Ship Design Philosophy

[Condottiere]

Venture Class

1. The importance of establishing the Venture class as iconic as the Scout type S is to have a form that can be the basis for variants or new versions that have a certain commonality making it easier to source parts and maintain mechanics familiarity with the type.

2. While it does appear that Mongoose is trying to promote a partizan spearhead configuration for Solomani ships, it would seem to me that Terran mercantile interests would be more inclined to use a more pragmatic form.

3. This would later lead on to militarized variants, either converted or built so from the start.

4. The Venture class isn't meant to retain a monadial factorization, that has to do with being both an accurate reflection of TL9 technical development and practical application, as both grav drives and jump drives need power plants with the same factor to fully utilize their potential.

5. You could cut the weight in half and save 1.5 MCr if you installed a reaction sE/aA' drive, though in my revised table it's 0.75 tons 2.0 MCr. that has to be balanced against constant acceleration with power only dependent on the fusion plant, compared to 2.5% of total hull tonnage fuel per hour of burn.

6. One reason to keep using the hundred ton hull is it's unique basic cost of 0.02 MCr per ton, which is incredible, but canonical. If I recall correctly, flattened spheres had an additional twenty or thirty percent discount, not that that would make much of a difference in the overall cost.

7. The big ticket items are the engines, though unless the basic algorithms change, I really don't how they could become cheaper, unless ...

8. Planned obsolescence, where the engines are rated to run a certain mileage before the chance of malfunctions spikes, in exchange for a much cheaper price.

 

[Condottiere]

Ship's Hull

1. You could mandate that all hulls must have 0.5 factor armour for structural integrity.

2. This won't have any effect for damage results.

 

[Condottiere]

Venture Class
Militarized: Short Range Patrol Orbital Combat Ship

1. With sixty one tons plus to spare, the Venture class could become Patrol Ship.

2. With rather short legs, and more of a marathon man than a sprinter, wouldn't be optimized for deep space work, unless it's covert surveillance.

3. This could be partially rectified by the addition of aC reaction drive for short bursts of speed.

4. A new armoured hull would be constructed from the outset; converted merchantmen could have armour plaing welded on, though that screws up weight and performance, maybe you could shave off part of the ass, making it more of a clamshell.

5. There's no logical reason why Adventure class and smallcraft aren't cross-fertile.

6. So a hundred ton ship would have five ship weapon slots, and ten small arms.

7. Having established in my revised table that an sE/aA' fusion engine provides enough juice for a single laser, the rest of the slots would need to non-energy weapons.

8. The first variant would be the most powerful weapon in a barbette, which would be a rail gun, perhaps festooned with some PGMPs as CIWS; the laser could be forward fixed, together with another three torpedoes, missiles and/or sandcasters.

9. More extremely, you could install a fifty ton bay with missiles, torpedoes, big iron balls or very big iron balls. Plus, two more weapon slots.

10. The small arms could be concentrated forward, making CAS a very unpleasant surprise for ground troops. Or they could be spread around some more, making repelling boarders an unsettling experience for hostile take-overers.

 

[Condottiere]

Dingo Class
Dinghi Smallcraft

Hull
6.66-tons tl9 streamlined titanium steel with 1.00 hull/structure points
0.666 MCr
configured as a flattened sphere/disc
I was very tempted to say inflatable kevlar, but realized with even the best will in the world, wouldn' survive atmospheric re-entry

Armour
None, though I bet you're not only one wondering how it maintains structural integrity; considering the eggshell fragility, self sealing and radiation shielding would be a good investment

Engines
1.417 tons at 3 MCr
1.0 tons sA''-tl9 125% 1.25 fusion power plant 2.666667 MCr
fuel consumption 0.0667 tons fortnightly
0.167 tons sA''-tl9 gravitic drive 0.333334 MCr

Bridge
1.5 tons at 0.1 [0.033334] MCr with a 0.03 MCr Model1=tl7 computer
standard sensors-tl8 dm-4 with radar and lidar
the problem is if there is a minimum cost for the bridge or if you calculate exactly along the actual tonnage; you could make the bridge compact, but the idea is to make flying it as idiot-proof as possible

