Ship Design Philosophy

[Condottiere]

I'm not sure if those two were actual Space Vikings:

Trask - too self-absorbed, and gives up after three raids.

Dunnan - too delusional, and seems obsessed in pulling off a coup.

 

[Condottiere]

Artificial Gravity

1. This came up when I was considering replacing a set of deck floors with a wooden floor.

2. Since I doubt you could embed the artificial gravity plates in the wooden floor, I wondered if the artificial gravity would extend 6 metres plus, especially considering the intervening wooden floor.

 

[Condottiere]

Hulls - Hamster Wheels

1. Will they significantly impact operating costs of spaceships? IE make it cheaper.

2. Do you need two contra-rotating to counter-act whatever forces the first one creates?

 

[Condottiere]

External modular containerships

1. Seem the perfect fleet auxiliary; modules can easily be changed to whatever mission they need to support.

2. They can also easily drop them and run like hell if the situation overheats.

3. They also can be easily converted to auxiliary cruiser status. And of course, escort carrier.

 

[Condottiere]

Hulls - Construction Time

1. Anyone notice how a five hundred ton hull takes sixty four weeks to construct, and a six hundred ton takes ninety six weeks?

2. I'd speculate that any emergency wartime shipbuilding programme would concentrate on building five hundred ton hulls.

 

[Condottiere]

Weapons - Sandcasters

1. While it's an old issue, the recent mention of civilian ship weapons (and my ongoing quest to design cut-rate ships), I decided to have a more closer look at sandcasters.

2. With a view to gaming the system, I wondered if an upgrade to:
a. Very High Yield
b. Long Range
might yield interesting results.

3. Switching from sand bags to pebble coshes, you go from 1d3 damage to guaranteed 3 damage, and with three launchers, 9 damage per turret, compared with 3d6 of a railgun and possibly three times six d6 multi-warhead missiles.

4. The problem is, you get more bang for your buck by the other missile weapons; speaking of which, you'd assume that at least it would be far more cheaper per volley.

5. Not at 500 Cr. per bag. My passive-aggressive strategy isn't worth it.

6. In regard to the HG revision, the cost of the sandbags should be revised radically downward.

7. Perhaps in the abstract calculations of the barrage you get a better cost benefit analysis, if you combine two for one damage plus two more points of damage due to very high yield.

 

[Condottiere]

Battle-Riders & Tenders

1. Actually, I would have liked to have posted this under Confederation Navy, but these opinions stated on any aspect of naval doctrine or policy are solely those of the author, and in no way reflect the opinions or policies as a whole of the Solomani Confederation Navy, who bear no responsibility or liability for the content of files or documents retrieved through a linkage established through this post. Mention of any product or service does not constitute an endorsement.

2. Unlike what we'll term an actual smallcraft carrier, capital ships don't need the same maintenance and crew rotation that a fighter would need, which basically outsources that to the mothership.

3. While a megaton tender sounds an efficient use of resources, it's actually not, except for commercial carriers. Jumping into a middle of a combat zone puts at risk an incredible amount of tonnage that can neither run nor protect itself, if the immediate neighbourhood turns hostile.

4. What the Confederation Navy should do is construct what are commonly termed jump shuttles, though rather large ones. That means that Admirals' planning for a battle-rider squadron isn't subject to a single point of failure, either coming or going. This prevents time tables being held hostage to any delays by either tender and/or riders who aren't ready to jump.

5. As jump shuttles are smaller, less resources are needed to build and maintain them; replacing or repairing the jump drives of megatoncraft must be a horrifying experience for the bean counters and the engineers.

6. More importantly, when deciding that discretion is the better part of valour, battle-riders can disengage from combat as is convenient, make their way to a waiting jump shuttle and withdraw, rather than needing to wait for their colleagues, or even need to leave them behind to ensure the survival of the tender. And since with jump bubbles they actually don't need to be linked up with the jump shuttle, just be in the general vicinity, an emergency jump can be effected, probably as both are galloping away hell for leather.

 

[Condottiere]

Question - Docking Clamps

1. Do docking clamps need to be attached to a corresponding airlock, or just any part of the hull?

2. If attached to the hull, could an interface be created between the respective two crafts computers, if the hull was so purpose built with a USB port?

 

[AndrewW]

Question - Docking Clamps

1. Do docking clamps need to be attached to a corresponding airlock, or just any part of the hull??

Doesn't actually specify, but since you can add multiple airlocks (without cost depending on the size of the ship and how many) it shouldn't really be a problem to put one in.

2. If attached to the hull, could an interface be created between the respective two crafts computers, if the hull was so purpose built with a USB port?

Check Signs & Portents #84, page: 15 for System Linkage. Or Supplment 10: Merchants and Cruisers, page: 29. This option would also allow linked computers not not specifically specified.

 

[Condottiere]

The relevance in the question stems to the weapons pods I'm trying to design, where the docking clamp is part of it's tonnage, rather than that of the mothership; requiring a corresponding airlock neutralizes the tonnage off-shoring.

 

[leopard]

Didn't the old Hard Times supplement introduce the concept of an open modular frame, essentially you built a skeleton then added modules and evaluated the result as a whole.

IIRC you lost 5% of your hull volume, took no power but that 5% had its normal cost and weight.

Its not cannon but no reason not to use the same mechanic for other components.

Say you have a 100 ton component, weapons pod or whatever. The craft it will attach to must allocate 5 tons with nothing in them - i.e. dead space and weight. That provides the coupling points, clamps, power connections - if the pod is large enough to carry people that 5% will include a transfer tunnel, maybe a large walkway if big enough or a simple tube otherwise. Would suggest if the 5% is large enough you could add an airlock inside it but nothing else.

