Ship Design Philosophy

Thrust only comes into it if you install a manoeuvre drive.

Death_from_Above_CCG_CommandersEdition.jpg


Even with smallcraft limitations, that armour makes it a dreadnought, and line of sight is well within range.
 
Inspiration: Youtube Animation Test

The rugged ships remind me of Starship Troopers,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc4dOMW2gbM

In this one, there are two interesting aspects, the missile launchers, and recessing the bays, that would make them more broadside limited, but make them more difficult to damage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuQlAqHvwNs
 
Spaceships: Sweat of the Sun, Tears of the Moon and Solar Panelling

The issue with solar power is efficiency, and if you can run a spaceship just on that alone.

You shouldn't be able to, but, the capability of solar panelling to increasingly squeeze more energy out of the nearest star, combined with an increasingly more efficient spaceship might make this possible at a high technological level.

Every five tonnes, or seventy cubic metres, of spaceship requires one scott to power up, that would be one tenth of a one tonne early fusion reactor, or two percent of volume.

In solar panelling terms, that means one hundredth of tonne is required, or 0.14 cubic metres. Or one five hundredth of the volume.

The minimum is half a tonne, but that means that half a tonne of solar panelling could keep a two hundred fifty tonne satellite's lights and climate control on, and keep the rest of the basic plumbing running.

At a minimum, solar panelling should be at least as large as a fusion reactor.
 
Spaceships: Sweat of the Sun, Tears of the Moon and Solar Panelling

Taking this a step further, the expectation seems to be that he vessel can sustain, even if only temporarily, one gee constant acceleration.

That means the power requirement increases by fifty percent, which means a half tonne of solar panelling can run a one hundred sixty six tonne mobile space station.

It's an interesting question why you can only fire up the manoeuvre drives temporarily, and exactly how long can that acceleration be sustained for any length of time is it due to structural integrity, and would we experience the same restrictions if we just lit up the reaction rockets?

It shouldn't prove a problem to attach the solar panelling to the hamster cage mechanism, so that the solar cells can face the direction of the sun at all times, assuming nothing eclipses it.
 
Condottiere said:
Spaceships: Sweat of the Sun, Tears of the Moon and Solar Panelling

Taking this a step further, the expectation seems to be that he vessel can sustain, even if only temporarily, one gee constant acceleration.

That means the power requirement increases by fifty percent, which means a half tonne of solar panelling can run a one hundred sixty six tonne mobile space station.

It's an interesting question why you can only fire up the manoeuvre drives temporarily, and exactly how long can that acceleration be sustained for any length of time' is it due to structural integrity, and would we experience the same restrictions if we just lit up the reaction rockets?

It shouldn't prove a probe to attach the solar panelling to the hamster cage mechanism, so that the solar cells can face the direction of the sun at all times, assuming nothing eclipses it.

From the limitations on maneuvering I get the feeling solar panels in the 3I are very flimsy arrangements more like a flexible sheet of thin highly reflective film rather than an array of rigid plates. One concept might be something like a fast deployed reflector that focuses and magnifies light onto a single point where a thermocouple or fluid reserve turns the light directly into electricity, or steam to turn a turbine.
 
I'd attach it to the roof, or hull.

Any surplus energy can be used to recharge the batteries, though that wouldn't be cost effective for a week long jump, unless the crew gets popsicled, or holes up in a bunker.
 
Condottiere said:
I'd attach it to the roof, or hull.

Any surplus energy can be used to recharge the batteries, though that wouldn't be cost effective for a week long jump, unless the crew gets popsicled, or holes up in a bunker.

wit proper materials you could infuse the "paint" on a starship hull with the spiffy Quantum dot solar cells they are developing as we speak..the entire painted surface becomes a power supply.
 
Every time we apply an overcoat to the ship, doesn't that increase it's volume?

One issue would be whether it could survive atmospheric re-entry.
 
Condottiere said:
Every time we apply an overcoat to the ship, doesn't that increase it's volume?

