Concept Fanart of Future Terran Ship Designs

[Absalom]

Let's start with this. Here, I'm basically accusing you of the same thing that you're accusing "battleship lovers" of: thinking about aesthetics to the detriment of design. What you need to do is:

(Drops monocle) "Why i never..."

I accuse you of straw manning and nitpicking. And i challenge you fisticuffs.

I accuse you of inadequate skill with the English language, and challenge you to prove me wrong. I suggest beginning with your next post in this thread. You keep arguing against points that I haven't even made.

1) break the design down into it's core components:

1 i) In the case of the Omega (and the Nova), if you ignore the rotating segment (which, if you go back and read starting at "from the Omega's basic hull form", you'll see that I explicitly did) then you have a big box up front, and a little box in back. A hammer, in essence, which you'll notice I already referred to the design as.

This argument says nothing about what i actually said. I was making a point about the superiority of non aerodynamic "box like" ships given the futility of aerodynamics in space. We are not flying in atmosphere now are we for most part right?

And where, anywhere in this, did I mention anything about aerodynamics? I don't give a damn about the aerodynamics of the things, they're spaceships after all.

And, let me be frank, how is two pyramids with their bases stuck together any less of a box than a cube is a box? Explain. If you can.

I would recommend that you spit on your idea of what you think I said, and actually pay attention to my words. Subtlety does not adequately travel in a text form, and I am fully aware of this, and thus I do not use subtlety. If you think that a particular passage that I've written in this series of posts has some hidden meaning, then you should go back and look at the words.

1 ii) In the case of the "battleship" design, the design simplifies down to either two cones with their bases stuck together, or two pyramids with their bases stuck together. Pay no attention to the conning and whatever-else towers, they're a distraction at this point (after all, do you really think that people would normally stick an Omega's docking bay at the front, where it's most likely to gather debris? why then stick the bridge outside of the deepest portions of the ship ).

Here's the thing a boxlike ships doesn't necessarily mean that it has to look exactly like the nova or omega. there are plenty of examples of boxes out there so nitpicking about the particular shape of those ships are besides the point. If you wish make your box by placing a spire on the center of another box that's fine. the point is that it's cheaper easier and less expensive to make a ship if it consists of only utilitarian equipment and straight armor plates (gay ones are not allowed to be fitted on warships or marry).

The description that I gave of "Spire" designs is just as much of a "box" as the "Hammer" design is. If you actually have some grounds to say otherwise then state it.

And as for "doesn't necessarily have to look like an Omega", pick a design. If you want to discuss something, then you must have something to actually talk about. If you aren't supporting a "Hammer", then either describe the generic form of the hull shape that you are supporting, or drop the subject. Your arguments thus far have little more material than "your design looks aerodynamic to me, so that means it's bad".

2 i II) Unfortunately, any weapons that are mounted on front of the ship will not be able to reach behind the ship. You can locate them on the sides of the hammerhead instead of the front, but that doesn't provide any improvement over the mounting options of a "battleship", raising the question of what makes the Hammer so superior in the first place.

The box is superior because space is a vacuum. Therefore you don't need to worry about acceleration that much unless your planning to travel through a gas cloud or an atmosphere. Aerodynamics doesn't apply that much otherwise so why use them? Also you're not traveling in an ocean so using a naval vessel as a model for a futuristic star-ship is just plain... um ... (sorry i have no nice way of saying it) and the only reason why you would do it is because the rule of cool (space battleship Yamato is a prime example)

Acceleration? Go back and read that: where did I mention acceleration? In that entire post I was trying to assume equal volumes, equal masses, and equal accelerations, for the sake of more accurately comparing the actual designs.

Aerodynamics? I DID NOT MENTION AERODYNAMICS AT ALL. Abandon all thought of aerodynamics in this conversation. YOU might be obsessed with the subject, but I am not.

Naval ships as a model? I already tried to point out in the beginning of that post that I don't actually have enough knowledge of naval ships to actually use them as a genuine model, I am neither David Webber nor David Drake. This entire post was about the advantages and disadvantages of actual hull shapes.

Basing your star ship design on naval vessels is plain wrong because of the simply reason that one is designed to float on water.

Did I describe a bottom-heavy vehicle with a bulbous nose and a distinctive upward sweep of the lower sides? No? Then how did I describe something that has any business being on the water? Pay attention to the hull form that I described: two pyramids with their bases stuck together.

