WIP Discussion (Part 1!)

[Jericho]

I'll spare you the bad puns Arioch and simply ask if docking from the rear is a common design feature on loroi warships?

[dragoongfa]

I'll spare you the bad puns Arioch and simply ask if docking from the rear is a common design feature on loroi warships?

I think that it has been a widespread consensus that there are many benefits of having a rear facing shuttle bay, the most obvious of them being that the front of the warship is left clear for mission critical stuff, like weapons, extra armor, ECM equipment and etc.

[Arioch]

Yes, the hangar bay is normally at the aft end of the hull between the engine struts. Seemed like the logical place to put it.

[Nemo]

I dont expect there to be room to turn the skiff around inside the ship, so I assume they come in backwards. Wonder how many dents and dings they see training for that.

[icekatze]

hi hi

I would expect that at the Loroi's tech level, they have enough camera technology that backing in would be indistinguishable from boosting in forwards.

[dragoongfa]

Don't forget that even today's autopilots can land passenger airliners. For space just take out gravity and air from the equation.

[Nemo]

Of course, but thats just no fun at all.


edit: before I forget, its also a bit dangerous. Modern pilots have become so dependent on their autopilots they do not respond correctly when they shut off or fail. Air France 447 comes to mind, but there are plenty of others.

[dragoongfa]

Of course, but thats just no fun at all.


edit: before I forget, its also a bit dangerous. Modern pilots have become so dependent on their autopilots they do not respond correctly when they shut off or fail. Air France 447 comes to mind, but there are plenty of others.

That's a problem with the training regimes of commercial companies which for many are non existent. A pilot is supposed to be constantly training in order to keep themselves on edge and ready for all emergencies, then there is the fact that several types of landing and takeoffs cannot be done with an autopilot. Biggest example that I can think of are crosswind landings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUdXJPUwm8

Many people are surprised that many pilots use Microsoft Flight Simulator X for training purposes when at home or at leave.

[icekatze]

hi hi

I don't think it is really a matter of pilots becoming dependent on autopilot systems. Commercial pilots often end up flying more than one type of airplane, after all. Part of the problem with autopilot systems is that it is difficult to recognize both when and why something is going wrong. In cases where autopilot systems have malfunctioned, the words "what is going on?" are very commonly heard on flight recorders. It takes some time for pilots to recognize that things are not going according to plan, and then identify where the source of the problem is.

If your airplane isn't gaining altitude like it should, it could be an automated system, it could be a mechanical fault with the engines, or the flaps, or any number of things.

[Arioch]

The 3D mockup makes it look like the hangar is no larger than the opening, but that's not the case. It's cramped in the hangar, but there's room to turn the shuttle.

Realistically, the shuttle would probably launch tail-first, but that doesn't read well for a comic.

Modern pilots have become so dependent on their autopilots they do not respond correctly when they shut off or fail. Air France 447 comes to mind, but there are plenty of others.

For every Air France 447 there's a USAir 1549. European aviation regulations are much more lax in regards to training and readiness than their American counterparts.

[Jericho]

Not to be snarky but if aft placement of the hangar is so logical why don't humanity do the same. I don't see how they could have a similar configuration on their warships.

[captainsmirk]

Not to be snarky but if aft placement of the hangar is so logical why don't humanity do the same. I don't see how they could have a similar configuration on their warships.

I think you've sort of answered your own question...

It's the logical place to put it given Loroi ship design standards with the engines on outriggers, but not logical within human design standards because of where they place their engines.

Notably the Loroi's actual carriers clearly lack space in the stern to operate their whole complement through a bay in that location and must have other launch bays (and their, admittedly tiny, silhouettes on the Insider would appear to show a large bay in the bow).

[Jericho]

Not to be snarky but if aft placement of the hangar is so logical why don't humanity do the same. I don't see how they could have a similar configuration on their warships.

I think you've sort of answered your own question...

It's the logical place to put it given Loroi ship design standards with the engines on outriggers, but not logical within human design standards because of where they place their engines.

Notably the Loroi's actual carriers clearly lack space in the stern to operate their whole complement through a bay in that location and must have other launch bays (and their, admittedly tiny, silhouettes on the Insider would appear to show a large bay in the bow).

