Ship Design Philosophy

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

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

Q. Glide bombs adapted from existing unguided bombs such as FAB-500 and FAB-1500 using inexpensive UMPK kits have been used extensively by Russian forces in the Russian invasion of Ukraine due to their low cost and reduced vulnerability to Ukrainian air defenses compared to more sophisticated cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles with longer flight times and more easily detected propulsion systems.

R. Russian forces have been using Su-34 and Su-35 jets to launch glide bombs from within Russian-held territory beyond the range of Ukrainian air defenses.[2]

S. These glide bombs can carry between 250kg and 3 tonnes of explosives for over 60km and have been cited as one of the primary reasons for the Ukrainian retreat from the town of Avdiivka in February 2024 by the Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief General Syrskyi.[7]

T. In theory, you could use sand canisters as dumb bombs.

U. Install a guidance munitions kit on them, they become smart bombs.

I have been using sandcasters as bomb racks for years.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

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

V. A very short-ranged weapon, the sandcutter fires a hail of electromagnets into the midst of an enemy sand cloud.

W. A sandcutter canister may be targeted against an enemy ship within Adjacent or Close range and a successful attack halves the protection given by any sand canisters the enemy uses that round.

X. Sand casters then have a potential range of close, somewhere in a six minute window.

Y. Close range is upto ten thousand metres.

Z. In an environment with microgravity and no atmosphere.

This works very well, and what eventually led to my interest in dogfighting.
It all started when a player decided to rig sandcanister as a fuel-air explosive for missile defense...and then for dumb bombs...all in the interest of avoiding customs inspections for having "unpermitted military weaponry"

 

[Condottiere]

It is a fifty kilogramme canister.

And, it has a (likely) mini mass driver launcher.

Problem, no guidance and organic propulsion.

Solution, guidance, add guidance munitions kit.

Customization long range, which, in theory, should increase that range band.

 

[Condottiere]

The hull is cheap up front but paid for in lower payload as long as it runs. You also don't pay extra for limited armour.

Kilotonne planetoid, with eight hundred tonne usable volume, requires a forty five megastarbux thirty tonne jump drive, and a twenty megastarbux ten tonne manoeuvre drive.

Eight hundred tonne normal hull, requires a thirty seven and a half megastarbux twenty five tonne jump drive, and a sixteen megastarbux eight tonne manoeuvre drive

Factor/one.

Difference, seven and a half megastarbux, and four megastarbux, respectively.

Kilotonne planetoid costs four megastarbux, and eight hundred non gravitated light dispersed hull seven and a half million megastarbux.

Minus waste and jump fuel tank, seven hundred tonnes for the planetoid, and seven hundred twenty for the normal hull.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

It is a fifty kilogramme canister.

And, it has a (likely) mini mass driver launcher.

Problem, no guidance and organic propulsion.

Solution, guidance, add guidance munitions kit.

Customization long range, which, in theory, should increase that range band.

100mm Anti-Armour missile (Whispers on the Abyss) is 18kg, and does 1DD damage (groundscale) with the Smart trait. Thus, a Spikedcan could have two of them with a range of 1k.

 

[Condottiere]

Dogfight missile, four times smaller than default missile, does the same damage.

If I understand where you're going with this, I did consider stuffing the sand canister with a sabotted smaller missile, that gets launched from the caster, and reorientates itself in space, than goes after a programmed target.

 

[Condottiere]

Which reminds me.

Guidance can be given by fibre optic cable, in any case upto close range/ten kilometres.

Don't know if you could do it further in Traveller, considering the next range band is twelve hundred klix.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

Dogfight missile, four times smaller than default missile, does the same damage.

If I understand where you're going with this, I did consider stuffing the sand canister with a sabotted smaller missile, that gets launched from the caster, and reorientates itself in space, than goes after a programmed target.

Exactly

 

[Condottiere]

There are easier ways to do this, but command detonation could turn the canister into a fragmentation warhead.

Similar to depth charges, but since you have a full view, and requires that the canister gets close enough to what's chosen as the target.