2 i III) Also, the most obvious use for the hammerhead is to stick most of the armor there so that you can keep almost ALL of your armor between the ship and the enemy. Given the Hammer's nice maneuvering this can work for one adversary, but what if there are two, and they engage in a joust with you? Even the most straight-forward of tactics will lead them to pass on opposite sides of you, making it impossible to defend yourself from both. A fleet joust is likely to be at least as bad, and if they actually try to mix in with your forces then it'll be much, much worse.

Again you're not addressing my point. You're nitpicking about the particular shape of one example i used for visual effects, not answering the argument i am making.

The only points that you seem to have made are "Boxes!" and "Aerodynamics are bad". This is sufficiently close to saying "Cars!" when people ask what you like to drive.

2 ii) "Battleships" (you know what? let's call them "Spires", to avoid undue comparisons) have their center of volume at the same point as their center of length.

2 ii I) This means that they'll have somewhat worse maneuverability than a Hammer, which is a downside, but that level of maneuverability would really only matter in dogfights, which are unlikely to last long between Outsider warships. Thus, this isn't really much of a loss. Note that I am assuming the center of thrust passes through the tips of both cones in the rest of these points, assuming that it passes through the plane of the cone's bases would produce a different analysis.

Maneuvering is otherwise an incredible important aspect of outsider but it has nothing to do with the argument i am making.

Unlike you, at least I have pointed out some benefits of designs.

And it says nothing about the argument I've made!

That is the basic form of my point:

And here's basically my point: Aerodynamically shaped ships offer no significant advantage in space to justify the cost of making them as a standard (they belong to the exception not the rule).

This implies that if a "box" flies with one of it's corners in front, it automatically is no longer cost-justified, because it has become aerodynamic. Now, did you mean to say that? Or did you mean to say something else? Perhaps you meant to say something about curves inherently making it more difficult to build something? Oh, wait, that can't be it, because you haven't said any such thing. If you actually had said such a thing then I could consider it in my responses, but all that you've said is "Boxes!", and "Aerodynamics are bad", without saying why. You want a conversation? Then write with intentional clarity, intentionally saying everything that you consider important. If it isn't important, then who cares, but if it is then you'll just have to explain it at a later time.

2 ii II) Assuming equal volumes, a Hammer will presumably have more mounting area on the sides of it's hammerhead than a Spire will along it's bases. This does have the potential to reduce the number of turrets with 360
degree
"horizontal" coverage, but the risk is actually somewhat low: the America class heavy cruisers only have four heavy laser turrets, and Loroi cruisers (with the sole exception of the Swift Vanguard battlecruisers) seem to max out around 5 primary turrets. Even then, these turrets seem to reliably carry only two weapons, so unless there's some construction issue that prevents it, it should be quite possible to reduce the number of turrets while maintaining the same firepower.

I don't get what this has to do with the argument I'm making.

Then actually get around to making said point so that I can write relevant responses to it.

2 ii III) A Spire doesn't offer any quick and obvious armor optimizations like the Hammer does (they can be done, mind you, but they don't really relate to ship layout and thus apply to both designs), but it does have one advantage over a Hammer: if you maintain the same measurement ratios, Spire surface areas should increase slower than with a Hammer. Thus, a Spire doesn't offer the armor optimizations of a Hammer, but it does have an advantage of the actual surface area of the ship.

You gonna have to draw me a diagram of this cause i don't get why it would have more surface area.

The shape I described is closer to a sphere than the one you described (or, rather, closer than the Hammer design, since you apparently haven't described anything at all). Thus, less surface area. I would draw you a picture of both, but I'm not going to bother uploading one, so there's no point.

2) analyze the the traits of those core components:

2 i) "Hammers" have their center of volume moved forwards in comparison to their center of length, which means that if their density is either distributed accordingly, or even in such a way that the center of mass is even further forwards, then the most effective place to put maneuvering thrusters is the very back of the ship.

2 i I) This configuration can provide good turning performance when compared to it's engine power, so if we assume a mostly inertial flightpath (or primary engines flanking the center of mass, with secondaries at the rear), a Hammer should be very effective at deciding which side of itself to present to the enemy.

This argument doesn't matter either as I have not made an argument remotely similar to that. I have no idea why you bring this up.

