HOME | DD

Description
body div#devskin0 hr { }

(Refers to the contents of this folder . The link is also in the description, but I think it would be useful to "frontload" it as well.)

ASA Navigator:

1. Vents collecting solar energy? I don't think that's how things work...

2. Regardless, if those wings were solar panels, BFR-style... hol up, lemme do a calculation: Lit surface of the top wing is approximately 71,000 m2, which with an insolation of 1,361 W/m2 and an efficiency of 70% (it is the future, after all), and assuming that the ship's position means that all the energy accumulated by all the wings approximately equals that, this would make a power of 68 MW. Extrapolating from the Norwegian Getaway cruise ship I stayed in, which housed 3,963 people at 62.4 MW, this actually seems realistic!

3. As long as you're not going very close to the star, you wouldn't need a solar shield, for which one of that size would be inadequate.

4. Nautically, it's, umm... not generally considered acceptable to only save 1/3rd of the crew/passengers in an emergency.

5. Of course—"pressed against the wall" decks.

6. Engines are off the center of volume, which could lead to torque issues. However, the low wings (which I presume hold fuel) may lower the center of mass, keeping the ship level as stated. Still, I'd imagine they'd need good gimballing especially when near-empty.

7. Ion engines are notorious for their low thrust-to-weight ratios, which are due mostly to the low power-to-weight ratios of their power supplies. So... Imma do another calculation:

I'm assuming that with the most extreme materials and careful engineering, a heat engine could be made to have double the power-to-weight ratio of the SSME turbopump without having to expel its working fluid at high velocity. So, assuming that the weight of the heat source, cords, and ion engine itself is relatively insignificant compared to the heat engine (serving as a generator), this results in an engine with a power-to-weight ratio of 306 W/g. So, let's make a small engine with a mass akin to the SSME turbopump, or 459.3 kg, for a total power of 140.5 MW. Assuming that the efficiency of these engines is a high 80% and the specific impulse is only 690 s (sufficient only for interplanetary travel by Hohmann transfers), this would result in a thrust of... 33.2 kN, for a TWR of 7.38.

I'm kinda impressed by this—it's actually bordering on the realm of reasonable. But even this insane ion engine would still be worse-performing when counting both specific impulse and TWR than even solid-core NTRs, a technology we have had in the 1960s. Sure, the specific impulse could be increased, but the TWR would drop to where it could no longer be used for launch or gravity generation. Sure, the TWR could be increased, but... no, it couldn't, because there would no longer be enough specific energy to ionize the atoms.

ASA Dauntless:

1. The rear seems a bit vulnerable. And of course, if the battle cruiser is using slugthrowers or even plasma weapons, it better have good attitude control, 'cause Newton.

Avainan Raptor:

1. 3 engines is inherently more maneuverable than 2, so good job on that.

2. Now, with a rocket, there are two measures on how "fast" it is—the delta-v and the acceleration. For instance, the insane Sprint ABM was often referred to as "the fastest missile on Earth" despite that its delta-v was considerably lower than any ICBM. To a certain extent, these are contradictory demands, as high acceleration requires more engine mass and a structure able to take more load, which naturally eats into the wet-mass-to-dry-mass ratio required for high delta-v. So that's something to take into account.

If it is designed for high acceleration, then there has been an idea to allow the pilot to withstand insane g's, that I documented (along with many other things) in For Iven-Furrpaw - can Vira survive Mach 5? .

3. If directed-energy weapons are used, then it is recommended to have a highly reflective surface to absorb as little of that energy as possible. On the other hand, that enhances radar and general visibility. So, you really can't win at everything... unless that color pattern can shift into a much more reflective surface like chameleon skin, which would be awesome if possible!

4. The heck's a "defuser"? Some kinda deflection shield?

Fangorian Raptor:

1. Those don't look like De Laval nozzles to me, rather standard jet nozzles.

2. Navalization by using the term "torpedo" instead of "missile".

3. The heck's a "disruptor"?

4. I would LOVE to see what these Avainans and Fangorians look like!

Diamondback:

1. I'm fairly confident that if you tried to fly that in the atmosphere, the results would be quite disastrous.

2. How would a "rapid laser defuser" disable a ship? Maybe an EMP would...

3. Boarding and plundering actually seems to me like the most logical way to fight an even space battle, as otherwise it may be MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). So, good job on that.

Black Vulture:

1. Again, I'm fairly confident that if you tried to fly that in the atmosphere, the results would be quite disastrous.

2. I'm not sure if the Osprey would be a legit concept for a missile, but it sounds amazing.

Description
body div#devskin0 hr { }

(Refers to the contents of this folder . The link is also in the description, but I think it would be useful to "frontload" it as well.)