Weapons
1-ton single turret at 0.25 MCr
kinetic weapons only, plus a small arm

Fuel
0.083 tons, sufficient for 17.4 days operation; more to round up

Cargo
3. 66 tons (not counting the turret)

Staterooms
probably a bench

Extras
Ship's Locker (or in this case, probably a foot locker)
Air-lock (none, but you could install a half a ton version)
Fresher (none, it's a dinghi; maybe a chemical toilet and a spritzer or wet wipes)
Galley (MRE)
probably retractable helicopter wheel or skids

Software
Manoeuvre/0
Library

3.796 MCr basic turretless cost
Maintenance monthly cost 317 Cr
Monthly life support hard to say

Notes
1. with 3.66 tons to spare, you could probably squeeze in some amenities, or put acceleration benches
2. a popular form of transport in the Solomani Confederation for short flights, being easier to stow away than a launch
3. Rumour has it that the Solomani Navy has adapted it as a ultralite fighter, as well as a torpedo boat.

 

[Condottiere]

Smallest Vehicle Fusion Plant

1. 10 spaces at 0.125 MCr./space equals 1.25 MCr.

2. sA 1.2 tons at 16.2 m3 and 3 MCr.

3. 1.2 tons/2.4 equals 0.5 tons

4. 7 m3/10 spaces equals 0.7 m3.

5. Is 0.7 m3 sufficient space for a normal human inside a vehicle?


Smallest Jump Drive according to FF&S

1. 2 m3 equals 0.143 tons

2. 7.14 ton factor one jump capable ship

 

[sideranautae]

5. Is 0.7 m3 sufficient space for a normal human inside a vehicle?

No

 

[Condottiere]

Smallest Vehicle Fusion Plant

1. FF&S seems to feel it's 3.5 m3.

2. So that's 35m3.

3. That's a hair off 2.6 ship tons.

 

[Condottiere]

Smallest Vehicle Fusion Plant


1. Let's look at this in another way.

2. Vehicle fusion plants have a year's worth of fuel.

3. So you have x tons of fusion plant plus 52 weeks of fuel.

4. Fortnightly fuel consumption 2/3 weight of power plant.

5. 26/3 X 2 is around 18.

6. z = x + 18x

7. so x = 2.6/19 = 0.1368421052631579 tons

8. Or it's cold fusion, of which I believe hasn't been sanctioned in Mongoose.

 

[Condottiere]

Escort Carriers

1. It's a rather vague term, and there really is now no current day equivalent, as carriers are now purpose built from the outset.

2. Traveller light carriers are around 30KT, 100 twenty-ton fighter, 30 forty-ton fighters and two launch tubes.

3. The Solomani had pocket carriers during the last war, which presumably were purpose built escort carriers, described as around 10KT, and the narrative was that the Imperium fighters can circles around the Solomani ones.

4. So you have two different doctrines, much like we have today, expensive cutting edge technology fighter versus cheap swarms.

5. This may seem off tangent, but a carrier is really a platform for it's main weapon system, and with limited tonnage, it becomes more crucial to utilize that space more efficiently.

6. There is a reason that medium fighters are forty-tons, which is due to the design sequence only allowing a second weapons slot at that weight. To get a third one, it needs to be seventy tons, but at the cost of potential acceleration, being limited to six.

7. Even purpose built escort carriers were utilizing civilian hulls and construction methods, an option not really available in Traveller.

8. Escort carriers come in a range of sizes, with the more capable ones not likely exceeding fifteen thousand tons with a single launch tube. Beyond basic turret weaponry, the primary defense would be to stay out of trouble.

9. If you can't stick in a launch tube, the platform becomes more of a tender. In WW2 you built a flight deck on the top, and in the case of HMS Audacity, without a hangar. A characteristic of a carrier should be the capability of launching a sizable number of fighters in a relatively short time, and the ability to service them.

 

[Condottiere]

Escort Carriers

10. The fighters picked to be part of the air group would reflect the threat they believed they would face.

11. Normally, you could get away with loading up ordnance on fighters, but design rules are very specific, so it comes down to figuring out which fighters or combination would be the best mix for the limited accommodations of an escort carrier.

