Wick
03/26/21 06:28 PM
173.247.25.195
|
As far as rotating tube on the dual engined dropship idea, I envisioned a rectangular bay within that tube. For all intensive purposes it would seem like a normal fighter/small craft bay to the crew, but structurally it rotated 180 degrees to accommodate whichever engine was providing thrust. You can't rotate a square or rectangular without having empty areas - you need a circle, hence the overall cylindrical shape of the rotating bay.
As I understand it aerodynes must orient the mechs such that their back is facing the engines. Under thrust they would essentially be prone, laying on back (but still serviceable to techs), and after landing the mechs could walk around as normal. For vehicles it would be a little harder, as they'd have to be stored front or tail end toward engines and might be harder to service (for example, vehicles with ICE engines might not be able to be fueled until landed.)
I have a bigger problem that the artwork for things like the Leopard show fighter bays aligned in a landing orientation, meaning they'd be on their side if launched in space (which is primarily where they would be used.) Aerodynes have a serious problem with fighters unless they have a similar rotating bay like what I'd mentioned. As constructed and illustrated they can't launch fighters both during transit and when landed - only one or the other works.
As far as retrieving a fighter and needing to turn it around to launch again, I see two different possibilities.
1. Space: In order to come to zero relative velocity, the fighter or small craft must thrust with its engines to slow to zero acceleration, meaning they're going to be entering the bay engine first. So there'd be no reason to turn it around inside or use a turntable. I suppose its possible for them to enter nose first with a little velocity and use arresting wires or something to bring it to a halt and then turn it around, but it would have to have a near zero velocity anyway, which still means turning around and firing the engines to slow down. Turning around a second time just to see where you're going seems extraneous with video monitors and sensors (if not those grappling arms to assist.)
2. Landed: Aerospace craft have a Harrier effect to allow them to perform zero radius turns and land in near-vertical fashion. It seems this is requirement given the very short distances available in a dropship craft bay (no more than 20 meters deep I'd say). In space you can turn around and decelerate to zero, but in atmosphere and under planetary gravity conditions that's not possible without crashing - you'd need some thrust vectoring to be able to land on a dime.
In either case, you can't be coming in for landing at a few hundred kph or -splat-.
|
ghostrider
03/26/21 09:01 PM
66.74.60.165
|
There is a potential issue with the back towards the thrusters in the Leopard and others like it. When landed, the units would have to rotate 90 degrees in order to face the doors to head out of them. The question of how much space do they have to turn before exiting would have to be answered with that one.
Now here is a major picture issue with fighter bays, to go along with your response. The Leopard CV doesn't land or do much beyond entering orbit. So there is absolutely no reason to have a bottom transit drive on the, so why are the fighter bays looking like those on the planetary landing version?
Maintenance is much harder with vehicles if they are basically standing on their rear sides, beyond the fact that they are not all straight on that side. Sloped armor and things like hitches tend to be the first thoughts on that. Dealing with things like changing out say a turret or say an engine while it is on it's rear would mean hoists in the front, meaning side when landed, would have to be used. And this doesn't solve the issue of moving units between levels on ramps as suggested in some fluff.
I figured reversing into a fighter bay is possible, but without assistance, would take far to long. A minute is just not enough time as a round in space is. Which is really bad on the Vengeance carrier, as the landing bays are next to the main thrusters, so you would have to be moving up to enter it. Not very ideal at all.
The tube rotation is about the same for the box rotation, except that that the circular tube would be more dedicated to having the equipment rotation be enclosed.
|
ghostrider
03/26/21 09:17 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Fighter craft should be able to turn with their flight adjustment thrusters, but the speed would have to be zero. And sort of movement would have the ship off axis, sending one section out instead of a simple rotation turn.
The main reason why I think this, just like a turn table set up, wouldn't be feasible is the length of the ship verses the fighter bay. Fighters tend to be, but not always longer then they are wide. Granted, the bays are supposed to be able to handle all ships, as they are one size fits all (given that all bays weight the same amount, as none are listed as light or medium weights) and things like the Thrush and Sologar fighters are round work in those bays, though both of these fighters are lights, IE smaller then the others. The space that would have to be dedicated to the fighter bay would seem smaller in the pictures then they would need to be. I figured the bays reach almost half way thru a Leopard, so there is some space between the fighter bays for people to work, while the rest is taken up by the bays. Probably wrong on this, but that is my impression of it.
I am not sure if they give timeframes for space refueling vessels to line up with a ship to be fueled. This would be a good thing to base off landing a fighter inside of a bay. I was going to suggest a reduced time as you don't need to line up exactly, but then refuelers tend to have arms to hook up the connections.
One more thing about the rotating bays. The drawings look like there might be an issue with size of the bays verses the space they rotate in. This is not major, as pictures tend to never be exact on things like this.
|
Wick
03/27/21 10:14 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Quote:
... so why are the fighter bays looking like those on the planetary landing version?
Because these guys were artists, not scientists. Its pretty obvious a lot of the early FASA stuff just wasn't fully thought through (like the jumpship orientation facing toward star instead of away.) LOOSE and others may not have even known the stuff they were drawing for was harder sci-fi than Star Trek and Star Wars and just drew a spaceship that looked like it belonged in those universes where things like antigravity generators exist.
