Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
NDC command centers are usually deep within the vessel as well, and shielded by heavy bulkheads. There are no windows on NDC vessels for the exact reason mentioned above: they are a structural liability. As warships become larger, you begin to see a sort of "onion-skin" effect happening. The outermost layer is always the heaviest armor and the refractors, with the occasional gap through which will protrude an exterior weapon system. Within that layer is a series of structural supports and null space, meant to strategically implode and ablate under heavy fire or impact. Beneath this layer are most of the power systems, and any hull-mounted weapons' mechanical assemblies. The next layer is comprised of heavy but brittle radiation shielding. One more layer within this holds the ship's water and plumbing network, and several secondary power assemblies, such as the ones powering the interior lighting. Finally, within these many layers, are the habitable spaces in which the crew live and operate the ship.
Some ships have exterior airlocks equipped with mechanical housings that allow them to retract within the ship and be replaced by armor segments. This means that in the event of an enemy attack, the porthole for the airlock door doesn't become a weak spot; the service gantry withdraws and the hull closes up, becoming almost completely solid in its place.
QUOTE (Delphi @ Apr 6 2010, 03:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
A few notes:
Why is the power system outside the rad-shielding? Even if its rad-hardened, it can be damaged by a big enough EMP/radiation weapon. You can transfer power to external weapons/defensive systems through contact induction across the rad shielding. I'm assuming that this power system refers to electronics and distribution, and that the generator is incorporated into the engines. If its a nuclear-based power generation system, then the current layout makes sense.
You don't need to make retractable airlocks. Just make the airlock door out of armor anyways. Its stronger and its one less system to break. You probably don't need a window on the airlock door. The armored airlock door will still have the same seam as the regular airlock, which is more of a liability than the door itself.
Regarding shuttle/spaceship processing power:
The low processing power on space equipment is mostly due to underclocking, rad-hardening, and limiting power consumption. Although modern processing chips have a lot more computing power, its generally overkill for what's needed in those situations.
QUOTE (StarSword @ Apr 5 2010, 11:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Never mind your laptop; my old GameBoy Color had more computing power than the Apollos.
Somehow that little point -- take out the bridge, you take out the ship -- seems to be a perennial problem in sci-fi (and in meatspace navies, for that matter). In Halo the Covenant get around the problem by placing their command centers on the deep interior of the hull (refer to the novels).
A few years ago I took a tour of a WWII-era battleship which was converted to a museum ship. IIRC, the ship had 3 fallback command positions from which the engines and rudder could still be controlled assuming the bridge was destroyed. Mind you, the last one was in the engine room itself, but with a spotter on the deck and a chain of guys to yell commands down to the engine room you could still steer/navigate the ship. Although "take out the bridge and you've taken out the ship" is a common theme in Sci-Fi, most military ships don't work that way. Its an inconvenience to not have a bridge or command staff, but the ship can still fight.
This post has been edited by LNSU : 06 April 2010 - 04:27 PM
QUOTE (LNSU @ Apr 6 2010, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<snip>
What about enemy ships simply blasting away the weapons around the airlock, docking, and then burning through the door's lock to get inside in an area they know they can access the rest of the ship from? Retractable airlocks allows a ship to have docking mechanisms without making themselves vulnerable durning combat situations. Sure, they could still try burning through the hull itself, but without specific knowledge of the ship's layout and/or extensive internal scans of the ship, there's little way of knowing whether or not the area you're burning into is even an area you can get to the rest of the ship from. Not to mention burning through hull armour is a lot harder than burning through an airlock door. Retractable airlocks are a plus.
Darth, you're thinking of docking tubes. These will still need to be extended through ALL the armor layers from the crew area to the ship you're docking against. Assuming the ship's armor is onion-style, leaving everywhere unpressurized except for the crew area is an advantage for the defenders, as attacking crew will need to fight against the automated internal defense systems while wearing spacesuits. It will also reduce the risk of explosive decompression.
Why would the attacking crew enter through the airlock anyways, where the defenders can easily set up an ambush? By making a pressurized seal externally somewhere else on the hull and cutting through, the defenders won't know where you're entering the ship until the attackers make contact on the hull. And if you're attacking in spacesuits anyways, you won't even bother pressurizing the seal. Venting all the air is a good way to incapacitate the crew. The only reason to maintain internal air pressure from an attacker's point of view is if the ship is needed for immediate use once captured and you don't have sufficient stores of air on your ship to repressurize the captured ship, or if you need to capture a crew member and keep him/her alive for interrogation.
