|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 19, 2004 8:40:51 GMT -5
Okay, it is often said that the best way to do things is by example. So rather than falling over the stumbling blocks presented in the "Flagship" thread, let us start out small: the Soleus class vessel. At present this is considered as part of the project to be the "smallest economically feasible size" of ship, and while you can find smaller ships with warp drives, they actually cost a lot more than this one!
I'm going to be building this using GURPS Vehicles which you don't need to know to contribute. Just look at the concepts and see what it might mean... Indeed, I'm going to have to have a lot of help relating it to BFG ideas. (This will be made easier when zholud gets the time to get throw me the document I requested.)
Bear with me and we can actually - like eustakos before us - produce something which will be ultimately useful to one side of the project. Not only that but it will lead us to imply things about other aspects of the project.
If an artist would care to create an image for the Soleus-class then I would greatly appreciate it. This is one of those points where it would help having an image to work towards.
Tech-Level The ship will be built with GTL9 components since it was, after all, laid down at Anargo Primus III (Anargo). It incorporates advanced components from the adeptus mechanicus yards at Anargo Secundus (e.g. warp drive).
This combination of TLs might be problematic but it also seems to be a part of the 'fluff'.
(Note: Anargo is at the lower end of GTL9 (e.g. TTL A) and, as such, all cases where a technology sounds a bit 'high' I will actually incorporate a GTL8 component rather than a GLT9.)
Concept "Smallest economically feasible ship". Basically a ship of the classis civiles (Civilian Fleet) and, as such, primarily a 'cargo ship'. It maintains a number of 'cabins' for passengers of varying quality.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Aug 19, 2004 8:54:54 GMT -5
Motive Subassemblies The Soleus class is not designed for ground movement and, as such, will have no motive subassemblies.
Flight Subassemblies The Soleus class should be capable of atmospheric operations but does not require 'flight subassemblies' (wings, rotos, hydrofoils or hovercrafts skirts/hardpoints).
Structural Subassemblies I have no definitive image of the Soleus class beyond the fact that 40k ships have a "ship" shape. Appropriate structural subassemblies for the Soleus-class include: superstructure (e.g. conning tower on a ship), pods (external volumes attached to the Body or Wings, if the overall image requires the addition of a Flight superstructure/Wings), turrets and pop turrets.
At this point I'm unsure about a superstructure though it would be dorsally mounted if present, and I shall work on the premise that there are two turrets for defensive weapons.
(Note on terminology: Port means the 'left hand side', starboard the 'right hand side'. Ventral means 'at the bottom' and, therefore, dorsal means 'on the top'... Thus the fo'castle of a ship (and the wheel) is dorsal while the rudder is ventral. Bow is the end that you drive towards, and stern is the bit you drive away from (as it were; front and back, respectively).)
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Oct 20, 2004 13:01:36 GMT -5
Flight SubassembliesThe Soleus class should be capable of atmospheric operations but does not require 'flight subassemblies' (wings, rotos, hydrofoils or hovercrafts skirts/hardpoints). Since this is the smallest economically feasible ship, I don't think it needs to be capable of atmospheric operations. In order to be capable of that, it needs some pretty powerful jet/rocket engines, probably similar to those used by Imperial dropships, and that'll increase the cost. The cheapest method of transporting stuff in 40k is to carry the cargo externally, like a cargo chopper. Instead of the milk carton shape, you could opt for a ship that will only look 'complete' when it's got cargo crates under its belly. But then, I don't know if there's as much point in doing that in space, as there is in atmospheric transportation... For the sake of imagery, I think we should have a dorsally mounted superstructure (aka bridge). As for turrets, I can't imagine how it could be enough with two turrets, except on a disc-shaped craft. Turrets aren't that expensive either, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 25, 2004 9:31:53 GMT -5
