Ship Design Philosophy

[Condottiere]

Starships: Cheapest Possible

Cheapest weapon system seems to be the one hundred fifty kilostarbux laser drill.

Range is adjacent, two dice damage, power requirement four, minus three to hit, armour piercing four, technological level eight.

It's hard to intimidate anyone with this, except if they happen to be within a thousand yards.

Smallcraft rules would save you a point of energy, without range reduction, since there's no band below adjacent.

Long range (two slots) would max out range to close, combined with energy efficiency to two and a quarter energy points, which helps with continuous shooting.

Accuracy would reduce inaccuracy to minus two, but range is more useful; same argument with seventy five percent energy efficiency. I'm inclined to minus off the initial twenty five percent, and then base further efficiencies on that number, in this case three, otherwise, you'd end up with zero energy requirement with seventy five percent (additional) energy efficiency.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Cheapest Possible

Smallcraft turret/single doesn't make much sense.

The volume, power requirement, and cost, are the same at one tonne as those that are hardpointed.

And for laser drills, you probably want those on a turret, since the chances are that your opponent will have a more advanced and expensive spacecraft.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Ramscoops

Ramscoops are passive hydrogen collectors that operate automatically whenever a starship is manoeuvring in normal (non-jump) space. Ramscoops require several weeks of continuous operation to obtain enough hydrogen to fill the tanks of a typical ship. The ship must be actively manoeuvring during this time, enabling the ramscoops to extract hydrogen from the interstellar medium. Ramscoop ships do not need fuel scoops, nor do they need fuel processors since the hydrogen is processed and purified as it is collected. The advantage of this technology is that it enables a starship to make as many jumps as desired without ever visiting a starport or gas giant for refuelling.

The typical configuration for ramscoops is an array of cylinders or similar structures outfitted on the exterior of a ship, co-located with its fuel tanks. Because of the bulkiness of the collectors, ships outfitted with ramscoops cannot perform atmospheric re-entry without damaging the ramscoops and are therefore rarely streamlined. If the ship is docked or otherwise immobile, ramscoops cease to function but will automatically resume operation once the ship starts manoeuvring again.

Ramscoops require 1% of a ship’s available tonnage plus five tons, with a minimum overall size of 10 tons and can collect five tons of hydrogen per week for every ton attributed to the ramscoops. Additional tonnage may be added as desired. Ramscoops cost MCr0.25 per ton.


1. Fifty divided by seven is 7.142857142857143; twenty four 0.2976190476190476; six minutes 0.0297619047619048 tonnes.

2. Twenty tonnes for freetraders and scoutships, plus one for power plant: two days, twenty two hours, thirty three minutes thirty six seconds, flight time.

3. In theory, greater acceleration and/or speed should increase harvesting yield.

4. Two and a half megastarbux divided by one hundred fifty, is 16,666.66666666667 tonnes of unrefined fuel, seven hundred ninety four tankfuls.

5. Fortnightly turnaround, a tad under thirty two years.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Ramscoops

So, you're not likely to make your money back, though in ten years, if you resell it as refined fuel, you will.

This would make deepspace exploration possible, without a continuous convoy of tankers; or, for that matter, piracy and commerce raiding.

Hundred kilotonne grand cruiser at one percent is five kilotonnes of refined hydrogen in a week, so you'd need at least two weeks cruising to gather ten percent.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Ramscoops

It occurs to me, if the jump bubble is formed of hydrogen, you can use the ramscoops to recycle it back.

Assuming you're moving.

However, it's mentioned that you can't do it jump space.

So, whatever is in the jump bubble, it isn't hydrogen.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Ramscoops

0.2976190476190476 tonnes is a tad under one percent of thirty tonnes.

Seventy percent thrust that would consume the above amount of fuel per hour is a tad over forty two and a half tonnes of volume, which would give you perpetual motion for a technological level nine reactionary rocket.

On the average, since you could have a lower volume, or a lesser acceleration below seventy percent, and accumulate fuel.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and HIGH-BURN THRUSTER


A high-burn thruster is an auxiliary chemical rocket designed to give a temporary speed boost to a ship. This is done by adding a reaction drive whose Thrust is cumulative with that of the ship’s regular drive system. A reaction drive used as a high-burn thruster should require far less fuel than a ship that uses reaction drives as its main source of thrust because typical applications are designed to provide thrust for a limited amount of time. For example, high-burn thrusters might be used to reach jump point faster, run a blockade or elude pursuers.