The pod then does exactly the same, allocates 5 tons to nothing.

Pod and host craft can now dock - assuming one of them is powered, or an external tug of some sort handles the work for them. they will hold at normal craft performance and can operate correctly, but can release quickly if required.

For small pods the 5% isn't that much and becomes a nice simple way of managing what amounts to an external hard point.

 

[Condottiere]

1. I agree, but docking clamps are what I have to work with, and even the waldos seem limited to two tons.

2. Also, my ulterior motive is to cram more hardpoints in a given tonnage.

3. I knew about the system synchronization, which was why I mentioned specifically the USB port

 

[Condottiere]

Sandcasters

1. I thought about it some more, and it suddenly occurred to me that a four hundred ton corsair looking down the massed barrels of a superfreighter, might feel a tad intimidated.

2. I rather doubt that planetary authorities are enthused when a ship with an overwhelming number of missile turrets orbits their planet; missile turrets/launchers may actually be limited by law.

 

[Condottiere]

Detachable cockpits

1. It's true, this one stems more from my viewing of anime.

2. Detachable bridges exist, where the extra tonnage seems to span from 50% to 25%, and stops at 6K ships (though I suppose you had dispersed or closed structures you could probably get around that).

3. Pilots could have their cockpits customized as long as a standard interface exists between the fighter and the cockpit, since it's probably all fly by wire or fibre optics or laser by then.

4. The issue arose when I was debating whether fighters still had windscreens, and if entry could be afforded through that.

5. Then I thought one of the biggest costs for light fighters is electronics and computers, and if you could make them interchangeable as per budget allocation.

6. If the fighter is about to be destroyed, the pilot ejects the cockpit module, still has his life support, and CSAR not only bags back the pilot, but also some expensive electronics.

7. You could also heavily armour the cockpit module, which is sometimes referred to as the titanium bathtub.

 

[AndrewW]

7. You could also heavily armour the cockpit module, which is sometimes referred to as the titanium bathtub.

Could be placed within a vault.

 

[dragoner]

7. You could also heavily armour the cockpit module, which is sometimes referred to as the titanium bathtub.

Could be placed within a vault.

Yes, the whole cabin could be an ejectable component, this could work for larger starships as well.

 

[Condottiere]

Bridges

1. Detachable cockpit - with five tons added on, you could cruise around for two weeks and effect a planetary re-entry; sounds fishy, but there you go.

2. Detachable bridge - at 6K, two thirty ton command modules weigh sixty tons, so that the added on twenty tons that will allow independent movement, so that seems to fit in, though there are no adventure class ships above 2K.

3. Command module - One of these command modules must be designated the ship’s bridge, but they can all use any specialist bridge options. Tends to indicate you need only one to control the ship, and the others could be assigned as launderettes.

 

[Condottiere]

Hulls - Decks

1. Going by some of the Classic ideas, the size engine compartment was fixed and it was upto you to figure out which combination of drives best suited your needs.

2. Spaceships are likely constructed conservatively, which means airtight floors and sections; that's understandable, when you realize that an uncontrollable air leak would be catastrophic.

3. If you're just hauling freight, that may be less of an issue, since presumably you'd have to meet minimum safety requirements for passengers.

4. What I'm considering is the construction of primary decks that would encapsulate anything from heights of six metres and up, and could be divided and subdivided with relatively thin metal, polymers or wood as floors and walls.

5. The problem arises as to how far artificial gravity plates and inertial compensators extend, though I haven't heard any tales of where crewmen can float in the middle of large cargo holds.

6. Compartmentalization would be more defined, so that at the minimum the bridge, the engine room and the smallcraft hangar would be reinforced air tight compartments.

7, That doesn't mean the thinner walls and floors can't be airtight, just that they would be more fragile.

 

[Condottiere]

Ever wonder how to bridge the difference a smallcraft 1.5 ton cockpit/fifty ton smallcraft and a 10 ton command module/hundred ton scout?

1. Radar: standard - both

2. Lidar: standard - both

3. Radio (presumably): standard - both

4. Computer: incorporated - both

5. Avionics?

6. Hundred percent greater ship surveillance

7. Jump drive workstation (though not necessary on non-starships)

So that's 8.5 tons for the cockpit or 7 tons if it was a cabin position; makes you wonder what else is fitted in there.

 

[Condottiere]

High–Burn Thruster: This is a powerful chemical rocket that
can give a temporary speed boost to a ship. To determine the
effects of the thrusters, choose an M–Drive that produces the
desired speed. (For example, to get 6–g acceleration on a 200–
ton ship requires M–Drive F.) The high–burn thruster weighs
20% and costs 20% of that M–Drive (2.2 tons and 4.8MCr, in
the case of a M–Drive F).
Thrusters require fuel depending on the thruster’s drive number.
Fuel equal to 25% of the mass of the drive gives enough for
one full hour of operation (10 space combat turns). Fuel costs
10,000 Cr./ton. A high–burn thrusters may not operate for more
than one hour before requiring a shut–down period equal to the
duration of operation.


1. So that's thirty tons of normal fuel at 2.5% tonnage/thrust hour, which if refined costs five hundred credits, unrefined one hundred credits, and free if harvested directly at source. At worst, fifteen thousand credits versus five thousand five hundred credits, plus around thirty eight extra tons of freight.

2. At best, the time and fuel needed to divert to a nearby gas giant, plus the loss of twenty nine tons of freight.

3. High burn thruster seems now commercially viable, if you don't have access to a grav drive.