|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 2, 2004 10:40:32 GMT -5
First off, I've deleted the previous thread for a number of reasons. Firstly, as pointed out the values that I quickly came up with were, as pointed out, spurious. I blame the somewhat tedious tendency of 40k to use linear measurements as a measure of size. This is dubious at best. Secondly, I mixed up the terminology that I'm used to dealing with as a result of this. Thirdly, I was concerned about my reply since I was getting a bit... erm... too aggravated with the replies which were critical without actually being constructive. So what I'll do is come back to the original point that I wished to make and open up for discussion: the minimum size of a warp-capable ship. From there we'll expand it to give broad guidelines for the other fleets. This may require volume estimations of ships of the various fleets which would be productive for 'Factory builders' rather than just merely pointing out that someone made a mistake. With the above in mind I'll post information on the system that I'll often fall back on since it is predicated upon volume, a far more means of determining relative size. Unfortunately it does relate to another RPG game system, so I'm not sure whether Sojourner will like this, but - heck! - the project is all about working constructively and not destructively together! Anyway, you'll find this following Destecado'd web-page as useful (more so since we move away from problematic linear distance and equally problematic displacement tonnage as referred to in surface ships): So, with that in mind I work on the principle that the minimum size of a warp-capable starship is 1,000 displacement tons (t d). This is 14,000m 3 using the above definitions (with a quick guestimate depending on size of ~100m) and would translate, ish, 5,000 displacement on a surface vessel. Using the examples from the page, this would be massing ~167% that of the USS Fletcher. This time I'm not going to expand it any further since that's what got me shouted at before. With that in mind, I would suggest the following: Firstly, we should discuss the minimum size of a warp-capable vessel. I use the above value, but the size of the ships has a significant impact upon intepretation of a number of features of the 40k universe (including just how common 'civilian' traders would be). Secondly we should then try and create broad guidelines for ships of various sizes, linking this into both of the following threads: And concepts mentioned in Sojourner's fascinating thread (including bits where it gets a bit touchy! ): Since this not only ties into imagery but also aids those people like eustakos (and myself) who enjoy the "building" of ships from the RPG perspective, but also give is the foundation which we can reply and discuss these features with other boards, etc. Kage
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jun 2, 2004 11:35:13 GMT -5
Obviously the major factor on size is the minimum that's required to house the warp drive itself, plus additional space for the reactor or whatever to power it, plus fuel for said reactor.
I have no good answer for what this might be. For fuel, I'd suggest cross-referencing with the specs of the BFG vessels. It's said (somewhere...) that a cruiser needs to take on additional reaction mass every 100 days, so taking this as a typical efficiency rating, how far can a ship travel in a hundred days warp time?
However, this doesn't really answer the question of how big the warp drives need to be. First of all, we need some sort very vague hypothesis on how they work to even begin to speculate on their working and construction.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 2, 2004 13:47:29 GMT -5
Now that's a good response. It gets to the core of the discussion. I've always seen the warp drive as requiring a huge amount of power to initiate precipitation, then a draw because of the 'Geller Field'. I do not see reaction mass as being an issue to do with the warp-drive, but more the sublight drive. The size of the warp drive ultimately comes down to one of image, I'm afraid. And at this point there must be compromise. Wargamers prefer their big ships... 'realists' like to invent reasons that they might be big or small... RPG'ers tend to prefer something that can be used in the narrative that does not mean that they are restricted to just one way of doing things... I freely admit that my 14,000m 3 vessel might be a tad on the small size. But with the configuration chosen, the components integrated and, as such, the average density and just as importantly the total number of crew (etc.) it just seemed to fit. But perhaps we should discuss a more reasonable size. I want the ASP to challenge my perceptions as well - not just with people telling me how they think that I'm wroing - but so that we integrate to create something which is more than an individual interpretation! Remember, though, that we cannot get too large with the vessel. After all, Eye of Terror has a vessel being controlled by a very small crew... (I'm not going to defend that book too much, however. I really did dislike it! ) Kage
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jun 2, 2004 21:09:31 GMT -5
I'm beginning to see warp drives on a sliding scale. Time, labour and monetary costs per unit volume increasing with decreasing size, that is.