Quote:
Maintenance is much harder with vehicles if they are basically standing on their rear sides, beyond the fact that they are not all straight on that side.
Mechs are not all flat on their backsides either. Clearly there is some kind of scaffolding or frame to hold units in place. After all there are dedicated spots for them (mech bays, vehicle bays, etc.) Even if a dropship has extra weight for cargo it can't carry an extra mech or vehicle without damaging it during maneuvers - they have to be locked into the bays to prevent damage.
Quote:
And this doesn't solve the issue of moving units between levels on ramps as suggested in some fluff.
Ramps probably only used when landed. Though I suppose a unit could be moved up and down a ramp in spheroid ship under thrust.
Quote:
I figured the bays reach almost half way thru a Leopard
If there's one on each side this would mean they touch in the middle and effectively become a through-deck. A through-deck is ideal so you can launch out of one door and receive in the other, speeding up refueling operations so the next sortie can be carried out as quickly as possible.
A Leopard is 51.6 meters wide at the wings, which makes it maybe 40ish along the fuselage. This gives a bay length of no more than 20 meters. Assuming aerospace fighters are comparable in size to mechs (which are 7-13 meters tall), then that sounds about right. Something like the Chippewa might be at the extreme end of the scale, since its short in one dimension and very long in the other (and probably fits somewhere about 5 meters long but 17 or 18 meters wide.) I'd guess the Leopard bays are 20 meters square footprint (probably touching so as to make a through-deck) and 5-8 meters tall. If the Leopard isn't a through-deck then the space between the two bays must be rather narrow - certainly less than 5 meters wide or you'd never get the largest fighters to fit in a Leopard.
Edited by Wick (03/27/21 10:28 PM)
|
ghostrider
03/27/21 11:55 PM
66.74.60.165
|
TRO 3057 Page 48 under the Triumph says the newer version changes from a massive single ramp to a pair of narrower ramps that provide simultaneous access to both the upper and lower vehicle bays to reorganize cargo while a vessel is in flight. It is also equipped with two huge cargo bays with mech cubicles that allow for 4 mechs to be used as well.
So if you need some reading, that would be an interesting thing. And with this, it would imply the decks are not orientated towards the bottom of the ship, but the aft, if the transit drive is rear, not bottom.
I had forgotten about the Chippewa fighter being a basic wing when saying about the general design of the fighter bay. So I can see where the depth verse width comes into play.
This statement: I figured the bays reach almost half way thru a Leopard, so there is some space between the fighter bays for people to work, while the rest is taken up by the bays. Says the bays would not go completely thru, but have some space in between them.
I don't know if there is a deck above or below the placement of the fighter bays, to allow people to get by them, so assumed to have the space in between there.
But I guess if I was going to be very picky and technical, I could look up the size of the fighters and compare it to the space the cubicles actually provide. But we know the developers were not good about keeping things logical. 
|
Wick
03/28/21 05:37 PM
173.247.25.195
|
The Triumph has a transit drive on the bottom of the craft. It does not use the same engines for atmosphereic flight as transit, as the Leopard does. Thus it is capable of maintaining a "landing orientation" in space without issue. As odd as it may be to think of aerodyne dropships flying through space top-side forward, that's exactly how the Triumph works.
From Dropships & Jumpships, p 32: "The bottommost deck houses the ship's transit drives, landing gear, and fuel tankage." In fact the book states something similar for almost all of them. I'm less sure about newer dropships but there's a pattern here.
Aerodynes that have same engines at rear and must reorient internals to accommodate direction of gravity: Leopard, Leopard CV, Gazelle, Avenger (all under 2000 tons)
Aerodynes with separate transit drive at bottom of fuselage: Triumph, Condor, Buccaneer, Monarch (all 3500 tons or more)
Aerodynes with single rear engine transit drive but can't land anyway so internally organized like a warship (skyscraper): Achilles, Vengeance
Unclear: Fury (probably rear only due to its small size, but the engines are located on lowest deck)
So its generally only the small aerodynes that have to transition from gravity produced by a rear-thrusting drive to gravity from a planet. However for the larger, typically twin-engined aerodynes capable of landing there will be a period of transition between transit and orbit and landing in which the engines to be used are swapped. Everything should be locked down during these periods, but during the long transit trips people and military equipment could be moved around as if landed on planet (with another lockdown period to occur at flipover)
I probably should have clarified earlier statement about mechs on back as being for smaller, single-engined aerodynes.
|
Wick
03/28/21 05:57 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Quote:
But we know the developers were not good about keeping things logical.
Not at all. Even when they had art to go by.
The Leopard CV is listed at 53 meters wide, and top down view indicates its well under 20 meters wide along the fuselage where the fighter bays are, and the bay doors aren't even all the way on the sides but on an even thinner section of the fuselage. (Which by my measurement puts it at about 7 meters wide.) With a bay door on either side, that means the bays are only 3.5 meters deep. You can't tell me the aerofighters fit into cubicles that shallow. I mean, just a few pages later it states the ST-46 Shuttle is 22 meters long and the S7-A Bus is 20. So based on this we know fighter/small craft cubicles must be at least 22 meters deep. (And I may have shortchanged the Chippewa - it could be closer to 25 meters wide but I'll accept 22 as minimum for now.)