One issue would be whether it could survive atmospheric re-entry.

The overcoat would be the source of the extra volume taken up bay the solar panels during ship construction. That's and the power supply distribution nodes. The "paint should hold up fairly well as long as the captain didn't try a high-speed entry. A nice sedate subsonic entry would only subject the paint to a little scouring by dust/corrosives in the atmosphere.
 
Commercially, there might not be as much incentive to go beyond minimum capabilities for ships.

One gee constant acceleration might be very very common; or maybe one and a half as a safety margin.

Interplanetary might be a question between jump factor one, jump shadows, and how fast the local cigarette boats are.
 
Condottiere said:
Commercially, there might not be as much incentive to go beyond minimum capabilities for ships.

One gee constant acceleration might be very very common; or maybe one and a half as a safety margin.

Interplanetary might be a question between jump factor one, jump shadows, and how fast the local cigarette boats are.

Usually, a large cargo ship has a good deal of speed to shorten the voyage and make as many trips in a year as possible. a container ship will move at around 20 knots, faster in clear weather, which is Pretty fast for a large ocean going vessel. converting that to Traveller 1-1.5 Gee sound right for smaller ships which aren't on a tight schedule, and they don't want to tax their drives.

I could actually see a big Bulk ship( capital ship tonnage) moving at 0.5 Gee once in open space since they are making their earnings on sheer volume. Not speed.

But the intermediate ships..1000-5000 ton merchants might be pushing 2 gees constant to shorten turn around.cutting a few days of each cycle adds up to more trips each year. so the extra speed pays off for them.

Jump range would be dictated by the local economy. If words are close by and there isn't a serious need to make J-2 J-3 jumps The fuel costs and loss of cargo tonnage won't be supported by the profit earned for longer routes. Along trade routes between Secor and subsector capitals, I imagine that's where you would find the capital class merchant ships. and they would definitely try to shorten their jump times as much as possible. Shorter(time wise) trips, more round trips more profit.
 
That's assuming you have to dock near orbit of the primary planet; terminals constructed close to expected exit and entry points would cut down distance needed to be travelled, and goods can be shuttled directly to their insystem destination by smallcraft.


zqE35eP.jpg


Who wanted to be Captain?
 
Spaceships: Armaments and Mini-mesons

The smallest meson spinal mount is a technological level fifteen six thousand tonne variant.

That would also be the smallest meson deep fryer that planetary defence forces could use.

The meson gun is a pretty good all around weapon, since it ignores armour and inflicts radiation damage at long range.

But, even at six kay tonnes, it may be too much for a light cruiser, probably more suited to a medium-sized cruiser.
 
Spaceships: Armaments and Wrecking Balls

tumblr_n1ihbx2TeM1s91q83o2_500.jpg


The smallest railgun spinal mount is available at technological level thirteen, though at twenty eight hundred tonnes, small is a near relativistic term, much like the speed of the bowling balls it spits out.

There are number of reasons that you can't use this as a planetary defence weapon, primarily because it's limited to medium range, which means that any attacker is going to sit put and just flatten it.

Assuming there are other targets more worthy of their attention, and the attackers start pressing closer into range, the next issue would be gravity; what goes up and doesn't escape, is gong to come back down. An atmosphere should also slow down that ball bearing, and should create quite a spectacular fireball, maybe a Tunguska style blast in the surrounding environs, considering how fast it will be going.

So what's it good for, once particle accelerators and meson guns become available?

That depends on whether you can apply other advantages to the weapon system, besides cost and size reductions.

The obvious one is long range, available at technological level twelve, and resilient at thirteen. Juice is less of an issue, since five hundred scotts per size increment is thirty four tonnes of basic fusion plant, and half the requirement of an equivalent particle accelerator, though surprisingly the same as a meson gun, and at half the price.

