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

[Grav_Moped]

Type S5 Long Scout (199Td, J5/3G, HG'80 at TL-14)
This is the "more than a Jump-5 narrative device" version of the X5 (100Td, J5/1G at TL-15), which was basically a J5 XBoat with a maneuver drive and turret, that (if you wanted) could be disguised as a normal Type S.

(Almost) doubling the size and doing it in HG gets you a Jump-5 Scout Ship with most of the payload features of the Type S at TL-14. Bumping it to TL-15 gets you all of them and then some...

Long Scout (Type S5): Using a 199Td prolate spheroid hull, the Long Scout is intended for exploration, reconnaissance, and courier duties. It mounts custom drives capable of Jump-5, 3G maneuver, and 10EP power output (Pn-5). A 110-ton fuel tank provides fuel for the power plant and one Jump-5. A fuel refinery is carried, so the ship can use unrefined fuel with no difficulty. Adjacent to its bridge is a Model/5 computer. There are four staterooms and no low berths; it requires a pilot and gunner for crew. One triple turret is installed, with a beam laser, missile launcher, and sandcaster mounted. One air/raft is carried in a specially fitted hangar, and there is 1 ton left over for cargo. The hull is streamlined (Config: 6) The Type S5 costs MCr 153.078, or 137.7702 in serial production.

This is the Neon Pegasus class (named for the first hull completed). The original six ships in this class are named for the Group 18 elements: Helium through Oganesson (Helium Pegasus, Neon Pegasus, etc.).

I'll do a more complete write-up at some point. Basically, the TL-14 version was from when (IMTU) Collace/D268 was briefly TL-14 before reverting to TL-13. Ongoing maintenance is available from the starport at Glisten/Glisten or from Scout Base Collace (with some limitations). The TL-15 version is probably built at Glisten/Glisten or Rhylanor/Rhylanor.
[spoiler="More on this after we do the numbers..."]

Tons	MCr	Item	Remarks
20	1	Bridge
5	45	Mod/5 Computer
12	48	Jump Drive (J5)	All drives calc'd for 200Td
10	30	Power Plant (Pn5, TL-14)
16	8	Maneuver Drive (3G)
110	0	Fuel (J5,Pn5)
4	0.028	Fuel Processor (TL-14)
16	2	Staterooms (4)	Crew: P,G
4	0.6	Air/Raft
1	2.1	1 Turret MLS
1	0	1Td Cargo
Cost, single ship:	MCr 181.078	Cost, in serial production:	MCr162.907
At TL-15, save 5Td & MCr15(PP)	... and 1Td, but +Cr20k (fuel pro)	(I.e., Payload increases by 6Td)

[/spoiler]
I went with 3g instead of the IISS default 2g to use up some payload space, not because it's really necessary for the ship's mission. Reverting to 2g would free up 6Td (which could be useful) and MCr3 (which doesn't really matter at this price point). Other than that, it's just an overgrown Type S with J5/3G.

Add a turret and it's 200Td and thus needs a second gunner, an engineer, and a medic -- which means either two personnel need to share a room, or the air/raft needs to be replaced by another stateroom.

I started at 199Td to keep the crew size down (to match the Type S). With those drives it really ought to have a navigator and an engineer, but the rules say they're not necessary.

 

[Timerover51]

I very much like the idea of going to larger Scout Ships. The Rim Scouts in my Piper-Norton Sector have ones considerably bigger than the standard 100 dTon Scout.

 

[Grav_Moped]

I very much like the idea of going to larger Scout Ships. The Rim Scouts in my Piper-Norton Sector have ones considerably bigger than the standard 100 dTon Scout.

[Edits done.]

The 100Td Type S is an artifact of the LBB2 construction rules. (It's a nice artifact, though!) Pushing to 199Td keeps the underlying idea (a ship that can be flown single-handed) while allowing a bit more capability. Probably not something to be handed out at mustering-out, but it's there as a reward for a big success, or it can just be a background element.

