Book 2 Small Craft Design

[aramis]

Just the opposite, FT... or at least that was the intent.

Of course, on the 800Td ship, that 10Td per PPN is a steal compared to the small craft 1/80 fuel = 1.2%

Abstration: Call that a surface area being replaced with vent mass of sub-plasma hydrogen.

Of course, I assumed gravitic drives from the very first... with HPP Ion assist. Star Wars influence.

 

[aramis]

Just the opposite, FT... or at least that was the intent.

Of course, on the 800Td ship, that 10Td per PPN is a steal compared to the small craft 1/80 fuel = 1.2%

Abstration: Call that a surface area being replaced with vent mass of sub-plasma hydrogen.

Of course, I assumed gravitic drives from the very first... with HPP Ion assist. Star Wars influence.

 

[far-trader]

True Aramis, the effect changes with scale. That's what I was meaning above noting the fuel requirements are tied to power and not hull size (directly). Actually comparing an 800ton hull to like small craft totals the fuel comes out very close to the same totals. Exactly the same total in fact at 2gees (comparing 20 slow pinnaces to a 2g 800ton hull, both total 20tons fuel to maneuver). I may have to rethink my position though. Thanks for the reality(?) check.

 

[far-trader]

True Aramis, the effect changes with scale. That's what I was meaning above noting the fuel requirements are tied to power and not hull size (directly). Actually comparing an 800ton hull to like small craft totals the fuel comes out very close to the same totals. Exactly the same total in fact at 2gees (comparing 20 slow pinnaces to a 2g 800ton hull, both total 20tons fuel to maneuver). I may have to rethink my position though. Thanks for the reality(?) check.

 

[robject]

Well I finally found my copy of High Guard.

The not-so-subtle interplay between bridge, computer, and weapons is a clear indicator that "computer" implies additional special hardware -- perhaps upgraded sensors.

Moreover, the example Launch and Ship's Boat are TL8, while the Pinnace is a breathtaking TL15.

I have a lot to think about.

 

[robject]

Well I finally found my copy of High Guard.

The not-so-subtle interplay between bridge, computer, and weapons is a clear indicator that "computer" implies additional special hardware -- perhaps upgraded sensors.

Moreover, the example Launch and Ship's Boat are TL8, while the Pinnace is a breathtaking TL15.

I have a lot to think about.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by robject:
Well I finally found my copy of High Guard.

The not-so-subtle interplay between bridge, computer, and weapons is a clear indicator that "computer" implies additional special hardware -- perhaps upgraded sensors.

Moreover, the example Launch and Ship's Boat are TL8, while the Pinnace is a breathtaking TL15.

I have a lot to think about.

I just had a thought about this. Second Survey is around 1065 -- was the Imperium at TL14 by 1065? When was TL15 reached?

Imagine the stir caused by the introduction of the Pinnace. Interplanetary travel has never been so speedy!

 

[robject]

Originally posted by robject:
Well I finally found my copy of High Guard.

The not-so-subtle interplay between bridge, computer, and weapons is a clear indicator that "computer" implies additional special hardware -- perhaps upgraded sensors.

Moreover, the example Launch and Ship's Boat are TL8, while the Pinnace is a breathtaking TL15.

I have a lot to think about.

I just had a thought about this. Second Survey is around 1065 -- was the Imperium at TL14 by 1065? When was TL15 reached?

Imagine the stir caused by the introduction of the Pinnace. Interplanetary travel has never been so speedy!

 

[mike wightman]

According to the MT Referee's Companion the Imperium achieved TL14 in 700, and TL15 in 1000.

 

[mike wightman]

According to the MT Referee's Companion the Imperium achieved TL14 in 700, and TL15 in 1000.

 

[cheepicus]

Not sure why they made that sample Pinnace TL15. To save a little room for more fuel?

 

[cheepicus]

Not sure why they made that sample Pinnace TL15. To save a little room for more fuel?

 

[robject]

It could be a "typo", meaning there's less cargo space there than there really is.

 

[robject]

It could be a "typo", meaning there's less cargo space there than there really is.

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by robject:
Kurega is right. What benefit does the 95 ton 3G shuttle have that a 100 ton 4G spacecraft doesn't?

