Ship Design Philosophy

phavoc said:
I don't recall anything stating that the maneuver drive has exhaust or any kind.

However, every starship illustration I can recall, and every deckplan that I've seen, has the M-drive at the rear of the ship, or in drive pods pointing towards the rear.

Simply clueless artistic license if showing rocket type nozzles (like on the Type S drawings). MT had a different drive system as it wasn't a grav drive. MGT is a Gravitic M-Drive. Different animals.
 
Fusion Power Plants

1. If the magnetic bottle goes critical, you might want to eject the core. That would mean it would be located close to the hull.

2. @ sideranautae - Less critical events might just mean venting the energy in the form of heat, something the Rebellion picked up on.

3. sE - Theoretically, not sufficient to power any smallcraft energy weapons, which would mean that the Venture would have to rely on missiles, rail guns and sandcasters.

4. sK/aA - Would seem to be restricted to one energy weapon; however, Adventure power flants factors one and two can have twenty five percent of it's turret weapons can be particle beams, though I don't recall if this includes barbettes.

5. That would indicate that an sE power plant in a hundred ton Adventure class hull has no restrictions on the number of lasers, three inthis case, it can power, it's up in the air for turret or barbette particle beam, though at one weapon per turret/barbette, it's either at least one or at hundred percent, too much.


@ phavoc

6. Grav drives are interacting with an existing gravity field, so in theory they wouldn't need rocket exhausts, unless they acted as heat vents.
 
Condottiere said:
Fusion Power Plants

1. If the magnetic bottle goes critical, you might want to eject the core. That would mean it would be located close to the hull.


That wouldn't be possible. If the magnetic bottle failed (no such thing as "critical") there would be no time to eject. It would be instantaneous. Fission reactors go "critical". Fusion reactors are fusing or they aren't. If containment is via magnetic field, it is on or off. There is no time to do anything if it goes off. However, failure means messing up the inner container. Not the destruction of the ship or engineering.

You can vent a physical substance to get rid of heat. In trav ships that would be hydrogen. Probably why the PP takes insane amount of LHyd. 99.5% is used to get rid of waste heat so the interior of the ship doesn't cook.
 
Condottiere said:
@ phavoc

6. Grav drives are interacting with an existing gravity field, so in theory they wouldn't need rocket exhausts, unless they acted as heat vents.

In deep space there isn't a grav field to react against. So one could argue I suppose that vehicle grav devices are more like repulsors, and they get less efficient as they get further out of the gravity well, thus rendering them useless outside of low orbit.

TNE and MT had thruster plates that I guess made it more "hard" science. Traveller has never really gone into any detail regarding the underlying principles of the grav maneuver drive.

sideranautae said:
Simply clueless artistic license if showing rocket type nozzles (like on the Type S drawings). MT had a different drive system as it wasn't a grav drive. MGT is a Gravitic M-Drive. Different animals.

Yeah, MGT and TNE used thruster-based drive systems. But TNE added in actual contragravity lifters to lift the ships, while the thruster plates provided movement.

TNE really reminded me of the Piper Abbott Lift-and-Drive systems used to power his ships (and the Dillingham's to enter jump space).
 
Venture Class features

1. Originally envisoned with three telescoping legs ending in a pad, as being the cheapest variant, since my expectation was that with a grav drive VTOL would be the method of launching and landing.

2. Two telescopic legs were to be neighbouring the bridge, and one directly in the rear.

3. Telecoping legs would allow the crew to adjust ground clearance, which could now be lowered practically to the floor, allowing easy access to a cargo hatch, rather than the Millenium Falcon underneath ramp.

4. If you shift engineering to the forward section, and if necessary, the manoeuvre drive in modules to the side, you leave the back empty to be utilized as the cargo bay.

5. Since the engineering section is no longer in the back, you could place a large cargo hatch there; however that would make the rear telescoping leg be in the way, in which case it might be beter to switch to four telescoping legs.