Right now, I'm playing around with what's possible on the low end because it's a relatable niche that doesn't really take a lot of work. Slot in the specs, run the numbers, there you go -- it's a ship for a small PC party. Deck plans are relatively simple, if desired -- and I'll probably get around to them for this one eventually.

Larger scout ships (400Td and up) would need to be purpose-built around their intended mission, and this would strongly suggest generating and detailing the crew as well. And that gets into the realm of writing up entire scenarios -- not that I mind that, I just don't have the free time at the moment!

 

[Grav_Moped]

From the my-scoutship-hub thread:

In which case, you want a 400 ton J6/2G Fleet Courier (LBB S9, p20)

J6 really costs (the S9 ship is double the tonnage, and then there's crew size).

It does increase the marginal accessable destination space out to the 6 & 11-12pc distance bands though. That said, anything that far out is probably in someone else's zone of responsibility, and that office can reach it with shorter-ranged ships anyhow.

 

[Grav_Moped]

This probably belongs in my Collace Between the Lines thread, but I'll park it here anyhow.

Development history:

1074: J5/M0, 199Td (Size E Drive) proof of concept* by Collace Light Industries Yard No. 6. 4 built.
1082: J5/2G, 400Td (Size K/E Drives) Built in response to Trexalon having constructed 2 ships of this specification (and subsequently another 4). 4 started by CLIY#6, 2 finished by 1084, other two scrapped on the ways. Trexalon's ships of this type were... unreliable, to say the least. At least one is known to have survived as late as 1105.
1083: J5/2G, 600Td (Q/F-drive, TL-14 competence) Shugushaag class and variants, by CLIY#6.
1083: J6/0G, 400Td (M-drive, marginal TL-15 capability*) 3 built by CLIY#6. Similar ships built at Efate/Regina for Boughine/Regina.
1084: J5/3G, 199Td (HG, TL-14) Neon Pegasus class. 5 built, 1 started but scrapped. (CLIY#6)
1084: J5/2G, 400Td (HG, TL-14) Shugushaag II class. (CLIY#6)
1090-1098: Collace reverts to TL-13 after Treaty of Mertactor**.
Ongoing maintenance support after 1094 only available at Glisten/Glisten or Scout Base Collace (with some parts having to be sourced from Glisten).

----------------
* These are prototypes; while functional, thy are only marginally so. [Out-of-Universe: they are not Rules As Written compliant (the design shorts them on power plant fuel) but functionally compliant (enough power plant fuel dedicated to complete a maximum-range Jump with tanker support at each end of the transit).] The J6 400Td "6-Boat" is similar to my Israfel-class Courier (again, a ship that only works by house rules on fuel requirements).

** See the Collace Between the Lines thread's extended library data section. In short, the act of Collace building starships with its indigenous industrial base [under High Guard naval procurement rules] elevated the effective Starport rating to A from B, yielding a +2TL bonus which wasn't fully realized. They built TL-14 equivalents, and TL-15 prototypes [valid under LBB3 drive TL limits but not HG ones], demonstrating TL-14 competence. This enabled them to build ships at TL-14 (Shug IIs and Neon Pegasus class) briefly, until by treaty they ceased building starships on Collace itself [and lost the +2 TL bonus].

 

[Grav_Moped]

Thinking about what this would look like...
It could be another repurposed "199Td scaled-up Sulieman" layout -- all it takes is swapping some of the aft cargo hold for some drive bay space, since I designed it so the interior accommodations to match closely. Or, my initial writeup, above has it as a prolate spheroid (US football, more or less), and probably a tailsitter.

But since I've tagged it as the Neon Pegasus class -- and pegasi are special because they have wings -- it seems to me that it really ought to have wings of some sort. But that would make more sense if it didn't have higher-than-IISS-baseline acceleration capability. At 3G it's likely to just go straight up and down from planets, rather than aerobraking or doing anything else particularly aerodynamic.

Yeah, making stuff up that's not cinematic or obsolete leads to boring pictures by default.

