Hi all,
An open question to all you listers out there.....
We're going to be doing some expansions/replacements to the range of
FT merchant ships (FT 3xx series) very soon, and I wanted to canvass some
opinion on whether there are any specific sorts of ships you'd like to see
made.
Current ideas are:
*Some all-new general freighters and tankers, to replace some of the
old CMD designs that are now getting a bit rough due to worn-out
moulds. * Star Liner * Private space yacht
* Repair/maintenance ship of some sort
* At least a couple of new free traders/small tramp freighters
* Bulk Carrier (big tin can) * Colony Transport (big tin can with
lifesupport....) * New Space Tug design
Any particular votes/preferences out of these, and/or other ideas...?
> On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 11:28:20AM +0000, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Any particular votes/preferences out of these, and/or other ideas...?
I'd definitely be interested in modular-looking (if not
modular-construction) freighter designs - say four or five (liquid- or
gas-holding) spheres in a framework, or a spine with containers
attached.
R
I'd vote for these
> * Star Liner
perhaps also * survey * courier
I'll second the call for a modular system, mebbe just something as simple as
the way the UN ships are designed, of a sort... So that you can just clamp on
a few different modules onto a collection of engine and command modules...
However, on the flip side I think a few dedicated ships would do well. I
especially like the idea of having a Colony transport and a
repair/maintenence ship. I have a pair of sketches that I've meant to
transform into ships, but never got around to. I'll scan/post them on my
site tommorow and paste the links here. (oddly enough, one of them is for a
mobile shipyard, the other a colony ship)
> On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 11:28:20AM +0000, Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
> We're going to be doing some expansions/replacements to the range of
> opinion on whether there are any specific sorts of ships you'd like to
> see made.
One for each type of ship in the back of FB1. 2 variants for the common ones,
or better, a modular approach so many variants can be constructed.
> I'd vote for these
I'd also vote for a Q-Ship or Auxiliary Merchant Cruiser. Perhaps make
it look just like on of the other freighters but with pop up turrets and such.
later
> I'd also vote for a Q-Ship or Auxiliary Merchant Cruiser. Perhaps make
> look just like on of the other freighters but with pop up turrets and
Depending on the merchant designs, especially the container/modular
ships, it might be possible to have regular ships with 'drop in' weapon packs
that
look like pop-ups.
As I tend to think of the container ships as a spine with containers 'hanging'
off the side, forming a groove down the center, it doesn't seem a
stretch to have the pop-ups there, and perhaps some that protrude out
the sides between the containers.
Not that I'm offering to sculpt same... ;->=
The_Beast
In a message dated 11/6/04 3:22:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, jon@gzg.com
writes:
<snip> Current ideas are:
*Some all-new general freighters and tankers, to replace some of the
old CMD designs that are now getting a bit rough due to worn-out
moulds. * Star Liner
Okay
* Private space yacht
Yawn
* Repair/maintenance ship of some sort
Good, good
* At least a couple of new free traders/small tramp freighters
Yes
* Bulk Carrier (big tin can)
Good.
* Colony Transport (big tin can with lifesupport....)
> From: Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
> merchant ships (FT 3xx series) very soon, and I wanted to canvass some
Why don`t you make it simple. Watch the old battlestar galactica seiries, then
the new, then make all the ships in the "rag tag fugitive fleet"
<VBG>.
BIF
(who`s ideas of civ ships was formed by that show)
In a message dated 11/7/04 2:00:44 AM,
> owner-gzg-digest@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU writes:
> *Some all-new general freighters and tankers, to replace some of the
Okay always good
> * At least a couple of new free traders/small tramp freighters>>
Okay but these could be covered by above
> * Star Liner>>
Would be nice to see
> * Private space yacht>>
Not a high important to me, but these could also function as a Courier Ship
> * Repair/maintenance ship of some sort>>
Would like to see as I'm working up stats for a Full Thrust model of a Mobile
Ship Yard from Battletech, be nice to have a mini
> * Bulk Carrier (big tin can)
Could the Colony Transport by variant on the Bulk Carrier
> * New Space Tug design>>
Not a high important to me
I will throw my vote in for what looks like a modular Hull Cargo ship as well
Have a Good One,
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
Yes.
