Ship Design Philosophy

[Condottiere]

Starships: Engineering and Minimalistic Jump Drive

1. Ten tonnes: five tonnes overhead, five tonnes core; one hundred diameters.

2. One and a half megastarbux per tonne, fifteen megastarbux.

3. Disadvantage, one hundred thirty percent energy inefficiency; one and one eighth megastarbux per tonne, eleven and a quarter megastarbux.

4. Advantage, thirty percent size reduction, seven tonnes, one and seven eighths megastarbux, thirteen and one eighth megastarbux; bonus three tonnes.

5. Advantage, seventy diameters early jump, eighteen and three quarters megastarbux; bonus, transit time.

6. Advantage, fifteen percent decreased fuel consumption, eighteen and three quarters megastarbux; bonus, three tonnes.

7. Advantage, energy efficiency; counter batteries.

8. Advantage, stealth; clandestine, usually military, espionage or smuggling.

9. Disadvantage, late jump; probably not worth considering.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Engineering and Minimalistic Jump Drive

10. Disadvantage, twenty five percent increased size; one and one eighth megastarbux per tonne, eleven and a quarter megastarbux.

11.Twelve and a half tonnes, two hundred parsec tonnes; 14'062'500 starbux.

12. Six and a quarter tonnes overhead, three and three quarters tonnes core, one hundred twenty parsec tonnes; eleven and a quarter megastarbux.

13. Disadvantage, additional, one shot; twenty percent size reduction, ten tonnes; seventy five percent cost reduction, 281'250 starbux per tonne; increasing penalty to engineering check.

14. Ten tonne one shot increased size jump drive, 2'812'500 starbux.

15. Usage, lifeboat or kamikaze.

16. Alternatively, emergency secondary jump drive.

17. Advantage, thirty percent decreased size, seven tonnes; disadvantage, one hundred thirty percent energy inefficient; disadvantage, additional, one shot.

18. Seven tonnes, one and seven eighths megastarbux megastarbux per tonne; five and three fifths tonnes, 468'750 starbux per tonne.

19. Seven tonnes, two hundred fifty parsec tonnes, 3'281'250 starbux.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacestations: Spaceports: Ascending to the Stars

For centuries we've sailed from ports across the deep blue sea, and to sail into the ocean of the night to new worlds and stars, we will need some Space Ports.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BCnEtOTFTY


1. Noise pollution.

2. How much noise does a manoeuvre drive, or gravitational motors, make?

3. Multiple tethers, one spaceport.

4. Easily assembled spaceports.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: An Architect Reviews the 400i Yacht - Star Citizen

I employ my skills as a professional Architectural designer to critically examine and critique the newly released Origin 400i Yacht. This video is not meant to be negative, but is instead meant to provide positive feedback while viewing the new ship both inside and out. You might also learn a bit about Architecture and Design process along the way!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvVAMuHzDC4


1. Cargo hatch and elevator.

2. Entrance stairs.

3. Lockers.

4. Nothing smacks of luxury than an overabundance of common areas.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Engineering and Minimalistic Jump Drive

20. One variant of the lifeboat is emergency escape.

21. In this scenario, you're dirtside, and need to leave the parsec in a hurry.

22. If you're really desperate, you accelerate to one planetary diameter and jump (minus eight engineering).

23. If you have a little more time, you accelerate to ten diameters and jump (minus four engineering).

24. One shot being ideal, the circumstances should happen rarely, and you're likely to damage or destroy your jump drive.

25. Speaking of which, any starship could include a one shot as an emergency drive, if the other one fails.

26. On the other hand, acting in a way that would severely damage your primary jump drive, may incentivize having a one shot, so that you take the primary off line and engage the one shot, which is then disposed off.

27. Going by the rules, you could have your one shot installed in a breakaway hull, which in theory is then added to the jump potential of the entire starship; how that works out during engineering calculations, I can only speculate.

28. You can also install a one shot in a monitor, which technically makes it a starship, and does allow it to jump to safety, once the battle tender has left the system.