Since this is the smallest economically feasible ship, I don't think it needs to be capable of atmospheric operations. Tormentum Malorum... erm, that one out of Eye of Terror. The question is whether the ability to land oneself outweighs the constant cost of fuel, maintenance, etc., to 'commercial' interface vehicles designed to bring cargo into orbit. That's yet another problem with the 'fluff' as it stands... it ignores these features and generally doesn't even consider them. One solution to this is the 'contra-grav' system malarky which reduces the 'gravitational vector' of a planet and essentially provies lift, thereby reducing the weight of a ship... Only problem is that in GTL it is a TL12 system... but that's never a problem. You just shift it and when one considers that artificial gravity systems are as common as muck, perhaps it would not be inappropriate to do so. (In which case the relative cost of the commercial interface vehicles is less of a problem, but if they can have the CG system then it would be reasonable to suggest that it is possible for other ships to have them...) ( Note: This borders on the "thematic army" concept of anti-grav systems, which are restricted as a part of the armies theme. (This is not "Rule of Cool" but more wargame balance.) Are they available to make interface (ground-orbit) transfer easy, or do they use purely 'power'? I've always worked on the premise that it was more 'finesse' than 'power', but am ultimately not bothered. CG systems might be a purely 'Imperium' thing but, if you are to listen to others, that includes everything of value anyway.) In order to be capable of that, it needs some pretty powerful jet/rocket engines, probably similar to those used by Imperial dropships, and that'll increase the cost. See the above about CG. As a Civil ship it already has access to sensitive technologies (warp drive) which also acts as a control (requires adeptus mechanicus repair or, rather, maintenance)... the question is whether a system which makes space travel more accessible is going to be 'senstive' since it is mentioned in reference primarily to military technologies... but there's a surprise.) Instead of the milk carton shape, you could opt for a ship that will only look 'complete' when it's got cargo crates under its belly. Yep, you're right... But is it primarily a cargo ship? I'm going to go with a 'no' for that one. For the sake of imagery, I think we should have a dorsally mounted superstructure (aka bridge). Which would be non-existence of atmospheric entry is required... but that depends on the CG question... Again, all things that are generally not thought about by GW. But their 'fluff' nearly always requires that CG systems (something to take away most of the mass and make them mysteriously aerodynamic (no 'powerfield' or 'bubble' theory, please)) be in operation... arguably anyway. Of course, if you don't have some form of 'cheap' means to get into space then the Imperium tithe system is pretty much screwed. As for turrets, I can't imagine how it could be enough with two turrets, except on a disc-shaped craft. Turrets aren't that expensive either, I think. I know what you're getting at... but with a fairly 'flat' shape on a non-military ship all you have to do is be able to fire in the greater majority of the 'firing sphere'...
|
|
|
Post by ErnestBorgnine on Oct 25, 2004 14:40:06 GMT -5
Would you arm small transports? What's the threat they're meant to protect against? I'm having trouble imagining what good two turrets could do, besides increase the risk of you getting slagged for @#$!ing off the pirate.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 25, 2004 17:43:11 GMT -5
Well, depends on the size of the pirate... If they're an "uber-ship" then there's no point. If they're a smaller vessel then you would have limited defences... Oh yes, and I'd forgotten that the vessel had tripplied in size.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Oct 26, 2004 7:03:25 GMT -5
Tormentum Malorum... erm, that one out of Eye of Terror. The question is whether the ability to land oneself outweighs the constant cost of fuel, maintenance, etc., to 'commercial' interface vehicles designed to bring cargo into orbit. That's yet another problem with the 'fluff' as it stands... it ignores these features and generally doesn't even consider them. Heh... it depends, doesn't it? If your destination is a hiveworld where they have a great orbital dock, then it will probably be cheaper to get the local guys to bring the cargo to the surface. That is, if you actually want the cargo on the surface. If you're going to a backwater world of some kind, you probably need to get it to the surface by yourself, so atmospheric flight would be nice. So, since you've already designed a ship with atmospheric flight, let's stick to it I would suggest that contra-grav tech is fantastically expensive compared to other solutions. And despite Abnett's Star Wars fantasies, anti-grav drives are not as common as one might believe. I don't object to them having access to contra-grav, but as contra-grav is very advanced, that makes it very expensive. I really believe that some kind of rocket engine would be cheaper. If you go by the fiction and artwork, rocket / jet engines seem to be most common. Ah. Then what purpose do you see the smallest ships having? Space shuttles? I don't see why you would want to design a ship with major blind spots in the defence system. They're not just designed to stop pirates, but also asteroids, incoming torpedoes, and aliens. I don't believe you want to be captured alive in 40k no matter who the enemy is, so worrying about pissing off the Dark Eldar who are about to drag you back to Commorragh is silly. And while turrets are useless against escort-sized vessels, they are useful for shooting down incoming assault boats and bombers while one makes good one's escape. This is a warp-capable ship, so I think it should be prepared for trouble. Again, I don't think two extra turrets (bringing it up to a total of four) would be terribly expensive. I'm not talking about dark matter-powered gatling macro-lasers.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 26, 2004 8:27:34 GMT -5