> * Private space yacht
> * Repair/maintenance ship of some sort
> * At least a couple of new free traders/small tramp freighters
> * Bulk Carrier (big tin can)
Just expand the unsc fleet tender with lots of different modules (cargo and
passenger), and different frontal steering modules. This should then fit all
of these nicely.
How about a science style ship with a "bio-dome" in the mix?
[quoted original message omitted]
* Star Liner Yes, something very sleek
* Private space yacht No high on my list
* Repair/maintenance ship of some sort
Would be very nice to have
* At least a couple of new free traders/small tramp freighters
Not real high on my list
* Bulk Carrier (big tin can) * Colony Transport (big tin can with
lifesupport....) Both of these would be nice to add to the mix
* New Space Tug design Not likely to add to be fleet but you never know
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Hi all,
Xarcht here. Tugs would be cool. Bulk pax carriers would be good. Freighter as
bridge, engines and links wloudbe wonderful cargo boats. Moble dock, sealed
and open, are good for fleet ops. Sleek private boats are good for a variaty
of uses.
Jim Bell <jn.bell@sympatico.ca> wrote:* Star Liner Yes, something very sleek
* Private space yacht No high on my list
* Repair/maintenance ship of some sort
Would be very nice to have
* At least a couple of new free traders/small tramp freighters
Not real high on my list
* Bulk Carrier (big tin can) * Colony Transport (big tin can with
lifesupport....) Both of these would be nice to add to the mix
* New Space Tug design Not likely to add to be fleet but you never know
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
> Hi all,
Great idea!
Robin Fitton <contactrobin@hotmail.com> wrote:How about a science style
ship with a "bio-dome" in the mix?
[quoted original message omitted]
I know it's a bit difficult with so many items not being pictured on the site
proper, but has everyone looked at what's currently available? Clarke is an
exploration ship, and I think those are supposed to be three 'domes' on the
stalks. Someday, I'll get a second to make up a Valley
Forge/Bershires.
Of course, GF001 is close to the modular freighter I had in mind, though
the spine is a bit small from which to have pop-ups springing.
The_Beast
> --- Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
I want to second some of the comments made about
modularity of these: using the fuel/provisions cubes
from the UNSC, maybe making some more spherical
options and giving us a spine/command area to attach
them to would be excellent. I've already started to do something like this
with kitbashed UNSC, and it would be very nice to have more bitz as options.
> * Star Liner
"What is THAT doing so close to a battle area?"
> * Private space yacht
I see this a s stylish version of courier: combine the two with options for
class or utility and call it good.
> * Repair/maintenance ship of some sort
absodamnlutely. I'm recently playing Escape Velocity on my Mac again and
notice the mining ships from the Nova version of the game would be outstanding
repair ships. Already thinking of ways to kitbash same, but if you put them
out...
> * At least a couple of new free traders/small tramp
or if the major freighters were sufficiently scalable,
would you need to introduce another model/mould?
> * Bulk Carrier (big tin can)
these two seem like shoo-ins for custom component
packs sold for attachment to the spine, etc of the freighter you mentioned
first.
> * New Space Tug design
or a scalable version of the maintnenance unit, perhaps?
> [quoted text omitted]
I like the "modular freighter" idea that most people have been tossing about.
I would probably buy all of them below, but I would look most forward to the
Colony Transport and Repair ship. Other things I would like to see:
Orbital facilities, especially orbital colonies. I would like to see these not
be as big as bases are now. Something about the size of heavy cruisers would
look better around most small planets.
Satellite based planetary defenses should probably be PC/DC
sized, perhaps a bit larger.
Orbital mining/manufacture centers. These would usually be in
orbit around Gas Giants, which tend not to be displayed on the board, so
they could be bigger. Perhaps self-propelled asteroid belt
miners that just consume each asteroid as they come to it. Works for the Oort
Cloud and Kuiper belt too...
