Water Landings

[mad13142000]

Does anyone here use water landings for starships?

I've thought a floating harbor would be easier on ships, more economical, and a more efficient form of starport. I know David Drake did it in Lt. Leary, but I've not heard of anyone (around me) doing it on a regular basis. How about it?

-MADDog

 

[Zutroi]

Don't use water LANDINGS, but players have been known to land IN the water in order to hide their ship (if it can take a gas giant atmosphere for scooping, it can take a few meters of water.)

 

[sandman]

Makes cargo loading/unloading a bitch if you have standard lower deck cargo doors.

Also makes commutes to/from other ships, starport area and warehouse wet journey many will want to avoid.

 

[The Oz]

If you have your own universe where water landings are the norm, you will have to redesign all the standard ships so they can do their cargo/passenger loading from the top.

I've always just told my players that the Traveller gravitic drives make it easy to come in low and slow and land vertically, if needed.

 

[mad13142000]

True, but wouldn't the designs have evolved to take advantage of a water port? I mean, the progression is from our chem rockets up to HEPlaR, >BEFORE< we get to contragrav and thruster plates...If you are designing starports that have to stand up to MANY takeoffs and landings, plasma isn't your friend..Water makes this process infinitely easier, both in construction, and maintenence. When you build a water port, there is no cost for land or pad paving or berm placement...Water is softer to land on - no costs for landing struts..It provides instant refueling..I can see many advantages to the existance of water ports long before the switch to land based ports...

There are alot of things that you wouldn't think would float that do...It's all about the displacement. I mean, the Europeans build ships out of concrete, and there are quite a few 'missing' cargo containers bobbing around in the ocean. Also the design - aircraft carriers and big oil/gas platforms...That HUGE Troll platform they built out of concrete - it floated..

Just thoughts..
-MADDog

-------------------------------------------------
"And from now on, I don't care if my tea leaves spell 'Die, Ron, Die'- I'm just chucking them in the bin where they belong."

 

[Scarecrow]

I brought this up last year on the TML. I've never liked the idea. Basically the premise is, if it can retain air in a vaccuum then it can keep water out when immersed. This to me, seems overly simplistic, to say the least.
Okay, these aren't the delicate machines that we are sending into orbit today. These are rugged, combat ready vehicles capable of withstanding quite a beating, but It's not enough. No matter how rugged they are they will have exposed workings that work perfectly well in a vaccuum but wouldn't last ten seconds immersed in water - particularly seawater. Sure they're intended to operate fine in dense, corrosive and extremely turbulent atmospheres. But even the worst of these isn't anywhere near as dense as pure water.
Okay, let's suppose that part of a starship's operating procedure is to land on or in a body of water (even if it's only in emergencies) then they should clearly be designed for such behaviour. Amongst other things, they should have curved, boat-like hulls to aid boyancy and, if they are designed to submerge, a system of propulsion and steering designed for subaquatic maneuvering. None of the canon ships, to my knowledge have any of this.

Of course, for refuelling, if YTU has cheap, efficient anti-grav then I see nothing wrong with the ship sitting over the water and extending a hose to draw in the precious H.

Scarecrow

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Dr. Gwerf, Vargr Academic, Here... Hacking into (ruf) the Baron's Chat Identity...

I speak to you from the past (the Year 1000) Our Ship, The ISS Hidalgo, Had just performed a water landing on Medellin in the Diaspora Sector last week... You (ruf) gentlemen seem to overlook the aspects of many ancient NASA Training techniques took place underwater...

Also, (ruf) I think it stands to perfect reason that A ship that could withstand the stresses of "Skimming" a Gas Giant, with its intense Radiation (ruf) and Gravity Fields, It should be able to handle a run of the mill body of water, provided that it isn't Hydrochloric Acid or something... as far as advanced operations, like a full blown submarine... that is indeed a matter of intense (ruf) speculation. The average ship isn't outfitted with dive planes or propellers (though and industrous crew might install them...yik yik yik!) So I would gather that the effectiveness is rather limited. I personally (ruf) am all for Water Operations... It makes sense to me...

Team Vargr, Awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

 

[Zutroi]

Not to mention an entire article (I think it was in a Dragon magazine) on mounting periscopes on your ship, and how much water equated to how much armor...

 

[Scarecrow]

...and if a car has gull-wing doors that means it can fly, right?



Well, that's what it reminds me of. When I was a kid, all my toy cars with gullwing doors could fly. The reality is that it's just not that simple. There is a world of difference between an open gullwing door and a genuine aerodynamic control surface. In the same way, I can't believe there aren't equally alien differences between operating in a vaccuum and operating under water. It's not just simply a matter of being air-tight.

Having said all this, I don't actually have a problem with a Starship being able to act as a boat or a submarine as long as they are purposefully designed to do so. Canon ships aren't, in my opinion. I've seen pictures of a 'wedgie' Type-S in-elegantly 'plonked' in water. It just looks wrong. When I did broach this subject on the TML, someone said that they'd actually built a scout model and it did float more or less horizontally. Despite the fact that the model probably didn't accurately represent the weight, displacements and distribution of the real thing, I still had to say, 'fair enough'. However, he went on to say that the water came up just over the cockpit. Bad Design!

A Beowulf might just get away with it, but again, it's clearly not intended to undertake water landings, the fact that it has a slightly curved under-hull is just happy coincidence.

