Ship Design Philosophy

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Chemical Reactors

1. Now that the fuel issue with prefusion reactors has been clarified, chemical reactors have lost all relevance.

2. Unlike high burn thrusters, you can't even use them to surge energy production, since that's what batteries are for.

3. It does leave one niche case, that I've been cultivating for years.

4. Besides mechanic aspect, and that you might get around with solar panelling, even if that exploit has now been fixed.

5. Loteched short range shuttle.

6. The reactionary rockets will guzzle up the fuel, anyway.

7. So the operational window is going to be rather constrained.

8. Since it's a question of hours, even at two hundred times the consumption level of fusion reactors, it's like sipping coffee.

9. In the long term, fusioned thrusters are cheaper, but chemicalled rockets have less initial capital outlay.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Chemical Reactors

A. And then we get to the Homeshield Mini Fighter.

B. What surprised me was that all you need is to rename a component, in order to potentially double output.

C. For all intents and purposes, reactionary rockets and high burn thrusters are the same thing.

D. Technological level seven caps rockets at factor three.

E. The furthest I got on this particular trail was considering using orbital manoeuvre drive, technological level nine, to cancel the mass of a belly lander, and let the factor one thrusters push the spacecraft into orbit.

F. Which would resolve the manoeuvre drive factor one versus Terran standard gravity dilemma.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Chemical Reactors

G. For a manned fighter, it does come down to human endurance under acceleration.

H. There's long term, which is calculated in six minute rounds.

I. There's short term in six second combat turns during a dogfight.

J. My feeling is that aerospace forces will abandon reactionary rockets as soon as it's feasible.

K. But keep high burn thrusters for dogfighting, or outrunning missiles.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Chemical Reactors

L. Biggest implication would be for missiles and torpedoes, since suddenly they could double their velocity.

M. Or, unmanned drones, who are very depressed.

N. Mitigating gravitational effects seem restricted to bonus of plus one while seated on an acceleration couch.

O. I would include Athletics, together with Pilot and Flyer, possibly specialization of increased gravity endurance.

P. Which is why I think everyone is going to opt for inertial compensation fields.

 

[Ol'Weedy]

On a least 3 occasions, I've started a ship design with a chemical plant in mind. Every one of them ended up fission or fusion. If you are building something small enough to be served by a chemical plant, it tends to be too small to hold sufficient fuel for said plant.
I suppose if you build a refueling station orbiting a gas giant, you can just keep the juice flowing indefinitely...
Only in game use I can think of, is a race/lost colony with no access to fissionables. or fusion tech.

 

[Condottiere]

As I've mentioned, it's a niche case.

You need a flow of continuous energy that you can't squeeze from solar panelling, or is greater than that of storage batteries.

And, operations would be rather short term.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Chemical Reactors

Q. The Cyclone ground attack fighter could be an example.

R. If you exchange the manoeuvre drive for reactionary rockets, and the fusion reactor for it's chemical counterpart.

S. Sorties aren't going to last two weeks, and without artificial gravity, minimum basic power requirements are five percent of the hull volume, in this case, half a power point.

T. Ground scale weapons consume no power, though the military grade sensors sips two, total two and a half to three power points.

U. In theory, at one full acceleration factor above local gravity, the spacecraft can reach all vehicle speed bands.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Chemical Reactors

V. Commercially, I don't see much development beyond reactionary rockets factor three, except to improve fuel consumption at technological level ten.

W. Parallel development with high burn thrusters doubles that to factor six.

X. Gravity induced loss of consciousness moves from one check every six minutes at factor three, to one very minute at factor (four to) six.

Y. Militarily, they probably stop development for manned flight at factor six.

Z. Though, there are probably situations for which they'd push platforms to twenty five gees, possibly plus.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments, Kinetic Munitions, and Platform Velocity

1. It (re)occurs to me, that the velocity of the launching spacecraft should be added on to that of the missiles and torpedoes launched thereof.

2. Doesn't matter to railgun spinal mounts slugs, since their muzzle velocity is already a tad off the speed of light.

3. So, estimated time of arrival may need some adjustment.

4. Would presumably work in reverse during pursuit, if the pursuee fires a Parthian shot.

5. Somewhat compensated by the closing velocity of the pursuer.

6. Alternatively, drop a couple of mines in their path.

7. This may effect caster canisters more profoundly.

8. Since we don't know their muzzle velocity, it's hard to actually calculate this.

9. Which makes me think, what happens if we enlarge the canister, and launch it from a small mass driver?

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Light Fighter(/Bomber)s

1. Comes down to industrial base and resource allocation.

2. On the fighter side. this would be more for short range patrolling, interception, pursuit, and generally, deterrence.

3. Patrolling is to extend the sensor net, and having a weapons platform to deal with a perceived local low level threat, such as a reconnaissance drone.

4. It also exerts sovereignty.

5. Pursuit is chasing after something, which means that it has to have the means to catch up, usually requiring a greater acceleration potential, especially if the intent is to jump outsystem.