ASA Navigator:

1. Vents collecting solar energy? I don't think that's how things work...

2. Regardless, if those wings were solar panels, BFR-style... hol up, lemme do a calculation: Lit surface of the top wing is approximately 71,000 m2, which with an insolation of 1,361 W/m2 and an efficiency of 70% (it is the future, after all), and assuming that the ship's position means that all the energy accumulated by all the wings approximately equals that, this would make a power of 68 MW. Extrapolating from the Norwegian Getaway cruise ship I stayed in, which housed 3,963 people at 62.4 MW, this actually seems realistic!

3. As long as you're not going very close to the star, you wouldn't need a solar shield, for which one of that size would be inadequate.

4. Nautically, it's, umm... not generally considered acceptable to only save 1/3rd of the crew/passengers in an emergency.

5. Of course—"pressed against the wall" decks.

6. Engines are off the center of volume, which could lead to torque issues. However, the low wings (which I presume hold fuel) may lower the center of mass, keeping the ship level as stated. Still, I'd imagine they'd need good gimballing especially when near-empty.

7. Ion engines are notorious for their low thrust-to-weight ratios, which are due mostly to the low power-to-weight ratios of their power supplies. So... Imma do another calculation:

I'm assuming that with the most extreme materials and careful engineering, a heat engine could be made to have double the power-to-weight ratio of the SSME turbopump without having to expel its working fluid at high velocity. So, assuming that the weight of the heat source, cords, and ion engine itself is relatively insignificant compared to the heat engine (serving as a generator), this results in an engine with a power-to-weight ratio of 306 W/g. So, let's make a small engine with a mass akin to the SSME turbopump, or 459.3 kg, for a total power of 140.5 MW. Assuming that the efficiency of these engines is a high 80% and the specific impulse is only 690 s (sufficient only for interplanetary travel by Hohmann transfers), this would result in a thrust of... 33.2 kN, for a TWR of 7.38.

I'm kinda impressed by this—it's actually bordering on the realm of reasonable. But even this insane ion engine would still be worse-performing when counting both specific impulse and TWR than even solid-core NTRs, a technology we have had in the 1960s. Sure, the specific impulse could be increased, but the TWR would drop to where it could no longer be used for launch or gravity generation. Sure, the TWR could be increased, but... no, it couldn't, because there would no longer be enough specific energy to ionize the atoms.

ASA Dauntless:

1. The rear seems a bit vulnerable. And of course, if the battle cruiser is using slugthrowers or even plasma weapons, it better have good attitude control, 'cause Newton.

Avainan Raptor:

1. 3 engines is inherently more maneuverable than 2, so good job on that.

2. Now, with a rocket, there are two measures on how "fast" it is—the delta-v and the acceleration. For instance, the insane Sprint ABM was often referred to as "the fastest missile on Earth" despite that its delta-v was considerably lower than any ICBM. To a certain extent, these are contradictory demands, as high acceleration requires more engine mass and a structure able to take more load, which naturally eats into the wet-mass-to-dry-mass ratio required for high delta-v. So that's something to take into account.

If it is designed for high acceleration, then there has been an idea to allow the pilot to withstand insane g's, that I documented (along with many other things) in For Iven-Furrpaw - can Vira survive Mach 5? .

3. If directed-energy weapons are used, then it is recommended to have a highly reflective surface to absorb as little of that energy as possible. On the other hand, that enhances radar and general visibility. So, you really can't win at everything... unless that color pattern can shift into a much more reflective surface like chameleon skin, which would be awesome if possible!

4. The heck's a "defuser"? Some kinda deflection shield?

Fangorian Raptor:

1. Those don't look like De Laval nozzles to me, rather standard jet nozzles.

2. Navalization by using the term "torpedo" instead of "missile".

3. The heck's a "disruptor"?

4. I would LOVE to see what these Avainans and Fangorians look like!

Diamondback:

1. I'm fairly confident that if you tried to fly that in the atmosphere, the results would be quite disastrous.

2. How would a "rapid laser defuser" disable a ship? Maybe an EMP would...

3. Boarding and plundering actually seems to me like the most logical way to fight an even space battle, as otherwise it may be MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). So, good job on that.

Black Vulture:

1. Again, I'm fairly confident that if you tried to fly that in the atmosphere, the results would be quite disastrous.

2. I'm not sure if the Osprey would be a legit concept for a missile, but it sounds amazing.