29. The rendezvous can't be too far away, since the major consumer of volume are the fuel tanks allocated for jumping.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Electronics and Minimalistic Computer

1. In theory, you could have a computer/zero available.

2. Library and manoeuvre/zero have zero bandwidth, as well as being free.

3. While admittingly I'm pulling this number, five thousand, from thin air, it seems to be in line if you try a little extrapolating.

4. Technological level six might be appropriate.

5. Jump control specialization would grant a specific five bandwidths that can only be utilized for a jump control programme, in this case, it would be limited to factor one.

6. In the grand scheme of things, there's not much financial difference between thirty and five kilostarbux, especially compared to the engineering costs.

7. However, at the micro end, if you need to replace the computer, where you likely need to use actual hold card cash, and not get it on hire purchase, saving twenty five kilostarbux starts looking attractive.

8. Engineering costs tend to scale to hull volume, but electronics do not; so computer/zero would be a suitable option for commercial, or private, spacecraft.

9. So it's five kilostarbux for default, seven and a half for either hardened or jump specialization, and ten kilostarbux for both.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Can Spinlaunch Throw Rockets Into Space?

I talked about Spinlaunch a few years ago, they wanted to reduce space launch costs by throwing the launch vehicles out of a spinning launcher at hypersonic speeds. I was somewhat skeptical as to the chances of solving the engineering problems inherent in this, but recently they demonstrated a mach 1 launch using their 1/3 scale launcher, so they're already making progress on developing a viable launch system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAczd3mt3X0


Mass driver? Launch tube?

 

[Condottiere]

Inspiration: Javelin Capital Ship Tour in 4K [Star Citizen]

In this video, I take you on a guided tour of the UEE Warhammer, a Javelin class destroyer which is also the larges player purchasable capital ship in Star Citizen!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnhm84tFjVI


1. Turret workstation, pop up.

2. Kinda dubious about double decker turret.

3. Mess hall common area.

4. Games area.

5. Stairs.

6. Curved corridors.

7. Holographic briefing room.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Gravitational Illusions

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


1. There's probably some mathematical equation that would prove, or disprove, if pulsing the manoeuvre drive achieves faster acceleration.

2. I think it's more you're exceeding the rated acceleration for a short period; the problem is that that needs a continuous cycle of engineering checks every other round, with the downside that you could possibly, or probably, damage the manoeuvre drive.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Zen and the Art of Neutron Neutrality


Carbon neutrality is a state of net-zero carbon dioxide emissions. This can be achieved by balancing emissions of carbon dioxide with its removal (often through carbon offsetting) or by eliminating emissions from society (the transition to the "post-carbon economy").[1] The term is used in the context of carbon dioxide-releasing processes associated with transportation, energy production, agriculture, and industry.

Although the term "carbon neutral" is used, a carbon footprint also includes other greenhouse gases, measured in terms of their carbon dioxide equivalence. The term climate-neutral reflects the broader inclusiveness of other greenhouse gases in climate change, even if CO2 is the most abundant.

The term "net zero" is increasingly used to describe a broader and more comprehensive commitment to decarbonization and climate action, moving beyond carbon neutrality by including more activities under the scope of indirect emissions, and often including a science-based target on emissions reduction, as opposed to relying solely on offsetting. Some climate scientists have stated that “the idea of net zero has licensed a recklessly cavalier 'burn now, pay later' approach which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar.”[2] (See Criticism)


Extendible solar panels provide backup power for a ship’s power plant. They are typically installed in scout or mining ships, extending their range and endurance.

The tonnage consumed by enough solar panels required to power a ship is equal to 10% that of the main power plant, to a minimum of 0.5 tons. Solar panels cost MCr0.1 per ton.

If the panels are fitted to a ship without a power plant, then assume the (non–existent) power plant is sized to the ship’s basic systems and a Thrust 1 manoeuvre drive. A ship equipped with solar panels consumes power plant fuel at one–quarter the normal rate so long as it is only engaged in minimal manoeuvring and does not fire any weapons. Minimal manoeuvring does not include long periods at full thrust, so solar power alone is useless for most commercial and military vessels.

