Ship Design Philosophy

[Condottiere]

Alphabet Drives: Complete Modules

In this case, using a twin/triplet/etcetera set of Alphabet Drives, as opposed to splitting up a drive.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Air

How fast can you vacuum the air out of an airlock and/or hangar? And where does it get stored?

 

[Reynard]

It takes ten seconds to cycle. The air is compressed; whether or not they are put into holding tanks or vented into the ship is conjecture.

 

[Condottiere]

Your ears will pop. Has to be tanks.

 

[phavoc]

Spacecraft: Air

How fast can you vacuum the air out of an airlock and/or hangar? And where does it get stored?

That is totally going to be based upon the size of the area. And, for the most part, the engineering behind that is going to try and minimize any air lost to vacuum (and there will always be some).

For a single 1Dton airlock you could pump the air back into the ship itself. If you did it through the normal life support system and spread it around it most likely would not get noticed. Doing it right at the airlock would definitely be noticeable.

I would think it would get stored in tanks. It makes more sense to do that because you want to be able to keep that air separate, just in case, so you'd isolate the airlock and tanks from your normal environmental systems. Adding in air only when necessary. There could even be a secondary set of air tanks that are used to say flush the lock and personnel when coming onboard to get rid of dust or other particulate matter you don't want gummying up your ships atmosphere.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Air

You could also liberate oxygen from the water tanks, or maybe they serve a dual purpose, holding both air and water. Under pressure.

But it's quarantining the external environment that would seem just as important, whether corrosive, pollutant or biological contaminant.

You'd think that the airlocks would shower down whoever enters from the outside, much like they do in any nuclear or biological disaster.

 

[phavoc]

Spacecraft: Air

You could also liberate oxygen from the water tanks, or maybe they serve a dual purpose, holding both air and water. Under pressure.

But it's quarantining the external environment that would seem just as important, whether corrosive, pollutant or biological contaminant.

You'd think that the airlocks would shower down whoever enters from the outside, much like they do in any nuclear or biological disaster.

Well, the fuel tanks are optimized to hold LHyd, though they'll hold a lot of things till they get pressurized. Getting new oxygen wouldn't necessarily be hard if there's a fuel source available, but you need the nitrogen and other gases as well. Spacecraft, especially those that are out and away from anything for long periods, are going to be designed to be self-contained as much as possible. Which means being very good at recycling and not wasting anything if you can avoid it.

As for the shower aspect, that's one way. But it would seem to make more sense, not to mention being easier to clean up, to avoid shower scenes in cramped conditions (cue cheezy image of a Turksih prison shower room). Air is far less invasive or destructive to most objects than liquids. Plus it's easier to vent in space (open airlock) if needed. Though maybe some airlocks would be equipped with a chemical shower, pumps, sluices, etc, to wash down people that are exposed to things. But I think that wouldn't be the norm.

I'm not sure how'd they handle the radiation part though. With different materials, drugs and such handling radiation might be a bit different. Or maybe that's where the shower scene comes in.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Air(lock)

I recall there was proposal to wash clothes with a sonic treatment.

How effective is a sonic bath?

 

[Condottiere]

Power Plant: Factor-One and Fusion Rockets

Unlike grav drives, power plant capacity doesn't have to match fusion rockets rated thrust.

Assuming full factor-six thrust, starship systems fully powered up, and undergoing a transition to a one-parsec hyperjump, you could assume that fusion rockets require minimal input from the power plant.

 

[Condottiere]

Armaments: Shipboard Missiles

Probably a lot smaller than most people believe.

One ton doesn't simply take up the space of twelve missiles, the handling equipment is also included, and storage facilities.

Because you do have to remember, that missiles are a combination of rocket motor, electronics, sensors and warhead, none of which you'd really want jarred, the results of which could range from missing the target, misfire in the tube, to blowing up while still in the ship, conveniently close to other explosive containers.

 

[Reynard]

Power Plant: Factor-One and Fusion Rockets

I found reaction rockets in High Guard and they give a hint these might also represent fusion rockets. Not very fuel efficient as their fuel is separate from jump or power plant and use (2.5% x Maximum Thrust Rating x hours) dtons.

