Ship Design Philosophy

Spaceships: Engineering, the Manoeuvre Drive, and the Kilodiameter Dilemma

Preposition asteroids to create a space highway between well travelled insystem destinations, so that the asteroids kilodiameters overlap.

There's an old cartoon movie, a rip off from Star Wars, which impressed by the fact that the ship engines were placed on rotatable pylons that changed direction to allow thrust to be applied as a break or when landing.

1. I'm looking at my computer. and I'm reminded that we actually try to minimize moving parts.

2. Water cooling looks like it's on it's way out, and vibrators are in.


4. We appear to have some form of solid state vector thrust, which I would like to remind users, implies it can and will go through populated areas of the spacecraft. especially if reversing at ten percent.
Spaceships: Engineering and Gravity Ping Pong

1. Detection, after traversing the airlock, which itself may, and probably is, booby trapped.

2. Does greater gravity change atmospheric density, and thereby refraction?

3. Roll a bowling ball down the corridor, and note any deviations in direction.

4. Could work as a shield against bullet slugs.

5. Would it make energy beams less accurate?

6. Punji sticks embedded on the ceiling would be a clue.

7. You could always angle the gravitational direction at a right angle, in the direction of an (open) airlock.
Spaceships: Engineering and Gravity Ping Pong

8. Now that I think of it, have a cargo hatch, a removable acceleration couch, and enhanced gravity plating underneath it.

9. You now have an ejection seat.

Spaceships: Hi versus Lo Porting

1. Usually more secure to direct spacecraft towards an orbitting starport.

2. Easier to quarantine either spacecraft or personnel, and check them out.

3. Prevents cultural contamination.

4. Can move orbital facility.

5. Harder to move dirtside facility, especially if Imperium starport, since planetary government unlikely to surrender more territory to extraterritoraility.

6. Expansion likely includes eminent domain, whereas you could just add modules to an orbitting station.

7. Orbitting station not subject to atmospheric conditions, weather, and climate.

8. Habitable worlds don't usually need life support.

9. In theory, every human onboard the station is going to be glugging one to two kilostarbux worth of oxygen, per month.
Cost comparison of:
A - Standard SDB/tankers from GG to Main world
B - Cost of adding Mdrive to Highport and going to GG directly every so often

Likely a compromise of building a very large storage tank with an Mdrive?
Nestlé Waters

Key facts and figures (2015)
Sales: 7.625 billion CHF[1]

Nestlé Waters has roughly 31,740 employees and includes several brands such as Acqua Panna, San Pellegrino, Perrier, Vittel, Al Manhal and Buxton.[2]

1843: Henri Nestlé establishes his first lemonade and water bottling factory.

1866: Foundation of the Nestlé Group

1969: Acquisition of a 30% stake in the Société Générale des Eaux Minérales de Vittel in France

1974: Acquisition of the German Blaue Quellen group.

1987: Nestlé S.A. takes a majority stake in Vittel and joins with Arrowhead.

1992: Acquisition of the Source Perrier S.A. Source Perrier SA Group. Nestlé becomes the leading player on the world bottled water market[citation needed], under the name of Nestlé Sources International (NSI)

1996: NSI changes its name to accelerate its international development and becomes: Perrier Vittel S.A.

1998: Take-over of Italy's leading bottled water producer, Sanpellegrino S.p.A. and launch of Nestlé Pure Life, the first multi-site bottled water under the Nestlé Brand

2000: Simultaneous launch of Nestlé Aquarel, pan-European, multi-site spring water on six markets.

2001: Acquisition by Perrier Vittel of Al Manhal, the leading bottled water company in Saudi Arabia which becomes the leading bottled water player in the Middle East region.[citation needed]

2002: Perrier Vittel becomes Nestlé Waters CEO Leader

2003: Nestlé Waters acquires the Powwow Group

2005: Nestlé Waters further develops its business on the African continent via the launch of Nestlé Pure Life in Nigeria and the creation of a partnership in Algeria

2006: Nestlé Waters acquires the majority shares in Erikli and becomes the Turkish market leader.[citation needed]

2007: Nestlé Waters acquires Sources Minérales Henniez S.A. and becomes the Swiss leader in the bottled water market.[citation needed] Joint venture agreements signed in Mexico and Chile.

2008: Nestlé Pure Life, has become in just a decade the world's leading bottled water brand, with 5 billion liters sold worldwide.[citation needed]

2009: Nestlé Waters strengthens its presence in two key emerging countries: in Brazil by acquiring Àguas de Santa Barbara in the São Paulo region; and in China by acquiring Dashan Drinks, the leading bottled water player in Yunnan Province

In 2009, a U.S. report entitled "Tour D'Horizon with Nestle: Forget the Global Financial Crisis, the World Is Running out of Fresh Water" involved the departments of agriculture, commerce, energy and environment science and technology as a result of Nestle executives from Switzerland advising of their research. One of the main aspects asserts that a high meat-based diet uses water inefficiently, particularly for an increasing global population. Livestock feed on crops that require high amounts of water such corn and soy. High demand for water overall has already created a drain on underground aquifers and other natural fresh water sources worldwide. Nestle estimates that: “There is not nearly enough fresh water available to provide this standard to a global population expected to exceed 9 billion by mid-century.” The report points out the need to attend to where water is being flowed and asks for greater efficiency in its global delivery.[3]

