Ship Design Philosophy

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering, Acceleration, and Solar Panelling

1. I very much suspect I've been working on a misapprehension.

2. Nowhere on the entry for Solar Panelling does it actually state you couldn't accelerate at twenty five gees while it's deployed.

3. All it does is shrink the capacity to do so if Solar Panelling is the only source of energy aboard the spacecraft.

4. Minimal manoeuvring does not include long periods at full thrust, but there's always one turn at full thrust.

5. And if you have two sets of Solar Panelling, they could alternate the current one powering the spacecraft.

6. Or alternating current.

7. If the panels are fitted to a ship without a power plant, then assume the (non–existent) power plant is sized to the ship’s basic systems and a Thrust 1 manoeuvre drive.

8. Rather vague, and does leave dangling the possibility of using an extra large Solar Panel to acquire more juice.

9. Or we could assume that by itself, that amount of energy over that prescribed evaporates before it has the chance to channelled to the appropriate machinery.

10. I'm pretty sure that we could divert two thirds to a a battery storage, one third being enough to power basic ship systems.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments and The Expanse - Planetary Railgun Strike (Inc All Build Up Scenes)

All scenes from Season 3 Episode 3 "Assured Destruction" in relation to the Earth planetary railgun attack against the Martian stealth ballistic missile platforms.

The last part of the actual railgun strike itself is heavily copyright protected and I was forced to edit this final part substantially to avoid the whole video being blocked. I hope this doesn't detract too much from your enjoyment of one of the highlights of the first half of Season 3.

I think the build up scenes are compulsory viewing to see the skilful manipulation of 'Bobblehead' Sorrento-Gillis by Errinwright to commit to fire, as well as expanding on the posture of Sorrento-Gillis in the last scene and the sequence in it's entirety. Absolutely fantastic stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktyQJQ1DW1o

1. My rationale for picking a spinal mounted railgun would be that maintenance would be easier, since a significant part would by definition be the barrel and therefore empty.

2. Also, against stationary targets or those with a predicted course, range would be beyond extreme.

3. They're also cheaper.

4. There might be a possibility that if you tune it down to one, you could use it as a launch tube for twenty tonne spacecraft.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Bunkerage and Hydrogen energy storage in AMMONIA: Fantastic future or fossil fuel scam?

Hydrogen energy storage in ammonia is not something that would be instinctively obvious to most of us, but the folks in the energy industry are apparently getting quite excited about the concept. It's a far safer, easier and more energy dense way to transport hydrogen around the world and could be the final cog in the gears of a true hydrogen economy of the future. But some warn that it could actually be a smokescreen enabling the fossil fuel industry to continue burning huge quantities of natural gas and maintain their vice-like grip on the global energy market.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y_2Z_VwFNc&ab_channel=JustHaveaThink

1. Obviously, cheap power and space industry.

2. Of course, first you have to factor in the retail price of ammonia.

3. An onboard fuel purifier becomes a requirement.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Hulls, Fighters, and Dogfighting

As I recall, almost all canon heavy fighters are listed as fifty tonnes.

Funny thing is, according to the current rule set, fifty tonne and above spaceships acquire a minus one penalty entering a dogfight.

So logic seems to indicate you'd build forty nine tonne maximum spacecraft, which would still enjoy two firmpoints.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Hulls and Modern Airships: The best of sustainable Aviation

In this video we look at the modern airship. There are plenty of new airships being designed at the moment across the world. They make use of new age materials, from carbon composites to multi-layered fabrics.

There is also the use of electric propulsion and hull embedded solar panels/ This makes perfect sense as airships have a large area.
Many of the modern airships are hybrid airships, meaning at least some of their lift comes from thrust vectoring or aerodynamic lift.

