Starship Design Example

[DonM]

GypsyComet:

I've still got permission from both Joe Fugate and Roger Sanger on that article, for changes.

Would you be interested in either:

a) reworking the article to read more logically, and add in the epiphany (which was always my intention, I just haven't done it)

or

b) take a different, much more sensible design, and rewrite the example using that design?

 

[GypsyComet]

Possibly. I'm not a big fan of big ships, in general, but the concepts of the MT design system and the changes found in the Epiphany apply at nearly any size.

And honestly, most of the original article is fine. The wording and approach in the power section is what gets me.

 

[jfetters]

Which issue was the original article in?

 

[Renard Ruche]

You may want to check out the PDF version of 'Assignment: Vigilante'. I'm pretty sure I got mine through Drive-Thru Games. Tacked onto the end is an article from 'Imperiallines #1' and gives four different ways of saving fuel and combining them. The two I use the most are: not having art. grav and inertial compensators in the fuel area and using the above mentioned 'enough fuel for the purpose used at the time' (i.e. calculating how much power for each section, then taking the volume of fuel times the hours used. I always add in a bit extra. This tends to give me the same space as a CT ship. Have it built into my MT spreadsheet, so it's pretty painless as far as calcs go.

 

[jfetters]

A MT starship design spreadsheet? Is it by chance available publicly?

And I only have the PDF from the MT CD, and its not there.

 

[Renard Ruche]

Well, if you mean by 'publicly', could I email it to you, sure. It's in Excel. Pretty sure all the bugs are fixed. Haven't played with it in a while, been using T20. If you would like me to email it, just drop me a PM

 

[sfchbryan]

Quick question Don,

On page 9, did you figure in the crew crew quarters?

I'm looking at the numbers & I don't see where the quarter's volume was subtracted from the totals.

Thanks,

Harry Bryan

 

[DonM]

The crew accomodations are finally taken care of on page 13.

 

[robject]

So, if these reconciled fuel requirements, based on distributed power plants, come in line with High Guard, tell me why one wouldn't use High Guard formulae in these restricted cases? Is it because MT's power plant tables are so different (and flexible)?

Also, why wouldn't one be tempted to normalize weapon power requirements according to weekly? monthly? usage estimates and build the power plant network as if it were a single power plant?

 

[DonM]

Well, one would be tempted to do that if one were revising MT...
:devil:

 

[aramis]

So, if these reconciled fuel requirements, based on distributed power plants, come in line with High Guard, tell me why one wouldn't use High Guard formulae in these restricted cases? Is it because MT's power plant tables are so different (and flexible)?

Also, why wouldn't one be tempted to normalize weapon power requirements according to weekly? monthly? usage estimates and build the power plant network as if it were a single power plant?

Because the fuel formulae are NOT comparable with HG... they can be made to function within similar limits, but at costs which are not part of HG.

They are, however, direct matches to Striker.

Realistically, the efficiency of Traveller Fusion power plants (especially MT/TNE/T4) is horrid. Generally, considered to be off by a factor of 300-100,000... Should be in Kilograms per year, not tons per week.

 

[sfchbryan]

So, if these reconciled fuel requirements, based on distributed power plants, come in line with High Guard, tell me why one wouldn't use High Guard formulae in these restricted cases? Is it because MT's power plant tables are so different (and flexible)?

Also, why wouldn't one be tempted to normalize weapon power requirements according to weekly? monthly? usage estimates and build the power plant network as if it were a single power plant?

When designing ships, I always base weapons & screens on 24 hours usage. This along with Scott Olsen's Environment tricks allows one to get fairly close to HG stats.

I like the MT way of doing business because the ship designer is forced to make design choices. This makes the ships come out very very different.
.
IMNSHO, people designing naval ships in the traveller universe do not look at the fleet's PURPOSE. They seem to just pick a hull size & start sticking weapons on it.

Look at any traveller naval ship collection. Try to build a task force that has the same Jump & Maneuver capability. It ain't so easy.

MT at least started to get a handle on it by making a fleet requirement of J4, M4. This means that any TL13 or higher planet can build Imperial Fleet ships if they have the capability of building ships. Of course, most people ignored the J4, M4 requirement, and gave us junk like the Voroshilef, the Planet Class CA, the BM-15, BZ-15, etc. With Low M drives, the opponent sets the battle range.

In looking at FSOSI, Notice all TL11 ships are J2; this means that the entire fleet has the same strategic speed; this mostly continues with TL12 Fleets operating at J3. The only exceptions are the carriers & the auxiliaries. However, because they are J2, they limit any squadron or fleet they are assigned to are now limited to J2. At the higher tech levels it just gets worse.

What good is it to have a J4 fleet when the tankers are J3?

Getting off my soapbox now...

 

[atpollard]

Realistically, the efficiency of Traveller Fusion power plants (especially MT/TNE/T4) is horrid. Generally, considered to be off by a factor of 300-100,000... Should be in Kilograms per year, not tons per week.

Which is ironic since the Maneuver Drives violate 'Conservation of Momentum' by a similar amount in the other direction with each dTon of fuel generating an 'equivalent' thrust greater than the speed of light.

 

[Ishmael]

Realistically, the efficiency of Traveller Fusion power plants (especially MT/TNE/T4) is horrid. Generally, considered to be off by a factor of 300-100,000... Should be in Kilograms per year, not tons per week.

I just handwave that away as using the excess 'fuel' as coolant dumping the waste heat out the back as 'exhaust'. That also allows me to consider powerplant fuel as reaction mass when thrusting as it would be added to the actual reaction mass spewed out the back. When not thrusting or fighting, power use is so small ( relatively speaking ) that radiators handle waste heat and fuel use drops to insignificant.

Maybe not a perfect or accurate handwave, but it works for me.