Ship Design Philosophy

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Engineering and Reactionary Rocket Science

1. Crewed space vehicles must be slowed to subsonic speeds before parachutes or air brakes may be deployed. Such vehicles have kinetic energies typically between 50 and 1,800 megajoules per kilogram, and atmospheric dissipation is the only way of expending the kinetic energy. The amount of rocket fuel required to slow the vehicle would be nearly equal to the amount used to accelerate it initially, and it is thus highly impractical to use retro rockets for the entire Earth reentry procedure. While the high temperature generated at the surface of the heat shield is due to adiabatic compression, the vehicle's kinetic energy is ultimately lost to gas friction (viscosity) after the vehicle has passed by. Other smaller energy losses include black-body radiation directly from the hot gases and chemical reactions between ionized gases.

2. Traveller design has a surprisingly large bunkerage potential.

3. So either Wikipedia or Traveller is correct, regarding non manoeuvred drive atmospheric reentry.

4. Does this actually matter?

5. I think in terms of maintaining and operating a rocket, compared to a gravitic based drive, you might actually not need engineers.

6. A mechanic might be enough to keep them operating, being more simplistic in construction.

7. While a comparatively similar performance manoeuvre drive is half the volume of a reactionary rocket, it's also five times more expensive.

8. If you can keep actual travel somewhat short hops, you can easily absorb the extra fuel costs.

9. And, I'll assume a mechanic is cheaper than an engineer.

 

[Condottiere]

Inspiration: Starship Size Comparison inside the Matrix City

Here is 3D animation of the spaceship size comparison inside the Matrix city using Unreal Engine 5.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: UltraLite Fighters

G. What it comes down to, a well funded space navy is unlikely to invest in ultralight fighters.

H. At least, manned ones.

I. Size has less an impact on basic performance, and more on scaling the costs involved.

J. It's adequate for some non combat roles and missions.

K. And you're rather desperate, or have a disregard, callous or not, for the life of the pilot if it is designated a dogfighter, or at least, as a principal mission.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: UltraLite Fighters

L. Falconet was about as close as I could get to Folland Gnat, assuming bird of prey naming convention for Confederation Navy fightercraft.

M. The Confederation Navy operate large numbers of ultralight fighters, primarily for other reasons than purely military.

N. While they could afford large numbers of more capable fightercraft, Confederation member navies and client states might not.

O. Extensive utilization proves the operational viability of the platform, and thus assists with sales and maintaining large stockpiles, just in case.

P. Also, establishing large numbers of cadet squadrons throughout the Confederation, equipped principally with ultralight fighters, allows the Confederation Navy to encourage a considerable proportion of Solomani to acquire flight training, giving them the opportunity to identify gifted aerospace pilots, and establishing a very large reserve of pilots that could be mobilized in the event of a large scale conflict.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: UltraLite Fighters

Q. Hull technological level, one would presume that there's a minimum for installing gravitational plating.

R. Probably eight or nine.

S. You can outsource the manufacture of the hull locally, at technological level seven for a titanium steel shell, non gravitated.

T. Or an upgrade to technological level nine titanium steel shell, non gravitated, self sealing.

U. Optionally, technological level nine titanium steel shell, gravitated, self sealing, at double the cost.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: UltraLite Fighters

V. Double cockpit in a side by side layout seems most likely configuration for a basic trainer.

W. Though holographic controls could substitute for the presence of an actual instructor.

X. At fifty percent volume, you could end up with a 'craft with a forward bulge.

Y. Cockpits (and bridges) would have basic sensors as a package, though only from technological level eight onwards.

Z. I suppose at technological level eight, it would have to be either the Mark/one eyeball, or whatever you can take along, like a smartphone with a very sensitive camera.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: UltraLite Fighters

