Ship Design Philosophy

Spaceships: Computers and Crew Virtualization

1. Costs one megastarbux for factor zero.

2. Requires technological level ten and five bandwidth, per five crew positions.

3. Indeed, ships can be designed without a bridge, relying purely on this software package in order to function as a drone.

4. I interpret that as the physical bridge, for the human crew.

5. However, the cost of the bridge remains, since you still need to control the spacecraft, even if fly by wifi.

6. Default would be half a megastarbux per hundred tonnes, or part thereof.

7. Halved, if you're willing to have a minus one penalty to all spacecraft operations carried out from the bridge.

8. Technological level ten computer core has a bandwidth of a hundred, which would cap crew positions to hundred at any one time.

9. Though I suppose you could timeshare them, presumably without delay, but every six minutes turnover.
Last edited:
Starships: Rockette Class

V. Basic sensors, which I would think be be automatically attached to every cockpit or bridge, even if only as a backup.

W. Hardpoints are free, tonnage allocation for turret would be drawn from cargo, if required.

X. Fuel processor saves cost, one tonne for fifty kilostarbux.

Y. Fuel scoops aren't free, and not ideal hull configuration, so no.

Z. Two tonne airlock, no tonnage, and freebie.
Spaceships: Freebie Two Tonne Airlocks

1. One per hundred tonnes of hull.

2. No tonnage required.

3. No cost.

4. That's a potential two percent of tonnage.

5. And one tenths of a megastarbux gift per airlock.

6. Which I think is a very bad idea.

7. Unrealistic.

8. And very exploitable.

9. On the other hand, has to be applied to my designs, since every other canon ship exploits the concept.
Last edited:
Starships: Rockette Class

1. That leaves us with sixty tonnes empty.

2. A ten tonne stable, twenty five kilostarbux.

3. Stables come with their own air scrubbers and waste-collectors, avoiding the need to tax the existing life support systems of the ship.

4. Life support for upto twenty humans.

5. Cost twenty five hundred starbux per four weeks.

6. Combined with six tonne smaller bridge, and empty cargo spaces.

7. Twenty tonne fuel tank, freebie.

8. Thirty tonne cargo, freebie.

9. Cargo hatch, presumably freebie.
Inspiration: Space Truckers FULL MOVIE | Sci Fi Movies | Dennis Hopper | The Midnight Screening

A space trucker and his cute fiancee are on their way from a space station to Earth with an unknown cargo. When space pirates hijack them, 5000 disintegrator robots are found in the cargo.

Starring - Dennis Hopper, Stephen Dorff, Charles Dance, Tim Loane, Ian Beattie, Olwen Fouéré.
Directed By - Stuart Gordon

1. That's why you have failsafes in lethal programmes.

2. Being a genius, should have seen that coming.

3. "You're upsetting my pigs."

4. Bullet proof portholes.

5. Toilet gatekeepers.

6. I love the taste of toothpaste in the morning.

7. Pop ups.

8. Refrigerator optional.

9. Pheromones.

A. Captive audience.

B. Seven different forms of sedation.

C. Pull off.

D. Pirates versus ninja(bots).

E. Alien(s) rip off.

F. Loose ends.
Last edited:
Starships: Rockette Class

A. Hull - two fifths of a megastarbux.

B. Engineering: jump drive, reactionary rockets, reactor - nine and three fifths of a megastarbux.

C. Bridge, ship's computer, jump control/one- three hundred eighty kilostarbux.

D. Stables - twenty five kilostarbux.

E. Fuel processor - fifty kilostarbux.

F. 10'455'000.00 starbux - well within thirteen megastarbux target.
Starships: Rockette Class

G. So, ten and a half megastarbux is the cheapest viable, legal starship possible in Traveller, plus another twenty kilostarbux for the external cargo mount.

H. That's still a hefty price tag for ye interstellar do it yourself enthusiast, and I have a feeling that you can't really build a ten tonne jump drive in your garage, even budgetted and at a larger fabricated microarchitecture then the technological level nine norm.

I. So, you have to figure out how would design them and manufacture them at scale, since I rather doubt that the Vilani would.

J. And why they would be continued to be manufactured currently, when there are others that would be comparatively more efficient, and certainly, more bang for buck.

