Ship Design Philosophy

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drive, and Pulsing

A. This is inefficient, but you could have a duplicate of the propulsion drive.

B. When we still had actual high burner thrusters, I thought of having two, and alternating one every hour.

C. Ten rounds every hour works out a lot better than one round every one to six hours.

D. In theory, you have to allocate the difference in power between the old and the new acceleration factor.

E. As far as I can tell from the Core rulebook, this is not addressed.

F. However, subsequent supplement indicates that this is required.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drive, and Pulsing

G. Can, in the current edition, alternate pulsing be leveraged?

H. It would have to cheaper, whether capital outlay, or operating costs.

I. A successful Difficult (10+) Engineer (m-drive) check (1 round, INT) will increase the ship’s Thrust by +1 during the next round.

J. So spacecraft factor/zero is half a percent, compared to factor/one one percent.

K. But spacestation factor/zero is a quarter percent.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drive, and Pulsing

L. Manoeuvre drive with Thrust 0 consumes tonnage equal to 0.25% of the space station’s total hull and costs MCr1 per ton.

M. Which is half the cost of default spacecraft.

N. Required power = 10% of hull tonnage.

O. In order to use the manoeuvre drive, the ship requires an amount of Power equal to 10% of the hull’s total tonnage multiplied by the maximum Thrust the drive is capable of (multiply by 0.25 if the ship is capable only of Thrust 0).

P. Power is cheap.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drive, and Pulsing

Q. Customization can reduce capital outlay, or lower operating costs.

R. Volume per se, at this end, doesn't matter.

S. 0.3125 percent of volume at three fifths megastarbux per tonne.

T. Or, energy inefficiency thirteen percent of hull volume, three quarters megastarbux per tonne.

U. Or, in the other direction, two and a half percent of hull volume energy efficiency, one and a half megastarbux per tonne.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drive, and Pulsing

Q. Primitive hulls cannot have jump and manoeuvre drives installed.

R. Plasma drives can be installed.

S. They have a power requirement of one power point per tonne, compared to ten for manoeuvre drives.

T. Budget variant can be energy inefficient to one point three power points per tonne.

U. Fifty percent energy efficiency at two and a half power points, would be one point two five; seventy five percent would five eighths of a power point.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

The standard acceleration due to gravity on Earth is approximately 9.8 meters per second squared (9.8 m/s²). This means that for every second an object falls freely, its downward velocity increases by 9.8 meters per second. Over a period of six minutes, the change in velocity would be significant due to this constant acceleration.

To calculate the change in velocity over six minutes, we first need to convert the time to seconds:
6 minutes * 60 seconds/minute = 360 seconds

Then, we can calculate the change in velocity using the formula:
Δv = a * t

where:
Δv is the change in velocity
a is the acceleration (9.8 m/s²)
t is the time (360 seconds)

Therefore:
Δv = 9.8 m/s² * 360 s = 3528 m/s

So, the change in velocity of an object in free fall after six minutes would be 3528 meters per second.


12'700.8 klix per hour.


The average lunar distance is approximately 385,000 km (239,000 mi), or 1.3 light-seconds.[1]


30.31305114638448 hours

Average maintenance cycle thirty five rounds, or three and a half hours.

Second cycle, 25'401.6 klix per hour.

In theory, you have to drift longer, then turnover for deceleration, twice.

So, maybe sixteen, seventeen hours from Terra orbit to the Moon if pulsing on a manoeuvre drive factor/zero.

what do you mean by pulsing? Is there a source or citation?

 

[Condottiere]

Basically, turning the manoeuvre drive off and on, continuously.

You could do that with the reactionary rockets, but I haven't come across anything that would leverage that in a worthwhile way.

Originally, conceived as a way to use solar panelling to energize the manoeuvre drive, but the update, and one supplement, has revised that concept.

Now, spacestation surfing.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drive, and Pulsing

V. Primitive planetoid hulls retain their hull points, so the primary difference between that and default, appears to be, besides lack of gravity tiling, the power grid.

W. Manoeuvre drives default to ten power points per tonne.

X. Jump drives four power points per (core) tonne.

Y. Plasma drives one power point per tonne.

Z. So we know that primitive hull power grids can handle, for engineering, at least one power point per drive local tonne.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drive, and Pulsing

1. Locally, weapon systems, specifically bays and spinal mounts, don't exceed one power point per tonne.

2. Concentration of energy seems in one tonne turrets.

3. Maximum seems fifty power points for a one tonne quadruple fusion gun turret.

4. Perhaps, rather than calculating power per local tonne, for weapon systems we have stressed energy nexus that can handle a specific amount of power points.

5. Default basic systems power requirement is one power point per five tonnes.

6. You can half that to one power point per ten tonnes, and still retain an artificial gravity field.

7. A primitive hull has one power point per hundred tonnes, and no gravity tiling.

8. However, boiling or freezing zones quadruple basic power requirements to one power point per twenty five tonnes.

9. Thus, I'd say the reason that you can't install manoeuvre drives or jump drives on primitive hulls, is because their power grids can't handle their energy requirements.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drive, and Pulsing

A. Which allows us to move on to the acceleration cap.

B. Presumably, because of the weakened structural integrity, via halved hull points.

C. Though, the primitive planetoid hull isn't affected by that, so clear discrepancy.

D. Still the cap is there, Make Acceleration Grate Again.

E. The primitive hull would have to be attached to a propulsion default hull, that has a robust power grid.

F. Though, if insulation issues does allow sustained basic power requirements to one in twenty five tonnes, it should allow a customized energy efficient manoeuvre drive that is within that power cap.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drive, and Pulsing

G. Ironically, a technological level seventy five percent efficiency twelve factor/one highly technologized manoeuvre drive in a primitive hull would only require two and a half power points per hundred tonnes of volume.

