|
Post by Philip on Jan 5, 2005 8:24:37 GMT -5
Do me one favour though; drop the idea of ships 'armed to the teeth with Ad-Mech weapons'. Sure. The thing is though, that I'm not sure that Philip's system is the best way of doing things. For all I know, it might be a waste of resources to transfer the cargo from the big (and apparently extremely fast) interstellar transports to smaller (and possibly slower) system ships. I would say Warp-Tugs are fast in the Warp, they are designed for it. The main point is that the Warp-Tug isn’t ‘wasted’ doing sub-light runs. It sounds a lot like sending cargo by train from Washington to New York, except that you stop the train about 100 miles from New York, and have the cargo taken the rest of the way by trucks. Train and truck are both ground based modes of transports, whereas Warp-Tugs (warp) and System-Tugs (conventional) are very different modes. A better analogy would be, sending cargo by airplane (note: could change the airplane for a boat) and when the plane lands the cargo is then loaded onto trucks to complete the journey. This trip would via air (or sea) then ground and would be a better match for a journey via the warp then sub-light. It is just a more efficient way to do things, I sure you wouldn’t want a jumbo jet to land outside you house just so the postman could drop of your mail? The only problem is that there really is no need for the dedicated tugs given how it is described in the old 'fluff'. I think we can expand on old fluff, after all isn’t that the whole point of the project, to make things more believeable? They're still going to require the same rough amount of fuel to get them to the edge of the system. True, but they will not have to carry the fuel for a warp jump. Their only advantage is that you have a 'warp tug' with minimum sublight drives… It would not need massive sub-light drives, as the only time a Warp-Tug would use them is when going in for a service, and then it’s not going to be dragging a 5km Cargo Container is it. This means when it does use it’s sub-light drives they are only required to propel the weight of the Warp-Tug, nothing more. This means the Sub-light drives can be much smaller than the massive sub-light drives fitted to a System Tug. Also as the System -Tug doesn’t need a warp-drive engine and the associated fuel to run it, it can be dedicated to Sub-Light engines. I would look at the Warp/ System-Tug system as a product of ‘specialization’. System-Tugs only need fuel for a journey to and from the warp-zone. The Warp-Tug only needs fuel for Warp-Jumps and as a warp engine is not a propulsion system it may require less fuel, however even it running the warp expends far more fuel than what any System-Tug can chew through, this can be easily offset by giving the Warp-Tug a very fancy/ esoteric power plant (to match is fancy/ esoteric warp-drive and geller-field) …and potential problems with integrating the warp drive into the rest of the ship (this gets back, in essence, to Sojourner's tongue-in-cheek "warpdrive-in-suitcase" comment), and a sublight tug without the warp drive. I think that a Warp-Tug that can handle a 5km Cargo Container with a mass of billions of tons is going to be quite large. In fact I think it is going to be huge (hence my reference to being well armed, the Warp-Tug is just like a concentrated battle ship, its all engine and guns).
As a further note, I really like the idea that the navigators are out in deep space for years on end, and it would make a sighting a little rarer. It gives them the potential to be a little ‘mysterious’ not because the fluff just says so, but because there is a reason: limited contact. Also the fact the Warp-Tugs are going to be ancient battle ships would just further solidify the idea the navigators are ‘powerful’ and are best buds of the Adeptus Mechanicus. Design note: A lot of Imperial 40K ships look like old American steam trains, I’ve just added so carrages. ;D
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 5, 2005 8:26:19 GMT -5
CELS: Aren't Destroyers supposed to be around 400m? In that case, no, corvettes should be small, 100-200m. I'd like to suggest that the minimum 'ship' size is the smallest vessel that cannot fit into standard cruiser launch bays. Anything smaller than this is an attack craft. Hey, that actually sounds somewhat familiar. Now that you mention it, I seem to recall that they're 300 meters, but 400 meters might be right. There's just one problem. Apparently, we know from Execution Hour that an Imperial cruiser is 3,2 km. Looking at GW's models and an official size chart sent to me by Kage (it shows the relative size of ships, but does not have a scale to give us the absolute size), the destroyer is roughly 30% the size of an Imperial cruiser, which is 0.96 km. Looking at my spreadsheet, I've estimated that the smallest destroyer is 1,08 km. Not that far off. So... can we confirm that the destroyer is 400 meters? And if we can, then what? So if we do have a military ship class that is smaller than Corvettes, I'll call it Brigantine. Excellent ;D