So, where am I going with this? A long prolate spheroid ("needle configuration") for streamlining both on launch and re-entry (a nod to the Sears-Haack Body [Wikipedia] for hypersonic streamlining). Small wings amidships that can swing or pivot fore-aft to shift the center of lift to suit the direction of travel. Retractable tailfins, probably including (or covering) the landing gear. Possibly grid-fins in the nose to stabilize the ship on descent, though that's the kind of detail that'll make the design look "so 2020s" in a few years...

Probably would work best (from an aesthetic/RPG perspective) if it wasn't a tailsitter.

Other suggestions welcome!

 

[Spinward Flow]

for hypersonic streamlining

Um ... you do realize that hypersonic speed is different in different atmospheres ... right?

Thin atmospheres will have different hypersonic speed (relative to surface) compared to a dense atmosphere (to say nothing of Atmosphere: A-C).

My point being that differen atmospheres have different Rayleigh Numbers for their fluid flow dynamics, which then moves the "aerodynamic optimization" shapes that would apply to orbital to atmospheric transitions such that One Size Does Not Fit All. At best, you can engineer a "broad spectrum aerodynamic" silhouette profile that is adequate for a broad range of atmospheric conditions, rather than "mastering" a single atmosphere type used for craft that are non-interplanetary (and non-interstellar, obviously).

Different atmospheres respond differently to different wing shapes.
So due to the variations of atmospheres, the usefulness of swing wings may very well be higher than is commonly understood to be the case with respect to fixed wings.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Indeed.

I'm looking more at swing-forward/swing-back (that is, always "back" for the ship's direction of travel, for stability) than variable-sweep for lift/drag optimization though.

Not many real-world aircraft have to also be able to travel backward at high speed too.

 

[Grav_Moped]

On the other hand, this design isn't a blockade-runner that would need aerodynamically-enhanced evasion capability or the need to do hot landings. Also, it's under the same styling paradigm as the Shugushaag; that is, it's at the cutting edge of available technology and the design engineers can't get fancy with the Jump field shape. Although since it's using custom (HG) J-5 drives -- and is the second such ship by CLIY#6 to do so -- they might have had a bit more confidence in their ability to shape Jump fields.

And then there's the cinematics vs. realism vs. play value trade-offs to make.

Decisions, decisons.

 

[kilemall]

On the atmospheric reentry question, let me throw in the fusion electromagnetic bottle/grav deflector type tech that might be used for virtual lift body functions, particularly at high speeds.

 

[Grav_Moped]

On the atmospheric reentry question, let me throw in the fusion electromagnetic bottle/grav deflector type tech that might be used for virtual lift body functions, particularly at high speeds.

That lets you use the "lifting body"/"Looks-streamlined" shapes (Beowulf Type A, Snapshot or Judges' Guild Type S, Marava Type A2) like what later rule sets called "Airframe" type hulls (Serpent Type S, FASA Type T Patrol Cruiser, and maybe the Type R Subsidized Merchant).

 

[Grav_Moped]

The basic distinction I'm making here is whether it's "streamlined enough for SciFi," or "a missile," or "a jet fighter (1960s-style, when speed was everything)".

The two additional constraints I'm giving myself are the "keep the shape simple, the designers weren't quite sure they knew what they were doing," and "if it's high-G, make it capable of going both nose- and tail- first at very high speed (launch and re-entry) in atmosphere". The latter implies a certain degree of longitudinal symmetry, though a slightly-blunt-tailed ship going backwards could be handwaved by assuming the exhaust jet provides some kind of buffer. Big honkin' tailfins make this not really plausible (see the FASA Type T Patrol Cruiser for an example).

To some extent, it's the usual "cinematic vs. realistic" dichotomy.

 

[Spinward Flow]

"if it's high-G, make it capable of going both nose- and tail- first at very high speed (launch and re-entry) in atmosphere".

Actually, one of the "rocket balance tests" for model rocketry is to basically tie the model to a string and swing it around in a circle. The point being to check the tumble characteristics. If the model spins around on the string and keeps tumbling, you've got a bad shape/balance/center of gravity factor going on that makes the rocket unstable and thus prone to tumbling in flight (which is BAD™). If the model straightens out when it is spinning around, it doesn't matter if it straightens out nose first or tail first into the direction of spin (both are equally valid for this spin test), that means that the model is aerodynamically stable enough and balanced enough to be able to fly.