Based on one of the modern airships, sky cruises are also being considered which will start as early as the year 2023.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5weItJuMbKs&ab_channel=ElectricAviation

1. Using the spaceship design template probably produces the best platform to perform as an airship.

2. You don't even need to have a manoeuvre drive that can perform beyond low orbit.

3. Less aerodynamically framed spaceships would be performing reentry dead slow.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armament and The Deadliest (and Simplest) Space Weapon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZApW34z-aUw

1. Kamikazeing, even after death.

2. In theory, could skewer a steel rod through the middle, stick that in the railgun, and spigot it.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Hulls and Airbus A380 Alternative Designs - How They Made The Perfect Boeing 747 Rival

You might not know this, but Airbus first had the idea of the A380 in 1988, a good 17 years before the first prototype rolled out of the Airbus Factory. What happened in that little known period of history, and what other high density aircraft concepts did Airbus consider? Let us explore the evolution of the Airbus A380 design!

Airbus, who had recently launched its Airbus A340 program in June 1987, needed to bring a bigger plane to the market that compliment the existing line of airbus aircraft and competed against the Boeing 747 market dominance that Boeing had enjoyed for so long, and had only recently launched it -400 series of the plane.

Not only that, around the same time Lockheed was working on a very large subsonic transport and Mcdonnell Douglas its MD-12.

The program would be called the Airbus UHCA, or the Ultra-High-Capacity-Airliner, and would be a secret project even from Airbus's CEO. The team set to work, and drew up a list of requirements to get this plane to work.

First the aircraft needed to carry at least 500 passengers, to fit above the passenger specifications of the Airbus A340 and prevent any cannibalization of sales.

Second, the plane needed to be better and more fuel-efficient than the Boeing 747-400. Airbus was targeting a number of around 15% more fuel efficent.

Lastly, it needed to be built with then modern technology, production lines and existing airbus components. If it was cheap, then that would be a bonus.

With so much at stake, Airbus decided to go in a radically new direction and invite its four partners to come up each with a seperate UHCA design. The teams were from Aerospatiale, Deutsche Aerospace (DASA), British Aerospace and Construcciones Aeronautics (CASA) and they had only until 1992 to come up with Airbus future aircraft.

The most important part of these designs was the cross-section.

The first design came from Jean Roeder himself at Airbus. Called the Horizontal double bubble, it used existing Airbus A340 fuselages married into a double bubble design side by side.

next up was a cicular cross-section that was a giant circle that had a perfect pi diameter. While it was peferctly aerodynamic and structurally efficent to pressurize, it actually had issues with upper deck space with curved celinings and low room in cargo.

The opposite design to the circular was the cloverleaf. It had plenty of space onboard and even allowed gigantic amounts of cargo. To build it, the team proposed either a new large circular design, or attaching an Airbus A320 airframe ontop of a A340. But where it had excellent cargo capacity, it didn't pass wind tunnel tests.

The fourth concept was proposed by DASA, called the A2000 that was bigger than the Airbus today. It would seat 615 passengers on three decks, with first class passengers having cabins on the bottom level.

The last design was called the Ovoid, and it put together the circular and the cloverleaf, and the key learning of the A2000 from DASA. Ideally, it was the perfect combination of all the designs sans the double bubble and would represent the aircraft going forward.

The design team would propose two different UHCA aircraft:

The first would 600-800, with the upper range 800 all-economy seater designed for the Japanese market - to rival the success that Boeing had there with the Boeing 747 SR.

The latter 800-1050 design was proposed with a gigantic wing 63% bigger than the current Airbus A340, and be 260 feet long.

During the restructuring, Airbus would put the final touches together on the A3XX, such as a 10 abreast seating plane of 3-4-3 to avoid, and I quote, the 'American Prisoner' middle seat, found on American planes with a 2-5-2 seating configuration.

Airbus pit together three derivatives of the Airbus aircraft, the A3XX-100, -100R and the A3XX-200. The first would carry 555 passengers in three classes to 7,500 nautical miles, the -100R would flying the same passengers 8,500 nautical miles and a -200 would trade range for capacity with 656 seats.

Lufthansa, who had been an airline parter consultant during this time, asked Airbus for a short version of the A3XX, dubbed the A3XX-50 that would carry only 480 passengers to a range of 7,500 nautical miles, using existing engines like those on the then-new Boeing 777.

On the 19th of December, 2000, the A380 was officially launched.

Airbus would launch two versions, with the A3XX-100 becoming the A380-800 and the A3XX-50 becoming the smaller A380-700. The A3XX-200, the larger version, would be the proposed -900 version and the figure given the F designation.