12. While not reflected in Mongoose Traveller, one of the reasons the entire F-35 project was greenlighted was to create commonality in spare parts; also, the pilots need only train for one type of fighter.

13. Generally speaking, the heavy fighters are there to annoy the escorts, the light fighters to annoy the heavies, and the mediums to keep the lights off the heavies, as well as general purpose, if we insert some modularity.

14. Escort carriers are also used as platforms for CAS craft and convoy protection.

15. Convoy protection is to deter determined attacks during a war, not fend off a lone pirate; that would be closer to the M&C Escort Carrier with it's ten-ton light fighters.

16. Ten-ton fighters might be enough for corsairs, but not an actual military ship optimized to disrupt trade or take an opportunistic shot at unwary escorts.

17. So medium fighters should be the workhorse of any air group, and that determines the size of the launch tube.

18. The question would be between which fighter size would be more cost beneficial, twenty or forty, and I don't two twenty-ton ones are better than a single forty ton one.

19. For some reason, I keep picturing an F-14 as a medium fighter.

 

[Condottiere]

Escort Carriers

20. Of course, the other immediate launch method is through dispersed structure configuration, which the Solomani were noted to have 150K carriers.

21. Mongoose has docking clamps, which sidesteps the need for a dispersed structure, which would make any vessel, especially a military ship, dangerously fragile.

22. Docking clamps allow the attachment of smallcraft to the hull of the carrier, and easy boarding of the pilots.

23. But without hangar facilities, external maintenance of smallcraft is problematic, without nearby workshops and in a zero gravity freezing environment.

24. This includes rearming kinetic weapon systems, which introduces inefficiency, which could be fatal during a battle.

25. This has been described as operational tempo, especially when trying to discover exactly the advantages of the Queen Elizabeth carriers as opposed to a smaller solution.

26. The original X-Boat tender/station had moving turret, I believe on a rail. You could develop something similar that could be moved over each docking clamp to form a sort of temporary hangar, creating artificial gravity and atmosphere that allows a more thorough maintenance of the smallcraft.

27. Before I discovered docking clamps, I considered making the top of the carrier a flight deck with artificial gravity and electro magnetic clamps, allowing smallcraft to be parked there, with elevators carrying them to the hangar deck.

28. One unfairness with the docking clamps over the launching tubes would appear to be the capability to launch everything at once; it should be considered that the smallcraft might not be able to blast off immediately, due to damage to the carrier's hull and/or docking clamp, as compared to the launching tube flinging them far enough away where full ignition wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Condottiere]

Meet NASA’s new supersonic flying saucer, for future Mars landings
By Sebastian Anthony on April 11, 2014 at 8:07 amComment
NASA's flying saucer, the Low-Density Supersonic Decelerator

No, humble inhabitants of Hawaii, the US government hasn’t increased the level of psychoactive drugs in your water supply: That really is a flying saucer that just flew past your window at three times the speed of sound. Dubbed the Low-Density Supersonic Decelerator, NASA is hoping that this flying saucer is the secret to eventually landing larger payloads on other planets — such as sending a human exploration party to Mars, along with plenty of supplies. The LDSD is on a pretty aggressive schedule, with seven major tech demos over the next 24 months, and could be used in a real mission to Mars in 2018.

LDSD flight test plan

Later this year, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory will use a balloon to launch a test vehicle up to an altitude of 120,000 feet (36.5 kilometers) above Hawaii. The test vehicle will then use a rocket to reach supersonic speeds and raise its altitude yet further to 180,000 feet (54.8 kilometers)… and then it will cut its engine and begin to free fall back to earth. As the capsule passes Mach 3.5 (2,600 mph), the LDSD will kick into action, sprouting a Supersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (SIAD) from the craft and filling it with pressurized air. With the SIAD fully inflated, the spacecraft looks awfully like a flying saucer. The SIAD slows the craft down to around Mach 2, whereupon a massive 30-meter-diameter parachute will then be used to bring speeds down to subsonic landing speeds.



