Ship Design Philosophy

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Basic Ship Systems

1. Since it's out there, does basic ship systems include bridge and engineering?

2. The immediate reaction would be no.

3. Not so fast.

4. Bridge usually controls transition, so that needs to be powered, and there's no separate entry for that.

5. The power plant generates energy, but something probably needs to kickstart the fusion reactor.

6. The jump drive requires power, and it's usually accumulated in the jump capacitors for the jump itself, not to power up the jump drive.

7. These power estimates could be based on the actual volume they occupy.

8. Default would be one power point or fraction per ten tonnes, not rounded up.

9. I think non gravitated hulls would default to half that, but I suspect it's more closer to two thirds and three quarters.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Cheapest Possible

A. One hundred tonne planetoid, eighty tonnes usable.

B. Four hundred kilostarbux, gravitated, non streamlined, natural armour class factor two.

C. Sixteen power points for basic ship systems, eight minimum.

D. Capping it at a hundred tonnes would cut bridge costs in half if the full hundred twenty were encapsulated in one hull.

E. For a small bridge that would be a saving of a quarter of a megastarbux, plus at best external twenty tonne cargo load costing an additional twenty kilostarbux.

F. Or just use a factor one docking clamp, which could in the Einsteinian universe have a load up to thirty tonnes, though would need to be whittled down to twenty for jump operations.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Lifeboat, or Ship

1. Sort of associated with cheapest possible.

2. If your starship misjumps into an empty hex, or a region of space that might as well be one, you're likely up the creek without a paddle.

3. So having a scoutship, or something in the hundred tonne range, in an emergency hangar might not be a bad idea.

4. If you can't stuff all the passengers and crew onboard, it could at least be used to go to the nearest starport.

5. Probably not an issue for most naval fleet escorts and cruisers on upwards, since you don't want to get eaten by spacesharks while floating around in vacuum, or waiting for someone to start missing your starwarship.

6. For commercial entities, it might be an issue of expense.

7. Probably should be a requirement once your passenger liner is above a certain weight class.

8. For a Titanic comparison, if you hit an asteroid while transitioning that pushes you off course.

9. You would only need one, as long as you have sufficient survival boats for the rest of the passengers and crew, with enough endurance to await rescue.

 

[wingsday]

I'm putting together a fleet RN and have used modified 35t patrol fighters, with a pod replacing the habitations with a big block of acceleration benches and a small r drive and fuel tank for an extra boost. as a fighter based system it might be a little on the pricey side for a life boat, but if yr expecting these to mostly be used in combat (one hopes they don't lose too many warships to non-combat hazards anyway) it's probably an advantage that they have armor and a beam laser turret. the rail gun might encourage some foolish captains to bulk out their fighter force with them, but I suppose we'll just have to rely on the rest of the command staff to be less foolish, or at least more self interested than that. Also this is, at least in terms of primary combatants, a battle rider navy, I haven't put together the tenders yet, but my plan is for them to have some extra low berths and perhaps some battery powered recovery decks for receiving crews from any of of their ships that were destroyed.

 

[Condottiere]

1. If you're switching out the internals of the fighter for more accommodation, it's somewhat like the modular cutter.

2. Optimally, if you have space, you might want to have a squadron of fighters, and a squadron of utility smallcraft of the same size and more or less hull configuration.

3. Difference being, you can switch out the internals of the utility smallcraft, turning them into rescue lifeboats, or gunboats, depending on the situation.

4. In theory, the fighter(s) would be heavily armoured, and there shouldn't be much room leftover.

5. On the other hand, the utility craft compromises with a lot less combat equipment, but should allow a decent amount of internal space to reconfigure it's mission/purpose profile.

6. The exchangeable portion could be placed in pods, and you can have spare/exchangeable pods for each type of mission, whether combat, transport, rescue, etcetera.

7. I can't state specifics, because a lot depends on what you believe that the smallcraft should be able to do.

8. You could, in theory, have two pods, each holding one firmpoint, though that means one would be a single turret, and the other fixed mount, but no firmpoint on the primary hull.

9. There's this specialized type of aircraft carrier that's primarily used to repair and maintain aircraft, where, in theory, you could store excess pods, if you run out of cargo space on your principal ships.