H. You could push that to factor/one point six at technological level thirteen.

I. In theory, if hardpoints can be stressed to fifty power points, you could sacrifice one of those, to attach a jump drive or manoeuvre drive to it.

J. Or, place a power plant right next to a manoeuvre or jump drive, and directly energize it.

K. Or, even just a battery.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drive, and Pulsing

L. Since pulsing is switching on and off a manoeuvre drive, in our case, every one to six hours, you could allow the power to accumulate.

M. Which is why a battery could be used, and in relationship to hull volume, an underpowered power source.

N. Supplement rules say that solar panelling can survive factor/one acceleration.

O. Or, you could have a sterling fission plant, and divert excess electricity to the battery.

P. The sterling fission plant would probably be the safer option.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drive, and Pulsing

Q. I suppose at a hundred kilotonnes, a mobilized spacestation would have to termed as a barge.

R. Manufactured as a light, dispersed, primitive hull, that would be minus fifty percent, and minus twenty five, default fifteen kilostarbux.

S. Normally, that would be fifteen kilostarbux, times point five, times point seventy five, at 5'625.00 starbux per tonne.

T. If we calculate it as written in the text, that would be fifteen kilostarbux, times (point five plus point twenty five equals point seventy five) point twenty five.

U. Essentially, 3'750.00 starbux per tonne.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drive, and Pulsing

V. Having sort of established the cheapest hull, we move on to control centres.

W. That would be the cockpit, but, despite ambiguity, let's say that that's capped at fifty tonnes, for our purposes.

X. Nest up is the spacestation control centre, at one tenth of a megastarbux per hundred tonnes.

Y. It can control manoeuvre factor/zero drive, though, as the text reads, not on a primitive hull.

Z. Still, basic and weapon systems, are still valid.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drive, and Pulsing

1. Currently, cheapest hull is two kilostarbux for primitive planetoid hull, sans gravity tiling.

2. Next, default planetoid hull, gravitated.

3. If you're willing to waste twenty percent volume, in exchange for factor/two organic armoured hull.

4. And now, spiritually intended, non gravitated lightly dispersed primitive hull, at five and five eighths kilostarbux.

5. Spacestation rules permit factor/zero manoeuvre drive, primitive rules disallow any manoeuvre drive or jump drive.

6. Hundred kilotonnes would be 562'500'000.00 starbux for the hull.

7. Control centre would add another 100'000'000.00.

8. Default gravitated standard configuration spacecraft would be 5'000'000'000.00 starbux for the hull.

9. And 5'000'000'000.00 starbux for the bridge; or in total, more than eight times more expensive.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drive, and Pulsing

A. Engineering would be the big ticket item.

B. Energy inefficient drives, which means we get a twenty five percent cost discount.

C. Jump drive would be eleven and a quarter megastarbux per tonne.

D. Manoeuvre drive one and half megastarbux per tonne.

E. Maximum power requirement for factor/three acceleration would be thirty nine power points per hundred tonnes volume.

F. Thirty nine thousand power points for a hundred kilotonne volume would need an early fusion reactor of thirty nine hundred tonnes.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drive, and Pulsing

G. I sort of torn between junkering with multiple five kilotonne engineering hulls, or a single twenty five kilotonne one.

H. Using multiples allows rapid repairs, and a twenty five percent reduction in personnel.

I. A twenty five kilotonne engineering hull would reduce personnel by a third, and increase hull points.

J. Also, you don't have to juggle with the engineering modules, trying to fit them into five kilotonne hulls.

K. In theory, declaring them dispersed structure would explain the collection of tubes.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Armaments, Ordnance, and Newton's Third Law

1. I was considering how to incorporate dive bombers into space battles.

2. Then, I recalled that, in theory, you can use momentum to increase the range of missiles.

3. Or, bombs.

4. I don't think that's accounted for in space combat.

5. You can have a spacecraft accelerate towards a target, at factor/nine.

6. You could consider that the first stage of the missile.

7. Once you launch the missile, the muzzle velocity of the missile should be spacecraft velocity, plus missile acceleration, for that first round, whether six minutes or six seconds.

8. That should actually shorten the closing range for the missile.

9. Or, torpedo.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Armaments, Ordnance, and Newton's Third Law

A. I've never figured out whether an ortillery missile's bad accuracy for moving targets was due to poor sensors, or acceleration factor/six.

B. In theory, even factor/six should be enough to (normally) hit a factor/one accelerating Free Trader.

C. If it's poor sensors, they can be upgraded.

D. If it's factor/six acceleration, then it becomes a tad more complicated.

E. What's the minimum acceleration where you don't get penalized for trying to hit a moving target?

F. Or, if it doesn't matter, why not just get closer to the target, and drop a factor/zero accelerating missile?

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Armaments, Ordnance, and Newton's Third Law

G. A glide bomb or stand-off bomb is a standoff weapon with flight control surfaces to give it a flatter, gliding flight path than that of a conventional bomb without such surfaces.

H. This allows it to be released at a distance from the target rather than right over it, allowing a successful attack without exposing the launching aircraft to anti-aircraft defenses near the target.[1]

I. Glide bombs can accurately deliver warheads in a manner comparable to cruise missiles at a fraction of the cost—sometimes by installing flight control kits on simple unguided bombs—and they are very difficult for surface-to-air missiles to intercept due to their tiny radar signatures and short flight times.

J. The only effective countermeasure in most cases is to shoot down enemy aircraft before they approach within launching range, making glide bombs very potent weapons where wartime exigencies prevent this.[2]

K. There is no air resistance in space.