Large in-system defense ships with no ftl. Perhaps these could
be older ship types with no ftl. Then you could include an ftl engine kit to
allow people to also make some of the last generation of big ships (BB's,
BDN's, etc.). Just a thought. Some sort of
non-ftl
big ship capable of defending a system would be nice though.
grant
> An open question to all you listers out there.....
> --- "Grant A. Ladue" <ladue@cse.Buffalo.EDU> wrote:
<snippo>
> [quoted text omitted]
> Large in-system defense ships with no ftl. Perhaps
this reminds me of the Traveller concept for 'battle
riders': non-FTL battlewagons that use an FTL capable
ubership for transport to-from combat areas. To the
same degree as with what we have now, Defend The Carrier! But the extra speed,
armour and firepower they(the riders) can bring to bear are nice.
geez: now i wanna make some up to see if they'd work
in FT...;-)
> Grant A. Ladue wrote:
Orbital thingies will always be lower volume than ships, so I suspect that
these will probably be in resin instead of metal. I am all for extra variety
in this regard, but I would try to go for unique things. As DLD already has a
lot of defense satellites I would suggest not duplicating this class of
thingies.
I would probably buy at least one of each orbital facility (if I like the
style). However, I would not buy loads of the same installation as
I do with ships:-)
All this means that volumes for these things will be pretty low. To make it
interesting for Jon they probably need to be modular so that
people can adapt/kitbash them to their own liking, while he can still
sell a fair amount of parts.
Grant A. Ladue schrieb:
> I like the "modular freighter" idea that most people
Other things
> I would like to see:
Here is another one:
The present exploration ship models are built around long-range sensors
for scanning deep space.
How about an exploration ship for close-up examination of planetary
systems, including landing operations? Conceptually like the Caravels of the
Age of exploration, James Cook's endeavour or Star Trek's Enterprise in
purpose.
- A good sensor suite, though not as prominent as present research
minis
- Generous accomodation space for a large crew of scientists,
technicians, landing detachments (incl.armed roopers) and scientific labs
- Cargo holds for vehicles, supplies etc.
- Docking points with several landing vessels (for atmospheric and
vacuum landings)
- Reasonable armament for self-defence
Greetings Karl Heinz
Personally, I think that freighters should be massive; they have to be to make
them economically feasible. Today's freighters outmass military ships by
enormous factors; a fully loaded container ship has twice the
displacement as a fully loaded Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, and a
single Hapag-Lloyd freighter could carry *ten* Ticonderoga-class
cruisers in its holds (going by weight alone, of course). So I think freighter
minis should be big mothers.
I also like the modular look, so long as it's done right. I don't think a
freighter would look anything like the Valley Forge from Silent Running; too
much wasted space. Instead, I think it would be a big boxy affair with as much
cargo space crammed onto its hull as possible, kind of a gigantic gypsy wagon.
> on 04.11.11 3:23 AM, Andreas Udby wrote:
Not exactly what you ordered, but a very, very nice write-up:
http://www.geocities.com/joi_sourcebook/Asterie/Asterie.html
JMO, but I think interstellar freighters will be spheres unless there's a
technological reason they're not practical. That gives you the most volume for
the least surface area which means the least amount of construction materials
needed to build it.
Bill
owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU wrote on 11/10/2004 05:29:44 PM:
> >
> on 04.11.11 8:59 AM, Bill Brush wrote:
> JMO, but I think interstellar freighters will be spheres unless
Your comment on surface area:volume is certainly true, but it only matters if
there's some reason to put the cargo inside a hull. Endless strings of
containers is another possibility.
> JMO, but I think interstellar freighters will be spheres unless
Material cost is trivial compared to safety of the contents and ease of
handling.
Thinking about this, I can foresee some fairly serious design issues. The
biggest, is how do you stop the string once you have it in motion?
Conservation of momentum is going to be a real thorny problem if you've got a
string of containers a couple miles long let alone a couple of hundred. There
might not be any gravity to worry about, but mass doesn't change just because
your out of the atmosphere.
