Ship Design Philosophy

[AnotherDilbert]

Going by current trends, at least nine out of ten military operations will revolve around counter insurgency, and you don't need a presumably scratching edge hi tech fighter with a cloaking device dropping ordnance.

I was reading this very thought the other day in a white paper about the MBT being obsolete for the most part. The largest reason they gave was the low intensity bush wars becoming the norm rather than the exception. More need for fast response and low level coverage. Quite an interesting series of ideas. :mrgreen:

Losing a colonial police action is an inconvenience, losing a real war against a major power is an existential threat. The Army's first priority should be to not lose a major war, however unlikely it is.

 

[Condottiere]

You're always going to need something to attract unfriendly fire.

Classic already mentions that the helicopter, gunship and transport, APC and MBT, gets revolutionized into the grav vehicle. Occasionally, I tinker about with more classic technologies to see if they're cost effective in such a universe.

Whereas a military's primary purpose is to counter existential threats, a balanced inventory allows proportional responses and doesn't waste resources.

 

[-Daniel-]

.... a balanced inventory allows proportional responses and doesn't waste resources.

Exactly. No one has said we should toss out all MBTs and never build more. What I read was they were no longer as important in many of the on going conflicts. But that does not mean they will not be important ever. And it also does not mean the one author is right. Just that his paper was interesting to read. :mrgreen:

 

[Condottiere]

If the road is mined, and even if it isn't, you'd want a tank in front.

It's likely to survive, and if the miners are still in the neighbourhood and have been spotted ...

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Engineering and Smallest Possible Jump Drive

For obvious reasons, I like revisiting this topic.

So a High Tech ten tonne jump drive can weigh in at seven tonnes; that would be tech level twelve if the jump governor was jammed at factor one, and fourteen if you jammed it into a hundred tonne hull and were bi.

Steve Austin might have been selected to pilot the first jump drive prototype (or was it Buck Rogers?); while it cost ten times more, and was twice the size, that still makes a factor one drive weigh in at ten tonnes for a hundred tonne hull. So let me re-emphasize the important points, it's tech level seven, and either needs sixty percent more juice, or needs more personal space, about two hundred and twenty five diameters worth. I'd go for the energy inefficient version.

Too bad you can't improve the early prototype by shrinking it in later tech levels.

The budget variant I'd choose would be increased in size, which by default would get you twelve and a half tonnes. Interesting issue is if that means the overhead is six and a quarter tonnes, and I'm going to bet it does.

That leaves us with three and three quarter tonnes, since the minimum is ten tonnes, and we get the non increase in size weight of three tonnes equivalent.

In theory, that's enough to push you one point two parsecs.

If you have tech level nine control equipment and programmes, one parsec isn't an issue; but could you squeeze out an extra point two parsecs? Maybe if you had tech level ten control equipment and programmes.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Smallest Official Manoeuvre Drive

This has steampunk potential.

You take an early prototype of a zero factor drive, which could push a fifty tonne hull along at a quarter gee, at ten times the default cost, at tech level five; all in a one tonne package.

Fast forwarding a couple of decades, the budget version of the one tonnner has an eighty tonne thrust, the prototype variant can also be rated at eighty tonne thrust, but will cost five times the default price, but you get it at tech level eight, and can couple it to an early fusion plant.

There aren't that many eighty tonne smallcraft, and the only advantages they have would be a six tonne bridge.

Next up is trying to compete with fifty tonne cutters, but you'd have to upgrade the drives to tech level ten, to take advantage of one point six gees, but you'd have to upgrade them to tech level ten. While you're there, you could install two modules, and get three gee performance, which is fairly close, and two tech levels lower than the standard.

Funny thing though, despite protestations to the contrary, there actually exists an official half tonne manoeuvre drive in whatever the Pebble smallcraft is, that has a fifty tonne thrust and costs a million schmuckers, and you have other, though larger, examples, though still below a subtonne.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Over Your Head

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83uOGTjfQAc

The Eclipse fighter demonstrates the advantages of a hammerhead configuration, with three Pebble half tonne manoeuvre drives optimally placed to deliver a combined thrust of one hundred and fifty tonnes, and provide maximum manoeuvrability during combat.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Crew Facities

This actually could be a one stop shop to monitor your health and general well being, which is easily integrated into your normal morning ritual.

It could automatically certify sick leave, and summon the ship's doctor.

 

[-Daniel-]

Spaceships: Crew Facities

This actually could be a one stop shop to monitor your health and general well being, which is easily integrated into your normal morning ritual.

It could automatically certify sick leave, and summon the ship's doctor.

This is such a silly and yet somehow interesting thing. :mrgreen:

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Bridges and Building

You can install a one size smaller bridge than mandated on your ship, which means that a hundred tonne scout could be controlled from a six tonne one, but uncomfortably.

However, a ninety nine tonne shuttle has no problems with a space forty percent smaller.

Ten tonnes has been pretty much canon as the smallest starship bridge, and at some point someone must have realized that devoting two percent for larger craft for a bridge is pretty wasteful. The commander of a Tigress could install a sauna on his bridge and direct operations while he's relaxing in his jacuzzi.