NASA is developing two variants of the LDSD [PDF] – one with a 20-foot (6m) SIAD for smaller, robotic extraplanetary landings, and one with a larger 26-foot (8m) SIAD for larger, human payloads. The overall goal of the LDSD is to make it possible for NASA to land larger payloads on the surface of Mars: While the parachute-to-sky-crane technique used by Curiosity was technologically impressive, the sky crane simply isn’t capable of landing payloads over 1.5 metric tons (3,300 lbs). The LDSD will not only allow NASA to land payloads of up to 3 tons on Mars, but it will also increase the number of possible landing zones and improve landing accuracy from a margin of 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) to just 3km.

NASA's LDSD, with huge parachute and different size inflated bitsWhile our mastery of Newtonian physics means it’s fairly trivial to place a place a spacecraft in orbit around any planet in the Solar System, landing on a planet or moon’s surface is still incredibly difficult. Every moon and planet in the Solar System has different atmosphere, gravity, and surface conditions, and thus each mission needs to have a specifically tailored landing procedure. For Mars, the difficulty is that it has too much atmosphere for rapid entry and rocket deceleration (as we did with the Moon landings), but it doesn’t have enough atmosphere to land large objects with only a parachute. (Here on Earth, with our deliciously thick atmosphere, we’ve used parachutes to land masses of up to 72,000 lbs or 32.5 metric tons).

Thus, if we ever want to send a human exploration party to Mars, or eventually colonize it, we need to use a hybrid landing technique — something with a rugged first stage to take the initial brunt of interplanetary deceleration, and then a big ol’ parachute to bring you down to ground-approach speeds. Small rockets would probably be used for final landing maneuvers. Currently, we still use the original parachute design used by the Viking lander program in the ’70s, so it’s definitely time for an upgrade. (Read: US Air Force’s 1950s supersonic flying saucer declassified.)

NASA is scheduled to perform a series of LDSD launches from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, Hawaii in 2014 and 2015. The LDSD could be ready for missions to Mars as early as 2018, though there aren’t currently any scheduled heavy-payload missions to Mars that could use it. For now, we’ll just have to settle with NASA’s flying saucers whizzing around on Earth.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/180342-meet-nasas-new-supersonic-flying-saucer-for-future-mars-landings

 

[Condottiere]

1. Jump capable smallcraft - you have to wonder if the above inflatable craft would count towards the hundred ton minimum.


2. Custom sized adventure hulls - apparently you add the lower ratio to the upper ratio and split the difference according to the Frontiersman Scout; probably applicable to smallcraft.


3. Grav drives - theoretically, it seems to be 2 MCr per ton, though the table seems to veer off between D to K. I presume it was a mistake.

4. Extrapolated I'd say large craft grav drives would be:

Factor - Percentage

1 - 2.5%
2 - 5.0%
3 - 10%
4 - 15%
5 - 20%
6 - 25% (?)

 

[Condottiere]

Escort Carriers

29. Coming back to the QE carriers, among the many reasons that catapults and arresting gear weren't installed was because the RN hated steam, and electro magnetic ones were both unproven and inordinately expensive, besides requiring a different engine system.

30. A catapult launch allows you to throw much more heavily armed planes into the air.

31. A Short Take Off and Arrested Landing means you could take a normal aircraft and with an optimized lighter configuration still launch it, and recover it with the usual arresting gear.

32. A Short Take Off and Vertical Landing allows you to dispense with most of that equipment, at the cost of some aircraft performance.

33. Which is where we come back to the docking clamps.

34. We dispense with the launch tube since it occupies twenty five times the volume of the largest smallcraft expected to use it, plus personnel to operate and service it.

35. Docking clamps are somewhat agnostic, since they can hold onto a range of tonnage, so wouldn't be confined to expected hangar space. However, one tonners only have a capacity for upto thirty tons, after which it jumps to five tons.

smallcraft / percentage
10-tons / 10%
20-tons / 5%
30-tons / 3.34%
40-tons / 12.5%
50-tons / 10%
70-tons / 7.15%

36. Since missiles are about the only bay you can install in a 70-ton smallcraft, at some point you might want to pull the craft into a hangar to resupply it.

37. One problem is that the rules allow only the launch of a single craft in a thirty minute period, outside of the launch tubes and docking clamps, whereas logic indicates any number of cargo hatches could open up and dispense smallcraft.

