configuration questions

[JAFARR]

1. What configuration would you call a teardrop? Cone maybe?
2. Just what is a flattened sphere? I would assume god's eye-view to be a circle and cross section cutaway to be an ovular with a flattened bottom if intended to make planetary landings?

Also for ships that do land, are runways required or do they just drop down on a cloud of flames, etc.?

Added: I also forgot to ask, Is there a official limit to how large a ship can be and still make a planetary landing?

 

[DaveChase]

1. What configuration would you call a teardrop? Cone maybe?
2. Just what is a flattened sphere? I would assume god's eye-view to be a circle and cross section cutaway to be an ovular with a flattened bottom if intended to make planetary landings?

Also for ships that do land, are runways required or do they just drop down on a cloud of flames, etc.?

Cone, sphere, modified sphere, streamlined sphere

What would you call a bomb from WW2. some of those were tear drop in general shape.

Dave Chase

 

[sabredog]

A cone.

A flattened sphere is a disk...like the ships the K'kree build for example. Or the ships in "Independence Day".

They can land any way you want. Some of the artwork in JTAS showed pits for ships to land in, some show runways, so the imagination is the limit. Personally I go with the runway design, it's flexible and supports lower tech take-offs for ships needing some kind of booster. It also depends on how you think the drives on ships work: are they belching out radioactive fire like a fusion reaction drive, or are they reactionless (like the canon) gravitic drives that don't need huge areas to launch from because they don't go off like a small nuke.

Another thought is the layout of the ships. How are the decks laid out? How does cargo get on an off the ship? All these can tell you how the ship lands and takes off, too, because they help you figure out what the ship has to look like sitting on the ground - so how does it get to that position.

 

[sabredog]

Oh, and while there isn't any official limit (at least in CT) that I've ever found I have imposed a limit of 2000 tons. Anything bigger than that uses either lighters or just docks at the orbital port. It's just an arbitrary limit of mine because even that is one monster of a mass to support when it's on the ground under gravity.

My A & B ports have orbital facilities as well as a groundside, typically serviced by a beanstalk and regular cargo lighter service. If it's C or less, then you have to land or use lighters - no orbital facilities.

 

[far-trader]

My take only of course ...

1. What configuration would you call a teardrop? Cone maybe?

Yep, sounds about right.

2. Just what is a flattened sphere? I would assume god's eye-view to be a circle and cross section cutaway to be an ovular with a flattened bottom if intended to make planetary landings?

Again I'm in agreement. In general anything significantly less than a sphere but still ovoid down to a classic saucer (disk with rounded circumference edge) would be a flattened sphere imo.

Also for ships that do land, are runways required or do they just drop down on a cloud of flames, etc.?

Varies on the rules, my mood, and the art

For example CT only had streamlined and not, but the art for the Fat-Trader with it's wings certainly implies a lifting body and it should be operating at Class A and B starports most of the time, so runways would be expected. While the art for the Free-Trader with no proper lifting wings and a horizontal deck and the likelyhood of operating away from better starports implies a vertical landing under full contragrav to be the norm. I imagine my CG to have a force btw, something akin to a pressure wave with a felt force drop off square of distance and footprint of the ship but radiating out. So you need some clearance and a hard surface to settle on or you'll be doing damage.

Is there a official limit to how large a ship can be and still make a planetary landing?

Nope, not that I recall, but it has been figured by someone somewhere (I forget who and it might have been on the TML and/or a Yahoo group). I seem to recall the number being around* 5000tons to 15000tons based on physics without handwave reliance. I think it varied depending on the configuration and orientation. Long ships have to be smaller or tailsitters (to avoid snapping the spine under loads).

* for streamlined hulls - unstreamlined can't, at all, period, never mind those who say they can land any contragrav ship in an atmosphere no matter how non-aerodynamic it is :smirk:

Hope that helps

 

[GypsyComet]

I know it was stated somewhere in CT that 5000 dtons was the limit for landings, but whether that's a physics limitation or a real estate issue wasn't stated.

Keep in mind that 5000 dtons is some 25 to 30 times the size of a fully fitted 747, and you begin to understand the limit on just a real estate basis...

 

[aramis]

A flattened sphere could also be a Cylon Raider from oBSG... technically, it's a flattened oval, but in game terms, it's a 10-15 Td flattened spheroid.

 

[BlackBat242]

For example CT only had streamlined and not,

Book 2 had only that, but book 5 (page 22-23) had full, partial, or non-streamlined configurations.

 

[Icosahedron]

My Cr2:

Teardrop is probably a Cone, though it might depend on how elongated it is and which way round it flies.

Flattened Sphere, I'm with FT; anything from an ovoid to a saucer.

Landing is a matter of taste. Mine drop down quietly on grav.

Size for landing is also a matter of taste and probably depends on your drive system. I use 5000dT as the limit, simply because it's the borderline between LBB2 and LBB5.
I also use a seperate skill - Pilot for landers and Helm for the big guys.

I wouldn't want to land a 5kT torch ship tail down in a meadow, though.

 

[GypsyComet]

The configurations are all subject to a bit of drift, and really come down to two in-game effects: how streamlined can it be, and how hard is it to hit in combat with certain weapons (namely the meson gun).

Quite a few example ships can be interpreted as more than one of the configurations. The Millennium Falcon could be an oblate cone (albeit with the point missing) or could be a flattened sphere (with considerable superstructure), as one easy example.

