A more realistic spaceship / enterprise.

[Jesusthebird]

3 hours ago, SpaceMouse said:

Thanks everyone. I've got a few projects i NEED to finish first. I'm aiming to have this done by Christmas. No promises though, I keep on thinking of things i want to change.

@FreeThinker or (anyone), what might you suggest for directional lift thrust on non-atmospheric worlds? I was thinking maybe some 'afterburner' system in the thrust nozzles, Or perhaps some high-efficency attached rockets.

This model is a twist on the ISX warpship correct? ISX??...anyhoo..

I always tried radial attached engines on the bottom because it was nice n flat. Vtol style. but always had issues trying to get the thrust output balanced. Not sure if thats the kind of question youre asking?? If thats the case i think itd be super sexy to have retractable/vectoring engines(like bahamuto engines) down there. In turn..i also saw a wip(i think) project somewhere that simulates wildblue-a-like modeling that had a service module of some sort that has  rcs thrusters with a "flip out" animation. Ie:they are tucked away..and when you enable rcs...they flip out. Ill see if i can find the link once i get home. I thought those were pretty darn sexy too

[SpaceMouse]

11 minutes ago, Jesusthebird said:

This model is a twist on the ISX warpship correct? ISX??...anyhoo..

I always tried radial attached engines on the bottom because it was nice n flat. Vtol style. but always had issues trying to get the thrust output balanced. Not sure if thats the kind of question youre asking?? If thats the case i think itd be super sexy to have retractable/vectoring engines(like bahamuto engines) down there. In turn..i also saw a wip(i think) project somewhere that simulates wildblue-a-like modeling that had a service module of some sort that has  rcs thrusters with a "flip out" animation. Ie:they are tucked away..and when you enable rcs...they flip out. Ill see if i can find the link once i get home. I thought those were pretty darn sexy too

You might note on the last two pictures i have Harrier-style vectoring engines that *will* retract. Might not be completely obvious, still fiddling with shapes to see what i want things to look.

 

*Edit*
It's definitely a twist on the IXS Warpship, but it's meant to adress a few flaws i felt the design had, namely inadequate thrust, no real useful cargo payload, no real crew accommodations, and no radiators whatsoever. Magic heat dispersal tech apparently. XD

Edited September 17, 2018 by SpaceMouse

[Jesusthebird]

56 minutes ago, SpaceMouse said:

You might note on the last two pictures i have Harrier-style vectoring engines that *will* retract. Might not be completely obvious, still fiddling with shapes to see what i want things to look.

 

*Edit*
It's definitely a twist on the IXS Warpship, but it's meant to adress a few flaws i felt the design had, namely inadequate thrust, no real useful cargo payload, no real crew accommodations, and no radiators whatsoever. Magic heat dispersal tech apparently. XD

Are those the shapes below the wings that hug the hull?? I thought those were landing gears or something. Either way,  I feel youre gonna do a fantastic job with this and itll be one spectacular addition to my ksp install one day. If  ever need some encouragment, i got you bro! i also wouldnt mind testing if you need it at all. Im here to help where I can.

[FreeThinker]

Perhaps this mod will be useful

 

[SpaceMouse]

17 hours ago, Jesusthebird said:

Are those the shapes below the wings that hug the hull?? I thought those were landing gears or something. Either way,  I feel youre gonna do a fantastic job with this and itll be one spectacular addition to my ksp install one day. If  ever need some encouragment, i got you bro! i also wouldnt mind testing if you need it at all. Im here to help where I can.

They have circular nozzles in the bottom like a harrier, I'll take a better picture later. Early release will probably be a alpha for everyone to play with. I tend to try to avoid plugins where possible (probably won't be here though. This has to at least run on top of KSPI) so everything doesn't get broken by game updates.

5 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

Perhaps this mod will be useful

 

Might look into it.

[SpaceMouse]

So, i'm resurrecting my dead thread since the project still moved along in a zombie-like state. I've come to the realization i have issues with creativity. i have a better time recreating things where i can just mindlessly follow 3 views and don't have to think creatively much. I also got a 3D printer which didn't do my completing of blender projects any favors.

Anyway, pictures.

I've basically thrown away the whole model for the 3rd or 4th time, and started over. I've watched a number of video's on theoretical warp drives and even KSPi seems o concur gravitational control is probably a prerequesite to be even able to warp space. So, the main fusion engine is now secondary, and it's equipped with omni-directional gravity control spheres just to the front and rear of the warp ring. I've also redesigned it for a antimatter collector just below the reactor assembly,

I have one remaining question for people. How best to orient the decks? i was going to go with a conventional flat sci-fi layout. but even with omni-directional control, i feel like it should be oriented vertically in line with the now secondary thruster.

That would also mean that my lander bays should really change direction... and I'm really not sure where I'd put them.

I'd still appreciate any opinions at all, even negative and particularly artistic ones. I like this one better but the lines still bug me.

 

 

[theJesuit]

@SpaceMouseI always wondered if that in a scifi ship with gravitational control it would seem very bizarre to have flat pancake style decks as in StarTrek, Star Wars, BattleStar Galactica etc. , as the chance for 'gravitational' bleeding on edges would be weird.  Oddly enough the only show that I've seen that got close to exploring or stating that was  StarTrel "Enterprise" with the 'sweet spot' that the helmsman would go and spend time alone in.

