Starships with Aquafitting

[rust]

Since I have mentioned it already in another thread, here is the basic con-
cept I use for the "aquafitted" starships for my water world setting:

Starship with Aquafitting

Deck 1 – above the waterline
Bow:
Lounge, Galley
Center:
Quarters, Sickbay
Aft:
Life Support Systems

Deck 2 – on the waterline
Bow:
Bridge, Electronics, Personnel Airlock
Center:
Cargo Hold, Cargo Handling Equipment, Cargo Doors,
Extendable Floaters („outriggers“ to stabilize the ship)
Aft:
Engine Room (Power Plant, Maneuver Drive, Hyperdrive,
Gravitics)

Deck 3 – below the waterline
Bow:
Aquatic Sensors and Communicators (Sonar)
Center:
Fuel Tanks, Ballast Tanks (to ensure that the ship always
has the same draft, whether empty or loaded, and to serve
as roll stabilizers), Equipment Storage
Aft:
Auxiliary Aquatic Drive (small hydrojet drive)

 

[BP]

Nice - like the addition of the hydrojet. 8)

Any particular method you use for determining the size and location of the 'ballast tanks'?

(I've used inflatable stabilizers IMTU, but never really accounted for loads...)

 

[rust]

Any particular method you use for determining the size and location of the 'ballast tanks'?

The size of the ballast tanks depends on the empty weight and the loaded
weight of the starship: Empty weight + full ballast tanks = loaded weight.
This ensures that the starship always has the same waterline, important
for example for docking and cargo transfer.
The ballast tanks are located left and right (ah, port and starboard) of the
fuel tank, along the sides of Deck 3, to make it easy to pump the water in
and out and thereby to trim the ship.

 

[atpollard]

Since Engineering (PP,JD,MD) tend to be the heaviest equipment on the ship, moving them down to the lowest level should lower the center of gravity and make the ship more stable ... like a weighted keel.

 

[rust]

Since Engineering (PP,JD,MD) tend to be the heaviest equipment on the ship, moving them down to the lowest level should lower the center of gravity and make the ship more stable ... like a weighted keel.

This is true, but after some "practical experience" with repairs in flooded
engine rooms and failed attempts to lift heavy machinery from the en-
gine room up to the waterline the "crews" insisted that the engine room
has to be above the waterline on all new ship designs.

 

[BP]

LOL - my Traveller drives and PP have always been mostly hollow!

The biggest 'solid' parts being the jump capacitors - which I defined as 'aerogel filled', so their bulk is mostly very much less than the density of water!

I did this circa '83 and a google just now turned up aerogel based super capacitors! Apparently this was known for quite some time, but I swear I had no clue - just liked aerogels!

My fusion PP has large toroidal chambers, while the major portion of my jump drive design involves a metaball shaped chamber (I was playing with Jim Blinn's metaball shapes around that time on 8-bit computers).

My M drives are based on something akin to the 'teleportation' drives from BattleField earth - described as mostly hollow boxes with thousands of protruding translation 'points' (to manipulate the grav field in my case, of course).

 

[rust]

LOL - my Traveller drives and PP have always been mostly hollow!

I use the GURPS Traveller system for starship design, and there enginee-
ring is truly heavy stuff. For example, a single maneuver drive module
weighs 3.4 tons, and a free trader has 16 of them, for 54.4 tons of ma-
neuver drive alone.

 

[rust]

As for the operation of "aquafitted" ships, a ship usually waters (= "lands
on water") some distance from the "starport". The skill of a pilot is judged
by his ability to water softly, without "making waves", and a "splash" can
seriously damage a pilot's reputation. Once the starship is on the water,
it moves to the "starport" with its auxiliary hydrojet drive, just as a ship
would do.

The "starport" is basically a huge barge with a control tower, technical fa-
cilities for maintenance and repairs, a lounge for passengers, and storage
room for cargo. It consists of several modules, the docking modules have
the form of a big "U". The starship moves into the "slot" of the "U" to dock,
and there transfers passengers and cargoes or undergoes maintenance or
repairs.

All settlements on this planet are on the sea floor, so whenever a starship
docks, there is already a transport submarine waiting for passengers or
cargo at a neighbouring "U"-module, ready to transport people or goods
down to one of the sea floor settlements.

The main reason why only the sea floor has been settled are the rather
extreme weather patterns of a water world without continents, where hy-
percanes are comparatively common. This is also the reason why the en-
tire "starport" is able to dive in an emergency, although only 50 meters
deep. There it is protected from wind and waves and can wait for the wea-
ther to improve.

I have experimented with starships able to dive, too, but the technology
assumptions of my setting would make such starships too expensive, be-
cause the additional ballast tanks would reduce the starship's volume too
much - with little volume for quarters and cargo hold remaining, the pri-
ces for passages and freight would become too high for the planet's eco-
nomy. Therefore even "aquafitted" starships cannot dive and have to flee
in the other direction to avoid a hypercane, up into a low orbit.

 

[Dave Chase]

Is this the planet with the underwater platforms and the speed growth of coral to help 'grow' the colony?