If your destination is a hiveworld where they have a great orbital dock... In the example given the Tormomentum Malorum, or however you spell the pesky little bugger, took off from the surface of Stalinvast. As a counter-argument, however, as an Inquisitorial ship it doesn't have to be commercially viable. Contra to that argument is that the Eye of Terror ship also takes off from the surface of the world and, supposedly as a ship of a 'rogue trader' (put capitals in if you wish), it must also be commecially viable. The imagery on ships of the Imperium is at best conficting, and part of the reason that I was very glad to see your work on it CELS. And, indeed, grateful. It seems that it might have to be completely revised if we are to follow through with the arguments being made elsewhere... then it will probably be cheaper to get the local guys to bring the cargo to the surface. Getting cargo to the surface isn't that much of a problem, though recovery of that cargo given the unique circumstances of some worlds might be (i.e. sludge seas from hiveworlds - would you want to recover a cargo drop pod!?). It's actually getting it the other way that is the problem. So it is less a problem of the technology of the receiving race (drop pods would work, although would be an extra demand on cargo space), but rather the technology of the race from which the 'trader' is receiving their cargo from... So, since you've already designed a ship with atmospheric flight, let's stick to it Well, that's the point. Soleus is meant to be the minimum economically feasible ship. Removing such gubbins as 'contra-grav' (I agree that it should be 'rare' and expensive; that's why I have it as GTL 10 along with 'warp drives') would reduce the cost. I would suggest that contra-grav tech is fantastically expensive compared to other solutions. And despite Abnett's Star Wars fantasies, anti-grav drives are not as common as one might believe. Agreed with the expense bit... and Abnett is canonical, but we must always question the applicability of an image or mention of something in the canon. On this you have my agreement. I really believe that some kind of rocket engine would be cheaper. If you go by the fiction and artwork, rocket / jet engines seem to be most common. Actually, in the long-term it would not be cheaper. Not by a long-shot. Plus, rocket engines capable of reaching escape velocity require dramatic amounts of fuel thereby making off-world trade - and tithes, despite what some would like to believe - increasingly pointless. Ah. Then what purpose do you see the smallest ships having? That's the question, and one where for the most part we're stuck to the imagery of the 40k universe. The ships are basically there to bring across Age of Sail imagery, with the whole broad-side combat that was rather pretilly included in the computer game Fire Warrior (which I'm replaying, incidentally)... Do they make sense? Not really, but then again neither do humans in the real world let alone the 40k universe. I would imagine that the smaller ships are a combination of passenger vessel and cargo. Ultimately the cargo is going to reap the greatest gross profit, but the passengers will be the highest paying per cubic metre (as it were). I'm afraid space shuttles are not cheap. Not by a longshot. As of 1994 the cost of getting a single kilogram into space was around $8,800, or about $800 for a tube of toothpaste. It is not feasible to perform any form of interstellar cargo exchange - and this includes tithe - with these expenses. If they did exist it would invalidate the very concept of hiveworlds, agriworlds, and so forth... It creates by its very essence the 'every world is a castle' approach since it is far cheaper to produce locally then import. Of course, trade - and tithe - is an important part of the 40k universe and so it behooves us to figure out a workeable solution rather than hand-waving it away as part of the image of the setting. CG offers a way that this can be done but, as we both agree, it is a way that is fundamentally flawed: it is expensive in terms of the initial system, but it is far cheaper in terms of the long-term fuel costs... Is the Imperium farsighted or brute force? Common imagery is the former, but to make the Imperium actually exist as an entity that is divorced from perpetuation through the imagery (i.e. GW says it works therefore it works) means