The really heavy cans
- Thread starter maitrejeanth
- Start date
vermeylenhans
SOC-11
"Altough some older warships of greater displacement remain in service, the Tigress-class dreadnought is the largest vessel currently in service with the Imperial Navy in the Spinward Marches." (GURPS Starships).
Are there actually "really heavy cans"? While the GURPS Traveller starship design system doesn't simulate it (and I suppose, other Traveller games don't either), there could be a practical limit to the size of ship that can be build...
In our TL8 world, we can build (sea) ships up to lets say half a kilometer length (a little less than a third of a mile). And we can't make thinks bigger (at least without using new engineering technics). It has to do with the fact that the strength of a given item grows with the square of its dimensions while its massa (and thus the forces acting on it) grows with the cube of its dimension. While starships do not need to worry about weight, they still have to about forces caused by their acceleration. Ships bigger than let's say 500 000 dT may exist but would have to reduce their acceleration to avoid collapsing (large highports while bigger than 500 000 dT have acceleration ranging from 0,001 G to 0,01 G; just like petrol platform of our real world that can be larger than the largest ship but can't travel faster than a few knots, no matter the numbers of tugs you have).
Are there actually "really heavy cans"? While the GURPS Traveller starship design system doesn't simulate it (and I suppose, other Traveller games don't either), there could be a practical limit to the size of ship that can be build...
In our TL8 world, we can build (sea) ships up to lets say half a kilometer length (a little less than a third of a mile). And we can't make thinks bigger (at least without using new engineering technics). It has to do with the fact that the strength of a given item grows with the square of its dimensions while its massa (and thus the forces acting on it) grows with the cube of its dimension. While starships do not need to worry about weight, they still have to about forces caused by their acceleration. Ships bigger than let's say 500 000 dT may exist but would have to reduce their acceleration to avoid collapsing (large highports while bigger than 500 000 dT have acceleration ranging from 0,001 G to 0,01 G; just like petrol platform of our real world that can be larger than the largest ship but can't travel faster than a few knots, no matter the numbers of tugs you have).
vermeylenhans
SOC-11
Besides, really big ships require really bigs money. Does the Navy actually need those ships?
What if the Navy spend the money on several smaller ships instead of building one behemoth? Wouldn't those ships be able to do the same job? With added flexibility? If you build one big ship, you can only use it at one place, if you build several small you can use them together if you need their full firepower and split them on various mission if you don't need that much firepower... Also, with one big ship you put all your eggs in the same basket: if it's destroyed, your left with nothing (thing of Star Wars Death Star).
My conclusion is, before laying the keel of those heavy cans, shouldn't we ask ourselves:
1. Can them be build?
2. Do we need them?
3. Isn't it another, better, way of doing the same thing?
What if the Navy spend the money on several smaller ships instead of building one behemoth? Wouldn't those ships be able to do the same job? With added flexibility? If you build one big ship, you can only use it at one place, if you build several small you can use them together if you need their full firepower and split them on various mission if you don't need that much firepower... Also, with one big ship you put all your eggs in the same basket: if it's destroyed, your left with nothing (thing of Star Wars Death Star).
My conclusion is, before laying the keel of those heavy cans, shouldn't we ask ourselves:
1. Can them be build?
2. Do we need them?
3. Isn't it another, better, way of doing the same thing?
Maximum ship size also depends on the types of stresses the ship will undergo. We could build a million-dton skyscraper today, which is under a constant 1G of force all the time, and it wouldn't even be that hard. Doesn't mean it would do very well if we attached drives to it, however.
vermeylenhans
SOC-11
A sky scraper is under a CONSTANT force. A ship is under an all but constant force. That makes the difference...
maitrejeanth
SOC-9
HG2 and T20 allow hulls of up to 1 MDtons. The only canonical exemple in CT is only hinted at : it is the "million-ton fleet carrier Gorodish"; which was used to ferry a planetoid monitor to its destination system. The planetoid was carrid instead of one of the Gorodish's battleriders.
Since the rider/carrier combo seems to be a thing of the past, it might be safe to assume that huge Mtons battleships were built at somewhat lower thech levels and are now considered obsolescent, somewhat like what happened to the WWII-vintage battleships of the US Navy. And like these battleships in the 1980's, the Mton ships might also come back into the limelight, given the right political circumstances.
As a footnote, let's not be scared away by intricate engineering considerations. I dont't think Traveller is the right universe for this. If you admit Jump drives, grav plates and reactionless drives and you want a 2 megaton battleship, have it, by all means.