No power plant fuel is consumed, and endurance is considered infinite, if the ship is not manoeuvring or refining fuel. Jump drives cannot be engaged with solar panels deployed.


1. The tonnage consumed by enough solar panels required to power a ship is equal to ten percent that of the main power plant, to a minimum of half a tonne - which is five tonnes of power planting; since no provision is made for primitivation nor a higher state of technologization, the assumption would be for the default reactor or internal combustion engine, since the costs of solar panelling is fixed without regard to the power plant it's based on.

2. Ironically, that means that a technological level six solar panelling is sixty percent more efficient than a technological levelled up one of seven.

3. The option for power plantlessness doesn't express a minimum size for it's inherent solar panelling; if you go by the minimum being half a tonne, then it's thirty power points per hundred tonnes, or it equals out at around one hundred sixty six tonne hull for early fusion, two hundred fifty tonne hull for standard fusion, three hundred thirty three tonne hull for advanced fusion, or one hundred thirty three tonne hull for a fission reactor.

4. A ship equipped with solar panels consumes power plant fuel at one–quarter the normal rate so long as it is only engaged in minimal manoeuvring and does not fire any weapons ... No power plant fuel is consumed, and endurance is considered infinite, if the ship is not manoeuvring or refining fuel - seems contradictory in terms of a power plant having an existential crisis; certainly in the sense that it's explicitly mentioned that the virtualized power output must match basic services plus manoeuvre drive factor one energy requirements.

5. Minimal manoeuvring does not include long periods at full thrust - long period would have to be defined, it quite easily be pulsing the manoeuvre drive on a six minute cycle, in which case you could couple two separate solar panellings together, and alternate energy production.

6. Minimal manoeuvring does not include long periods at full thrust, so solar power alone is useless for most commercial and military vessels - au contraire: commercially, it would cut operating costs; militarily, it would allow greater endurance on station, possibly, more stealthier.

7. No power plant fuel is consumed, and endurance is considered infinite, if the ship is not manoeuvring or refining fuel - this, plus does not fire any weapons indicates that power cannot be directly diverted from either the manoeuvre drive nor basic services.

8. However, it does leave open if you can divert power to recharge the batteries.

9. Jump drives cannot be engaged with solar panels deployed - doesn't say why; however, since the jump drive is disengaged immediately after dropping into the rabbit hole, what happens if you deploy the solar panelling immediately after and during reentry?

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Zen and the Art of Neutron Neutrality


Carbon neutrality is a state of net-zero carbon dioxide emissions. This can be achieved by balancing emissions of carbon dioxide with its removal (often through carbon offsetting) or by eliminating emissions from society (the transition to the "post-carbon economy").[1] The term is used in the context of carbon dioxide-releasing processes associated with transportation, energy production, agriculture, and industry.

Although the term "carbon neutral" is used, a carbon footprint also includes other greenhouse gases, measured in terms of their carbon dioxide equivalence. The term climate-neutral reflects the broader inclusiveness of other greenhouse gases in climate change, even if CO2 is the most abundant.

The term "net zero" is increasingly used to describe a broader and more comprehensive commitment to decarbonization and climate action, moving beyond carbon neutrality by including more activities under the scope of indirect emissions, and often including a science-based target on emissions reduction, as opposed to relying solely on offsetting. Some climate scientists have stated that “the idea of net zero has licensed a recklessly cavalier 'burn now, pay later' approach which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar.”[2] (See Criticism)


Extendible solar panels provide backup power for a ship’s power plant. They are typically installed in scout or mining ships, extending their range and endurance.

The tonnage consumed by enough solar panels required to power a ship is equal to 10% that of the main power plant, to a minimum of 0.5 tons. Solar panels cost MCr0.1 per ton.