6. Interception is placing the fighter along the path of the interceptee, at a minimum long enough to mission kill it.

7. Point defence, is a last ditch effort.

8. The one favourable circumstance is that the enemy is coming to you.

9. What you would need is to have enough reaction time to mission kill them, so usually it's more a question of interception far enough away before their weapon systems come in range of their target(s), and firepower, than endurance or acceleration.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Junkers

1. Apparently, you can change the tonnage and configuration of spacecraft hulls.

2. If you superglue surplus parts together, you can have your own spaceship, presumably scrapyard cost plus labour.

3. The only downside seems to be, that hull configuration automatically becomes dispersed.

4. Though if the prices quoted are for newly manufactured components, you have to wonder what the point was, for their reassembly.

5. I think in Star Wars they're termed uglies.

6. In Star Trek, kitbashes.

7. I think that the issue is not only that the parts stay together, but that the parts have a coherent plumbing and wiring set up.

8. Otherwise, you could just as well get a docking clamp, or external cargo.

9. Though, it does raise the issue of hardpoints and firmpoints, on already existing hull, welded together at non canon tonnage allocations.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Light Fighter(/Bomber)s

A. Balance includes not only firepower, protection, and mobility, but also electronics.

B. It's also the investment in hard, soft and wet ware.

C. And the protection thereof.

D. Stealth coating has now become more commonly acceptable.

E. The more expensive a spacecraft becomes, the more you would want to both utilize and protect that investment.

F. And that usually requires more volume.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Light Fighter(/Bomber)s

G. You need a minimum of thirty five tonnes to have two firmpoints, seventy for three.

H. But you lose manoeuverability at at forty nine, and the smallcraft can't be cockpitted over fifty.

I. So, it would seem thirty four tonnes and below would the border for light smallcraft, or at least, militarized variants.

J. So for light fighters, you're investing in a single firmpoint.

K. Unless, you're using the light fighter primarily for something other than standard combat.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Mustering Out Benefit and Smallcrafts

1. Ship’s Boat: You receive a ship’s boat or other small craft with a limit of MCr10 and TL12. If you roll this Benefit again, gain Pilot (small craft). Alternatively, receive a Ship Share instead.

2. To begin with, while this Benefit is listed as a ship’s boat, the Referee may allow you to choose something else. Any small craft with a maximum value of MCr10 should be just fine.

3. One assumes the smallcraft in question is surplus to the needs of the Service.

4. Get one with a breakaway hull feature to another hull, that happens to have a jump drive.

5. The jump drive hull wouldn't necessarily be a minimum hundred tonnes.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Light Fighter(/Bomber)s

L. In terms of armour protection, volume multiplies to achieve the same level as the default hull (size).

M. That means that there's a window between twenty six to thirty four tonnes that has the same multiplier as thirty five to ninety nine tonnes.

N. That could be an intermediate fighter.

O. The light fighter would be between sixteen to twenty five tonnes, with triple volume per armour factor.

P. Anything below that, fifteen tonnes, ultralite.

 

[Condottiere]

Traveller unrefined fuel.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Light Fighter(/Bomber)s

Q. Because smallcraft don't need to allocate volume for the jump drive components, nor (small) weapon bays, you have the space to attach armour to the hull.

R. Double seems doable, per amour factor.

S. Add to this, that hull points might be insufficient to prevent the hull from evaporating, after a hit.

T. Triplication between sixteen and twenty five tonnes, six to ten hull points, could be considered a grey area.

U. Quadruplication, one plus to six hull points, would require a use case.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Light Fighter(/Bomber)s

V. 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.

W. So, unless the rules have changed in the meantime, someone might want to reallocate tonnage on some fighter designs in Smallcraft Catalogue.

X. Baldr Attack Fighter - six slots, three tonnes.

Y. Cyclone Ground Attack Fighter - three slots, one and a half tonnes.

Z. Faiyh Assault Craft - two slots, one tonne.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Light Fighter(/Bomber)s

1. It's an interesting question whether it's a worthwhile effort to mount groundscale weapons on spacecraft.

2. There was a moment when I dreamed of close range broadside exchange, that would never be in the cards.

3. If only because range and damage potential vastly favours spacecraft weaponry.

4. Now, pirates and insurgents might be more inclined to do that, since they might not have access to spacecraft weapon systems, or at least, not large numbers of them.

5. You could look at this in a number of ways, one being gunboats, used diplomatically.

6. Or galley warfare, with floating barges and skiffs.

7. While you have to allocate tonnage for groundscale weapon systems, you don't for spacecraft turreted ones in mounted fixtures.

8. Though admitting, the downside is energy drain and limited slots.

9. And then we have ground support.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Light Fighter(/Bomber)s

A. For the Confederation Army, I pretty much figure that they have all the ground support they need with heavily armed and armoured grav motored vehicles.

B. What they need Navy fighters for is aerospace superiority.

C. And orbital bombardment, as well as the occasional orbital (surgical) strike.

D. However, Home Guards and planetary defence forces might need more nursemaiding.

E. Which would be where the CAVALRY gets sent in, or at least, the more aerodynamically configured squadrons.

F. And drones.