There's just no way the Leopard's main fuselage area is only about 30 meters wide based on overhead art and description of 51.6 meters wide at wings or Leopard CV at only 7 meters based on its overhead art and 53 meter width. The doors are a problem, too. The Leopards aerofighter doors are only 9.6 meter wide and the Leopard CV's only about 5.1 meters wide. Those dimensions might be plenty wide for a mech or vehicle door but that Chippewa's going to lose its wings coming in for landing.
Just some really bad specs and/or art with the early stuff.
|
ghostrider
03/28/21 07:59 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Sadly, only the Avenger has stated anything about having to deal with the two separate drives. The Monarch says outright, it only has the one drive for transit, though this can't be the only engine on the ship. Otherwise, the aerodyne body would NOT help with lift in any way in an atmosphere, which is part of why they are used.
Funny as it is, the Chippewa would not be able to sit on a turn table to rotate it back into position if the Leopard is only 20 meters wide. Not even including the second bay, but if the wingspan is 22 plus meters, it would stick out of the ship while being turned.
If I remember right, the clans Broadsword mentioned the narrow passage between the front two mech cubicles in order to get to the front cubicle. As it was based on the Leopard, but needed the 5th mech for a star, they redid a chunk of it. From the sounds of it, they might have actually realized the mistake with the regular Leopard, as they made the ship a bit bigger.
The art work might fit if the ship was larger. Or the specs reflected a larger size.
The problem I was trying to get at with vehicles verse mechs is the limited area they could rest on their backs without falling over, even with restraints. The mechs have a much wider base with arms/legs helping to keep it stable. Unless vehicles have some form of braces that fold out to hold the unit, it is far too dangerous to really be working on them while in transit. Which removes a lot of repair time on them.
Now another issue with the bottom transit drive. Arcs on the ship. The game suggests the nose is always in front of the ship while in transit, yet this means that anything coming up from the front/rear would be under the guns of ALL arcs on the ship. And damage would go where? No top or bottom armor.
|
Wick
03/29/21 05:38 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Actually there's a comment on the Leopard CV about reorientation as well. Or rather, the fact that Leopard CVs hardly ever land because of the perceived difficulty in doing so.
(page 52) "The Leopard CV is one of the few aerodynes not equipped with a separate transit drive, which means that the vessel's internal gravity is oriented differently when on the planet's surface than when in transit. This is generally not a problem, because the ship seldom enters the atmosphere except to recover an occasional downed fighter. The interior is designed almost exclusively for space flight, oriented so that "up" is toward the nose."
Which is really odd. The CV is based on the Leopard which is clearly designed to land and has horizontal rather than vertical decks. The artwork also has the bay doors oriented in a horizontal deck position when they should be tilted 90 degrees and be wider top-to-bottom than bow-to-stern if "up" is toward the nose.
But more generalized, there is this comment on page 4 of the D&J operations manual:
"Spheroids... Able to travel under sustained acceleration of about 1 G, the vessels can also accelerate to 3 Gs or more without worrying about the shift of gravitational orientations. Therefore, spheroid DropShips can maneuver at high Gs with significantly less preparation time than aerodynes - in most cases, between 30 seconds to a minute after alerting the crew and passengers. In aerodynes, the preparation process includes the actual moving or packing of all loose equipment and personal items. Depending on the vessel's preparedness, the operation could take anywhere from a few minutes to several hours."
So even though its only explicitly stated in the Avenger write-up, it can be infered from above that a similar internal reorientation process takes places on all rear-thrust only aerodynes. The Avenger's cabins are probably just better designed to make the conversion easier or more functional for the inhabitant(s). Being an assault craft that may need to launch quickly to provide orbital defense, its probably a good thing that its designed with speed and/or ease in mind.
.
Aerodynes like Leopards are primarily for raids, so you don't/shouldn't need to repair until you're back at home. Its the larger spheroids like Unions and Overlords that can do repairs en route. They have large repair bays while the Leopard repeatedly says how cramped it is aboard, with barely enough room to store the mechs and spare equipment (often storing spare parts in the aerofighter bays in lieu of fighters.) The HBS game aside, doing anything but simple repairs aboard a Leopard is just not practical. The type of service I was envisioning is reloading ammo and such - not repairs. Furthermore the Clans don't consider repair and maintenance as part of a military operation, so Broadswords being similarly cramped really doesn't do them much harm.
|
ghostrider
04/03/21 05:52 PM
66.74.60.165
|
The fluff for the Broadswords doesn't do much to harm them, but it does show just how tight the area in question is. Mech bays should be shaped differently then fighter bays, as the fighters would be longer and/or wider then the mechs. This means the width of a Leopard would be even tighter with a fighter bay verses a mech bay. Yes, this is supposition on my part, so the fighter turn table may well be usable in the area, unlike my reasoning would suggest.
Now a question of prices for building aerodynes. Would they need more added to it, as almost every door or console would need multiple copies on each thing? Even just a button to open a door would probably need two locations, as I don't think all the people on the ship could reach the top of the doorway on a ship that is under thrust. In zero-g they could float to reach the doors, but the mechanisms would have to be manually shut, or a decently long delay set up for the door, in this case, to shut automatically, to avoid catching someone having an issue in zero-g.
