> Noam wrote:
> Diaspora-G (Sinai) Colony ship:
Screens on a Fragile hull? As I said to Tony Francis, this is simply a waste
of resources - the same Mass of armour gives at least twice the
protection against all weapons except needle beams and possibly EMP missiles,
and
the armour is cheaper :-/
> Cargo Space: C40 C40 C40 C40 Four colonial Drop Pods
You're mixing MT and FB design rules here, or else the HLs aren't
supposed to be able to re-dock with the Sinai after they've been
launched (nor able to load cargo from the Sinai). Bays able to carry two Mass
40 ships have a total Mass of 120 in FB, not 80.
Do the colonists landed by the HLs live in the HLs during the interstellar
journey? The Sinai has no space for them except in the colony drop pods, but
those are supposed to land themselves. (Not that I'd want to be in
one of them when it tries - see below!)
> Gimel Class Colonial Drop Pod
Um... English isn't my first language, but my dictionaries translate
"redundant" roughly as "superfluous" with a touch of "...as long as you
haven't lost the primary unit" - and I wouldn't be willing to tell a
bunch of colonists that their landing craft is that, or that they are
:-/ What does the word mean in reality?
> Power/Locomotion: Unidirectional atmospheric entry. Grav/retro
These should count as Streamlining - at the very least Partial,
probably Full. Even so, the indicated complete lack of structural integrity
makes it
rather unlikely to survive atmospheric entry - even a near-miss from a
PDS would destroy it <shudder>
> Magen III Class Station Pod/Outpost
128 + shuttles (34 [hull size] + 14 [hull integrity] + 9 [screen] + 6
[armour] + 18 [beams] + 6 [PDS] + 8 [FCs] + 33 [shuttle bay]).
> Unallocated Mass: 0
Should be 2/2/2/1. A bit too small to use a screen too - particularly
since missiles are the weapon of choice to kill immobile targets.
Regards,
From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com>
> Noam wrote:
> Screen / 1
Screens on a Fragile hull? As I said to Tony Francis, this is simply a waste
of resources - the same Mass of armour gives at least twice
theprotection against all weapons except needle beams and possibly EMP
missiles, and
the armour is cheaper :-/
I did it for a couple reasons. Colony ships are non-military, and most
civilian hulls I have seen are weak or fragile. I also wanted something PSB
ish to denote that the ship expects to face more environmental dangers
(e.g.
radiation) than attack.
> Cargo Space: C40 C40 C40 C40 Four colonial Drop Pods
You're mixing MT and FB design rules here, or else the HLs aren't
supposed to be able to re-dock with the Sinai after they've been
launched (nor able to load cargo from the Sinai). Bays able to carry two Mass
40 ships have a total Mass of 120 in FB, not 80.
Yes, I am mixing rules to a point. FB rules don't really cover
non-military
ships beyond a few freighter templates, nor do they detail things like modular
ships. All the pods and heavy lifters are secured onto the hull, not carried
in
bays. Once they are detached, however, they can't be easily re-attached
outside a dockyard facility. The link uses bare minimum for a secure carry,
and doesn't include mechanics for re-attachment. So, no the HL's aren't
supposed to be able to re-dock to or off-load cargo from the Sinai.
They're
main function is to serve as sub-orbital tranport on the colony world,
and
colony-to-orbit lift and return.
Do the colonists landed by the HLs live in the HLs during theinterstellar
journey? The Sinai has no space for them except in the colony drop pods,but
those are supposed to land themselves. (Not that I'd want to be in
one of them when it tries - see below!)
Yep, the HL bays are packed outgoing. It ain't luxury accomodations. Some to
most colonists might, or even should, be in cryosleep.
> Gimel Class Colonial Drop Pod
Um... English isn't my first language, but my dictionaries translate
"redundant" roughly as "superfluous" with a touch of "...as long as you
haven't lost the primary unit" - and I wouldn't be willing to
tell a bunch of colonists that their landing craft is that, or that they are
:-/ What does the word mean in reality?