 

[wingsday]

1. If you're switching out the internals of the fighter for more accommodation, it's somewhat like the modular cutter.

True, but using pods instead of modules means a few weeks in the drydock instead of a while with a crane in a hangar

2. Optimally, if you have space, you might want to have a squadron of fighters, and a squadron of utility smallcraft of the same size and more or less hull configuration.

Exactly

3. Difference being, you can switch out the internals of the utility smallcraft, turning them into rescue lifeboats, or gunboats, depending on the situation.

Probably if yr using modules, I elected to use pods for cost saving reasons, see point 1

4. In theory, the fighter(s) would be heavily armoured, and there shouldn't be much room leftover.

They're 35tonners, so it's not so bad(*2 only), this does remind me that I slightly cheated by placing the armor for the whole ship in the first pod, there's no difference in statistics, just presentation and I avoided having to do division lmao. However if I fixed that then I could make the fuel/cargo shuttle pods less armored and gain a little more storage space.

5. On the other hand, the utility craft compromises with a lot less combat equipment, but should allow a decent amount of internal space to reconfigure it's mission/purpose profile.

See 4

6. The exchangeable portion could be placed in pods, and you can have spare/exchangeable pods for each type of mission, whether combat, transport, rescue, etcetera.

I think I mostly envision them just using the lifeboats for personnel transport, since I can't really imagine a situation you would want to do that and also have your large warships at risk of needing their lifeboats, i think a rescue model is probably a good idea though, thanks!

7. I can't state specifics, because a lot depends on what you believe that the smallcraft should be able to do.

Mostly I've set them up to facilitate the larger ships, persistent patrol/reconnaissance type stuff, in addition to fuel/cargo/personnel shuttling

8. You could, in theory, have two pods, each holding one firmpoint, though that means one would be a single turret, and the other fixed mount, but no firmpoint on the primary hull.

Oh now that's a good idea, I'm not really sure what to do with the fixed mounts on ships that aren't combat/patrol oriented(since fixed mounts sandcasters are a little sketchy imo), but just depopulating it is a pretty decent savings

9. There's this specialized type of aircraft carrier that's primarily used to repair and maintain aircraft, where, in theory, you could store excess pods, if you run out of cargo space on your principal ships.

I might think about putting something like that in the support sections, with some spares

 

[Condottiere]

1. Exchanging pods time requirement is probably scaled with tonnage; the only example so far being twenty six hundred at let's say a month; specific to anything not engineering or bridge related, modularization is fine.

2. I'm going to speculate that what we're dealing with is a task force of destroyers and escorts, with maybe one to three smallcraft each.

3. See point one.

4. Fuel shuttle you might want to go for a hundred tonner, if you have a task force.

5. I pick tonnages based on min maxing criteria, and thirty five tonnes is sort of ideal for me based on launch tubes, not necessarily if the host ships can vary hangar size and launch facilities.

6. You can have a ten tonne runabout if it's a question of a few personnel needing transportation at any one time, or a couple of tonnes of cargo.

7. Again, my impression is a small task force without a carrier; you can assign some staff at the flagship to coordinate all the smallcraft within the task force, since if left by themselves, the smallcraft would be extensions of their assigned starwarships, rather than as assets of the task force as a whole.

8. Mix and match.

9. While you won't have a carrier, you probably would have a logistics support ship, which could have smallcraft facilities and workshops, where task force smallcraft can be repaired and maintained more conveniently than the likely cramped quarters of their host ships.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Lifeboat, or Ship

A. If shipping lines do spring for a lifeship, I doubt they're keen to use up space for a hundred tonne planetoid in their cargo hold(s).

B. My original concept, ye many moons ago, was a one shot jump drive (two hundred parsec tonnes), not the Venture model.

C. It would be like a quarter of the cost, and conceivably you could use it three times.

D. Works, if it's mandatory, and you'd only have to utilize it once, or never.

E. It would be pretty much minimal facilities, just enough to get the people onboard to safety.

F. In the meantime, likely used as a storage space.

 

[wingsday]

1. Exchanging pods time requirement is probably scaled with tonnage; the only example so far being twenty six hundred at let's say a month; specific to anything not engineering or bridge related, modularization is fine.