I know simplicity is done for a reason, but the idea of forward being the top of the ship changes combat. Any work being done to a unit would have to have it locked down before the rear thrusters could be used, as this issue may well send the unit into the rear walls, or another unit that is locked into position. Things like testing a drive train would require the unit to be able to move on it's own, meaning no lockdown is allowed.
The HBS Argo does show an issue with having a second dropship attached to the primary one when moving. The Leopard is set up so the nose is forward when moving, and all scenes suggest the Argo is rear drive only. I know, simplicity overrules logic most of the time for things like this, but the grav deck does seem to suggest dropships can have them.
And as for the low-g pool, it is possible that is in the rotation area of the ship. Meaning the area there is only subject to gravity when the ship is under thrust. Much like the transport tube on Babylon 5.
|
Wick
04/06/21 09:56 AM
173.247.25.195
|
Doors could be put into the appropriate corners of rooms such that duplication isn't needed. But you're not wrong that there probably would need to be many things duplicated and so aerodynes with only rear engines should come with a higher cost for these things to those with separate drive engines on the bottom of the fuselage. But given the absence of an entirely second engine (which must be expensive) we can consider it a wash when it comes to total craft cost. Yes you might need to buy two toilets, two shower heads, etc, but you only had to buy one engine.
As the earlier quote indicated, combat readiness is a circus. Everything needs to be strapped down in an aerodyne to change orientation, so if the ship needs to change from top-first to nose-first to do combat then the crew needs to take the time to do all these things first. On the other hand since combat only reasonably occurs near jump points and gravity wells due to transit velocities, most of the internal stuff should already be locked down as the ship would have been transitioning into or out of top-first or nose-first orientations anyway to be ready for orbiting/landing or jumpship hookup.
Not sure these small aerodynes would have much room to test a vehicle's drive train anyway. A Leopard/Broadsword might only have 5 meters or so of free space to navigate. Larger spheroids can do maintenance en route but these smaller craft really need to wait until planetside and have maintenance done outside the craft (usually at a dedicated facility). I suspect the dropports on most planets have repair bays on site to supply such a service (for a rental cost.) Not unlike airports that always have a hanger or two to service aircraft that have developed problems and are no longer safe to fly without repair.
The Argo and Leopard when joined are aligned correctly with Leopard nose to front. This would match how the Leopard transits so the crew (Sumire) navigates the decks just as they would before they gained the Argo. I have a bigger problem with the art of spheroid dropships taking off from warships as if they are docked with their engines against the warship's hull. This would place their decks perpendicular to gravity under warship thrust and is a major artistic error. Spheroids must dock to warships (and by extension, normal jumpships) on their sides, not on their bottoms. (Not withstanding the fact that the fusion engines could damage the warship/jumpship hull in an bottom-docked setup).
The Argo's low-G pool is explicitly build in one of the pods (beta or gamma, I forget which) so it is certainly in the rotating part of the ship. It therefore has gravity both under thrust, and when rotating in orbit. Its probably drained for the transitions and jumpship docking though or you could have water sloshing about and spilling out of the pool as the pods retract or extend, and float away when docked to the jumpship and near zero-G for extended periods. So its not usable all the time, only during transit and orbit.
|
ghostrider
04/06/21 12:51 PM
66.74.60.165
|
I guess it comes down to have aerodynes actually fight. When in combat, do they have and use a rear drive?
There has to be a way to move around the ship inside, even in combat. Simple firefighting needs to be done, otherwise, a fire that is small may well destroy the ship before combat is over.
This concept is why I believe all Aerodynes would need multiple controls for most of the systems like the door controls. Might not be everything, like the Avenger states, and the Leopard CV might not need them.
The concept of having rooms built in a tube the rotates does seem to be a great fix for dealing with this, but some issues do remain. Not everything can rotate, such as a few pipes. The unit decks being a main thing, as the space they use verse how much space they actually have.
Possible house rule might be to set in a price modifier for adding in the extra equipment needed to do so. Locking failure on keeping the equipment in place would be a big thing, but the structure to hold it being the most important.
The time when leaving a planet may well be required to work on some units, which might affect the lock down issue. This would be especially true for fighter or if you are moving to say another target, such as a base on a moon or going from moon to planet. Fitting the mechs drop pods is a good example of this, though not sure if the newer aerodynes have drop shoots in them. Given the issue of peoples habits, the idea that the coffee pots and such is locked down when in danger zones is unlikely. Stupid to say, but human nature would suggest this. Even moving around vehicles in order to set down and drop a few, then move to another location comes to mind. This sort of thing is probably when nearing a world. Updated intel being one reason to even attempt it.
I would agree a fully loaded dropship would have limited space to test movement, but even fully packed, they should have some space. Not saying a race track size to go full speed, but enough to make sure the unit can go a few meters. A floor mounted 'powerdyne' testing unit would seem likely, but you are not talking just wheeled vehicles. Tracked vehicles would be an issue on such a device.
Given the implied state of craft, I would guarantee all space ports have some repair facilities. Weither they work correctly or not is the question there.
I can also see most not having all the parts needed on hand, especially right after raids.
