Ship Design Philosophy

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

Spaceships: Modular Cutter and Cutter Modules

G. Gunship Module.

H. The cutter isn't armoured, which made me first compare it to the Huey.

I. If you did have to make an assault module, this is probably better configured.

J. You could make the firmpoint missile armed, and place a laser into a turret, though you'd need to find a power source.

K. Though still as currently envisioned, would be extremely reluctant to take it into non permissive airspace, and just taxi the armoured fighting vehicle to a safe landing zone.

Completely agree. Most of the modules need a serious update (in my mind).
One of my more mature and fleshed out NPC havens is basically a "custom body shop" that manufactures and customizes cutter modules.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

Civilian vs Military

• While the Traveller rules have a good discussion of the availability of equipment, they don't really call out what that means for spacecraft.
  Most of us can readily identify with the "airport style" security inspection of a player's personal goods, but don't touch the national border style inspection at all until after the spaceship is already docked at starport.
• Spacecraft approaching a space station should expect to be scanned (visually at least), because pirates, marauders and invaders are still a real possibility. Security patrols in system should also scan far enough out that they can engage and respond to any new arrivals.
• Another sci-fi trope involves how the "tramp freighter" is overpowered and overgunned; Through the Traveller lens, I now see this as a civilian vessel being armed with Category 4, 5 and prohibited items. Mining lasers and sandcasters make sense for an implied permit, as do single mounts of laser and missile launchers, or any firmpoint mount (For defense). Triple turrets, pop-up turrets, stealth coatings, heavy armor, barbettes and other items start to be questionable.
• With the advent of Point Defense Weapons and Turrets with Trailing Frontier, I think that the civilian merchant vessels should be updated with a basic loadout that is more aligned with the defensive weapons.

Hmm. Maybe this is another TAS article to add to my list.

 

[Condottiere]

1. It's comparable to the Eagle, but the difference is streamlined tube versus skeletal close structure.

2. In terms of utility smallcraft and attached modules, the question is, what do you want to use them for, and how much you're willing to invest in their capabilities.

3. Under current High Guard, I don't see much point is having a utility, or any, smallcraft larger than fifty tonnes.

4. The second aspect, how large of a module (cavity) do you think you need for the variety of missions you plan to use the modular smallcraft for.

5. As regards air/starport security, we have a deep scanner to pass the spacecraft through.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Realistic Spacecraft Maneuvering

Spacedock delves into realistic depictions of spacecraft maneuvering.

1. Newton's Third Law.

2. Lower mass gets accelerated more.

3. Reaction mass, hot gas.

4. More energy released and captured.

5. (Re)heat, capturing sunlight, nuclear reactor, electrical resistance.

6. Ion drive, electrical charged particles.

7. Six degrees of freedom.

8. Pitch, yaw, roll.

9. Left or right, up or down, front or back.

A. Reaction control system.

B. Conservation of angular momentum.

C. Thrust vectoring.

D. Trial and error.

 

[Condottiere]

Starwarships: DONNAGER BATTLESHIP | The Martian answer to earths superior navy | The Expanse Lore

This video was a blast to make for me, not only do i ger to use all the new art and assets i made for the animated segments and overall SCI look during videos. But, i also get to talk about the Donnager, one of the coolest Battleships ever designed and a gift to science fiction lovers everywhere.

So settle in and enjoy the Martian answer to earths overpowering numbers advantage.