1. Basic sensors cost nothing, and take up no volume, but are only available at technological level eight.

2. Computers cost a minimum of thirty kilobux, and take up no volume, but are available at technological level seven.

3. It's implied that you need the manoeuvre computer programme to fly the spacecraft.

4. It's only available at technological level eight, but is free.

5. Ditto, as they say, with the library programme.

6. Which does bring the question, exactly how do you fly a technological level seven spacecraft?

7. Which would be a very basic form of spacecraft, that might be used as a trainer.

8. Like a Piper Cub.

9. If you'd equate a rocket with a propeller.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Computers

1. We've got two programmes that require zero bandwidth.

2. One of which is about the only programme, apparently, required to control your spacecraft while in motion.

3. Maybe life support is automated?

4. Anyway, that seems to allow the marketing of a computer with zero plus bandwidth, that can run any programme with zero bandwidth.

5. In this case, it would be specialized to run one zero bandwidth programme.

6. Example, computer/zero flight.

7. Cost could be five kilobux, but more likely closer to ten kilobux.

8. In theory, technological level would be six.

9. Computer/zero media/library is mostly likely based on a subscription model.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: UltraLite Fighters

A. From the Confederation Navy view, manufacturing technological level fifteen cockpit and basic sensor sets is the most cost effective way to gain parity with the Imperium Navy, and superiority against anyone else.

B. It doesn't divert much industrial capacity, most of which would likely be prioritized to build technological level fifteen battleriders, fast dreadnoughts, spacecraft system upgrades, and whatever Solomani Security is up to.

C. Default cockpit sensor combinations would be technological level fourteen.

D. Member world navies would likely default to what's available in their local industrial base, if they don't get supplied by whatever Confederation Navy owned conglomerate operates in their region.

E. Likely the low end default would be technological level nine, with holographic controls, installed in most commercial smallcraft.

F. Technological level seven cockpits might not have the controls for manoeuvre drive, and I'll guess, might only have radar, telescopes and cameras for sensors.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: UltraLite Fighters

G. No batteries at technological level seven, no fusion reactor, and uncertainty over fission reactor fuel.

H. That leaves us with the diesels, which for half a power point for basics, since non gravitated hull.

I. It should be one power point, but we like to live on the razor's edge.

J. However, going by our own precedent, the diesel needs to be able to generate at least one power point, at default two fifths of a tonne.

K. So that's two and a half tonne double cockpit, one tonne fuel, two fifths of a tonne diesel generator, three fifths factor three reactionary rocket, and I suppose half a tonne cargo.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: UltraLite Fighters

L. Streamlined hull, non gravitated, one hundred fifty kilobux; fuel scoops, free; aerofins, twenty five kilogrammes, twenty five hundred bux; twenty five kilogrammes, one hundred fifty two and a half kilobux.

M. Cockpit, double, two and a half tonne, fifteen kilobux.

N. Fuel tank, one tonne; chemical power plant, one power point, one fifth of a tonne, fifty kilobux; reactionary rockets, factor three, three tenths of a tonne, sixty kilobux; one and a half of a tonne, one hundred and ten kilobux.

O. Computer/five, thirty kilobux; presumably radar sensor; thirty kilobux.

P. Cargo 0.975 tonnes; 307'500 bux; basic trainer, technological level seven.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: UltraLite Fighters

Q. Rockette basic trainer.

R. Eight thrust hours.

S. In theory, could install missile rack, zero tonnes, three quarters of a megabux, with an eleven missile capacity magazine

T. Annual maintenance three hundred seven and a half bux, so well within a middle class income, not including repairs, berthing fees, licenses, fuel, and so on.

U. I guess we'd need to know how much runway is required, if you don't just use a ramp to launch.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: UltraLite Fighters

V. Aerate the five tonne streamlined hull, and you have one and four fifths hull points, at one hundred twelve and a half kilobux, aerofins one hundred fifteeen kilobux.

W. Budgetted power plant increased size would be a quarter tonne, at thirty seven and a half kilobux.

X. Budgetted reactionary rockets with three and one eighth percent volume per thrust hour, six and two fifths, at forty five kilobux.