You asked me to explain another one of my posts. I thus proceeded to actually explain what I was talking about, that being a comparison of the general hull plans that we were discussing: "Battleships" (Spires) and "Omegas" (Hammers).

The other is made to fly in the vacuum of space. Just look at the Yamato it's main battery is only able to fire in a special Goldilocks zone that's so weirdly placed for a star-ship that the only logical reason why it does that is because the designer thought naval vessels looked cool. And I'm not talking about the wave motion gun.

So no i don't think i favor box design because it looks good. I think it looks good because of the utilitarian aspects of it.

And where would that Goldilocks zone be, the upper-forward quadrant of the ship? Blocking zones of fire is dubious, but the design that I described doesn't have these unnecessary obstructions (an example of a unnecessary structure: a conning tower). The turrets sit on "peaks", giving them 360 degrees visibility on their horizontal plane, and at least 180 degrees visibility on their vertical plane, possibly more depending on the design of individual ships. You aren't going to get much better than that.

At any rate, you are seemingly basing your argument on "LOL, WW2 battleship in space!" (and, lets be honest, that's a reasonable opinion, because seriously, those turrets wouldn't even stay on the Yamato without something being added to the structure to keep them from floating off... and likely running straight into the conning tower), whereas I'm basing mine on the generalized shape (wide at the middle, skinny at front and back). In other words, your dismissal is based on a specific example (in which case we can dismiss ALL spacecraft from consideration, because various space programs have had rockets blow up), while mine is based on the general shape. You're making comparisons to oranges, I'm making comparisons to spheres. Do you understand the words I have written here?

[Jericho]

Absalom you're right. reading again what i wrote i came to realize that in the big picture you're right i did actually chose my design for aesthetic reasons and was too proud too admit it. I tried to convince myself that what i did was different but instead argued like a bit of an idiot. I'm not proud of it and i apologize for not facing my error before it got this far. I'm sorry.

On another note: Why are the scout corps and navy colored differently and why are the scout corps colored red and white?

[JQBogus]

I don't know if this had any influence on Outsider, but here in the US we have two sea-going services, the Navy, and the Coast Guard, each of which has its own painting conventions.

The Navy is largely an open ocean (sometimes called the 'blue water' navy) force, concentrating on fighting (naval dominance and force projection) and is part of the Department of Defense. US Navy Ships, as in most navies, are generally painted gray.

The Coast Guard operates closer to shore (sometimes called the 'brown water' navy) and in inland waters, concentrating more on law enforcement (customs, immigration, etc), Search and Rescue, and such. It was part of the Department of Commerce, at least until it got transferred to the Department of Homeland Security a few years ago. While the Coast Guard operates as a military service (ranks, enlistments, etc) and is seconded to the Navy in times of war, it often is not thought of as military institution in the popular mind over here. US Coast Guard ships are generally painted white, with a diagonal red stripe forward.

Canada has a similar set up, though their navy's shade of gray (grey?) is different, and the Coast Guard is red with a white diagonal stripe forward.

Anyway... this is my idea as to why Outsider has two military organizations operating in the same medium, and why the 'less military' of the two uses a red/white color scheme.

[Arioch]

Yes, the Scout Corps coloration is different because, like the Coast Guard, they represent the "civilian navy." The Scout Corps is not responsible for border enforcement, but in addition to exploration they are tasked with deep space patrol and search & rescue.

[CptWinters]

Why was it decided to create a separate service for the Scout Corps? Surely the Navy pushed for keeping those duties within their own control rather than branched out.

[Arioch]

Why was it decided to create a separate service for the Scout Corps? Surely the Navy pushed for keeping those duties within their own control rather than branched out.

The TCA was formed out of pre-existing entities rather than created from scratch, and the exploration & patrol organization that became the Scout Corps was probably much better established than the relatively new "military" navy.

[Hālian]

Why hasn't the Scout Corps been subsumed into the Navy/Air Force/whatever? They look like a blue-water space force to me.

[CptWinters]

Why hasn't the Scout Corps been subsumed into the Navy/Air Force/whatever? They look like a blue-water space force to me.

See Arioch's answer above.

The TCA was formed out of pre-existing entities rather than created from scratch, and the exploration & patrol organization that became the Scout Corps was probably much better established than the relatively new "military" navy.