 

[Condottiere]

If you can shrink the fifty tonne payload of sand, or pebbles, by seven percent, without changing the effect, you can add a reactionary rocket acceleration/three, with a range of short, and endurance of one round.

That would allow it to fit in a missile launcher.

Sort of pointless to go further than short, possible with a caster, since there's no guidance.

 

[Condottiere]

Inspiration: USS Hamilton: Ironhold Station - Book 1 Full Sci-Fi Military Audiobook | Book 1 in Space War Saga

A deadly ambush. A shattered fleet. One young officer’s fight to survive.

When the US Navy’s 3rd Fleet is ambushed in the Auriga Star System, the aftermath is catastrophic — thousands dead, the captain among them. Thrust into command, young XO Galvin Quintos must lead the crippled USS Hamilton and its remaining crew back to Earth.

But that’s only the beginning.

With a murderer onboard, critically low fuel levels, and enemy forces — the Grish — hot on their trail, survival seems impossible. Will Quintos rise to the challenge or fall with the rest?

USS Hamilton: Ironhold Station by Mark Wayne McGinnis is a pulse-pounding military sci-fi audiobook packed with tension, space battles, and a high-stakes fight for leadership.

1. Unlikely to become a classic of science fiction.

2. Don't over rely on the ship's computer.

3. Broadsides seem more authentic with rail guns.

4. I don't know if you could stack the mass drivers into a single battery, and mitigate their accuracy penalty with fire control (sufficiently).

5. Airlocks, from personnel to hangars, could be on an armoured circular turntable, and leave a quarter unenclosed.

6. After entry, it turns a quarter, and sucks out the air, turns another quarter, and the entrée exits.

7. Could be a variant of a pop up.

8. Outside of the turntable, no other moving parts.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

If you can shrink the fifty tonne payload of sand, or pebbles, by seven percent, without changing the effect, you can add a reactionary rocket acceleration/three, with a range of short, and endurance of one round.

That would allow it to fit in a missile launcher.

Sort of pointless to go further than short, possible with a caster, since there's no guidance.

I was reacquainted with Supplement 3: Missiles, and realized that there is a path to applying those ideas to cans.

 

[Condottiere]

In the current edition, you can't shrink missiles and canisters through customization.

It's rather dubious if you can increase their size through disadvantages.

So, in that sense, it's rooster blocked.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

In the current edition, you can't shrink missiles and canisters through customization.

It's rather dubious if you can increase their size through disadvantages.

So, in that sense, it's rooster blocked.

I don’t think you have to shrink them.
I can fill a canister with HE or force-focused warhead, multiple sensors and a small drive while staying under 20kg.

Also, can add multiple d3 warheads as submunitions in the same construct.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drives, Customization, and Deep Spacing

1. I was wondering if I could come up with a turboprop equivalent.

2. I was pretty sure, that given a choice, no one is going to handicap themselves with diametrical limitations.

3. Then, it struck me.

4. If you blanket an orbital drive with a deep space manoeuvring system, it will think it's still within orbit.

5. Not to overcomplicate the matter, I decided to expand my horizons to a hundred diameters.

6. Budget it, and it knocks off a quarter from the sticker price.

7. Deep space it at sixty percent premium, and quadruple power requirement, within it's organic acceleration factor multiplied by technological level efficiency, you can pretty much go anywhere.

8. I would suppose the smart thing would have been to reduce power consumption by three quarters.

9. Though, that would be at the cost of potential acceleration.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drives, Customization, and Deep Spacing

A. What would worry me, is getting stranded in deep space.

B. Since a thousand diameter manoeuvre drive would have the same acceleration as an orbital range, it wouldn't matter which one you gravitated.

C. However, current customization rules would restrict that to an early prototype.

D. Or, if you're willing to sacrifice one disadvantage, there's no price difference between it, and a hundred diameterer.

