New Manty ship ideas.

1023 posts • Page 13 of 103 • 1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 103

Re: New Manty ship ideas.
by crewdude48 » Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:30 am
crewdude48 Commodore Posts: 889 Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:08 am	It couldn't be because the fallow ups were armored, because the author had stated that the description on the page was for the lead ship of each class. It could be that you could have your definitions wrong. One of the major factors when designing a ship is acceleration. It has been stated by DW that commentator efficiency is MUCH more dependent on volume than mass. There for, isn't volume a more important descriptor of a ship than the physical mass? could it be that the mass measurements are something like displacement, describing more the size of the ship than what went into its construction? Or it could be common practice to define a war ship by its physical mass and a merchant hull by it mass it can haul, and an AMC, being built on a merchant hull, gets labeled with what the basic hull was designed for. These two are just off the top of my head, I am sure that I could come up with one or two more if I sat down and thought it out. I am always trying to think about what I know, and how it might be wrong. You might want to try it. Lord Skimper wrote:The trojan AMC has a volume to mass ratio that 99.9889% of the volume to weight ratio of the Grayson Harrington II-class podsuperdreadnaught. Now if we have to take what is published in the books as doctrine then the only reason the volume to mass ratio on the AMC which doesn't carry any cargo. Has less weapons, less pods and less missiles but does carry 12 282 LAC which make up only 0.0289% of its mass, and we don't know if the mass listed is dry mass or fully loaded. Of course one could assume the extra 804 missile pods would add mass to the SD-P. While the AMC might carry more people / crew, maybe. People don't mass much. So if it doesn't carry any armour why does the trojan mass so high? Can't be the compensator or wedge as the AMC only has a civilian version. Weapon load internal is not very big, although it does have 10 inner launch tubes, but then there are all those 804 extra pods to consider too. The Harrington II-class pod super dreadnought has 60 tube launched missiles to the Trojan-class armed merchant cruiser's 20. 60 Grazers to 16. 150 counter missile tubes to 26. And 172 point defense vs 34. Of course the 282's carried additional weapons too. 96 additional but as noted smaller point defense. 144 missile cells, 12 counter missile launchers and 24 lasers. My guess would be that after the prototype AMC, subsequent ship where improved and armoured. It notes that the prototype had design flaws that where fixed in later generations. And went on to serve very well. One would think no armour would be a design flaw. Although the Caravan freighter was a "Logistics Command for rear area supply." House of steel page 399 Trojan-class armed merchant cruiser. Mass: 7,352,000 tons Dimensions: 1199 x 200 x 185 m Page 504 Harrington II-class Pod superdreadnought Mass: 8,779,250 tons Dimensions: 1395 x 202 x 188 m Add it up yourself. Not making it up. Page 399 line 14 from bottom of page to line 11 from bottom of page "BuShips decided to eliminate all cargo storage from the Trojan and use all of the volume freed up for a number of weapon systems, some more experimental than others." ________________ I'm the Dude...you know, that or His Dudeness, or Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.
Top

by crewdude48 » Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:30 am

Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:08 am

It couldn't be because the fallow ups were armored, because the author had stated that the description on the page was for the lead ship of each class.

It could be that you could have your definitions wrong.

One of the major factors when designing a ship is acceleration. It has been stated by DW that commentator efficiency is MUCH more dependent on volume than mass. There for, isn't volume a more important descriptor of a ship than the physical mass?
could it be that the mass measurements are something like displacement, describing more the size of the ship than what went into its construction?

Or it could be common practice to define a war ship by its physical mass and a merchant hull by it mass it can haul, and an AMC, being built on a merchant hull, gets labeled with what the basic hull was designed for.

These two are just off the top of my head, I am sure that I could come up with one or two more if I sat down and thought it out.

I am always trying to think about what I know, and how it might be wrong. You might want to try it.

Lord Skimper wrote:The trojan AMC has a volume to mass ratio that 99.9889% of the volume to weight ratio of the Grayson Harrington II-class podsuperdreadnaught.

Now if we have to take what is published in the books as doctrine then the only reason the volume to mass ratio on the AMC which doesn't carry any cargo. Has less weapons, less pods and less missiles but does carry 12 282 LAC which make up only 0.0289% of its mass, and we don't know if the mass listed is dry mass or fully loaded. Of course one could assume the extra 804 missile pods would add mass to the SD-P.

While the AMC might carry more people / crew, maybe. People don't mass much.

