This one is going to be a constant thrust< in system passenger ferry. The hammerhead is the habitable section that rotates 180 degrees when the ship is decelerating.
certainly looks interesting, will really have to see how this turns out.
Thinking about changing the orientation to this;
Thoughts?
Oh, and the wings at the back are the radiators, figured as the engines will be running 24/7 they would need to be substantial.
yeah I realised they were radiators about ten minutes after I switched my computer off. The new orientation makes it look a bit like a Sunfish. I take it this design has no FTL capabilities at all?
This one is going to be a constant thrust< in system passenger ferry. The hammerhead is the habitable section that rotates 180 degrees when the ship is decelerating.
The first version have larger floor surfaces, while the second one have smaller surfaces but more stacked decks (since it is constantly accelerating, I understand that the nose of the ship is always top, passengers will have their feet towards the engines). I think that, for the sake of passengers' comfort, the first one would be more enjoyable. Although i do agree the second one looks better, and is interesting with its vertical fins reminiscent of some fish.
However the habitats able to turn 180A° are useless in my understanding. If all the "main" engines used for acceleration/deceleration are situated at the rear, then you will have to turn the entire ship to decelerate, meaning the acceleration vector will still have the same orientation and the passengers' feet will firmly stick to the ground.
Did i miss something? It is something you did as well for the container transport Gudren Maersk. In my understanding the rotating table where the habitat module is situated is useless as well since you have to turn the entire ship to decelerate.
yeah I realised they were radiators about ten minutes after I switched my computer off. The new orientation makes it look a bit like a Sunfish. I take it this design has no FTL capabilities at all?
However the habitats able to turn 180A° are useless in my understanding. If all the "main" engines used for acceleration/deceleration are situated at the rear, then you will have to turn the entire ship to decelerate, meaning the acceleration vector will still have the same orientation and the passengers' feet will firmly stick to the ground.
Did i miss something? It is something you did as well for the container transport Gudren Maersk. In my understanding the rotating table where the habitat module is situated is useless as well since you have to turn the entire ship to decelerate.
The entire ship reverse attitude for the deceleration burn and the modules would flip 180 degrees, so they would still be at a constant 1g. I think my thinking is correct.
The new version reminds me of the Angry Angelfish ships the Minbari used to use. It's also reminiscent of the Brakiri ships (both from Babylon 5).
This isn't a bad thing--both images were pretty neat and this has the same potential!
Having never watched B5, I'm not familiar with those ships, but after looking them up I'm going to revisit my design as it looks too similar to the Brakiri ship I think.
Having never watched B5, I'm not familiar with those ships, but after looking them up I'm going to revisit my design as it looks too similar to the Brakiri ship I think.
Considering you designed it without knowing about the Brakiri, I'd not worry about it too much. Only uber-nerds and nit-pickers like me would likely have made the connection (it's not like the Brakiri ships were in that many episodes) ... and if you came up with a similar idea without prompting that just goes to show it's a good one.
Ultimately, it's your ship, so it's your call. But, as I've discovered as I've tried to write a variety of project if you toss something out because someone else did something similar (even very similar) you'll never finish anything!
The entire ship reverse attitude for the deceleration burn and the modules would flip 180 degrees, so they would still be at a constant 1g. I think my thinking is correct.
No, actually, Khay is correct.
1) ship accelerates - gravity points from nose to thrusters.
2) ship turns - no gravity whatever.
3) ship decelerates - gravity once again points from nose to thrusters.
Sadly enough but he is right - there is no need of spin-hab on torch ship (constant high-g thrust).
Having never watched B5, I'm not familiar with those ships, but after looking them up I'm going to revisit my design as it looks too similar to the Brakiri ship I think.
Don`t bother, I think. It`s your ship. And even if you will consciously plagiarize some sort of design feature - it will still be your ship, as much as I care.
1) ship accelerates - gravity points from nose to thrusters.
2) ship turns - no gravity whatever.
3) ship decelerates - gravity once again points from nose to thrusters.
Sadly enough but he is right - there is no need of spin-hab on torch ship (constant high-g thrust).
Ok, I see I was a bit dense in explaining it, the modules are not spinning, they just rotate to flip the orientation.
Think of a car strongly accelerating. You're firmly pushed toward the seat.
Then you brake/decelerate. You're projected forward, and your teeth with eat the steering wheel if you don't have your safety belt. Simple so far. That's what happens as well on a spaceship if you decelerate using maneuvering thruster at the noze of the ship. The passengers will be projected forward.