The nose pointing to the front is actually 90 degrees off from it's normal flight between points. The bottom transit drive is normally used when jump/planet routes are done. Not sure if the Leopard CV can dock with the Argo, but that would be the one to be 'correct' when flying.
Now to throw some more illogical things into the spheroid dropships. The tug, such as the Octopus, docks to the nose of spheroids in order to move them. So their thrust would be from the nose of the one being moved.
But the warship example is a nice one. Everything would be sideways when the warship is moving. But even before that, jumpships did use their drives to produce artificial gravity while waiting at jump points. I can imagine, they were not always empty, as some would be waiting for say an important person to board that didn't come on a dropship, or they are waiting for orders, like a reactionary force sitting to long.
The pool is more likely set up with walls that are closed on it, as draining it would take a while, and would then be restricted to just the middle half of a planet/jump run. Combat throws it all into the toilet.
I said middle, even though they put it in the gamma pod I believe, because they want you to fix the pods to get it all. SO they made sure by suggesting you have to fix the pod first. Otherwise, you should be able to get it without fixing any of them. Also, the gravity at the outer edge of a grav deck is more then near the spine of the ship, or so I have been told.
The required near zero-g would mean the pods can not be rotating, so in orbit would not be an option if in the main part of the pod.
|
Wick
04/07/21 09:17 AM
173.247.25.195
|
Its not a zero-g pool, its a low-g pool. Yes gravity would be greater the deeper into the pool you are. The understanding I got was that a person could push hard from the deepest point, and propel themselves directly out of the water, and do acrobatic flips "above" the water surface where the gravity was weaker. You can't do that on a planetside pool which is what makes it so cool. Apparently luxury dropships and space stations can offer such a feature for the rich and famous, but its not something your average merc group would ever get to experience.
Probably right that quality of the repair facilities at dropports correlates to how much traffic they get and how many merc or house units come through. Backwater planets are probably ill-equipped, core worlds are probably well-equipped, and border worlds depending on how long ago the last invasion was and how peaceful or damaging it was. But with the right components I bet mech techs could rebuild any damaged mech at one, regardless of quality (it might just take longer at poorly maintained ones). On many planets I bet there's a salvage yard next door, if not a mech seller. I can imagine that after several centuries of warfare, there's a lot of mostly destroyed mechs that are simply disposed of at earliest convenience, which would be right next door to the drop port. Replacement armor, myomer cable, and actuator components would be readily available, possibly compatible electronics and even replacement limbs (though it may result in Frankenmech appearance.) Well-off worlds would have their mech seller right there as well to make a buck off of the more successful merc groups passing through (except in the Republic of the Sphere where such practise is outlawed.) Clan worlds probably have cleaner dropports with no "junk yard", but an organized stack of fresh replacement parts (and obviously no mech seller.)
|
ghostrider
04/07/21 12:07 PM
66.74.60.165
|
I was thinking more along the lines of not having parts on hand for things when I said they might not be able to do it.
I would also think only dropship repair facilities would be near or in the space port area, as the port is almost an absolute target for any attack. Having a well stocked facility may well give the enemy tons of supplies that they might not have otherwise.
I would think at least an office for repair facilities would populate the port. I won't say the actual parts and facilities wouldn't be there, just not likely. Ways to transport broken units would, even if it is just to move the items from the dropship to the repair bay.
One thought came to mind about the low-g pool. The entire area would have to be set up to resist water corrosion. The splashing would definitely travel distance, and I would hate to be the one to have to clean it up. I could also imagine the extra water weight that would be required to keep one functional. Get used to one, and hurt yourself planetside comes to mind as well
|
Wick
04/08/21 02:02 PM
173.247.25.195
|
I hadn't thought about the water weight of the pool. That's significant. Argo could very well incur a precession when its spinning the pods around if one of them is a good deal heavier than the other two and the fact they are oriented more toward the stern than centerline. The pods really need to be similarly weighted - medical beds, cabins, the library and holosuite obviously add some mass, but probably not a lot compared to the fixed bulkheads as they are mostly empty voids. That pool on the other hand may hold several hundred tons of water depending on size. Farah should have vetoed this idea as potentially unsafe. Sumire is even enthusiastic about it and should have known better as a pilot.
|
ghostrider
04/08/21 02:49 PM
66.74.60.165
|
As the HBS game is not fully canon, they can get 'away' with a few things that don't work. Such as in the beginning, the ship was looking like an aerodyne when in the ground.
But the biggest oooops comes from the fact that only one habitation pod was whole, while the other two were framework. Part of the upgrades definitely defines this. So using the rotation would be completely off balance until you get something in the other two.
This is just speaking logically, not really something to 'fix' in BT.
Come to think of it, the Argo did have thrusters on the 'bottom' of the ship, in order to launch from the crash site. So the question of if aerodyne or spheroid does come to mind with this. If spheroid, then the 'side' thrusters would not be enough to help lift the ship off the ground.
As for the economy of a space port, the lack of parts shows in the tables in some of the books for availability of parts, IE the 7+ style roll for say heat sinks. But most seem to ignore those tables when looking for specific or even generic parts. The idea that a knee actuator for say a Vindicator during 3020 would be hard to get in the FS. Even the DC would be difficult, though I was suspect the LC being a merchant house, might be the better place to find one. One would suggest the constant raiding of the FS/CC would lead to there being more available, I would think finding a working one is the point. Doubtful of finding a brand new one.