So if it doesn't carry any armour why does the trojan mass so high?

Can't be the compensator or wedge as the AMC only has a civilian version.

Weapon load internal is not very big, although it does have 10 inner launch tubes, but then there are all those 804 extra pods to consider too.

The Harrington II-class pod super dreadnought has 60 tube launched missiles to the Trojan-class armed merchant cruiser's 20. 60 Grazers to 16. 150 counter missile tubes to 26. And 172 point defense vs 34.

Of course the 282's carried additional weapons too. 96 additional but as noted smaller point defense. 144 missile cells, 12 counter missile launchers and 24 lasers.

My guess would be that after the prototype AMC, subsequent ship where improved and armoured. It notes that the prototype had design flaws that where fixed in later generations. And went on to serve very well. One would think no armour would be a design flaw.

Although the Caravan freighter was a "Logistics Command for rear area supply."

House of steel page 399

Trojan-class armed merchant cruiser.
Mass: 7,352,000 tons
Dimensions: 1199 x 200 x 185 m

Page 504

Harrington II-class Pod superdreadnought
Mass: 8,779,250 tons
Dimensions: 1395 x 202 x 188 m

Add it up yourself. Not making it up.

Page 399 line 14 from bottom of page to line 11 from bottom of page "BuShips decided to eliminate all cargo storage from the Trojan and use all of the volume freed up for a number of weapon systems, some more experimental than others."

________________
I'm the Dude...you know, that or His Dudeness, or Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.

Top

Re: New Manty ship ideas.
by SWM » Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:26 am
SWM Fleet Admiral Posts: 5928 Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:00 pm Location: U.S. east coast	Lord Skimper wrote:The trojan AMC has a volume to mass ratio that 99.9889% of the volume to weight ratio of the Grayson Harrington II-class podsuperdreadnaught. That is because a ship's "mass" in the Honorverse is a measure of volume, not of actual weight or mass. Apparently you have never heard of the Great Resizing. It was pointed out to David after the first few books that the dimensions (all three dimensions) of his ships grew linearly with mass, which meant that superdreadnoughts ended up with the density of smoke. This lead to the Great Resizing. One reasonable density was chosen, and all ships were redesigned to produce that "mass" to volume ratio--regardless of whether or not the ship actually had that much mass. Thus, ship mass is now a measure of volume (based on a nominal density). Ever since then, David has avoided specifying the lengths of ships, to avoid the discrepancies that led to the Great Resizing. But all ship masses in the Jayne's books and in House of Steel are based on volume. [edit]Well, technically, the masses were already specified; it is the physical dimensions in those books that are based on the known ship masses, using a nominal density[/edit] -------------------------------------------- Librarian: The Original Search Engine
Top

Re: New Manty ship ideas.

by SWM » Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:26 am

SWM
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5928
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: U.S. east coast

Lord Skimper wrote:The trojan AMC has a volume to mass ratio that 99.9889% of the volume to weight ratio of the Grayson Harrington II-class podsuperdreadnaught.

That is because a ship's "mass" in the Honorverse is a measure of volume, not of actual weight or mass. Apparently you have never heard of the Great Resizing.

It was pointed out to David after the first few books that the dimensions (all three dimensions) of his ships grew linearly with mass, which meant that superdreadnoughts ended up with the density of smoke. This lead to the Great Resizing. One reasonable density was chosen, and all ships were redesigned to produce that "mass" to volume ratio--regardless of whether or not the ship actually had that much mass. Thus, ship mass is now a measure of volume (based on a nominal density). Ever since then, David has avoided specifying the lengths of ships, to avoid the discrepancies that led to the Great Resizing. But all ship masses in the Jayne's books and in House of Steel are based on volume. [edit]Well, technically, the masses were already specified; it is the physical dimensions in those books that are based on the known ship masses, using a nominal density[/edit]

--------------------------------------------
Librarian: The Original Search Engine