Yeah i suppose i partially answered my own question but my point is more along the lines of what is the optimal starship design in the outsider setting. Given that from what we see this is a loroi trademark of design and that sort of tells me that no other culture with a military does the same thing. If a certain design was so much better than the other than wouldn't it become cross-cultural farely quickly? Why are human and loroi ships designed for the same thing so different in their core shape. If it is because of technological differences i kind off wonder why the umiak design are more similar to the humans in regard of engine placement than to the loroi whom they technologiacally try to keep up with?

Essentially what it boils down to is why do the loroi prefer an engine configuration that favours and an aft hangar bay while no other culture that we can see does the same?

Edit actually looking through umiak ships in the insider it seems to be that the bigger ships (strike cruiser's) have a more loroi like engine configurations and the smaller ones (missile ship) have a more terran like configuration. And I also remember that the Umiak don't use small craft's but corvettes that are attached to the larger ship via tubes it seems.

[icekatze]

hi hi

As far as I can tell, all of the major spacecraft in the setting thus far have used multiple engine configurations, and as far as I know the reason for this is to aid with turning maneuvers while at combat accelerations.

The Umiak use the design style in their Strike Cruiser

And I can't find any evidence of where the hangar bay is on the terran cruisers. (if there even is one.)

[Jericho]

hi hi

As far as I can tell, all of the major spacecraft in the setting thus far have used multiple engine configurations, and as far as I know the reason for this is to aid with turning maneuvers while at combat accelerations.

The Umiak use the design style in their Strike Cruiser

And I can't find any evidence of where the hangar bay is on the terran cruisers. (if there even is one.)

I noticed that about the Umiak ships later. But it seems very size dependant for them smaller ships have the engines in the center and larger have them split apart. To do this for maneuverability is a good point but than i have to ask why humans aren't doing the same? Even if their engines are a lot weaker the basic physics doesn't change and it seems like it would be something that all military ships should have in common. Hell pretty much all ships benefit from greater maneuverability i think.

[dragoongfa]

hi hi

As far as I can tell, all of the major spacecraft in the setting thus far have used multiple engine configurations, and as far as I know the reason for this is to aid with turning maneuvers while at combat accelerations.

The Umiak use the design style in their Strike Cruiser

And I can't find any evidence of where the hangar bay is on the terran cruisers. (if there even is one.)

I noticed that about the Umiak ships later. But it seems very size dependant for them smaller ships have the engines in the center and larger have them split apart. To do this for maneuverability is a good point but than i have to ask why humans aren't doing the same? Even if their engines are a lot weaker the basic physics doesn't change and it seems like it would be something that all military ships should have in common. Hell pretty much all ships benefit from greater maneuverability i think.

The humans in the story don't have any real experience in space combat and their ship design should reflect that. For a parallel imagine that the humans are still trying to see if triplanes are better than biplanes while the Umiak and Loroi have supersonic fighters.

[Jericho]

hi hi

As far as I can tell, all of the major spacecraft in the setting thus far have used multiple engine configurations, and as far as I know the reason for this is to aid with turning maneuvers while at combat accelerations.

The Umiak use the design style in their Strike Cruiser

And I can't find any evidence of where the hangar bay is on the terran cruisers. (if there even is one.)

I noticed that about the Umiak ships later. But it seems very size dependant for them smaller ships have the engines in the center and larger have them split apart. To do this for maneuverability is a good point but than i have to ask why humans aren't doing the same? Even if their engines are a lot weaker the basic physics doesn't change and it seems like it would be something that all military ships should have in common. Hell pretty much all ships benefit from greater maneuverability i think.

The humans in the story don't have any real experience in space combat and their ship design should reflect that. For a parallel imagine that the humans are still trying to see if triplanes are better than biplanes while the Umiak and Loroi have supersonic fighters.

The problem here is that it's not about being experienced with combat it's about basic rocket technology which humanity has had access to for centuries. We already know that the greater the leaver the more efficient the turn-rate is. When triplanes where in use we had only been in the air about a decade and most of aerodynamics where invented on the spot by trial and error. By comparison Humanity has in outsider over twohundred years of research in to space available. There is no reason for humanity not to be aware of this.

