• 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.

Shipbuilding methods

Jame

SOC-14 5K
'Bout time I got to this. I'd like to know how the Imperium and all those "pocket empires" out there (you know who you are) build their ships. In my first homegrown, the shipbuilders use nanotech "replicators" to grow their ships. The replicators are run by the central computer, and grow it around the computer to the ship's plans. This very rarely goes wrong, because there's outside supervision, but once in a great while, usually in the case of a sapient AI, the ship will go rogue and either run away or fight. The process of going rogue is another topic, which I'll post in "Research Station."
 
I believe that in the Traveller universe ships are still built the traditional way (due to it being a more retro than high tech universe). They start with the spine of the ship and manually place supports etc and build outwards. Once all the structure is done it is filled in and then the interior and electronics are fitted. Not much different to how we would do it today just in space (for the larger ships) and with more high tech aides.
 
So spine outwards? Once they have the structure in space, do they bring the interior in before the armor, as seems logical?
 
Have you seen the Discovery Channel program about submarines? It included several scenes showing the construction of a nuclear HK sub. The entire hull was fabricated as ring like sections (modules?) which were welded/bolted/glued together around the major internal items.
I just wonder if this would be a better model for how Traveller ships would be built, considering the number of references to modular ship construction, standard hull sizes and the like.
 
Actually, GT:Modular Cutter basically said that was the case for cutter modules. That construction method makes sense for non-modular ships as well (to a certain extent, anyway).

Welcome to the boards, Sigg Odra!
 
I believe ships will all be PRE-FABRICATED and PRE-PACKAGED to a great extent, to save money...there will be thousands of small "cottage industries" and sub-contractors making "units" and parts. All of this will be assembled at one spot...the yard.

kinda like KAISER built all those LIBERTY ships during WWII
 
The way I imagine it:

Pre fabbed parts self assemble* in orbit according to a valid design spec/algorithm...after being purchased of course. Essentially, they are supercombining droids. Further customizing work can and is often done.

*by self assembly I mean that each significant part (smaller ones being 10'x10' armour plates and nodes [ala ISS]) has it's own minimal sensors, navigation AI, 1 thruster(at minimum), yaw/pitch/roll control (also acts as backup power), wiresless comm system (and wired umbilicals), minimal solar power for these systems. Basically enough 'bot-like features to assemble a ship with a construction plan without having spacesuited people manually pushing things along...ie they can sit and watch from a safe position. These features also facilitate safe and innexpensive repairs in flight/orbit
 
Great topic and interesting replies.

For my own vision, it depends a lot on the size of the ship, if its a ground or highport yard and what TL its done at.

I see everything from piece built from the keel up with hot torches and welding to prefabricated modules maneuvered into place and molecularly bonded working from the inside out to the hull.
 
It DOES depend on TL...
I see the yard spinning out crystaliron supports and weaving in high tech fiber (ie carbon or spectra) to build bulkheads - They are all molecular bonded not welded. Chem Catalyst welding would be superior to conventional plasma torch or Arc welding... Then the main structure is injected with some high tech resin and microwaved (its already in space, so I don't see the need for vacuum forming) to cure it. The result is almost a flexible ceramic - I had a link to the NASA article talking about something similar, but can't find it...
After the shell is built, then all the piping and partitions and machinery and stuff go in...I'd think you'd want it this way for strength in a space vessel - Ya, I got The Yard - A good book on how they build Arleigh Burke Destroyers, by section; I just think the one piece hull would be preferrable in space...
After the machinery is in, the installation panels are closed and then the Superdense armor is bonded to the hull...
Finished by all the foofoo stuff to make it habitable...

that's how I see it in high TL...Obviously lower techs would be more like how we build terrestrial ships today...
-MADDog
 
I see starship construction accomplished in multiple ways.

First, where the starship is built, at a starport’s “space-dock” (internal or external with surrounding framework), or at a true and proper shipyard.