Top

Re: New Manty ship ideas.
by Duckk » Mon Sep 23, 2013 12:06 pm
Duckk Site Admin Posts: 4200 Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:29 pm	Lord Skimper wrote:Now if we have to take what is published in the books as doctrine then the only reason the volume to mass ratio on the AMC which doesn't carry any cargo. Good advice. Follow it yourself. From HAE: Besides, the Peep Q-ships had been purpose built from the keel out. They'd been fitted with military-grade drives which had made them as fast as any warship their size, and their designs had incorporated internal armor, compartmentalization, and systems redundancy the Caravans completely lacked. * That was the biggest weakness of Trojan Horse, for the Caravan class were true merchantmen—big, slow, bumbling freighters, without armor, without military-grade drives, without internal compartmentalization or a warship's sophisticated damage control remotes. * "We'll need to get some idea of how fast we can manage a crash launch, and I'm going to try to get us enough time to practice it against some of our own warships. That should give us a meterstick for how easy our parasites are to detect and whether or not we can conceal them by deploying them on the far side of our own impeller wedges. After that, we need to take a good look at tying them into our main fire control, and, given our own lack of proper sidewalls or armor, our point defense net. * "Port battery firing—now!" Hughes' yeoman snapped, and fresh energy howled from Wayfarer's grasers as they came to bear. Two more raiders blew up, but one of them lasted long enough to fire back. Her weaker lasers blew right through the Q-ship's underpowered sidewall and nonexistent armor to rip Graser Three, Graser Five, and Missile Seven and Nine apart, with near total casualties on both energy mounts. * Webster's ship shuddered as that solitary hit ripped into her unarmored hull, and damage alarms wailed. * Wayfarer's megaton bulk bucked as energy seared through her unarmored plating with contemptuous ease. * Wayfarer had fired a fraction of a second before Achmed—but only a faction of a second, and unlike Achmed, she had no armor, no tightly compartmentalized spaces. She was a merchant ship, a thin skin around a vast, cargo-carrying void, and no refit could change that. The weapons which survived to tear into her hull were far lighter than the ones which had disemboweled Achmed, but they were hideously effective against so vulnerable a target. There can be lots alternative reasons why the average ship density comes out the same. But it's crystal clear that the Trojans were completely unarmored and there's no wriggling out of that. ------------------------- Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope
Top

Re: New Manty ship ideas.

by Duckk » Mon Sep 23, 2013 12:06 pm

Duckk
Site Admin

Posts: 4200
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:29 pm

Lord Skimper wrote:Now if we have to take what is published in the books as doctrine then the only reason the volume to mass ratio on the AMC which doesn't carry any cargo.

Good advice. Follow it yourself. From HAE:

Besides, the Peep Q-ships had been purpose built from the keel out. They'd been fitted with military-grade drives which had made them as fast as any warship their size, and their designs had incorporated internal armor, compartmentalization, and systems redundancy the Caravans completely lacked.

***

That was the biggest weakness of Trojan Horse, for the Caravan class were true merchantmen—big, slow, bumbling freighters, without armor, without military-grade drives, without internal compartmentalization or a warship's sophisticated damage control remotes.

***

"We'll need to get some idea of how fast we can manage
a crash launch, and I'm going to try to get us enough time to practice it against some of our own warships. That should give us a meterstick for how easy our parasites are to detect and whether or not we can conceal them by deploying them on the far side of our own impeller wedges. After that, we need to take a good look at tying them into our main fire control, and, given our own lack of proper sidewalls or armor, our point defense net.

***

"Port battery firing—now!" Hughes' yeoman snapped, and fresh energy howled from Wayfarer's grasers as they came to bear. Two more raiders blew up, but one of them lasted long enough to fire back. Her weaker lasers blew right through the Q-ship's underpowered sidewall and nonexistent armor to rip Graser Three, Graser Five, and Missile Seven and Nine apart, with near total casualties on both energy mounts.

***

Webster's ship shuddered as that solitary hit ripped into her unarmored hull, and damage alarms wailed.

***

Wayfarer's megaton bulk bucked as energy seared through her unarmored plating with contemptuous ease.

***

Wayfarer had fired a fraction of a second before Achmed—but only a faction of a second, and unlike Achmed, she had no armor, no tightly compartmentalized spaces. She was a merchant ship, a thin skin around a vast, cargo-carrying void, and no refit could change that. The weapons which survived to tear into her hull were far lighter than the ones which had disemboweled Achmed, but they were hideously effective against so vulnerable a target.

There can be lots alternative reasons why the average ship density comes out the same. But it's crystal clear that the Trojans were completely unarmored and there's no wriggling out of that.

