• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Type 45 Destroyer

This thread is about the new Type 45 destroyer that the UK Royal Navy is bringing out. While this isn't a starship, it is an example of a real warship.

The Wikipedia article about it is at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer

There is a YouTube video of an animation of the building of this ship:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U74YI2rEhFU

I thought it was fun watching the ship go together. If you watch to the end of the video, there's a bit of a technician being pleased by the performance of the system.
 
Nice video. It's curious to me that the ship had to be assembled in so many different locations. I guess I always figured that ships were built in one spot, with components being brought to it. Makes me wonder though, if the TCS rules for ship construction times might not be as unrealistic as certain other rules under High Guard. Has anyone else pondered whether it should take 174 weeks (3.3 years) to build a 20Ktn light cruiser?
 
That's actually an interesting concept for a pocket empire setting. You could have 3-4 worlds helping each other with different components, creating mixed-TL ships. Hulls being "towed" from one system, internal fixtures pre-fabbed in one place, high-TL weaponry from another.

The players could run as corsairs or rebels, disrupting the deliveries or trying to secure precious components in transit.

Would make for interesting designs, too.

-- Zembar
 
Nice video. It's curious to me that the ship had to be assembled in so many different locations. I guess I always figured that ships were built in one spot, with components being brought to it. Makes me wonder though, if the TCS rules for ship construction times might not be as unrealistic as certain other rules under High Guard. Has anyone else pondered whether it should take 174 weeks (3.3 years) to build a 20Ktn light cruiser?

I have some real world experience with large government projects. The total time of 3.3 years sounds like a fast track government project:

1 year for design (including 1 month reviews by multiple agencies at the 30%, 60%, 90% and 100% design stages)

1 year to acquire financing and conduct an exhaustive open bid process

1 year to slowly build the actual ship (50% of the time being required for government paperwork, government inspections and independent testing).

0.3 years spent waiting for government authorization to proceed to the next step.

So, the time spent actually building the thing is only about 6 months.

[If this is not an *URGENT* project, then double or triple all of these times. It takes 5 to 10 years from “we should widen the bridge over that river” to the first car driving across it.]
 
And because you Americans do it so fast you then rush it and the bridge shakes itself appart. 5-10 years that's not a proper planning time. ;)

A proper bridge build by proper german engineers takes between 20 and 40 years. Autobahns can take even longer.

And next year the Airforce will get the new prop-driven fighter from FockeWulf ;)
 
The Discovery channel had a great show about ship building. The story was based on the owner of Hunda and his manufacturing techniques. His ship yards are among the best in the world. I believe most of the ships he builds are super tankers. Anyway, they said that the largest ship he built only took two years from planning to shake down cruise. Granted starships would be a bit more involved but IMO, I think the time tables are a bit to long.

"...And next year the Airforce will get the new prop-driven fighter from FockeWulf " That is really funny, I laughed out loud.
 
The massive times for making new ships seem to be the planning/organising/paperwork process with a fairly short actual build. Once the initial paper shuffling has been done build times for identical ships should be realy short. Starships may be more complex but if they are designed from the get go to be modules then build times change considerably. If it takes 6 months to build something as complex as a main bridge with its computers and sensors in a single slot in module then 6 teams each making one set back a month from the next givers you 12 a year with delivery once a month. Drives, life support etc the same. Build the hull at the acctual shipyard in sections, add the components, close and seal the hull. As long as you have a steady flow of modules and orders the ship manufacture time should be counted in weeks or a few months rather than years.
Something like the free trader or far trader which is a standard design and well known across space should be build in 2-3 weeks as long as you have the modules to hand. Add a week or two for system tests and away you go.
 
jfwking, your assumptions on shorter build times is correct under the conditions of a high velocity production line (such as an automotive line) only. Modern ship construction is done modularly, and is a production line, but it is not high speed. Heck, even aircraft (a closer fit to small starships than modern ships) are done only somewhat modularly, and they are on a pretty fast production schedule.

The main reason for not mass producing modules that need to be air/water/vacuum tight is that when you are dealing with sizes involved you start having fitting issues. In a car, if there is a small air leak underneath, who cares, a little of the spray on sound insulation will fix that. In a modular home, the finish carpenters will cover a gap up. In an airplane, a small hole is a major issue, as it is in a wet ship or a space ship. Pressure (inward or outward) is an unforgiving mistress.

