Next Bolthole devellopment

Theemile wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:
Minor nit: Dispatch boats are in the 50-60kton range.

I hate to argue with you MaxxQ, but the one published DB (The Havenite Fracture Class) we've seen is 39 Ktons. That was, of course, in the semi-canonical Jayne's RHN book by Pope/Burnside. Were you just ball parking to counter Somtaaw's space liner sized ship (SITS has the 3000 passenger Pegasus class liner at 300 Ktons), or is that an official ret-con?

Ball-parking. Nothing official. Bad memory.

What were we talking about?

MaxxQ wrote:

Theemile wrote:
I hate to argue with you MaxxQ, but the one published DB (The Havenite Fracture Class) we've seen is 39 Ktons. That was, of course, in the semi-canonical Jayne's RHN book by Pope/Burnside. Were you just ball parking to counter Somtaaw's space liner sized ship (SITS has the 3000 passenger Pegasus class liner at 300 Ktons), or is that an official ret-con?

Ball-parking. Nothing official. Bad memory.

What were we talking about?

:D
Royal Yachts

Which appear to be significantly bigger that dispatch boats, so this whole tangent about their size is fairly pointless to the question at hand. I don't have AoV handy to see if they gave a tonnage for the Mantie yacht. Certainly the new one, based off the BC(P) design, is vastly larger than a dispatch boat.

Jonathan_S wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:
Ball-parking. Nothing official. Bad memory.

What were we talking about?

:D
Royal Yachts

Which appear to be significantly bigger that dispatch boats, so this whole tangent about their size is fairly pointless to the question at hand. I don't have AoV handy to see if they gave a tonnage for the Mantie yacht. Certainly the new one, based off the BC(P) design, is vastly larger than a dispatch boat.

A quick google of "Royal Yachts" turned up a list of british royal Yachts since 1660. There doesn't seem to be a consistent pattern of sizes because the Royal Yachts were often custom racing sailboats or large ostentatious status symbols -- depending on the personality of the Monarch of the time.

As diplomatic platforms -- the equivalent of "AF One" in modern terms -- they seem to run about the same size as light cruisers of comparable age. The current Manticoran Royal Yacht (HMY Duke of Cromarty) is significantly larger (and better armed/armored) than its predecessor. The previous yacht was apparently roughly the same size as "Grayson One," which would fit with a general rule of "Light Cruiser size."

In terms of "wet-navy" Yachts, suitability for "blue water" voyages would be a consideration in choosing a size. Yachts used for day trips or local "processions" don't need to be as large. The same sort of consideration for expected voyage length (in-system for Manticoran yachts before the Lynx terminus) should probably be a factor. i.e. "Haven One" would logically be larger than previous Manticoran Yachts, because The Republic of Haven is more dispersed than the SKM.

WeirdlyWired wrote:it is like the bug hitting the windshield. With inertial compensator 7oo kps accel has the real feel of 1G. Failure is to be standing still and being slammed by the aft bulkhead at 600kps. 9g is pretty fatal, this would be over 600g.

Yes I did poorly in High School Physics in 1967.

I've always had issues with the notion in SciFi that space or star ships would have not only preposterously high acceleration rates that SHOULD tear that engine or other propulsion unit right off or send it through the ship AND that ship having a variation of Star Trek's "inertial dampers" or the Honorverse "compensator" to protect the crew from the G forces that incredible acceleration would produce.

Okay, granted ... the fields these devices produce protect the crew and the structure of the ship. I have trouble though with the idea that FAILURE of the "compensator" wouldn't send the drive nodes tearing forward through the rest of the ship, at least until they stop generating the propulsive "wedge" when they tear loose from their power conduits or cabling.

In short, I agree with those who postulate that "compensator failure" would be catastrophic not only for the crew but also for ANYTHING not securely part of the ship's main structure AND for a great deal of that which IS like transverse bulkheads or a lot of the internal equipment like ship's supplies in the storerooms, shuttles in the bays, fuel or liquids in tanks and so on. Catastrophic for the entire ship in other words.

robert132 wrote:

WeirdlyWired wrote:it is like the bug hitting the windshield. With inertial compensator 7oo kps accel has the real feel of 1G. Failure is to be standing still and being slammed by the aft bulkhead at 600kps. 9g is pretty fatal, this would be over 600g.

Yes I did poorly in High School Physics in 1967.

I've always had issues with the notion in SciFi that space or star ships would have not only preposterously high acceleration rates that SHOULD tear that engine or other propulsion unit right off or send it through the ship AND that ship having a variation of Star Trek's "inertial dampers" or the Honorverse "compensator" to protect the crew from the G forces that incredible acceleration would produce.