My policy on nanotech is that there are no free-roaming nanobots or total-assembly of final full-integrated products (although I’ve read about this in Changling Star (Jeffrey Carver) and Aristoi (Walter Jon Williams), these visions don’t quite fit my take on the tech-atmosphere of the TU). Individual singular components may be nano-assembled, but assembly of sub-assemblies or final systems (i.e. starships) is done either by humans (up to around TL-11 or 12 at the latest), or by robots (can start as early as TL-8); which one is used is dependent upon local cultural concerns, but also heavily by Megacorporate influence, which tends to favor robot operation (IMTU) for mindless tasks. Human supervision of robotic systems remains in place all the way up to TL-15, and some assembly and installation work is always done by humans, too; though as tech levels go up, that participation goes down, though it never quite disappears.

Assembly in a space-dock goes along very traditional lines that wouldn’t be too dissimilar to today, except that a variety of tools easing labor abound (I’m envisioning TL-10+ construction hereafter), especially gravity control, plasma and advanced laser cutters, etc.; but most importantly, modularization. The skeleton of the ship is assembled. Pre-installation of lifesupport, electrical, and networking is done. Modules for standard components are inserted (cabins, freshers, airlocks, etc.; and in “standard designs”, especially the Scout/Courier, and Beowulf Free Trader, bridges and even engines are effectively standard and modularized). Other components, built to custom specifications are loaded in, gravity generator equipped deckplating is installed. Plumbing for lifesupport is added and electrical systems are connected through the existing pre-installed systems. Final systems, like avionics, computers, etc., are installed; along with low-berths (and emergency low berths). The Hull itself would go on last, attached by molecular bonding to the skeleton.
In some cases, of course, as done today, many sub-contractors may cooperate to build individual segments of a starship (in smaller versions of normal space-docks at the sub-contractor factories), which are then moved/floated from each factory to the final assembly space-dock. I do not envision there being much in the way of moving partial starship segments from system to system, due to shipping costs. Manufacturing sub-contractors would reap the most benefits by producing their segments in the same locale as the final assembly space-dock.

Assembly at shipyards, depending on the shipyard, of course, is vastly different. It is possible to envision high-tech shipyards as little more than a collection of space-docks, each one operating independently. I think that with the wealth available in the future, the shipyard designers and planners would think big, really big.
The primary method of assembly in my major shipyards is by “slipway” for any type of vessel with a construction run of over one hundred, which includes all known standard designs. Slipways are very large constructs in space, cavernous in size, usually completely enclosed, and built in multiple segments. They are gigantic cylinders, but quite long, proportionally speaking. Each segment of the cylinder is optimized for one particular process, assembly-line style. The interior of the initial segment is built with industrial strength manipulators (capable of maneuver many thousands of tons in zero-g). Stocks of pre-staged skeleton components are available, hopper-style, and are fed to the manipulator arms like a parts-assembly factory. The manipulator arms, working to a pre-existing program, can assemble and fully bond/weld/attach the whole skeleton of a very large starship in days. The starship is then moved forward to the next segment for the next stage of work, with similar heavy robotic and automated support. This continues on until, at the launch-end of the slipway, a starship appears, ready for trial flights. Because so much automation runs in this process, which includes built-in robotic error checking and defect scanning (repeated, to assure quality), starships built this way have a reputation (IMTU) for reliability. They are also built in a fraction of the time and cost listed for most canon vessels, but that is also IMTU-only.
Big shipyards IMTU have many slipways.
Slipways are built from the beginning knowing they will be reconfigured to build many different starships in their lifetime, although there is a cost for reconfiguring, and the discount in labor and time for using a slipway to build a run of starships has to beat the cost of reconfiguring the slipway, otherwise it’s cheaper to use space-docks.
Shipyards of this titanic extent are rare IMTU, with only 1-4 existing per Sector, not counting the Shipyard that is always present at any Depot system. A large (but as yet undecided) fraction of all starship construction (both civilian and military) occurs at these locations due to the enormous economies of scale that they offer.
 
The slipway concept sound like what is used to produce airliners and fighters today. They can produce about one aircraft per day that way.
I can see 100 Ton scouts being produced in a slipway at the rate of a few coming out per day.
Close escorts, SDBs, and Subsidised Merchants at about one per day.