that it must also be economically viable and pragmatic. So what was that ramble about? Yes, CG systems are expensive, but not as expensive as using 'rocket ships' for ground-orbital cargo movements. Does that mean that they automatically use CG systems? No. But in the absence of some way of making ground-orbit transfer cheaper, interstellar trade is bunk. While this is not a problem to some (people who advocate the 'every world is a castle' approach), the fact that tithe is screwed as well is more problematic. (And the existence of certain 'flavour' worlds.) I don't see why you would want to design a ship with major blind spots in the defence system. Please see the above embarassed admission. More generally, however, you have to take into consideration the nature of space travel. Ships are mobile in three dimensions around their centre of gravity. A slight change in pitch/yaw means that a ship is capable of altering it's "area of fire" significantly. The speed at which this is made depends on the overall manoueverability of a ship... BFG could explain this away with the size of the ships involved (i.e. pitch/yaw thrusters rated for through against the energy required to achieve a significant angular momentum, or whatever), but it is still a 2d game and limited to the imagery of the universe and not a 'realistic' consideration of space combat (given certain assumptions). They're not just designed to stop pirates, but also asteroids, incoming torpedoes, and aliens. Ultimately, anything which might cause harm. And while turrets are useless against escort-sized vessels, they are useful for shooting down incoming assault boats and bombers while one makes good one's escape. Technically speaking, missiles are actually the more efective means of protecting a small ship. Does BFG actually make reference to these or is it all torpedoes the size of the Empire States Building? This is a warp-capable ship, so I think it should be prepared for trouble. A fair point... but one should also remember that it is either a small ship of the Merchant Fleet (less problem with weapons since these are automatically supported by the Imperium), or a Civil Ship in which bearing significant arms is going to be a bit of a problem in terms of customs operations and Naval inspections! I'm not talking about dark matter-powered gatling macro-lasers. No, they probably fire depleted deutorium... <snicker>
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Oct 27, 2004 8:56:24 GMT -5
In the example given the Tormomentum Malorum, or however you spell the pesky little bugger, took off from the surface of Stalinvast. Any information on how it took off? Authors often describe such take-offs very vividly, and make it quite clear whether the ship glides off the surface, or disappears with a huge roar. I'm certain that some Dan Abnett novels must have some helpful information, but it would be nice to see if this is consistent across authors. Though because of the special nature of 'rogue traders', it might use different propulsion than your average passenger shuttles and grain hoppers. Which arguments in specific, and how will these affect my original work? (Sorry if I'm a bit slow ) Good point. Looking at the Imperial Guard and Adeptus Astartes, I'm pretty sure most of their drop ships use rocket or jet engines. I think we should be very careful, so we don't end up with an alternate 40k where all drop ships float majestically, where lasgun clips only have enough power for two shots, and power armour is invulnerable. (Just examples, mind you). We want to make sense, but stick to the fluff as much as possible. The Imperial Guard loves cheap equipment. Cheap weapons, cheap armour and cheap transports. If they have dropships with rocket engines or jet engines, that must mean that it is (relatively) cheap to use them. If it was cheaper to use contra-grav, they would use that. Of course, one can consider the possibility that they use a combination of contra-grav and rocket/jet engines. It depends on the trade routes of the ship, I imagine. For example, ferries in low populated areas usually transport both cargo and passengers. In areas with high population on the other hand, you have ferries that only carry passengers, and no cargo. The space shuttles used in 1994 were probably a lot less advanced than the space shuttles that would be used on a modern hiveworld of 40k. Perhaps it would be useful to google after the space shuttles that are being designed for the future. As I understand it, moving into space is becoming cheaper and cheaper, to the point where it becomes possible for even wealthy civilians to travel into space. Also, we could ask why it costs so much to lift off into space. Is fuel a major cost? Is it possible that fuel is very cheap for these space shuttles, as the fuel can be taken from gas giants, processed in refineries around the gas giants' moons and then brought to orbital docks If fuel is very cheap in the Imperium, that makes a difference. Turrets are turrets in BFG, and weapon batteries are weapon batteries. GW does not specifically say if the weapons in questions are laser turrets, missile turrets and cannon turrets. As I said, small turrets like these will be useless against any escort-sized vessels. This is like the difference of allowing a citizen to own a pistol or a tank. LOL ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 27, 2004 10:21:16 GMT -5
