Streamlining ships

[themink]

I mean space ships - obviously.

As far as I cen tell, in the d20 rules, you can streamline most ships, it costs Cash, but doesn;t use up displacements.

If you are happy to be limited to 2G whilst in the atmosphere, this is OK.

If you want more maneuverability than this, you spend about 5% tonnage on airframe stuff (plus cash)

This is a fairly significant break from previous rules, I like it. It means that you can have large craft actually landing at spaceports rather han sending down shuttles. I was just a little suprised at the change.

If I've missed a tonnage cost for Streamlining, would you point me at the page (Pretty Please)

 

[Simon Jester]

Originally posted by The Mink:
I mean space ships - obviously.

As far as I cen tell, in the d20 rules, you can streamline most ships, it costs Cash, but doesn;t use up displacements.

If you are happy to be limited to 2G whilst in the atmosphere, this is OK.

If you want more maneuverability than this, you spend about 5% tonnage on airframe stuff (plus cash)

This is a fairly significant break from previous rules, I like it. It means that you can have large craft actually landing at spaceports rather han sending down shuttles. I was just a little suprised at the change.

If I've missed a tonnage cost for Streamlining, would you point me at the page (Pretty Please)

There shouldn't be any tonnage loss for streamlining, otherwise it would throw off all other calculations. If a 200 dton ship lost , say, 10% of its tonnage to get a fully streamlined hull, it's not a 200 dton ship, but a 180 dton ship. All sreamlining does is reapportion how the dtonnage is distributed, which costs extra money (since the frame cost is based on mass-manufactured hulls).

As for the 5% dtonnage loss for an airframe hull, I see that as the amount of space taken up by the flaps, aelerons (sp?), slats and control runs needed to make use of the extra in-atmosphere manueverability. The hull doesn't actually lose that dtonnage, it's taken up by the necessary airframe equipment.

Simon Jester

 

[Tom Schoene]

You could always have large streamlined ships landing under High Guard. In fact, given that needle/wedge was the optimum for protecting against meson guns (dunno why) most big capital ships were streamlined more or less by default.

The only problem I have is that there's a big cost disparity: it's cheaper to streamline a close structure (normally partial SL) than it is to buy the same size hull in an fully streamlined configuration. You do have to upgrade the flight avionics, but as long as you already have a reasonably large computer, the extra cost will be minimal.

As far as I can tell, configuration no longer counts for defense against meson guns, so close structures (SL or not) will be much more attractive for warships.

 

[themink]

Originally posted by Simon Jester:
There shouldn't be any tonnage loss for streamlining, otherwise it would throw off all other calculations. If a 200 dton ship lost , say, 10% of its tonnage to get a fully streamlined hull, it's not a 200 dton ship, but a 180 dton ship. All sreamlining does is reapportion how the dtonnage is distributed, which costs extra money (since the frame cost is based on mass-manufactured hulls).

As for the 5% dtonnage loss for an airframe hull, I see that as the amount of space taken up by the flaps, aelerons (sp?), slats and control runs needed to make use of the extra in-atmosphere manueverability. The hull doesn't actually lose that dtonnage, it's taken up by the necessary airframe equipment.

Simon Jester

Not true - a 200dT external displacement streamlined ship would have 160 dT internal displacement - ie 160 "useful" internal tons.

For a good example, make any streamlined shape (say a coke bottle) and try and fill it with "boxes". All the gaps are the cost of becoming streamlined.

For a brilliantr example, see scare crow most excellent scout ship - It's absolutely fantastich. Definitely streamlined (Airframe even) and there are large volumes allong the "edges" that can;t be usefully used.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by The Mink:

- a 200dT external displacement streamlined ship would have 160 dT internal displacement - ie 160 "useful" internal tons.

For a good example, make any streamlined shape (say a coke bottle) and try and fill it with "boxes". All the gaps are the cost of becoming streamlined.

And is the amount of coke you can get into a coke bottle only 80% of its volume? You only lose the odd corners if you actually want to fill it up with nothing but those boxes. For starships that has to carry around a lot of fuel, there is no such problem.

How do I know? Because the CT rules says so .

Hans

 

[themink]

Originally posted by rancke:

How do I know? Because the CT rules says so .

Hans[/QB]

A Good solid arguement. I grovel corrected (I would stand but my ex-wife prefers this position)