So I think it depends on how often the gravity thruster is used.  If it is only for maneuvers, then seats to compensate would make most sense, the same way we orientate seats in rocket capsules IRL.  But that doesn't answer your question really.

I think that the most likely orientation for gravity manipulation is going to be spherical or toroidal, but not as a centrifuge.  If the gravity manipulation is an adjustment of regular gravity, then it would be generated from a singular point at the centre, and you get pulled towards it.  So the deck would then be the opposite to a centrifuge with up pointing away from the ship (or the singular point).  Your head may experience less gravity than your legs.

If the gravity manipulation was negative, then down would be out, away from the ship, so like a centrifuge style, but without the coriolis forces.

On the other hand, if the generator is a ring rather than a point, then it would be the opposite. The benefit of this would be that you would want gravity dampeners/ reflectors in the middle of the ring to stop the gravity manipulation coming over the other side of your crew toiroid, but that is what is then refocused into the omni directional gravity control spheres.  Basically, crew gravity is an added benefit!  That doesn't stop zero gravity areas if that is what you want to keep.

 

As for landing bays, probably best to keep them far from the gravity emitters, and close to zero gee as possible - so these would be vertical too?

Glad to see you working on this!

 

Edited July 30, 2020 by theJesuit

[SpaceMouse]

5 hours ago, theJesuit said:

@SpaceMouseI always wondered if that in a scifi ship with gravitational control it would seem very bizarre to have flat pancake style decks as in StarTrek, Star Wars, BattleStar Galactica etc. , as the chance for 'gravitational' bleeding on edges would be weird.  Oddly enough the only show that I've seen that got close to exploring or stating that was  StarTrel "Enterprise" with the 'sweet spot' that the helmsman would go and spend time alone in.

So I think it depends on how often the gravity thruster is used.  If it is only for maneuvers, then seats to compensate would make most sense, the same way we orientate seats in rocket capsules IRL.  But that doesn't answer your question really.

I think that the most likely orientation for gravity manipulation is going to be spherical or toroidal, but not as a centrifuge.  If the gravity manipulation is an adjustment of regular gravity, then it would be generated from a singular point at the centre, and you get pulled towards it.  So the deck would then be the opposite to a centrifuge with up pointing away from the ship (or the singular point).  Your head may experience less gravity than your legs.

If the gravity manipulation was negative, then down would be out, away from the ship, so like a centrifuge style, but without the coriolis forces.

On the other hand, if the generator is a ring rather than a point, then it would be the opposite. The benefit of this would be that you would want gravity dampeners/ reflectors in the middle of the ring to stop the gravity manipulation coming over the other side of your crew toiroid, but that is what is then refocused into the omni directional gravity control spheres.  Basically, crew gravity is an added benefit!  That doesn't stop zero gravity areas if that is what you want to keep.

 

As for landing bays, probably best to keep them far from the gravity emitters, and close to zero gee as possible - so these would be vertical too?

Glad to see you working on this!

 

Eh, my gripe about the IXS concept was mostly poor usage of space inside the warp bubble. It's taken me down a rabbit-hole from which i cannot return.   Although it seems making a ring-ship of anything is awfully hard to make it look 'cool'.

I experimented very briefly in Space Engineer with trying to make a gravity ship with some form of sphere gravity, and while i could probably just get away with a sphere, the lander bays would very much disrupt that. I'm operating on the assumption that if we could generate gravity then presumably, we would be able to manipulate it on a mostly flat plane. probably with another ring or two inside the warp ring. As such, the gravity thrust would be on all the time, and the rear thruster would function mostly as a backup. I did also briefly consider something like splitting it between up and down and blocking it somehow in the middle, but i instead went with one field for standard gravity and (forward/upward) movement, and 4 other gravity contained spheres for omnidirectional control.

Perhaps I've been going about this the wrong way. If your capable of omnidirectional 1G travel your also capable of landing on most planets with little need for a lander or two.

I've been fiddling with this design for years now, never really satisfied with the current revision. I currently dislike this one least.

I should probably move back to the torch-ship. there's nothing complex about that design.

Edited July 31, 2020 by SpaceMouse

[theJesuit]

4 hours ago, SpaceMouse said:

Perhaps I've been going about this the wrong way. If your capable of omnidirectional 1G travel your also capable of landing on most planets with little need for a lander or two.

Not as cool though... also, how much power will you need to generate that amount of power? The travel acceleration to get off Earth would be higher than 1G. Also the instrumention might be sensitive to planetary fields?  What about atmosphere or dust contamination or even magic fields?

Also, are you sure that if the craft was generating 1G close to the emitter's and people's experience was at that level would you actually get 1G of thrust?  I guess so actually but it makes my tired brain work.

[SpaceMouse]

3 hours ago, theJesuit said:

Not as cool though... also, how much power will you need to generate that amount of power? The travel acceleration to get off Earth would be higher than 1G. Also the instrumention might be sensitive to planetary fields?  What about atmosphere or dust contamination or even magic fields?

Also, are you sure that if the craft was generating 1G close to the emitter's and people's experience was at that level would you actually get 1G of thrust?  I guess so actually but it makes my tired brain work.

as there are no known theories or concepts as to how much power it would take to generate gravity, i'm running on he assumption it will still be several times less than required to warp space. I've been aiming for 50-75GW for the ship. I'm mostly treating gravity as a unidirectional thing here.