K. Limited use, though certainly not one shots, where even if cost is divided by four, in no way justifies construction.
Starships: Engineering and the Venture type Jump Drive

1. A commercial attempt to develop an inexpensive jump drive.

2. What are we down two, three major Western jet engine corporations, Chinese copycats and Russians desperately looking for cash?

3. Unless we have some billionaire willing to finance a start up or a bunch of wildcatters trying to figure it out.

4. Early prototype probably was a government sponsored blue sky research project.

5. It's a eleven hundred percent cost for manufacture, not including research and development cost.

6. Then you have to take two disadvantages, plus doubling the tonnage.

7. Easiest would be giving it a one hundred sixty percent energy increase.

8. Or just one hundred thirty percent, and factor zero, which is not an option, but likely, considering Interstellar Wars.

9. Late jump is possible, but really a pain.
Starships: Engineering and the Venture type Jump Drive

A. The early prototype, likely financed by the Americans or United Nations, was proof of concept.

B. I'm inclined to think the Americans, since it's technological level seven, and whatever they were up to in Area Fifty One.

C. Once the cat is out of the bag, all major countries and megacorporations start their own jump drive programme.

D. I'm inclined to think that one billionaire funds a start up, whose goal is to make an affordable jump drive.

E. Probably a bunch of engineers who worked on an early prototype project, that have come up with this angle.

F. So the start up would be trying to develop a prototype for this concept.
Starships: Engineering and the Venture type Jump Drive

G. The prototype has as it's disadvantage increased size.

H. Essentially, the same disadvantage as the budgetted variant.

I. The manufacturing process(es) might actually be the same.

J. The technological level is eight instead of nine, though.

K. And the manufacturing cost for the minimum ten tonne unit, is fifty four megastarbux, instead of nine megastarbux.
Starwarships: Armaments and KINETICS IN SCI-FI | Why do guns keep showing up in science fiction?

Generic greetings and welcome to another episode of science insanity. Today an opinion piece on a sci-fi classic, kinetic weapons. Everything from cannons to railguns, flak rounds and PDC’s. We’ll break down the general type of guns you see pop up in science fiction and what they're good at. Then we’ll discuss why guns are so common and what they offer to the audience and writers.

1. Simple.

2. Flexible.

3. Creative.
Starships: Engineering and the Venture type Jump Drive

L. Since the protype and the production/budgetted models are essentially the same performance and microarchitecture, the difference would be using technological level nine manufacturing processes to decrease the production cost.

M. I'm guessing that was probably the path of least resistance, for that particular approach, and for the sake of the narrative, they were first to market.

N. The drive likely had a series of other names and references, but the first starship equipped with it was called the Venture.

O. It was highly successful at first, and again, for the sake of the narrative, it's been in continued production since those early heady days of Terran interstellar exploration.

P. However, because the current rule set specifically disallows mixing disadvantages and advantages in customization, it is also a dead end development.
Starships: Engineering and Customizing Ye Jump Drive

1. You can't mix advantages and disadvantages.

2. Late jump is a pain, since you could be dealing with a lot bigger gravity wells than Terra or Sol.

3. It does raise questions as to object proximity during jumping, or gravity well proximity while in jumpspace.

4. Increased size really only works in a single business case, which basically is what the Venture type represents.

5. In all other cases, energy inefficiency is the go to disadvantage, since energy is cheap, and likely available.

6. A little more iffy if you had to continuously power the jump drive, which in the MongoVerse you don't.

7. In theory, increased fuel usage should have been a disadvantage, which going by manoeuvre drive, might be an added six percent.

8. And unstealthy jump.

9. However, detecting a ship equipped with an unstealth drive emerging into real space requires an easy (4+) Electronics (sensors) check (1D rounds, INT or EDU) ...
Starships: Engineering and the Venture type Jump Drive

Q. The Venture type jump drive would be in mass production between technological levels nine and ten.

R. Unknown if the prototype would be sold to other parties, though I rather suspect an exception would be made for the military.

S. The military would immediately install them in one hundred twenty tonne scoutships (and couriers), since they won't care if they have to pay an extra half a megstarbux for the bridge.