Any information on how it took off? Nope, afraid not. Just mentions to the aerodynamic nature of the ship with only 'warp vanes' jutting out. Authors often describe such take-offs very vividly, and make it quite clear whether the ship glides off the surface, or disappears with a huge roar. Most refer to plasma exhausts, but this does not disclude the possibility of an alternative lift system. Again the way things are in the 40k universe it is almost necessary... Though because of the special nature of 'rogue traders', it might use different propulsion than your average passenger shuttles and grain hoppers. That strikes me as a horrendous get-out clause, more so if you take the 'simplistic' approach to the STC. Suffice to say it would probably be best if the commonly referred 'plasma' drives were utilised ubiquitously rather than inventing the "rich mans" drive... It also reduces the complexity of the creation process, both in terms of 'factory' building things but also the application of these arguments to the more abstract concepts behind the ASP. Which arguments in specific, and how will these affect my original work? (Sorry if I'm a bit slow ) Relative proportion of the fleets... Standard imagery doesn't allow for small ships! I was going to start a thread about it in Imperium, i.e. relative numbers of the ships, but never got around to it. Looking at the Imperial Guard and Adeptus Astartes, I'm pretty sure most of their drop ships use rocket or jet engines. Yep, but again see the above. I think we should be very careful, so we don't end up with an alternate 40k where all drop ships float majestically... Not sure why you're taking this tack, so I've obviously missed something: Who said that drop ships were going to float? Contra-grav is a lift system which, if sufficiently 'powerful' could technically mean that something would 'float'. But that gets into the territory of 'anti-grav' as defined in the limited sense of the eldar and the tau and therefore is not appropriate. Remember that we are trying to keep to the 'fluff' when the 'fluff' makes sense, thus maintaining the image where possible. Of course, when the image doesn't make sense when you engage the 'ole noodle then we think about it and try and make it work... if it still doesn't work, we change it. where lasgun clips only have enough power for two shots... Well, since you mentioned it I must admit that my version of lasguns do have less 'shots' than either the Mars or the Necromundan Pattern lasguns ( Inquisitor), but then again that's a choice from yester-year about representation of lasweapons... and power armour is invulnerable. That's terminator armour in the wargame, practically. The only thing that is invulnerable if you are to believe the canonical sources are the Marines (not the armour), and then only when it is narratively convenient to make them so 'powerful'. We want to make sense, but stick to the fluff as much as possible. <sigh> And you feel the need to tell me because...? Technically speaking the Factory is the place where the 'practical reality' of the 40k imagery is tested. It therefore beehoves us to "engage the 'ole noodle" and begin to think just how something might be represented. Yes, it is shaded by RPG mechanics which means that there are going to be questions about the specific abstraction, but still... The fact that I'm the only one that is trying to model the 40k universe in this fashion means that, at present, my preferences are being utilised. If someone else wants to discuss creations in another system, then feel free... I'll more than happily join in... Erm, that was a ramble. So what's the point? Well, first off you don't have to make such generic statements. I am more than aware of such things, as well as (broadly) the image and have the desire to keep things consistent with the 'fluff' where possible. But I also do not have a desire when things don't work just to ignore them and hope they'll go away. If it was cheaper to use contra-grav, they would use that. Incidentally your now using the same type of argument as... used elsewhere. "They don't use it, therefore it must be expensive because the Guard likes cheap stuff, and since it is expensive they don't use it." Of course, that doesn't mean that overall it is necessarily wrong, but you have to remember that the original material (RT) had cheap 'anti-grav' suspensors, that the modern 'fluff' has cheap 'anti-grav' parachutes, etc. (And by 'anti-grav' here, I'm actually referring to 'contra-grav' as an additional 'lift' system which 'takes away' a bit of the weight of the object, not a propulsion system ala the eldar and the tau.)
