Ship Design Philosophy

Yeah, I've been thinking about that.

I think it's more of an adaption of current current types of warfare, on an interstellar scale, or a planetary one.

For example, you have escort starwarships doing ASW - Anti Stealth Warfare.

And, of course, AAW, anti aerospace warfare, against anything too small to be individually targetted.

If you have a have a large enough navy, you can have specialized ships, the biggest might be anti aerospace light cruisers.

At lower end, minesweepers and mine hunters.
Spaceships: Armaments and Fusion Weapon Systems

1. Those without radiation protection who are nearby when a FGMP is fired will suffer a potentially lethal dose of radiation.

2. Which leaves you curious what happens when you use the dirtside vehicle and the spacecraft variants.

3. While gunners could be suited up in battledress, maintenance personnel must hate servicing them.

4. Because, I presume, the bays, barbettes and turrets would be impregnated by radiation.

5. Hard to dock at a starport, after combat, since the radiation alarms must be going crazy.

6. On the bright side, boarders would be scrambling to get out of line of sight of a fusion weapon system

7. Seems foolhardy to fire one off within the confines of a spacecraft.

8. At the personal level, if everything is radiated, that would include the Fusion Gun Man Portable.

9. And the gravity suspension system.
Inspiration: Star Wars directed by Guy Ritchie

What if Star Wars were directed by Guy Ritchie?

Thanks to AI technologies, we can explore what George Lucas Star Wars might have looked like if they were directed by Guy Ritchie. In this video, I use the power of artificial intelligence to see how characters Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Chewbacca, Princess Leia, Darth Vader, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda, Jabba the Hutt, R2-D2, C-3PO would look like in a different universe.

1. I am trying to figure out if it's feasible to have kinetic point defence.

2. I do believe Star Trek has phase array energy weapon systems.

3. Anti missile missiles starts straining the cost benefit curve; I would think it would be part of a layered defence.
Spaceships: Armaments, Increased Size, and Turrets

Does customized increased size effect the size of turrets, or the number of weapon slots allocateable?

No, with quad turrets as a yardstick, you could increase the size to one hundred thirty three percent, and you can still stuff in three increased size turret weapons into a one tonne turret.
What you have for point defence depends on your paradigm for ship combat.

If it is cartoon action hour cinematic bullshit then you can have Star Wars WWII fighter pew pew bollocks, with PC ships having shields that get all the way down to 2% until they run away or kill the bad guy,

But for combat in space that is a bit more realistic then point defence becomes critical for swatting incoming missiles and drones.

Closest we have to that are fragmentation missiles, but that's not exactly cheap.

Turret railguns aren't rated point defence, so maybe dirtside kinetic weapon systems with fragmentation shells.
Inspiration: Spaceship Battle in the Atmosphere

All models, textures, animations, and effects were done by me. Except for the sound effects which I gathered and put together. It took about a year to make, of almost constantly working.

Wouldn't really try this, unless my starwarships were dead slow, in which case, I couldn't really manoeuvre or evade in any event, and forcing my opponent into dogfight mode is likely to penalize them more than me.
Starwarships: NOVA CLASS BATTLESTAR | The greatest colonial warship ever built | Battlestar galactica lore

Hello hello, today, we talk about a topic suggested by a member of SCIs patreon. The one, the only, the biggest baddest ship in all of battlestar galactica fandom. The Nova class battlestar, a fan made ship of impossibly stupid proportions. So settle in as we go on an adventure to discover the origins of this ship along with some other silly BSG facts and tidbits.

1. Probably not worth it.

2. You have to protect Twelve Colonies, plus outposts.

3. And then there's maintenance and repairs.

4. Maybe it could clone itself.
Inspiration: Battlestar Galactica (1920) | Fritz Lang Style |

//Let's imagine what current movies/series would be like in 1920..//

Spaceships: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drives, and Vectoring

1. Currently, you can vector the "lift" of a manoeuvre drive at a right angle at twenty five percent efficiency.

2. Most inhabited planets seem to be smaller than Terra.

3. But if you happen to be on Terra, technological level nine manoeuvre drive factor one will only provide a quarter gee lift, if you embed it horizontally on a bellylander.