-------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope

Top

Re: New Manty ship ideas.
by Lord Skimper » Mon Sep 23, 2013 12:12 pm
Lord Skimper Vice Admiral Posts: 1736 Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:49 am Location: Calgary, Nova, Gryphon.	Well that does clear that up. I was surprised that the CA did appear to have the same mass relative to a SD, this does explain it. I supposed the dimensions might have been maximums as well and that armour might have been light weight, such as Starlite plastic, which has a high ablative resistance but doesn't mass very high. Or graphine sheeting, which might cost a lot to make. Versus a foil sheeting with Aluminum (aluminium) struts vs titanium struts. (Which strangely isn't pronounced Titanum) hmm. Often one finds that the other problem exists where ships are doubled in size but not massed eight times greater. I was happy to see this wasn't the case, in house of steel. Similar to that giant robot movie where the 300 ft tall robots mass the same as cardboard cutouts. However if the mass was being give as a volume perhaps there should only be a volume given aka cubic metres, or fluid litres rather than massed long tons. DT or MTON would also clear it up. However the ton or imperial ton or long ton was removed from the measuring system in the UK and Europe in 1985 pre disporia. Nor would they use the American short ton but instead adopt metric tonnes. A short ton is 2000 pounds. A long ton is 2240 pounds or 35 cubic feet. Or 0.9911 cubic metres. ( m3) A metric tonnes is 2205 pounds. However none of the masses equal to the cubic metres provided by the dimensions. They are way off. For instance the SD-P would be 52 million MTON not 8 million MTON. If the dimensions are correct. But would only mass 8 mega tonnes. The problem is that volume is not mass. Take the Highlander LAC and the Shrike LAC The Highlander has a 66 K MTON volume. And the Shrike a 29 K MTON volume. Yet the mass of the Shrike is twice the mass of the Highlander. The Shrike has more than 4x the density of the Highlander. ________________________________________ Just don't ask what is in the protein bars.
Top

Re: New Manty ship ideas.

by Lord Skimper » Mon Sep 23, 2013 12:12 pm

Lord Skimper
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1736
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:49 am
Location: Calgary, Nova, Gryphon.

Well that does clear that up. I was surprised that the CA did appear to have the same mass relative to a SD, this does explain it. I supposed the dimensions might have been maximums as well and that armour might have been light weight, such as Starlite plastic, which has a high ablative resistance but doesn't mass very high. Or graphine sheeting, which might cost a lot to make. Versus a foil sheeting with Aluminum (aluminium) struts vs titanium struts. (Which strangely isn't pronounced Titanum) hmm.

Often one finds that the other problem exists where ships are doubled in size but not massed eight times greater. I was happy to see this wasn't the case, in house of steel. Similar to that giant robot movie where the 300 ft tall robots mass the same as cardboard cutouts.

However if the mass was being give as a volume perhaps there should only be a volume given aka cubic metres, or fluid litres rather than massed long tons. DT or MTON would also clear it up. However the ton or imperial ton or long ton was removed from the measuring system in the UK and Europe in 1985 pre disporia. Nor would they use the American short ton but instead adopt metric tonnes.

A short ton is 2000 pounds.
A long ton is 2240 pounds or 35 cubic feet. Or 0.9911 cubic metres. ( m3)
A metric tonnes is 2205 pounds.

However none of the masses equal to the cubic metres provided by the dimensions. They are way off.

For instance the SD-P would be 52 million MTON not 8 million MTON. If the dimensions are correct. But would only mass 8 mega tonnes.

The problem is that volume is not mass.

Take the Highlander LAC and the Shrike LAC
The Highlander has a 66 K MTON volume. And the Shrike a 29 K MTON volume. Yet the mass of the Shrike is twice the mass of the Highlander. The Shrike has more than 4x the density of the Highlander.

________________________________________
Just don't ask what is in the protein bars.

Top

Re: New Manty ship ideas.
by Jonathan_S » Mon Sep 23, 2013 11:53 pm
Jonathan_S Fleet Admiral Posts: 8803 Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm Location: Virginia, USA	Lord Skimper wrote:However if the mass was being give as a volume perhaps there should only be a volume given aka cubic metres, or fluid litres rather than massed long tons. DT or MTON would also clear it up. However the ton or imperial ton or long ton was removed from the measuring system in the UK and Europe in 1985 pre disporia. Nor would they use the American short ton but instead adopt metric tonnes. A short ton is 2000 pounds. A long ton is 2240 pounds or 35 cubic feet. Or 0.9911 cubic metres. ( m3) A metric tonnes is 2205 pounds. Shrug, and (for a medium sized ship) a gross ton is about 3.57 m^3. Even today for ships, tons (or at least "gross tons") are a measure of volume, not of mass or weight. -------- [size-80]there's a scaling factor involved so the cubage varies, in larger ships each gross ton equals a somewhat smaller volume; I just used the wikipedia example which was for a 10,000 m^3 ship[/size]
Top

Re: New Manty ship ideas.

by Jonathan_S » Mon Sep 23, 2013 11:53 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8803
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Lord Skimper wrote:However if the mass was being give as a volume perhaps there should only be a volume given aka cubic metres, or fluid litres rather than massed long tons. DT or MTON would also clear it up. However the ton or imperial ton or long ton was removed from the measuring system in the UK and Europe in 1985 pre disporia. Nor would they use the American short ton but instead adopt metric tonnes.