Granted, there are some modules that can be mass produced, and if you look closely at designs they are. Passenger cabins for cruise ships is a prime example. Any sort of module that does not have to be prssure tight (because another part of the ship encloses it) could be mass produced as you say.

As to drives. Look up marine diesel engines sometime. Yes, they are not built at the shipyard, but installation is hardly the drop in and go of an autombile. After all, the actual thing that propells the vehicle has to go thru a pressure tight area to reach the reaction area. Propellor shafts go thru the hull, but the ship is still watertight.

I am sure in the coreward regions of the Empire there are ship production lines similar to what you project. However, I don't think that really very many people actually use these densely populated regions for their games. I suspect that most TU is on the frontiers. As such, there isn't the call for having such a high speed production line like you project. After all, how many people have ~40 MCR or the credit rating to get that much from a bank?
 
The Discovery channel had a great show about ship building. The story was based on the owner of Hunda and his manufacturing techniques. His ship yards are among the best in the world. I believe most of the ships he builds are super tankers. Anyway, they said that the largest ship he built only took two years from planning to shake down cruise. Granted starships would be a bit more involved but IMO, I think the time tables are a bit to long.

I've personally been involved in the construction of vessels in the Hyundai yards in Korea and have to say they are very impressive. My ships were 200,000 t bulk carriers and we were one of six vessels being built simultaneously. Whole prefab sections are transported around the yard ion crawlers akin to the space shuttle movers....cool! Build times were in the region of 6-8 months however my Company had these ships on order and planning for over 6 years!

In the same vein I attended a conversion of a vessel in Croatia which overran by three years due to yard ineptitude and lack of experience, so buying and building starships anywhere except a Class A is likely to lead to frustration

Starflyer
 
Imtu

A few things for this interesting thread;
1. IMTU ship building can be accelerated by spending more MCr and ship refurb after 40yrs is common place for life extension.
2. Victory ships we're produced during WWII on a 60d cycle until they we're rolling off 1 per day. Incidentally, I believe it was originally based on an older British designed vessel.
3. Rust... bridges, ships, etc require constant maintenance and most of all paint to maintain structural integrity. Properly treated wooden ships have left us with the legacy of 100+ yr wooden sailing schooners and the like. Constitution just turned 210. So, what is the wear and tear in space? Radiation bombardment of the hull and sensors, reentry...

A few thoughts.
 
I've personally been involved in the construction of vessels in the Hyundai yards in Korea and have to say they are very impressive. My ships were 200,000 t bulk carriers and we were one of six vessels being built simultaneously. Whole prefab sections are transported around the yard ion crawlers akin to the space shuttle movers....cool! Build times were in the region of 6-8 months however my Company had these ships on order and planning for over 6 years!

In the same vein I attended a conversion of a vessel in Croatia which overran by three years due to yard ineptitude and lack of experience, so buying and building starships anywhere except a Class A is likely to lead to frustration

Starflyer

I stand corrected. What would be the size of a 200,000 ton bulk carrier in space?
 
In the terrestrial building industry (buildings, roads, cities) small, hungry companies can often build small projects incredibly fast (30 days to design and permit, 30 days to build for a roughly 4000 sf /400 sq meter/114 dTon fast food restaurant). The small ‘boat builders’ along the Florida coast appear to operate on a comparable schedule. In Traveller terms, it might be possible to find a small planet-based starship manufacturer that can build a 100-400 dTon standard design in a few months instead of years. Comparable to the real world business jet aircraft industry, there might also be third party companies with a small inventory of stripped down (hull, bridge, engineering only) standard starships that can be refitted to your custom specifications in weeks instead of months – at very premium prices.

In the terrestrial building industry the small, hungry companies lack the resources to handle very large projects. The large builders cannot afford to have idle resources, so your big project goes into the queue and often shares resources with other big projects. Even a small hospital (roughly 100,000 sf/ 10,000 sq meter/ 2800 dTon) will require years of design and years of construction. As Starflyer pointed out, much of the time is spent just waiting for your turn since these major contractors (and apparently large shipyards) have their resources booked years in advance. This would probably be the situation with most of the standard Traveller build times.

