|
Post by srbrant on Jun 20, 2017 5:57:54 GMT
Another pic I whipped up today. This time it's of a ship. Again, please forgive my phone's potato quality. Analyze to your heart's content. The reason why the remass tanks are so small in comparison is because in this setting, fuel efficiency has made incredible leaps and bounds. A ship like this could easily have a Delta-V of 54.6. Crap, double-posted the image. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Jun 20, 2017 5:51:55 GMT
By the way, here's an idea of my starship design philosophy, trying to reconcile "traditional" starships with realistic ones. And yes, I drew this myself. That's quite good art and the ships don't look too outlandish. Are they entering a dock of some sort? Oh stop it, you! And yes, a massive dock at that. It's an orbital city-state built over 150 years out of debris and derelicts called "Ferrous Reef".
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Jun 19, 2017 4:50:09 GMT
It feels like wall-to-engine orientations are best not only because they're more familiar, there's more width for cargo bays and freight ramps. It may also be a morale thing so that they are more reminiscent of ancient sailing ships instead of orbiting sardine cans. Once you've got a space-based society with people being born and growing up in either orbit or transit between systems, that familiarity is going to be long gone from the minds of the main demographic that designs and operates spacecraft. They would be put off by sailing, rather, and hold much more esteem in the type of sardine can they're most familiar with from the context of their own life experiences. And about cargo space, don't make the mistake of assuming everything has to be inside the hull, let alone pressurised. Unless it's a passenger transport, you can very well have massive bulk container ships that are very little more than truss spines with cylinders/spheres/boxes clustered around. Personally I think these look cool, but each to their own in the end. I was expecting that answer, actually. ^^; In fact, I've considered making a sort of "Helionautical culture" for space like how we have marine lore. Instead of mermaids, buried treasure and ghost ships, why not have Star Dragons (alien race in my story), forgotten supply caches and ghost ships? One of the ways it manifests in the story is in the terms for ships. Because "battleships" and "destroyers" have little relevance with actual spacecraft, there are completely new terms. Like Grifts, which are civilian ships between 10,000 and 15,000 tons or Kiffas*, which are between 15,000 and 25,000 tons for either civilian or military purposes. *"Kiffa" is derived from "Merkava", the Hebrew word for "Chariot." The etymology for "Grift" is lost to time.
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Jun 19, 2017 4:23:24 GMT
By the way, here's an idea of my starship design philosophy, trying to reconcile "traditional" starships with realistic ones. And yes, I drew this myself.
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Jun 18, 2017 6:14:49 GMT
You could do artificial gravity by rotating the crew compartment at relatively high speeds, granted that needs power and/or some sort of engine to keep the crew compartment rotating, if you don't want to spin the whole ship. He seemed to be referencing some kind of sci fi Magic rather than centripetal systems. As I said before: sufficiently advanced.
I'm thinking of having the decks be floor-to-engine, but have there be gravity generators for when thrust is absent.
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Jun 17, 2017 4:56:09 GMT
It feels like wall-to-engine orientations are best not only because they're more familiar, there's more width for cargo bays and freight ramps. It may also be a morale thing so that they are more reminiscent of ancient sailing ships instead of orbiting sardine cans.
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Jun 16, 2017 18:44:30 GMT
I really recommend against artificial gravity. The technology required for that is on the edge of the theoretical and is far more complicated than anything else you listed. You could do artificial gravity by rotating the crew compartment at relatively high speeds, granted that needs power and/or some sort of engine to keep the crew compartment rotating, if you don't want to spin the whole ship. This takes place in the year 5525, keep in mind. Though there ARE some ships that use centrifugal gravity to save on costs or if the required technology is unavailable.
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Jun 16, 2017 6:06:15 GMT
if you get tired with cylinders you can try rectangular cubes, with thrust along the long access The hulls have to conform to the various layouts of its interior components, the exteriors resembling sharks or other fish with a low polygon count.
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Jun 16, 2017 4:25:25 GMT
- Also, are horizontally-oriented decks really so bad?? Yes, as when the ship thrusts that means that everything is thrown to one wall, at least partially, rather than the floor (though this depends on acceleration). If you happen to have a space magic system to prevent the ship's acceleration from affecting the passengers, then go ahead, but otherwise having the floor towards the engines is simply a more useful and sensible layout. Even if there is such a technology as I describe, there wouldn't be any advantages I can think of to encourage a wall-towards-engine, and at that point tradition would likely set in for things like floor arrangement. Yeah, it can have a "space magic" system that keeps the passengers from turning into jam, but...I don't know, there's something about a floor-to-engine plan that just feels very...awkward and alien to me as weird as that sounds.
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Jun 15, 2017 22:29:09 GMT
Now I understand all the important aspects of designing a "real" starship (where to put the crew module, shielding it from the reactor, giving it a low profile to minimize hits, etc), but here's where I'm at a loss with writing Kemono: The ships are far more advanced, but they still need to be believable and realistic. One particularly pesky problem is that of crew space layout. Here are some of my ideas and dilemmas:
- Having corridors in the middle of each deck so that if there is a breach, people can get from one room to another without a spacesuit. - If that corridor is breached anyway, how are people going to survive if they're stuck in the connecting? Using "jeffries tubes?" - Make each room have an emergency distress beacon that can be activated if they are trapped. - Having multiple bridges is the logical solution to breaches, but which one should be the primary bridge? - One idea is to have multiple corridors snaking around, on and between remass tanks for easier maintenance access and for extra room. Multiple doors and paths will be necessary in case of breaches. - The problem is that if there's a breach and the escaping oxygen mixes with gunfire and the remass tanks... BOOM! - Also, are horizontally-oriented decks really so bad??