So there were already space exploration programs similar to the Scout Corps being operated by the nations that formed the TCA? Then does the SC have a kind of "pride of place" when dealing with the Navy?

[Arioch]

Why hasn't the Scout Corps been subsumed into the Navy/Air Force/whatever? They look like a blue-water space force to me.

The blue-water/brown-water analogy breaks down a bit, as the Corps are the deep-space specialists, not the Fleet. You can think of the Scout Corps as a cross between the Coast Guard and NASA. Rescue and exploration could be done by the military (as it is in the Loroi system), but in our society I think we prefer to have civilian (or at least non-military) organizations handle these.

Humanity's space forces have three tiers: the local system authorities have their own police ships (mostly frigates) that are responsible for in-system affairs. The Colonial Fleet is responsible for patrolling the interstellar trade lanes and responding to emergencies and violations of treaty (assisting the local police when called upon). The Scout Corps is responsible for deep space exploration, and patrol and search & rescue in systems that are not on the regular trade routes.

So there were already space exploration programs similar to the Scout Corps being operated by the nations that formed the TCA? Then does the SC have a kind of "pride of place" when dealing with the Navy?

I hope that's evident in Alex's and Captain Hamilton's attitudes towards the Fleet. The Colonial Fleet was created to prevent a war between the new colonies, and it was successful in doing so, to the point where there have been no interplanetary wars in Human space since. Unfortunately, this has led to the view by some in the public that the Fleet is an "army with no enemy to fight." Public support and funding for the Fleet has declined over the years of peace, to the point where several planned vessels were cancelled, and many of the heavier Fleet vessels rarely leave port except to make diplomatic gestures. (Obviously this view has changed in the last two years since alien contact.)

The Scout Corps owes some direct lineage to the organizations that conducted the first FTL tests in 2086 and the early exploration of Human territory. The Scout Corps has strong esprit de corps and views itself as the best of the best (like any organization worth its salt) and views the Fleet as meter maids and simulation jockeys, while the Scouts are daring adventurers who really go "out there" and risk their lives in deep space.

[Absalom]

Absalom you're right. reading again what i wrote i came to realize that in the big picture you're right i did actually chose my design for aesthetic reasons and was too proud too admit it. I tried to convince myself that what i did was different but instead argued like a bit of an idiot. I'm not proud of it and i apologize for not facing my error before it got this far. I'm sorry.

Eh, stuff happens. As long as whoever goofed catches on before it goes on too long, it's all gold (now, there was this one time, on another forum, when I actually wondered part way through if I should report the other guy for trolling; suffice to say, this time was trivial).

As it is, a "Hammer" design would be well suited for enforcement patrols, and flat-plate construction could make construction much faster; it's just that "Spires" have their own suitabilities, and the construction technique should be applicable to any basic hull-form. Everything in it's place, and a place for everything.


Edited in: Oh, and just for reference, arguing in favor of reasonable positions is perfectly fine in my book. The ease of building with flat panels, for example.

[GeoModder]

... The Colonial Fleet was created to prevent a war between the new colonies, and it was successful in doing so, to the point where there have been no interplanetary wars in Human space since...

Does this mean there was at some point a real risk of an armed conflict between two or more colonies?

[CptWinters]

Would that even be possible? When the navy was formed were the colonies even capable of building their own warships?

Or was this all theoretical threat-projection on the part of the military?

[Durabys]

When it comes to Terran starship designs, I am a traditionalist...


You just cannot beat the Japanese in Starship design...

I have to disagree my friend



This is a real starship .

Yeah. Actually. This is the 3rd batch of Omega destroyers who had limited Gravity Control. LINK (look it up on this site).

When it comes to Terran starship designs, I am a traditionalist...

A good over/under probably would be a good choice, especially since you can statistically nudge a miniscule extra bit of thrust out that Loroi designs can't, since Loroi designs will have larger "hull shadows", due to many of them having back, bottom, AND side obstructions. A "single-hull battleship" design will only have a bottom (or for bottom guns, top) and back obstruction. Thus, you get closer to 300 degree horizontal and 100 degree vertical coverage, whereas the average Loroi heavy weapons emplacement looks to be in the 100-180 degree horizontal and 100 vertical range (e.g. the Warhammer, though more recent designs seem to be better about this?). A good design can also get the furthest dorsal and ventral guns ~180 degree coverage vertically, and as close to 360 degrees horizontally as your weapons, turret, and power systems will allow.