1. Missile hammerlock.

2. Lightlock, presumable energy weapons.

3. Armour means nothing to nuclear warheads.

4. Quality and technology, versus quantity and legacy.

5. Logistics and homogeneity.

6. Option for upgrades.

7. Mothership.

8. Human sacrifice.

9. Five hundred thirty metres length.

A. Quarter megatonne.

B. Two thousand plus personnel, probably a battalion of Marines.

C. Three to five gees, artificial cap.

D. Six docking clamps?

E. Internally, six small ships.

F. Pair of railguns.

G. Potentially upgradeable to four, with more advanced power plants.

H. Torpedoes, and point defence guns, fifty nine thereof.

I. Forty to fifty millimetre calibre.

J. Potential thruster.

K. Firing groups.

L. Flak screen.

M. Six four, eight aft, torpedo tubes.

N. Mass fire of torpedoes.

O. Plasma, fletchette payloads.

P. Prison complex.

Q. Armouries.

R. Laser communicator.

S. Docking tube.

T. Emergency power source.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Shuttles

1. I'm not sure there's much benefit to building them at ninety five tonnes.

2. Except marginally, in paying lower costs percentagewise, than if a full hundred tonnes were utilized, without really loosing capacity.

3. I think what I would do would be going the full hog for upto two hundred tonne hull, where I think capacity would be in the jumbo jet range, which considering the comparatively short legged nature for insystem passenger service, would be appropriate.

4. A hundred tonne version could be converted, or have subclassed, as an interstellar scoutship/courier.

5. Rectangular single deck simplifies deckplans.

6. Aerofins and streamlined hull would make it ideal for atmospheric reentry.

7. Hundred tonnes also give the option for a hardpoint, rather than three firmpoints.

8. This makes it potentially more dangerous, considering the increased range of hardpointed energy weapon systems.

9. The other option would involve shrinking it to under fifty tonnes, to allow greater manoeuverability and a cheaper cockpit.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Pinnaces

1. At a default forty tonnes, the next in line from a cutter.

2. While the passenger shuttle has an acceleration of one gee, factor three acceleration is considered to be a slow boat.

3. The norm seems to be factor five acceleration, supposedly.

4. In theory, with the tubular configuration, and visually at least, with wings, it's a scaled down shuttle.

5. Rule sets don't really distinguish whether aerofins affect launch facilities, since you'd assume that it would alter, however slightly, hull configuration.

6. You could make pinnaces modular, which then competes with the modular cutter in potential versatility.

7. Instead of the middle, deckplans indicate that the module would be shoved in the rear.

8. You could have standard modules, but differingly configured smallcraft that could accept them, with differing capabilities and performances.

9. In theory, you could have that tubular tunnel, and have a concealed docking clamp that holds the module inside, without the rigmarole or attaching the module the accepted way.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

Spaceships: Shuttles

1. I'm not sure there's much benefit to building them at ninety five tonnes.

2. Except marginally, in paying lower costs percentagewise, than if a full hundred tonnes were utilized, without really loosing capacity.

3. I think what I would do would be going the full hog for upto two hundred tonne hull, where I think capacity would be in the jumbo jet range, which considering the comparatively short legged nature for insystem passenger service, would be appropriate.

4. A hundred tonne version could be converted, or have subclassed, as an interstellar scoutship/courier.

5. Rectangular single deck simplifies deckplans.

6. Aerofins and streamlined hull would make it ideal for atmospheric reentry.

7. Hundred tonnes also give the option for a hardpoint, rather than three firmpoints.

8. This makes it potentially more dangerous, considering the increased range of hardpointed energy weapon systems.

9. The other option would involve shrinking it to under fifty tonnes, to allow greater manoeuverability and a cheaper cockpit.

There was a Belt Seeker Singleship in the 1st Edition Beltstrike.
I really like firmpoints. I think we need to be able to trade hardpoints for firmpoints.

Spaceships: Shuttles

1. I'm not sure there's much benefit to building them at ninety five tonnes.

2. Except marginally, in paying lower costs percentagewise, than if a full hundred tonnes were utilized, without really loosing capacity.

3. I think what I would do would be going the full hog for upto two hundred tonne hull, where I think capacity would be in the jumbo jet range, which considering the comparatively short legged nature for insystem passenger service, would be appropriate.