What makes gravitic drives efficient, besides being clean, is using natural gravity as part of the locomotion process.

 

[Condottiere]

Power Plant: Factor-One and Fusion Rockets

When I was focussing on Adventure Class warships, fusion rockets, like non-energy weapons, seemed optimum for short, sharp combat engagements, since you needed considerably less powerful power plants.

You could use them as afterburners, combined with a grav drive.

Would be neat if I found a way to lower jump drive factor minimum requirements as well.

 

[phavoc]

Armaments: Shipboard Missiles

Probably a lot smaller than most people believe.

One ton doesn't simply take up the space of twelve missiles, the handling equipment is also included, and storage facilities.

Because you do have to remember, that missiles are a combination of rocket motor, electronics, sensors and warhead, none of which you'd really want jarred, the results of which could range from missing the target, misfire in the tube, to blowing up while still in the ship, conveniently close to other explosive containers.

A couple of things here:

1) Yes, feed mechanisms and handling equipment take space and those should set the limit per Dton of how many missiles can be carried.

2) Turrets don't really do a good job of allocating space for missile feeds. A triple missile should have three separate feeds, plus fire control and the on-mount station for controlling the missiles. Bays on the other hand take up far too much tonnage for just the launchers. They should have more on-mount storage (while turrets should have one in the tube only).

3) Magazines - How many designs have you seen with a missile or sandcaster and no adjacent magazine storage? Plus magazines themselves are meant to take damage without setting them off, though rules don't account for that. Magazines should take up additional tonnage, or say an on-mount hit has the chance of detonating any missile stored below. Civilian craft probably won't have 'real' magazines, but larger naval craft would, which should eat up some extra space for the armor.

 

[AndrewW]

Plus magazines themselves are meant to take damage without setting them off, though rules don't account for that. Magazines should take up additional tonnage, or say an on-mount hit has the chance of detonating any missile stored below. Civilian craft probably won't have 'real' magazines, but larger naval craft would, which should eat up some extra space for the armor.

Can do that with armoured bulkheads.

 

[Condottiere]

Armaments: Shipboard Missiles

You can incorporate blow out panels to vent the force either to space or some unimportant, uninhabited internal area.


Armaments: Turrets

1. Time to revise the rules for turrets.

2. Enough examples have cropped up in real life and pop culture that the quad turret is a valid option.

3. The basic turret will remain one ton, but has only enough space for a single weapon system (and the operator and local fire-control).

4. A twin turret would require another half-ton for the additional weapon space, for a total of one and a half tons.

5. A triple turret would require an additional half-ton for the third weapon system, for a total of two tons.

6. A quad turret would require a final half-ton for the fourth weapon system, for a total of two and a half tons.


Armaments: Smallcraft and Weapon Slots

That would also resolve the issue over the dichotomy between weapon slots between smallcraft and Adventure Class hulls, especially if you arbitrarily limit the definition of small craft to almost anything below one hundred tons, which would limit weapon slots to four in any event.

 

[Condottiere]

Armaments: Particle Accelerators

1. I recall once reading a proposal that a variant would be in a race track configuration.

2. The advantage would seem to be a smaller displacement for the weapons system.

3. The disadvantage would be an unusual hull configuration, and probably a lower rate of fire.

 

[Condottiere]

Armaments: Shipboard Missiles

Authorities are unlikely to want civilians to have access to shipboard missiles, considering their damage potential. Chances are that inspections include checking inventory, registration numbers, permits and end-user certificates.

Sandcasters being considered defensive, are non-threatening.

 

[Condottiere]

Armaments: Missile Pack

Theoretically, you could reload them with a grappling arm and a skilled operator.

 

[dragoner]

Armaments: Missile Pack

Theoretically, you could reload them with a grappling arm and a skilled operator.

Just use a cassette magazine, once the missiles are fired, eject the cassette and a new one slides into place.

 

[Condottiere]

Armaments: Missile Pack

Couldn't locate that option, though the grappling arm can handle anything upto two tons.