Also in that same year of 2009, on April 23, during a Nestle Waters shareholders' meeting at the headquarters in Greenwich, Connecticut, a protest group arrived with the campaign of "Think Outside the Bottle" (from Corporate Accountability International, along with representatives from both Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation and Protecting Our Water and Wildlife Resources), claiming Nestle Waters, for the sake of increasing profits, overrode local rights to "community water resources" despite protective opposition. The campaign director Deborah Lapidus said, "These water grabs are having long-lasting impacts on ecosystems and water supplies long held in the public trust." she said. One of the specific cases the organization protested against was regarding when Nestle bypassed a 2006 Shapleigh, Maine ordinance that aimed to maintain local control over water resources by accessing the law through the state level. Nestle officials responded by giving a progress report on their intentions for transparency with labeling their water sources and locations.[4]

2012: Nestlé Waters establish a distribution agreement with Ambev in Brasil

2013: Official opening of the new factory in Buxton (United Kingdom), new factory in Pocheon Edong (South Korea) with Pulmuone Waters, acquisition of the Mineral water spring Vale do Sol in Brasil.[5]

2020: Nestlé Waters announced the planned sale of its Canadian water bottling division to Ice River Springs; the latter was expected to take over the Nestlé Pure Life brand and the ReadyRefresh delivery service.[6][7] The deal required regulatory approval which was not achieved in a timely manner; consequently, Nestle cancelled the deal in early September.[8]

2021: Nestlé announced on 16 February that it had agreed to sell its water brands to One Rock Capital Partners and Metropoulos & Co. The sale, expected to conclude in spring, would include the spring water and mountain brands in Canada and the US, the purified water brand and the delivery service. The plan did not include the Perrier, S.Pellegrino and Acqua Panna brands.[9][10] In early April 2021, the sale was concluded,[11] with its US operations now operating as BlueTriton Brands.

2024: Neslé is subject to an investigation of treating/purification of its mineral waters by French prosecutors. French law (based on a European Union directive) prohibits disinfection of mineral water.[1]

Combine that with prohibitions against non energy efficient machinery and gadgets.
Spaceships: Engineering and Reactionary Rockets

1. A technological level eleven, you have access to factor fifteen reactionary rockets.

2. That's thirty percent of volume, which at five tonnes would be one and a half tonnes.

3. For one hour of burn, you'd need thirty seven and a half percent of volume, which at five tonnes would be one and seven eighths of a tonne.

4. Together, three and three eighths tonnes, one and a half tonne cockpit, four and seven eighths tonnes.

5. That's a quarter power point for basic systems, minimum, which would be a fifty kilogramme chemical power plant.

6. Half a tonne fuel for fourteen days, a tad under thirty six kilogrammes for twenty four hours.

7. One assumes you can throttle the rockets, but consumption remains the same pro rata.

8. If you use a manoeuvre drive for the cruise option, you'd need a larger power plant.

9. Alternatively, a second rocket motor with a two and a half times better efficiency.
Spaceships: Engineering and Reactionary Rockets

A. One and a half tonnes of reactionary rockets is three tenths of a megastarbux.

B. At an extra consumption rate of twenty five percent, the cost would drop to two and a quarter hundred kilostarbux.

C. At thirty seven and a half percent volume, endurance drops from one hour at full gallop, to forty eight minutes.

D. Which raises the question, if a saving of seventy five kilostarbux would be worth the loss of twelve minutes of endurance?

E. This would depend on how long a combat encounter is expected to last.

F. And why you could balance that off with a more efficient variant of a reactionary rockets, or a manoeuvre drive.
Spaceships: Engineering and Reactionary Rockets

G. At technological level nine factor three reactionary rocket would be six percent of volume, or three hundred kilogrammes for a five tonne hull.

H. Cost would be ninety kilostarbux.

I. Consumption one hundred fifty kilogrammes of fuel per hour, or three percent of volume.

J. Consumption of three and three quarters percent at full gallop per six minutes, means we could make room for that additional reactionary rocket.

K. In theory, thirty one and a half percent volume, which balances between fifty minutes and twenty four seconds at full unmitigated gallop, and ten and a half hours at a steady trot.
Spaceships: Engineering and Reactionary Rockets

L. Once you close to close range, you go all Snoopy.

M. Mad minute could describe the events that follow.

N. The Mad Minute was a pre-World War I bolt-action rifle speed shooting exercise used by British Army riflemen, using the Lee–Enfield service rifle. The exercise formally known as "Practice number 22, Rapid Fire, The Musketry Regulations, Part I, 1909", required the rifleman to fire 15 rounds at a "Second Class Figure" target at 300 yd (270 m). The practice was described as; "Lying. Rifle to be loaded and 4 rounds in the magazine before the target appears. Loading to be from the pouch or bandolier by 5 rounds afterwards. One minute allowed".