A short ton is 2000 pounds.
A long ton is 2240 pounds or 35 cubic feet. Or 0.9911 cubic metres. ( m3)
A metric tonnes is 2205 pounds.

Shrug, and (for a medium sized ship*) a gross ton is about 3.57 m^3.

Even today for ships, tons (or at least "gross tons") are a measure of volume, not of mass or weight.
--------
*[size-80]there's a scaling factor involved so the cubage varies, in larger ships each gross ton equals a somewhat smaller volume; I just used the wikipedia example which was for a 10,000 m^3 ship[/size]

Top

Re: New Manty ship ideas.
by munroburton » Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:20 am
munroburton Admiral Posts: 2376 Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:16 am Location: Scotland	I suggest that the Manties are unlikely to start changing things when they're in the position where their cruisers can kill the largest navy's largest ships in job lots. And that as a result, said navy is likely to be the one making any changes and redesigns. We have already seen this happen. Haven took advantage of a ceasefire to absorb combat reports and went to work developing their own SD(P)s and CLACs and though individual units weren't as good as the RMN's, they had a new-model navy larger than the RMN's in five years. The same Haven that's working with RMN blueprints now, incidentally. What can the SL do to produce combat-capable units in less time than it takes for Haven to produce a thousand SD(P)s, each carrying five hundred missile pods from Trevor's Star and two Keyholes from Beowulf?
Top

Re: New Manty ship ideas.

by munroburton » Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:20 am

munroburton
Admiral

Posts: 2376
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:16 am
Location: Scotland

I suggest that the Manties are unlikely to start changing things when they're in the position where their cruisers can kill the largest navy's largest ships in job lots.

And that as a result, said navy is likely to be the one making any changes and redesigns.

We have already seen this happen. Haven took advantage of a ceasefire to absorb combat reports and went to work developing their own SD(P)s and CLACs and though individual units weren't as good as the RMN's, they had a new-model navy larger than the RMN's in five years. The same Haven that's working with RMN blueprints now, incidentally.

What can the SL do to produce combat-capable units in less time than it takes for Haven to produce a thousand SD(P)s, each carrying five hundred missile pods from Trevor's Star and two Keyholes from Beowulf?

Top

Re: New Manty ship ideas.
by SWM » Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:28 am
SWM Fleet Admiral Posts: 5928 Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:00 pm Location: U.S. east coast	Lord Skimper wrote:A short ton is 2000 pounds. A long ton is 2240 pounds or 35 cubic feet. Or 0.9911 cubic metres. ( m3) A metric tonnes is 2205 pounds. However none of the masses equal to the cubic metres provided by the dimensions. They are way off. For instance the SD-P would be 52 million MTON not 8 million MTON. If the dimensions are correct. But would only mass 8 mega tonnes. The problem is that volume is not mass. Your calculations are off because you are using the wrong nominal density. The typical density that Ad Astra Games and David Weber agreed on is 0.25 tons per cubic meter. For the complete explanation of the Great Resizing, see: http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/09-A ... sizing.htm. Take the Highlander LAC and the Shrike LAC The Highlander has a 66 K MTON volume. And the Shrike a 29 K MTON volume. Yet the mass of the Shrike is twice the mass of the Highlander. The Shrike has more than 4x the density of the Highlander. Yes, people have noted that the ship mass for LACs seem to have a different pattern. I don't recall any good explanation for that. -------------------------------------------- Librarian: The Original Search Engine
Top

Re: New Manty ship ideas.

by SWM » Tue Sep 24, 2013 9:28 am

SWM
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5928
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:00 pm
Location: U.S. east coast

Lord Skimper wrote:A short ton is 2000 pounds.
A long ton is 2240 pounds or 35 cubic feet. Or 0.9911 cubic metres. ( m3)
A metric tonnes is 2205 pounds.