Under strictly Book 2 design, lots more payload capacity, for one thing.

My considered opinion is that the whole "mass-thrower" combo drive is a non-starter, due mostly to the mind-numbing exhaust velocities required. Small craft seem to just use a simpler design of grav drive.

My notion has always been that small craft drives lack the wonderful "acceleration compensation" that big craft enjoy; hence the required acceleration couches (and cabin berths which presumably function similarly). This is due to both the smaller diaplacement of the hulls (under the magical 100-dton minimum for field-effect systems like big craft m-drives and j-drives to operate), and the non-computer-controlled nature of small craft drives [which means, I suppose, that a small craft with a bridge and computer doesn't have to run the Maneuver program] that would otherwise limit responsiveness (and avoid any embarassing/painful lags in the compensation field).

This explanation, at least, involves the minimum amount of hand-waving of any that I have been able to concot.

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by robject:
Kurega is right. What benefit does the 95 ton 3G shuttle have that a 100 ton 4G spacecraft doesn't?

Under strictly Book 2 design, lots more payload capacity, for one thing.

My considered opinion is that the whole "mass-thrower" combo drive is a non-starter, due mostly to the mind-numbing exhaust velocities required. Small craft seem to just use a simpler design of grav drive.

My notion has always been that small craft drives lack the wonderful "acceleration compensation" that big craft enjoy; hence the required acceleration couches (and cabin berths which presumably function similarly). This is due to both the smaller diaplacement of the hulls (under the magical 100-dton minimum for field-effect systems like big craft m-drives and j-drives to operate), and the non-computer-controlled nature of small craft drives [which means, I suppose, that a small craft with a bridge and computer doesn't have to run the Maneuver program] that would otherwise limit responsiveness (and avoid any embarassing/painful lags in the compensation field).

This explanation, at least, involves the minimum amount of hand-waving of any that I have been able to concot.

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by robject:
Kurega is right. What benefit does the 95 ton 3G shuttle have that a 100 ton 4G spacecraft doesn't?

Under strictly Book 2 design, lots more payload capacity, for one thing.

My considered opinion is that the whole "mass-thrower" combo drive is a non-starter, due mostly to the mind-numbing exhaust velocities required. Small craft seem to just use a simpler design of grav drive.

My notion has always been that small craft drives lack the wonderful "acceleration compensation" that big craft enjoy; hence the required acceleration couches (and cabin berths which presumably function similarly). This is due to both the smaller diaplacement of the hulls (under the magical 100-dton minimum for field-effect systems like big craft m-drives and j-drives to operate), and the non-computer-controlled nature of small craft drives [which means, I suppose, that a small craft with a bridge and computer doesn't have to run the Maneuver program] that limits responsiveness as regards the ability to avoid embarassing/painful lags in a compensation field. [This later means, I also suppose, that it might be possible to operate a big craft m-drive without a computer, but hull stress might quickly become a deal-breaker, as it were.]

This explanation, at least, involves the minimum amount of hand-waving of any that I have been able to concot.

 

[boomslang]

Originally posted by robject:
Kurega is right. What benefit does the 95 ton 3G shuttle have that a 100 ton 4G spacecraft doesn't?

Under strictly Book 2 design, lots more payload capacity, for one thing.

My considered opinion is that the whole "mass-thrower" combo drive is a non-starter, due mostly to the mind-numbing exhaust velocities required. Small craft seem to just use a simpler design of grav drive.

My notion has always been that small craft drives lack the wonderful "acceleration compensation" that big craft enjoy; hence the required acceleration couches (and cabin berths which presumably function similarly). This is due to both the smaller diaplacement of the hulls (under the magical 100-dton minimum for field-effect systems like big craft m-drives and j-drives to operate), and the non-computer-controlled nature of small craft drives [which means, I suppose, that a small craft with a bridge and computer doesn't have to run the Maneuver program] that limits responsiveness as regards the ability to avoid embarassing/painful lags in a compensation field. [This later means, I also suppose, that it might be possible to operate a big craft m-drive without a computer, but hull stress might quickly become a deal-breaker, as it were.]

This explanation, at least, involves the minimum amount of hand-waving of any that I have been able to concot.