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jan 5, 2005 8:28:46 GMT -5
Incidentally, I think a Pinnace is an attack fighter craft of some sort. Possibly bigger than a typical interceptor, with more fuel reserves, more independent. Rather like the Eldar attack ship we designed.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 5, 2005 8:35:36 GMT -5
There's just one problem. Apparently, we know from Execution Hour that an Imperial cruiser is 3,2 km. Looking at GW's models and an official size chart sent to me by Kage (it shows the relative size of ships, but does not have a scale to give us the absolute size), the destroyer is roughly 30% the size of an Imperial cruiser, which is 0.96 km. Looking at my spreadsheet, I've estimated that the smallest destroyer is 1,08 km. Not that far off. I don’t know if this would be a help, perhaps it could give a few clues Jeff Russell's STARSHIP DIMENSIONS Click -10x.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jan 5, 2005 8:41:05 GMT -5
Wrong. Too big.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jan 5, 2005 8:43:30 GMT -5
In addition to being an amazing picture, that is rather interesting. Now I just have to find John Reed and ask him how he got those numbers
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 5, 2005 8:48:19 GMT -5
There is a close up of the Destroyer in the -2x tab.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jan 5, 2005 8:59:13 GMT -5
I think both I and CELS have seen it, and it's very cool. Point is, I'm sure he's got his numbers wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 5, 2005 23:19:23 GMT -5
We have been over this point many, many times before. I can merely say what I have said before: We keep to the 'fluff' and only when it is broken, or when there is no other real alternative, do we change things. While the specifics of 'cargo transport' are up for grabs, I do not feel that there is sufficient evidence, or lack of evidence, to suggest the adoptions of 'warp tugs' merely because they are a quite cool idea.
No fuel is utilised in the 'warp' other than that which is used to power the Geller Field and other appropriate systems.
Erm, that's why I said 'minimum' and it was in reference to the sublight engines of a 'warp tug'.
I would strongly suggest that the warp engines are not powered by internal combustion or MHD turbines, or whatever. Yes, they use energy and that energy is derived from 'fuel', but you're talking much longer timescales.
As I said before, it does have some interesting advantages but also disadvantages. The advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages at the moment and add a further level of complexity.
That and they are not strictly needed, more so in the 'fluff'.
And now it is getting a tad on the redundant size. You've got a 5km cargo container and then a multi-km (?) warp tug which is vulnerable as soon as it enters a system on the fringes, the normal play ground of pirates and... Erm, again the disadvantages outweigh any advantages. I would say that it could be used in one system, except that wouldn't work. A linked set of systems, perhaps. But not as applicable to cargo transportation in general.
They could be rare because, well, they're not common? And, again, not all ships have Navigators.
You know what they say about 'assumption'. I would imagine that the navis nobilite and the adeptus mechanicus have as much reason to be at logger-heads as to be in cahoots...
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 8, 2005 11:54:05 GMT -5
We have been over this point many, many times before. I can merely say what I have said before: We keep to the 'fluff' and only when it is broken, or when there is no other real alternative, do we change things. While the specifics of 'cargo transport' are up for grabs, I do not feel that there is sufficient evidence, or lack of evidence, to suggest the adoptions of 'warp tugs' merely because they are a quite cool idea. Fair enough, but I would say its not cool in a shallow ‘rule of cool’ way, but cool because they work really well and fulfil a design objective that hasn’t been addressed in the fluff (ever). (out of interest, for a Warp-Tug design, which do you think would be better: a train engine/ carriage design or a heavy helicopter loader/ with the cargo underneath?) No fuel is utilised in the 'warp' other than that which is used to power the Geller Field and other appropriate systems. OK, so a Warp-Tug could stay out