Ship Design Philosophy

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Starships: Lifeboat, or Ship

1. So, on the premise that podularization is seventy five percent maximum, the most pragmatic set up would be two modular cutters welded together.

2. Seventy five percent would be thirty seven and a half tonnes.

3. Ten tonne jump drive, six tonne small bridge, one and three fifths tonne early fusion reactor, thirteen tonnes fuel, eleven and nine tenths tonnes cargo.

4. Additional twenty tonne attachment optional.

5. So assuming that smaller pods don't need actual time in specialized yards, you could just switch out pods, and add additional ballast to make up the minimum tonnage for a jump operation.

6. The pod could include one to three docking clamps for extra secondary hulls or ballast.

7. Attachments for a drop tank, which you take along.

8. Cheap variant is external cargo mount.

9. In theory, you could add a jump net; in practice, the entry only makes sense if you're using a lanthanum grid.
Spaceships: Podular Cutters

1. Largest smallcraft that can be controlled by a cockpit is fifty tonnes.

2. Assuming podularization is capped at seventy five percent, that's thirty seven and a half percent.

3. Modularization is seventy five percent maximum, so you could modularize the pod and have a swappable twenty eight and one eighth tonne module.

4. Swapping a module is very likely a lot faster than swapping out a pod.

5. In theory, you could reverse engineer it to make it compatible with the standard thirty tonne module.

6. That would be fifty three and a third tonnes, and you'd need to upgrade to a six tonne bridge, though the cost remains a half megastarbux.

7. That one third tonne should probably be enough to scale up the manoeuvre dribve and the power plant.

8. Cabin space and cargo are ten tonnes, so the seven and a half tonnes cuts into that, and would require some reorganization.

9. Possibly the pod includes five cabin spaces at seven and a half tonnes, and cargo in the primary hull is reduced to two and a half tonnes.
Spaceships: Podular Cutters

A. Of course, the Confederation Navy would have a different take on this.

B. First of all, it would be cockpitted.

C. That would cap size at fifty tonnes.

D. Also, the pod and module sizes would be specifically to Confederation (Navy) standards.

E. Commercial entities might still follow Imperium standards, but considering the political aspects, likely only for cross border trade.

F. Also, since the Confederation Navy seems to prefer their smallcraft to be more manoeuverable, primary hull would be forty nine tonne.
Spaceships: Podular Cutters

G. A maxed Confederation podular module would be 27.5625 tonnes.

H. So let's say twenty seven and a half tonnes, for convenience.

I. Assuming same configuration as Imperium standard thirty tonne modules, with adjusted length, you could have a two and a half tonne plug in the rear to make up that difference.

J. Or a two and a half tonne independent module.

K. Or, you could leave it empty, and now you have a cargo bay.
Spaceships: Stealth and A real Invisibility shield!

• A Real Invisibility Shield | How Does...

Low quality stealth doesn't make you invisible, just really hard to target lock.
Starships: Lifeboat, or Ship

A. An expensive piece of kit that you should probably have are ramscoops.

B. They collect wild hydrogen, important if there's no source nearby.

C. You don't need ten tonnes at two and a half megastarbux, but that's the minimum.

D. You can more or less limp back to the nearest starport, without worrying about having spare capacity in the fuel tanks.

E. That would collect fifty tonnes per week.

F. About forty four hours to fill thirteen tonnes.
Spaceships: Podular Cutters

L. Though something more standardized would be a thirty five tonne podular pinnace.

M. Seventy five percent would be twenty six and a quarter tonnes.

N. Seventy five percent of that would be 19.6875 tonnes.

O. Twenty six and a quarter and 27.5625 tonnes are pretty close.

P. One variant would be standardizing one module size at twenty six and a quarter tonnes and imposing that to the podular cutter.
Spaceships: Extendible Aerofins and Lambda Class Shuttle: Expectations vs Reality

The Lambda Class T-4a Shuttle from Sienar Fleet Systems is a sign of imperial luxury and status. Today we look into the design philosophy behind this sleek vessel and how it would be used during the Galactic Civil War.

