Ship Design Philosophy

[Condottiere]

Not if it's sucked back into the primary hull.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

Starships: Star/raft

V. Outside of virtualization, couldn't really find anything in Mongoose in reflation to required jump controls.

W. And if you don't physically install a bridge, you're not likely to add it's costs to the hull.

X. Can you control a spacecraft without peppering the hull with electronic controls?

Y. Sure, that's why you have cockpits.

Z. Though, currently, it seems this would be limited to fifty tonne hulls.

Don’t forget the ship’s brain with haptic interface can run everything without a bridge

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

Starships: Engineering, Jump Drives, and Starship Operator's Manual

1. A common, if trite, analogy is of viewing our universe as a 2D sheet in a 3D space, with jumpspace all that is above and below it.

2. I think it's the opposite.

3. Jumpspace is two dimensional.

3. The question is whether time forms a third dimension, in there.

4. The answer is likely no.

5. Having multiple subdimensions in jumpspace is too Honorific.

6. It is possible that the ship might have position and speed within jumpspace but these do not map to realspace equivalents and there are no perceptible external reference points within jumpspace, making determination of location and velocity impossible.

7. And then we have gravity wells perceptible in jumpspace.

8. If only for that bump in the night.

9. And the hundred diameter jump limit.

There is discussion of levels of jumpspace, with each dimension equating to the distance in parsecs travelled

 

[Condottiere]

1. The inherent humour is the legacy hexagonal two dimensional star charts.

2. I thought that my explanation is actually closer to Traveller physics.

3. Whereas multidimensionally it would be a rip off from Weber.

4. And a bad one, at that.

5. It's obvious we exist in a four dimensional plane, so equating it to two dimensions is somewhat absurd.

6. Whereas our star charts are two dimensional, and apparently, dead (reckoning) (on) accurate.

7. You can plot a course from one end of the Imperium, and possibly galaxy, to the other, just using them.

8. Apparently, also works for hopping and skipping about.

9. You'd wonder, who came up with this harebrained concept?

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

1. The inherent humour is the legacy hexagonal two dimensional star charts.

2. I thought that my explanation is actually closer to Traveller physics.

3. Whereas multidimensionally it would be a rip off from Weber.

4. And a bad one, at that.

5. It's obvious we exist in a four dimensional plane, so equating it to two dimensions is somewhat absurd.

6. Whereas our star charts are two dimensional, and apparently, dead (reckoning) (on) accurate.

7. You can plot a course from one end of the Imperium, and possibly galaxy, to the other, just using them.

8. Apparently, also works for hopping and skipping about.

9. You'd wonder, who came up with this harebrained concept?

From the Starship Operators Manual;
“
When performing a jump, ships translate from the ‘surface’ of realspace to a certain ‘height’ in jumpspace, called the jumpspace level. Studies prove jumps of different distances correlate to different levels, with the longer the jump in realspace the deeper a depth travelled through jumpspace.

I happen to like this concept, and played with variations on this theme while developing the Weird Charted Space

 

[Condottiere]

A. There's no need not to believe the canonical explanation.

B. Last year, I wouldn't have bothered to make the effort to question it.

C. But there were aspects such as influence of gravity wells in jumpspace that couldn't be ignored.

D. And then whether time, was, in fact, a dimension in jumpspace.

E. Or, what I now believe, an invasive force from our plane of existence.

F. That leaked through the dimensional planes through it's weakened state from being stretched by gravity wells.

 

[Condottiere]

Don’t forget the ship’s brain with haptic interface can run everything without a bridge

It's not so much that you couldn't Tesla your spacecraft, it would be more the interfacee with the hull, which I assume is the reason for the accumulative cost of the bridge.

Indeed, ships can be designed without a bridge, relying purely on this software package in order to function as a drone.

Now, if it replaces a cockpit, that's a different story.

Though, under current rules going forward, which might have only one violation to this point in time, that's capped at fifty tonnes.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

It's not so much that you couldn't Tesla your spacecraft, it would be more the interfacee with the hull, which I assume is the reason for the accumulative cost of the bridge.

Indeed, ships can be designed without a bridge, relying purely on this software package in order to function as a drone.

Now, if it replaces a cockpit, that's a different story.

Though, under current rules going forward, which might have only one violation to this point in time, that's capped at fifty tonnes.

Why wouldn’t it replace a cockpit, or any other form of bridge analog?

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

It's not so much that you couldn't Tesla your spacecraft, it would be more the interfacee with the hull, which I assume is the reason for the accumulative cost of the bridge.

Indeed, ships can be designed without a bridge, relying purely on this software package in order to function as a drone.