Entry into atmosphere is TYPICALLY going to be a "THIS WAY UP" kind of one way affair. Whether you're belly flopping for maximum aerobraking velocity bleed off or propulsively plummeting for a longitudinal thrust vector, a craft is usually going to be designed in such a way that "reverse directional entry" is ... NOT RECOMMENDED (shall we say) ...

You wouldn't want to try and enter atmosphere with a NASA space shuttle "tail first" (instead of nose first), for example ... for reasons that I really shouldn't have to explain in detail.

My point being that attempting to design an "either way" atmospheric entry orientation is something of a Fool's Errand. Engineers would avoid it like the plague upon their sanity that such a Feature Request™ actually is.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The tail-first re-entry is basically a SpaceX hoverslam straight in from space, without the kick-flip or aerobraking -- just riding the drives in hot and zeroing velocity at a few meters above ground level. And you can make it stable in tail-first flight by making the tailfins retractable, having retractable grid-fins up front*, and if there are wings amidships, having them swing/slide aft-to-forward to shift the center of lift to an appropriate location relative to the center of mass for the direction of travel.**

The main reasons to come in that hot are smuggling, or military transport into a contested landing zone. It's gonna be noisy (sonic boom).


------------------
* Of course they're draggy. So what? You're only deploying them when you're also decelerating at a minimum of 20m/sec² and they're helping you slow down!
** Or don't have aero-fins of any sort (just a stretched-sphere/Haack body hull) and handwave the aerodynamic trimming as being done with gravitic or plamsa field effects.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The main reasons to come in that hot are smuggling, or military transport into a contested landing zone.

Once you have gravitic acceleration technology, the main reason to want to make "hot" transitions from orbit to surface are going to a matter of limiting duration/exposure time.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Once you have gravitic acceleration technology, the main reason to want to make "hot" transitions from orbit to surface are going to a matter of limiting duration/exposure time.

Yep. And as I just edited, it's gonna be a noisy landing -- don't linger at the drop zone.

 

[Grav_Moped]

But a tail-first landing might be preferable in some cases -- it's how I figured the Shugushaags would come in (before rotating in a final hover to then belly-land). They're more unstable going "forward" but that's probably their best orientation for transonic flight and I'd handwave the issue.

Can't imagine trying that with a FASA Patrol Cruiser.... Disbelief can only stretch so far, you know?

 

[Spinward Flow]

Can't imagine trying that with a FASA Patrol Cruiser.... Disbelief can only stretch so far, you know?

I can relatively easily imagine a Type-T Patrol Cruiser doing a pitch up aerobrake maneuver, rotating up into a higher angle of attack to bleed off lateral velocity relative to the surface in the lower atmosphere, and "balancing" the ship on HEPlaR thrust while continuing to descend. Among other things, cranking up the HEPlaR thrust during descent would be one way to exhaust excess heat buildup inside the hull overboard out into the atmosphere.

Below a certain altitude above ground, where the wings can help with lift forces, the Type-T Patrol Cruiser would reorient into a more pitch neutral relative to the horizon attitude and continue the descent down towards the surface for a low speed VTOL belly landing on gear.



Incidentally, if you've ever wondered what a ship with gravity control and anti-matter augmented maneuver thrust engine drive looks like when making a combat launch from an ocean surface ... Banner of the Stars has got you covered.

Here's a longer clip of the launch in battle configuration.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Oh, that's plausible.

Riding the drives down to the ground, tail-first? Nope.

Aerobraking might bleed off velocity faster than just a srtaight-in 4G decel run. Maybe.
Having to "detour" away from a direct shot at the landing zone might make a difference.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Oh, that's plausible.

We make every pretense of competency around here.

Riding the drives down to the ground, tail-first? Nope.

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.

Aerobraking might bleed off velocity faster than just a srtaight-in 4G decel run. Maybe.

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.

Having to "detour" away from a direct shot at the landing zone might make a difference.

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.