[Arioch]

Yeah i suppose i partially answered my own question but my point is more along the lines of what is the optimal starship design in the outsider setting. Given that from what we see this is a loroi trademark of design and that sort of tells me that no other culture with a military does the same thing. If a certain design was so much better than the other than wouldn't it become cross-cultural farely quickly? Why are human and loroi ships designed for the same thing so different in their core shape. If it is because of technological differences i kind off wonder why the umiak design are more similar to the humans in regard of engine placement than to the loroi whom they technologiacally try to keep up with?

Essentially what it boils down to is why do the loroi prefer an engine configuration that favours and an aft hangar bay while no other culture that we can see does the same?

The primary reason that each of the different factions' starships have different configurations is that they need to be visually distinct. The reader should be able to tell at a glance whether a particular ship is Umiak, Loroi, Terran, Morat, Barsam or Historian, and so all 6 have distinctly different shapes and color schemes.

However, when different alien factions have different technologies and different combat doctrines, it makes sense that their ships should look different.

The Loroi favor speed, and they have large high-output engines. The main reason for putting engines out on struts would be to keep the radiation from the powerplant and the exhaust as far away from the crew compartment as possible, but there is also an advantage to having the engines spaced farther apart to increase turn rate from differential thrust. However, there's a drawback; this places a huge stress load on the struts, and they become a very vulnerable target. Because the Loroi also favor large, long-range multiple-barrel mount heavy weapons that are all configured to be able to fire forward at one target (and so have restricted fields of fire), increased rate of turn has additional value, to keep the weapons pointed at the enemy. For a 30G maneuvering target with defensive screens at 300Mm, the enemy can't effectively target the engine struts, but if the ship does take hits, it's not the most robust configuration. Loroi doctrine is to hit and run.

The Umiak have smaller, more efficient engines, and so while a Loroi cruiser typically has two large engine nacelles, an Umiak heavy may have between six and nine individual outlets. They apparently don't have the radiation problems that the Loroi do, as they are able to place them within the hull of the ship. The outlets are usually spread across the rear end of the ship, and often an Umiak hull is wider than it is long, and so they can be used for differential thrust, but being able to rotate quickly is not as important for Umiak doctrine as it is for the Loroi. Umiak doctrine is to get in close and hammer away with their superior short-range weapons, and so durability and a wider field of fire are more important. Umiak weapons tend to be spread across the hull so that at least some can fire in any direction, and they are usually isolated in single-barrel mounts. Umiak ships need to be able to absorb some punishment to be able to get to the close ranges at which they are most effective.

Humanity uses completely different engines and weapons at a very different envelope of distance and acceleration. A 6G combatant at 30 Mm without defensive screens is a comparatively easy target to hit with lasers, and so armor and ruggedness is more important; vulnerable points such as engines on struts would be comparatively easy to shoot off.

As a note, speed of rotation is of secondary importance when it comes to maneuverability. It can take minutes or hours of full-blast acceleration to actually reverse a ship's course, and so whether the ship rotated to the new heading in 10 or 30 seconds is usually not critical. Speed of rotation is more important in terms of bringing one's weapons to bear.

The optimal place to put your shuttle bay is usually on the aft part of the hull, so that you can (in theory) launch or recover craft while still under acceleration. However, this only works if you happen to have a Loroi-like configuration with the engines out on struts. Terran ships typically have the hangar in the belly near the crew compartment, and Umiak ships have them... wherever. Both will need to suspend acceleration briefly while launching or recovering small craft. This is not a significant disadvantage in most situations.

[Jericho]

Yeah i suppose i partially answered my own question but my point is more along the lines of what is the optimal starship design in the outsider setting. Given that from what we see this is a loroi trademark of design and that sort of tells me that no other culture with a military does the same thing. If a certain design was so much better than the other than wouldn't it become cross-cultural farely quickly? Why are human and loroi ships designed for the same thing so different in their core shape. If it is because of technological differences i kind off wonder why the umiak design are more similar to the humans in regard of engine placement than to the loroi whom they technologiacally try to keep up with?

Essentially what it boils down to is why do the loroi prefer an engine configuration that favours and an aft hangar bay while no other culture that we can see does the same?

The primary reason that each of the different factions' starships have different configurations is that they need to be visually distinct. The reader should be able to tell at a glance whether a particular ship is Umiak, Loroi, Terran, Morat, Barsam or Historian, and so all 6 have distinctly different shapes and color schemes.