4. A hundred tonne version could be converted, or have subclassed, as an interstellar scoutship/courier.

5. Rectangular single deck simplifies deckplans.

6. Aerofins and streamlined hull would make it ideal for atmospheric reentry.

7. Hundred tonnes also give the option for a hardpoint, rather than three firmpoints.

8. This makes it potentially more dangerous, considering the increased range of hardpointed energy weapon systems.

9. The other option would involve shrinking it to under fifty tonnes, to allow greater manoeuverability and a cheaper cockpit

 

[Condottiere]

I think firmpoints in preference to hardpoints is a specific case, since you can only convert one of them to a turret, assuming you could do that per hardpoint.

For everything except missiles (and torpedoes), you have range shrinkage, combatwise, arguably a laser for point defence, or a drill laser, since range is capped for it anyway.

The other aspect is to separate fire control, which removes the penalty a mixed turret has.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Ship's Boat

1. The ship’s boat is both fast and versatile, making it a popular choice for auxiliary craft. While most commonly seen hauling small cargo and passenger loads between ships and worlds, in smaller militaries the ship’s boat is also used as a boarding craft by marine assault teams.

2. Acceleration factor five seems very popular.

3. You could either make it slightly smaller, or slightly larger, to achieve about the same.

4. Visually, it looks like Bezos's concept for a spacecraft.

5. More seriously, a shrunk down cutter, minus modularization.

6. The slow boat appears either as an early design of the ship’s boat, before power plants and manoeuvre
drives become more efficient, or as an intentional throttling back of the ship’s boat performance. Either
way, the slow boat is comparable to the ship’s boat but trades speed for cargo space.

7. Visually, it has wings, but no aerofins are mentioned.

8. As a smallcraft type, I think they can be rationalized away in favour of another type.

9. Personally, I do think that acceleration factor three is likely more popular for short ranged smallcraft.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Launch

1. Also called a lifeboat, due to one of its expected roles, this craft uses a 20-ton hull and can easily be flown by a single skilled individual. A launch can be configured to engage in a wide variety of roles but ambitious users find themselves limited by the small hull, weak power plant and lack of an airlock. However, for the price, the launch provides a means to very cheap space travel.

2. Seems a necessity, and I guess it's more trying to find a suitable size you can be comfortable in.

3. Thrust one seems risky, considering you probably want to go dirtside.

4. The military gig variant has a listed acceleration factor eight.

5. I have to admit I don't really have a clear vision for this type, if I tried to make a one size fits all.

6. The weight range would be between sixteen to twenty six tonnes, leaving the option open in case of armouring the hull.

7. Which is basically where I'd place space fighter, as opposed to light (upto sixteen tonnes), and medium (thirty five tonnes plus).

8. In theory, you could modularize it.

9. In practice, it might be cheaper to have specialized variants.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Troop Transport

1. The 50-ton troop transport was designed and produced by the Imperial Navy to meet a long established need for deployment of troops from orbit to world surface. The 50-ton limit on displacement allows the craft to be deployed on ships possessing standard 50-ton launch tubes. Acceleration seats are used, instead of more space-efficient acceleration benches, to accommodate troops in battle dress. Since all crew and passengers are expected to be in sealed armour, this craft has no airlocks, which also speeds up boarding and deployment. Only a single gunner position is listed, as it is standard practice to let one of the carried troops operate the missile launcher.

2. It's still a lot of eggs in one basket.

3. Probably wouldn't matter if the troops were meatshields.

3. Assuming it's meant to drop straight into the combat zone, armour factor six is kinda low.

4. Probably would have a troop transport module, whether for simple taxiing or actual assault.

5. Funny, for something that supposedly has no airlocks, I spot one.

6. No onboard armoury.

7. I don't see any mass disembarkation hatches.

8. Acceleration seats have enough leeway to accommodate battle dress.

9. Acceleration factor nine indicates a rapid dirtside deployment, and fast getaway.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Torpedo Boat

1. The torpedo boat provides a small and evasive delivery package for lethal torpedo weapons. Properly used and defended, torpedo boat squadrons are a danger to much larger ships. With its small size and manoeuvrability, it is extremely difficult to hit and even if several are destroyed en route to their target, all it takes is a portion of them to get close enough to do immense damage.