Now keep in mind that, because this is set so far in the future, several liberties are taken and handwaved due to sufficiently advanced technology. Such as...
- Oxygen scrubbers are cheaper, smaller and more efficient to allow for larger interior spaces (though it's still of course at a premium) - Advances in engine efficiency means that ships have more Delta-V and thereby smaller remass tanks (Don't want them to get too fast and reach relativistic speeds). - Engine efficiency also allows for more space and less weight restrictions. - Artificial gravity generators are commonplace though they have to be built into the floors and overheads.
Suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Jun 15, 2017 14:12:10 GMT
In my story, there are several justifications for boarding actions: - The ship could/does contain valuable treasures, artwork, intelligence, cargo, technology and people (for better or worse). - To reduce the problem of Kessler Syndrome. - The "flare" from a destroyed fusion reactor could provoke an unwanted conflict. - If it is a pirate ship, there could be treasures, resources, slaves or hostages to be recovered. - Capturing an enemy ship can swell the strength of one's fleet and save tremendous amounts of money, time and resources in fleet management. - If a wanted criminal is onboard the enemy ship and the heroes need proof-of-kill to collect the bounty. - Salvage rights. - Thrills. Except for the last one (which is suicidal), these are great reasons to offer surrender to the enemy crew when the enemy is outmatched, and a reputation for good treatment of prisoners makes it more likely that they will take the offer. Still doesn't make boarding a combat tactic, still doesn't justify humans boarding rather than drones, and still doesn't prevent them from blowing themselves up if they choose to. As much as it makes me cringe to say it, sometimes you just have to say "screw it" when writing fiction. At least it's believable though, right?
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Jun 14, 2017 22:42:42 GMT
In my story, there are several justifications for boarding actions:
- The ship could/does contain valuable treasures, artwork, intelligence, cargo, technology and people (for better or worse). - To reduce the problem of Kessler Syndrome. - The "flare" from a destroyed fusion reactor could provoke an unwanted conflict. - If it is a pirate ship, there could be treasures, resources, slaves or hostages to be recovered. - Capturing an enemy ship can swell the strength of one's fleet and save tremendous amounts of money, time and resources in fleet management. - If a wanted criminal is onboard the enemy ship and the heroes need proof-of-kill to collect the bounty. - Salvage rights. - Thrills.
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Jun 14, 2017 0:55:05 GMT
... In a CoaDE scenario with our sardine cans in space though, it'd be like trying to board a submarine. A submarine with hypervelocity railguns, nukes, and/or gigawatt-range lasers that is quite happy to pop you from a million meters away. Or like trying to board a jet fighter engaged in long range missile combat. Hence my story's problem solving for boarding.
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Jun 5, 2017 3:13:16 GMT
1. Because of drag-tethers and numerous countermeasures on the boarders' part. 2. Escape pods and/or shuttlecraft. One mechanism is to have flares deploy alongside the escape vehicles to protect them from missiles. 3. As I said before, this is a universe where spacecraft is advanced enough to the point where payload and mass limits aren't as stringent. 1. Stealth in space isn't very possible, and countermeasures can't fool cameras. 2. How would the pods/shuttles escape? They would be even easier targets than exposed crew. Flares only work in CoaDE due to over simplistic game design and could not fool a well designed missile. 3. Even if mass constraints are not as significant remote drones are still more effective boarding tools than suited humans. 1. I sure do know that. Which is why so many ships are very vibrant, using camouflage patterns with bold colors as if to mock that fact. 2. The pods burst out of small hatches in the hull. Shuttles are "towed" by the ships at docking racks like a remora. One idea could be a "scrambler" that distorts the sensors of homing missiles. Also, destroying or sabotaging escape pods is a very serious offense...then again, so is blowing up a civilian ship. 3. I'll have to explore that aspect a little more...
|
|
|
Post by srbrant on Jun 5, 2017 1:17:36 GMT
Another idea for shields is an inertial-dampening field like the one used to keep the crew from being turned into jam at high speeds or impacts. Acting as a quantum whipple shield, it can drastically reduce the velocity of projectiles. Though specialized "shieldbreaker" missiles can outright ignore them. But that's not the topic on this thread. Another idea for boarder traps are lattice-mounted armored shutters to turn the vestibule into a maze, buying the crew members inside enough time to escape or build up proper defenses. As for point-defense lasers, I'm certain that those will be the first things a boarding ship would destroy in order to protect their parties. Another issue that arises is the use of boarding craft as opposed to two ships stuck together with space harpoons or gigantic waldoes while boarders spacewalk between them. Because a lot of pirates are looking for luxury foods, vacuum-sensitive goods and "volunteers" to help them in their quest for plunder. Ramming a ship is suicidal and can be easily dodged, plus there's the gigantic risk of missing the crew module or depressurizing it. Why would the ship crew need such a complex system to delay borders? It should be very easy to spot a boarding pop/ship and the crew would have plenty of time to prepare beforehand. And how would they escape? Even if they manage to get out of their disabled ship they will be easy targets for the enemy ships. Your third statement seems to assume manned boarding teams, which is an absurd waste of mass and is less effective than an remote controlled drone. 1. Because of drag-tethers and numerous countermeasures on the boarders' part. 2. Escape pods and/or shuttlecraft. One mechanism is to have flares deploy alongside the escape vehicles to protect them from missiles. 3. As I said before, this is a universe where spacecraft is advanced enough to the point where payload and mass limits aren't as stringent.
|
|