Remarking at the launch, Manfred Bischoff said that " Airbus has a new flagship, this is a major breakthrough for Airbus as a full-range competitor on world markets - we are convinced that this aircraft will have a bright and extremely successful future".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wdtacrpHlo

1. Double bubble.

2. Cloverleaf.

3. Ovoid.

4. Time to market.

5. One advantage Traveller has is that the entire technological tree is revealed, and that you could build lower technological spaceships with room for growth and upgrades.

6. This is a case where when you do invest that much in research and development, you have to future proof the product, or product family.

7. Larger warships with room for growth tend to have longer service lifes.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Quirks and the Second Hand Market

2 - Black listed: find out which systems have an impound order, and which systems have an extradition treaty with them; avoid repo men.

3 - Well maintained: neutralized by double maintenance costs.

4 - Concealed smuggling compartments: more of a challenge to deckplan designers.

5 - Cargo bay tainted by chemical spills and leaks: while cargo space is free, the hull probably is not; if confined by internal bulkheads, rip those out and replace them.

6 - Damaged sensors: replace them; repair may not resolve the issue.

7 - Penalty to all repair attempts: might be the monkey wrench that blocks the sale; especially if you get it twice.

8 - Double maintenance costs: actually, still worth i; neutralized by well maintained.

9 - Severely damaged: I think I could live with ten percent less hull points; maybe less so with ten percent less hull.

10 - Damaged thrusters: minus one penalty to pilot checks is doable.

11 - Ships has a good reputation: probably neutralizes black listed, unless this applies in separate systems.

12 - Upgrade computer: free performance, though has less meaning at five to ten bandwidth.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Quirks and the Second Hand Market

For military spacecraft:

2 - Severely damaged: presumably ten percent less hull points.

3 - Upgrade sensors: remember to find space for them.

4 - Extra turret: if fully utilized, the only alternatives I see is an upgrade to a barbette, or break it up to three firm points, possibly four.

5 - Notoriety: you might get fired on first, with the majority of weapon platforms; would not place much hope for a diplomatic solution.

6 - 10

11 - Reputable: like blacklisted, can either neutralize notoriety, or make you popular within your own military.

12 - Additional weapon system: or upgrade an existing one.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Quirks and the Second Hand Market

Other:

2 - Leaky reactor core: my feeling is that it's specific to power surge and transitioning to another dimension; replace the reactor, install additional shielding, or shunt the required energy to a battery, and use that to power the jump drive.

3 - Luxury: depress passenger rage.

4 - Contaminated database: flush and reinstall; it is free, after all.

5 - Psionic echoes: get an exorcist.

6 - 10

11 - Wikileaks: potential treasure map, or a one way ticket to some secret black hole site.

12 - Upgrade sensors: requires space, from somewhere.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Quirks and the Second Hand Market

1. It's possible that the maximum number of quirks a ship can acquire is ten, which would mean that if a hundred and one year old spaceship has somehow managed t have a balanced set thereof that don't really handicap the crew or mission, at a fifty percent purchase discount, that may actually make it very attractive.

2. More attractive might be a seventy six year old spaceship, with seven quirks at forty percent purchase discount: for the next twenty four years you don't have to worry about acquiring another one, but have to deal with an influx of three suddenly thereafter.

3. The first quirk appears after six years, but you get a ten percent discount; doable.

4. Next up, two quirks at eleven years with a fifteen percent discount; still doable.

5. Twenty one years it's three quirks at twenty percent; odds aren't going to be in your favour, but mitigation costs may be minimal.

6. Thirty one years it may be time to scrap it, or give it as a freebie instead of a watch; I'm a little dubious if it's worth the twenty five percent discount.

7. Ditto for forty one to seventy five years.

8. So, probably get them when they're relatively new, as a freebie, when they hit seventy six, or a hundred and one; just have an engineer friend go over it with a fine tooth comb.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and The Nuclear Salt Water Rocket - Possibly the Craziest Rocket Engine Ever Imagined.

The Nuclear Salt Water Rocket is a rocket engine concept that uses a rapid nuclear reaction in a Uranium salt dissolved in water to create a high thrust, high efficiency engine which eclipses the performance of any rocket engine ever designed. It's a concept originally presented by Robert Zubrin, which is appealing because it looks more scientifically plausable than many other futuristic propulsion concepts.