However none of the masses equal to the cubic metres provided by the dimensions. They are way off.

For instance the SD-P would be 52 million MTON not 8 million MTON. If the dimensions are correct. But would only mass 8 mega tonnes.

The problem is that volume is not mass.

Your calculations are off because you are using the wrong nominal density. The typical density that Ad Astra Games and David Weber agreed on is 0.25 tons per cubic meter. For the complete explanation of the Great Resizing, see: http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/09-A ... sizing.htm.

Take the Highlander LAC and the Shrike LAC
The Highlander has a 66 K MTON volume. And the Shrike a 29 K MTON volume. Yet the mass of the Shrike is twice the mass of the Highlander. The Shrike has more than 4x the density of the Highlander.

Yes, people have noted that the ship mass for LACs seem to have a different pattern. I don't recall any good explanation for that.

--------------------------------------------
Librarian: The Original Search Engine

Top

Re: New Manty ship ideas.
by Lord Skimper » Tue Sep 24, 2013 11:45 pm
Lord Skimper Vice Admiral Posts: 1736 Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:49 am Location: Calgary, Nova, Gryphon.	So you are using gross tonnage. But on a 52,000,000 cubic meter ship the displacement tonnage would be factored by 0.35 Hence the invictus SD-P should mass 18+ million tons. K = 0.2 + 0.02 log cubic metre volume 52,938,544 K x V = tons. Of course none of this explains a terminus limit. Is it size or displacement in water based or weight - Mass based? On top of which none of these ships will ever displace water. ________________________________________ Just don't ask what is in the protein bars.
Top

Re: New Manty ship ideas.

by Lord Skimper » Tue Sep 24, 2013 11:45 pm

Lord Skimper
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1736
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:49 am
Location: Calgary, Nova, Gryphon.

So you are using gross tonnage. But on a 52,000,000 cubic meter ship the displacement tonnage would be factored by 0.35

Hence the invictus SD-P should mass 18+ million tons.

K = 0.2 + 0.02 log cubic metre volume 52,938,544

K x V = tons.

Of course none of this explains a terminus limit. Is it size or displacement in water based or weight - Mass based?

On top of which none of these ships will ever displace water.

________________________________________
Just don't ask what is in the protein bars.

Top

Re: New Manty ship ideas.
by Lord Skimper » Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:15 am
Lord Skimper Vice Admiral Posts: 1736 Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:49 am Location: Calgary, Nova, Gryphon.	A Shrike B for instance Would only displace a mass of 8,328 tons. With a gross ton multiplier of 0.28918... Although one does see that with the multiplier at 0.25 the invictus would mass 13,234,636 tons but being a tube would give the books 8,768,500 tons Assuming it is totally round with out any flat sides. 2/3 of 13,234,636 .... But why settle for 0.25 which is always going to wrong? Last edited by Lord Skimper on Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total. ________________________________________ Just don't ask what is in the protein bars.
Top

Re: New Manty ship ideas.

by Lord Skimper » Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:15 am

Lord Skimper
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1736
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:49 am
Location: Calgary, Nova, Gryphon.

A Shrike B for instance

Would only displace a mass of 8,328 tons.

With a gross ton multiplier of 0.28918...

Although one does see that with the multiplier at 0.25 the invictus would mass 13,234,636 tons but being a tube would give the books 8,768,500 tons
Assuming it is totally round with out any flat sides.

2/3 of 13,234,636 ....

But why settle for 0.25 which is always going to wrong?

Last edited by Lord Skimper on Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

________________________________________
Just don't ask what is in the protein bars.

Top

Re: New Manty ship ideas.
by Lord Skimper » Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:32 am
Lord Skimper Vice Admiral Posts: 1736 Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:49 am Location: Calgary, Nova, Gryphon.	0.25 multiplier is based on a 320 cubic metre ship. 14 x 4.78 x 4.78 metres. Maybe a single stage sized missile. ________________________________________ Just don't ask what is in the protein bars.
Top

Re: New Manty ship ideas.

by Lord Skimper » Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:32 am

Lord Skimper
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1736
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:49 am
Location: Calgary, Nova, Gryphon.

0.25 multiplier is based on a 320 cubic metre ship.

14 x 4.78 x 4.78 metres. Maybe a single stage sized missile.

________________________________________
Just don't ask what is in the protein bars.

Top

1023 posts • Page 13 of 103 • 1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 103

Return to Honorverse

Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

New Manty ship ideas.