This post has been edited by LNSU : 06 April 2010 - 06:19 PM
QUOTE (LNSU @ Apr 6 2010, 04:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Darth, you're thinking of docking tubes. These will still need to be extended through ALL the armor layers from the crew area to the ship you're docking against.
You misread me. I wasn't talking about tubes that extend past the exterior of the ship. I was talking about standard airlocks that retract further inside the ship, as Delphi was saying. That said, I could be misreading you, as well.
Anyway, you've already stated my point as to why they are advantageous. Let's look over your post:
Assuming the ship's armor is onion-style, leaving everywhere unpressurized except for the crew area is an advantage for the defenders, as attacking crew will need to fight against the automated internal defense systems while wearing spacesuits. It will also reduce the risk of explosive decompression.
This is exactly my point as to why retractable airlocks are a good idea. Also:
Why would the attacking crew enter through the airlock anyways, where the defenders can easily set up an ambush?
Because it's easier to get through and, if the attackers act fast, they can get in while the defenders are disoriented from the attack. The defenders wouldn't have time to set up an ambush. Lastly:
By making a pressurized seal externally somewhere else on the hull and cutting through, the defenders won't know where you're entering the ship until the attackers make contact on the hull. And if you're attacking in spacesuits anyways, you won't even bother pressurizing the seal. Venting all the air is a good way to incapacitate the crew. The only reason to maintain internal air pressure from an attacker's point of view is if the ship is needed for immediate use once captured and you don't have sufficient stores of air on your ship to repressurize the captured ship, or if you need to capture a crew member and keep him/her alive for interrogation.
This all further proves my point. By making airlocks retractable, attackers looking to capture the ship must be much more careful when boarding less they risk rendering the ship useless to them.
But at the sort of weaponry scale were talking about here, why bother concealing the airlocks? Wherever you hit the hull, you'll be carving out a huge section of armor, no matter where you hit, and I'm assuming you'll have several thousand airlocks on a ship 10km long. If it's an onion-skin set up, simply have the next layer in more armored around the airlock. Doesn't destroy usefulness, and keeps the resistances~
QUOTE (darthkev @ Apr 7 2010, 12:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Anyway, you've already stated my point as to why they are advantageous. Let's look over your post: Because it's easier to get through and, if the attackers act fast, they can get in while the defenders are disoriented from the attack. The defenders wouldn't have time to set up an ambush. Lastly:
There's only one problem with the idea of retractable airlocks: It's yet another subsystem for the engineering section to worry about. As for docking tubes, Galactic destroyers, battlecruisers and command ships don't even have them (said ships are too big); they either haul the disabled ship into a docking bay or launch shuttles with boarding crews.
Though I agree with the point that putting the crew compartment at the inside of an onion-like ship would tend to keep them safe (the gunnery control stations on UGN warships are located at the ship's core for much the same reason), it also has a downside: in the event of a catastrophe, how do you get them out to the escape pods?
Knowing the NDC, they didn't think about that part because they're too proud to admit their mighty navy could be defeated. :laugh:
Assuming they actually wanted to make escape pods, you just make a GIANT LAZ0R (more likely inert-until-primed explosives) system on the escape pod launch that blasts a hole through the ship from the inside out allowing the escape pods to fly through.
Or, ya know, eject the escape pods through an existing hole, such as a missile tube.
Or better yet: Why not just make the crew compartment itself an escape pod? Using properly placed explosive charges, the entire weaponry/armor/engine section can be safely blown away from the ship, leaving the crew in an armorless, thrusterless bubble!
In all practicality, either the enemy wants you dead enough to destroy your launching escape pods, making them useless, or they want to capture you for interrogation/ransom/POWs, which means they'll grab your escape pods rather than boarding your ship, which just makes it easier for them to get to you.
So in essence, forget airlocks, since escape pods are much more worthwhile?
Actually, what I see is being in a starship that's lost a battle is pretty much a deathtrap.
Right, the only solution is to either die, not lose or figure out a way to defend your escape pods and make it extremely difficult to capture one.
How's this? If you know the enemy wants to capture you and your crew, pack your escape pods with explosives, fake a critical hit the first chance you get, then launch your escape pods and watch as the enemy blows up upon boarding one.
What if they didn't fall for it? Is this where the airlocks prove useful?
Yup. Pack that with explosives and, when they dock and are about to pressurize their airlock for docking, open the outer door for your airlock before depressurizing it, thus pushing the explosives into their airlock from the lack of pressure in their airlock. Close your outer door and watch the fireworks when they open their inner airlock door.