A modern, well rounded light cruiser would be using the particle accelerator equivalent, but one that designed more for the commerce protection role, or cruising around the outposts of the empire, actual colonial cruisers, not the Kinunir, where the implied threat of bombardment or gunboat diplomacy is more effective than actual infliction of it, having a cheap, easily maintained spinal mount in orbit, or chasing off the better armed commerce raiders is an attractive proposition. Unlike missiles and power plants, wrecking balls don't deteriorate or require maintenance.
 
Spaceships: Particle Light Accelerator Spinal Mount Armament

PLASMA would be the smallest variant of capital energy weapon systems, though it actually wouldn't really qualify as a primary capital gun.

The funny thing is, that every other particle beam weapon system has a range of very long, just not spinal mounted variants.

PLASMAs are the perfect armament for light cruisers, since they can keep their distance and protect the flanks during a fleet action, and cause havock on anything and upto another light cruiser. Normally, you'd complement the spinal mount with other weapon systems to cover deficiencies in it's capabilities, which in this case would be atmosphered planetary bombardment.

If weapon advantages are allowed, there is a wide range to choose from to suit the fighting style of any particular naval doctrine.
 
Starwarships: Cruisers

Cruiser is a pretty plastic term, subject to abuse, but if we want to use to more clearly define warships, the median tonnage would be fifty thousand tonnes, with a fifty percent variance either way. The lower end being twenty five thousand tonnes, that permits taking advantage of the structural points bonus, and seventy five thousand tonnes about as far as you should build, before considering the benefits of just having a hundred thousand tonne hull that is even more structurally sounder.

The defining characteristic of a cruiser being the smallest vessel that can keep up with the fleet and still carry a spinal mount, which means at least one weighing in about twenty eight hundred tonnes; going by the new High Guard, the upper range seems more open, though usually at the expense of some other capability. Can you emplace a spinal mount that would be considered more suitable to a battleship; sure, but historically, while it might seem to upset strategic balances, in practice, they can't stand up to actually battleships, and get swarmed once local naval commanders decide they have enough numbers.

At these tonnages, having a wing of light fighters shouldn't make a vessel a carrier, but having one of heavy fighters should, since it's a question of how much volume is dedicated to hangarspace, and normally light fighters don't multiply as forcefully. The Wind class certainly seems an anomaly and a victim of copy pasting.

A balanced cruiser design should be able survive an encounter with a similarly sized warship in most cases.
 
Starwarships: Line of Battle Ships

Battleships seem a little open ended, if you're trying to find a median tonnage, but interestingly enough, if you ever read the Classics, it would be three hundred kay, as at that point the largest spinal mount couldn't critique you.

The low end would be a hundred kay, which gives a further structural bonus, and the upper end is represented by the semimegatonne Tigresses.

While there have always been hints that larger warships were built by the Imperium, though unlikely by the Vargr, Aslan or the Solomani; I'm inclined to think that the Ponies might well believe in bigger being better, though whether they'd go beyond a Tigress sized warship might be unlikely, though they'd probably have lot more battleships between three to five hundred kay.

Any government that authorizes building these ships, is going to demand from their Admiralty a lot of bang for their buck. So you end up having to justify the cost benefit of ever increasingly sized battleships, that are limited to a single spinal mount, the largest of which would be seventy five thousand tonnes, or fifteen percent of a Tigresses, if they hadn't preshrinkwrapped it.

A battleship needs a minimum strategic movement of factor three, and gee five acceleration, with factor ten armour plating and I'm going to say an eight dee dee spinal mount, a meson gun being vastly preferably to a particle accelerator, which might be more comfortable on a battlecruiser.

The current Plankwell seems like a relatively light battleship sent as flagships on a distant station, whereas the Kokirraks might be like the Queen Elizabeths fast battleships.

Why would the the Imperium restrict itself to two hundred kay tonne battleships? The Imperium might need a lot of ships to protect it's borders, and a lot of existing port and repair infrastructure might have a cap of two hundred thousand tonnes per dock.
 