Note that high-burn thrusters do not include inertial compensation for a higher thrust rating than that of a ship’s manoeuvre drive. Therefore, Travellers in a ship that is accelerating with a high-burn thruster are subject to the effects of its gravitational force equivalent, also known as G-force.



A high burn thruster is an auxiliary chemical rocket designed to give a temporary speed boost to a ship.

This is easily mounted on a ship by adding an additional reaction drive. Ship architects should note that a reaction drive used as a high burn thruster is likely to require far less fuel than a ship that relies on a reaction drive alone for thrust. The effect of a high-burn thruster is cumulative with that of the ship’s regular drive system.


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.


A Gravitic drive is a smaller version of the drive plates used by larger spacecraft, and propels the craft using artificial gravity.

A Reaction drive is a rocket. Reaction drives are cheaper and smaller than Gravitic Drives, but burn fuel much more quickly and are less efficient.

[About fifty percent volume and cost]


I thought I'd place missiles and torpedoes on the back burner, but reviewing the issue of high burn thrusters made me consider that a ten turn limitation on a missile fits in with it's overheating problem, not that I think it would blow up if pushed further.

The original burner weighed a fifth of the gravitic drive, but reaction drives in Mongoose First were also half the size of the gravitic drive.

Gravitic drives had about a forty thrust tonnes; upto factor four, manoeuvre drives had a three quarter percent overhead, and a quarter percent of hull volume per thrust factor, so about four hundred thrust tonnes.

Yeah, not really helpful in trying to draw some form of meta connection.

At the moment, I'd say the burner was forty percent the size of a reactionary rocket; which currently is twice the size of a manoeuvre drive, so one hundred twenty five thrust tonnes per tonne of high burn thruster.

Cost is one fifth of the manoeuvre drive, which would be four hundred kilostarbux per tonne; ironically, reactionary rockets cost two hundred kilostarbux per tonne, but need two tonnes to get the same thrust factor.

 

[Condottiere]

Fuel is a quarter of the burner volume; reactionary is default one and a quarter volume, optimal half volume.

So at technological level fifteen, reactionary rockets factor fifteen would take up thirty percent volume, plus fifteen percent of fuel for one hour of full thrust.

At forty percent, the burner would take up twelve percent, with one hour fuel three percent.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Missiles

1. Each missile is default one twelfth of a tonne.

2. That's awkward, so we'll leave it at one tonne [over twelve].

3. The Advanced Missile is technological level fourteen, with thrust factor fifteen.

4. Since reactionary rocket factor fifteen is only available at technological level eleven, fourteen can assume it being highly technological.

5. That's thirty percent for the rocket motors, and since endurance is one hour, the fuel tank is fifteen percent.

6. That's forty five percent, presuming fifty five percent are sensors, guidance, and warhead.

7. Anti torpedo Missile is technological level thirteen, so it's rocket motors would be very advanced, and require twenty two and a half percent fuel tank for an hour's worth of endurance.

8. That would be fifty two and a half percent, leaving forty seven and a half percent for warhead, sensors, and guidance.

9. Seven and a half percent for four dice of damage?

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Missiles

A. Decoy Missile is technological level nine, meaning it's early prototype for factor fifteen rocket motors.

B. That basically eleven times default cost.

C. And doubles fuel consumption.

D. So, it's still thirty percent for the rocket motors, but seventy five percent for the fuel tank.

E. That would be one hundred and five percent, with whatever leftover for warhead, sensors, and guidance.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Missiles

F. At this point, assuming I'm more or less within the ballpark, high burn thruster at twelve percent, even at eleven times cost, and maybe six percent fuel tank.

G. And then we have Fragmentation Missile and Long Range Missile, at technological level eight and thrust factor fifteen, aren't even in the ballpark.

H. Default at technological level eleven is still thirty percent for the rocket motors, and thirty seven and a half percent for the fuel tank.

I. One round is three and three quarters percent fuel usage.

J. So fifteen percent would be four rounds at thrust factor fifteen.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Missiles

K. Standard Missile is technological level seven.

L. Thrust factor ten, which defaults at technological level ten.

M. Not even early prototype.

N. Thrust factor nine, early prototype, eighteen percent rocket motors, forty five percent fuel tank.

O. Eleven times cost.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Missiles

P. Superficially, it seems that the standard missile acceleration of factor ten is to allow those missiles to reach the distant band in ten rounds.

Q. If you manufactured the rocket motor at technological level nine, you could have them at factor nine, eighteen percent.