4. Embed it vertically in a tailsitter, it would neutralize, theoretically, Terran gravity.

5. You probably would need a reactionary rocket, presumably factor one, to lift off and reach orbit.

6. For a bellylander, you probably want manoeuvre drive factor five, to provide lift and forward propulsion.

7. That would get you a quarter gee to apply to reach orbit, if you just intend to float away.

8. However, you could angle rearwards, at let's say, forty five degrees, but without some supporting force, you both fall forward and have propulsion.

9. Which, at this point, I suppose you need a lifting body and/or wings.
Last edited:
Spaceships: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drives, and Vectoring

A. With surplus lift, if you vector it towards the rear, you have both propulsion and lift.

B. If angled correctly, you sacrifice some propulsion for enough lift that the spacecraft doesn't fall forward, and you won't need wings to create the missing lift.

C. To make things more relatable, think of a small flying saucer.

D. You have a factor three manoeuvre drive embedded vertically, which means you could blast your way vertically to orbit.

E. Vector it slight away from centre, opposite the direction you want to go, minimum one factor for lift, and let's say fractional gee to move in that direction.

F. It's probably not linear, but if it were, that would be 240°, maybe 247.5° lift neutral.

Spaceships: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drives, and Vectoring

G. Centre of gravity, through the positioning of the manoeuvre drive module(s), might be important.

H. If they are embedded in the front, the backward tilt, when in flight, would be more noticeable.

I. This might actually make the spacecraft faster in level flight, if embedded vertically.

J. To keep it level, you' have compensate with a slightly sharper angle.

K. Or maybe embed it at an angle.
Spaceships: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drives, and Vectoring

L. Manoeuvre drive factor two embedded at 225° would be lift neutral on Terra, if vectored downwards at forty five degrees.

M. Considering twenty five percent efficiency at right angles, it's probably two hundred thirty and a half degrees.

N. If you shift the manoeuvre drive closer to hundred eighty degrees, the more you can allocate as horizontal propulsion.

O. I don't think this is the same as grav motors in air/rafts.

P. That's probably a field effect, that will manipulate the anti gravity cloud is on to fall forward, or any other direction required.
Spaceships: Armaments and Prep Time

1. A meson or particle accelerator spinal mount takes twenty four to fifty four minutes to power up from a safe state.

2, Conceivably, you could surprise a cruiser or a battleship with it's pants down.

3. I tend to think that a well drilled gunnery crew can do this faster.

4. But, this aspect has not been incorporated.

5. It would be more interesting to find out how long it takes to kickstart a drive or power plant.

6. At the other end of the scale, turret mounted lasers, and presumably loaded, railguns, sandcasters, torpedo tubes, and missile racks, default to one to six minutes.

7. Small fusion bays would need eight minutes forty five seconds to fifteen minutes.

8. Railgun spinal mounts would have a quickdraw of sixteen to thirty six minutes.

9. Maybe less surprise, more unprepared.

Starship: The Tailsitter

1. There are easier options.

2. First, you have to clarify why you want to design this type of ship.

3. Then, you can figure out how you can design it.

4. For me it tends to be about costs, construction and operating.

5. Then, hull configuration and tonnage.

6. The problem with reactionary rockets (besides being gas guzzlers), is that you need heat shielding, which is extraordinarily expensive in Traveller.

7. At best, you have a hybrid arrangement, currently referred to as high burn thrusters, which would give the necessary lift for escape velocity, while the manoeuvre drive acts as anti gravity lift.

8. The manoeuvre drive fulfills two purposes, constant acceleration, and no need for heat shielding during atmospheric reentry.

9. With a factor three manoeuvre drive, you wouldn't need rocket assist.
Starship: The Tailsitter

A. The first type of spacecraft that seems most suited to the concept is the dropship.

B. The military use is to deliver troops to the desired landing zone(s).

C. Civilian would be for passenger and cargo delivery.

D. Create enough lift, and it becomes a wireless elevator, that can carry passengers and cargo to orbit, usually a space station.

E. You could make the space station geostationary.

F. The dropships could be various shapes and sizes, but that would depend on traffic.