Shadrak
09/17/15 12:51 AM
173.88.45.54
|
I have been looking for design for a permanently habitable space station that can house approximately 30,000 residents that has a simulated gravity near 1G. I can't find anything in canon literature/product...
I was looking at a modified Warship that would continuously accelerate at 1G, but I see that this would be considered a "monitor" and has been effectively banned by game developers (for reasons that seem astoundingly stupid)...
I was thinking about adding a manuever drive to a space station. I don't see anything in Strategic Operations that specifically limits a maneuver drive to Warships, the problem I see is that Space Stations have a structural integrity of 1...
To address this issue I was thinking I might increase the weight of the internal structure (while keeping the SI 1) so that the space station is capable of managing the stresses of 1G on its lateral axis...
Also, because the IS is rated at 1, even if moving parallel to the vehicle's longitudinal axis, I would limit the station to 1G (which I believe is 2 thrust points in game), and I would implement some kind of restrictive system that would prevent acceleration above 1G. Turning/Facing changes that included forward movement would be restricted to a 1:4 ratio, that is the station would need to move along its current vector of travel 3 hexes for every 1 facing of changed vector.
Does this seem reasonable within the context of established rules, or is there a canonical station that can be used as a template for permanent habitation?
|
ghostrider
09/17/15 11:50 AM
76.89.121.69
|
Tro 3057 has a pair of habitats. The small one holds 6,000 people and crew, while the large one holds almost 29,000. There is no thrusters that I can see on them, so not sure if that is what you are looking for.
Now depending on what you are using it for, a warship with dropships attached should work. Granted it would be a complete waste of a warship.
I would like to know what the reasons are they banned a 'monitor'. Because they said so isn't a good reason. But then they didn't think things through for alot of things, or so it seems.
Fuel consumption might be a problem with the moving concept.
Though there is a question on why you need to be moving the station constantly. That would seem you want a moving city, not a permanent habitat.
Sorry I can't help you with more, as aero assets are a very weak point for me.
|
Shadrak
09/17/15 02:42 PM
64.233.172.130
|
Thanks!
In the wiki they discuss why monitors are banned. ..basically it is for game balance...so, yes, it is a "because I said so"...
I have found an alternative that will work for me...
A 2.5 million ton station 1400x1400x1400 meters shaped like jack (3 axis at 90 degrees)...each arm (2 per axis) contains a grav deck approximately 1000m in diameter, 100 wide, and 21m deep (3x7m levels).
This gives an area of about 1,000,000 square meters per each of the six grav decks (nearly 5 million square meters total).
Grav decks are attached to the hub by 32 hollow spokes spaced every 100m along the deck.
The six hubs terminate in a docking collar, station keeping thrusters and several bay doors.
It looks like 6 bicycle tires organized to enclose a 3 dimensional box.
|
ghostrider
09/17/15 03:38 PM
76.89.121.69
|
Now a side question.
How do ships dock with the station?
The grav decks small enough so they do not cover the entire side they are on?
Or will you have them dock as the middle of the wheel, where they connect to the rest of the station? I am going to assume the maneuvering thrusters are in those locations as well, since anything hitting the spokes might cause damage both structural, and to the people on the station.
My math processor in the brain isn't working at the moment, so the dimensions you gave are not processing properly. It looks like 200 meters is max on both sides of the grav decks for things to maneuver thru. Been a while since looking over some dropships. Hope they fit if the docking bays are in the main structure.
|
Shadrak
09/17/15 03:57 PM
64.233.172.250
|
Middle of the wheel...imagine an axle with a wheel on each end. On the end of the axle you have a docking collar.
|
Karagin
09/17/15 07:48 PM
70.118.139.48
|
What you describe sounds like some of the stuff from the artwork folks had of what we would have by now as seen in the 40s to the 60s.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
09/17/15 11:48 PM
71.170.162.49
|
There is only two ways to have them in any solar system.
The first is to have a warship arrive into a system then the jump drive is to be removed. The problem is since the ship is designed to a specific size there is little in the way of being modified on the outside of the ship the only space available is in the center of the ship.