I'd actually love to see a Traveller Starship design that did fit this criteria. I imagine something starship-looking but with an under-hull similar to that of a boat plane or a Sea-King helicopter. Vaguely boatlike but aerodynamic. Intakes, afterburners, airlocks and cargo bay doors that sit above the waterline when fully laden but can also be accessed easily in a standard starport. Some sort of water-specific propulsion system - unless maneuvre plates work under water aswell as in a vaccuum. So on and so forth.

I actually started sketching something like this up (in the region of 200-300 tons) when I had this conversation on TML, however wether it will ever see the light of day is another matter. Still it's in my list of a million and one things to do before I die!

Regards

Scarecrow

 

[Scarecrow]

Thinking on it, I did a search for Hydroplanes and came up with some fantastic shapes that an immersible starship might be based around. Imagine, basically a powerboat the size of a 200 ton free-trader!!

The designs in these galleries would make excellent starting points for amphibious starships:

http://foxxaero.homestead.com/xxx2.html

Enjoy,

Scarecrow

 

[Anton]

Scarecrow,

Just visited the Crow's Nest. Awesome artwork - I've just posted the link on my LJ and told my player's to go take a look

Anton

 

[Tanuki]

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
I'd actually love to see a Traveller Starship design that did fit this criteria. I imagine something starship-looking but with an under-hull similar to that of a boat plane or a Sea-King helicopter. Vaguely boatlike but aerodynamic. Intakes, afterburners, airlocks and cargo bay doors that sit above the waterline when fully laden but can also be accessed easily in a standard starport. Some sort of water-specific propulsion system - unless maneuvre plates work under water aswell as in a vaccuum. So on and so forth.

Then I think you'll like my free trader design for TA?: Small Trading Ships.

 

[Scarecrow]

Nice one, Tanuki. I look forward to it. What's the projected release date?

I guess what I have in mind is something in the 200-300 ton range and arranged like a catamarang or tri-marang. Two outboard pontoons with featureless, boat-like underhulls. These would contain fuel and cargo. Mounted centrally and slightly raised up would be the main compartment housing everything else. The ajoining arms would be articulated so that they could undulate with the waves and reduce movement of the centre hull. The pontoons would also act as landing skids and the arms would allow the centre hull to be lowered to ground level when landed on solid ground.

The maneuvre drives would be positioned well above water level like a powerboat so that, if for some reason a crew wanted to sail instead of fly, they could be used to propel the craft across the surface of the water in the same manner that it propels the craft through the air.

hmmm... needs work but it's a start.

Scarecrow

 

[Hecateus]

Ahoy Travellers,

Just thought I would mention some low tech real stuff. Ancient Solomani spacecraft known as Mercury, and Apollo would 'regularly' make planetfall in oceanic waters with the aid of deployable balloons.

 

[Tanuki]

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
Nice one, Tanuki. I look forward to it. What's the projected release date?

I guess what I have in mind is something in the 200-300 ton range and arranged like a catamarang or tri-marang. Two outboard pontoons with featureless, boat-like underhulls. These would contain fuel and cargo. Mounted centrally and slightly raised up would be the main compartment housing everything else. The ajoining arms would be articulated so that they could undulate with the waves and reduce movement of the centre hull. The pontoons would also act as landing skids and the arms would allow the centre hull to be lowered to ground level when landed on solid ground.

The maneuvre drives would be positioned well above water level like a powerboat so that, if for some reason a crew wanted to sail instead of fly, they could be used to propel the craft across the surface of the water in the same manner that it propels the craft through the air.

hmmm... needs work but it's a start.

Scarecrow

You'll have to ask Shane Mclean about the projected release date.

Looks like we think along similar lines.

 

[mad13142000]

Originally posted by Hecateus:
Ahoy Travellers,
Just thought I would mention some low tech real stuff. Ancient Solomani spacecraft known as Mercury, and Apollo would 'regularly' make planetfall in oceanic waters with the aid of deployable balloons.

I guess my original thought was along these lines...In the development of starships, it just seems natural that a water harbor would be a step. Anyone REALLY consider what a HEPlaR drive would do to a landing surface? I can't see a gov't or private agency paying to REPAVE a landing pad everytime there is a takeoff or landing...And Plasma drive is the next step before we get to that wonderful gravplate...

-MADDog

 

[Hecateus]

hmm..."what would a HEPlaR do to a surface"?

There is a Niven/Pournelle book called Destiny's Road. So ya, there is this glassy black road on a planet dontchyaknow...guess what made it.

(in one of the earlier books 'Legacy of Heorot' , a fusion accelerated colony ship is 'at rest' in a natural water harbour.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by MADDog:
Anyone REALLY consider what a HEPlaR drive would do to a landing surface?

Create glassy craters hundreds of meters across? HEPlaR has nuclear weapon level power outputs.

 

[Tanuki]

Originally posted by Anthony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MADDog:
Anyone REALLY consider what a HEPlaR drive would do to a landing surface?

Create glassy craters hundreds of meters across? HEPlaR has nuclear weapon level power outputs. </font>[/QUOTE]All you need to do is lift off on contra-grav and then kick in the thrusters. No need to slag the landing/liftoff area.

 

[mad13142000]

Originally posted by Tanuki:
All you need to do is lift off on contra-grav and then kick in the thrusters. No need to slag the landing/liftoff area.

But I'm thinking before Gravitics get mastered...
So I'm SURE that worlds would develop water harbor ports PRIOR to making traditional Traveller starports...So if I travel out far enough, then the predominant starport would be one that most far traders are not equipped to use...hmmm...sounds like an Evil Ref hook to me...

-MADDog