Opinion: Is this a Close Structure or a Needle
- Thread starter Thunderbolt
- Start date
Thunderbolt
SOC-12
My preliminary measurements seem to be putting this thing into the many thousands of tons range, way bigger than I had envisaged.
I would dearly love to have something that could measure volume automatically, what a time saver that would be.
I've done a quick spreadsheet and done some manual calculations but it would seem that Microsoft and Texas Instruments are in agreement, it's a BIG ship!
I'm going to try and create a definitive spreadsheet and play with the numbers, I may have to rescale those cargo doors!
I would dearly love to have something that could measure volume automatically, what a time saver that would be.
I've done a quick spreadsheet and done some manual calculations but it would seem that Microsoft and Texas Instruments are in agreement, it's a BIG ship!
I'm going to try and create a definitive spreadsheet and play with the numbers, I may have to rescale those cargo doors!
Thunderbolt
SOC-12
I've updated the image (you may have to force refresh the page to get the new version), which should give people a more accurate perspective for estimating sizes.
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
My *very* rough guestimate would be 4kdt.
Show us your math... as I'm getting only 6KTd.
Using 6m as an estimate of the cylinder's radii, and 27 m per cylinder, 17 such cylinders, 3 cylinders of 3m radii, and 4 spheres with 12m radii...
I get 17 cyls at 3052m3 =51885m3
3 cyls at 763m3 =2289m3
4 spheres at 7234.5m3 each =28938m3
total 83112m3
divide 14 to get 5937 Tons Displacement.
So give us your numbers. Again, I just reworked from rough visual estimates based upon those X insets in the sides being 3m x 4.5m
Thunderbolt
SOC-12
Here are the Hexagon dimensions and the associated spreadsheet calcs.
I've done some approximations such as assuming the main cylinder caps are spherical and the Rear Units are pure cylinders and ignoring the slight taper at each end, it's not like I'm actually going to build this sucker
The tonnage calcs use the scaling multiplier cubed to convert Hexagon volumes to cubic metres, so the door height is 1.25 in Hexagon, making a multiplier of 2.4 ^ 3 if the door is 3 metres high, and 1.6 ^ 3 if the door is 2 metres high.
1 dTon is assumed to be 1.5 x 3 x 3 = 13.5 cubic metres.
I've done some approximations such as assuming the main cylinder caps are spherical and the Rear Units are pure cylinders and ignoring the slight taper at each end, it's not like I'm actually going to build this sucker
The tonnage calcs use the scaling multiplier cubed to convert Hexagon volumes to cubic metres, so the door height is 1.25 in Hexagon, making a multiplier of 2.4 ^ 3 if the door is 3 metres high, and 1.6 ^ 3 if the door is 2 metres high.
1 dTon is assumed to be 1.5 x 3 x 3 = 13.5 cubic metres.
Last edited:
Thunderbolt
SOC-12
Isn't 14 just rounded up from the actual mathematical result of 13.5 ?
No, it actually is closer to 13.7 or so, given the SG of H2 at nominal liquid.
I see the issue... your volumes are calced in unscaled units, not cubic meters... that was confusing. My estimate of 6KTd was close enough... yeah, it's between 5 and 7 KTd.
That's not "Many Thousands"... at least not in lateCT through T20 terms. Many thousands would be 20-200.
It's big, but not huge.
I see the issue... your volumes are calced in unscaled units, not cubic meters... that was confusing. My estimate of 6KTd was close enough... yeah, it's between 5 and 7 KTd.
That's not "Many Thousands"... at least not in lateCT through T20 terms. Many thousands would be 20-200.
It's big, but not huge.
Theo D Lite
SOC-11
My Opinion - Close Structure
As it says above. In my opinion this is clearly a close structure. Let's face it we were both pushing the envelope, TB, when we defined the original Thunderbolt as a Cylinder! I don't think that the creation of two main cylinders joined plus the third smaller cylinder could be approximated to an overall cylindrical design, although as others have pointed out the Space Shuttle on take off has a very similar profile, although to be fair they don't try to land it in that configuration and take off is vertical where basically brute force overcomes any aerodynamic inefficiencies.
What is it about cylindrical based designs though, they always look so right until you try to retro fit deck plans to them.