Put if you're drifting your car 180A° before decelerating (what a cool maneuver ^^), you will -again- be pushed toward the seat when braking. That's what happens when you rotate your spaceship to decelerate with the main engines. Your passengers will still have their feet on the ground, the same way your car pilot is pushed in his seat.
That's why you don't need to rotate the habitat when you decelerate, if you have already rotated the entire ship. If you do so, your passengers will fly hitting the ceiling with their faces. Which is not the best way to entertain them.
Habitats able to flip 180A° are however useful if you have nose engines as powerful as rear engines, and you decelerate without rotating the entire ship.
(not sure if i'm clear, but, for once, it seems i can't find what i'm looking for on Atomic Rockets^^)
It makes no sense to have a separate set of engines at the front of the ship and rotate the habitat for deceleration. Just rotate the entire ship and use the main engines to brake... :rolleyes:
Indeed, that's a whole lot of overengineering. I was just suggesting a way to justify the 180A° flippable habitat. If you have, for example, an overly long and fragile spaceship that would snap at the slightest problem during rotation, it might be better to have a propulsion unit at both side and rotate only the living quarters. Who knows.
Indeed, that's a whole lot of overengineering. I was just suggesting a way to justify the 180A° flippable habitat. If you have, for example, an overly long and fragile spaceship that would snap at the slightest problem during rotation, it might be better to have a propulsion unit at both side and rotate only the living quarters. Who knows.
Any structure that could withstand the stress of massive acceleration for days or weeks on end would have no problem withstanding the relatively gentle maneuver of rotating 180 degrees....
Any structure that could withstand the stress of massive acceleration for days or weeks on end would have no problem withstanding the relatively gentle maneuver of rotating 180 degrees....
Skyscrapper can withstand the constant 1g acceleration for years... But it will fall apart, if you apply very little acceleration that is not directed down. It is all the matter of design.
Skyscrapper can withstand the constant 1g acceleration for years... But it will fall apart, if you apply very little acceleration that is not directed down. It is all the matter of design.
If you tilt a skyscraper 45 degrees then it will be subjected to a 1G acceleration along an axis that was not designed to withstand such an acceleration. But if the skyscraper was in freefall and not under a 1g acceleration, then a gentle acceleration along another axis would not affect the structure at all, or, at least, wouldn't affect it any more than a gentle breeze or mild earth tremor would.
Well no need to argue much about that. The Tian Shan Long and Theodore Roosevelt are proofs that ships of the VIA-verse as big as a skyscrappers can deal with quite hard combat maneuvers.
Quite frankly what i had in mind was closer to the scale of a ten kilometers long containers transport ship with an engine unit at the front (like the interstellar ship in Avatar) and containers attached to some kind of lightweight metal cable construct (or fullerene or whatever fancy material you may want if your background allows it) trailled behind it. Some kind of super Gudren Maersk on steroids. It might very well be hard enough to maneuver to justify a second engine unit at the other end for decelerating instead of having to bother with loosing time freefalling to turn the entire thing at super low rotation speed without snapping the thing. But then again it is hard to imagine that monster having a strong enough acceleration to justify the installation of a flippable compartment for the crew.
So yeah so far i can't find any elegant way to have one of these flippable compartment on a VIA ship. If you have a ship big enough to justify having two opposing main engine installations instead of turning the ship, the acceleration of the behemoth would likely be low enough that you'd need a rollcage for the crew anyway, and, besides, i'm far from sure such a ship would fit in the VIA verse anyway. A shame, really, i like the idea of these habitats but can't think of a nice way to justify them.
So, I think I'm going to scrap this design, although I'm going to save the hull for later use, maybe flip it on its side and convert it into a cargo shuttle or something. for the in-system ferry I'm going to go for an open framework low tech looking ship, sort of a beefed up version of the Cometa I did way back when.
Maybe something super practical like this. Just basically a habitat module, propellant, and engines. Plus a heat shield at the front for aerobraking if you have to get somewhere in a hurry. Think if I go in this direction it's going to be Soviet, as it's sort reminds me of what I imagined the Leonov from Arthur C. Clarke's 2010 looked like when I read the book.
That really fits my conception of Soviet engineering--focus on the basics and get the job done, with creature comforts a distant second concern and aesthetics not even on the map. Somehow, though, this results in an awkward sort of earnestness that ends up having its own charm.
@stonecold; I'll give that a shot on the next render. @sojourner; Great idea, will be incorporating.
Got work done on the plumbing around the tank and worked on the engines a bit.
Posts
Thoughts?
Oh, and the wings at the back are the radiators, figured as the engines will be running 24/7 they would need to be substantial.