 

[far-trader]

The configurations are all subject to a bit of drift, and really come down to two in-game effects: how streamlined can it be, and how hard is it to hit in combat with certain weapons (namely the meson gun).

Good points.

Quite a few example ships can be interpreted as more than one of the configurations. The Millennium Falcon could be an oblate cone (albeit with the point missing) or could be a flattened sphere (with considerable superstructure), as one easy example.

...or a not so simple example I see it more as close structure/box (square edged exterior with few rounded edges) - partially streamlined, or a dispersed/irregular structure (dispersed modular exterior not clearly definable as one of the other configurations) - unstreamlined. The fact that it routinely operates in atmosphere is due to Lucas not caring, or you can handwave all kinds of technology at the problem (like deflector shields).

 

[far-trader]

I'm sure I've typed this up before but here goes again fwiw

From MT we get a slightly more descriptive explanation of the HG configurations (albeit with slightly different names in a couple cases):

Needle/Wedge - A long, pointed exterior with few square edges.

Cone - An oblong rounded exterior with few square edges.

Cylinder - An oblong rounded exterior with square-edged ends.

Close Structure (Box) - A square edged exterior with few rounded edges.

Sphere - A ball shaped exterior.

Flattened Sphere (Dome/Disk) - A half-sphere or flattened sphere exterior.

Dispersed Structure (Irregular Structure/Open Frame) - A dispersed, modular exterior which is not clearly definable as one of the others, or an open skeletal frame with no covering <connecting modules>

 

[RandyT0001]

What configuration is a teardrop? It is a streamlined slightly flattened sphere. When a teardrop first forms coming out the corner of the eye it is a sphere of water due to the surface tension of the water. As the teardrop falls the part closest to the ground becomes slightly parabolic in shape as the sides are slightly flattened. This squeezing of the sphere provides the water necessary to form the streamlined conical tail of a teardrop. Airflow resistance (drag) and the surface tension of the water holds it together in this shape until it hits a hard surface.

 

[sabredog]

Maybe it depends on the direction the pointy end is facing?

 

[far-trader]

Maybe it depends on the direction the pointy end is facing?

Good observation

A part of me says it shouldn't but I see what you mean. Pointy end of teardrop first is closest to Cone. Big end of teardrop first is closest to Sphere/Flattened Sphere. So now we have to figure which end the drives are stuck on into it as well?

One thing's for sure, the Millenium Falcon would be marginally more streamlined going backwards

 

[The Oz]

What configuration is a teardrop? It is a streamlined slightly flattened sphere. When a teardrop first forms coming out the corner of the eye it is a sphere of water due to the surface tension of the water. As the teardrop falls the part closest to the ground becomes slightly parabolic in shape as the sides are slightly flattened. This squeezing of the sphere provides the water necessary to form the streamlined conical tail of a teardrop. Airflow resistance (drag) and the surface tension of the water holds it together in this shape until it hits a hard surface.

I think it would depend on the length of the "tail." If the tail is short (about one diameter of the "sphere" portion of the teardrop) then it's a Sphere. If the tail is long then it's a Cone, regardless of which "end" is leading.

 

[fredofmars]

<snip>Keep in mind that 5000 dtons is some 25 to 30 times the size of a fully fitted 747, and you begin to understand the limit on just a real estate basis...

I figured out volumes for one of my projects, and a C-5 is just under 200 Traveller displacement tons. C-5s are somewhat larger than even the largest 747 to date.

 

[GypsyComet]

I figured out volumes for one of my projects, and a C-5 is just under 200 Traveller displacement tons. C-5s are somewhat larger than even the largest 747 to date.

The public stats on the Galaxy and the public stats on the 747 family are pretty similar, frankly. Both run nearly 250 feet in length and almost the same in wingspan, fuel capacity, and maximum takeoff weight. Regardless of which you use, the "25 to 30 times" comparison stands as a good approximation.

What is equally eye-opening is that the old-time Scout variant, the Serpent-class from Paranoia Press, is NOT MUCH SMALLER than these aircraft (at 125 to 150 dtons by deckplan). That's right, a starport is generally dealing with very little that is smaller than a 747 or Galaxy, and a fairly frequent visitor (the Type R) is twice their size. No wonder they move 'em into orbit as soon as possible...

 

[aramis]

At least most of them have the ability to VTOL on most worlds.

 

[samuelvss]

I approach hull configuration a bit differently. Under HG, if the hull was to be streamlined, and did not clearly fit into one of the cheaper definitions (IIRC "flattened sphere" was the cheapest streamlined hull), then I would bite the bullet, pay for a wedge, and make sure the design was actually streamlined. I try to make my streamlined noses roughly parabolic.

As far as drives, I assume if it is fully streamlined, it has grav for use in the gravity well: that's part of what you pay for in a streamline hull. Maneuver drives equal those big holes in the back, that shoot fiery nastiness into space, and even the lower atmosphere if you want to piss off the locals.

And so no, unstreamlined, or partially streamlined cannot land: no grav, and the trip through the atmosphere, no matter how "slow," will have massive winds to deal with (if only from weather). Even in calm weather, our atmosphere has winds whipping around 100+ mph at different elevations. They can land in vacuum only by tail-sitting, and that requires some doing.