However, when different alien factions have different technologies and different combat doctrines, it makes sense that their ships should look different.

The Loroi favor speed, and they have large high-output engines. The main reason for putting engines out on struts would be to keep the radiation from the powerplant and the exhaust as far away from the crew compartment as possible, but there is also an advantage to having the engines spaced farther apart to increase turn rate from differential thrust. However, there's a drawback; this places a huge stress load on the struts, and they become a very vulnerable target. Because the Loroi also favor large, long-range multiple-barrel mount heavy weapons that are all configured to be able to fire forward at one target (and so have restricted fields of fire), increased rate of turn has additional value, to keep the weapons pointed at the enemy. For a 30G maneuvering target with defensive screens at 300Mm, the enemy can't effectively target the engine struts, but if the ship does take hits, it's not the most robust configuration. Loroi doctrine is to hit and run.

The Umiak have smaller, more efficient engines, and so while a Loroi cruiser typically has two large engine nacelles, an Umiak heavy may have between six and nine individual outlets. They apparently don't have the radiation problems that the Loroi do, as they are able to place them within the hull of the ship. The outlets are usually spread across the rear end of the ship, and often an Umiak hull is wider than it is long, and so they can be used for differential thrust, but being able to rotate quickly is not as important for Umiak doctrine as it is for the Loroi. Umiak doctrine is to get in close and hammer away with their superior short-range weapons, and so durability and a wider field of fire are more important. Umiak weapons tend to be spread across the hull so that at least some can fire in any direction, and they are usually isolated in single-barrel mounts. Umiak ships need to be able to absorb some punishment to be able to get to the close ranges at which they are most effective.

Humanity uses completely different engines and weapons at a very different envelope of distance and acceleration. A 6G combatant at 30 Mm without defensive screens is a comparatively easy target to hit with lasers, and so armor and ruggedness is more important; vulnerable points such as engines on struts would be comparatively easy to shoot off.

As a note, speed of rotation is of secondary importance when it comes to maneuverability. It can take minutes or hours of full-blast acceleration to actually reverse a ship's course, and so whether the ship rotated to the new heading in 10 or 30 seconds is usually not critical. Speed of rotation is more important in terms of bringing one's weapons to bear.

The optimal place to put your shuttle bay is usually on the aft part of the hull, so that you can (in theory) launch or recover craft while still under acceleration. However, this only works if you happen to have a Loroi-like configuration with the engines out on struts. Terran ships typically have the hangar in the belly near the crew compartment, and Umiak ships have them... wherever. Both will need to suspend acceleration briefly while launching or recovering small craft. This is not a significant disadvantage in most situations.

Now this is the answer i was looking for . Really neat but i got some small questions.

1. I'm not really sure if it's correct that the ships will need to slow down in order for shuttles to dock in flight even if they are in the front or th side. An autopilot system should be able to match their speeds so that the docking goes smoothly. Really all they have to do is fly to the front of the ship and slowly deacrease acceleration until they are inside (in theory).

2. Why do the loroi and humans have two barrels on their beam weapons? If i understand beam weapons than the point is to get as much energy in as small an area as possible. Why then do they insist insist on dual barrel turrets (apart from artistic preference)? If a turret like the tempest plasma pulse gun can fire the energy of two beams why not just smack them together to a single barrel that is twice as big? wouldn't this increase the amount of energy they could get on point making the weapon more effecient for the same cost of materials?

[Krulle]

To q2:
cooldown.

The energy supply of reactors is continuous, but strong lasers cannot fire continuously, due to heat buildup between the mirrors. So, the energy of teh reactor is channelled through a second laser system while the first cools down. This way the reactor output is better used than just one barrel with fire breaks. (Depending on systems, you can, for a short time, use both at the same time, e.g. to prevent a collision it may be better to burn your weapons than risking the loss of your ship.)
Personally, I would do it different, though. Two separate systems, with separate aiming provisions. When one aim has finished (confirmed kill), the second barrel is already lined up on a different target and can fire straight away without the need to align. But then, if a cooldown is necessary while the target has not been "finished", you're aiming at the wrong target, so you have a different issue.... - meh - I need to stop contradicting myself.