The first version have larger floor surfaces, while the second one have smaller surfaces but more stacked decks (since it is constantly accelerating, I understand that the nose of the ship is always top, passengers will have their feet towards the engines). I think that, for the sake of passengers' comfort, the first one would be more enjoyable. Although i do agree the second one looks better, and is interesting with its vertical fins reminiscent of some fish.
However the habitats able to turn 180A° are useless in my understanding. If all the "main" engines used for acceleration/deceleration are situated at the rear, then you will have to turn the entire ship to decelerate, meaning the acceleration vector will still have the same orientation and the passengers' feet will firmly stick to the ground.
Did i miss something? It is something you did as well for the container transport Gudren Maersk. In my understanding the rotating table where the habitat module is situated is useless as well since you have to turn the entire ship to decelerate.
This isn't a bad thing--both images were pretty neat and this has the same potential!
Having never watched B5, I'm not familiar with those ships, but after looking them up I'm going to revisit my design as it looks too similar to the Brakiri ship I think.
Considering you designed it without knowing about the Brakiri, I'd not worry about it too much. Only uber-nerds and nit-pickers like me would likely have made the connection (it's not like the Brakiri ships were in that many episodes) ... and if you came up with a similar idea without prompting that just goes to show it's a good one.
Ultimately, it's your ship, so it's your call. But, as I've discovered as I've tried to write a variety of project if you toss something out because someone else did something similar (even very similar) you'll never finish anything!
Keep up the good work.
No, actually, Khay is correct.
1) ship accelerates - gravity points from nose to thrusters.
2) ship turns - no gravity whatever.
3) ship decelerates - gravity once again points from nose to thrusters.
Sadly enough but he is right - there is no need of spin-hab on torch ship (constant high-g thrust).
Don`t bother, I think. It`s your ship. And even if you will consciously plagiarize some sort of design feature - it will still be your ship, as much as I care.
I tried watching the first season when it first aired but found it unbearable. I hear it gets substantially better in later seasons.
Then you brake/decelerate. You're projected forward, and your teeth with eat the steering wheel if you don't have your safety belt. Simple so far. That's what happens as well on a spaceship if you decelerate using maneuvering thruster at the noze of the ship. The passengers will be projected forward.
Put if you're drifting your car 180A° before decelerating (what a cool maneuver ^^), you will -again- be pushed toward the seat when braking. That's what happens when you rotate your spaceship to decelerate with the main engines. Your passengers will still have their feet on the ground, the same way your car pilot is pushed in his seat.
That's why you don't need to rotate the habitat when you decelerate, if you have already rotated the entire ship. If you do so, your passengers will fly hitting the ceiling with their faces. Which is not the best way to entertain them.
Habitats able to flip 180A° are however useful if you have nose engines as powerful as rear engines, and you decelerate without rotating the entire ship.
(not sure if i'm clear, but, for once, it seems i can't find what i'm looking for on Atomic Rockets^^)
Any structure that could withstand the stress of massive acceleration for days or weeks on end would have no problem withstanding the relatively gentle maneuver of rotating 180 degrees....
Skyscrapper can withstand the constant 1g acceleration for years... But it will fall apart, if you apply very little acceleration that is not directed down. It is all the matter of design.
If you tilt a skyscraper 45 degrees then it will be subjected to a 1G acceleration along an axis that was not designed to withstand such an acceleration. But if the skyscraper was in freefall and not under a 1g acceleration, then a gentle acceleration along another axis would not affect the structure at all, or, at least, wouldn't affect it any more than a gentle breeze or mild earth tremor would.
Quite frankly what i had in mind was closer to the scale of a ten kilometers long containers transport ship with an engine unit at the front (like the interstellar ship in Avatar) and containers attached to some kind of lightweight metal cable construct (or fullerene or whatever fancy material you may want if your background allows it) trailled behind it. Some kind of super Gudren Maersk on steroids. It might very well be hard enough to maneuver to justify a second engine unit at the other end for decelerating instead of having to bother with loosing time freefalling to turn the entire thing at super low rotation speed without snapping the thing. But then again it is hard to imagine that monster having a strong enough acceleration to justify the installation of a flippable compartment for the crew.
So yeah so far i can't find any elegant way to have one of these flippable compartment on a VIA ship. If you have a ship big enough to justify having two opposing main engine installations instead of turning the ship, the acceleration of the behemoth would likely be low enough that you'd need a rollcage for the crew anyway, and, besides, i'm far from sure such a ship would fit in the VIA verse anyway. A shame, really, i like the idea of these habitats but can't think of a nice way to justify them.
@sojourner; Great idea, will be incorporating.
Got work done on the plumbing around the tank and worked on the engines a bit.