O. For our purpose, that would ten shots at close and adjacent range(s).

P. Depending on when the power pool runs out for the energy weapon systems, or the magazines run dry.
Spaceships: Commercial Aviation

1. Having once again experienced the joys of sardinization (and the painful loss of luggage), I thought I'd share some observations.

2. They found the luggage, I estimate, fifteen minutes after I left the airport.

3. In theory, you can't lose anything in a highly monitored environment.

4. At least I didn't have to lug it home, and had it couriered that evening.

5. Middle seating has four seats, much like the one tonne acceleration bench.

6. Hull seating tends to be three across, so there probably is a three quarter tonne variant of the acceleration bench.

7. The most widely used aircraft would be narrow body, which means two sets of hull seating.

8. Premium economy might be three seats on a one tonne acceleration couch.

9. I'm guessing the half tonne acceleration seat is business class.
Spaceships: Commercial Aviation

A. The last time I had a go at designing an aerospace craft using spacecraft design sequence, it became clear that having a manoeuvre drive was essential, whether you have rockets or not.

B. Otherwise, for atmospheric reentry, you'd need to invest in heat shielding, at a hundred kilostarbux per tonne of hull volume.

C. If you stay within the atmosphere, or don't plan to reenter the atmosphere naked, you have a relatively cheap rocket airliner.

D. Depending on how the interpretation of factor three minus local gravitational field goes.

E. If resulting total is one plus gees, hypersonic.

F. I guess air resistance does play some part.
Spaceships: Commercial Aviation

G. (Manoeuvre drive) thrust/zero is somewhat contradictory between spacecraft and space station design sequence.

H. My feeling is is that it's supposed to be a quarter percent of hull volume, as mentioned in space stations, though unclarity as to how much actual power is needed to operate it mentioned in there.

I. ... multiply by 0.25 if the ship is capable only of Thrust 0 ...

J. Clearly stated in spacecraft design sequence.

K. And, in theory, enough to ensure you don't need heatshields with a functioning factor/zero manoeuvre drive for atmospheric reentry.
Spaceships: Commercial Aviation

L. If we assume a one to one trade off in power consumption to manoeuvre drive volume, that means the spacecraft design sequence manoeuvre drive volume is trumped by the space station one, at a quarter percent.

M. Not that it would greatly matter, except in terms of consistency, lack of which tends to be rather annoying.

N. Actual thrust is not discussed, though if we assume it's the same feature as to that installed on detachable bridges.

O. ... while emergency thrusters give it basic manoeuvring capabilities, equivalent to Thrust 0. A
detachable bridge is even capable of soft-landing on a planetary surface.

P. One assumes factor/one reactionary rockets plus manoeuvre drive/zero, should be just enough to make it to orbit from Earth's surface.
Spaceships: Commercial Aviation

Q. You could call it the snowflake drive.

R. Since you could assume that a factor/zero manoeuvre drive just slowly drifts down and makes a soft landing.

S. It would mean you could use hybrid thruster/zero-rocket/three as orbital connectors, as well as intercontinental shuttles.

T. Bare minimum basic costs for non gravitated hulls would be one power point per twenty tonnes, with thrust/zero half a power point for twenty tonnes.

U. Easily available from a chemical power plant.
Spaceships: Commercial Aviation

V. Why would commercial aerospaciation prefer rockets and chemical power plants?

W. Capital outlay, for one thing.

X. Ease of maintenance, for another.

Y. You're not going to need a nuclear engineer to maintain (and operate) non fusion power plants, of which so far we only have one type listed.

Z. Nor someone with a bachelor's in gravitics for the manoeuvre drive, at least at one percent hull volume and up.
Spaceships: Engineering and the Snowflake Drive

1. Available at technological level nine.

2. We don't know how fast it actually accelerates, but it seems enough for a soft planetary landing.

3. For the budget variants, we can choose from the following disadvantages:

4. Energy inefficient, which means one and three tenths of a power point per twenty tonnes.

5. Limited range, which means it only functions within a hundred diameters of a gravity well.

6. Increased size, so 0.3125%, instead of 0.25% of hull volume.

7. In exchange one and a half megastarbux per tonne, instead of two.

8. Which means at twenty tonne hull volume, fifty kilograms at seventy five kilostarbux.

9. Well, commercial aviation operators claim that margins are so tight, every little bit helps.
Starwarships: How the Cylon Raider has Evolved over the years

The Cylon raider is an old, iconic design with its split flying wing look and the three centurions piloting it like a clown care. It's been the symbol of menace and evil in the original show, been reworked into a meat monster of a ship for the remaster, and has gone through multiple visual updates and new iterations. So settle in as I'm going to be covering all the different versions of the Cylons raider.

Resembles the Viper Class Fighter/Bomber.
Inspiration: A guide to how YOU can become a successful space pirate

The description of this video has been pirated. It's gone. Space pirates stole it and are trying to ransom it back to me.

1. Pirates are [st/c]arjackers.

2. Paramilitarized craft.

3. Disguised.

4. Launderer or fencer.

5. Backwood paths.

6. Hole in the wall.

7. Renting.

8. Aesthetics.

9. Kidnapping.