If the panels are fitted to a ship without a power plant, then assume the (non–existent) power plant is sized to the ship’s basic systems and a Thrust 1 manoeuvre drive. A ship equipped with solar panels consumes power plant fuel at one–quarter the normal rate so long as it is only engaged in minimal manoeuvring and does not fire any weapons. Minimal manoeuvring does not include long periods at full thrust, so solar power alone is useless for most commercial and military vessels.

No power plant fuel is consumed, and endurance is considered infinite, if the ship is not manoeuvring or refining fuel. Jump drives cannot be engaged with solar panels deployed.


10. Jump drives cannot be engaged with solar panels deployed - so unemploy them.

11. The problem is that you can't really rely on batteries to provide power for the next week in transition.

12. There are two measures that can be taken to minimize the size of the backup reactor, and by extension, fuel consumption.

13. During transition, you limit the volume where basic services are powered.

14. And, of course, half the amount of that power, so that you maintain life support, but on the cusp.

15. Assuming that the cargo can survive without any particular environmental conditions, you set that volume to the bridge, accommodations, and possibly engineering.

16. It's an interesting question, whether engineering needs basic services, beyond the convenience of a breathable atmosphere and artificial gravity.

17. A sound-powered telephone is a communication device that allows users to talk to each other with the use of a handset, similar to a conventional telephone, but without the use of external power. This technology has been used since at least 1944[1] for both routine and emergency communication on ships to allow communication between key locations on a vessel if power is unavailable.[2] A sound-powered phone circuit can have two or more stations on the same circuit. The circuit is always live, thus a user begins speaking rather than dialing another station. Sound-powered telephones are not normally connected to a telephone exchange.

18. The backup reactor can also be used to power systems that aren't specified in the description of solar panelling.

19. Stuff like the fuel processor.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Zen and the Art of Neutron Neutrality


Carbon neutrality is a state of net-zero carbon dioxide emissions. This can be achieved by balancing emissions of carbon dioxide with its removal (often through carbon offsetting) or by eliminating emissions from society (the transition to the "post-carbon economy").[1] The term is used in the context of carbon dioxide-releasing processes associated with transportation, energy production, agriculture, and industry.

Although the term "carbon neutral" is used, a carbon footprint also includes other greenhouse gases, measured in terms of their carbon dioxide equivalence. The term climate-neutral reflects the broader inclusiveness of other greenhouse gases in climate change, even if CO2 is the most abundant.

The term "net zero" is increasingly used to describe a broader and more comprehensive commitment to decarbonization and climate action, moving beyond carbon neutrality by including more activities under the scope of indirect emissions, and often including a science-based target on emissions reduction, as opposed to relying solely on offsetting. Some climate scientists have stated that “the idea of net zero has licensed a recklessly cavalier 'burn now, pay later' approach which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar.”[2] (See Criticism)


Extendible solar panels provide backup power for a ship’s power plant. They are typically installed in scout or mining ships, extending their range and endurance.

The tonnage consumed by enough solar panels required to power a ship is equal to 10% that of the main power plant, to a minimum of 0.5 tons. Solar panels cost MCr0.1 per ton.

If the panels are fitted to a ship without a power plant, then assume the (non–existent) power plant is sized to the ship’s basic systems and a Thrust 1 manoeuvre drive. A ship equipped with solar panels consumes power plant fuel at one–quarter the normal rate so long as it is only engaged in minimal manoeuvring and does not fire any weapons. Minimal manoeuvring does not include long periods at full thrust, so solar power alone is useless for most commercial and military vessels.

No power plant fuel is consumed, and endurance is considered infinite, if the ship is not manoeuvring or refining fuel. Jump drives cannot be engaged with solar panels deployed.


20. Since I like modularization, and it's a means redundancification, you can stick to implanting a series of minimum sized solar panelling, like a forest of masts on a sailing ship, to get that thirty power points per hundred tonnes.

21. Speaking of sailing, you would tack the spaceship to place the solar panelling in alignment to a light source, to keep them powered.