As to the volume, this is clearly a big vessel although possibly that is the way to make these things pay. I don't believe that many trading vessels should be streamlined, it just adds to cost and hence repayments and the extra time taken to get from orbital facility to planet is time that a trading vessel that is not relying on speculative trade can ill afford to spend in delivering goods. TB and I have discussed this a few times in the past so I won't hijack the thread. Larger vessels on scheduled runs, as this would probably have to be would almost certainly have the infrastructure in place to be offloaded, reloaded and reprovisioned from an orbital facility either wholly owned by the corporate entity running the vessel or at the very least leased from the main orbital facility. There would therefore be no need for such a vessel as this to be streamlined in any case, hence close structure makes perfect sense either from the owner/operator perspective or from the perspective of a corporate operation.
The only possible fly in the ointment would be a para-military vessel, or a troop carrier. These might be operationally required to make a planetary landing. Although deployment could always be through a fleet of smaller craft or drop capsules easily carried within a vessel of this size.
Lots of engine ports make for an artistically impressive rear profile, and quite possibly para-military or troop carriers might sport this type of arrangement to maintain station with naval combat fleets. But, again in my opinion, merchant vessels whether private or corporate simply can't afford the repayments on a large maneuver drive and can't afford to designate otherwise profitable hull volumes to these drive systems.
As to the volume of the vessel I concur with the maths shown once the Hexagon conversion factor is applied, so it hinges on what size the doors are. Floor to floor deck height is usually taken as 3.0m. However there is in normal habitable space within a ship a zone for services and grav plates which effectively reduces the floor to ceiling height. I usually estimate the internal floor to ceiling height to be in the region of 2.4m, although not all services would be required in a cargo area. Interestingly 2.4m is a building regulations statutory height in the UK.
Supplement 7 shows a standard cargo container in the description of the Subsidised Merchant. These modules are cuboid Lm wide by Lm high by 2Lm long and displace 3.85dTon.
On this basis 2L^3 = 3.85 * 13.5 cu. m, leading to L being 2.96m which implies that cargo decks have to be an absolute minimum height of 3m clear and so do the doors, and frankly that is cutting it a little bit fine in my humble opinion with only a 40mm tolerance. On this basis the ship is the larger of the two calculated volumes, although I think the volume might actually be nearer 10k dton leading to a Hexagon conversion factor of 2.68 equating to a door height of 3.35m which is a much better tolerance for a 2.96m high container.
Apologies for the long post but it is my first for a very long time.
As it says above. In my opinion this is clearly a close structure. Let's face it we were both pushing the envelope, TB, when we defined the original Thunderbolt as a Cylinder! I don't think that the creation of two main cylinders joined plus the third smaller cylinder could be approximated to an overall cylindrical design, although as others have pointed out the Space Shuttle on take off has a very similar profile, although to be fair they don't try to land it in that configuration and take off is vertical where basically brute force overcomes any aerodynamic inefficiencies.
What is it about cylindrical based designs though, they always look so right until you try to retro fit deck plans to them.
As to the volume, this is clearly a big vessel although possibly that is the way to make these things pay. I don't believe that many trading vessels should be streamlined, it just adds to cost and hence repayments and the extra time taken to get from orbital facility to planet is time that a trading vessel that is not relying on speculative trade can ill afford to spend in delivering goods. TB and I have discussed this a few times in the past so I won't hijack the thread. Larger vessels on scheduled runs, as this would probably have to be would almost certainly have the infrastructure in place to be offloaded, reloaded and reprovisioned from an orbital facility either wholly owned by the corporate entity running the vessel or at the very least leased from the main orbital facility. There would therefore be no need for such a vessel as this to be streamlined in any case, hence close structure makes perfect sense either from the owner/operator perspective or from the perspective of a corporate operation.
The only possible fly in the ointment would be a para-military vessel, or a troop carrier. These might be operationally required to make a planetary landing. Although deployment could always be through a fleet of smaller craft or drop capsules easily carried within a vessel of this size.
Lots of engine ports make for an artistically impressive rear profile, and quite possibly para-military or troop carriers might sport this type of arrangement to maintain station with naval combat fleets. But, again in my opinion, merchant vessels whether private or corporate simply can't afford the repayments on a large maneuver drive and can't afford to designate otherwise profitable hull volumes to these drive systems.