Okay, granted ... the fields these devices produce protect the crew and the structure of the ship. I have trouble though with the idea that FAILURE of the "compensator" wouldn't send the drive nodes tearing forward through the rest of the ship, at least until they stop generating the propulsive "wedge" when they tear loose from their power conduits or cabling.

In short, I agree with those who postulate that "compensator failure" would be catastrophic not only for the crew but also for ANYTHING not securely part of the ship's main structure AND for a great deal of that which IS like transverse bulkheads or a lot of the internal equipment like ship's supplies in the storerooms, shuttles in the bays, fuel or liquids in tanks and so on. Catastrophic for the entire ship in other words.

Actually, just think of the damage a fork could do to a electronic control panel when accelerated for a second or 2 at 500 gs. Now multiply that by 1,000,000 unsecured or lightly secured objects around the ship. It doesn't matter if the structure is damaged or nodes rip off ( which probably might happen ) the interior of any ship would need completely replaced, not just hosed out.

WeirdlyWired wrote:it is like the bug hitting the windshield. With inertial compensator 7oo kps accel has the real feel of 1G. Failure is to be standing still and being slammed by the aft bulkhead at 600kps. 9g is pretty fatal, this would be over 600g.

Yes I did poorly in High School Physics in 1967.

robert132 wrote:I've always had issues with the notion in SciFi that space or star ships would have not only preposterously high acceleration rates that SHOULD tear that engine or other propulsion unit right off or send it through the ship AND that ship having a variation of Star Trek's "inertial dampers" or the Honorverse "compensator" to protect the crew from the G forces that incredible acceleration would produce.

Okay, granted ... the fields these devices produce protect the crew and the structure of the ship. I have trouble though with the idea that FAILURE of the "compensator" wouldn't send the drive nodes tearing forward through the rest of the ship, at least until they stop generating the propulsive "wedge" when they tear loose from their power conduits or cabling.

In short, I agree with those who postulate that "compensator failure" would be catastrophic not only for the crew but also for ANYTHING not securely part of the ship's main structure AND for a great deal of that which IS like transverse bulkheads or a lot of the internal equipment like ship's supplies in the storerooms, shuttles in the bays, fuel or liquids in tanks and so on. Catastrophic for the entire ship in other words.

Theemile wrote:Actually, just think of the damage a fork could do to a electronic control panel when accelerated for a second or 2 at 500 gs. Now multiply that by 1,000,000 unsecured or lightly secured objects around the ship. It doesn't matter if the structure is damaged or nodes rip off ( which probably might happen ) the interior of any ship would need completely replaced, not just hosed out.

In the scenario where the nodes are exerting all the force, and the compensators are then distributing the force, when the compensators fail, that force is going to be focused on eight (or 16) discrete points on the ship's hull.

Given the magnitude of the force involved, those nodes are going to rip off pretty dang quick, so the force that's transmitted to the rest of the ship through the hull is going to be similar to a kinetic strike. Some of that force is going to be expended in ripping big holes in the hull, some more is going to go into crumpling parts of the hull. One thing that is not going to happen is for the hull to act as a completely rigid body for the force to act the same way on everything in the ship.

If you build the entire ship absurdly strong, such that it can absorb things like being accelerated at at say 20,000 meters/sec^2 (which is what a freighter did in one short story...) then it won't come apart. Now why any one would pay to make something over 2000 times as strong as it needs to be is an open question. I can't think of any reason that even vaguely makes sense for a freighter.

kzt wrote:If you build the entire ship absurdly strong, such that it can absorb things like being accelerated at at say 20,000 meters/sec^2 (which is what a freighter did in one short story...) then it won't come apart. Now why any one would pay to make something over 2000 times as strong as it needs to be is an open question. I can't think of any reason that even vaguely makes sense for a freighter.

How strong does it have to be to survive battle damage? or is that 2000x on top of survivability? or is mere armor way tough enough to make the ship survivable. its all the petty details that get left out.

WeirdlyWired wrote:How strong does it have to be to survive battle damage? or is that 2000x on top of survivability? or is mere armor way tough enough to make the ship survivable. its all the petty details that get left out.

Umm, that was a freighter....

kzt wrote:

WeirdlyWired wrote:How strong does it have to be to survive battle damage? or is that 2000x on top of survivability? or is mere armor way tough enough to make the ship survivable. its all the petty details that get left out.

Umm, that was a freighter....

So swap battle armor for Titanium battle steel alloy, or whatever they build merchant ships out of. Still a piddling detail that somehow is never addressed. And since when does even sci-fi have to conform 100% to reality?

You guys make me think too hard. I used to enjoy reading. Then I got a degree in the Liberal Arts. Took me years to regain my love of reading again. And you're starting All Over Again
``
``