The Achilles and Vengeance dropships are the other two that would definitely have problems around a large gravity source, as they would only have rear drives. They do not enter atmosphere, which would point to this speculation. So any type of orbit may well cause issues with things being pulled towards the gravity point. It may not be more then say a single ounce per meter, but it does create an issue.
The idea of a dropship being thrown into combat unexpectedly would mean that the idea of a diner table with loose items should not be portraited in the game. Any sort of maneuver would send that flying. The idea of doing any sort of repairs near a conflicted world brings up a whole new set of issues.
As stated before, putting on drop pods is one such action that happens a lot in orbit. The ship must remain stable for a few turns, unless that was changed. I wonder if there should be some sort of table for internal damage taken while dropping mechs. A good hit may well shift something being used and smash into a wall, support strut, or even the unit. But this is just adding complications.
|
ghostrider
04/09/21 10:35 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Really odd question has come up.
Does the grav deck on a warship work at a 90 degree angle from the thrusters that move the ship?
For some reason, the idea that the warship is based on an aerodyne frame, meaning little as they don't enter the atmosphere, but the drive being rear, not bottom, has me wondering this. Going aft/bow would have the deck going 'upside down' compared to any thrust from the engines.
The discussion about the side/bottom furniture placement has gotten me thinking of this.
|
Cray
04/10/21 08:41 AM
71.47.193.139
|
Quote:
Really odd question has come up.
Does the grav deck on a warship work at a 90 degree angle from the thrusters that move the ship?
The grav deck(s) of a WarShip are meant for use in zero-G when the ship isn't being pushed by its thrusters. They are generally arranged as rings around the central core of the KF drive like a toroidal space station.
The "Wagon Wheel" WarShip has some of the proportionally largest gravdecks that extend beyond the main hull. However, they do illustrate the standard orientation of gravdecks on a WarShip.
https://www.sarna.net/wiki/File:Wagon_Wheel.jpg
Quote:
For some reason, the idea that the warship is based on an aerodyne frame, meaning little as they don't enter the atmosphere, but the drive being rear, not bottom, has me wondering this. Going aft/bow would have the deck going 'upside down' compared to any thrust from the engines.
The gravdeck would not be used while the ship was under thrust since the whole ship would be under simulated gravity at that point. The gravdeck would seem to be severely tilted with centripetal force perpendicular to the thrust of the WarShip.
WarShips are not based on aerodyne hulls. They're scaled up, beefed up JumpShip hulls meant to experience "gravity" from only the engines. The stern is "down" and bow is "up" at all times unless coasting, (in which case the grav decks start spinning and crew may visit those small decks in their off-duty hours). As Strategic Operations noted, WarShips and JumpShips are arranged as "spacegoing skyscrapers."
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
04/10/21 10:58 AM
70.118.172.64
|
Quote:
WarShips are not based on aerodyne hulls. They're scaled up, beefed up JumpShip hulls meant to experience "gravity" from only the engines. The stern is "down" and bow is "up" at all times unless coasting, (in which case the grav decks start spinning and crew may visit those small decks in their off-duty hours). As Strategic Operations noted, WarShips and JumpShips are arranged as "spacegoing skyscrapers."
This is why the Bridge is considered by many to be at the FRONT of the ship or the bow, aka the top of the skyscraper. That does give a good explanation from our earlier discussion.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
04/10/21 11:50 AM
66.74.60.165
|
The reason for the question of the grav decks comes from the discussion of the orientation of items due to gravity shifts. I know they aren't used when the ship is moving, but there is no way some of those features can be secured properly when they are thrown into combat unexpectedly, such as a ship moving into sensor range. Most things could be secured normally, but things like barbells and other weights, tend to be left in unsecured racks when in use.
Which makes me question on just how the grav decks design is. If the 'spoke and wheel' concept is right, that means a huge portion of the 'decks' they are on, are unusable for anything else. The spokes would require open space in order to rotate, so any passage by them would have to be near the 'surface' of the ship, effectively removing a chunk of space. If just a tube, like a subway train like structure the goes on a track, then more of the space can be utilized.
The space going skyscrapers seem to be more aerodyne looking then spheroid. The Potemkin being the main one that breaks this look. Having the structures sticking out seems to make them more fragile then having everything tucked in neatly. Weapon blisters should be the main thing that doesn't follow the inside the 'cylinder' set up. Is this something the developers ignored? Or just the artists?
Another thing of the grav deck, but the weight of all things on it would have to be pretty much equalized around it, otherwise the deck would cause issues with the bearings/wobble the ship. Running it while under thrust would be stupid, that is a given. But any sort of things like say a bathroom, would have to be set towards the rear of the ship, as water would have to be 'pushed' into tanks, otherwise you would risk having the liquid leak from receptacles.
|
Cray
04/10/21 12:25 PM
71.47.193.139
|
Quote:
The reason for the question of the grav decks comes from the discussion of the orientation of items due to gravity shifts. I know they aren't used when the ship is moving, but there is no way some of those features can be secured properly when they are thrown into combat unexpectedly, such as a ship moving into sensor range. Most things could be secured normally, but things like barbells and other weights, tend to be left in unsecured racks when in use.
