Size 4 Ship

745590 Credits if we go for all these options.  If we lose the Energy Sensors and the Lifeboat, we'd save 300k. We also have a Subspace Radio on Styrigia. Would we leave it there for contact or mount it in the ship. That'd also save us 20k. I think I have everything covered, but it doesn't have a landing craft. Do we want/need one? Tiger's Tail HS4, ADF - 1, MR - 4 HP - 20 DCR - 36 16 cargo unit capacity Hull - 200k 1 Type A Ion Engine - 100k (Zero, if we salvage one from the Claw) Drive Program - 12k Life Support - Pri/Bak 12 each - 5800 Computer w/Master Control Panel - 8100 Alarm - 2 Lockout - 2 DCR - 4 Astrogation - 4 - 39000 VidCom w/3 screens - 1300 Subspace Radio - 20000 Intercom w/4 kits - 90 Radar - 10000 Energy Sensors - 200k Portholes x 6 - 300 Camera Suite (6) - 25000 Skin Sensors -- 4000 Lifeboat - 100k Laser Battery - 14000 Reflective Hull - 2000 4 Journey Class Cabins - 4000

Also, I'm fuzzy on the cargo capacity thing. If someone wants to help figure it up, I wouldn't nuke the HQ while everyone is asleep or anything. The cargo thing made me think on whether we need the lifeboat and such or if we should go HS 5. That means bigger engines, therefore, more money.  Spend money to make money, I guess. Lifeboats are huge in comparison to how many of us there are, but will we ever have passengers? Also, for any ship sized 1-4, atomic engines are a PITA. They have to be overhauled every single jump. Do we want to be down one PC for 48+ hours of game time doing the overhauls?  Type B atomics are 3 jumps, but then, the cost skyrockets. Ion engines are sort of a gray area. I've seen opinions that they don't require overhauls, while others say every 12 jumps. I lean to the former, as they are just big particle accelerators that are aimed in only the grossest sense of the word, opposite to the direction you want to move. Separating hydrogen into its components is a pretty clean process, look at today's fuel cells. The more I think about it, the more I think we should wait just a bit longer. Lets build up to say, 1,000,000 credits and get a 5 or a 6. I think it'd be better in the long run. However, It's a team call. Though, I am claiming name rights =)  The Tiger's Tail...catch us, if you can.

Somewhere in one of the earlier posts, I discussed a custom rule for cargo, b/c the original rules break suspension of disbelief.  In the original rules, a fighter could technically carry 1 cargo unit, but a HS20 freighter (with more than 10,000 times the volume) can only carry 20.  My aim was to make one cargo unit equal to about 500 cu meters.  An easy formula for this is (HS/2)^4.  Or, if you just want to see a list: HS1:0, HS2:1, HS3:5, HS4:16, HS5:39, HS6:81, HS7:150, HS8:256, HS9:410, HS10:625, HS11:915, HS12:1296, HS13:1785, HS14:2401, HS15:3164, HS16:4096, HS17:5220, HS18:6561, HS19:8145, HS20:10k Regarding ion engines, no mention of overhauls in the main rules, so I'm going with that. The annual maintenance requirement is enough to keep them reliable.

Oops, I just noticed that HS 4 ships only need *one* engine? If HS3's need 2, why wouldn't a 4? If you're going rule canon, I can save 100k. However, I think they made a booboo.

The number of and sizes of engines is pure insanity, but I can ignore it.  I've always just assumed that certain sizes of ships already have advantageous designs that were originally thought up by some genius.  The other sizes are harder to work with b/c of some weird economy of scale or something.  It happens in real life too with airplanes and naval vessels. However, I've always considered all the facts and figures in StarFrontiers as a snapshot of technology at one moment in history. As years pass, new technologies will emerge that will disrupt the assumptions of now.  Fortunately for me as the GM, not much time has actually passed in-game, so I don't have to roll out much new tech. In contrast, if we were playing in a setting like StarWars, technology is pretty much stagnant (perhaps even regressing).  Is this the state of the StarFrontiers game setting?  Maybe, maybe not... and if so, why?

Ok, still thinking about the shuttle thing. The Claw isn't big enough to hold cargo, but it would get us to the planet via the chemical engine. A size 4 hull has 2 hatches. One would be a standard entrance while the other would be cargo loading door. Could we add another? Stick one on top of the cargo hold and dock the Claw there. We could planet land with that. Would piggybacking an HS 2 be allowable?

Since the number of engines is set (and sometimes advantageous), then the number of hatches fits into the same idea. If you want more hatches, then you can have them - with a matching penalty of some sort, possibly increased pricing, defects, or other requirements (such as more engines).  Seems like the sort of thing we'd need to roll for in game.  d100 low is no problem, high is bad.

, if you look at Gullywing from Draume Run, she a size 6, which indicates 2 hatches but she easily has 6, 2 main air locks, 2 cargo hatches, 2 hatches for work pods. and addition hatch off one of air locks for ship's life boat. 

Yep, TSR often break their own rules. However, my explanation is that this is the reason the Malthar wanted the Gullwing for his own.  It's a really nice ship.  In any case, you can get more hatches, but it MAY come at a price - to be determined in game.

Ok, I'm envisioning a convex lens-shaped ship. For an HS4 ship, that'd be 10M high by 23M wide. The engine would be mounted to the underside of the disk.  The horizontal decks would be stacked on top of the cargo bay, with engineering at the back end. We mount the Laser Battery in a turret on the top and we're set. It'll be very smooth-looking and just might give us some extra business having a nice looking ship.