That's fair, it still requires a shipyard rather than a hangar though, as I said, probably worthwhile somewhere in the sustainment section

2. I'm going to speculate that what we're dealing with is a task force of destroyers and escorts, with maybe one to three smallcraft each.

Actually much more ambitious, I'm working up a sector fleet equivalent, using the us army's proposed armored division structure as a guide

3. See point one.

4. Fuel shuttle you might want to go for a hundred tonner, if you have a task force.

5. I pick tonnages based on min maxing criteria, and thirty five tonnes is sort of ideal for me based on launch tubes, not necessarily if the host ships can vary hangar size and launch facilities.

Tbh I think I'm happy with the 35t fuel/cargo shuttles(using fuel bladders), it probably means fairly consistent resupply runs (the tank equivalents go through~10t of fuel and supplies a day and the 35t logistics shuttles carry ~15t of stuff, requiring at least 4 missions every 3 days) but I think the common platform is a benefit here, also it means I have to make less ships. I dunno, I'll think about centralizing this capability I guess, it would save a few tons to use unrep instead of landing in a hangar I guess

6. You can have a ten tonne runabout if it's a question of a few personnel needing transportation at any one time, or a couple of tonnes of cargo.

Tbh I think this capability is perfectly well served already

7. Again, my impression is a small task force without a carrier; you can assign some staff at the flagship to coordinate all the smallcraft within the task force, since if left by themselves, the smallcraft would be extensions of their assigned starwarships, rather than as assets of the task force as a whole.

This is sort of my plan with the ifv equivalent ships, deciding whether to put the actual fighters on them is a little weird; on the one hand it would be more efficient to base the fighters on the tender and just have the "ifv" be a combat+command&control platform, but on the other this would require differing tenders between tanks and ifvs and makes it less reasonable to deploy them together as a hunter/killer pair.

8. Mix and match.

I think part of the problem is that I'm mostly using the fleet combat rules for this process, and at TL13-15+ basically all of the turret weapons are almost totally useless as offensive weapons, or rather they probably should be because they all do 5 or less damage and you can reach armor factor 5 on your small ships, and I think not being able to be harmed by turret weapons is a good advantage for your small ships

9. While you won't have a carrier, you probably would have a logistics support ship, which could have smallcraft facilities and workshops, where task force smallcraft can be repaired and maintained more conveniently than the likely cramped quarters of their host ships.

I'm think I'm going to run the Stryker rifle brigade as primarily a series of strike carriers, I do think having some organic refit capacity for fighters in the support brigade is going to be an advantage though

 

[Condottiere]

Actual design(s) of smallcraft is whatever you think suits your needs or style.

Make up of the task force should depend on expected opposition, and what and how you intend to accomplish your objectives.

Or usually, whatever the Admiralty assigns to you.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Lifeboat, or Ship

G. One, perhaps, not so obvious way, to achieve minimum tonnage was welding two modular cutters together.

H. In theory, you could have a do it yourself starship kit that you could assemble yourself.

I. Or maybe, just drop in components, like manoeuvre drive, jump drive and power plant.

J. You probably could bracket them down in an existing smallcraft hull.

K. I suspect the real trick is wiring them together.

 

[Condottiere]

Starwarships: Why Star Wars "Light Freighters" Are Nonsense

Spacedock delves into the dubious "Hero Freighters" of #starwars

1. Traders aren't free.

2. (Ch)armed and mangerous.

3. Delivery vans.

4. Or pickups.

5. Otherwise known as light trucks.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Lifeboat, or Ship

L. Using the Alphabet Drive A, you could tie together four modular cutters as a raft.

M. This is where having podularization instead of modularization comes in useful, as you could exchange them with ones with a bridge capable of controlling jump operations, and the actual jump drive itself, without messing around with hull installation.

N. Though, the rules allow complete virtualization with the appropriate computer programmes and powerful enough computer, which could be attached to any cockpit.

O. Though I'd associate a life raft more with a rubber dinghy.

P. You could use anything for ballast, including drop tanks, external tanks, external cargo, or plausibly a blown up fuel condom.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Lifeboat, or Ship

Q. Just because you don't have the physical presence of the bridge, doesn't mean you wouldn't need to wire up the rest of the starship, so the cost of the bridge remains, minus that of the physical controls.