Since they don't disappear into the hull.
Starships: Lifeboat, or Ship

G. In theory, you could virtualize the bridge and crew.

H. Currently, you need at least an astrogator.

I. You could keep him on ice, and thaw him out when needed.

J. Freighter, waiter, or astrogator, you could passage for free.

K. You don't have tp pay life support while he's under, though how does that work out for salary?
Spaceships: Armaments and Smaller Weapons

1. Weapons of up to 250 kilograms may be mounted on spacecraft using 0.25 tons per weapon.

2. They are attached to fixed mounts on any spacecraft of less than 50 tons adding Cr5000 to the cost of each weapon, or small pop-up turrets operated from a remote station on larger ships at an added cost of Cr50000 per weapon.

3. Either way, these weapons draw no Power from the spacecraft since it is assumed their energy requirements are tiny in comparison to other systems ...

4. ... and they consume neither hardpoints nor firmpoints.

5. Small weapons with a mass of more than 250 kilograms consume an amount of space equal to their mass, to a minimum of one ton.

6. These must be mounted in turrets (if they mass one ton or less) or fixed mounts and consume no Power.

7. Pop-up (light autocannon x2, linked)

8. Pop-ups (TAC launcher, anti-aircraft) x2

9. Apparently, pop up turrets can be separate but linked.
Starships: Engineering and The types and quirks of hard Sci-Fi propulsion and how you can use them in your designs.

Hello hello, today we talk about more ship design stuff. In this installment of SCI suffering, we cover the different types and forms hard Sci-fi engines take. Not only what shapes they take, but everything from their fuel to the fundamental types of propulsion you can expect to find. So settle in and enjoy an expose on god forsaken engines.

1. Regular engine - pusher; compression.

2. Tractor engine - puller, tension.

3. Tension pulls heavier loads.

4. However, you need clear exhaust avenues.

5. Fuel versus gravity.

6. Equal overall thrust.

7. Compression, mono engine possible.

8. Mix and match engines.

9. Offset engines, better manoeuverability.

A. Charged particles, chemical reaction, magic.

B. Kerosene and liquid oxygen.

C. Maybe a particle accelerator spinal mount with dual use as propulsion.

D. Fully integrated engines into the hull, hull armour included.

E. Semi detached into external pods.

F. Full external engine pods, heat dissipation easier.
Spaceships: Engineering, Propulsion and Particle Accelerators

1. Phase one, arrange particle accelerator weapon systems facing the rear of your spaceship.

2. Phase two, activate the weapon systems at a targetting point diametrically opposite of the preferred direction of travel.

3. Phase three, ???

4. Phase four, propulsion.
Spaceships: Engineering, Propulsion and Turrets

1. You fit a manoeuvre drive or reactionary rocket into either a turret, or a barbette.

2. Of course, you'd need tp allocate either hard or firm points.

3. Rotation would be all around.

4. Angling seems a little problematic; though some form of vectoring is organic.

5. We don't know what proportion of the drive would be the exhaust, as opposed to the generation if thrust.

6. So let's say a kilotonne spacecraft, with four hardpointed barbettes, each with a five tonne manoeuvre drive.

7. That's twenty tonnes or two percent, default factor two acceleration.

8. Anchored at four corners, they could swivel around to land or take off vertically, then like a tult rotor, move forward.

9. Deceleration involves just swivelling the barbettes to the front.
Spaceships: Engineering, Propulsion and Turrets

A. Single turret costs two hundred kilostarbux.

B. That would be a ten percent add on to one tonne of manoeuvre drive.

C. Or doubles the cost of one tonne of reactionary rocket.

D. Scaling would be one megastarbux for five tonnes.

E. Missile barbette has five racks plus ammunition space for twenty five missiles at four megastarbux, where a turret rack costs three quarters megastarbux each (with space for a total twelve missiles).

F. That's four minus three and three quarters, equals a quarter megastarbux for an empty barbette.
Spaceships: Engineering, Propulsion and Turrets

G. Downscaled to around two hundred tonnes, you'd have to exchange two hardpoints to six firmpoints.

H. Four of which would each hold one tonne of manoeuvre drive.

I. Problem is, only two firmpoints can be single turrets.

J. In theory, you could use a tripod configuration, in which case you'd need three hundred tonnes.

K. Two hundred fifty kilogramme pop up turrets might not be sufficiently anchored for thrusting.