Since the rider/carrier combo seems to be a thing of the past, it might be safe to assume that huge Mtons battleships were built at somewhat lower thech levels and are now considered obsolescent, somewhat like what happened to the WWII-vintage battleships of the US Navy. And like these battleships in the 1980's, the Mton ships might also come back into the limelight, given the right political circumstances.
As a footnote, let's not be scared away by intricate engineering considerations. I dont't think Traveller is the right universe for this. If you admit Jump drives, grav plates and reactionless drives and you want a 2 megaton battleship, have it, by all means.
Hi All,
I have to agree with the statement(s) quoted below ...
So, I have to also agree with other posted comments indicating that there is therefore no point realistically devloping and/or building military craft of a larger size that will only end up doing the same job as a smaller craft. They only end up being nothing more than very expensive targets of opportunity.
In different Traveller publications, this reasoning has come up on a semi regular basis.
My food for thought.
I have to agree with the statement(s) quoted below ...
This is the argument against any ship being bigger than it needs to be, when there are weapons capable of a "one-shot-zot" kill. If the enemy can kill your ships with one effective hit from his weapons (whether those weapons are nukes or meson guns or antimatter PAWs) you don't build big ships, you build lots of ships just big enough to carry the "one-shot-zot" weapon. </font>[/QUOTE]Following the TNE rule set for a campaign that originally started as a hobby (but has now taken on a life its own) I've ended up designing an 8kton multi-function military vessel with the capability to effectively knock out the largest dreadnought with a single shot at extreme range ... and that is not even using a spinal mount. (Granted ... I also took some very small liberties when I developed the craft. But it is about 98% correct to the TNE rules.)
So, I have to also agree with other posted comments indicating that there is therefore no point realistically devloping and/or building military craft of a larger size that will only end up doing the same job as a smaller craft. They only end up being nothing more than very expensive targets of opportunity.
In different Traveller publications, this reasoning has come up on a semi regular basis.
My food for thought.
I agree with Thierry on this ...and bonded superdense should be capable of a lot of structural strength.
MT had 700dkt battleriders but CT suggest that the front line battleship dropped to 500dkt. For a standard front line ship this makes sense.
I've put together a 10dmt mobile starport for exansion purposes. It has several subcraft including colony landers, defense ships, and scouting vessels. They can travel with the mothership or independently. The mothership can build more vessels as needed or setup superstructure on its outer hull to repair itself.
Battlerider, could carry high impact 500dkt battle riders that could swarm a high tech world during an invasion....I can think of several reasons for multi-million ton starships.
Savage
MT had 700dkt battleriders but CT suggest that the front line battleship dropped to 500dkt. For a standard front line ship this makes sense.
I've put together a 10dmt mobile starport for exansion purposes. It has several subcraft including colony landers, defense ships, and scouting vessels. They can travel with the mothership or independently. The mothership can build more vessels as needed or setup superstructure on its outer hull to repair itself.
Battlerider, could carry high impact 500dkt battle riders that could swarm a high tech world during an invasion....I can think of several reasons for multi-million ton starships.
Savage
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I always thought these multi kiloton space behemoths are made possible thanks to the magic of the hull's inertial dampers which help to mitigate the stresses generated during high G maneuvering of these high agility craft.
Design Limits in Traveller:
In HG, maximum tonnage is limited by tech level indirectly: TL determines maximum computer size. Hull size has a minimum computer for given tonnage.
In MT; this is gone, due to better computer rules.
In FF&S, there is an upper limit due to the square-cube rule; it's not a hard line, but a limit on maximum size based upon the requirement for hull radiators for the PP. kind of fuzzy; IIRC, it was somewhere around 10MTd for 1G with minimum power; about 750KTd for M6 J6 warship. Search the old TML archives (Pre T4) for the discussions.
T4 used FF&S2 and had the same problems as FF&S1 with surface area...
I don't recall if T20 kept it.
GT, being GSpace derivative, does not have an inherent upper limit I am aware of, but it probably does somewhere...
In HG, maximum tonnage is limited by tech level indirectly: TL determines maximum computer size. Hull size has a minimum computer for given tonnage.
In MT; this is gone, due to better computer rules.
In FF&S, there is an upper limit due to the square-cube rule; it's not a hard line, but a limit on maximum size based upon the requirement for hull radiators for the PP. kind of fuzzy; IIRC, it was somewhere around 10MTd for 1G with minimum power; about 750KTd for M6 J6 warship. Search the old TML archives (Pre T4) for the discussions.
