As I said, "SPACE 1949!"
CT Only: Type S5 Long Scout (199Td, J5/3G, HG'80 at TL-14)
- Thread starter Grav_Moped
- Start date
Last edited by a moderator:
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
It's not 1899, it's not 1999. It's what you get when outer space is so close you can almost touch it, but you have no idea what's really out there. The V2 rocket is what a spaceship looks like -- single stage to orbit, powered vertical landings. Parachutes are tricky, and gliding down? That's crazy!As I said, "SPACE 1949!"
Planets never have large weather systems; sometimes they have completely invisible atmospheres...
I grew up (in the 50s) with 50's sci-fi. In all the old TV and movies back then were the spaceships I loved.
Watching Disney's "Man in Space" with von Braun. I couldn't believe we wouldn't be on the moon by the late 50s early 60s but then I was just a kid.
Watching Disney's "Man in Space" with von Braun. I couldn't believe we wouldn't be on the moon by the late 50s early 60s but then I was just a kid.
Last edited by a moderator:
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
I'm what MWM called a "Classically-Trained Science Fiction Reader." Worked through my dad's library of Astounding/Analog, and books from the 50s through mid-70s, in the mid/late 1970s to early 1980s. I thought 2001 had it right (it did, mostly*) and Star Wars was amazing but strained credulity. Didn't watch a lot of TV or cinema, though -- Toaster-era BSG, Buck Rogers, and Space 1999 were about the extent of the "space" stuff.
I saw the end of the moon program and Skylab, and was really disappointed that the Space Shuttle turned out to be a dead end rather than a replacement and stepping-stone. In retrospect it was inevitable, but I was seeing it from the SciFi and perhaps the PR perspective of what was possible, rather than what was practical.
Real-world physics kinda sucks sometimes.
----------------------
* Discovery was originally supposed to have large radiator fins for the nuclear engines --but who'd believe an interplanetary spaceship with wings? <<laughs in Tie Fighter>>
Last edited by a moderator:
As a default (and because I'm lazy), you can just re-use the hack-job deck plans from the Type ST Transport Scout (Post #233 in that thread -- the "revised" version that's my "stretched Suliman" merged with my "fixed Sulieman"). Note that the drive bay is double-height in this one.
Both ships really deserve better, though. Someday I'll get around to it.
Both ships really deserve better, though. Someday I'll get around to it.
One possibility (needs one more set of fins/strakes for "yaw stability" -- or tilt up the wingtips maybe -- and the big lettering isn't appropriate...)
(You have to concede the lyrics aren't particularly complicated...)
Are you sure you didn't mean Reynolds Number (wikipedia) -- the dimensionless ratio between inertial and viscous forces? I know it from model airplane airfoil characteristics rather than hypersonic flow, though...
It's probably close enough across different atmospheric compositions (gas mixes), but definitely varies by atmospheric density.
Yeah, I'm going through my old stuff again. Thinking I ought to redo this one as it's 2G variant instead of 3G, to free up a little (6Td) cargo space (making for a 7Td cargo hold). Gets to the question of what, from a narrative or game balance perspective, one wants a ship to be able to run away from. Probably ought to give that its own post....
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
From a strict practicality standpoint ... what is the (one way) J5 doing for you? Is it just courier duty within star systems internal to the polity? For that, a (one way) J5 might have some uses, but it's hard to justify when there are (single jump per fuel cycle) 400 ton J6/2G Fleet Couriers in existence @ TL=15.
From an exploratory/survey standpoint, if I were an end user, I'd be wanting a "round trip" capability for "there and back again" mission tasking on a single refueling cycle (no refueling needed at the destination). For a variety of practical reasons, that probably winds up being a J3+3 on the smaller end up to possibly a J4+4 at the higher end of the tonnage range (getting closer to 1000 tons, where bridge, computer and staterooms become a "smaller tonnage fraction" of the overall build).
For any sort of "sneak & peek" type of intruder/interloper that can be tasked with what amount to clandestine missions ... being able to jump into a system AWAY FROM any refueling points, maneuver to collect your data/intel, then jump outbound without ever needing to go near a defended refueling point has a LOT of potential usage cases for clandestine operations and tasking. Sure, the jump flash will be detected ... but it'll be "so far away from anything important" (or well patrolled) that by the time any system defense can arrive to follow up, whatever jumped in there will have maneuvered well away from that position (even @ 1G continuous) and be well clear of the breakout point where the jump flash originated from. In other words, by NOT needing to refuel in a destination star system and having enough fuel reserve to return to base/origin, the ENTIRETY of a star system can become a "usable" location for breakout from jump, not just the (well defended and constantly observed) refueling points.
Needle ... jump into the haystack ...
It's TL-14, it's potentially single-person crewable, and it's much less expensive than its J-6 equivalent.
J-5 is faster than XBoat messaging (where applicable) but not quite as fast as physically possible. There isn't a canon J5 network infrastructure though.