It's also scary on so many levels, using a propellent that has to be stabilized by specially designed tanks, and relies on managing a small nuclear explosion with power outputs of hundreds of gigawatts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvZjhWE-3zM

1. Salt water - presumably no fuel purifier required.

2. Coolant, including spaceship waste heat.

3. Nuclear moderator?

4. Chernobyl.

5. One hundred fifty kilometres per second.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: 8 Smart Features | VCX-100 "GHOST" Light Freighter

We take a look at the famous Ghost captained by Hera Syndulla and crewed by the rebel force known as Spectre Cell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CuxXPoiQ_0&ab_channel=GenerationTech

1. Hub ship.

2. Simple symmetrical design.

3. Multiple docking hatches.

4. Engineering in percentages.

5. Flak interference.

6. Stealthed.

7. Assault shuttle; breakaway hull?

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: The Nuclear Powered Flying Aircraft Attack Carrier - Never Built CL-1201

In 1969, Lockheed was tasked by the US air force to design a plane that was so big that it could carry 3000 troops, launch 22 parasite air to air jet fighters and fly for 41 days straight without landing. But it would never see the light of day, facing design challenges such as building a powerful enough nuclear reactor to how to even take off into the sky.

Designed by Lockheed to find the upper size limit of aircraft using conventional 1969 materials and technology - This is the CL-1201, the biggest aircraft never built.

The world of the late 60s was certainly an interesting one, America that faced enemies across the globe.

While the Boeing 747 that had just taken to flight was considered for the airforce, Lockheed was put onto the track to develop something even more gargantuan. A giant city-sized flying aircraft carrier.

The project would be dupped the CL-1201, based on the aerodynamic research for the previous CL-1170 - but with extensively increased dimensions.

The airframe would measure a wingspan of 1120 feet, and be 560 feet long, giving the fuselage an interior space of 2 million cubic feet.

For such a huge plane, conventional fuel wouldn't cut it - this sucker would be nuclear powered, with the reactor system giving out a combined 1.83 gigawatts - allowing this plane to fly 41 days straight at Mach 0.8 over 16,000 feet, only having to land because the crew would run out of food and water. the crew of 475, who would be needed to maintain operations for 24/7. The reactor itself wouldn't need to be refueled for over 1000 operation hours.

You see there was actually two versions of this plane. The CL-1201-1-1 and the CL-1201-1-3. there was technically also a mystery CL-1201-1-2 but all information about it has been scrubbed - but bare with me we will get to that model later.

The CL-1201-1-1 was dubbed the Attack Aircraft Carrier. It would carry eleven fighter bombers under each wing, and two more in the fuselage hangers, for a total of 24 aircraft. While we don't know what these final mini-jets would have been, in the documents they are listed as the F-4 Phantoms.

It would be the command center for any military operation. The plane would also carry ten long-range attack missiles, with Lockheed not ruling out that their warheads would be nuclear-tipped. This plane would never land in enemy land, simply circling the battlefield at 30,000 feet and around 600 miles away.

As for going deep behind enemy lines, that was up to the CL-1201-1-3, or dubbed, the logistic support aircraft or LSA.

This version of the plane would be the carrier for the bulk of the mission, bringing drop troops and other equipmentMITs, or converted Boeing 707s that would fly troops and materials back and forth from the LSA. The LSA would have a fleet of five 707 MITs that would physically dock three at a time to the LSA.

In addition to the 400 troops on the LSA, there would be 150 troops on each MIT, to a combined total of 1150 troops in the mini-fleet.

But these aircraft wouldn't actually operate on their own. It would be a fleet group of a single attack aircraft carrier, and seven, Logisict support aircraft.

In total, the combined fleet would carry 3896 ground troops, 6207 tons of equipment, 30 days food and water, artillery, light aircraft and attack helicopters. Enough for a complete invasion of almost any country in the world.

While such an awesome projection of power would be invaluable for the surrounded United States, there were several major flaws with the design.