T4 used FF&S2 and had the same problems as FF&S1 with surface area...
I don't recall if T20 kept it.
GT, being GSpace derivative, does not have an inherent upper limit I am aware of, but it probably does somewhere...
For fun a friend and I put together the Death Star back in college. It requires a lot of power to break through a planet and vaporize it in seconds.
Yesterday, I put a couple versions together of a 10Mt Battle Station and put them on my campaign website. As a point of reference, I came up with several reasons for having such a weapon platform.
One version is within the T20 rule set. A second makes use of a home rule I've been thinking through regarding multiple mounts on colossus platforms.
I believe that as size begins to take on different mass characteristics that are less impacted by a spinal mount firing. Planets certainly don't care about DMG sites. Perhaps rule sets for 1Mt+ need to be expanded if anyone ever rights a T20 Starships and Stations. A simple, spiral spinal mount carriage which allows firing many weapons from a single colossus platform.
Yes, these platforms are expensive but provide can consistent benefit and when expanding into new territories.
Savage
Yesterday, I put a couple versions together of a 10Mt Battle Station and put them on my campaign website. As a point of reference, I came up with several reasons for having such a weapon platform.
One version is within the T20 rule set. A second makes use of a home rule I've been thinking through regarding multiple mounts on colossus platforms.
I believe that as size begins to take on different mass characteristics that are less impacted by a spinal mount firing. Planets certainly don't care about DMG sites. Perhaps rule sets for 1Mt+ need to be expanded if anyone ever rights a T20 Starships and Stations. A simple, spiral spinal mount carriage which allows firing many weapons from a single colossus platform.
Yes, these platforms are expensive but provide can consistent benefit and when expanding into new territories.
Savage
You want a super heavy gun platform?
Try a large structural framework, 5km high and wide, 500M thick.
Layer bonded superdense armor 5M thick on the front with 20M of rock in front of that in a cable web.
Mount a spinal mount sized weapon, PACC or Meson gun, at a random 100M to 250M intervals.
Mount turrets at 10M intervals across the face, a mix of all types.
Install missile bays anywhere you can fit them in.
Build a grid of power plants behind the big guns.
Hugh fuel tanks around the perimeter.
Bury your screen generators in the open framework betwen the spinal mounts.
The support facilities; State rooms, work shops, cargo holds, station keeping drives, computers, control rooms, R&R areas, and anything else to make life interesting built as the back wall of this monstrocity.
It may be wise to put a few turrets on the back and sides to keep the end runs from happening.
Paint a bullseye on the face center, surround with big yellow smiley faces.
Collect your paycheck from the happy admiral as he checks out his new toy and get out of town before someone tosses an asteroid through it...
It's a traveller style Maginot line.
Try a large structural framework, 5km high and wide, 500M thick.
Layer bonded superdense armor 5M thick on the front with 20M of rock in front of that in a cable web.
Mount a spinal mount sized weapon, PACC or Meson gun, at a random 100M to 250M intervals.
Mount turrets at 10M intervals across the face, a mix of all types.
Install missile bays anywhere you can fit them in.
Build a grid of power plants behind the big guns.
Hugh fuel tanks around the perimeter.
Bury your screen generators in the open framework betwen the spinal mounts.
The support facilities; State rooms, work shops, cargo holds, station keeping drives, computers, control rooms, R&R areas, and anything else to make life interesting built as the back wall of this monstrocity.
It may be wise to put a few turrets on the back and sides to keep the end runs from happening.
Paint a bullseye on the face center, surround with big yellow smiley faces.
Collect your paycheck from the happy admiral as he checks out his new toy and get out of town before someone tosses an asteroid through it...
It's a traveller style Maginot line.
I assume this is is directed at me, since I used the word, platform. The vessel I designed is very mobile and can simplify fleet maintenance, supply lines, and the requirements for expansion. Its not intended for planetary defense.
Not really. Although I did design some orbital defense platforms to take the brunt of incoming assaults while DMG sites are built.
And this monster PAW theory of launching asteroids where ever is pleasing is highly overrated. A few nucs and you'd redirect them quick enough.
Savage
This is a design I used as part of Rhylanor's defense grid. Of course it was obsolete at TL 13 and 14. It was the location for the players to track down some criminals who were going to use it to blackmail the Duke. The blackmailers had used a computer virus to take control of random batteries to shoot at visiting merchant ships and downside cities.
I used the clock to keep things moving. Great squirm factor.
I used the clock to keep things moving. Great squirm factor.