As to the volume of the vessel I concur with the maths shown once the Hexagon conversion factor is applied, so it hinges on what size the doors are. Floor to floor deck height is usually taken as 3.0m. However there is in normal habitable space within a ship a zone for services and grav plates which effectively reduces the floor to ceiling height. I usually estimate the internal floor to ceiling height to be in the region of 2.4m, although not all services would be required in a cargo area. Interestingly 2.4m is a building regulations statutory height in the UK.
Supplement 7 shows a standard cargo container in the description of the Subsidised Merchant. These modules are cuboid Lm wide by Lm high by 2Lm long and displace 3.85dTon.
On this basis 2L^3 = 3.85 * 13.5 cu. m, leading to L being 2.96m which implies that cargo decks have to be an absolute minimum height of 3m clear and so do the doors, and frankly that is cutting it a little bit fine in my humble opinion with only a 40mm tolerance. On this basis the ship is the larger of the two calculated volumes, although I think the volume might actually be nearer 10k dton leading to a Hexagon conversion factor of 2.68 equating to a door height of 3.35m which is a much better tolerance for a 2.96m high container.
Apologies for the long post but it is my first for a very long time.
Last edited:
Thunderbolt
SOC-12
I understand now, thanks for clarifying.
Hmm, I'd always seen it as being big but not as big as 7000tons, but since I had the idea of it being a Liberty ship or fleet tender when I started it, that sort of size might make more sense.
Of course, now I need to figure a way of putting 70 turrets on the dratted thing....!
Hmm, I'd always seen it as being big but not as big as 7000tons, but since I had the idea of it being a Liberty ship or fleet tender when I started it, that sort of size might make more sense.
Of course, now I need to figure a way of putting 70 turrets on the dratted thing....!
Theo D Lite
SOC-11
70 Turrets?
Actually if you go with my concept of 10k dton you'd have 100 turrets but lets face at that point you're better off going for bays. These are ultimately more flexible and thinking ahead could be interesting if a para-military vessel were decommissioned, the bay weapons could be removed leaving the bays as additional cargo space or for vehicle storage to be repopulated if the vessel were recalled to active service or when the PCs who were operating it in its stripped out condition could find the credits to repopulate the bays for themselves.
If bought as a decommissioned military support vessel the price could make the economics work in private hands especially with the additional cargo capacity in the empty bays.
Actually if you go with my concept of 10k dton you'd have 100 turrets but lets face at that point you're better off going for bays. These are ultimately more flexible and thinking ahead could be interesting if a para-military vessel were decommissioned, the bay weapons could be removed leaving the bays as additional cargo space or for vehicle storage to be repopulated if the vessel were recalled to active service or when the PCs who were operating it in its stripped out condition could find the credits to repopulate the bays for themselves.
If bought as a decommissioned military support vessel the price could make the economics work in private hands especially with the additional cargo capacity in the empty bays.
Last edited:
Thunderbolt
SOC-12
Which begs the question, what precisely does a bay look like, is it section of hull revealed by a sliding door from which a fixed weapon fires like an 'age of sail' cannon, or is it a giant turret?
Theo D Lite
SOC-11
What Does A Bay Look Like?
Well I guess either idea has its merits, but I would go for the former based on the description in High Guard:
"Bay Weapons: Weapons may be mounted in bays, large areas near the skin of the ships hull......"
I think a 100dTon turret would look silly! Although I suspect that a bay would actually contain a multitude of smaller weapons of the same type, revealed when the hull retracted over that area, if that makes sense.
Well I guess either idea has its merits, but I would go for the former based on the description in High Guard:
"Bay Weapons: Weapons may be mounted in bays, large areas near the skin of the ships hull......"
I think a 100dTon turret would look silly! Although I suspect that a bay would actually contain a multitude of smaller weapons of the same type, revealed when the hull retracted over that area, if that makes sense.
It could be either.
The text tends to describe an empty box, but deckplans clearly show battleship-like turrets.
Since your 'turrets' are already closer to 'bay weapon' size, I say go with giant turrets for your bay weapons.