E. What you can do with a hectodiameterer is to do gravitational slingshots.

F. Then, use the deep spacer to decelerate.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

Spacecraft: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drives, Customization, and Deep Spacing

1. I was wondering if I could come up with a turboprop equivalent.

2. I was pretty sure, that given a choice, no one is going to handicap themselves with diametrical limitations.

3. Then, it struck me.

4. If you blanket an orbital drive with a deep space manoeuvring system, it will think it's still within orbit.

5. Not to overcomplicate the matter, I decided to expand my horizons to a hundred diameters.

6. Budget it, and it knocks off a quarter from the sticker price.

7. Deep space it at sixty percent premium, and quadruple power requirement, within it's organic acceleration factor multiplied by technological level efficiency, you can pretty much go anywhere.

8. I would suppose the smart thing would have been to reduce power consumption by three quarters.

9. Though, that would be at the cost of potential acceleration.

I have found three good options:

1. Orion Drive (T5)
2. Lightcraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightcraft)
3. Nuclear Thruster, aka HePLAR (T5)

 

[Condottiere]

Mongoose does have to describe them in High Guard.

Essentially, gravitational based manoeuvre drives sort of qualify, requiring only power to function.

Reactionary rockets are five times cheaper, but have (very) low endurance.

What we're looking for is something that has a low operating cost, decent endurance, and is inexpensive.

Pournelle and Niven mention laser propelled space craft in Mote, but I don't think we have large enough lasers in Traveller.

And solar sails are too slow for interplanetary travel.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

Mongoose does have to describe them in High Guard.

Not sure I understand how this doesn't conflict with this:

1. I was wondering if I could come up with a turboprop equivalent.

Spinward Extents has rules for a Plasma Drive:

Plasma Drives: A magneto plasma drive uses radio waves to ionise fuel and magnetics to contain and expel the plasma under high impulse. More fuel efficient than standard reaction drives, plasma drives provide only limited impulse, usually a fraction of 1G. A plasma drive uses standard liquid hydrogen fuel and requires 20% of hull tonnage per Thrust at a cost of MCr0.4 per ton. Each ton of plasma drive requires 1 Power and fuel equal to 1% per Thrust per hour​

With Advantages:

Plasma Drive Advantages ​

• Energy Efficient: This plasma drive consumes 20% less Power than normal.
• Fuel Efficient: This plasma drive requires 20% less fuel than normal.
• Size Reduction: This reduces the tonnage consumed by the plasma drive by 10%.

You can turn a Plasma Drive into a HEPlaR: Size Reduction by 90%, Fuel Efficient (reduced by 75%), Power Incredibly Inefficient (uses 1000% Power) when paired with a fusion or antimatter powerplant.

T5 has easily portable rules that enable Orion drives:

• Max Ship size is 2400 dtons
• Pressure Plate (20% tonnage at TL8/10% tonnage at TL11/1% tonnage at TL18)
• Fuel .5ton/hr for detonators (Fission at TL 9, Fusion at TL11, AM at TL 18)
• Thrust (.1G at TL9, 1G at TL11, then +1G per TL after)

Lightcraft are just specialized Solar Sails (Either ablative at +.1MCr per ton of sail or Reflec at an additional +.2MCr per ton of sail) that receive thrust from an external source. They required a transit array treated as a Beam Laser (Low Yield: any ‘1’s and ‘2’s rolled are counted as ‘0’s), with or without Long-Range and Easy to Repair advantages. Each transit array requires 1D damage to accelerate 50tons by 1G (Yes, Barbette and Bay Multiples apply).

If equipped with undamaged Solar Sails, acceleration is successful on an Easy (4+) Gunner (1D Hours, DEX) check, with failure resulting in damage as if hit by the weapon.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

More fuel efficient than standard reaction drives, plasma drives provide only limited impulse, usually a fraction of 1G. A plasma drive uses standard liquid hydrogen fuel and requires 20% of hull tonnage per Thrust at a cost of MCr0.4 per ton. Each ton of plasma drive requires 1 Power and fuel equal to 1% per Thrust per hour

What exactly does per Thrust mean? Per g of thrust?