A VERY rough rule of thumb from business management is that manufacturing costs are about 50% materials/parts, 25% labor and 25% fixed costs/profit. Using this as a guide, 25% of the total cost of your starship divided by the average hourly wage of the workers will tell you how many man-hours it will require to build the ship. [For example, given a 1 MCr ship and 1000 Cr per month workers: the cost of labor will be about 250,000 Cr and the average hourly wage will be 6.25 Cr (1000 Cr/mo = 250 Cr/wk = 6.25 Cr/hr). So the 1 MCr ship will require 40,000 man-hours to build = 1 man x 1000 weeks, or 10 men x 100 weeks, or 100 men x 10 weeks, or 1000 men x 1 week.

In Traveller game terms, this means that ‘convincing’ a large shipyard that YOUR ship is a high priority could dramatically reduce the required construction time – but remember that EVERYONE wants their job done first. A Character with a very high SOC could discreetly arrange to be introduced to a member of the Board of Directors and mention his ‘urgent needs’ over lunch at the governor’s palace. It is amazing how quickly a single phone call can change the priority of some projects.
 
I stand corrected. What would be the size of a 200,000 ton bulk carrier in space?

The TI Asia (here) would be about 50,000 dtons in size.

It's gross tonnage is 234,006. Gross tonnage is a ship's total volume(*). Multiply by 2.83 cu. m. to get the volume in cubic meters divide by 14 to get dtons.

OR

It's dimensions are 380*68*34=878,560m^3. Multiply by a fudge factor of 0.8 to account for the pointy bow and stern, etc and you get 702,848 divided by 14 to get (about) 50,000 dtons.

* Tonnage
 
"Constitution just turned 210."


Yes, and almost every piece of wood has been replaced... some several times.


In the 1700s there were several ships built with their entire hulls made from West Indies Mahogany... they lasted 2-3 times as long as comparable ships built at the same time from normal ship-building woods. Their hulls were a bit heavier than normal, thus reducing their cargo capacity.
 
Re:This Thread
There's a intresting item, in this week's Flight International, which shows how quickly variants of a core design could be manafactured....
Basically, BAE systems were showing off concept designs of a stealthy helicopter/UCAV carrier based on the Type 45 platform....
Said carrier would have 2 flightdecks, one for helicopters & for UAV/UCAV's....
 
Liberty ships

A few things for this interesting thread;

2. Victory ships we're produced during WWII on a 60d cycle until they we're rolling off 1 per day. Incidentally, I believe it was originally based on an older British designed vessel.

A few thoughts.

I recall very well seeing a Discovery channel show that talked about the Liberty ships. The show was on Engineering disasters. The Liberty ships were built in two halves and then welded together. In the cold water of the north Atlantic the welds had a tendency to weaken and in fact break apart. The result was two halves of a ship, neither of which were buoyant. Once it broke the ships went under, usually in a very few minutes. Loss of all cargo and ALL crew. This problem was eventually corrected, but not before enormous loss of life and cargo had occurred.
This is the kind of problem that can occur from building things too fast. Maybe the lengthy build times aren't so bad after all. However, a less than total disaster resulting from too-quick build time could be an excellent adventure scenario - either for PCs aboard the ship or coming to the rescue!

Best Regards,

Bob W
 
I recall very well seeing a Discovery channel show that talked about the Liberty ships. The show was on Engineering disasters. The Liberty ships were built in two halves and then welded together. In the cold water of the north Atlantic the welds had a tendency to weaken and in fact break apart.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that the break-up of liberty ships was not the result of being built “too fast” or of “poor design”. I thought that welding ships (instead of riveting plates) was a new technology and most of the failures happened at the start of the process – part of the ‘how to’ learning curve of any new technology. The other big problem was that many of the workers had no experience in either welding or shipbuilding (the Rosie the Riveter era).

The lesson is not to buy one of the first starships produced by a TL 7 world that was recently rediscovered and has JUST completed the leap to TL 9 (at least not without a VERY GOOD engineer).


“Aye captain, I’ve finished cabling the sections together. I’ll just stretch my legs with a short EVA to weld those bulkheads back together. Try to keep her nice and steady.”
 
Liberty or Bust

I missed the Liberty special but visited the Jeremy O'brien on a recent trip to San Fran. I noticed the description on Wikipedia discusses some manufacturing and usage issues that would be of interest to any ref. Also these improvements resulted in the Victory ship and Liberty ship upgrades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_ship

Incidentally, they we're preparing her for another trip while I was there. A mobile museum of sorts. Also, here in Tampa we have one of the Victory ships, American Victory. I think these are good things for refs/players to examine.

Savage
 
Back
Top