Starwarships: Carriers

Carrier, like cruiser, can be fairly loosely defined. You can even combine the two, with a term related to carrier, like aviation, helicopter, flight deck and through deck. And not to mention those specialized for amphibious operations, like commando and assault.

Tonnages can range from two hundred to sub kay, so you have to categorize in order not to get lost in the minutiae. Also to differentiate between carrier and tender.

So let's concentrate on those vessels that were built from the keel up as dedicated warships.

At a minimum, you'll need a cruiser sized hull, so that's a minimum of twenty five thousand tonnes; it has to be able to strategically keep pace with the major fleet units, so at least factor three range. A lot of designs mention manoeuvre as being factor two, but I think this tends to be a legacy artifact, carriers need to tactically keep up with the line, or be able to move out of trouble, so the minimum would have to be factor three, if not factor five; remember, a lot of fighters are going to be able to be able to move at factor nine now, and armour, while it should be added, isn't a real priority.

It would be interesting to know why eighty came up to be the usual fighter complement for the Imperium; by Imperium standards, they would have to be at least heavy fighters, since light fighters aren't going to make the same impact. Fleet carriers are going to have to devote at a minimum ten percent of their volume to subsidiary combat craft

Light fleet carriers will be at least twenty kay tonnes, and their air wing should resemble that which currently complements the American supercarriers in peacetime; in wartime, they may specialize in a specific role, and tend to have craft that are more effective in carrying out those types of missions.

I don't think there are any examples of actual medium sized carriers in Traveller, though using currently existing ships as a guide, sixty thousand tonnes, with a variance of fifteen thousand either way, consisting of a balanced air wing, with an emphasis to taking initiative, so perhaps strike might be an appropriate adjective, possibly with an assault capability.

Our only example of a fleet carrier weighs in at a hundred kay, and has an air group of around three hundred craft, which is certainly larger than a lot of air forces. You'd be tempted to label this as a supercarrier, but it's not. The light fleet cruiser would tend to support a squadron of battleships, the heavy fleet carrier an entire task force, or fleet, if you prefer. The medium one will get sent on independent operations, while the supercarrier is pretty much a force in itself.

Heavy fleet carriers are important assets, one reason that they're at least a hundred kay tonnes; the Imperium might consider their role more to complement the line of battle, which is why they've never built larger ones, as I suppose their weight could range up to one fifty kay, as the Imperium would probably just prefer to give this capacity to one of their super dreadnoughts, that would be well able to defend itself, than seeing a requirement to construct any larger carrier, though at a hundred kay tonnes, it has more survivability and capacity than a medium fleet carrier.

I'm going to guess that the Solomani with their Midway supercarriers are the only ones to have ever bothered or seen a need to build a class of carrier that has this capacity, though using a dispersed configuration indicates that they wanted to stuff as many craft, using the term loosely, onboard as possible.
 
Starships: Engineering and Bunkerage

Quick guide to the likely default percentages you'll have to set aside for the fuel and engineering components:

Jump factor - Percentage

One - 13.5%

Two - 27%

Three - 40.5%

Four - 54%

Five - 67.5%

Note: using higher technology efficiency bonii will lower percentages.
 
Starwarships: Carriers

It would appear to me that fleet carrier should be designed around multiples of eighty heavy fighter equivalents, that should have five thousand tonne hangars dedicated to each group, with a launch tube and a recovery deck, plus one spare launch tube, just in case one isn't working.

Putting aside min maxing, you do want your maintenance and armoury personnel to have plenty of space to examine and fix each craft scheduled to be catapulted out, and you don't want to depend on a single catapult, which if kaputted, is going to remove any military value a carrier has, though you could wrestle the fighters to one of the auxiliary launch facilities, that can take or launch one craft per turn; recovery decks are probably easier to repair and or clear.

Using heavy fighter equivalents to calculate capacity would allow a the fleet commander to adjust the composition of wings to suit the mission(s) the carrier is expected to undertake.
 
Back
Top