CT Only: Type S5 Long Scout (199Td, J5/3G, HG'80 at TL-14)

[Grav_Moped]

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

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).

But yes, this could help avoid intercepts, mostly depending on adversary reaction time.

 

[kilemall]

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.

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.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Why lock a certain performance when you don't have to?

Take something like this:
150 Dt, J-6 drives, 67 Dt cargo, drop tank mounts:

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=30

Spoiler:

Single 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 118,24

You can configure it for J-5, J-4, J-3, or J-2 with a combination of Interior Demountable Tanks and external Drop Tanks.
It can do J-6 by dropping a drop tank. Reconfiguration is very cheap and a few weeks in the yard.

Some configurations have a lot of cargo space free.

J-6: 60 Dt internal + 30 Dt external + 7 Dt cargo, or 90 Dt external + 67 Dt cargo. Either way drop the external tank.
J-5: 62.5 Dt internal + 25 Dt external + 4.5 Dt cargo. Retain the tank.
J-4: 60 Dt internal + 0 Dt external + 7 Dt cargo, or 30 Dt internal + 50 Dt external + 37 Dt cargo.
2 × J-3: 46 Dt in collapsible + 110 Dt external + 21 Dt cargo. Retain the tanks.
J-3: 45 Dt internal + 0 Dt external + 22 Dt cargo, or 10 Dt internal + 50 Dt external + 57 Dt cargo.
J-2: 30 Dt internal + 0 Dt external + 37 Dt cargo, or 0 Dt internal + 50 Dt external + 57 Dt cargo.

Or some other similar combination. You can get a lot of available payload when you need it, or lots of legs when you need it...

 

[Grav_Moped]

Why lock a certain performance when you don't have to?

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?

 

[kilemall]

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?

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.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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".

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?

Configuring for the current mission in a week or two is better than building a new ship for MCr100 with a lead time of a year (or three).

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?

You use it... The regular dirt-cheap Type S can be on stand-by.

A Scout Base five Pc from an X-boat node can use it as a regular courier.
Your elite troubleshooters use it to waste less time in transit.
Fast VIP transport.
Long-range (cross-)border scout patrols.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Had to double-check who wrote that reply ... .

I'm designing (loosely) around the Type S specifications of "three passenger staterooms, an air/raft, and only a token cargo hold".

Ah ... but to what PURPOSE?
J5/3G is "hot rod" territory for starships serving non-military purposes ... so what are you supposed to use these performance specs for? What is the Use Case Scenario that such a design serves which can't be met by anything else already in the inventory (at a much lower cost!)?

But you raise a fair point. How do you actually use something like this?

Even better yet, what do you need to use it FOR?
Aside from the classic "hurry up and wait" scenario, what does this DO for you (besides "hot rod" stuff)?

It's pretty expensive to just keep it on standby

I would argue that it's TOO expensive to keep it on standby.
Keeping a J5/3G starship on standby "just in case" (break glass) type scenario is both wasteful and redundant, given than J6/2G Fleet Couriers can exist just fine at TL=15.

so why not use a ship that could respond in two jumps instead?

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.

Even using your own numbers in post #1 of this thread, you're starting from a baseline of MCr162.907 construction cost in volume production for a TL=14 starship with a J5/3G that can barely transport its own crew and an air/raft across 5 parsecs.

Purely for comparison purposes, I can spend MCr199.788 to buy a SIE Clipper capable of traversing 5 parsecs (J3+2) with a useful (albeit, modest) load of passengers AND cargo, including organic fighter small craft escort protection. My point being ... pay MCr36.881 more and get a LOT more capability and flexibility in range of mission tasking options @ TL=10 instead of TL=14, which makes a LOT more of a difference than it might at first appear when it comes to logistics support and supply chains.



Again, if you REALLY NEED to get somewhere THAT FAST ... you're better off with a J6/2G Fleet Courier @ TL=15 instead (ala LBB S9, p20).

Also, if you're really stuck on TL=14 ... you're better off designing it as a Zhodani Navy Courier using J5/2G than reaching for an IISS "hot rod" equipped with J5/3G.

 

[Grav_Moped]

It's TL-14 because that's what HG dictates for J5.

It's J5 because it can be. Yes, you can do J6 at TL-15 in under 200Td, but that starts looking like a dedicated recon scout, typically deployed via drop tank jumps (jump out while dropping tanks, return with internal fuel) to avoid exposing the ship during refueling. Not really a scoutship in the sense of the Type S.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Not really a scoutship in the sense of the Type S.

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.

The Type-S is the low tech "jeep" of starships.
Small, often times smelly ... and completely non-sexy.
A "stylish hot rod" of a starship it is not.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The Type-S is the low tech "jeep" of starships.
Small, often times smelly ... and completely non-sexy.
A "stylish hot rod" of a starship it is not.

I disagree -- it's got great lines in either the Sulieman or Serpent style!

Hot rod? In the context of '77 and maybe even '81, J2/2G is a big deal when the typical ship is J1/1G. You could build something with much higher performance, but probably won't due to the expense and mere per-jump cargo rates.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Hot rod?

J5
3G

( significant look }

 

[Grav_Moped]

J5
3G

( significant look }

Looked like you were talking about the basic Type S there, not the double-sized high-performance ship.

The only real connection between the two is the "payload soecs". Maybe the overall shape too, but that's optional.

 

[kilemall]

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.

Has a multi century backstory too, 800 years in this case, wonder where they got that from…..

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

 

[Grav_Moped]

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

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... will check back later from a better platform.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Ok, quick first-approximation: 4:1 prolate spheroid looks like this:

Probably a tail-sitter so it needs landing legs. Maybe they're retractable, maybe they're something solid that incorporates the drives, as the canon Broadsword design does.

It's the Type S as a Tailsitter Prolate Spheroid but stretched to twice its length, as a starting point.
Suggestions?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

 

[Grav_Moped]

I'm trying to imagine an ATU where all the ships are built like that...

... isn't it awesome?

(Space 1949!)

 

[Spinward Flow]

Suggestions?

 

[Vargr Breath]

I'm trying to imagine an ATU where all the ships are built like that...

... isn't it awesome?

(Space 1949!)

 

[Condottiere]

No escapes.

If you cloak, you don't croak.