in deep space running these routes (only warp) for years at a time (perhaps the navigators see this as a ‘tour of duty’). They wouldn’t need that much fuel (hmm, bung in a hydroponics module and err… I’ll stop now) Erm, that's why I said 'minimum' and it was in reference to the sublight engines of a 'warp tug'. Gotcha, my mistake. I would strongly suggest that the warp engines are not powered by internal combustion or MHD turbines, or whatever. Yes, they use energy and that energy is derived from 'fuel', but you're talking much longer timescales. I agree. As I said before, it does have some interesting advantages but also disadvantages. The advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages at the moment and add a further level of complexity. I would say this is the other way round, with regard to Hives, the advantages easily outstrip the disadvantages. At present the disadvantages seem minimal. That and they are not strictly needed, more so in the 'fluff'. Considering the Hive consumption rates and the amount of cargo, yah they are needed. But hey. And now it is getting a tad on the redundant size. You've got a 5km cargo container and then a multi-km (?) warp tug which is vulnerable as soon as it enters a system on the fringes, the normal play ground of pirates and... Erm, again the disadvantages outweigh any advantages. I would say that it could be used in one system, except that wouldn't work. A linked set of systems, perhaps. But not as applicable to cargo transportation in general. Pirates! Err, only suicidal pirates are going to take on that monster, no they will wait for easier prey, far smaller ships. Remember I’m saying Warp-Tugs are being used to supply Hives, because Hives have such ridiculous consumption levels. All other shipping can be normal (the Warp-Tug is only to address Hive problems). They could be rare because, well, they're not common? And, again, not all ships have Navigators. I know, and I had Anargo in mind when designing the Warp-Tugs. Considering the number of navigators, these ideas would only apply to Warp-Tugs. You know what they say about 'assumption'. I’m with Samuel L Jackson on that one. I would imagine that the navis nobilite and the adeptus mechanicus have as much reason to be at logger-heads as to be in cahoots... Could be at logger heads, but seeing the Imperium is holding together under extreme stress, I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 8, 2005 14:26:57 GMT -5
Fair enough, but I would say its not cool in a shallow ‘rule of cool’ way... Oh, I didn't say that it was "Rule of Cool". Remember that translates to "Style over Substance". Rather there is no real need to have 'warp tugs' as you describe them given the fact that merchant ships that have been mentioned in the 'fluff' are single hulls. Perhaps, just perhaps, they might be utilised on a limited basis between, say, a modified Invictonberg and Anargo Secundus. Or something similar. but cool because they work really well and fulfil a design objective that hasn’t been addressed in the fluff (ever). Cargo transportation? No, that's been addressed in the 'fluff'... out of interest, for a Warp-Tug design, which do you think would be better: a train engine/ carriage design or a heavy helicopter loader/ with the cargo underneath?) If you're working with the approach that the 'tug' carries the warp drive and you need the 'Geller Field' to cover anything other than the tug itself I would work along the lines of a helicopter/loader design. Think Space 1999 but without such a prominent 'head'... I would say this is the other way round, with regard to Hives, the advantages easily outstrip the disadvantages. At present the disadvantages seem minimal. You're like a pit bull with your ideas. At present there is no great advantage to the system other than a reduced cost of in-system shipping. But you're going to ultimately need numerous 'warp tugs' that make up the total cost of the system anyway. Even if the disadvantages do not outweigh the advantages, it's an even situation in which case the 'fluff' wins. 'Single hull' ships, as it were, wins. Considering the Hive consumption rates and the amount of cargo, yah they are needed. But hey. <grin> This is going to be funny... While the hives have a huge requirement for imported food products, it's not all that bad. It's just not the totally hermetically sealed case of Invictonberg as originally argued. Pirates! Err, only suicidal pirates are going to take on that monster... It's not a military ship... And remember the continual imagery of the 'fluff'. The pirates are also going to be armed with a 'monster'. Could be at logger heads, but seeing the Imperium is holding together under extreme stress, I doubt it. No... the Imperium holds together despite it...