22. It's that ... long periods at full thrust ... that throws a monkeigh wrench into the gears.

23. You have to define ... long periods ... and ... full thrust ... .

24. That could very easily be hours and acceleration factor nine.

25. At the other end of the tonnage scale, the economies of scale really kick in.

26. A semimegatonne freighter would inhale a hundred thousand power points for services, and exhale another fifty thousand power points for the factor one manoeuvre drive.

27. That would be a ten kilotonne standard fusion power plant, and that would be a kilotonne worth of solar panelling.

28. A kilotonne of solar panelling is a hundred megastarbux.

29. And ten kilotonnes of standard fusion reactor runs to ten gigastarbux.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Zen and the Art of Neutron Neutrality


These are accumulators, sweeping up exotic particles captured by a canopy and removing the need to carry separate fuel for the jump drive. This charge is released in a single spike to power a jump drive; collectors cannot be used for normal ship operations.

Collectors consume one percent of the ship’s tonnage multiplied by the maximum jump number its drive is capable of, plus five tonnes. They cost half a megaschmucker per tonne.

It takes a week of normal space travel to fully charge an accumulator, and accumulators will not work at all in jump space, in an atmosphere or on a ship expending thrust.


30. Collectors don't need fuel.

31. Apparently, they don't wear out, or have a limited number of uses.

32. Minimum size would be seven tonnes, unless you actually only want to jump one parsec in a hundred tonne hull, in which case it would be six tonnes.

33. Seven tonnes would three and a half megaschmuckers, which seems pretty much a bargain.

34. The downside seems to be the need to remain in normal space, outside of an atmosphere, nor accelerating, in order to charge the accumulator.

35. Since a solar panelled starship would in principle be disinclined to do much accelerating, it seems a natural fit.

36. And despite that extra five tonnes of overhead, this also seems perfect for designing factor five or six hundred tonne starships, since that would take up only a total of five or six tonnes, compared to the default twenty tonne fuel tanks of a scout.

37. The jump drives themselves would only be increased by another seven and a half tonnes for factor five, and ten tonnes for factor six.

38. Which doesn't alter much of the internal configuration of said scout.

39. A tonne of batteries should cover the difference for the energy requirement.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Zen and the Art of Neutron Neutrality


These are accumulators, sweeping up exotic particles captured by a canopy and removing the need to carry separate fuel for the jump drive. This charge is released in a single spike to power a jump drive; collectors cannot be used for normal ship operations.

Collectors consume one percent of the ship’s tonnage multiplied by the maximum jump number its drive is capable of, plus five tonnes. They cost half a megaschmucker per tonne.

It takes a week of normal space travel to fully charge an accumulator, and accumulators will not work at all in jump space, in an atmosphere or on a ship expending thrust.


40. Probably a rather dubious choice for installation on a frontline starwarship.

41. On the other hand, for support or auxiliary starships, where travel itineraries are more regulated, it would boost onboard capacity.

42. Speaking of regulated travel, that should make it a perfect system for commercial starships.

43. Of course, this might be dependent on having spaceship connectors dealing with actual traffic between either space stations or planetbound end destinations.

44. You might think of this as our version of the Heighliner.

45. That week of non acceleration is a period of vulnerability.

46. The suggestion some time back to make it a breakaway hull and attach a new one with a charged up collector like a replaceable battery pack, is interesting.

47. In fact, I'm rather surprised that the Confederation exploration flotilla didn't just equip their Tenzing class frigates with Collectors.

48. At factor five, that's one eighth's of the hull volume, plus five tonnes, for the jump drive, including another one twentieth of the hull volume, plus five tonnes, for the Collectors.

49. If there's an issue of replacement parts, you have all that extra tonnage.

 

[Condottiere]

Starwarships: Ten Features of the MIRANDA CLASS in STAR TREK

In this video we look at the Miranda class ships such as the USS Reliant and examine ten features of the class. The Reliant famously fought the Enterprise at the battle of the Mutara Nebula.

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


1. Modular bridge.

2. While the rollbar is intriguing, I'd prefer a version without it and have the torpedo tubes integrated in the main hull.