In engineering terms redundant means repeated, backup, alternate. On the NEAR
spacecraft for example, there are redundant flight computer systems
(a
duplicate identical computer) to switch to in case the first fails (the
s/c
also has many other similarly duplicated systems). There are also
"functionally redundant" systems - not exact duplicates, but able to
reproduce the essential functions of the primary system should it fail. For
example, if the star cameras (used for navigation) on NEAR fail, the
MultiSpectral Imager (MSI) - one of the main optical instruments on the
s/c
can fulfil its function with some cost to the science return. Almost all space
missions are designed to have redundancy of as many primary functions and
goals as possible. So, in this FT case, if one colony pod is lost or damaged
on landing and it's com gear or generators are irrepairable, there
are three others that should be fine. If that may seem _too_ redundant,
the
contractor can certainly opt for more different supply/equipmet at the
cost of reduced backups. Sabra Colonial believes that the most essential
systems for the viability of a new colony should be present in each drop pod,
and that is the basic package.
> Power/Locomotion: Unidirectional atmospheric entry. Grav/retro
These should count as Streamlining - at the very least Partial,
probably Full. Even so, the indicated complete lack of structural integrity
makes it rather unlikely to survive atmospheric entry - even a
near-miss from a
PDS would destroy it <shudder>
Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I assumed that basic one way stuff could be
accounted for "off book". I based it on a discussion I had with Thomas
Barcaly about the per/mass capcity for colonists. Converting from his
trooper estimates he came up with numbers up to twice mine for the "low
supply" version (i.e. up to 100 colonists/mass). I assumed that if I
chopped
that max in half, I could broad-brush say that the one-way orbit-to
ground capability was part of the package.
As for susceptibility to fire, anyone who would try to colonize a hostile
planet (or hang around a warzone in a civilian ship) deserves what they get.
> Magen III Class Station Pod/Outpost
128 + shuttles (34 [hull size] + 14 [hull integrity] + 9
[screen] +
6
[armour] + 18 [beams] + 6 [PDS] + 8 [FCs] + 33 [shuttle bay]).
> Hull: 2/2/1/1
Should be 2/2/2/1.
Roger those.
A bit too small to use a screen too - particularly since
missiles are the weapon of choice to kill immobile targets.
I used the same logic as for the colony ships, but in this case, you've
convinced me.
> Noam wrote:
> > Diaspora-G (Sinai) Colony ship:
twice the protection against all weapons except needle beams and > possibly
EMP missiles, and the armour is cheaper :-/
> I did it for a couple reasons. Colony ships are non-military, and
I don't mind the fragile hulls, only the screens :-/
> I also wanted something PSB-ish to denote that the ship expects to
Why would the Sinai face worse radiation dangers than NI or NSL warships?
> > Cargo Space: C40 C40 C40 C40 Four colonial Drop Pods
The FB design rules do cover non-military ship design, yes. They don't
cover the civilian costs or uses for the cargo these ships are carrying.
Modular ships are not covered, that's true.
> All the pods and heavy lifters are secured onto the hull, not carried
OK. That was my alternative interpretation of it, but given the cargo shuttles
already present in the outpost I didn't believe too much in it.
It causes problems when you shoot at a Sinai with attached HLs, though
- which ship is it you actually hit when you shoot at them?
> > Gimel Class Colonial Drop Pod
[snip]
That's pretty much what I thought, then. OK, you meant redundant in secondary
functions; but if you lose a pod you're pretty much
guaranteed to have lost the people inside too - and calling the pod
redundant is psychologically very close to calling the people in the
pod redundant as well, and I doubt me they'd like that very much :-/
> > Power/Locomotion: Unidirectional atmospheric entry. Grav/retro
If they can, then starship landing drives can also be accounted for off book.
Makes the loads of Mass used by the various streamlined NI ships look rather
wasteful <shrug>
> As for susceptibility to fire, anyone who would try to colonize a
You misunderstood me. Atmospheric entry is likely to release much more
energy for such a big craft than a PDS near-miss, both in heat and in
physical stresses. If you're completely destroyed by the PDS near-miss,
you're also very likely to turn to cinders if you try to drop through
an atmosphere - completely regardless of whether or not there are enemy
combat units anywhere nearby.
Regards,