The second is to build it in a system that builds that specific warships and it never leaves that system.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Shadrak
09/18/15 11:22 AM
64.233.172.242
|
@Donkey...per the discussion in the Wiki, Herbert Beas has eliminated them as an option, but it should also be possible to jump a warship-type object in a manner similar to the Ryan cartels method of jumping 500 cubic km of ice...it might damage the warship, though....
Alternatively, a monitor warship should be able to be disassbled and recreated in a dry dock in a manner similar to the wolf's dragoons factory station...
Mr. Beas,would have been better off to create special monitor rules, IMO, that would have limited their functionality...example, require all monitor/warships that exceed 500 meters/500000 tons to need 2x the structural mass as normal, all modular monitors to be limited to 1.5gs of acceleration (which would limit armor capacity), and finally, rule that the KF drive provid es limited structural integrity and craft heavier than 100,000 tons must triple their SI weight....
This would result in a 1 million ton monitor with a max SI of 3 and an internal structure that weighs 8 times as much as a standard warship.
|
ghostrider
09/18/15 12:41 PM
76.89.121.69
|
So they don't want a warship that removed the jump drive to gain more weapons and equipment?
Then they need to start limiting the novel writers as they did that with one of the ships guarding tharkad in the civil war.
And I guess that is one of the biggest problems with alot of arguments. Continuity. I guess they need to read the damn novels before they are put out and have them remove the crap that isn't canon.
|
Akirapryde2006
09/18/15 09:31 PM
71.100.132.249
|
If I recall, there is a section in the 3057 that covers Habitats. It speaks about them, their history and some reference points regarding specific ones.
Is there a story line reason why you are looking for warship or another kind of Habitat that already exists? What era does your plan work within. These answers could help out greatly in helping you achieve what you are looking for.
If you are open to other than traditional habitats.
We took a large asteroid and mined a massive network of tunnels and joined complexes within the asteroid. We took the ore found within to create a layer of warship armor to help protect the habitat. Throw in some Capital Weapons helped protect our facility. We used small dropship engines to give the asteroid a 1G rotation for gravity. When the game came to its conclusion, we were building a second one.
|
Akirapryde2006
09/18/15 09:33 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
So they don't want a warship that removed the jump drive to gain more weapons and equipment?
Then they need to start limiting the novel writers as they did that with one of the ships guarding tharkad in the civil war.
And I guess that is one of the biggest problems with alot of arguments. Continuity. I guess they need to read the damn novels before they are put out and have them remove the crap that isn't canon.
Remember ghostrider, it is allowed and canon till it is no longer allowed and then they go back in time and claim it never existed. But don't worry, time travel in this universe is impossible LOL
|
ghostrider
09/18/15 11:39 PM
76.89.121.69
|
Is that why they tell us time travel isn't possible?
Make sure we don't know they keep changing history to fit their new plans?
And my first response said about the 3057. Though there is only the pair in there. I guess those of us the like to play with the non war things like, factories and support things really mess with the way things are done in the game. Seems alot of their rules don't work outside combat units.
Still wondering why it would need more then just simple maneuvering thrusters. 1g burn seems unusual, unless you are looking to make a mobile living space. I understand wanting to allow it to move out the way of debris, such as asteroids. Other then that, I don't know.
|
happyguy49
09/20/15 07:38 AM
98.30.242.159
|
OP, your design would be game legal as far as I could see that said, there should be a rule for space stations such that if it is the right kind of shape, for instance a wheel (2001, Elysium) or cylinder (Rama, Gundam, etc.) that it doesn't need "grav decks". (because the whole thing is spinning.)
A "space station" that can accelerate at 1 g isn't really a space station... it is a "civilian warship" in the rules, or like another said, a verboten "Monitor". (unless you keep the tonnage to dropship levels? 100,000 tons or less?) You also can't use the grav decks when you are accelerating/decelerating, they break.
Are you thinking of a Generation Ship? A ship that can accelerate at 1g for a significant length of time would get up to a significant fraction of the speed of light, and could (very slowly) carry thousands of colonists to a new system over a period of many years. Is that your idea?
|
Shadrak
10/01/15 11:39 AM
64.233.172.250
|
Hi happy.. no, just looking for an option in the current construction rules that allow for a larger space dwelling population in a 1g environment
|