2. The torpedo boat presented here was deliberately designed at TL12 so that it can be built and supported at more shipyards within the Imperium. More advanced versions of up to TL15 are also manufactured. Any tonnage gained is usually used to improve its sensors or store more torpedoes.

3. Torpedo salvoes suffer an additional DM-2 on their attack rolls against ships smaller than 2,000 tons.

4. I'm going to guess they meant to be used in mass against fleet units.

5. Acceleration factor six would indicate it's meant to keep pace with modern capital ships, not really close with them.

6. I would guess that the heavy armour is more to provide ruggedness against fighter screens and missile intercepts.

7. Thirty torpedoes indicate an anticipated hour's worth of engagement.

8. This is a little prolonged, so you would need a fighter escort to keep the other side from getting theirs to take you out.

9. I think this would be more of a planet based force, since fifty tonne launch tubes are too small, and launching directly from the hangar(s), or docking clamps, is a little slow and awkward.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Manoeuvre Drive Factor Zero

1. A ship without a functioning gravitic drive that attempts re-entry without heat shielding will burn up.

2. The bridge has two weeks of life support and battery power, while emergency thrusters give it basic manoeuvring capabilities, equivalent to Thrust 0. A detachable bridge is even capable of soft-landing on a planetary surface.

3. I suppose if we add a couple of factors of reactionary rockets, the detached bridge could take off, and reach orbit.

4. Likewise, if we exchange the manoeuvre drive factor one of the free trader with one of factor zero, and give it rocket boosters.

5. To be fair, I think that manoeuvre drive factor zero takes up so much volume, because it's decentralized and spread out throughout the spacecraft.

6. Inertial compensation may or may not exist, and if it does, a tad above zero.

7. Power draw appears to be two and a half percent of spacecraft volume.

8. Budget/energy inefficiency variant would be three and a quarter percent power draw of spacecraft volume.

9. Technological level twelve improvement for energy efficiency would be five eights of a percent of spacecraft volume, for power draw.

 

[Condottiere]

Starwarships: LAST BATTLE of the DONNAGER | Battle breakdown for the donnys last stand | The Expanse

This video is a first for Science Insanity, so I hope you enjoy and find it entertaining.

Up today on the chopping block is the final battle of the donnager from season one episode 2 of the expanse. 6 Amun-ra class stealth ships intercept and attack the donnager in an attempt to stop information about their secret operations from being exposed. Follow along as we discuss the actions, tactics and major moments of the fight.

1. Ship sensor shadow.

2. Flak screen.

3. Called shots.

4. Distraction.

5. Boarding action.

6. Self destruct, possibly tied in with nuclear warheads in the magazine(s).

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

I think firmpoints in preference to hardpoints is a specific case, since you can only convert one of them to a turret, assuming you could do that per hardpoint.

For everything except missiles (and torpedoes), you have range shrinkage, combatwise, arguably a laser for point defence, or a drill laser, since range is capped for it anyway.

The other aspect is to separate fire control, which removes the penalty a mixed turret has.

My point is that civilian ships don't need the same firepower that a military or paramilitary vessel does.
Firmpoints add flexibility (although, I would also change the rule to have a firmpoint for each full 25dtons, rounded to the nearest 25: <25=1, <50=2, <75 =3, <100 = 4 and allow turrets on any firmpoint on a vessel over 100dtons), yet the range modifiers are proper (again, for defense).
Yes, three mining lasers on a firmpoint fixed-mount have some added mercantile benefit, without being overpowering in combat.
Yes, torpedoes and missiles are a way to upgrade the offensive power (as they should be)
I loved the armed privateer, and armed merchant model. I have no issues with the concept of having increased firepower. In my immature gaming days, I used to go full max weapons and a'pirating we would go.
I just like the roleplaying aspect of this; an older ship may have double or triple turrets that were permitted because of service during wartime. A Jump-2> vessel might have improved weapons because of the exploratory need (Detached Scouts would fall into this category).
I also used to have my government bureaucrats get suspicious with any vessel with greater than Thrust 4, if it helps shape the thought process.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