On top of that you have to make the string and it's components tough enough to
protect the contents from radiation, space dust, and the odd meteor strike.
I'm not saying it wouldn't work, I'm just pointing out that compared to a
single large container it has issues.
Bill
owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU wrote on 11/10/2004 06:25:13 PM:
> on 04.11.11 8:59 AM, Bill Brush wrote:
> on 04.11.11 10:26 AM, Bill Brush wrote:
The
> biggest, is how do you stop the string once you have it in motion?
The cost in deltaV is the same in either case... And the sphere (or other
hull) costs more in materials. The rest is just an engineering problem (he
says glibly)...
> --- Edward Lipsett <translation@intercomltd.com> wrote:
Ah, yes... and, speaking from personal experience (not, alas, with
insterstellar cargo hauling, but personal experience nonetheless) engineers so
*love* to hear that phrase. <grin>
My vote would be for a structure; coming in loose as a string gets into too
many potential messes. Doesn't have to be *much* of a structure (certainly not
completely enclosed), but a 'backbone' at least. That's about the only reason
I don't see a sphere; while a cylinder isn't as volume efficient, you're also
reducing your forces on the outer components by a lot, keeping them in tight
with the axis of thrust for reaction drives.
Well, okay, 'a lot' is relative, I know; but still and all... the reason some
ships may be restricted to certain thrust levels might not just be engine
power. (Which I think has been reflected in some 'overdrive' varient rules in
the past.)
'Til later,
> > JMO, but I think interstellar freighters will be spheres unless
The "truth" of the matter is that future freighters would be primarily defined
by their ftl drives. How the ftl drive works is likely going to be the most
important factor in all your ship designs. If your ftl drive
generates a spherical "warp field" for instance, then you're going to have
ships that fit that field with the drive in the center. If your ftl drive
creates a "hyperspace jump point", then the ship is going to have be designed
to pass comfortably through that jump point. If you generate an ftl field
around the skin of your vessel, then you're going to have a ship with a
continuous hull. The variety found in modern cargo vessels is as driven by the
port facilities they need to access as it is by what they're carrying.
All that said, it seems unlikely to me that you will see the spherical vessel
with gianty empty cargo space within unless the economy of the time allows for
all the cargo to go to one place. The real strength of "containerized" cargo
is that it allows partial offloading and reloading at stops and waypoints and
simplifies reshipping the cargo onto different
transport to elsewhere. For the most part, the sphere design makes accessing
internal storage past the first few layers too difficult. Now, if all the
ships cargo is going to point B from point A, then that could be a different
story. There are ways to work around this limitation though, so you *could*
see the big round ships if other factors (like ftl drive) require them. If not
though, I wouldn't expect it.
> Material cost is trivial compared to safety of the contents and ease
Very much debatable; note, my bulk fuel transports were completed
on-site
from easily obtainable local materials. This was a huge assumption on my part.
It's plausible that moving the manufacturing equipment would be far more
expensive than building the entire ship one place and transporting to the gas
giant I envisioned.
Also, the pointed-cylinder fuel tank structure I'm using suggests that
you
use a size-limiting circular framework to assemble the tank in space.
Other folks figure you'd put it together bit by bit in whatever shape you
want.
Did I mention it's still what you're seeing in your mind's eye, and what you
need to justify (model aircraft fuel tanks) that will shape your PSB?
The_Beast
> Material cost is trivial compared to safety of the contents and ease
> Very much debatable
Not at all. You build it where it's cheap to build, then ship it. If it's not
easily transportable, then maybe you ought not to be using it for a shipping
container.
The Star liner is now a troop transport (after being nationalized) such as the
historic exapmles of the Britainic and the other sister ship to the Titanic,
though the troops don't get any of that high class treatment.
I'd think that the star yacht would be the Admiral's barge, after all its too
luxurious to be a mere courier.
> Inire <inire@yahoo.com> wrote:
"What is THAT doing so close to a battle area?"
> * Private space yacht
I see this a s stylish version of courier: combine the two with options for
class or utility and call it good.