So it's possible to construct very small warp drives, but there isn't really any point because a bigger one would do.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 3, 2004 1:10:08 GMT -5
As posted elsewhere, as do I. So we need to discuss the "smallest economically feasible" size while disassociating specifically from the km-long ships merely because that is what GW has predominantly mentioned. Especially when one considers that they've also mentioned 2-man warp-capable ships in private hands... So, again, smallest size that is economically feasible before the construction of warp drive components becomes ludicrously time-consuming and expensive, where maintenance is required that much more, etc. I'll re-state that figure of 1,000 displacement tons - 14,000m 3 - but realise that this might be a tad on the small side. How about 3,000 displacement tons? I'd say no more than 5,000 displacement tons (i.e. using the daft mass displacement figures (! ) something around the size of 33,000 displacement tons, or something the size of the battleship USS Arizona...) (And remember that by 'size' we're not really talking linear dimensions, since that doesn't really play into it; rather payload, configuration, etc., does that... A 5,000 volume displacement ton vessel would be 70,000m 3 and, if a 'Borg Cube' would have sides of 41 metres...And, yes, the size calculation from GURPS was off a tad or, at least, my quick application of it was... ) Below this level the cost and maintenance requires of the warp drive began to sky-rocket... Kage
|
|
|
Post by Femerenden on Jun 3, 2004 22:32:14 GMT -5
Hello again. After a lot of things blocking my way i have come again and saw that you are talking about ship sizes.
So i am just going from official sources. Most Imperial vessels caries thousands of crews. So these people are crew of Navy they need somewhere to sleep, eat and relax. These ships must carry food and store them(For a lot of time). These ships must carry Ammunation for their guns, torpedoes(if they have), Additional equipment for their small craft(if they have), and a larger reactor for producing more power if they are using lance batteries.
Lets make a quick assumption. An average 500m3 car trunk can carry a man(While very uncomfortable way) 14,000m3 can carry 28 people in this manner. As the imperial vessels are also lengths like kilometers i think 14,000m3 will even not be enough for a Thunderhawk which carries 8foot tall 30 space marines or tanks while it has got enough other tools for its travel(Not berthing ofcourse).
I think also that USS Arizona is goingto be as large as 2-3 Thunderhawks(or at most 7). While we are talking about ships dwarfing thunderhawks or using them as launch crafts.(Belive me that those things are enourmous in size)
Just don't think them as they are seen on the table top. A land raider is as long as two or 2.5 space marines while it is carrying 10 marines seated in it(Long times). While a Thunderhawk is carrying 30 marines or tanks(Rhinos i think mostly).
So i think that if we are designing ships for gothic than it is too small.
But if we are designing them for sea i must say just enlarge them a little more.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jun 3, 2004 23:20:13 GMT -5
What do you drive, a Leviathan?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 3, 2004 23:34:53 GMT -5
<grin> I'm going to have to agree with that. A man-sized thing should be able to comfortably inhabit 2 cubic metres, not 500 cubic metres! Kage
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jun 3, 2004 23:37:26 GMT -5
It's about the size of a typical japanese hotel room so I don't see why not...
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 4, 2004 6:50:45 GMT -5
Perhaps read the post in context? Merely saying - obviously - that it doesn't require 500m 3, merely 2m 3. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that the average Japanese hotel room is 2m 3! If that's not the case then one could simply invent any value >2m 3 and say the same? Regardless, let's get back OnT, please... Kage
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jun 4, 2004 9:01:45 GMT -5
I'll save Sojourner another one-line post, and say that a lot of Japanese 'hotel-rooms' are actually 2m3. The Japanese, bless their undemanding hearts, have started a business of building great containers with compartments of 2m3 of space, where businessmen can spend the night for very little money. If you've seen Fifth Element, it's very similar thing to the compartments on the commercial space shuttle.
But yes, let's get back on-T!
If 3000 displacement tonnes equal 42,000 m3... here's a simple equation to make sense out of this. 42000 = 2x * x * 10x I consider this to be a somewhat standard shape of an Imperial ship, with 2x being height, x being width and 10x being length. That gives us x = 13 (Well, 12.8, but anyway) In other words, a typical ship would be about 26 meters high, 13 meters wide and 130 meters long. Seems good for the minimum size.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jun 4, 2004 9:29:39 GMT -5
That was the point...
Wasted on you lot, obviously...
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 4, 2004 10:35:07 GMT -5
I'll assume that there was meant to be a smilie in that one, Sojourner. Might be worth checking PMs, anyway... To bring another thread back into this one, CELS suggests a minimum 'volume displacement' of 3,000 tons or, less confusingly, 42,000m 3. He also has a 'standardised' length which he calculates to indicate that the vessel of this proportions would be around 130m on the spine/beam. This would be the minumum economically feasible size. Now we need extend this to an 'average density' so that we can use that to calculate the 'mass displacement' that you wargamers - pesky people that you are! From the above URL and with a quick calculation that I did with the Soleus (a glitchy ship designed with GURPS Vehicles which I now know to be completely out of whack: that's the vehicle, Sojourner, not the game system! ) an average value of 200 kg m -3 seems reasonable? Extending this to CELS calculation, this would mean (very roughly) that our "minimum economically feasible ship size" would be 8,400 tons (mass displacement). Hmmn, sounds a bit on the high side perhaps? Maybe 140kg m -3? That would mean 5,880 tons 'mass' displacement? Once again I suggest that we create an 'average' mass/volume (kg/m 3) for three different classes... light, medium and heavy armoured (obviously up for discussion; an obvious inclusion would be for a 'civilian' class). ( Note: The above 200kg m[sup-3[/sup] was made for a fully loaded civilian vehicle with 5,600m 3 of cargo space!) Thus the heavier the armour (increased compartmentalisation in the ship, heavier armour, bigger engines/power plants/weapons, etc.) increases the average kg m -3? It might be interesting to use this suggested and debateable statistic and apply it, along with the suggested volume calculation of CELS (thanks once again for that CELS), to the values that we've been bandying around in the "Classification" thread in "Imperium"... Once again, CELS, thanks for being productive... Kage
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jun 5, 2004 3:58:09 GMT -5
Ah, it's so lovely to see my name mentioned five times in someone else's post ;D To bring another thread back into this one, CELS suggests a minimum 'volume displacement' of 3,000 tons or, less confusingly, 42,000m 3. He also has a 'standardised' length which he calculates to indicate that the vessel of this proportions would be around 130m on the spine/beam. This would be the minumum economically feasible size. Of course, this was a horrendously rough estimate... Let me see if we can refine it. System ships are something like Width x * Height 1,25x * Length 7x Imperial transports (chartered merchantmen pressed into service during the Gothic War) are something like Width x * Height x * Length 5 x The only apt third example I can think of, is the Essene, the sprint trader from the Eisenhorn novels. Granted, its measurements are way off, but at least we can look at the proportions of the ship. "Three kilometres long", "seven hundred meters deep". That should translate into Width x * Height ? * Length 4,3x Its cone is described as long and sleek like a cathedral spire, so it's probably not much higher than it is broad. Can anyone think of any other ships we can use for our estimates, to figure out the standard shapes of Imperial ships? (By the way, the estimates for system ships and transports are taken from the illustrations from BFG, page 114 and 144) I have no idea, since I don't remember being shown anything for comparison.. Hmm, the Traveller website you showed us calculates that the Battleship USS New Jersey was 8000 displacement tons. That ship was about 300 meters long, 25 meters wide, and 7 meters high. The USS Arizona was 5000 tons, and about 200 meters long, 30 meters wide and 10 meters high. 5,880 tons seems a bit light, actually, when you consider the shape of the hull for these two RL battleships. Hardly cube-shaped. [/sup] was made for a fully loaded civilian vehicle with 5,600m 3 of cargo space!) Thus the heavier the armour (increased compartmentalisation in the ship, heavier armour, bigger engines/power plants/weapons, etc.) increases the average kg m -3?[/quote] I suggest that the civilian class is lightly armoured rather than almost not armoured at all. There's a lot of crap floating around in deep space, and I don't think all civilian ships have energy shields that can deflect incoming asteroids. Definitely
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 8, 2004 2:22:57 GMT -5
Ah, it's so lovely to see my name mentioned five times in someone else's post ;D Don't read too much into it! Of course, this was a horrendously rough estimate... It's a place to start that allows us as people with divergent interests to come together, integrating our various interests rather than just stamping it as 'uninteresting'. I have no idea, since I don't remember being shown anything for comparison.. Ah well, perhaps it is interesting to speculate about this figure so that we can create an m-displacement as well as a v-displacment. Erm, not saying that was the case... I suggest that the civilian class is lightly armoured rather than almost not armoured at all. Good, good... Kage
|
|