38. Taking safety precautions and cold start preparations in account, it would make sense, as you have to warm up the engines, and the crew has to sign off that the vessel is ready for launch, as well as ensuring that a half dozen craft launching simultaneously don't get in each other's way, or that of the carrier.

 

[Condottiere]

Cargo, Maintenance, Endurance and Fleet Tenders

1. Still haven't figured out the magic formula for determining what kind and size of facilities fleet support vessels need to keep warships in the field for three months.

2. It's interesting if there's a break even point with the one percent cargo dedicated to allowing continued operations for a month.

3. Presumably, navies have average six months cruises to avoid any mutinies, so you'd expect about five percent cargo filled with spare parts.

4. You could off-load the cargo onto a fleet support ship; in fact, one tender could support an entire squadron.

5. Interesting if there's enough commonality between the differing classes so that cargo can overlap, or they really need specific parts.

6. Commercial ships tend to dock at the nearest starport once they've completed their transitions, so they probably only need an emergency store.

7. Private starships might have various reasons not to check in, so they could stock up; this means that maintenance must be paid in advance, as presumable suppliers expect COD. You now have the spares at hand, but that also means they could be stolen, lost of destroyed, meaning double maintenance.

8. Carriers need to stock separately for their smallcraft.

9. Maintenance costs should be stretched out if the ship operates on minimal performance.

 

[Condottiere]

Escort Carriers

39. In regards to the M&C Escort Carrier, it has four interesting characteristics.

40. It's a commercial hull, meaning that it could either been converted or adapted from an existing production line.

41. But after four hundred tons, it's really not worth it to use commercial hulls to save on costs, except as a matter of expediency.

42. The jump drive has a capability of four parsecs, which appears to indicate the designers expect it to accompany some fleet elements.

43. I think they've miscalculated here, as the air group is neither powerful enough nor large enough for either protecting fleet assets nor the CAS role.

44. It has a launch tube, allowing rapid deployment and recovery of the twelve light fighters.

45. But is it worth incorporating a launch tube for just twelve craft, of which you'd expect one or two to be on CAP, one or two in storage, and one or two undergoing maintenance.

46. Are twelve fighters enough to scare off a determined raider? While a corsair might be deterred, he'd also be deterred by two close escorts.

47. Do twelve ten ton fighters pack enough fire power to damage a determined raider enough to break off his attack?

48. Might it not have been a better solution to turn the carrier into a tender and by eliminating the launch tube, have space available for around ten forty ton fighters?

49. Besides the fact that the hangar appears to be short ten tons.

50. Moving down the scale, we have the Centaur class Mercenary Carrier, which the writers claim was offered to the Navy, presumably the Imperium one, and presumably fairly recently.

51. However, at jump factor one, this assertion seems rather doubtful/

52. Interestingly, it dispenses with the launch tube, though at eight hundred tons, that was an obvious choice.

53. What it replaces it with has me a tad puzzled.

54. Twenty ten ton fighters certainly has more impact than twelve, and they apparently have plenty of hangar space at two hundred sixty tons.

55. But checking out the blueprints, it seems they are stacked above each other; how do they keep them apart, the one above is in a cradle or clamped to the ceiling?

56. Then there appears to be no launch facility that can shield the hangar deck from exposure to space, meaning once the hatch is opened the air is evacuated.

57. Presumably, a crane lifts each fighter to the forefront, possibly even the double grappling arms that make the ship resemble a centipede.

58. Which is puzzling, since grappling arms are only rated two tons each.

59. I don't see any blast shields in the hangar, so it could be that the grappling arms physically launch and recover the fighters.

60. Begging the question, how long is that going to take?

61. On the whole, it seems a rather awkward arrangement, though it would have potential if some niggling questions were cleared up.

62. Moving on to the other side of the coin, we have the Pirate Carrier, which looks surprisingly like something I would design.