R. Fuel tank would be twenty two and a half percent, but range would be limited to very long.

S. It's possible that if you increase the tankage by an extra five percent, in twelve rounds you could reach distant.

T. That would be a total of forty five and a half percent, which seems about close enough, though you do need to know the reason for the ten round limitation.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Missiles

1. Torpedoes have a longer, unfratricded endurance.

2. Which, presumably, is indicated by twenty one rounds at thrust factor six.

3. Let's guess that torpedoes have an endurance of three hours.

4. Advanced Torpedo would then need thirty percent rocket motors, and forty five percent fuel tank.

5. That's seventy five percent, leaving twenty five percent for sensors, guidance and warhead.

6. There's two damage dice of difference between missile and torpedo, advanced.

7. Presumably, the same sensors and guidance.

8. 0.0458333333333333 tonnes Advanced Missile warhead, sensors, and guidance.

9. 0.0833333333333333 tonnes Advanced Torpedo warhead, sensors, and guidance.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Missiles

A. It's unclear exactly why torpedoes have a longer endurance, and to how long that extends.

B. Nor is it clear why it's harder to destroy it through point defence.

C. One could assume they are armoured.

D. It does seem it's harder to target hulls below two kilotonnes.

E. Though I'm beginning to think that's what the anti radiation variants are ideally suited for.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Hulls and Planetoids

1. I decided it was time to have a go at designing a planetoid capital ship, so more carefully went through the text.

2. It is unclear whether there is restriction of the organic armour class addition of either plus two or plus four, buffered on unbuffered.

3. Going by the planetoid monitor, the restriction of total armour class by default technological level constructed still applies.

4. However, this assumption only works due to knowledge of the wording of the previous edition.

5. And any neophyte unaware of the text of the previous edition only perusing the current edition would not be aware of this, unless I missed mention of this restriction in the general text.

6. Note that planetoid hulls cannot use the specialised or additional hull types, listed in the following sections:

7. So you can't aerate the planetoid, nor reinforce it, nor militarize.

8. However, gravitating the hull does require installing gravity plates, which does leave the prospect of not installing gravity plates.

9. So a non gravitized hull should remain an option.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Hulls and Planetoids

A. I'm wondering if it might be cheaper to just cast the planetoid.

B. Spherical crust with twenty percent of targetted hull volume.

C. At the known pressures and estimated temperatures of the core, it is predicted that pure iron could be solid, but its density would exceed the known density of the core by approximately 3%. That result implies the presence of lighter elements in the core, such as silicon, oxygen, or sulfur, in addition to the probable presence of nickel.[29] Recent estimates (2007) allow for up to 10% nickel and 2–3% of unidentified lighter elements.[5]

D. Material cost, manufactured cost.

E. Time required for cooldown.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Hulls and Planetoids

F. Since not much seems altered from the last edition, I still hold to my theory that five percent of nickel iron hull is zero armour class, with seven and a half percent per plus one upgrade..

G. Five percent seems enough for structural integrity.

H. I'm pretty sure there are more efficient means of drilling.

I. Each set of five mining drones allows the ship to process 5D tons of asteroid per day ... The tonnage consumed includes ore handling machinery, allowing the ship to take on ore and transfer it to the cargo bay ... Every 10 tons dedicated to mining drones contains five drones and costs MCr1.

J. Average three and a half tonnes per drone per day; eighty kilotonnes, 22'857 drone days; four hundred megastarbux hull cost and corridor installation, four hundred days.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering, Manoeuvre Drives and Customization

1. Speaking of making sense.

2. A component may have either Advantages or Disadvantages but not both.

3. Laudable, but you need room for exceptions.

4. Orbital Range: This manoeuvre drive only functions when the ship is within Short range (up to 1,250 kilometres) of a planetary body. Orbital range requires two Disadvantages.

5. That would condemn it to being eternally early prototype.

6. I'd allow two advantages are default level nine.

7. Possibly upto five advantages, at high technology, with a maximum of three iterations of any particular advantage.

8. At technological level eight prototype, one advantage to even out the issue.

 

[Condottiere]

Starships: Tankers

1. I'm trying to figure as to where fleet tankers actually fit in (with frontline units).

2. If it's to do some gas giant skimming, I'm thinking, big fat target.

3. The system defence boats lying doggo, will go wild.

4. System Defence Boats Gone Wild: Gassiest Celestial Bodies.

5. Which is why you have fuel shuttles.

6. Fuel shuttles can have organic fuel purifiers, they're not exactly expensive or large.

7. This would be like Marius's Mules.

8. The starwarships can carry their own fuel harvesters with them.

9. Or, outsourced to a carrier.