Yep.
Quote:
Which makes me question on just how the grav decks design is. If the 'spoke and wheel' concept is right,
It's canon. You can read Strategic Operations or DropShips & JumpShips to see the grav deck layout.
Quote:
that means a huge portion of the 'decks' they are on, are unusable for anything else.
They're small parts of the ships that mount them. Only on space stations do grav decks use up a lot of the inhabitable area.
Quote:
The spokes would require open space in order to rotate
If you read Strategic Operations then you'll see most decks don't have spokes. Most are more like circular subway tunnels inside the ship. To transfer between the decks and rest of the ship, small transfer cars (elevators on circular tracks) are used.
Quote:
If just a tube, like a subway train like structure the goes on a track, then more of the space can be utilized.
That is what Strategic Operations explains in detail.
Quote:
The space going skyscrapers seem to be more aerodyne looking then spheroid.
BattleTech's artists have generally ignored input from fact checkers and reviewers, so there's a lot of "ninja rocketships" (to borrow from Palladium) rather than sensible, realistic WarShip shapes. The Cruiser-class cruiser is an exception.
Quote:
Another thing of the grav deck, but the weight of all things on it would have to be pretty much equalized around it, otherwise the deck would cause issues with the bearings/wobble the ship. Running it while under thrust would be stupid, that is a given. But any sort of things like say a bathroom, would have to be set towards the rear of the ship, as water would have to be 'pushed' into tanks, otherwise you would risk having the liquid leak from receptacles.
I'd recommend reading Strategic Operations. You're reinventing the wheel on a lot of these thoughts.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
ghostrider
04/10/21 06:00 PM
66.74.60.165
|
I didn't know Strategic Operations had gone over this stuff, hence the questions here.
Does it explain about how to transit to the moving floor of the deck from the low/zero g? Depending on the size, the deck could well be moving rather quickly. I can see more then a few injuries coming from it.
I say this as I doubt everyone will be on the deck when it starts up. But it may be possible they turn it off when shift changes happen, and then back on to lessen such issues.
This would be almost required moving heavy pieces on and off the deck, such as moving a bathroom item or maybe some water tanks.
Do they have the entire area closed off to the non moving parts? Or is it completely open, so there is no risk of hitting a wall or something while trying to transfer over?
Things like the Earth ships in Babylon 5 have the central shaft that can be used to help ease the transition.
Hmmm. I guess some stop and go sections to allow for transfer without having to do a huge area, such as a 5 foot section that can be stopped and started without much issue...
I guess this looks like a got ya question line, but for some stupid reason, this actually is bugging me.
|
Karagin
04/10/21 10:44 PM
70.118.172.64
|
One bit of caution and one I have mentioned before, this is BattleTech, not Traveler...how much of all of this do we really need for the game of moving a unit around and rolling dice?
Hard science is fun, but it can ruin a game fast.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Wick
04/12/21 06:28 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Quote:
Does it explain about how to transit to the moving floor of the deck from the low/zero g? Depending on the size, the deck could well be moving rather quickly.
The movie The Martian has a scene illustrating a good example of this transition area. There is a ladder up the spoke from the grav deck surface (i.e., outer edge) and once they are sufficiently high on the ladder, the gravity is weak enough that they can push off into near-zero-G and float through the rest of the ship. Theoretically someone could "fall" down this spoke rather than using the ladder, and could easily incur injury as the gravity pulled them down to the grav deck floor. Training should prevent this in warship crews, but I imagine its not overly rare at civilian space stations. (Likely some dude trying to impress a lady.)
I suspect grav decks are not typically used when battle is imminent or about to provide rear thrust. The deck should be evacuated so people don't slide to the corner where floor and wall meet as the craft accelerates up. I suppose the ship could be caught off guard suddenly, and for that reason there shouldn't be too many loose items allowed in the grav decks. As I understand it, its mostly for exercise and recreation. So many people are only there to walk, and others might be there with stationary bikes or treadmills, both of which can be bolted to the floor/wall to endure change in gravity. Maybe some light sports equipment (balls, rackets, etc.) that can be stowed away quickly but cause no real damage if mistakenly left out. No one's living there and certainly no one should be using the bathroom or showering there - loose liquid is troublesome. If someone's gotta go they need to climb the ladder to enter the ship's main hull. Water bottles allowed, but not open cups.
It is only "fast" at the edge of rotation, as the spoke moves closer to the center of the ship it effectively moves slower so as to make it easier to transition from the fixed part of the ship to the rotating part of the ship. Its the same concept as swinging a piece of rope above your head. Both are moving at maybe one revolution per second, but your hand draws an arc a few inches long per 360 degrees while the end of the rope draws an arc several feet long - and thus faster. I'm not as familiar with Babylon 5 but it sounds like it has the same concept here. Its also possible there there are multiple rotating hubs, with an outer one moving faster than an interior one, which could also ease transition to the fastest moving outer grav deck ring - this seems overly complex though so I tend to believe in the single ring design as being unquestionably most common.
|
ghostrider
04/12/21 07:54 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Most are more like circular subway tunnels inside the ship.