63. It has ten ten-tonners on three hundred ton hull, but only factor two jump.

64. Reminds me of the Marauders they had flying about in the 1980s Buck Rogers.

65. Perhaps this was the threat the above Carriers were conceived to counter.

66. And even if that were so, you'd try to deter them by giving them something harder to chew on.

67. It's pretty much barebones, with ten one ton clamps holding the fighters

68. Might be a more economical choice for a mercenary carrier.

 

[Condottiere]

Escort Carriers

69. The Light carrier has been tagged as an Escort Carrier.

70. Light cariers are only scaled down versions of fleet carriers, though they are far more likely to be tasked with that role for important squadrons without an integral fighter component.

71. Light carriers can carry out a variety of roles and can support a variety of smallcraft.

72. Light carriers hulls are built to military specifications, escort carriers to commercial specifications.

73. To me, the most interesting hull sizes are 400 tons, 2'000 tons, 7'500 tons and 30'000 tons.

74. Interestingly, the Pirate carrier is more or less 400 tons, the M&C Escort carrier is 2'000 tons, and the Bremen Pocket carrier was 8'000 tons. The typical Imeprium Light carrier is 30'000 tons.

75. The Solomani Packet Carrier was roled to provide a fighter component to Solomani task groups, the difference between it and an Escort Carrier was that it was built with the idea that it had to keep up with the main fleet units.

76. Of course, since during the Rim War, fleet speed would be three parsecs, a modern variant would need four parsecs.

77. So Solomani naval staff could dither around and decide to compromise somewhere between ten and thirty thousand tons, but they may as well bite the bullet and go straight for thirty thousand for a single hull carrier.

78. So does the Solomani naval staff see a need for a smaller carrier? I'd say yes, but not to escort their important task groups, more as wartime commerce protection and to accompany the fleet support assets, and possibly the older and slower major units.

79. They'd also act as platforms for CAS.

80. Escort carriers would also differ that normally only a single smallcraft type would be based on it, as it would simplify logistics.

81. So why 2KT, 7.5KT and 30KT?

82. 2KT is actually too small for a launch tube, and 30KT too large for an escort carrier.

83. 7.5KT is the largest size of hull before three command modules are necessary, saving half a percent in weight and a couple of coins for the Treasury, which also makes it an ideal size for commerce.

 

[Condottiere]

Escort Carriers

84. In regards to launch facilities, without a launch tube, you could have a sort of pop out drawer that could also be used for recovery, located along the side, that would solve the need for using blast shields to protect the hangar from rocket exhausts.

85. Or cranes.

 

[Condottiere]

Computers and Jump Factor

1. One interesting thing about Adventure Class computers and Capital Class Core ones, is that Adventure Class ones see jump calculations as a software problem limited only by the sophistication of the programme, which in turn was limited by tech level, and the processing capacity of the computer.

2. Core computers have more than enough processing capacity, so the jump limitation listed on the table should be moot.

3. What should matter is that the time taken for jump calculations should be effected by the Tech level of the computer, higher TL and bigger computers being faster and possibly more accurate in the precise point you transition back to real space.

4. Possibly, lower tech level computers increase the chance of a misjump.

 

[Condottiere]

Escort Carriers

86. I see the Solomani Navy as more as the IJN, needing to out innovate it's opponents.

87. Escort carriers wouldn't be manned by the regulars, but rather by the reserves and planetary naval personnel.

88. However, they'd would like to know the correct training and doctrine, so that they wouldn't have to learn as they go during wartime, so a small class of escort carriers would be commissioned to see how to best utilize them.

89. For various reasons, I'd like to Christen them the Chakram class, in honour of the current smallest possible aircraft carrier, though Vickers felt they could cut that down to six or seven thousand tons.

90. Following further on the IJN theme, the Solomani would refurbish some of their heavy cruisers with enlarged hangars for sea plane scouts, or their Traveller equivalent, and more specialized tenders.

91. At a pinch, they could hold fighters, so that a squadron of heavy cruisers could support the equivalent of an escort carrier's air group.

92, Sea plane tenders would be fleet support ships who'd service smallcraft who'd be undertaking independent operations, coming in for servicing, re-arming and crew rotation.

93. They'd could also be used to tend a small group of fighters, without the barebones aesthetic of the Pirate carrier, to protect fleet assets without distracting or redeploying the larger carriers.

94. Also have a fondness for Hurricats, though how'd you'd convert into Traveller terms should be interesting. Or just attach a fighter to a freighter's clamping dock.