Spaceships: Torpedo Boat

1. The torpedo boat provides a small and evasive delivery package for lethal torpedo weapons. Properly used and defended, torpedo boat squadrons are a danger to much larger ships. With its small size and manoeuvrability, it is extremely difficult to hit and even if several are destroyed en route to their target, all it takes is a portion of them to get close enough to do immense damage.

2. The torpedo boat presented here was deliberately designed at TL12 so that it can be built and supported at more shipyards within the Imperium. More advanced versions of up to TL15 are also manufactured. Any tonnage gained is usually used to improve its sensors or store more torpedoes.

3. Torpedo salvoes suffer an additional DM-2 on their attack rolls against ships smaller than 2,000 tons.

4. I'm going to guess they meant to be used in mass against fleet units.

5. Acceleration factor six would indicate it's meant to keep pace with modern capital ships, not really close with them.

6. I would guess that the heavy armour is more to provide ruggedness against fighter screens and missile intercepts.

7. Thirty torpedoes indicate an anticipated hour's worth of engagement.

8. This is a little prolonged, so you would need a fighter escort to keep the other side from getting theirs to take you out.

9. I think this would be more of a planet based force, since fifty tonne launch tubes are too small, and launching directly from the hangar(s), or docking clamps, is a little slow and awkward.

Very definitely: swarms of torpedo boats help offset a lower budgeted navy against an invader with very large, capital ships.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

Are you sharing your personal perspective, or is this from the content creation team? Not challenging, but I will interpret the content differently from another user than I would the author.

 

[Condottiere]

This is pretty much my perspective, and in these cases, lays the groundwork when I present my next updated vision of the Solomani Confederation Navy, rationalized and homogenized.

 

[Condottiere]

My point is that civilian ships don't need the same firepower that a military or paramilitary vessel does.
Firmpoints add flexibility (although, I would also change the rule to have a firmpoint for each full 25dtons, rounded to the nearest 25: <25=1, <50=2, <75 =3, <100 = 4 and allow turrets on any firmpoint on a vessel over 100dtons), yet the range modifiers are proper (again, for defense).
Yes, three mining lasers on a firmpoint fixed-mount have some added mercantile benefit, without being overpowering in combat.
Yes, torpedoes and missiles are a way to upgrade the offensive power (as they should be)
I loved the armed privateer, and armed merchant model. I have no issues with the concept of having increased firepower. In my immature gaming days, I used to go full max weapons and a'pirating we would go.
I just like the roleplaying aspect of this; an older ship may have double or triple turrets that were permitted because of service during wartime. A Jump-2> vessel might have improved weapons because of the exploratory need (Detached Scouts would fall into this category).
I also used to have my government bureaucrats get suspicious with any vessel with greater than Thrust 4, if it helps shape the thought process.

1. You're not going to four firmpoints per hardpoint exchange.

2. I'll speculate that under five tonnes, there's no firmpoint.

3. Anything that requires, or benefits, from open sights aiming should be in the turret, of which you can only convert one firmpoint.

4. In theory, any weapon system that doesn't require energy to propel it's payload, like missiles, has no range restrictions.

5. I don't think it's been specified that sandcasters need to be pointed in direction of the incoming laser beam, so you should be able to place it in fixed firmpoints without penalty.

6. Missiles can change direction midflight, so also not an issue.

7. And we've run out of non energy options.

8. I'd stuff four light quarter tonne autocannons into the turret, or one that weighs a tonne or less, though I'm not sure if range really matters, considering their effective ones.

9. Acceleration for commercial spacecraft seems to reach factor five, so any paranoia would likely remain with local jurisdictions.