Now, for the Loroi, this wouldn't likely be significant, but remember: even when the Humans get higher-thrust drives at a capital-ship size, it's likely that they'll still have a ways to go before they work out enough flaws to get up around Loroi accelerations for the same engine-to-ship ratio: the Loroi have the extra thrust to completely spin their ships, Humanity initially won't.

More importantly, it provides a visual distinction .

When it comes to Terran starship designs, I am a traditionalist...


You just cannot beat the Japanese in Starship design...

I have to disagree my friend



This is a real starship .

Regretfully, the Omega-class is designed for a far different setting: one without easy gravity control, and with fist-fight combat ranges. Now, if one inexplicably showed up in TCA territory, and the stardrive still worked like in B5, it would oh-so-very be a candidate for retrofitting, and (at least the drive) reverse-engineering (after all, I'm pretty sure that it would be much better for tactical purposes than Outsider stardrives), but even the TCA has non-inertial gravity, and in B5 that's too high-tech for almost any Earthforce ships to mount.

Nope. This is the third batch. It has very limited Gravity Control. On the other hand this beauty is full-on Gravity Control third generation Warlock class.



Now. That is a true warship. Bitch please.

[Dragoon]

I imagine the threat of inter colonial hostilities had to be a real concern at the upper levels of government. it is a historical pattern that as colonies grow they tend to become more inclined, and capable of hostile acts without the support of their parent government.

without any opposing force even a small group of armed civilian ships could inflict heavy damage on a colony. All an aggressive colony would need is,a few kilos of enriched uranium, and you have a nuke. If they weren't that bloodthirsty they could or simply stand off in orbit with their cobbled together fleet and blockade vital supplies from the colony.

A few armed cutters, and destroyers would be enough to prevent a colony from getting ideas, but a small number of cruisers would be even more effective at keeping the colonies from trying to build their own armed cutters and destroyers. Since in theory a cruiser might be well beyond the means of a colony.

[szurkey]

The whole point was to demonstrate how i think future terran warships should look like not to get in to a ship from another universe vs this universe debate.
The argument i was making is really about the superiority of non-aerodynamic box-like ships vs slick aerodynamic ships and how i think the industrial look that flying boxes have gives them a charm.

Just look at the nova class. The engineer behind that didn't want to dazzle his enemies, he wanted to destroy them asap and he didn't care how it would look like doing it.

They are only superior if you have the fleet train to supply them with reaction mass and coolant. In genre, Yamato starships are all fitted with a tachyon particle scoop, out of genre that scoop can be fuel, coolant, and reaction mass scoop for skimming off of gas giants. If you want to know just how precious reaction that can be, give High Frontier and High Frontier Colonization a try. You will be shocked by how precious reaction mass is. http://www.sierra-madre-games.com/confl ... id=1351771, http://www.sierra-madre-games.com/confl ... d=11137394, pictures at Board Game Geek: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/ ... h-frontier, http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgamee ... lonization. The best parts of High Frontier is that it very pointedly demonstrates the inverse relation ship between thrust and ISP (specific impulse, a measure of efficiency of reaction mass), and that orbital mechanics very different form of movement!

Now as for the Omega, I would love to see the internal arrangement of flywheels to deal with all that momentum created by the rotating crew space. Please don't take this the wrong way, providing gravity for humans is critical for space flight, but that creates a whole host of other problems. You would be horrified at what micro gravity does to the human body. I really prefer the Jovian Chronicles Valiant, Forge, Majestic, and Ypres for realistic ships with rotating crew spaces.


to the B5 Omega.

Now if you want a "real" starship, there's the ISV Venture Star http://www.pandorapedia.com/human_opera ... nture_star, rotating crew space, lots of radiators, debris shield at the front, etc...

[szurkey]

I imagine the threat of inter colonial hostilities had to be a real concern at the upper levels of government. it is a historical pattern that as colonies grow they tend to become more inclined, and capable of hostile acts without the support of their parent government.

without any opposing force even a small group of armed civilian ships could inflict heavy damage on a colony. All an aggressive colony would need is,a few kilos of enriched uranium, and you have a nuke. If they weren't that bloodthirsty they could or simply stand off in orbit with their cobbled together fleet and blockade vital supplies from the colony.