It would be wxpected for a Megacorp to be operating a large slipway at all depot systems to produce military ships, with a capability of ships up to 100,000 Tons.

The size of a slipway would have to be about 50 times the largest ship expcted to be produced in it. General hull configurations would be restricted to non planetoid or non dispersed structure. Up to 20 ships could be being produced at a time in the slipway.
 
IMTU . . .

Major Shipyards, their slipways, and the Starsystems they're in are considered major targets of capture in most Imperial High Command war game simulations (since there haven't been any really big wars lately that would involve their capture, at least from the Imperium side, simulations is all they have). They're so big and so expensive an abandoning side wouldn't even consider destroying one on retreat, there is too much to be had from recapturing it. At best they'd disable the computer systems, and just hope the enemy didn't have copies of the driver software and operating applications.
 
Just put the computer in an escape module with it's own J6 jump drive. When the system is attacked, the controlers in the computer module would send a scramble virus code through the computer system not in the module, disconnect, and haul ass to safety. When they come back and reconnect, the computer will already have the proper program to cure the virus and get production going immediately.

Adventure nugget - put your PC group in the control module when the system gets attacked. They will be a prime and very juicy target for the attack force to capture intact.
 
I'm an Architect so this is a very interesting subject for me. My interst is not specifiacally the process, but the structure of ship hulls. In designing my own ships, bases, etc.. I continually sketch cross sections and longitudinal sections in vertually every important portion of the deck layout. This helps me to understand if the charictars will actcually have enough headroom at the loading ramp, or what exactly is the height of a jump drive and how is it fastened to the hull?
One question someone may be able to aswerer is, what is the average distance between decks? Is it 10'-0"(GT)/3 Meters (CT) from floor to floor, or is there 10'/3 meters of clear headroom and then floor/ceiling structure?
This may be picky, but hey, I'm an Architect. Structure and building systems is what I'm in to.
Jaknaz
 
Originally posted by Jak Nazrith:
I'm an Architect so this is a very interesting subject for me. My interst is not specifiacally the process, but the structure of ship hulls. In designing my own ships, bases, etc.. I continually sketch cross sections and longitudinal sections in vertually every important portion of the deck layout. This helps me to understand if the charictars will actcually have enough headroom at the loading ramp, or what exactly is the height of a jump drive and how is it fastened to the hull?
One question someone may be able to aswerer is, what is the average distance between decks? Is it 10'-0"(GT)/3 Meters (CT) from floor to floor, or is there 10'/3 meters of clear headroom and then floor/ceiling structure?
This may be picky, but hey, I'm an Architect. Structure and building systems is what I'm in to.
Jaknaz
I for one am always glad to see someone else who is picky about the details of deckplans, and there are some others around here too. I make vertical cross sections when working too, to make sure things work so that's cool with me


I think the accepted rule is its 3m total with an open height of about 2m-2.5m. (see here for a couple good pics of a Scout ship interior < http://www.travellerrpg.com/Artwork/Misc/MainCorridor.jpg > and < http://www.travellerrpg.com/Artwork/Misc/ShipsGalley.jpg > Personally I use 2m-2.5m for most quarters decks and an open full 3m for cargo and hanger decks (with some exposed structures, wire runs, ductwork, etc.). The actual deck and hull structural material is in addition to this but with the advanced materials involved its of negligible thickness, especially for the scale of most deckplans.

Hey you should check out the deckplans group on yahoo < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/deckplans/?yguid=118404331 > and check out message 513 for my old ideas on deckplan layout when you get there. "Did you hear a horn blowing? I heard a horn blowing."
 
The entire hull was fabricated as ring like sections (modules?) which were welded/bolted/glued together
Glued Together
file_21.gif
file_21.gif
You're obviously familiar with the Australian Navy, then :D

I also tend to think the majority of ships would be made up from pre-assembled modules, with the smaller vessels made dirt-side, and the larger vessels in orbit. I, personally, can't really see a 10,00T+ starship being made planet-side... I dunno why, but just can't see it.

