Opinion: Is this a Close Structure or a Needle

[Thunderbolt]

This is a design I'm working on and is work in progress.

I'm very keen on the modular, space bucket feel of the structure, but artistically, it would be good if it could appear on the ground in various settings.

Is this a design that could get away with the 'Needle' configuration tag, or does it scream 'Close Structure' to you fellow ship designers.

For those of you that care: 700,000 polygons (so far!!). Modelled in Hexagon 1.21 and rendered in Vue 6.

 

[tim_manley]

nice!

Makes my Doga-L3 work look like a grade-school kid's fingerpaint....

 

[mike wightman]

Close structure - needle configuration can function in an atmosphere and this ship design of yours doesn't look like it would be comfortable in anything but vacuum.

Very nice design though

 

[atpollard]

CLOSE or CYLINDER (multiple), IMHO.

But it could still land on an airless world IIRC.

 

[far-trader]

I have to go with clearly the very definition of a Close Structure.

A key point in defining the streamlined structures for me is a mono-hull. I don't even like externally mounted craft of a streamlined hull (at the very least they should have to be conformal and closely mounted).

 

[Icosahedron]

I don't see it as needle (Concorde fuselage) and I'm not too sure about Close Structure, either.

Close suggests to me 'enclosed', ie a single hull envelope, like a wet ship maybe. All those separate modules connected by struts suggests Dispersed to me. OTOH, the modules are closely packed...

Definitely not Needle though.

 

[mike wightman]

Note that in T20 it is possible to upgrade the hull configuration to include the next level of streamlining - so you can get atmospheric capability for a close structure hull, but only with T20 ship building rules.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Improving streamlining has been possible since MT, and with contragrav (TNE/T4) you can land almost anything.

 

[Valarian]

In my opinion, it's a close-structure. Nice model by the way.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Looks like 3 cylinders.

 

[atpollard]

Looks like 3 cylinders.

I could see it that way too.

From some rules, most Small Craft and the Saturn V (IRL), a cylinder with a cone or hemisphere on top can enter/leave atmosphere. However, the open trusses on the sides might pose a drag/stability problem.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I don't think it's much worse than the shuttle stack.

Landing might be tricky, but certainly possible.

 

[atpollard]

Landing might be tricky, but certainly possible.

There is a safety note stenciled in the cockpit "WARNING. Pilot-2 or greater required for atmospheric landings."

 

[Thunderbolt]

All good feedback. You convinced me that it would be futile to try and pass off the design as something that could land.

I've updated the design with 'Close Structure' in mind

 

[far-trader]

Landing is overrated anyway, you can do what you need to from orbit more easily

I should have added much earlier, but doubly so now, that's pretty impressive looking and I like the style of it*. Could we have some kind of sense of scale?

* Ah, and I think I know why now (a similar design I had my fingers in that I hope sees light of day soon, it's waiting on some license issues to be ironed out first... )

 

[Thunderbolt]

As far as scale goes, I'm always making problems for myself doing these Traveller inspired designs because the model always leads, and the scale has to be rationalised afterwards.

My working scale at the moment is that the cargo doors along the side of the main cylinders are one deck high.

In theory, there are twelve turrets there, so it should be a 1200 ton ship, but I suspect that if I punch the math through my trusty NSpire, I will end up with some strange dimensions that make doors and windows with fractional deck heights.

The other thing I like is to have lots of engine ports out the back which implies a manoeuvre rating that in practice a freighter would never have

 

[far-trader]

That's the way I was looking at it scale wise, and you might not be too far off 1200tons. Sure you will probably end up with fractions one way or the other when you do scale it (either the dimensions or the tonnage) letting the shape/look lead the design. Not a bad thing though, just feel free to liberally round the final numbers

My quick guesstitake was the big cylinders were 100tons each, the small cylinders on top 30tons each (cutter modules) so that about 900tons there. Add another 300tons at the back for engineering, quarters and bridge. Looks like a military transport to me*

* best of both worlds for PCs, firepower and legs plus cargo for revenue

Looking forward to the development of it.

 

[dean]

Unstreamlined cylinder.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Landing is overrated anyway, you can do what you need to from orbit more easily

Nuke the site?

 

[Gallowglacht]

It IS the only way to be sure.

But Andrew can't make a decision like that, he's just a grunt.
No offence.



btw nice ship.