This post has been edited by darthkev : 07 April 2010 - 07:39 PM
QUOTE (darthkev @ Apr 7 2010, 08:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
And which of the thousand or so airlocks will explode? And what if they come through multiple airlocks? Or just cut through the hull?
You aren't going to dock against a ship you're capturing because then its too easy for them to capture your ship if your attack team fails. The attack team will approach in a shuttle/pod/etc or just spacesuits.
Escape systems, shuttles, or some other launchable vessel is necessary in case of non-combat failure of the main ship.
@Jaca. Simple. Make them very fast. .9c should be good enough. Bonus! Your crew won't age while waiting for pickup! This also makes it hard to pickup escape ships as the impact will destroy the pickup ship.
@KOM: You need airlocks for external repairs, docking at stations, dumping unrecyclable waste, ejecting mutinous crewmembers, etc.
Most of this post is in jest. Taking much of this seriously can result in breaking the laws of physics.
This post has been edited by LNSU : 07 April 2010 - 09:29 PM
Okay, this is going quite a ways back up in the thread here. We could certainly create much better processors, rad-hardened and spaceworthy. The problem is getting people to rely on newer, unproven technology. We know the ol' Pentium 486 works great. Why change it? It'd have to overhaul the entire shuttle or ISS computers. The shuttles are retiring, the ISS is only scheduled to be up there for a few more years (seems silly to me that they get it built just in time to decommission it,) and NASA would have to spend millions just researching the durability and spaceworthyness of newer chips. Now, if we could figure out optical computers, rad-hardening would be a thing of the past...
As for airlocks and docking tubes that go all the way through the hull, why? Delphi has riptide personnel transporters through his ships because most of the ships' interiors are uninhabitable. Just set up a transport pad right outside the airlock, remotely controlled only from the CIC. The only reason you might want to have an airlock that goes all the way to a habitable area of the ship is for cargo, and I'd figure you'd have a cargo riptide transporter for that anyways. If the transport pad is only controlled from inside the ship, intruders get nowhere. In fact, I'd do the same thing for fighter bays. One way in or out, easily controlled from the inside. If you could riptide the fighters in and out of the bays, you wouldn't even have to have a door to the outside where someone could possibly chuck a missile into.
Hmm, I didn't know instant noncontinuous teleportation was allowed in this universe. In that case, no airlocks are necessary at all. Need more air? Just teleport it in! Need supplies? Same goes for cargo, fighters, missiles, reloading ordinance to external weapons systems, etc. You don't need a single breakable seam/seal on the entire ship. Say, you can even form the armor shells out of one solid block for increased structural durability!
What restrictions are there on teleportation in this universe? Is there a time delay? Is a receiver required in addition to a transmitter? Is there a distance limit? A max-objects-passing-through limit?
First off, Delphi meant physical vehicles like skiffs are used, not teleportation.
Second, even though this is a bit off-topic, we can build a teleportation device today. No seriously, it can be done.
Actually, there exists a form of teleporter within the Delphi universe. The "Riptide" system is designed for the limited instantaneous deployment of troops or supplies between ships. By utilizing a specialized faster-than-light carrier wave passed through the occupants within the riptide chamber, their particles are uniformly accelerated along a lateral vector, with a calculated beam falloff point placed at their destination. However, like any light-based wavelength, it can be scattered by the simplest refractor shielding, and is thus useless in a military engagement. It is useful however in performing rescue and salvage operations on a crippled ship that has lost the ability to open its outer doors. However, the energy requirements are massive, so even when used to this purpose, it's a slow and arduous process.
More painful then the mechanical requirements though is the strain placed on the passengers in the system. During riptide acceleration, every muscle in the body is paralyzed, simply because the neurological pathways are essentially frozen or at least slowed during transit. Despite this, a simple instantaneous jump between two places can feel like a trip as long as five to eight hours, depending on the distance traversed, as the human consciousness is still active during the entire relativistic jump. As a result, passengers often emerge at their destination fatigued and numb, and several hours older than when they first activated the Riptide.
Either way, escape pods exist on NDC cruisers, in the form of armored launch hardpoints similar to missile tubes. There are only a few escape centers on the ships, and most of them are usually demolished under enemy fire, but in cases of internal ship malfunction, such as a life support failure or a core breach, the crew can usually safely evacuate the vessel. In wartime, it's assumed that escape pods would be targeted and picked off anyway, so not much thought is put to ejecting in a combat zone.