Not quite. It can't do max aero decel in the same direction as max propulsive decel (doesn't really stack the values), and aero decel is at an angle to the minimum-sink glide-slope (path is curved except at full stall, and full stall is not minimum-sink).
These sort of issues also impact ortillery, so one cannot fire standoff missiles that survive impact with the atmosphere and having to fire up close so they accel as much as possible then decel and maneuver in. Less concern about the stresses the missile takes, but it must have minimal exposure while making it through PD to the target.We make every pretense of competency around here.
HEPlaR ALL THE WAY DOWN to the ground would probably be a bad idea.
HEPlaR down to 5-10 km above surface terrain ... much more doable.
Depends on the pilot skill and the engineering/aerodynamics envelope, of course.
Think of it this way.
4G maneuver PLUS aerobraking deceleration.
Not OR ... AND ... meaning that a Type-T can use aerobraking to temporarily exceed 4G acceleration for an even faster transition from orbit to surface.
Depends on the context (and plan) of course.
If you just belly flop straight down direct to target, any decent sensor system (such as a neutrino detector) will be able to determine your landing point from your descent trajectory. If you include some "wiggle room" in the descent profile permitting maneuvering before landing, you at least create the opportunity to mislead opposition tracking your transition from orbit to surface. Instead of knowing EXACTLY where you're going to land, you open up a larger Circular Error Probable (CEP) for where you were intending to set down (because of maneuvering during descent), "blurring" the precise location of your landing point.
Beyond that, it's a matter of Measure vs Countermeasure.
SF-1662661-000000-00000-0 MCr 118 150 Dton
SF-1642561-000000-00000-0 MCr 118 180 Dton
bearing Crew=1
batteries TL=15
Cargo=7 Fuel=69 EP=9 Agility=2 DropT=30Single Occupancy 7 147,7
USP # Dton Cost
Hull, Streamlined Custom 1 150
Configuration Flattened Sphe 6 12
Scoops Streamlined 0,2
Drop Tanks 30 Dton 0,0
Total tonnage 180 Dton
Jump Drive 6 1 10,5 42
Manoeuvre D B 2 1 3 8
Power Plant 6 1 9 27
Fuel, #J, #weeks J-6, 4 weeks 6 9
Purifier 1 3 0,0
Bridge 1 20 0,8
Computer m/6 6 1 7 55
Staterooms 4 16 2
Cargo 7
Demountable Tanks J-6 1 60 0,1
Collapsible Tanks 50 Dton 1 0,5 0,0
Empty hardpoint 1 1
Air/raft 4 Dton 1 4 0,6
Nominal Cost MCr 147,66 Sum: 7 147,7
Class Cost MCr 30,88 Valid ≥0 ≥0
Ship Cost MCr 118,24Had to double-check who wrote that reply ... .
The variable we don’t have in these sort of ops cost/benefit trade offs is the cost of operating the scout base. May be cheaper to just build another base rather then have a menagerie of special use ships.Had to double-check who wrote that reply ... .
As I wrote in the My-Scouts-Hub thread, I'm designing (loosely) around the Type S specifications of "three passenger staterooms, an air/raft, and only a token cargo hold".
But you raise a fair point. How do you actually use something like this? It's pretty expensive to just keep it on standby, but if you have it out running short range errands, it might not be at home base when it's needed for it's intended purpose. And it'll take at least a week to flag it down to send it in the right direction -- so why not use a ship that could respond in two jumps instead?
I tried to keep to your convention with four staterooms, an air/raft, and 4.5 Dt cargo in the J-5 configuration. But why limit it to J-5 when it can also be J-6 or J-4 as needed, perhaps with greater payload?
You use it... The regular dirt-cheap Type S can be on stand-by.
Had to double-check who wrote that reply ... .
Ah ... but to what PURPOSE?
Even better yet, what do you need to use it FOR?
I would argue that it's TOO expensive to keep it on standby.
When you start making a cost/benefit analysis, J3+2 (or J3+3) using collapsible fuel tanks yields a LOT more flexibility and potential use cases than a J5/3G "hot rod" that can barely bring its own crew along for the ride.
The Type-S is a "cheap runabout" starship that gets assigned scut work so that other craft don't have to be given those jobs. They're low cost so the IISS can afford them by the tens of thousands per trillions of credits spent in order to pad out the fleet. Definitely a case of "quantity has a quality all of its own" when it comes to the class.
I disagree -- it's got great lines in either the Sulieman or Serpent style!
Looked like you were talking about the basic Type S there, not the double-sized high-performance ship.J5
3G
( significant look }
Pity their cookie policy pop-up blocks the whole page on my phone, and I can't figure out how to get it to clear...Interestingly the new throwback to original ships model Zues in Star Citizen has a scout shape. Should be interesting to see the form factor when modeled.
Introducing the RSI Zeus MK II - Roberts Space Industries | Follow the development of Star Citizen and Squadron 42
Roberts Space Industries is the official go-to website for all news about Star Citizen and Squadron 42. It also hosts the online store for game items and merch, as well as all the community tools used by our fans.robertsspaceindustries.com
will check back later from a better platform.
I'm trying to imagine an ATU where all the ships are built like that...
... isn't it awesome?
(Space 1949!)