The aircraft wouldn't take off from a runway at all. It would fly vertically like a Harrier jet. The LSA would use 54 recently developed turbojet engines from the Boeing 747 to provide over 82,000 pounds of thrust. The aircraft attack version would need a staggering 182 jets to provide vertical lift. Each engine would be in clusters of 20 throughout the plane.

But you might be asking why? If this plane was designed to fly from the continental United States to take on enemies abroad and never land, why give it the ability to land vertically at all?

Above 16,000 feet, the four massive turbojet engines, each with the diameter of a Boeing 747, would powerup with the tips going supersonic.

To power all of these engines, the CL-1201 would have a nuclear fission reactor that would provide 1.83 gigawatts for all operations onboard.
To prevent radioactive material from spilling out during a crash, the reactor was designed to be shut down within 20 seconds' notice and could survive a head-on impact with a mountain traveling at 600 miles an hour.

Speaking of impact, the designers also realized that it would be susceptible to missile attacks - thus the solution was laser cannons and point defense systems to blow them out of the sky in flight.

In the end, the CL-1201 project didn't get any further thanks to its cost, and what could have been has now faded into history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7KgjObskvM

1. Supremacy.

2. Docking clamped fighters and minor hangar.

3. Support flotilla and connectors.

4. Lifters.

5. Reactors.

6. Lasers.

7. Roswell.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Operating Costs and The Cost Of Flying: How Much It Costs To Start An Airline

Have you ever purchased a flight and looked at all of the taxes and fees listed on the ticket? Or have you ever wondered why everyone in the industry describes airline profit margins as ‘razor thin’!

Let’s take a look at the costs associated with an airline getting you from point A to point B... you might actually be surprised at how many there are!

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

1. No leases and no discounts, unless they're really old.

2. On the upside, minimal maintenance and maintenance costs.

3. Minimal fuel costs can be obtained, and no overhead for administration and maintenance personnel, except as required.

4. Landing (or docking) fees can vary.

5. Parking linked to turnover.

6. Overflight fees probably more of an issue for spaceports.

7. Ground service fees probably unavoidable.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I'm really surprised you haven't posted Scott Manley's latest youtube offering...

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

 

[Condottiere]

I probably would have, once I got around to it.

As I tell my colleagues and family, you can't watch, listen and/or read everything, and even then, backlog.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Far Future Rocket Engine Technologies - Fission, Fusion & Antimatter

In my NSWR video I used Kerbal Space Program to visualize the operation of this awesome engine in an imaginary future, this came from a free, fan created mod which covered a whole host of future engine concepts - Far Future Technologies by Nertea.

The mod is available for the latest version of Kerbal Space Program, and I suggest looking at the other mods produced by the same creator covering a number of other space technologies not in the base game.
https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/...

These designs and many more are covered in much more detail by Winchel Chung's Atomic Rockets website which is an invaluable resource if you're interested in realistic science fiction futures
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html...

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

1. Impulse magnetic fusion engine with solar panelling -

...

2. Spherical tokamak fusion engine - leakage; railgun compression?

3. Fission fragment afterburner - cooling centrifuge?

4. Once you have a magnetic field or a bottle, you already have the basis of fusion containment, so unless this supercharges reactionary rockets, or creates a less thirsty variant, doesn't seem much point.

5. Anti matter is out of the scope, at least for technological level fourteen.

6. Apparently, engine thrust generation will need radiators to keep them cool.

7. I'm missing some form of ion drive with a reasonable acceleration.

 

[Sigtrygg]

All of these designs are near future - they use known physics and engineering

We use antimatter today on a regular basis - the antimatter initiated fusion rocket doesn't use much in the way of antimatter.

The radiators are a necesity to transfer some energy from the rocket to the spacecraft - you need a temperature gradient..

 

[Condottiere]

High Guard lists viable anti matter power plants (and ordnance) availability at technological level twenty, so presumably an anti matter propulsion drive might be a couple of levels below that.

For real life, I would think they'd first develop an anti-matter warhead to replace the fusion one in strategic missile platforms.

I doubt that an anti matter drive would ever be permitted or developed, because either you'd need a containment system to neutralize a lot of them until required, or you can create anti matter on the spot, which isn't ideal either.