Dave Chase

 

[rust]

Is this the planet with the underwater platforms and the speed growth of coral to help 'grow' the colony?

A slightly different version of it, I am still trying to design my "final and
perfect" water world setting. :lol:

The current version is a bit more low tech and a bit less wealthy than my
previous one, to make the setting more of a challenge for the characters
and to keep the technology somewhat more comprehensible - all in all
probably closer to 2300 AD or to Blue Planet than to the average Travel-
ler setting.

 

[SSWarlock]

So..what class ship is best for water skiing? :wink:

Scoutship Navigator: "Hey, where's the captain?"

Heard from outside
the open stern airlock: "KAWABUNGA!!"

Scoutship Navigator: *shakes head in despair*

 

[rust]

So..what class ship is best for water skiing? :wink:

I think a launch would be preferable ... :lol:

 

[SSWarlock]

I think a launch would be preferable ... :lol:

Hey, we were actually chased by a torpedo while trying to sneak underwater in a 20 dton launch on a low-TL world. The GM thought it was hilarious at the time; we didn't. The bassid was truly, truly evil.

What a great mentor.

 

[rust]

Perhaps a bit more about my setting's technology assumptions ... :

- fusion power plants are big and expensive, they are mostly used to pro-
vide power for cities and major installations, even most starships use fis-
sion power plants,

- maneuver drives and gravitics in general are big and expensive, too, so
the smallest craft with a maneuver drive has the size of a cutter, and grav
vehicles like air/rafts or g-carriers do not exist,

- the most common starship weapons are missiles and railguns, energy
weapons are rare except on the most advanced military starships,

- man portable energy weapons are extremely rare and still mostly expe-
rimental, the standard weapons are still projectile weapons.

The setting's planet is far more a world of turboprop floatplanes, of hydro-
foil boats and of submarines with stirling engines than of typical Traveller
vehicles.
On the other hand, both biotechnology and computer technology are more
advanced than in a typical Traveller setting.

 

[Solomani666]

My fusion PP has large toroidal chambers, while the major portion of my jump drive design involves a metaball shaped chamber (I was playing with Jim Blinn's metaball shapes around that time on 8-bit computers).

Toroids have been proven not to work. The only known fusion power plants that have worked so far are spherical.

And before you say "No", workable fusion has been invented and tested. It was a project funded by the US Navy and lead by Dr. Bussard. (Yes, that Bussard.)

 

[barnest2]

My fusion PP has large toroidal chambers, while the major portion of my jump drive design involves a metaball shaped chamber (I was playing with Jim Blinn's metaball shapes around that time on 8-bit computers).

Toroids have been proven not to work. The only known fusion power plants that have worked so far are spherical.

And before you say "No", workable fusion has been invented and tested. It was a project funded by the US Navy and lead by Dr. Bussard. (Yes, that Bussard.)

The fact we can't make it work doesn't mean it can't, just that it doesn't yet. anyway, what about the tokomak and designs like it? The MAST here in england works pretty well...

 

[rust]

Toroids have been proven not to work.

Well, the world's largest functioning fusion reactor, the JET project in
Culham, is the Joint European Torus ... :lol:

Our Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics operated an entire series of
experimental fusion reactors, the "Wendelstein" reactors, and is current-
ly building a next, improved version of the series - again with a toroidal
chamber.

 

[DFW]

And before you say "No", workable fusion has been invented and tested. It was a project funded by the US Navy and lead by Dr. Bussard. (Yes, that Bussard.)

Actually not. Workable means it is sustained and outputs more energy than is input.

 

[Solomani666]

My fusion PP has large toroidal chambers, while the major portion of my jump drive design involves a metaball shaped chamber (I was playing with Jim Blinn's metaball shapes around that time on 8-bit computers).

Toroids have been proven not to work. The only known fusion power plants that have worked so far are spherical.

And before you say "No", workable fusion has been invented and tested. It was a project funded by the US Navy and lead by Dr. Bussard. (Yes, that Bussard.)

The fact we can't make it work doesn't mean it can't, just that it doesn't yet. anyway, what about the tokomak and designs like it? The MAST here in england works pretty well...

None of the reactors you mentioned actually work

1. The Bussard reactor actually passed the break even point.

2. The optimal size for the reaction chamber is only 1.5 to 2.5 meters depending on the fuel used.

3. The reactor chamber can even be scaled down to a softball size.

4. It can use a fuel mixture that leaves little or no radiation after the reaction is stopped. (i.e. You can turn off the reactor then sit on it)


You can look up into the night sky and see thousands of fusion reactors and NONE OF THEM ARE SHAPED LIKE A DONUT!


.

 

[Solomani666]

And before you say "No", workable fusion has been invented and tested. It was a project funded by the US Navy and lead by Dr. Bussard. (Yes, that Bussard.)

Actually not. Workable means it is sustained and outputs more energy than is input.

You are entirely incorrect, and probably do not even know which research project I was referring to.

Please disengage ego from intelect.

.