Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: 2300AD: Ship design Clarke Class Explorer

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Guild Adept atpollard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Such a configuration 'might' work if the VTOL drives on the wings could provide say 0.2G constant acceleration in deep space, making the ship a vertical torchship with moon-like pseudo-gravity. I assume that torchships (constant acceleration to midpoint and deceleration to destination) are beyond 2300AD 'hard science', but I wanted to defend the plausibility of the deep-space aircraft layout for other non-'artificial gravity' applications.

    Obviously, the only advantage over a more traditional design would be aerobraking and atmospheric flight - requiring a very specific pair of worlds at either end of the route to justify the expense and complexity of an airframe.
    Last edited by atpollard; 07-24-2012 at 09:55 AM.

  2. #2

    Default

    Are you saying it "doesn't work" for 2300AD because of the deck configuration?

    The point isn't that there would be any gravity (artificial or otherwise) while the ship was in space. The deck configuration -- like that of the Space Shuttle -- is for when it's landed (or landing) in a gravity well (i.e. a planet).

    If you are saying the ship just wouldn't (or couldn't) fly, that seems sort of irrelevant to a discussion of whether it is a proper deck plan for 2300AD. Other (official) deck plans for 2300AD have a similar layout.

    In any event, I think it's a nice deck plan.

  3. #3

    Default

    Thanks for the comments, by the specs its built from it should be able to take off and land, BIG vtol engines and some aerodynamics... basic lifting body. Reminds me to build the model. She's kind of based on the Prometheus, just went a different way.

    Well in space, the interior is zero-g, so its just like the shuttle, its mission profile is planet exploration, so it will spend a fair amount of time planet side, hence the lack of spin sections etc.

    The Aconit is a very similiar vessel design wise and a lot less aerodynamic, think of the Nostromo. Big hefty bugger that still can land. In fact I drew the plans and all the others in the new Traveller 2300 book.

  4. #4
    Publisher Facebook Connected bartmoss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    904
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by atpollard View Post
    Such a configuration 'might' work if the VTOL drives on the wings could provide say 0.2G constant acceleration in deep space, making the ship a vertical torchship with moon-like pseudo-gravity. I assume that torchships (constant acceleration to midpoint and deceleration to destination) are beyond 2300AD 'hard science', but I wanted to defend the plausibility of the deep-space aircraft layout for other non-'artificial gravity' applications.
    2300AD doesn't have torch-ships. In the game, Stutterwarp is efficient enough (lightyears per day) that no trip takes really long. So even if they oculd build a fuel-efficient torchship, stutterwarp would still be used for everything outside a gravity well.

    Quote Originally Posted by atpollard View Post
    Obviously, the only advantage over a more traditional design would be aerobraking and atmospheric flight - requiring a very specific pair of worlds at either end of the route to justify the expense and complexity of an airframe.
    Stutterwarp ships don't really pick up any delta-v on their voyage. They retain their initial vector from whatever orbit etc they were in. I am guessing - and I won't bother to do the map - that you can compensate much of that by clever positioning before you come out of stutterwarp.


    Quote Originally Posted by Krazma View Post
    Are you saying it "doesn't work" for 2300AD because of the deck configuration?
    Yeah, pretty much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krazma View Post
    The point isn't that there would be any gravity (artificial or otherwise) while the ship was in space. The deck configuration -- like that of the Space Shuttle -- is for when it's landed (or landing) in a gravity well (i.e. a planet).
    Fair enough, but I don't see ships of this size making landings/take-offs off of planets. The shuttle has a huge fuel requirement to even get into LEO and is far smaller than the Clarke Class Explorer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Krazma View Post
    If you are saying the ship just wouldn't (or couldn't) fly, that seems sort of irrelevant to a discussion of whether it is a proper deck plan for 2300AD. Other (official) deck plans for 2300AD have a similar layout.
    Entirely possible, I personally can't remember seeing a deck plan in an official 2300 AD product but I haven't looked into them in years (and I am not touching another Mongoose product). Even so, it's not unreasonable to assume that product designers opted for a "cool" deck layout instead of something that would "work" even if they understood the problems inherent in space flight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krazma View Post
    In any event, I think it's a nice deck plan.
    That it is.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bartmoss View Post
    Entirely possible, I personally can't remember seeing a deck plan in an official 2300 AD product but I haven't looked into them in years (and I am not touching another Mongoose product). Even so, it's not unreasonable to assume that product designers opted for a "cool" deck layout instead of something that would "work" even if they understood the problems inherent in space flight.
    You may want to check out the Thorez plans, I beleive they appreared in Challenge.


    Sorry, that's a wrong assumption and unreasonable, the above statement, I didn't do it because it looked 'cool', maybe you should see the specs. This is supposed to land, survey and go home. I'm part way thru building the model, its its got a fair amount of streamlining, in fact the specs call it a lifting body.
    I worked closely with Colin Dunn who wrote the new rules and 2320, so I have a good understanding of the system.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •