|
Post by Lordof on Jun 3, 2004 3:22:38 GMT -5
Those things are pretty much orbital defence platforms with an outrigger engine strapped on.
They are pretty much used exclusively for guarding Warp entry points and other major routes into the system.
Mind you they would cost a tonne to maintain.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jun 3, 2004 3:24:45 GMT -5
I have mentioned the Defence Monitor ships before on the forum, when we were (briefly) discussing what forces one might expect defending the Imperial worlds (after some people who shall remain unnamed wanted several space stations and star fortresses in orbit of their world).
Aaanyway... BFG says that defence monitors are dedicated defence ships crewed by Imperial Navy personell, designed to engage the enemy at close range. Much of the power generation systems on this ships are linked to armaments rather than engines, which means that they have much firepower for their size, but are not as manouverable.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 3, 2004 3:30:39 GMT -5
So why don't we integrate the various threads discussing ship sizes and categories? Let us give some standard 'ranges' (but not exclusive ranges) to the various classifications and then work from there (and this includes the 'smallest economically feasible ship size' as well). Once again I ask that we work in something slightly more useful than displacement tons (as in surface displacement) or linear length and, instead, work in volume... Kage
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jun 3, 2004 3:42:25 GMT -5
Hm, fair enough. My approach was to figure out the different ship types, and then calculate their volume / mass / length, but if anyone has a better idea, I'm all ears.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 3, 2004 3:44:14 GMT -5
Please also note this thread on Portent: Thought I might as well occassionally expand some of the discussion back to our roots and, given the nature of discussion on Portent at the moment, it's about the only question that might get some replies! Kage
|
|
|
Post by zholud on Jun 3, 2004 5:48:19 GMT -5
A general point on non-military ships, namely for the Rogue Traders. I guess they have 4 main variants and all real ships stick to one category or another: - Far Trader – ships designed for very long travels in the warp. Has the best protection from warp and real world adverse conditions, it more for making contracts than real trade.
- Exotic Commodities – ship that moves very valuable goods, or passengers. Heavily defended and quite manoeuvrable. Often run from one Segmentum to another because supplies unique stuff.
- Bulk tanker – the largest ship, moves agriculture, industrial goods. It is true railroad vehicle for the Imperium.
- Smuggler – semi-legal, but supported by Inquisition or other high officials ship. Carries weapons and extremely manoeuvrable but cannot run for long.
As to the smallest warp-capable ship, here is one that still may one day became official. From my vaults on Navis Nobilite.“Within a generation, boundaries of the Man dominance increased tenfold, and humanity reached the title of truly galactic race. There are almost no remnants of those ancient ships used by the mankind during the Dark Age of Technology, and those remained are usually semi-destroyed hulks wandering aimlessly in the cold darkness of space. One of the smallest vessels found by Imperial techno-archaeologists, called Pioneers, because, from what we could deduct from their construction and interior, they were some kind of explorer vessel, too small for the merchant and too defenceless for the military craft. The Pioneer is very small (just twice the size of Imperial Starhawk bomber (i.e. ~180 m), the clear example of inability of ancient humanity to build large enough ships) warp-capable ship with the crew of two navigators, which were also used as pilots (or it was the job of the mysterious Man of Stone). The powerful Geller field allowed to the ship to draw deep in the Immaterium, where the most potent currents could transport it on unimaginable distances.”
|
|
Rich
Scribe
Posts: 13
|
Post by Rich on Jun 3, 2004 6:14:51 GMT -5
I wonder why a ship has to be a certain size to be warp capable. i think it must be mostly due to the size of the engines required to support the Gellar field, which would imply that in the DAOT (when tech was so much better) smaller ships could have been made warp capable because more powerful engines could have been made.
As to the gaunts ghosts novel, try the introduction to first and only. If my memory is correct, that is where the scout ship is to be found. I think there's also reference in the BFG book to these kinds of ships, in the section which describes a typical Imperial battlefleet.
I agree that system ships should be limited in size and quality of crew. I think that in the Imperium the duties of system defence would often fall to decommissioned vessels and other ships no longer capable of making a warp jump as well as dedicated defence vessels and ships more akin to coastguard ships than warships.
|
|
|
Post by Minister on Jun 3, 2004 10:41:28 GMT -5
So, ladies and gents, are we then agreed that (yes Kage, I'm talking length for ship sizes here. Tough. It's easier. ;D ) it is possible to build a warp ship ~200m, but that this is seriously pushing the limits of Imperial technology to do so. More practical is the >300-400m range.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jun 3, 2004 10:51:07 GMT -5
Sounds reasonable to me, Minister.
I don't doubt that there are warp vessels ~100m about for specific purposes, though.
|
|
|
Post by Minister on Jun 3, 2004 11:46:06 GMT -5
I do. As Lord Admiral of Battlefleet Anargo (fools let me have the title I'm going to use it ;D ) I voice my opinion that 200m is the lower limit for actualy fitting both a warp drive, realapace drive and life support systems onboard a ship with minimal other systems. So there.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 3, 2004 12:09:58 GMT -5
I'm sorry... it's not productive to state linear distance as being a useful term of reference. I think it's obvious why, so come on, guys and gals! I can make a 14,000 cubic metre vessel a two hundred metres if you want... Or wuld you prefer a 200 cubic metre vessel being the same? It would only have to be 1 cubic meter wide, but would fulfill your linear distance requirements. So, no... Let's get into values that are actually useful, guys 'n' gals... Kage
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Jun 3, 2004 12:28:09 GMT -5
Of course, I've yet to see an Imperial ship 1 meter wide, or actually wider than its linear length... Really, it's all the same to me. Working on the assumption that all Imperial ships are at least double as long as they are broad, but very rarely five times as long as they are broad, that enables us to work out estimates such as 15,000 tonnes, 600-1300 meters = Clipper 30,000 tonnes, 1200-1900 meters = Barge (Those numbers are wrong, but you get my point)
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jun 3, 2004 21:07:46 GMT -5
Volume is useful...?
Length is helpful because we know the rough volume/tonnage i.e. 'size' per unit length of the average Imperial vessel. Tonnage is more useful because it gives us a comparison to vessels we recognise.
|
|
|
Post by Lordof on Jun 4, 2004 0:09:32 GMT -5
Minister i will refute your statement that 200m is the lower limt as said by Kage Volume is far more important than length.
So I would say that a ship which stays say about cylindrical or oblong in shape with a 1-4 ratio of length in comparrisson to width-length would be quite possibly smaller than 200m and still have a Warp drive plus all the vital compnents for sustaining life and realspace travel.
It would be more dependent upon the number of crew manning the ship and the amount of cargo space that they would have onboard.
So I think that the smallest practical size for Standard shipping purposes would be 200m long
But you will still find small fast smuggler and luxury items ships which will be smaller than the proposed length of 200m. But these of course would be excedingly rare (Same sort of ratio for number of Lamborghinis in comparisson to every other car in the world)
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jun 4, 2004 6:58:15 GMT -5
Volume is useful...? Length is helpful because we know the rough volume/tonnage i.e. 'size' per unit length of the average Imperial vessel. Tonnage is more useful because it gives us a comparison to vessels we recognise. Once again I had a somewhat rushed email which wasn't entirely appropriate, so I'll instead post this: I suggest that once again it's not necessarily talking about figures that you find useful. I find 'mass displacement tonnage' to be an entirely superfluous concept when talking about space-vehicles. Configuration/shape means that it could be any length (though it's nice to see that CELS has entered into the spirit of things and made some calculations rather than just arguing against using something other than what is posted in the 'fluff')... So, how about this: To help the situation along why do we not create an 'average' density of the vessels so that you can talk about your 'mass displacement tonnages' to your hearts content, but people that want to do a tad more with the values can do? You could have different 'averages'... say, light, medium and heavy armour, for example? Remember we're trying to provide maximum information not perpetuate mal-forms... Kage
|
|