Amazing new ship design philosophy.

A thread of 2 messages, 2 September 1989 to 4 September 1989, in the order they were sent.

#517 Amazing new ship design philosophy.

Some time ago I tried my hand at the Megatraveller ship design
system and attempted to create the smallest ship with a spinal
gun possible  -  sort of a space-age floating gun platform  -
and I came up with two insights: One (a minor one) was that it
was ridiculous that you only have a choice of 3 or 4 different
sizes in spinal mounts for each tech level. Instead, I suggest
a table where you can cross-reference tech level  with desired
UCP factor and come up with the size and price of a spinal gun
to meet your precise needs. Ah well.. some day I may even make
such a table (Sure! Just after I've finished a couple of dozen
other projects... :-/)

   The other insight, however, is a major one, and destined to
make my name shine  amongst spaceship designers throughout the
Imperium! (Ta-dah!):
   I tried first with a 8000 T design and then with a 10000 T.
To no avail  -  it couldn't be done.  It was the fuel consump-
tion that defeated me.  Those spinal mounts uses up tremendous
amounts of power. I could accomodate the power plant needed to
feed that  ravenous beast,  but the fuel  -  no way.  You just
can't imagine  the amount of fuel needed  to keep  that spinal
gun blazing away for a full 30 days!

   !?!?!?!?! Say! Run that last sentence by me again!

That's right, starship fuel requirements are calculated on the
assumption, that all guns are fired **constantly** for the en-
tire 30 days that the fuel are supposed to last!

Now, that's not really a reasonable assumption, is it? Come to
think about it, fuel consumption calculations also assume that
the maneuver drive is going full blast for the entire 30 days.
But traders  usually  spends 1 week of every 2  in jump space,
where you can't use the maneuver drive,  and several days more
on the ground or in orbit loading and unloading passengers and
goods.  On an ordinary  landing and takeoff  a ship  with a 1G
drive would use the drive for less than 20 hours (this assumes
a word size of 10). A refueling run would take longer, but the
ship would be getting more fuel at the same time! So actually,
many traders freighters could make do with 1 day's maneuvering
fuel.

Well, this is perhaps a bit TOO restrictive, but I really feel
that a starship constructor would be justified in cutting fuel
space quite a bit.  The figures  I'm using myself,  is 15 days
worth of maneuvering fuel and 33 1/3 hours (100 combat rounds)
worth of weapon fuel.

Now, the last figure is just "grabbed out of the air" (to use a
danish expression),  and if anyone  with experience  in playing
'Trillion Credit Squadron"  and knowlegde about how long an en-
gagement usually lasts,  could comment on this,  I would really
appreciate it.

One of my players thinks that the Rancke Ship Design Philosophy
are faulty because a fusion drive is either "on" or "off" - you
can't  turn the output  up or down.  I maintain that controlled
fusion is just that - controlled. Oh, perhaps not at tech level
 9, but surely by tech level 11 or 12?  What do you think?  (In
any case,  even if fusion drive ARE only either on or off,  you
could easily have 3 different fusion drives. If you connect the
three chambers,  you could cold-start the other two in a matter
of seconds as long as one of them were on).


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     [email removed]

#518 Re: Amazing new ship design philosophy.

In a posting Hans Rancke writes:

> [Talk about that fuel is enough to power ALL ships systems for 30days]

> Now, that's not really a reasonable assumption, is it? Come to
> think about it, fuel consumption calculations also assume that
> the maneuver drive is going full blast for the entire 30 days.
> But traders  usually  spends 1 week of every 2  in jump space,
> where you can't use the maneuver drive,  and several days more
> on the ground or in orbit loading and unloading passengers and
> goods.  On an ordinary  landing and takeoff  a ship  with a 1G
> drive would use the drive for less than 20 hours (this assumes
> a word size of 10). A refueling run would take longer, but the
> ship would be getting more fuel at the same time! So actually,
> many traders freighters could make do with 1 day's maneuvering
> fuel.

There really is a precedent in this question, In the GDW boxed module
"Beltstrike" there is a table on fuelconsumption when going less than
maximum acceleration, (On the other hand, the same module also stated
that the manueverdrive made a forcefield (:^)) that protected the crew from
the hazardous cosmic radiation. In MegaT this is accompliced with lots
of shielding (This is the reason why all exo-atmospherical craft must
have a Armor of 40 or more)).

A resonable way of handling this is to compute the Kilolitres of H/hour/MW
and then use the maximum energyconsumption during an hour as the
consumption for that hour. The systems that can be assumed to be operating
at all times are the environment, the computer, the controls & the sensors.
During jump only the environment and the computer needs power, When at normal
flight the drives (at normal Gee or less), the comp, the controls, the environ
and the sensors, And in combat: Everything (including agility).

This assumption also raises interesting questions regarding vehicle design.
One trick i've thought of (and used in a number of designs) is to power
weapons with a high energy demand from energy stored in zuruchai crystals
(jump-energy-sinks, see "Starship Operators Manual by DGP"),

Take for example that you want to power an 100MW weapon with a ROF of 10,
but the only Powerplant
that fits the hull only have 50MW to spare to such entertainment.
To solve the problem you install Z-crystals capable of storing 50MJ
(Mega Joule, measure of energy, if you have 1 joule you can power something
that demands 1 watt for one second) The storagecapacity of 13.5 kl of
z-crys os about 600MJ (deduced from MegaT & old HighGuard) so you
should install around 1-2 kl of crystals, The contraption will function
like this: Half the time the PP will load the z-crys with energy (50MJ) and
the other half of the time this energy and the 50MW that the PP outputs
this period combines to make 100MW for the weapon!
(The ROF will be halved to 5 because the weapon can't fire 50% of the time)

The biggest disadvantage is that z-crys can't store energy more than a couple
of minutes, Then they'll start to decompose and the energy will be released in
an uncontrolled form (heat mostly). 50MJ in close proximity is certainly
an health hazard :-) (A quick calculation gives that the energy released
is roughly compareble to 11kg (22lb) of TNT)

But, all in all, the old system of computing energy consumption *is* somewhat
oversimplifyed, and a more complex system could ease the burden on the
ship and vehicle designers.

>       Hans Rancke
> University of Copenhagen
>      [email removed]

- --
Bertil K K Jonell @ Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg
NET: [email removed]
VOICE: [phone removed] / +46 300 61004     "Don`t worry,I`ve got Pilot-7"
[address removed]                             (Famous last words)
"GOOD DEEL ON - SLIGHTLY USED CRANE" The Abyss