(glued together
...I'll be giggling about that for yonks, Sigg :D :D )
 
To settle the deck hight problem, take a look in Sup 7, Traders and Gunboats, Pg 6. Ill. 2 shows a cross sectionof a corridor with hatches. The hatch edges are 1 3/16 inches from left edge to left edge. The height between deck surfaces is the same 1 3/16 inches. The figure of a woman between the hatches as a guide would put the hatches at 3 meter intervals,equal to 1 3/16 inches, so the dech hight would be 3 meters deck surface to deck surface.
Pg 5 states that "since the square grid scale used for deck plans is 1.5 meters suare, a ceiling height of three meters means that two floor squares, extending floor to ceiling equals four 1.5 meter cubess or about 14 cubic meters (1.5x1.5x1.5x4=13.5 cubic meters) or one ton."
It also gives allowance for 10% plus or minus to make the plans work.
 
Gents,

A very interesting thread this. If I may inject my 0.02 CrImps via the following comments; 'no nanos', 'modular rules', 'standard components', and 'varying TLs, varying techniques'. Oh, and a very healthy dose of IMTU!


No Nanos - I know this proposed technology has been the darling of sci-fi ever since Drexler's 'Engines of Creation' rediscovered Feynman's lecture from the early 60's, but it isn't going to work. More accurately, it isn't going to work in the manner it's most ardent boosters and other wishful thinkers believe it will. This isn't the place for a complete re-examination of the Nano Prophets' various claims, but the problems boil down to 'fat fingers' and the obscenely high numbers involved.

For the first; how do you insert an atom in an atom-sized 'hole' using atom-sized fingers? For the second; make up an absurdly high molecular construction rate (how many atoms moved per second) for your single nano, then figure out how long it would take X number of nanos to 'build' ONE kg of steel. (Here's a hint, start with a construction rate in the dozens PER second, uses millions or trillions of nanos, and only 'build' a mole of steel. You'll still be disappointed by the construction time.) If you want to investigate the problem further, Scientific American had an issue devoted to the problems in 2002. The same issue also explored how nanotechnology will most likely be used.

Thus, IMHO & IMTU, no widescale nano production or construction. Nanos are used for certain small scale fabrication tasks; like whatever is used as computer chips or 'welding' seams, but no 'growing' a starship from a heap of raw materials, a computer program, and a barrel of nanos. Nanotech is much like the previously much ballyhooed bioengineering; it is both much harder and less powerful than first envisioned.

Modular Rules - Nearly every non-recreational sea vessel nowadays is constructed in a modular fashion, and the inlcudes the USN's Nimitz-class carriers and the bulk oil, super tankers coming from the Hyundai yards. Also, a large portion of aviation construction; be it Beoing or Airbus, is modular in nature.

Modular construction allows you to build and *test* various components and assemblies in a controlled manner. Building by modules lets you assign more workers to a given hull, more than can fit in the hull normally. It also lets you disperse your production in time and space. A Real World example of all this will help.

I worked in the Nuclear Test Office at Electric Boat's Groton facility building 688 and Trident-class submarines. While EB built those submarines, they did not manufacture most of the components used. The main engine turbine and reduction gears were built elsewhere by a firm and a workforce experienced in that ver specific andvery demanding work. Those components were also tested, inspected, and adjusted prior to their shipment to Groton. (They were tested and inspected after arrival and installation too, but most of the testing occurred where they were manufactured.) Many other components were handled in the same manner. Even the hull segments and machinery flats were built, tested, and inspected in EB's Quonset, RI facility and barged down to Groton.

As one poster already mentioned, a sub is assembled in hull section slices; much like putting a salami back together. The various hull sections are lifted vertically onto railroad bogies and pushed around in the Groton "boat barn" on tracks that crosshatch every bit of the floor. Slices are placed in a row, welded together, and various equipment, machinery, piping runs, and flats are then inserted as required. The hull sections making up the reactor compartment are brought together and the reactor suite slipped in from fore and aft. The same is done with the engine room and, when those two sections are as complete as they can be, the two larger hull sections are welded together.