6. Ideally, the cargo bay can be constructed at right angles for ease of stowing cargo.

7. As such, the outside hull rounded section that are inherent for a saucer would be squared off by placing the fuel tanks there.
 
tumblr_lj4pt8vobb1qi9l3lo1_1280.jpg
 
phavoc said:
TNE and MT had thruster plates that I guess made it more "hard" science. Traveller has never really gone into any detail regarding the underlying principles of the grav maneuver drive.

The MGT Deep space Grav drives would have to create a Grav well. That way, no need for a natural one to react against. Vehicle grav drives (that are used by craft <10 tons) would have the "anti-grav" drives that only work when close enough to a grav well.
 
Or, I could add in a third lazy-susan half-storey beneath the middle and place the manoevre drive there, so it could swivel in any direction.
 
Jump Capacitors

1. Going by the Black Globe, a ton is 3 MCr., and twenty percent of a Jump Drive consists of it.

2. aA Jump Drive would have two tons of capacitors, which each produce thirty six energy points.

3. That would mean the remaining non-capacitor tonnage is eight tons and valued at 4 MCr..

4. The Jump Governor used to be described as taking up a ton and costing 0.3 MCr..

5. I don't recall how many EPs the aA power plant produces, nor how many are sufficient for a one or two parsec jump.
 
Actual Smallcraft Fusion Power Plant Fuel Consumption

PP - tons per two weeks
sA - 0.2
sB - 0.4
sC - 0.6
sD - 0.8
sE - 1.0
sF - 1.2
sG - 1.4
sH - 1.6
sJ - 1.8
sK - 2.0

Fuel efficiency is designed in the following:
sL - 2.1
sM - 2.2
sN - 2.3
sP - 2.4
sQ - 2.5
sR - 2.6
sS - 2.7
sT - 2.8
sU - 2.9
sV - 3.0
sW - 3.1
sX - 3.2
sY - 3.3
sZ - 3.4
 
Smallest Fusion Power Plant

- sA"
- 1 ton
- 2.666667 MCr.
- 0.0667 tons fuel consumption/fortnight
- one third energy output of sA
- Power plant Factor One for a 6.67 ton smallcraft
 
It's interesting to speculate why you can operate a hundred ton starship with one crew member, and a non jump capable sixty ton smallcraft needs two.
 
Condottiere said:
Jump Capacitors

1. Going by the Black Globe, a ton is 3 MCr., and twenty percent of a Jump Drive consists of it.

2. aA Jump Drive would have two tons of capacitors, which each produce thirty six energy points.

3. That would mean the remaining non-capacitor tonnage is eight tons and valued at 4 MCr..

4. The Jump Governor used to be described as taking up a ton and costing 0.3 MCr..

5. I don't recall how many EPs the aA power plant produces, nor how many are sufficient for a one or two parsec jump.

Jump capacitors were in previous versions of Traveller. The power plants would store the energy in the capacitors and then that energy would be passed to the jump grid, which then put the ship into jump space.

Mongoose got rid of the jump grid and capacitors by changing the nature of jump drive technology and going with the excited hydrogen bubble concept.
 
Condottiere said:
It's interesting to speculate why you can operate a hundred ton starship with one crew member, and a non jump capable sixty ton smallcraft needs two.

The only logical reason is that smaller ships are governed by safety regulations. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to do it except for "safety".
 
phavoc said:
Condottiere said:
It's interesting to speculate why you can operate a hundred ton starship with one crew member, and a non jump capable sixty ton smallcraft needs two.

The only logical reason is that smaller ships are governed by safety regulations. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to do it except for "safety".

Exactly. Best to treat it as what it is. An editorial error. Much like the non lifting body space ship hulls that glide. You can rack your brains trying to figure out how bricks glide to a landing or, just recognize where errata is needed.
 
1. If Jump Capacitors serve no function beyond an energy sink for the Black Globes, you can reduce the size and costs of Jump Drives by the appropriate amount.


2. The imagine of the Venture class would be more like two fat equally sized pancakes layered on one another, or:

j2_level_detail.jpg
 
Condottiere said:
1. If Jump Capacitors serve no function beyond an energy sink for the Black Globes, you can reduce the size and costs of Jump Drives by the appropriate amount.

They serve as electrical capacitors for the jump drive. That is why they are there in the first place.
 
Back
Top