A few armed cutters, and destroyers would be enough to prevent a colony from getting ideas, but a small number of cruisers would be even more effective at keeping the colonies from trying to build their own armed cutters and destroyers. Since in theory a cruiser might be well beyond the means of a colony.

You don't need enriched uranium. All you need is a powerful enough thruster attached to a "small" asteroid.

[Dragoon]

Point... szurkey!!!

Yeah, that would be about the cheapest way to level a colony. But fortunately it's also about the easiest to fix, you just send a ship to destroy the engine, or redirect it...unless of course that fleet of cobbled together warships was waiting for ya.

[Absalom]

Would that even be possible? When the navy was formed were the colonies even capable of building their own warships?

Or was this all theoretical threat-projection on the part of the military?

Well, that depends... Do you consider a WW1 scout plane whose observer is dropping hand-held bombs to be a bomber? Do you consider a WW1 scout plane whose observer is using a pintle-mount machine gun to be a fighter? The colonies will have had some "police" boats, likely armed with some mixture of lasers, railguns, and light torpedoes, to prevent attacks of opportunity from the less savory types of ship captains. This wouldn't have resulted in that much weapons traffic, and all of these would have been rather light-weight, but it would have been expressly intended for taking out other ships, because otherwise a handful of "characters" would have popped up eventually, ruining the relevant trade routes for everyone else, as tends to happen in anomies.

From there, it's not hard to picture a "scrap fleet" of police ships, commandeered asteroid tugs (for planetary bombardment), and retro-fitted Q-ships and merchant-carriers. It would have the potential to lead to an escalating arms race very quickly. Fortunately, with the possible exception of Mars, none of these nations or planets would have been likely to be able to afford (much less build) anything comparable to the TCA warships. Thus, when the TCA produced the only true space navy in Human space, it basically ruled out any possibility of human colonies attacking each other with even merchant ships: too much risk for too little gain.

I have to disagree my friend

SpoilerShow

This is a real starship .

Regretfully, the Omega-class is designed for a far different setting: one without easy gravity control, and with fist-fight combat ranges. Now, if one inexplicably showed up in TCA territory, and the stardrive still worked like in B5, it would oh-so-very be a candidate for retrofitting, and (at least the drive) reverse-engineering (after all, I'm pretty sure that it would be much better for tactical purposes than Outsider stardrives), but even the TCA has non-inertial gravity, and in B5 that's too high-tech for almost any Earthforce ships to mount.

Nope. This is the third batch. It has very limited Gravity Control. On the other hand this beauty is full-on Gravity Control third generation Warlock class.

SpoilerShow

Now. That is a true warship. Bitch please.

That is also approximately a "Spire" design, which I was advocating. Though admittedly, I never really understood those pods sticking out of the sides, and I honestly always preferred the Omegas.

The whole point was to demonstrate how i think future terran warships should look like not to get in to a ship from another universe vs this universe debate.
The argument i was making is really about the superiority of non-aerodynamic box-like ships vs slick aerodynamic ships and how i think the industrial look that flying boxes have gives them a charm.

Just look at the nova class. The engineer behind that didn't want to dazzle his enemies, he wanted to destroy them asap and he didn't care how it would look like doing it.

They are only superior if you have the fleet train to supply them with reaction mass and coolant. In genre, Yamato starships are all fitted with a tachyon particle scoop, out of genre that scoop can be fuel, coolant, and reaction mass scoop for skimming off of gas giants. If you want to know just how precious reaction that can be, give High Frontier and High Frontier Colonization a try. You will be shocked by how precious reaction mass is. http://www.sierra-madre-games.com/confl ... id=1351771, http://www.sierra-madre-games.com/confl ... d=11137394, pictures at Board Game Geek: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/ ... h-frontier, http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgamee ... lonization. The best parts of High Frontier is that it very pointedly demonstrates the inverse relation ship between thrust and ISP (specific impulse, a measure of efficiency of reaction mass), and that orbital mechanics very different form of movement!

That's fine for some settings (particularly ones that favor a "space is big" trait, with lots of visits to empty systems), but it isn't really a relevant worry in Outsider. It's ships are indeed designed around the assumption of access to supply lines, as demonstrated by the demise of Admiral Sunfall. Likely, the analysis is that the "effective distances" that their ships work over aren't large enough to need on-site replenishment capabilities.