Hi
Hi,
My impression of bays are something along the lines of modern day MEKO and Stanflex modules on some naval vessels. In general, in these type concepts you have an opening in your hull in which you can drop a standard sized module, which could house missiles, a gun, or some other type of weapon. On some of these units (like a gun) part of the unit sticks above the deck, but alot of the weapon is atcually eeclosed in the space within the hull.
Here for instance is a link to some images from a website called Schnellboot.net showing the above deck portion of a modern 76mm gun on a Stanflex type boat. You can just make out the rectangular outline of the module itself on the ship's main deck. In practice this unit could be un-bolted/disconnected and lifted out of the ship and replaced with a different unit. Here is another link to an image from the Naval-Technology.com website showing this type gun module, sitting on a pier.
I believe that these type concepts in naval vessels were coming into practice right about the time High guard was originally written, as were the modular Vertical Launch Systems for missiles.
If you look closely at the artwork from Azhanti High Lightning you could possibly interpret what is shown along these lines. Specifically, the external images (as shown at this link from the website BoardGamegeek.com) appear to show rows of heavy turrets along the upper side of the hull. If you look at the deck plans though (as shown in the middle image at this link from the same site) you can kind of make out the turret shapes on the top and bottom of the deck, but you can also make out the outline of a shape inboard of these turrets that appear to be the internal equipment and support for these turreted weapons. The heavy black lines that outline these spaces suggest heavy bilkheads and may denote that the equipment within them can be lifted out and replaced, much like the Stanflex gun mount discussed above.
As such, in trying to develop up my own deck plans, I've been playing around with the notion that a 50dton bay might be about 3 decks high (9m) by 7.5m wide and 9m long or so (if I am recalling correctly). As such if you had a heavy energy weapon with a turret, about 43dton or so would be in the hull, with the actual turret itself, which would stick above the deck, making up the other 7dtons or so.
Anyway, just some thoughts, I thought I'd share.
Regards
PF
P.S. I hope there's nothing wrong with me posting links to other sites rather than directly adding images to the post. I didn't want to use any images without giving adequate acknowledgement, but I also wasn't sure if this might be considered incorrectly directing anyone to another site.
Regards
PF
Hi,
My impression of bays are something along the lines of modern day MEKO and Stanflex modules on some naval vessels. In general, in these type concepts you have an opening in your hull in which you can drop a standard sized module, which could house missiles, a gun, or some other type of weapon. On some of these units (like a gun) part of the unit sticks above the deck, but alot of the weapon is atcually eeclosed in the space within the hull.
Here for instance is a link to some images from a website called Schnellboot.net showing the above deck portion of a modern 76mm gun on a Stanflex type boat. You can just make out the rectangular outline of the module itself on the ship's main deck. In practice this unit could be un-bolted/disconnected and lifted out of the ship and replaced with a different unit. Here is another link to an image from the Naval-Technology.com website showing this type gun module, sitting on a pier.
I believe that these type concepts in naval vessels were coming into practice right about the time High guard was originally written, as were the modular Vertical Launch Systems for missiles.
If you look closely at the artwork from Azhanti High Lightning you could possibly interpret what is shown along these lines. Specifically, the external images (as shown at this link from the website BoardGamegeek.com) appear to show rows of heavy turrets along the upper side of the hull. If you look at the deck plans though (as shown in the middle image at this link from the same site) you can kind of make out the turret shapes on the top and bottom of the deck, but you can also make out the outline of a shape inboard of these turrets that appear to be the internal equipment and support for these turreted weapons. The heavy black lines that outline these spaces suggest heavy bilkheads and may denote that the equipment within them can be lifted out and replaced, much like the Stanflex gun mount discussed above.
As such, in trying to develop up my own deck plans, I've been playing around with the notion that a 50dton bay might be about 3 decks high (9m) by 7.5m wide and 9m long or so (if I am recalling correctly). As such if you had a heavy energy weapon with a turret, about 43dton or so would be in the hull, with the actual turret itself, which would stick above the deck, making up the other 7dtons or so.
Anyway, just some thoughts, I thought I'd share.
Regards
PF
P.S. I hope there's nothing wrong with me posting links to other sites rather than directly adding images to the post. I didn't want to use any images without giving adequate acknowledgement, but I also wasn't sure if this might be considered incorrectly directing anyone to another site.
Regards
PF
Last edited:
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
This is absolutely fine.