R. Using the cheapest jump drive, you only have a performance of one hundred twenty parsec tonnes.

S. It's possible to have a trimaran, with one fifty tonne smallcraft, and two thirty five tonne smallcrafts, if only for ballast.

T. That would mean having a primary hull, that with sufficient ballast can transition.

U. In the Confederation Navy context, that would be like tying three fighters and/or utility craft together.

 

[Condottiere]

Starwarships: AMUN-RA class stealth ship | Protogen corporations secret weapon | The expanse lore

Generic greetings and welcome to some real sneaky shenanigans. Today we'll be covering the Amun-ra. One of the coolest stealth ships in all of science fiction and the secret weapon of protogen corporation from the expanse. Used to commit war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against nature and crimes in general, the Amun-ra is responsible for almost everything that happens in the expanse, directly or otherwise. So settle in and enjoy the never ending ride of unethical ethics and illegal laws.

1. Promise everything to everyone, deliver nothing to anyone.

2. Nuclear scuttling.

3. See and not seen.

4. Mini spinal mount.

5. Bored and lodged.

6. Nine and nine tenths of a tonne and below should be harder to detect.

7. Or hit.

8. Chaotic hull configuration.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Lifeboat, or Ship

V. Wiring up a hull upto hundred tonnes is going to cost a minimum of a quarter of a megastarbux.

W. Anything between one hundred one and one hundred twenty would be half a megastarbux.

X. On the other hand, you could, in theory, isolate the pod.

Y. The pod could the ten tonne jump drive, a fourteen power point fusion reactor, and a small bridge in a twenty tonne package.

Z. The small bridge costs the same, but wiring is confined to the twenty tonne pod, so you don't need a specially constructed smallcraft with wiring for a bridge.

 

[Condottiere]

Starwarships: COLONIAL VIPERS | Viper models from the mark I to the mark VII explained | Battlestar galactica lore

Hello hello, today we dive back onto the battlestar galactica universe. This time visiting the king of semi hard sci-fi space fighters, the Viper. From the mark 1 original, to the super modern mark 7 this video is going to explain the lore, history and background of one of the coolest fighter designed in science fiction. So settle in and let papa SCI take you on an angry snake filled adventure.

1. Interception.

2. Point defence.

3. Aerospace superiority.

4. Functional survivability.

5. Don't get hit.

6. Fighter/bomber.

7. Post modern fighter.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Ideal Hull Configuration

1. There was a discussion on how the Scoutship resembled two paper airplanes stuck together at the keel.

2. I couldn't figure how that was ideal, even if you assume the Concord design philosophy.

3. First of all, you can't really crash, if you have the lifters set to a failsafe safety height, that activates and stops the descent of an out of control aerospace death spiral.

4. However, you might want to minimize atmospheric turbulence, despite having inertial compensators.

5. In theory, the Safari Ship is a blended wing design, which in theory could be stealthy and be more (atmospherically) economical, which in most cases, isn't a factor.

6. The passenger shuttle has stated aerofins, like the Serpent class scout.

7. The Empress Marava class looks enough like a box van to make modularization or podularization feasible.

8. What's missing is the flattened sphere, of flying saucer.

9. The problem with an unflattened sphere is expansion.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Ideal Hull Configuration

A. The easiest to draw deckplans for is a box, which would be basically standard configuration.

B. Cylinders have straight lines, but curved verticals.

C. Streamlining could be a question of proportions, length against height and width or the principal hull.

D. Dimensions of ship components have an effect on hull configuration.

E. If you have a really skinny pencil configuration, ship components may create some unsightly bulges.

F. Drives could be externalized.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Ideal Hull Configuration

G. Podularization is free, except in the sense of labour and yard time, plus spares.

H. Modularization doubles the cost of the specific hull area assigned.

I. If you have multiple slots on the same primary hull, you'd want them to be uniform, so that you could switch them around on the same hull.

J. Since pods are hull based, the hull configuration where pods are attached, should be, for the lack of technical jargon, straight and even.

K. Possibly, you could install them in either direction.