Now as for the Omega, I would love to see the internal arrangement of flywheels to deal with all that momentum created by the rotating crew space. Please don't take this the wrong way, providing gravity for humans is critical for space flight, but that creates a whole host of other problems.

Doesn't have them. The Omega, and apparently all of the other ships as well, was mostly designed by the graphics guys. One of them wanted to do a complex gimballing mount for the engines, but at the end the decision was apparently "skip it, just add an impressive volume of engines instead". So, there was actually a solution to that momentum, but it was never actually implemented.

I really prefer the Jovian Chronicles Valiant, Forge, Majestic, and Ypres for realistic ships with rotating crew spaces.

SpoilerShow

to the B5 Omega.

Take that one, rotate the wheel 90 degrees so that the axis of rotation is no longer in line with the rest of the hull, and I think you'd have a much better silhouette. Are these supposed to be carriers? They both look like they have catapults. These are also from a "slow ships" setting, right?

Now if you want a "real" starship, there's the ISV Venture Star http://www.pandorapedia.com/human_opera ... nture_star, rotating crew space, lots of radiators, debris shield at the front, etc...

This is the bit where I cuss because you provided a link to a slow-as-molasses site instead of just posting an image.

At any rate, that ship wasn't a combat craft, and therefor is of less relevance than you might be thinking.

Personally, if you're going for a "space is big" setting, then retractable cable-mounted centrifuges would be worth considering. You can retract them behind armor slabs when you needed to, have them deployed otherwise, and if you're worried about ambushes then you can have them be both armored and self-propulsive, for emergency situations. Of course, this does work better if you're in a "big ship, small crew" setting as well. Otherwise it can be difficult to allocate the mass.

[szurkey]

That's fine for some settings (particularly ones that favor a "space is big" trait, with lots of visits to empty systems), but it isn't really a relevant worry in Outsider. It's ships are indeed designed around the assumption of access to supply lines, as demonstrated by the demise of Admiral Sunfall. Likely, the analysis is that the "effective distances" that their ships work over aren't large enough to need on-site replenishment capabilities.

Supply is invariably one of the most difficult challenges to overcome. Allowing ships to scoop fuel doesn't reduce the need for munitions, spare parts, replacement crew, food, etc., but it does reduce the volume required. Minimum water allowance on diesel electric submarine is 2 liters per person per day. If you can scoop hydrogen and oxygen off of gas giants, that alleviates 24,000+ liters of water per month that has to be supplied to one ship with 400 crew. I know you are going to argue that you can recycle urine back into water, but that has all sorts of problems, such as how to get the hormones out, etc. And then there's coolant, reaction mass, atmosphere feedstock, etc. 3d printers could reduce the need for spare parts, but you still have to provide the 3d printers with source materials to print with.

Take that one, rotate the wheel 90 degrees so that the axis of rotation is no longer in line with the rest of the hull, and I think you'd have a much better silhouette. Are these supposed to be carriers? They both look like they have catapults. These are also from a "slow ships" setting, right?

Changing the axis from rotation off of centerline will only exacerbate the problem dealing with the momentum from the gravity wheel. The Forge, Valiant, Majetsic are carriers, the Ypres is a straight combat ship. Yes, the carriers have cats. Maximum thrust of the Valiant is 0.8g, and it's not reactionless, so it is definitely a slow ship setting.

This is the bit where I cuss because you provided a link to a slow-as-molasses site instead of just posting an image.

At any rate, that ship wasn't a combat craft, and therefor is of less relevance than you might be thinking.

It's a video, not an image. The point is that the closer you get to reality, the less combat capable starships are.

[Siber]

Personally, if you're going for a "space is big" setting, then retractable cable-mounted centrifuges would be worth considering. You can retract them behind armor slabs when you needed to, have them deployed otherwise, and if you're worried about ambushes then you can have them be both armored and self-propulsive, for emergency situations. Of course, this does work better if you're in a "big ship, small crew" setting as well. Otherwise it can be difficult to allocate the mass.

An idea I've toyed with for hard-sf ships is along those lines, but cabin on the end of the centrifuge be inflatable. If there's a combat threat, reel in the hab, get the crew to their stations, and deflate to stow it. It seems like it'd remove a lot of the burden of armoring enough volume to keep your crew happy long term, and since there isn't any stealth in space there probably aren't going to be any ambushes either, so you can be reasonably confident of the hab's safety when you decide to inflate it.