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 11, 2005 19:42:07 GMT -5
Oh, I didn't say that it was "Rule of Cool". Remember that translates to "Style over Substance". Rather there is no real need to have 'warp tugs' as you describe them given the fact that merchant ships that have been mentioned in the 'fluff' are single hulls. Gottcha. As for fluff, I really don’t think anyone has though this deeply about the actual volumes involved. Perhaps, just perhaps, they might be utilised on a limited basis between, say, a modified Invictonberg and Anargo Secundus. Or something similar. Considering the comparatively low amounts of food imports Invictonburg would need it wouldn’t be with an agri-world, but as for the industry side it would seem reasonable. Cargo transportation? No, that's been addressed in the 'fluff'... Not to this level (amount and through put) it isn’t. If you're working with the approach that the 'tug' carries the warp drive and you need the 'Geller Field' to cover anything other than the tug itself I would work along the lines of a helicopter/loader design. Think Space 1999 but without such a prominent 'head'... Right you are, but I’ve though of having extendable field generators, and the warp engine up front, perhaps a half and half. I’m also thinking that field relays could be built into the 5km Cargo Container part, in a lattice design (looks nice). You're like a pit bull with your ideas.At present there is no great advantage to the system other than a reduced cost of in-system shipping. But you're going to ultimately need numerous 'warp tugs' that make up the total cost of the system anyway. The biggest advantage is that the ships aren’t tied up when loading and unloading. If it takes a week or a month to unload a 5km container, then that would mean in an ‘all in one’ that the drive unit is also tied up for a week/ month during the un/ loading With my system it could take a day for the System tug to uncouple the 5km Cargo Container – refuel - pick up another 5lm Cargo Container and move out. The time it takes to unload/ reload the 5km Cargo Container has no impact on the System Tug’s up time. More importantly, this fast change over and isolation of the un/ reloading procedure really pays dividends where Warp-Tugs are concerned. A Warp-Tug could change Cargo Containers in a day (hours even) and be on its way. Compared to an ‘all in one’ system this could save months in wasted sub-light travel, maybe even half a year! Considering Warp-Jump to local systems can take 1-6 days, that’s an extra 50 jumps on average per half year. 1 jump vs 50 jumps!1-50 ratio Now that’s what I call a huge boost in efficiency. One Warp-Tug with one Warp Engine doing the work of 50 ‘all in one’ ships (with 50 separate warp engines!). Each Warp-Tug could be serviced by say 25 (cheap) System tugs at either end (total 50), and 50 Cargo Containers in each system (total 100). Give a Hive a single Warp-Tug, and massive Ad-Mec anti/ contr grav loading facility and we are in business. <grin> This is going to be funny... While the hives have a huge requirement for imported food products, it's not all that bad. It's just not the totally hermetically sealed case of Invictonberg as originally argued. Not all that bad!!!!? We are talking insane amounts of imports and a huge (and I mean HUGE) power requirement to get all those goods to and from the surface. It's not a military ship... And remember the continual imagery of the 'fluff'. The pirates are also going to be armed with a 'monster'. Send in the military, Warp-tugs are arcane super tech, and considering there work load I have proposed above, they are very important. I would guess that a Warp-Tug will be big enough to give any pirates a bloody nose, and send them packing. No... the Imperium holds together despite it... Very cynical
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jan 11, 2005 22:47:04 GMT -5
As for fluff, I really don’t think anyone has though this deeply about the actual volumes involved. Volumes, perhaps not. But that is one of the reasons for the GT:FT useage specifically (as a 1st order guestimate) and for the ASP more generally. Considering the comparatively low amounts of food imports Invictonburg would need it wouldn’t be with an agri-world, but as for the industry side it would seem reasonable. Please remember that the proposed 'efficiency' was one of the main problems with the premise of Invictonberg in the very first place, more when coupled with the whole STC:CS premise. Even with increased recycling etc. required in hiveworlds, they are still going to require significant quantities of food. 'Nuff said. Not to this level (amount and through put) it isn’t. On that level, very little sensible information has been addressed in the 'fluff' (read: wargame). Right you are...I’m also thinking that field relays could be built into the 5km Cargo Container part, in a lattice design (looks nice). And now one of the main advantages (reduced cost) is beginning to disappear... The biggest advantage is that the ships aren’t tied up when loading and unloading. Which is why I have not discarded it. But as a 'this is how it is' kind of concept? No. Definitely not ''fluff' transparent' enough. If it takes a week or a month to unload a 5km container, then that would mean in an ‘all in one’ that the drive unit is also tied up for a week/ month during the un/ loading Compared to what transit times? The 'fluff' used to imply months or years in transit... What is a few months on that when you're talking about a high volume of shipping. Perhaps the concept of efficiency is being focussed on to the exclusion of everything else...? Now that’s what I call a huge boost in efficiency. One Warp-Tug with one Warp Engine doing the work of 50 ‘all in one’ ships (with 50 separate warp engines!). And with 40k, cynicism is very definitely reality. Image is so often passed off as reality.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 12, 2005 12:50:05 GMT -5
You lost me towards the end there ;D The bit that's messed up is the interesting bit.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jan 19, 2005 11:47:59 GMT -5
I was thinking about Warp-Tugs, and I remember the Astropath thread and what happens to a ship that breaks down in space.
Warp-Tugs would be a good way to recover damaged Star Ships (Considering there firepower and pulling capacity they could even drag dead ships from battle zones) and ships were their warp-drive fails completely.
Any thoughts?
|
|