3. Apparently, the saucer section would be large enough to attach modules to it.

4. It's my favourite ship class from Star Trek.

 

[Condottiere]

Starwarships: Star Trek: Inside the USS Voyager

So I have decided to create a 3D animation of the iconic USS Voyager from Star Trek. The following animation showcases the exterior and interior of Deck 1-5, and Deck 10-14 were recreated in detail. Enjoy!

The USS Voyager (NCC-74656-J) was a Federation Intrepid-class starship operated by Starfleet during the 24 century. It was the eleventh Federation ship to bear the name Voyager with this registry.
It originally aired from January 1995 to May 2001, lasting for over seven seasons. It is the fourth series in the Star Trek franchise. Set in the 24th century, when Earth is part of a United Federation of Planets.

USS Voyager is the fictional Intrepid-class starship which is the primary setting of the science fiction television series Star Trek: Voyager.

The vessel was capable of holding 200 crew members was one of the fastest and most powerful starships in Starfleet. Although only 345 meters long, about roughly half the size of the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-D, Voyager is more technologically advanced than previous Starfleet vessels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bgBgVu3C0s


1. I never particularly liked this design; then again, I never particularly liked this series either.

2. The blueprints are, however, interesting.

 

[Condottiere]

Starwarships: The Most Advanced Star Destroyer - Onager Full Breakdown and Animation

Today we take a look at the Empire's most advanced Star Destroyer, with a breakdown and new look animation at the Onager Class Star Destroyer. We'll discuss the ships history, lore and design - as well as how it relates to the First Order's Mandator Dreadnought, and the Final Order's Xyston - on today's Star Wars Lore video!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NAa63-w9I8


1. Battering ram.

2. Escorts.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments and Secondarization

1. This sort of reminds me of the hammerhead configurations of the Honorverse, even if it looks like a crossbow.

2. If you're accelerating, or in combat, applying acceleration, where the missiles likely approaching from?

3. Usually, either down the throat, or up the kilt.

4. Designated point defence weapon systems should be concentrated in the front and the rear, along the tips of the hammerhead.

5. If you twist one of the hammerheads ninety degrees, you should then have clear sights for both sets of point defence for back and front; also top and bottom, port and starboard, a sort of impromptu, displaced, cross.

6. The hammerhead also allows the forward placement of more destructive weapon systems, focussed on clearing the path of escort class starwarships.

7. I'm not sure exactly what's the optimal tonnage for a broadside engagement, pretty much preferring to place the weapon bay systems in enlarged turrets, if at the costs of extra hardpoints, which would allow you to pretty much maximize a broadside.

8. The problem with turretization, is less about sacrificing hardpoints, more about minimum tonnage for each type of bay weapon system, which would sort of eliminate a sweet point between spinalization and bayiezation.

9. If you have to choose between a turreted large bay weapon system and a spinal mount at twenty (likely twenty five) kilotonnes, you'd probably opt for spinalizarion, since it would be a hundred times more destructive.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Commerce and How Amazon Beat Supply Chain Chaos With Ships, Containers And Planes

As supply chain chaos causes shipping delays this holiday season, experts say Amazon’s logistics empire and predictive analytics will allow it to avoid the worst of it. Amazon leased long-haul planes to get goods from China to the U.S. faster, and its been making its own containers and chartering private cargo vessels for years. Now retailers like Walmart, Home Depot, Target, IKEA and Costco are trying out the tactic, chartering smaller vessels to bring goods to less congested ports.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxXJ8Q2GCs4


1. Demand, supply and capacity.

2. Expressing hot tubs.

 

[Condottiere]

Starwarships: B-Wing Mark 2: A complete History (fan design/lore)

The B-Wing Mark 2 is an established ship in Star Wars canon, but we've only ever seen its cockpit. Two years ago, I imagined what the rest of the ship might look like. Now, I've revisited this design to give it more depth and detail.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrI7B20tS0o


1. I think the concept was cheap (relatively) and annoying, but multimission.

2. It should also be harder to hit, due to it's gyroscopic rotation.