Sounds good - although one point about mounting the turret.  Each turret can be considered as an array of smaller turrets that make up the whole. That's especially important for LOS weapons such as lasers.  Otherwise, your own ship would occlude your firing arcs (which it does not). Also note that most of the ships in StarFrontiers have a "StarTrek" look to them with engines on struts.  This is primarily because of the problems involved with atomic engines, but other ships often follow the same pattern.  No downsides here, except anyone could tell at first glance that your ship doesn't have atomics (unless you're crazy).  Plus, it'd definitely be a custom build, so you'd need to hire a starship engineer to design it - see KH p27.

KH Engineer Skills - Page 26 Ship Design - 100% We could strut mount the engine for appearances sake. I saw an episode of Clone Wars with a ship that was very similar to my envisioned design. This was a scout/destroyer (Hermes/Saladin, respectively) class ship in the old Star Trek RPG. I think I'd rather the engine be top-mounted: After thinking about it, any opinions about adding a second engine point for a Chemical Drive to facilitate planet landings? We have both on the Claw and could, with a little engineering, solve our shuttle problem. Heck, if we get lucky and capture/loot an Atomic engine and only use it for system/landing type travel, we'd never have to replace the pellet. Also, we could use it in case of emergencies for a quick GTFO here moment. VERY rudimentary design pic:

Ah, StarTrek... without you there'd be no StarFrontiers. In any case "starships larger than HS3 are not streamlined to land on planets" KH p9, so you don't really need to consider that option.  I think I'd make special rules such that a heavy lifter could work, but only with a design dedicated to that one purpose.  In other words, a big shuttle...

Then lets just install a hyperdrive, because even a junkpile (The Falcon) can land and jump =)

Ok, again, not perfect, but my MS Paint skills are about the same as a 2 yr old with a crayon. Critique welcome. Green - Bridge Blue Comp - Helm/Scanning Red Comp - Guns/Security Orange Comp - Astrogation 4 Journey Class Cabins, 2 Heads. Storage near the heads and wherever in the cargo bay we desire. One big cargo door, one docking hatch. Yellow is Engineering with Propulsion Maintenance and Life Support controls. The odd square in the middle of the cargo bay is the Laser Battery, which is on the top. Yes Yes, I forgot the lifeboat and portholes.

Yes, I insist that you immediately refund your fee--oh wait.

Floorplan looks good, although if the engine is pointing backwards, then the gravity would be too.  Maybe you want the engine to point downwards? Or maybe the thrust of the engine is perpendicular to the main axis?

engine should be down. some good examples. What i find amazing that SF starships have no dust shields, at speed close to 1% Sol. a tiny particle of dust or micro meteor would be deadly..

Crap...I keep forgetting that this game doesn't have artificial gravity!

okay here you go, this look like what our new ship should look like

Basic wireframe. Will need to dress it out. This takes into account that we take the atomic engine off the HS2 in the hideaway garage. We can use the Ion for jumps, since it isn't as finicky as the atomics. Use the atomic for in system work and we can have the best of both worlds, sub-light speed and clean jumping. Scott, let me know how much an extra engine mount will cost. We can mount the actual engine ourselves.  I would also like to come up with an external "window dressing" so that both engines look identical. Putting the engines down gives us, I think, an interesting design. Depending on the reflectivity of the hull, we should, theoretically, be able to "blend in" to deep space. Radar will show us, as well as energy sensors when running hot. If they're using energy sensors and we're on silent running, we should be pretty darn hard to see, visually.

One thing about atomics: it isn't the jump that uses the pellet.  Each fuel pellet is equivalent to the amount of power required to accelerate up to jump speed and then decelerate down again. Very vague math, but a pellet won't last forever.  However, if you only use it for "combat maneuvers" it could last forever in any practical sense.

Well i can see how they are a bit off. a Pellet of Plutonium is around 10 KG which is near critical mass ( almost at the point of going Boom). The most effective real fission drive would be a Fission Fragment engine, which would not require tons of reaction mass, it uses the byproduct of nuclear fission, like a super power ion drive. The fragment or exhaust is traveling at 5% SOL and the the max change of velocity is around 2 % so in theory it could work as SF drive. So the reactor itself would generate 350 Megawatt, but it would consume the fuel pellet at the rate of one hundredth of one gram of fuel per second. at that rate a fuel pellet would last 278 hours or 11 days at full thrust.   problem is that as rocket and reactor goes, Fission Fragment rocket would actually consume its moderator , the loss of moderator ( which would be actually painted onto the wall of engine would require constant addition of new moderator elements..

That's where I was going with the atomic thing. Use the atomic engine for non-jump use, in essence, it should last "forever". I like that ship design, though, I'd put the engines in a dual mount. That way, if you need to dump the core, you'd still have the ion engine. Scott, official ruling required. I asked on the Star Frontiers forum about hatches vs cargo doors. It was unanimous that cargo doors didn't count as a hatch, since they're not an "airlock". Your ruling?

Hmm... considering you must purchase the cargo loading arms, I think it's fair to not count doors as hatches. I often wonder why the original writers included constraining details like number of engines and hatches.  If they had instead given advantages and disadvantages, people would design the ship how they wanted it.

Oops, I need to add on arms. Are those in the book? I may have overlooked them.

Yep, they are in the book. 1000cr and 3m^3 per HS.