Now, if it replaces a cockpit, that's a different story.

Though, under current rules going forward, which might have only one violation to this point in time, that's capped at fifty tonnes.

Why wouldn’t it replace a cockpit, or any other form of bridge analog

 

[Condottiere]

To clarify:

1. Cockpits have a fixed cost, and apparently a capped tonnage - therefore, there should be no hindrance to virtualization.

2. Bridges, and more direct control centre analogues, charge per hundred tonnes - so there's going to be a large hole in your ecosystem if you don't have to pay for wiring up the hull, which assumes that it wasn't.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

To clarify:

1. Cockpits have a fixed cost, and apparently a capped tonnage - therefore, there should be no hindrance to virtualization.

2. Bridges, and more direct control centre analogues, charge per hundred tonnes - so there's going to be a large hole in your ecosystem if you don't have to pay for wiring up the hull, which assumes that it wasn't.

Per Robot Handbook:
For direct control of a ship’s systems, the ship’s brain requires interfaces with the entire ship. This option needs a hardwired connection on the robot chassis and occupies no additional ship tonnage, although it requires Cr5000 per ton of the ship’s hull to install.

Ecosystem complete

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships are half a megastarbux per hundred, which would be five kilostarbux per fourteen cubic metres.

In theory.

Or half that if you use a smallerized bridge.

Or a kilostarbux per tonne, if it's a space station.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Engineering, Stealth, and Jump Flash

1. It's an interesting question as to detectability.

2. However, detecting a ship equipped with a stealth drive emerging into real space requires a Formidable (14+) Electronics (sensors) check (1D rounds, INT or EDU) if it is within the ‘limited’ detail range of the sensors or automatically fails if outside the minimum detail range.

3. Requiring one advantage, you could factor three it, in theory.

4. Requiring two advantages, was obviously an attempt to permit the advantage only once.

5. You still might only be allowed to do it once, in any event.

6. If a Scout had a factor three energy efficient jump drive, and only jumped one parsec, the input would only be two and a half power points.

7. How stealthy is that?

8. If the stealth advantage is used only once, combined with factor two energy efficiency, that would be an input of five power points.

9. What would the default be, range and sensor check, to detect that?

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Star/raft

1. For a Lego configuration, breakaway hull would be the obvious add on.

2. Problem with that is, two percent hull volume sacrificed for compatible plumbing and attachments.

3. Regardless of how many Kitkats are together.

4. Worse, the cost.

5. Two megastarbux per tonne.

6. For, or per, hundred tonnes that's four megastarbux.

7. Not really compatible for a cheap solution.

8. Considering the default hull price for a hundred tonnes is five megastarbux.

9. And if you don't bother tiling with gravity floor boards, two and a half.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Star/raft

A. The thing about welding salvaged ship hulls together, is, that it's a sunk cost.

B. While the result is described as dispersed configuration, with the requisite price tag.

C. Unless those components are fresh off their respective production lines, the only cost would be labour.

D. Since existing parts, presumably already paid for, are glued together.

E. The result would be a dispersed configuration, since you could assume that they wouldn't fit neatly together.

F. Though, if these hull sections have open corridors, you might need to close them off.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Star/raft

G. You could weld together at exactly where these openings occur.

H. Or weld spare sections of hull on them.

I. Or, install a hatch, or even an airlock there.

J. Of course, unless you want to take a space walk each time you need to visit a different attached section, you will need to weld them together at existing connections.

K. Or create new ones.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Slight aside.
After seeing the TNE covenanter class ship (a scout welded to the front of a Gazelle)
I photocopied a load of my CT deckplans and had fun cutting along bulkhead lines and making frankenships.

The gazelle and the subbies make good "spines", the scout and the gazelle make good front ends.

Using x boats as "jump pods" works too

 

[Condottiere]

Depending on the connecting mechanism, could be breakaway hull.

But if you use the term franken... with anything as a praenomen, and in our case with spacecraft, that would certainly indicate a somewhat forced together hull component configuration.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Star/raft

L. Speaking of asides, the problem with having an auxiliary starship onboard is that it takes up space, without likely contributing anything.

M. Except peace of mind.

N. As opposed to pieces of eight.

O. So, obviously, what you want is a starship that can be disassembled.

P. And hopefully, have these parts have secondary uses.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Star/raft

Q. There are two obvious hull sizes.

R. There would the modular cutter, where two hulls welded to get would give you a hundred tonnes.

S. Since we're likely in Confederation space, three times thirty five tonnes, total one hundred five tonnes.

T. That would require a five percent increase in the default jump core.

U. Or ten and a quarter tonnes.