Ship Design Philosophy

[Condottiere]

View attachment 4994

Primitive Hull

V. Primitive asteroid, I suppose meaning planetoid, hulls cost two kilostarbux per tonne

W. Possibly answering, in part, the question as to the actual cost of gravitational tiling.

X. However, no modification to hull points.

Y. I suppose that they are still subject to temperature variations.

Z. It's a subtractive process, so I would have gone with mining costs, plus transportation to the shipyard.




View attachment 4995

 

[Condottiere]

View attachment 4994

Primitive Hull

1. Default, there's a difference of ten kilostarbux, between a primitive and standard hull, per tonne.

2. That would be structural strengthening, insulation, more robust power grid.

3. Both being non gravitated.

4, Perhaps, non insulation is a good thing.

5. The hull can than act as giant elephant ears, and radiate away that pesky heat.

6. Like a naked mole rat.

7. And, I tend to think, most commercial shipping doesn't need more than acceleration factor/three.

8. However, that does leave us with the issues of manoeuvre and jump drives being non eligible.

9. In which case, junking may be the solution.


View attachment 4995

 

[Condottiere]

View attachment 4994

Primitive Hull

A. Candidate for cargo pods.

B. Minimally insulated.

C. Vacuum tight.

D. Possibly, module, though without a robust power grid.

E. Being internal, acceleration doesn't matter.

F. And artificial gravitation is anyway from the actual hull.



View attachment 4995

 

[Condottiere]

View attachment 4994

Primitive Hull

G. Planetoid hull, going by the text, is not exempt from lack of insulation.

H. So the two kilostarbux covers gravitic tiling, insulation, and robust power grid.

I. Whether I think saving two kilostarbux per tonne is worth it, is another issue.

J. On the other hand, for those finding a large lump of nickel iron dirtside, you now know how much potential housing can cost (to construct).

K. Two kilostarbux per eleven and one fifth cubic metres of living space.



View attachment 4995

 

[Condottiere]

View attachment 4994

Primitive Hull

L. We need a technological level seven built hull, to neutralize life support costs, if primarily used for passengers.

M. or crew.

N. Technological level seven also introduces reactionary rockets, upto factor/three.

O. Optionally, we frankenstein the design, and weld a technological level ten hull with a factor/three manoeuvre drive, to it.

P. Thus, the best of both worlds, low capital outlay, and low operational cost.



View attachment 4995

 

[Condottiere]

View attachment 4994

Primitive Hull

Q. Another option, would be using them as fuel tanks.

R. True, primitive hulls don't support the robust power grid required for a starship (transition).

S. However, we could increase the size of the technological level ten engineering compartment, and weld the fuel tanks to that.

T. Could be great for passenger cruise ships.

U.

View attachment 4995

 

[Condottiere]

View attachment 4994

Primitive Hull

V. Resulting smallcraft could be the equivalent of biplanes.

W. If they remain within the atmosphere, acceleration factor/two is already hypersonic.

X. And since air is free, life support is less of an issue.

Y.

Z.

View attachment 4995

 

[Condottiere]

View attachment 4994

Solar Panelling

1. Distance makes the hearth glow wander.

2. Keep your home world close, and your sun closer.

3. You can extend your solar panels, and still accelerate at fact/one.

4. This goes against years of canon forbidding this action.

5. I don't mind, since I want to sail with solar panels unfurled.

6. It has better energy density.

7. Also, looks cheaper.

8. Okay, you're screwed if you end up in deep space, with this your only power source.

9. Remember, primitive hulls only need one power point for basic services, per hundred tonnes.




View attachment 4995

 

[Condottiere]

Inspiration: Fireball XL5 The Granatoid Tanks

For your viewing pleasure, a Fireball XL5 episode entitled "The Granatoid Tanks". After a six-month study, a scientific team determines Planet 73 is suitable for colonization. But before the message can be sent, the long-range scanner picks up a signal from the other side of the planet. It’s the Granatoid tanks – alien robots hell bent on death and destruction. On earth, Space City receives a panicked distress call from Planet 73. Can Fireball XL5 get there in time to save the scientists? And how will Steve Zodiac and crew fight the Granatoids which are virtually indestructible? This is a color animated remake of the children’s show Fireball XL5, created by Gerry & Sylvia Anderson. Produced by AP Films and distributed by ITC Entertainment, this UK series used marionettes for its characters and appeared on US television from 1963-1965 on NBC. The voices, sound effects and music are from the original TV broadcast.

