipment.

Considering the risk of misjumps if the stars don't align, and the possibility of overloading capacitors, incurring a catastrophic explosion, who could argue with that?
 
Spaceships: Starship Hopper and What's Going On With SpaceX's Stainless Steel Starship?

They're working around the clock building this thing, and while it doesn't look like something that would fly, Elon Musk keeps telling us it will.
Which leads to questions as to why it's designed the way it is, why the team seem to be working so hard, whether the engine nozzles we can see are attached to real engines?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVgEKBwE2RM

1. Stainless steel hull option

2. Kink in the nozzle

3. Carbon fibre tanks

4. Solar cells stuck on the outside.
 
Back
Top