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 27, 2004 10:34:14 GMT -5
Again... Again I'm not advocating that any particular system is used, but I'm also not willing to go, "Well, erm, GW says that it works so it must work, despite physics and everything." There are some points that I'm not willing to suspend disbelief on... The point of the project was to get the Imperium to work, not merely to perpetuate the imagery of the 'fluff' merely because it is the 'fluff', regardless of how it doesn't survive a reasoned approach. This is part of the fun of the ASP. We try and consider everything and see how it fits into the overall picture, rather than 'hammering nails' into everything and "damn well making sure that it fits!" Of course, one can consider the possibility that they use a combination of contra-grav and rocket/jet engines. Ah, I must have missed something or not stated it clearly: this is what I've been talking about from the start. The majority of the Imperium 'anti-grav' systems utilise an alternative means of propulsion, even the most obvious systems like landspeeders... It's the eldar and the tau that use more 'floaty graceful' stuff. That's the 'fluff'. It depends on the trade routes of the ship, I imagine. Self-evidently, hence the 'trade' thread in Imperium. And the reason that I would really like more worlds to be completed in SR format so that we can, if appropriate, shift them into the Archive and then begin to build up a 'trade' model that we can apply to the Anargo sector... Then we don't have to take the normal 'hand-waving' approach that is rife in the description of other sectors, and indeed which primarily concentrates on war... (Though it kind of comes with the territory of the game, after all... ) In areas with high population on the other hand, you have ferries that only carry passengers, and no cargo. <grin> Yes, although even passenger carriers take cargo... The space shuttles used in 1994 were probably a lot less advanced than the space shuttles that would be used on a modern hiveworld of 40k. Ah, the 'ole "40k advanced technology" argument. Yes, I broadly agree. Problem is that there is only so many refinements you can make to a 'rocket engine' and only so much that you can 'hand-wave' away in terms of advanced technology. Utilising 'rocket engines' is going to require the significant expenditure of fuel, therefore of fuel processing equipment, etc., all of which drive up the cost of fuel and therefore the cost per unit mass of taking 'cargo' into orbit. With that said, however, the Imperium propulsion system seems best modelled by 'fusion drives' (e.g. throwing 'plasma' out the back as reaction matter, consistent with the descriptions in the 'fluff') which are several orders of magnitude more efficient than 'modern' lift systems. It's still expensive, but not quite as expensive. Of course, figuring out how to represent the drive system of the Imperium was another one of the reasons for this thread. Despite what GW might like to get going in their 'imagery', things aren't quite as easy as they would like... Ships quite simply don't go as fast as the storytellers or GW wargame campaign planners would like... As I understand it, moving into space is becoming cheaper and cheaper, to the point where it becomes possible for even wealthy civilians to travel into space. You're talking about retrorockets (erm, maybe... actualy its scramjets)... still not cheap, but less expensive than vertical lift systems, true. Of course, you're then increasing the sophistication of the technology which is not the direction that most people like to go when talking about the 40k universe. Is it possible that fuel is very cheap for these space shuttles, as the fuel can be taken from gas giants, processed in refineries around the gas giants' moons and then brought to orbital docks If fuel is very cheap in the Imperium, that makes a difference. [/b][/quote] It's a possibility... but the problem then is you're defining the type of fuel that you'll be using (i.e. hydrogen), which then means that you're talking about optimised fusion drives... which then means that you're talking about G-ratings (i.e. acceleration in space) that is in the 0.0001 G range... As I said, small turrets like these will be useless against any escort-sized vessels. Yes, but that was kind of the point. And again the original number was based on the original size of the Soleus which was around 100 metres, not the current 300-500m ship... Things have changed, but when I posted that I merely forgot about this increase in size.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Oct 27, 2004 13:43:22 GMT -5
Nope, afraid not. Just mentions to the aerodynamic nature of the ship with only 'warp vanes' jutting out. Ah well. If I was home, I could check out other novels that may have similar descriptions Erm... I still don't know what get-out clause means, though I'm sure you've explained it before Still, I don't consider it silly to assume that ships with different purposes have different types of propulsion. After all, we have aircraft with rotors, propellers and jet engines, depending on their purpose. Hmph... you know how you find the Imperium incredibly dull if there is no free trade, and all trade is done by the Imperium? Well, if all the ships in the Civil fleet are 300-500 meters long, then the amount of trade will probably be relatively small, won't it? After all, you can only fit so much cargo in a ship that small. Misunderstanding there. No worries. I felt that I should make such a generic statement to explain my argument and my motives. Maybe it's wrong of me to make such generic statements, but you can always ignore them, just like I can ignore statements like this one... I fail to see the problem with this argument. If we state that it would be cheaper for the Guard to use alternate methods of propulsion, then we're making the universe inconsistent and illogical. Yes, but one could argue that the anti-grav parachutes are reserved for the very elite of the Imperial Guard, who already have a lot of expensive equipment, and even that it's not standard equipment, but only used for special missions.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Oct 27, 2004 16:20:47 GMT -5