1. Destroy all obstacles.

2. Jazzy.

3. I've never seen a crate that size in emergency stores.

4. I have a secret.

 

[Condottiere]

View attachment 4994

Solar Panelling

1. Distance makes the hearth glow wander.

2. Keep your home world close, and your sun closer.

3. You can extend your solar panels, and still accelerate at fact/one.

4. This goes against years of canon forbidding this action.

5. I don't mind, since I want to sail with solar panels unfurled.

6. You only need one power point per hundred tonnes for basic services.

7. Or, going by High Guard, you could minimize that to half a power point per hundred tonnes.

8. Easily supplied by solar power.

9. Replace solar sail yachts for inner system cruising.


View attachment 4995

 

[Condottiere]

View attachment 4994

Solar Hull Coating

1. Helluvalot cheaper, though les energy dense.

2. Hundred percent of hull, compared to forty percent.

3. Per hundred tonnes, High Guard sixteen megastarbux for eight power points.

4. Per hundred tonnes, three power points at two fifths of a megastarbux.

5. Basically, seven and a half power points per megastarbux.

6. Compared to half a power point per semimegastarbux.

7. You probably could afford to coat a spacecstation with this.

8. And, if you're willing to use a primitive hull, you only need one power point per hundred tonnes.

9. Balance could be diverted to the artificial intelligence database, and cryptocurrency mining.


View attachment 4995

 

[Condottiere]

View attachment 4995

Plasma Drive

1. Acceleration factor/one requires twenty percent of volume.

2. It might be more fuel efficient that reactionary rockets, but that's like saying that a hippopotamus is lighter than an elephant.

3. In addition to the one percent fuel requirement per acceleration factor, per hour, you also need one power point.

4. At two fifths of a megastarbux per tonne, acceleration factor/one would be twenty times more expensive than an equivalent reactionary rocket.

5. That sixteen percent difference could be made up of fuel tanks.

6. At default, twenty percent fuel tank is four thrust hours for reactionary rockets.

7. Two percent fuel tank for plasma drive would last two thrust hours.

8. Five more percent fuel tank allocation would give plasma drive five hours more, and reactionary rockets two more hours.

9. And yet, I come to the conclusion, being in the middle of nowhere, without sufficient jump drive fuel to get out of there, you're screwed, regardless of how many hours you can accelerate.

 

[Condottiere]

View attachment 4995

Plasma Drive

A. However, when you install ramscoops, the spacecraft becomes independent of the normal fuel sources.

B. Five tons per week per tonne of ramscoop.

C. Highly technologized plasma drive requires two fifths of a percent of volume for fuel per thrust hour.

D. Per hundred tonnes, over a week, that would be sixty seven and one fifth tonne.

E. Or, 13.44 tonnes of ramscoops.

F. Which, believe me, didn't work out for reactionary rockets, for acceleration factor/one.

 

[Condottiere]

View attachment 4995

Plasma Drive

G. I think the term actively manoeuvring has to be defined.

H. Is it, in motion?

I. Constant acceleration, however small?

J. Or, changing course?

K.

 

[Condottiere]

View attachment 4995

Sterling Fission Power Plant

1. Basically, unrechargeable batteries.

2. Minimum two tones.

3. Probably, due to critical mass shielding.

4. Can't directly energize the jump drive.

5. Fizz Batteries ®

6. You can install the sterling fission power plant to provide the base load of a spacecraft.

7. Default, that would be twenty power points per hundred tonnes.

8. Or, the minimum of five power points per hundred tonnes.

9. Or, even the half power point per hundred tonnes, of a primitive hull.

 

[Condottiere]

View attachment 4995

Planetary Operations

1. Lack of a robust power grid is the bottleneck for more power intensive engines.

2. So all you need to reach orbit is acceleration of one hundred ten percent over the local gravity field.

3. You need an accumulated hundred percent of acceleration above the local gravity field.

4. Presumably, heading upwards.

5. Escape velocity, with another accumulated hundred percent.

6. Though, I would have thought gravity carried less attraction higher up.

7. Also, Even on Terra, gravity varies.

8. Find a spot with a tad lower than standard Terran gravity.

9. Then, plot a flight path straight up from there, slightly curved to maintain a position over that area of lowered gravity pull.

 

[Condottiere]

View attachment 4995

Planetary Operations

A. Atmospheric reentry is a bit of a puzzle.

B. Apparently, it's a reverse of the above process.

C. I'm pretty sure continuous acceleration towards the ground is counter productive.

D. You'd think neutralization of the gravitational attraction should allow the spacecraft to hover.

E. You'd need to cut acceleration to have a controlled crash to the ground.

F. Presumably, the estimated arrival dirtside would be local gravity, minus continuous deceleration.

 

[Condottiere]

View attachment 4995

Planetary Operations

G. What is the terminal velocity of a spacecraft?

H. Once atmospheric reentry has (successfully) been achieved, we could let the spacecraft drop straight down.

I. Possibly, a little manoeuvring so that it stays upright.

J. Then, in the last six minutes, in game mechanics, ignite the reactionary rockets as brakes.

K. Sufficient that at six minutes, descent velocity is neutralized at ground level, or just short of that.

 

[Condottiere]

View attachment 4995

Planetary Operations

L. Why would you need heat shielding to overcome acceleration factor/three?

M. Especially, in relation to atmospheric reentry.

N. When High Guard clearly states non gravitational motored spacecraft would really regret not optioning that.

O. Unless, they organically can't accelerate at more than factor/three, but can be under acceleration of more than factor/three.

P. Seems like the Vargrs having been having breakfast here.

 

[Condottiere]

View attachment 4995

Planetary Operations

Q. It's implied that primitive hulls, and by extension, default hulls, don't need heat shields for atmospheric reentry.

R. And can do atmospheric reentry faster than acceleration factor/three, if they install heat shielding.

S. This certainly contradicts High Guard.

T. And, to a certain extent, the primitive hull text, in the same book, and just a page before.

U. So, go figure.