Out-and-back peekaboo snoop missions use drop tanks. This actually justifes 3G over 2G because HG doesn't evenly scale drive performance with size. 2G HG drives can't drag those drop tanks just as big as the core hull that J5 calls for. Wasn't a consideration when I did it up, but now that you mention it, that is significant.
I originally made it 3G because I thought that it could use a little help getting that valuable jump drive out to the 100D line (or 10D for snap jumps IMTU) faster to reduce threat exposure. In practice, it probably makes no difference.
I'd used that with the "J5 100Td Plot Device" ship*: J5/1G, paired with a FarFat Trader carrying the full drop tanks into position for the snoop jump, and collapsible tanks to give it the capacity for a skim run to refuel the snooper on its return.
------------
*might have been a minimal J6/1G ship in the 140Td range -- it was a while ago, and I'm on my phone so won't bother searching for it. Key point is that the R2 carries the tanks while appearing innocuous.
Last edited:
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
200 * 0.08 (3G) = 16 tons of maneuver drive
16 / 0.05 (2G) = 320 tons - 200 = +120 tons external load in L-Hyd drop tanks @ 2G
200 * 0.05 (2G) = 10 tons of maneuver drive
10 / 0.02 (1G) = 500 tons - 200 = +300 tons external load in L-Hyd drop tanks @ 1G
Under nominal circumstances, if using L-Hyd drop tanks for the outbound jump (and dropping them for that first jump), the "maneuver penalty" is only in effect while operating in friendly territory. The internal fuel tank remains fully fueled with sufficient fuel reserve to jump back to the point of origin (2+ weeks after initial departure when making a round trip).
So the real question then becomes one of whether or not the L-Hyd drop tank(s) are retained through jump or dropped on the first outbound jump. Retaining L-Hyd drop tanks through jump penalizes jump drive performance (and thus, range per jump) along with maneuver drive performance in the destination star system.
200 * 0.06 (J5) = 12 tons of jump drive
12 / 0.05 (J4) = 240 tons - 200 = +40 tons external load in L-Hyd drop tanks (retained) @ J4
12 / 0.04 (J3) = 300 tons - 200 = +100 tons external load in L-Hyd drop tanks (retained) @ J3
12 / 0.03 (J2) = 400 tons - 200 = +200 tons external load in L-Hyd drop tanks (retained) @ J2
12 / 0.02 (J1) = 600 tons - 200 = +400 tons external load in L-Hyd drop tanks (retained) @ J1
200 * 0.05 (J4) = 10 tons of jump drive
10 / 0.04 (J3) = 250 tons - 200 = +50 tons external load in L-Hyd drop tanks (retained) @ J3
10 / 0.03 (J2) = 333 tons - 200 = +133 tons external load in L-Hyd drop tanks (retained) @ J2
10 / 0.02 (J1) = 500 tons - 200 = +300 tons external load in L-Hyd drop tanks (retained) @ J1
200 * 0.04 (J3) = 8 tons of jump drive
8 / 0.03 (J2) = 266 tons - 200 = +66 tons external load in L-Hyd drop tanks (retained) @ J2
8 / 0.02 (J1) = 400 tons - 200 = +200 tons external load in L-Hyd drop tanks (retained) @ J1
All of those computations are using LBB5.80 drives (of course).
Things get a LOT simpler using LBB2.81 drives (especially if house ruled in a way that is useful for external loading
) ... which in turn means that you don't necessarily need TL=14 in order to achieve J5, since LBB2.81 drives can achieve code: 6 @ TL=9+ (just need a small enough hull) ... 
Yes. Did that, and it's a 400Td TL-13 J-6 XBoat analog that works mechanically, but not RAW (only 8 days power plant fuel). Adding a m-drive means operational compromise rather than just pro-rating power-plant fuel consumption (J6 only if M-drive is not used, otherwise J5 max).
I seem to recall that the TL-14 drives don't give J-6 in any hulls that the TL-13 ones don't already cover.
Looking at the math, and I am probably repeating yours:
2G requires 5% of tonnage: 10Td in 200Td.
1G requires 2% of tonnage: 8Td in 400Td. 8<10 so, yeah, it has enough of a rating to tow the tanks in the first place even starting at 2G on the core hull.
3G in 200Td is 8% of tonnage: 16Td in 200Td. 16Td is 4% of 400Td, not enough to get 2G, but of course enough to get 1G.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
You're doing the math correctly.
First you find out how much tonnage is needed for drives of that specific rating in the constructed hull.
Then you take that drive tonnage and work backwards to determine what hull sizes are the breakpoints for each -1 in drive performance penalty.
You're using the same formula ... just doing the math "backwards" to determine what OTHER hull sizes need the exact same tonnage of drive(s) at lower levels of drive performance.
LBB5.80 custom drives make this "more complicated" due to the offsets and symmetries involved in the drive percentages (it's not straight multiply/divide by drive code).
LBB2.81 standard drives makes this "dead easy" because everything is just straight division/multiplication to work out the drive performances in different form factors.
Similar threads
