Scott S. Kellogg · 19 March 1993
Brad sagt:
> Subject: Alien Starship Designs
> Since the group has been fairly slow lately, I thought I'd take a tangent
> off the military thread (a very sharp tangent :). How about
> a discussion of layout concepts for non-human races?
One of my fave topics! |->
> For Hiver ships, since they tend towards 'hives', the access panels
> and passages would obviously be more like tunnels. Perhaps the
> ship would even lack an organized bridge, being either a conglomeration
> of the bridge officer staterooms (controls integrated into the stateroom
> computers), say organized in a ring around the main computer core.
I dunno. I'd think that the Hivers are better engineers than that. They'd
have a ship laid out on what was most efficient for them. I don't think
tunnels make for very efficient movement. Also, just because they lived
in 'Hives' way back before they were intelligent does not mean that they
are an integral part of their layouts today. I don't think HUMANS could
do so well without a bridge (see below) but Hiver's *might* concievably do
so.
> The name 'spinal weapon' suggests that the ship is basically mounted
> on the weapon. What about having a cylinderical power plant organized
> in the center of the ship, with the spinal weapon (if any) built
> directly into the power (aka Star Trek (first movie) 'we can't fire
> the phasers in the worm hole because they channel directly through
> the warp engines').
:-P If you have a power plant, why use it to ONLY power the weapons?
It would be different if we were using the engines to generate electrical
power, but in the case of Trav ships, we are using a power plant to
genereate electical power, and that to power the engines. There is no
direct connection as there is in a car, or aircraft. Nuclear sub is
closer, but I don't know if they use electric motors. (Steve?)
> If the crew members can run their stations from their staterooms,
> the bridge is entirely psychological. So who needs a bridge?
Yes, you Could do away with a bridge, but it would increase the reliance
on super efficient intercom systems to make up for the loss of the bridge.
It is a lot easier for HUMANS to communicate quickly face to face than it
is over any other media. Consider all the information that is conveyed
by facial expression, tone of voice, etc. Now you'd have to transmit all
that on the com lines from stateroom to stateroom.
It is MUCH more efficient psychologically, and equipment wise to have
all your officers in one spot to help make decisions as quickly as
possible. Think combat environment. How are you gonna collaberate on
tactics if you gotta send your message through channels?
> On the control side, since there are multiple backup computers on board,
> what if a race decided to have instead each computer control a section
> of the ship (either logical (engineering), or physical (foreward bulkhead).
> Imagine the troubles hijackers might have.
No. There are three computers aboard ships running in parallel. They
are not working on separate tasks. The three systems check answers against
each other and then act. If one system, fed the same data as the other two,
consistantly disagrees with the others it is considered faulty and shut down.
That is how it works in the X-29 computer assisted fly by wire systems.
(I'll bet the F-117 uses a similar system)
All the computers are tightly linked. Take over one, and you've gotten
all three.
> Or better yet, having ships that are naturally modular in design
> (intended to fragment due to battle damage to facilitate escape/combat).
Which would require heavy redundancies, raising cost and reducing effieincy
of systems. Each module would have to have it's own drives, computers, and
controls. As a craft design it would be a real mess to handle. It *IS*
covered by the MegaTrav design system, but I think between Rob Dean and me,
we've only done about 3-4 such designs (Low tech staged rockets & spacecraft)
The reason we've produced so few is that they are a royal pain.
> --Brad
- ----------------------------
Me sez:
> : She's definitely the most beautiful aircraft
> : ever built: the sexiest thing that ever took to the skies.
Richard sez:
> An informal poll of rec.aviation, sci.military, and sci.aeronautics came
> up with the same answer, BTW. Basically, for those who know about
> flying, or just love to fly, the XB-70 was the most beautiful thing ever
> to grace our turgid little planet.
>
> Beware of wingtip vortices, though. :=(
MMM yeah. Especially, if you are flying a tiny little flyweight like an
F-104 starfighter.
Interesting note: According to Al White, they didn't feel much
from the mid air collision, and didn't know it was THEM that the chase
planes were yelling about until she snapped over on her back 18 seconds
later.
> And as for the rest of your description, well....
One of these days, I'm gonna get my fiancee out to the Air Force Museum
at Dayton where the B-70 is... Get the two sexiest women in the universe
under one roof... and we're gonna... we're gonna.....
Mmmmmm....Wow...... |->
- --
Scott 2G Kellogg
Test.sig
Test.sig
1... 2... 3...