The same method is used for the entire submarine; everything that can be is installed prior to the hull being completed. Bringing tools, materials, and workmen through the hatches is far too constricting. You can only assign so many workers inside a sub's hull, after a certain point they merely get in each others' way.

If it is all possible, modular construction is the way to go. Most of a yard's workforce can perform their jobs in shirtsleeve atmospheres at standard gravity just a short commute from their homes. All most of the *work* is scattered about, you can easily ship the results of that work to where it is ultimately needed; the orbital construction platform where the vessel comes together.

Standard Components - A Beowulf is a Beowulf is a Beowulf. That 15-O-9J Left-Handed Frommitz Board needs to fit in a Beowulf whether it be in the Marches, on the Rim, or out in Gateway. There are Imperial Standard Designs; capitals intended, and the variosu classic PC craft are the best example of this.

This is not to say that *every* starship is standard or that every example of a 'classic' ship has remained standard (PCs love to customize), but it does mean that there are standard ships. Even more importantly, it means that there is standard equipment. You may be flying a custom free trader but her avionics suite is straight out of a Type-R; if your nav radar craps out, find Type-R parts, and you're back in business.

Standard components will also let you 'spread the wealth' in terms of letting contracts to various suppliers on various worlds. Standard components also help your engineers and technicians get on with the job instead of having to re-learn each system every time they work on a new ship.

Again, this doesn't mean that *every* piece of equipment aboard *every* standard vessel is a standard one. It just means that most are. If the plot or adventure require that the port fuel purifier isn't one that an engineer would be normally familiar with, then the port fuel purifier isn't one that an engineer would be normally familiar with!

Varying TLs, varying techniques - A class A port can build a starship whether the local TL is 9 or 15. Sure, most of the components may be kits or modules shipped from manufacturers in other systems, but the locals will still be putting it all together. Thanks to the disparity between worlds, the *results* of assembly between World A and World Z will be the same, but the *techniques* used in that assembly will different. A TL15 world may employ a nano created seam between a given piece of equipment and its mounting bracket where a TL9 world laid a weld bead. Different ways of attaching the bracket that ultimately do the same thing. As long as you meet the Imperial standards for mounting that bracket; strength, weight, vibration resistence, etc., it doesn't matter *how* you do it.

IMTU, larger vessel are built in orbit (or vacumn in the case of planetoid belts and airless worlds). Most PC-sized 'classic' designs; Suleiman, Marava, fat trader, etc., are built 'dirtside' as their size doesn't make lifting components piecemeal into orbit worthwhile. Nearly all ships are modular in nature. Some; the 'classics', are completely modular using standard sections manufactured elsewhere and simply assembled at the 'slip'. Most other ships use standard components to some extent. Only a very few; yachts are one example, are completely custom in nature.

While they do manufacture some of the components used in ship construction, shipyards can be viewed primarily as 'assembly' and 'testing' areas. Machinery, equipment, and materials from a host of subcontractors and from within the yards are marshalled, inspected, assembled, and tested as they come together in a huge, awe inspiring, 3-D jigsaw puzzle. The only real difference between military and civilian designs lay in what modular components are assembled, where those components come from, and what standards they were built to. Aside from the increased quality control and a *very* persnickety customer, an IN Plankwell-class dreadnought is built pretty much the same way as an Arekut Mammoth-class transport.

Hope all this blather helps. Remember, it's *your* game, it's *your* campaign. If Suleiman in *your* TU are built by nanos from a pile of scrap iron, that is both excellent and 'correct' because it fits *your* TU. If it means fun for you and your gaming group, DO IT, and don't worry about how some grumpy, old, grey-headed fat man does it!

Sincerely,
Larsen
 
What an excellent post, Larsen :D . Mind you, I had to read through it a couple of times for it to make sense (you may need to be intelligent to build a sub, but not to crew it ;) ).

The only problem I could see is that:
don't worry about how some grumpy, old, grey-headed fat man does it
I'm not Grey-headed
 
Back
Top