Again... Again I'm not advocating that any particular system is used, but I'm also not willing to go, "Well, erm, GW says that it works so it must work, despite physics and everything." There are some points that I'm not willing to suspend disbelief on... The point of the project was to get the Imperium to work, not merely to perpetuate the imagery of the 'fluff' merely because it is the 'fluff', regardless of how it doesn't survive a reasoned approach. Agreed. Of course, this means that we can't give up so easily Ok, I'm glad it was a misunderstanding. Explain the workings of Imperial 'anti-grav' systems then, please! Seems it would be most helpful. We still don't know how a ship must be in business for 'rocket engines' to be cheaper than 'anti-grav' propulsion. And we don't know the price of fuel. So it's very much open to assumption Again, I must ask you to ignore 'most people' for the moment, while we try to find a solution that works You lost me after 'fusion drives'. Are you saying that any engine using gases from gas giants will be fantastically ineffective?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 27, 2004 16:25:20 GMT -5
Talk about going OffT... Ah well. If I was home, I could check out other novels that may have similar descriptions There is, for the most part, just information on plasma exhausts... Still, I don't consider it silly to assume that ships with different purposes have different types of propulsion. After all, we have aircraft with rotors, propellers and jet engines, depending on their purpose. Both interface and space vehicles are described as venting plasma... this creates a situation whereby you have a 'singular' engine type. Indeed, with the Imperium it makes a whole lot of sense if you talk purely about the 'image' of the 40k universe (e.g. dumb technology). That there might be alternative systems used by individual planets... well, fair enough. You win. Mea culpa. Indeed, it is more consistent with the idea of a 'diffuse technology' Imperium. It makes it slightly more complex to discuss and thus for ease it might be useful to assume that the same system is being used...? Well, if all the ships in the Civil fleet are 300-500 meters long, then the amount of trade will probably be relatively small, won't it? After all, you can only fit so much cargo in a ship that small. Not all ships in the Civil Fleet are going to be that sized... That's one of the reasons that I was going to open it up for discussion. Phillip reminded me of the incorrect assumptions that I was making with regard to the Civil Fleet based upon an initial preferentially reading. I was therefore going to open it up for discussion... This would have meant that the Civil Fleet would have been as 'simple' as GW intended (i.e. private shipping), but that the Merchant Fleet was slightly more flexible... Maybe it's wrong of me to make such generic statements... We all do it... I ask you merely to remember that it is me that you're talking about: I want to keep to the 'fluff', but I also don't have anything invested in the 40k universe (i.e. I don't work for GW nor do I play the wargames with others) so when something just doens't work, once I've tried to make it fit I don't kill myself in trying to make something that doesn't fit, well, fit. I fail to see the problem with this argument. If we state that it would be cheaper for the Guard to use alternate methods of propulsion, then we're making the universe inconsistent and illogical. I think you missed the point, but ultimately it doesn't matter... All that it behooves us to do is consider how we can make the Imperium, and the 40k universe in general, work and remain consistent with the 'fluff'. If something doesn't quite work, we think of a way of making it work... if it still doesn't work, must we remain constrained by the "Rule of Cool" and ignore it as an un-solvable problem? Yes, but one could argue that the anti-grav parachutes are reserved for the very elite of the Imperial Guard, who already have a lot of expensive equipment, and even that it's not standard equipment, but only used for special missions. I pointed it out to show that such systems are utilised by the Imperium... that was all. <Kage's hand hovers over a certain button>
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Oct 29, 2004 10:47:27 GMT -5
Talk about going OffT... *grin* Show me one thread on this forum that hasn't gone OffT But you're right. Is this supposed to reduce the tension? After a quick google on Reusable Launch Vehicles (called RLVs by the pro's), I've found out that Nasa aims to lower the cost of launching satellites and other stuff into space by nine tenths. IIRC, it now costs $10,000 per pound, but they plan to reduce this to $1000 per pound by 2015, when the next generation of space shuttles are supposed to be ready. Here's a link that may be useful for some science.howstuffworks.com/space-plane2.htmIt seems to me that fuel is a major expense for space shuttles. If the fuel used by space shuttles can be very cheap in the Imperium, then we're a big step closer to solving this problem.
|
|