 February 25, 2011 - 9:24am | My idea: HS - 6, 3 engine count. What do you think of mounting 3 Atomics *and* 3 Ion engines? Atomics for standard ADF/MR, jumps, yada yada, while the Ion's would be used for stealthy applications. Just curious on the consensus. You can't argue with the invincibly ignorant. - William F. Buckley |
 February 25, 2011 - 12:23pm | I always liked the idea of multiple engines on a ship. I actually prefer a system that notes power plants and drives, with backup systems. Some ships might need two types. A ship designed for planet-to-planet (or planet-to-moon) travel would need chemical drives to move through atmo, while Ion drives can be used to cut-down on power consumption. Adding Ion engines to a starship would add some stealth, while someone suggested adding chemical rockets to fighters, to keep them from spreading radiation into the atmo. When I first got into the game, I amused Atomic and Ion engines used the same drives - Ion Thrusters - as ion thrusters runs on electricity, which an atomic plant can provide a lot more output then it's default gas-burner. But then I learned more about electrical thrusters and nuclear propulsion (its not a difficult subject - it just rocket science, after all  ). |
 February 25, 2011 - 5:35pm | If you mount both atomic and ion, use the ion for jumps. It's much, much cheaper. The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of
the strong. * Attributed to Mahatma Gandhi |
 February 25, 2011 - 5:40pm | @Georgie, Atomic's for a quick up-tp-void speed then kick in the ion's for the final push? Is that what your thinking? @Malcadon, What about ramjets, scramjets, other atmo-capable engines. Isn't there an engine that would be safe to use in atmo and just a useful in space? w00t's all over the frontier want to know. |
 February 25, 2011 - 8:46pm | Here's an idea, according to the Alpha dawn there are aircars, so why is it not possible for someone to have developed planetary thrusters for Spacecraft using the technology for aircars. Of course the size of parabattery would need to be bigger. I think we could figured out how much power would be required to move a ship by comparing the Seu usage/hour to move an aircar's weight and multiply that by the tonnage of the ship to determine how much power would be required to move the ship in an atmosphere at a speed comparable to an aircar (900kph). If the ship wanted to move faster it would double the Seu drain/hour for each 900kph increment that it wanted to accelerate up to escape velocity. "Hey guys I wonder what this does"-Famous last words "Hey guys, I think it's friendly." -Famous last words "You go on ahead, I'll catch up." -Famous last words "Did you here that?" -Famous last words |
 February 25, 2011 - 9:32pm | .....there are aircars....... Personally I like the idea of aircars as escape vehicles for space stations- used as a life pod or lifeboat but with a specially attached thruster to push it into the atmosphere. Once in atmosphere it functions as an air car. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 February 25, 2011 - 9:34pm | oh wait let me get out my slide rule |
February 25, 2011 - 9:37pm | Depending on how hard sci-fi you are going for in your setting would indicate whether you allow any kind of "stealthy" at all. Most hard sci-fi resource sites completely debunk the concept of stealth in space travel. If your looking you'll find 'em up their in the great black. |
February 26, 2011 - 3:40am | @Georgie, Atomic's for a quick up-tp-void speed then kick in the ion's for the final push? Is that what your thinking?. No. Constantly burning the atomics to reach void speed would probably still kick in the need to refuel and overhaul the engines. I'm thinking using the atomics only in tactical situations (and for jumps at greater than 1 ADF). You would use the ion drives for all standard jumps as both the fuel and maintenance costs are lower. The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of
the strong. * Attributed to Mahatma Gandhi |
 February 26, 2011 - 7:30am | I've already thought of all this as I thought about bringing the ship from the anime Outlaw Star into SF universe. Of course I had chemical and nuclear drives on that ship, as well as modified grappler arms. The players loved it. For aircars I've come up with what I call an orbital launch, seeing as a launch is just a space mobile version of a car. Just mount some extra boosters and a heat shield on it and you have a small landing and return craft. There is a lot you can still do with SF if you really think hard about it. And for my next project, a battleship with a disruptor cannon and 4 forward laser cannons. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
 February 26, 2011 - 7:39am | Wondering if the Re-remastered Knight Hawks will include starship design rules that make sense without the insane complexity Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
 February 26, 2011 - 9:28am | Wondering if the Re-remastered Knight Hawks will include starship design rules that make sense without the insane complexity That's part of the goal.Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
February 26, 2011 - 9:54am | @Rattraveller: When you say Re-mastered Kh are you referring to the KH 2.0 project that just started or something else? |
 February 26, 2011 - 9:16pm | The FASA Star Trek game from the 1980s had a ship design system that used mass and power usage instead of volume or MHS. It was a little more complicated but it was very workable Ship Construction Manual, 1st Ed.(1983), and Ship Construction Manual, 2nd Ed.(1985) We used the 2nd ed because because it had everything in it from 1st Ed "original TV series stuff" as well as the "movie era stuff" added in 2nd Ed. FASA 2204 Ship Construction Manual. I dont have a copy now, it was my older brothers stuff. I just think that Mass may be more realistic than volume. The bombing starts in five minutes. |
February 28, 2011 - 12:44am | What about ramjets, scramjets, other atmo-capable engines. Isn't there an engine that would be safe to use in atmo and just a useful in space? There are all sorts of chemical drives, but they are usually efficient for in or trans-atmospheric travel, as they consume too much fuel for long range space trips, and they lack the fine-point maneuvering seen with ion drives. If anything, ion verniers should be standard on all ships, as a way to orientate them with little energy loss. A fusion drive can deliver a tremendous amount of thrust by the fact that it can deliver a pulse of nuclear explosions in a highy focused way. This is the most efficient way to send large amount cargo into space. In real life, NASA tried to send a 4,000+ ton craft into space in the 60's (as part of the Orion Project), but legal and ethical complications prevented this. I don't know how the fallout from the mini nuclear exhausts would have had on our environment, but if the heavily cratered Nellis Test Site (outside Area 51) is any indication, it would have likely been really moot.  |
February 28, 2011 - 6:00pm | Well about atomic drives, remember Hiroshima, Japan was nuked. But it didn't really take it long before the city was habital once again, now it's still a pretty good size city. So I'm fairly conviced nuclear rockets would not have been that bad on the enviroment, especially if they did it from a constant isolated location few problems would have resulted from it. In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