This was a response to the spoke and wheel question. There is no spoke for someone to go to the middle of the ship and climb down.
To transfer between the decks and rest of the ship, small transfer cars (elevators on circular tracks) are used.
I missed reading this statement before posting my last post. It makes sense. I would think they had some larger ones for cargo transfers, though not sure if they would have only one such car, as they would have to lock to the deck, meaning anything stopped for any length of time would possibly be hit.
The battle thing is one that if sitting at a jump point, and not expecting an incoming ship, is a scenario that would cause problems with a grav deck working. Most other scenarios should give you time to shut down the grav deck. I would suspect it would have to slow down, not suddenly stop. Pretty much throwing people into the walls/floors/cealings.
Might be a funny sight for the first time or two, but put crewmen out of commission to even killing them.
Funny though very unlikely scenario is having someone get hit in the head with a bouncing ball, knocking them out.
|
ghostrider
04/13/21 11:25 PM
66.74.60.165
|
I was looking thru the wiki to see if a jumpship has to be pointed towards their target in order to jump, and seen nothing that says this has to be done. With that, it would suggest that the jumpship could jump 'sideways' to a destination. I was wondering if any of the books actually states is has to point towards the destination.
For someone wanting to keep a jump vessel in a system, this next bit comes to play.
The presence of another K-F drive coil, even a damaged one, within a certain proximity inhibits the correct formation of a K-F field. It is therefore impossible to move (jump) a fully assembled K-F drive as cargo or to recover a stranded JumpShip; unless they elect to scrap their drive coil, JumpShips must jump under their own power.
This is something that may well be an argument for being able to stack dropships on each other, as long as they fit ni the KF boom. It does not say that only a single dropship can be docked, just that anything outside of the boom would be sliced. If this is incorrect, the wiki needs to be updated.
The K-F field only correctly encompasses objects within the JumpShip or a DropShip that is properly connected by a KFFC Boom, and may slice through or mangle objects that are not fully encompassed.[9] Firing the K-F drive causes tidal stresses that can be felt up to 27 kilometers away from the JumpShip.[10][11]
And yet another oddity in the wiki. This negates the idea that the jumping vessel needs to be stationary.
It is possible to jump while moving; a JumpShip is not required to be stationary relative to the jump point. This is especially important for WarShips as it allows them to jump even while maneuvering under full thrust.
This part of the wiki negates the concept of being able to detect an incoming jumpship from a world, which seems to be a misconception even I though was correct.
When materializing at their destination point (whether or not it was the intended destination of the jump), the JumpShip causes tidal stresses similar to those caused when jumping out. It advertises its presence with an electromagnetic pulse that can be detected billions of kilometers away, and an infrared signature that can be detected from a relatively close range of up to 50,000 km.
I only realized after rereading this, that billions of kilometers for the EMP, thinking the IR was the range. So depending on the distance, the initial statement of not detecting it is wrong. I didn't erase it, as it shows misreading things can result in dumb mistakes.
Edited by ghostrider (04/13/21 11:35 PM)
|
ghostrider
04/13/21 11:33 PM
66.74.60.165
|
The first statement of a jump core interfering with a jump makes the question of how do they save jumpships that require another ship to jump to their location and require a replacement core?
Even the Yardships would have had issues with this.
The only way I could see around this, is that partially build ones MIGHT allow the jump, as there is no size notations in the wiki.
|
happyguy49
04/15/21 08:54 AM
143.244.44.14
|
I think yardships work like this: Yardship travels to the location of a stranded jumpship, stranded jumpship is inducted into the yardship where it is, then it is fixed up by yardship, then they can go their separate ways.
Otherwise a disabled jumpship would probably have to have its core removed and cut apart, elsewise said core would prevent a yardship from jumping. That might be so difficult and expensive that it could make more sense to build or buy another ship and sell the disabled one to scrappers.
|
ghostrider
04/15/21 11:44 AM
66.74.60.165
|
The issue isn't moving the stranded jumpship, but moving the parts to the stranded one. It isn't efficient to build a new jump core in a system without things like support facilities, especially if it is a hostile one. Granted, moving the ship wouldn't happen until the entire jump core is disassembled.
Not sure how far along the building of the core has to be, in order to interfer with the active core.
This is even more important, as the repair ships after the fall of the SL would not even have access to the Yardships, so building a core would be even harder. The Monolith is the largest jumpship after the SL and before the warship revival. It isn't like you can fit jumpships inside of the Monolith to do repairs, and the Monolith itself wouldn't have the space/weight to have repair/building facilities to build a new core.
The concept that seems to be common is based on having the core partially built. Just Take out the old core, and put in a new one.
Building a new core may be possible at the repair site, but the implication is that building one is difficult under the best times.
This can be easier then thought, depending on how the core is built. It might be that you can build it like a single coil at a time.
Now if I am missing some information, let me know.
|
Karagin
04/15/21 04:10 PM
70.118.172.64
|
Wait, if you are replacing the core, why would you need to rebuild the whole damn jumpship? I am starting to think you guys are way over thinking this stuff and adding layers in that aren't really relative or needed.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
1 registered and 55 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 170040
|
|
|
|
|
|
|