How long should it take on average to build a ship per Mass point? I've looked
but thur official and some of the unofficial sites and have not found this
info yet
I'm asking for a proven design not a new prototype For example I have the yard
space and crew to build a Mass 25 Frigate 1 at a time in the yard. In 1 year
on average how many of these Frigates should I have built? Also will it take
longer to build 4 25 ton Frigates (1 at a time) or 1 100 ton Battlecruiser (if
I have the yard space for it)?
I'm trying to design a small power, and trying to figure out their build
capabilities.
Have a Good One,
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 05:50:55PM -0500, DOCAgren@aol.com wrote:
I've
> looked but thur official and some of the unofficial sites and have not
I can actually give you an official answer, though I suspect the numbers
weren't intended to be used this way. Working on the flavourtext in FB1, we
have for each class a total number of ships constructed and a year of
introduction; so that gives construction rates per year in both TMF and NPV.
I've put the numbers for the NAC ships into a spreadsheet...
The overall total is 4964.52 TMF/year, 16772.1 NPV/year. (This is for
the entire NAC, naturally.) The highest total for a single class is the
Huron-class light cruiser, 725 TMF/year and 2421.5 NPV/year. The lowest
is for the Harrison scoutship, 54 TMF/year and 189 NPV/year. (Even then,
was can't say that this represents the total output of a single yard, or
anything useful like that.)
But other than this very vague guideline, I think it's going to vary a
_lot_ based on campaign background and assumptions.
From: <DOCAgren@aol.com>
> How long should it take on average to build a ship per Mass point?
RW build times for ships vary wildly. 2 years is about right for a 3,500 tonne
ship 5 years is about right for a 80,000 tonne ship
Divide by at least 2 in times of emergency/hot war.
Try SQRT(mass) x 10 weeks.
eg Mass 36 ship - 60 weeks (just over 1 year)
Mass 256 ship - 160 weeks (just over 3 years)
> The overall total is 4964.52 TMF/year, 16772.1 NPV/year.
The scary thing is, I'm assuming it's smaller than what was possible to
create, or even was created, in the FH. There's no reason to believe that the
NAC was building at full rates through the period, and the spreadsheet can't
count the obsolescent classes built at the start of build runs for some ships,
or the newer classes mentioned but not seen in the FB's.
> RW build times for ships vary wildly.
Not sure if the previous inquistor wanted to know, but would a slip(?) in a
shipyard capable of building an 80,000 tonne be a) capable of building just
one 3,500 tonne at a time, b) capable of multiple smaller ships, or c)
wouldn't be used for such a small ship, even if the need were great?
Your per ship completion time to time difference sounds right, but it might be
that for the ships in question, with the same resources, you might be able to
complete more of the smaller ships than works out that way.
Also, hasn't emergency 'rush' tended to speed smaller ship construction more
than larger ones?
Anyone have experience with RW shipyards?
Thanks!
The_Beast
> Doug Evans wrote:
in a
> shipyard capable of building an 80,000 tonne be a) capable of building
RW ship construction is limited by the size of the slips and dry docks, but
since orbital yards will have a little more space handy, this may not be an
issue. That is, it only needs to be a limitation if you want it to be.
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 07:40:55AM -0600, Doug Evans wrote:
> The scary thing is, I'm assuming it's smaller than what was possible to
Entirely true. I'd probably double that if I were aiming at getting numbers
for total shipbuilding capacity.
> Not sure if the previous inquistor wanted to know, but would a slip(?)
in a
> shipyard capable of building an 80,000 tonne be a) capable of building
It does occur to me that in spite of what we often see in SF films
there's no real need for "a slip" to be involved at all - these are all
vacuum-only ships, and could be built in free space near the shipyard
proper without necessarily having any sort of support framework surrounding
them (though it might well make life easier).
Ok, I'd known that the concept of space-building not needing structures
was there, but I was avoiding even going there. Sort of like the next step
some would have: just dump a couple of buckets of the right varieties of
nanites on the right rock, and come back shortly to pick up your fleet, fully
automated.
Baja aside, of course.
Sort of devalues the ships, not to mention the folks in them.
Yes, you can build ships without the structures. Yes, modularity means you
build a small piece, attach it, and it's flawlessly integrated. Will it
necessarily the best way to do it? I'm not so sure. But that's a flavor thing
as much as any.
The_Beast
> At 9:37 AM -0600 3/21/04, Doug Evans wrote:
The space dock is going to provide the following: Power Light thermal
protection (how hard is it to line up a part that's suddenly expanded because
it's struck by direct sunlight? Habitation facilities for the construction
teams
Staging points for materials, tools, parts, sub-assemblies
structural support for the items above for alighnment design offices where
problems might need to be sorted out
Even today, ships are coming off of slips slightly different as the design is
changed over the course of the production run. There's a very good book about
the Arliegh Burke class construction program and how Bath Iron Works is doing
it. They're building it in modules sometimes upside down in factories floors,
then assembling them on the slips.