T. Once the production model is available, these would be installed in very small merchantmen, dubbed Flea Traders.

U. The not quite that rich might buy a one hundred twenty tonne interstellar pleasure cruiser, as opposed to a yacht.
Starships: Engineering and the Venture type Jump Drive

V. Jump drives can be divided into four parts.

W. Overhead, overhead/capacitors, core, core/capacitors.

X. Increased size overhead plus capacitors is six and a quarter tonnes, core plus capacitors is three and three quarters tonne.

Y. If there was some form of really cheap filler, I'd have left the core plus capacitors at three and one eighth tonnes for a hundred parsec tonnes, but you'd still have a hole of five eights of a tonne short of ten tonnes.

Z. Unfortunately, there's no known filler, cheap or otherwise.
Starships: Rockette Class

L. You don't really need to force yourself to try to fit in another twenty tonnes.

M. However, optionally you could install a docking clamp and attach a twenty tonne smallcraft.

N. Or a twenty tonne container or spacecraft module.

O. A drop tank is possible as well, at a semimegastarbux, plus four fifths of tonne mount fittings at two fifths of a megastarbux.

P. Cheaper to bite the bullet and have a hundred twenty tonne hull, with an extra quarter of a megastarbux for the smaller bridge, and eighty kilostarbux for the additional twenty tonne hull extension.
Starships: Rockette Class

Q. We have the cheapest variant of the Rockette class at ten and a half megastarbux.

R. That leaves us with two and a half megastarbux for improvements.

S. Most importantly would be tactical movement, with manoeuvre drives.

T. Manoeuvre drives unlike reactionary rockets, suckle energy directly from the power plant, rather than gulp hydrogen from the fuel tanks.

U. So comparatively, unlimited acceleration, without paying for fuel.
Starships: Engineering and the Venture type Manoeuvre Drive

1. To be accurate, I think energy inefficiency is the better disadvantage choice.

2. Venture will probably change as descriptive one I figure out a better name, or a humourous one.

3. Hundred diameters is risky, if you don't know where you'll end up.

4. Increased size drops thrust tonnes by twenty percent for a given tonnage, at one and one fifth of a megastarbux per tonne.

5. Comparatively, the inefficient technological level seven reactionary rocket is a hundred thrust tonnes, at two tonnes, three tenths of a megastarbux, and three and one eighth percent fuel by hull volume.

6. Default manoeuvre drive requires an equivalent tonnage of early fusion drive to energize it, so basically two tonnes at two and a half megastarbux.

7. One to one replacement would be plus two and a half megastarbux, minus three tenths megastarbux, would be about twelve and three sevenths megastarbux, within the stated goal of thirteen megastarbux.

8. Equivalent increased size manoeuvre drive would be one and a quarter tonnes at one and a half megastarbux, at one hundred thrust tonnes.

9. One tonne increased size manoeuvre drive would cost one and one fifth megastarbux, at eighty thrust tonnes.
Spaceships: Structure and Breakaway Hulls versus Docking Clamps

1. Hull points of each section will be proportionate to the total Hull points of the ship.

2. So a hundred kilotonne hull would distribute one hull point at one and a half tonnes, even if the breakaway subhull(s) are below hundred kilotonnes each.

3. Presumably, this applies to hardpoints, and firmpoints, to a greater or lesser degree.

4. Overhead/interconnections consume two percent of total volume, and two megastarbux per tonne so utilized.

5. Docking clamp/one maximum thirty tonnes, one tonne and half a megastarbux each; docking clamp/two upto ninety nine tonnes, five tonnes and one megastarbux each.

6. Attached hulls are independent, won't share hull points, but also, firmpoints aren't shared, nor fire control.

7. Nor do you need a complete set of ship systems, to allow independent movement.

8. However, default docking clamps aren't really suited to optimal thirty five tonnes, or if you are satisfied with a single firmpoint, five tonnes.

9. Exception would be docking clamp/five, with infinite capacity.
Last edited:
Starships: Engineering and the Venture type Manoeuvre Drive

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

B. Which implies, as long as there is a functioning gravitic based drive onboard, the vessel will not burn up on reentry to an atmospheric gravity well.

C. That would include any hull configuration.

D. Though dispersed structure seems a tad risky, considering weakly linked bits and bobs.

E. On the other hand, planetoids have considerable structural integrity.

F. Even though they are now just shells of their former self.