Our current bridges max out at sixty tonnes, and if you add another twenty tonnes, you have th capability to efficiently direct large numbers of ships; twenty tonnes is unlikely to be an exact measurement, since you probably have some overlap with the other sixty tonnes.

You need ten tonnes to control an additional eight hundred tonnes of volume, and twenty more to control the next thousand, and with another twenty, a practically infinite amount of volume.

It's a game, so we make these numbers up, but is it possible that to control the jump drive process from the bridge, you only need four tonnes of equipment?

 

[Condottiere]

Smallcraft: Armaments and Shrinkage

A couple of thoughts occurred to me:

1. We can make the assumption the reason that smallcraft weapons are underclocked, is that the normal energy surges required for the default weaponry would overload the mains and shortcircuit the electronics.

2. Therefore, the volume of smallcraft energy weapons should shrink, since the output is less.

3. Also, that means there's more room in the turret, so you should be able to squeeze in another weapon system.

4. Missiles haven't shrunk, and there's been no indication they aren't the default model; that means, their range remains the same, since they have their own organic propulsion.

5. Should also apply to torpedoes; sand canisters also have zero power requirements.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Hulls and Breaking Bad

So, you take a ten tonne hull, and use the breakaway hull option,

You'd end up with two five tonne independent hulls.

 

[wbnc]

Spaceships: Hulls and Breaking Bad

So, you take a ten tonne hull, and use the breakaway hull option,

You'd end up with two five tonne independent hulls.

with one gun between them....

would be good for scouting, one acts as a spotter, or draws fire, then makes a full burn out of the area while the second section comes in and lays down fire.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Hulls and Breaking Bad

Of course, the author's intent is to find a loophole in the ten tonne minimum.

Proceeding:

1. one and a half tonne cockpit

2. half tonne budget Pebble drive with forty tonnes thrust

3. one tonne budget early fusion power plant output eight scotts

4. Pebble drive needs four scotts, basics one scott, and likely pulse laser three scotts

5. two tonnes cargo/fuel

6. two percent for the breakaway mechanism, so hundred kilogrammes

You could probably make it triplets.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Engineering and Zero Dark Twenty Five

It would appear that manoeuvre drive factor zero is available at tech level seven, so early steampunkish prototype at tech level five; like when Einstein splits the beer atom.

It would appear that a quarter thrust is enough for a soft landing on most worlds, and I suspect you really don't have to worry that much about aerodynamics. Of course, you need a way to achieve escape velocity if you want to leave, so what factor reaction rocket would you need, and for how long does it have to blow? Take off is likely to seriously take into account aerodynamics.

Interestingly enough, zero factor jump drives also half the percentage of a factor one, for a quarter of the performance.

About the same as the Striker formula for power plants.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Crew Accommodations

Looks comfortable; of course, if you get claustrophobic, you can always go outside and breathe in the fresh air.

In most cases, the menu is likely to be the microwave, and teevee dinners.

 

[wbnc]

Starships: Engineering and Zero Dark Twenty Five

It would appear that manoeuvre drive factor zero is available at tech level seven, so early steampunkish prototype at tech level five; like when Einstein splits the beer atom.

It would appear that a quarter thrust is enough for a soft landing on most worlds, and I suspect you really don't have to worry that much about aerodynamics. Of course, you need a way to achieve escape velocity if you want to leave, so what factor reaction rocket would you need, and for how long does it have to blow? Take off is likely to seriously take into account aerodynamics.

Interestingly enough, zero factor jump drives also half the percentage of a factor one, for a quarter of the performance.

About the same as the Striker formula for power plants.

Soft being a relative term. I wouldn't want to try to serve tea during a 0 thrust landing. the X-15 wa able to reach the bounry between high altitude and low orbit, I don't know what the X-15s acceleration was bt it was fairly impressive for a second generation rocket plane.

 

[Condottiere]

The Space Shuttle had a two-stage ascent. The SRBs provided additional thrust during liftoff and first-stage flight. About two minutes after liftoff, frangible nuts were fired, releasing the SRBs, which then parachuted into the ocean, to be retrieved by ships for refurbishment and reuse. The orbiter and ET continued to ascend on an increasingly horizontal flight path under power from its main engines. Upon reaching 17,500 mph (7.8 km/s), necessary for low Earth orbit, the main engines were shut down. The ET, attached by two frangible nuts[27] was then jettisoned to burn up in the atmosphere.[28]

The logical question would be how fast is acceleration factor one?

As regards to a "soft" landing, the degree of softness may be dependent if you can glide in and land on an appropriate landing strip.

Like downtown Vegas.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

What am I missing?

"Thrust 0" is a station-keeping drive only, it can maintain an orbit, but it can not get you anywhere. A landing with "Thrust 0" is fairly close to free fall...

A "Thrust 1" drive gives you an acceleration of 1 G ≈ 10 m/s².

Now I see what I was missing, "Thrust 1" is never equated with 1 G in the rules... It should be...

 

[Condottiere]

A fifteen tonne detachable bridge has the equivalent to a zero factor manoeuvre drive, with two weeks of life support, presumably running off batteries.

That means you need a thrust of three and three quarter tonnes, which would default to thirty seven and a half kilos of drive, double that to seventy five kilogrammes for a zero factor drive.