Y. Cargo 0.925 tonnes; 242'500 bux.

Z. Possible magazine capacity eleven missiles.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: Armaments, Missiles and Customization

1. Accurate, two advantages, plus one.

2. East to repair; maybe the missile launcher.

3. Energy efficient; grasping at straws.

4. Very/High Yield; not applicable.

5. Intense Focus; not applicable.

6. Long Range, two advantages; it's based on endurance, so maybe fifty percent longer?

7. Resilient; maybe the missile launcher; applied to the missile, it could make them as tough as torpedoes; even harder to destroy torpedoes.

8. Size Reduction, ten percent; not applicable to turret weapons; yet, applicable to bay allocated ones?

9. Energy Inefficient, thirty percent; not applicable to turret weapons; comparatively doesn't matter.

A. Inaccurate, minus one; gambling.

B. Increased Size, twenty percent; only real viable disadvantage.

C. Confederation Navy missile/torpedo launcher; possibly the only launcher that can launch any sized ordnance, assuming it took the increased size disadvantage, at a cost premium per ordnance.

D. Since this would include point defence missiles, probably a good case that it could launch canisters.

 

[ColinD]

Inspiration: Starship Size Comparison inside the Matrix City

Here is 3D animation of the spaceship size comparison inside the Matrix city using Unreal Engine 5.

I wonder where the Beowulf Free Trader would fit here.

 

[Condottiere]

It's larger than the Millenium Falcon, so possibly the Rocinante.

Though going by the set design, maybe Firefly.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: UltraLite Fighters

1. Quarter of a million bux minus is cheaper than an air/raft.

2. However, at two to six hour endurance, rather than a nap of the earth cruise for fifteen hundred klix, you tend to go intercontinental ballistic.

3. Drop it down to a single cockpit, you have an additional tonne for either cargo, an acceleration bench or two acceleration couches.

4. Acceleration couch can be folded up, so easy conversion to cargo space.

5. Technically, you probably could squeeze in a three quarter tonne acceleration bench into the existing cargo space, for an additional seventy five hundred bux.

6. That would be a neat exact quarter of a million bux, with one hundred seventy five kilogrammes cargo, which coincidentally would be twenty five kilogrammes of checked in baggage, each.

7. You're probably restricted to a laptop sized bag or handbag for onboard.

8. At hypersonic, that could be less than half an hour between Heathrow and Sydney.

9. In theory, should have a toilet onboard; in practice, you'd go before you embark.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: UltraLite Fighters

A. Technological level eight brings the introduction of fusion reactors.

B. In practical terms, only useful if you install a laser drill, since you can't leverage it for increased propulsion, being twice energy dense than the diesels.

C. Endurance would increase immensely, though still subject to the limits of life support.

D. While there were likely conversions then and there, for the better weapons load, from the perspective of later technological levels, not worth it.

E. In theory, you could double acceleration, but without inertial compensators, only in short bursts.

F. In theory, artificial gravity plates should be possible, if with the air/raft you have a rejection of gravity, fusion you manipulate it to create a magnetic bottle, but that might not be the same as the creation.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: UltraLite Fighters

G. You could customize the diesels to squeeze out more power per tonne, bit it's not worth it.

H. First of all, they drink hydrogen like a fish.

I. Admittingly, like the rockets, you might only need a mechanic to maintain and operate them, not necessarily an engineer.

J. Second, in terms of cost to power point, it's exactly the same as early fusion, though a technological level earlier.

K. There's a very narrow window where they can be used, and for specific roles, like maybe an emergency generator that needs very little maintenance of finicky gadgets you'd have for either a fission or fusion reactor.

 

[Condottiere]

Spaceships: UltraLite Fighters

L. A fusion (micro)reactor at that size is likely a closed box.

M. Highly likely that you'd use an off the shelf commercial variant, since ruggedness really isn't a factor, just safety and idiot proofing.

N. And cost.

O. The limiting factors are endurance and life support, so it only makes sense with the introduction of the manoeuvre drive, which needs a steady source of a lot of power.

P. And if you install an energy intensive weapon system.