Assuing such a process would work for a Space Navy, it'd be trivial with the
kinds of heavy lift capabilities some nations would have to construct the
large modules on a low Gee environment and then boost them to an assembly
area. If only to make it easier for the crews to perform their work. Work in
zero Gee with a hard vacuum is hard. Fiddly work is very hard as well. Crews
would work far more efficiently if in a pressurized environment with low
gravity. Artificial gravity plating in an assembly dock would be useful.
For maximization of work space, a set of slips arranged around a disk or a
sphere would allow an internal area for offices, quarters and workshops (1 G).
A layer of enclosed area for major assembly (or small craft assembly) seems
reasonable (pressurized w/ airlocks for access in
and 1-.3 G). Two layers of slips would be useful
as well, enclosed slips for major construction
(pressurized w/ airlocks for access in and 1-.3
G) and overhaul and external slips for minor work that can be accomplished
outside (open to space).
With additional sub components built on the surface of a factory in times of
great need, one could step up construction times to match that of the liberty
ships or the LSTs.
Well, here's also a point that needs to be appreciated here, and that's that
the scale of the starfaring nation you're dealing with has to be taken into
account.
The NAC (and other powers) are generally modelled as having no more than half
a dozen core planets, all of which have considerably smaller
populations than even present-day RW earth. So the roughly 5,000 TMF
annual figure that was given for the building rate of the NAC has to be
considered in this light.
In Star Trek, you're looking at several dozen populated planets, many of
which are much more populated than present-day RW earth. And if you
get into Star Wars... well, the planet of Coruscant alone probably has more
industrial power than the entire human sphere in FT canon. (I mean, stop and
think what the concept of an entire planet's surface being urbanized really
-means-...)
E (aka StiltMan)
[quoted original message omitted]
> Eric Foley wrote:
Really crappy parking?
That'd eat into productivity a bit.
Seeing how I read from the Digest, I will answer a bunch of these as well.
<<Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 09:48:23 +0000
From: Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org>
The overall total is 4964.52 TMF/year, 16772.1 NPV/year. (This is for
the entire NAC, naturally.) The highest total for a single class is the
Huron-class light cruiser, 725 TMF/year and 2421.5 NPV/year. The lowest
is for the Harrison scoutship, 54 TMF/year and 189 NPV/year. (Even then,
was can't say that this represents the total output of a single yard, or
anything useful like that.)
But other than this very vague guideline, I think it's going to vary a
_lot_ based on campaign background and assumptions.>>
I looked at the FT books as what the Powers were putting out at the time from
their overall yards, however this doesn't cover Prototypes, civilian ships or
Fleet support Ships. So I figure that that the ship totals can be
easly
doubled, but U cut down on non-Combat Ships.
But a good point. If that just 1 yard Damm it got to be a big yard.
As for background I was looking for a small non-canon GZG nation I'm
working up The Midgard Herding, so it will be working GZG background
<<From: "Alan and Carmel Brain" <aebrain@webone.com.au>
Subject: Re: ? for the FT players or anyone with RW Naval Build Times
RW build times for ships vary wildly.
2 years is about right for a 3,500 tonne ship
5 years is about right for a 80,000 tonne ship
Divide by at least 2 in times of emergency/hot war.
Try SQRT(mass) x 10 weeks.
eg Mass 36 ship - 60 weeks (just over 1 year)
Mass 256 ship - 160 weeks (just over 3 years)>>
Okay this is workable.... ANd sort of what I was looking for. Thanks.
<<From: Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net>
Subject: Re: ? for the FT players or anyone with RW Naval Build Times
> Doug Evans wrote:
> Not sure if the previous inquistor wanted to know, but would a slip(?)
in a
> shipyard capable of building an 80,000 tonne be a) capable of building
> one 3,500 tonne at a time, b) capable of multiple smaller ships, or c)
> wouldn't be used for such a small ship, even if the need were great?
RW ship construction is limited by the size of the slips and dry docks,
but since orbital yards will have a little more space handy, this may
not be an issue. That is, it only needs to be a limitation if you want
it to be.>>
Well, I beleive that my Space Fleets will be built in Space Docks. With each
"drydock" having fixed sizes. My reasons: Living Space for yardcrews Some
protection in cases solar storm or attacks for both ship, parts and
build crews Part Storage for things that the ship building will need (unless
you have prefected Just in Time Delivery Sysytem with requirement to move
stuff between yard and either planet below or even other systems. The ability
to build at somewhere between.3 to.7 G for make of construction And lastly the
fact that the yard crews can work in "light (see US shuttle crews outfits)
space suits vrs full pressure suits that a "free floating yard".
Have a Good One,
> At 12:26 AM -0500 3/22/04, Ray Forsythe wrote:
Damn, I've driven around the planet three times and I still can't find a
bloody parking spot. I guess I'll just have to park at Pluto
and walk in...%@#*!