Author Topic: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?  (Read 3168 times)

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1712
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #30 on: 15 November 2023, 02:00:05 »
Quote
Strategic Operations mentioned those. Still, you need to remember that you can only use one type of source of energy at a time for charge a battery. Using a way to charge the default battery while using an another way to charge your L-F battery is, however, nothing wrong for the Lithium Fusion Batteries section does says that you can.
My idea for your proposed battery is exactly that--a 1 jump capacity version of the lithium fusion battery.  The Sodium Fusion battery or something.  So you can charge the battery with 5 burn days of fuel and half a solar charge.  The net result is the same speed as a lithium fusion battery, with all the standard construction rules as a lithium fusion battery.
So if a lithium battery spends 183 hours at Sol, and 10 burn days of fuel, it can make 2 jumps.  My proposed idea for your fast charge battery is 92 days at Sol with the sail, and 5 burn days of fuel, and you can make 1 jump. 

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10501
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #31 on: 15 November 2023, 14:28:46 »
I just think about this, although lacks a detail but only an idea. What about the alternative model of K-F drive, which can charge faster without any malfunction? Such as, able to be fully charged about 50~70% time of the normal K-F drive, whatever it's from the solar cell of the jump sail or direct connection with the space station. If you want to recharge the other ships by its own battery, its total energy is the same percent with the time to fully charged; so if a standard K-F drive needs 100 energy, it would needs 50~70 instead. That's the secret of the fast charge - you don't need to charge more to jump

I think that the feasible drawback is the reduced maximum jump distance, such as only able to jump 33% to 46.2% distance, making effectively 2/3(that's not final, though) distance per hour than the standard K-F drive. It is not so bad to reduce the effective travel time per distance by a half of the normal K-F driver too. Perhaps there would be an additional drawback such as not compatible with a Lithium Fusion Battery.

I don't think about the others but most of the other features would be better to leave as same with the standard one. It would be made as compact version(of warships), and will have the same drawbacks.

I don't think that it would be useful for the most people, but maybe someone like pirates, or warship fleet with local defenders(unlikely but that's only a presumption), are think about to have one on their jumpships.

So is there any better idea for this?

You have an interesting idea, I would like to hear more.
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1800
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #32 on: 16 November 2023, 02:18:31 »
My idea for your proposed battery is exactly that--a 1 jump capacity version of the lithium fusion battery.  The Sodium Fusion battery or something.  So you can charge the battery with 5 burn days of fuel and half a solar charge.  The net result is the same speed as a lithium fusion battery, with all the standard construction rules as a lithium fusion battery.
So if a lithium battery spends 183 hours at Sol, and 10 burn days of fuel, it can make 2 jumps.  My proposed idea for your fast charge battery is 92 days at Sol with the sail, and 5 burn days of fuel, and you can make 1 jump. 

Well, is your suggestion, allows to charge by two sources and in this case you can charge it by half time instead? Am I read it correctly?

You have an interesting idea, I would like to hear more.

Initially I have only a brief concept but I have more now. What I think about is, a K-F drive that has shorter jump distance but also requires shorter time to charge as well. And the end result must not outperform the standard rules of the K-F drive too.

That is intended to be useful for the small kingdom that is consists of bunch of systems with close distance. And maybe pirates and guerrilla? Anyway, if you have some systems with close distance, you don't need to jump too farther but you do need to jump anyways, so the longer distance is not required but with the standard drive you need to wait the same time to jump. For warship fleet, it could be used for mobile defense for you can relocate those ships' position quicker than the normal drive.

Think about coastal ships, and in the case of the warships the 'monitor ship', that is not able to go through the ocean and have to stick with the coast. That is the intention of the drive. Well, the drive in this topic CAN jump to the nearby system so it is not a true coastal ship, but it is not so efficient to make a long trip with it.

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3625
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #33 on: 16 November 2023, 10:43:45 »
Initially I have only a brief concept but I have more now. What I think about is, a K-F drive that has shorter jump distance but also requires shorter time to charge as well. And the end result must not outperform the standard rules of the K-F drive too.

That is intended to be useful for the small kingdom that is consists of bunch of systems with close distance. And maybe pirates and guerrilla? Anyway, if you have some systems with close distance, you don't need to jump too farther but you do need to jump anyways, so the longer distance is not required but with the standard drive you need to wait the same time to jump. For warship fleet, it could be used for mobile defense for you can relocate those ships' position quicker than the normal drive.

Think about coastal ships, and in the case of the warships the 'monitor ship', that is not able to go through the ocean and have to stick with the coast. That is the intention of the drive. Well, the drive in this topic CAN jump to the nearby system so it is not a true coastal ship, but it is not so efficient to make a long trip with it.

A kind of "puddle jumper", if you will?

I think it would be interesting to have something similar that could make a transition from the planetary plane to the Zenith/Nadir, but charge fast enough to make it worth it.  Think of it as an in-system bus.

So basically it would be faster to fly to/from Earth from/to Saturn's orbit (provided Saturn wasn't there) then to fly obliquely to the equivalent of Saturn's orbit "above" or "below" the sun.  They connect at "Saturn", Jump, disconnect, shift to an actual Jump Ship.  The in-system taxi does a quick recharge and is ready to take in the Dropships of the next incoming Jump Ship.

Only workable in a star system with regular traffic, but that's part of the point.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10501
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #34 on: 16 November 2023, 15:22:04 »
A kind of "puddle jumper", if you will?

I think it would be interesting to have something similar that could make a transition from the planetary plane to the Zenith/Nadir, but charge fast enough to make it worth it.  Think of it as an in-system bus.

So basically it would be faster to fly to/from Earth from/to Saturn's orbit (provided Saturn wasn't there) then to fly obliquely to the equivalent of Saturn's orbit "above" or "below" the sun.  They connect at "Saturn", Jump, disconnect, shift to an actual Jump Ship.  The in-system taxi does a quick recharge and is ready to take in the Dropships of the next incoming Jump Ship.

Only workable in a star system with regular traffic, but that's part of the point.

hmmmm

okay, bear with me now, we can base it partly on the primitive jumpship rules.

Baseline comparison, all other conditions.factors being equal (same solar spectra, same distance, no LFB)


1 to 4 LY/1 Day

5 to 9 LY/2 days

10-14 LY/3 days

15-19 LY/4 days

20-24 LY/5 days

25-29 LY/6 days

follow me here?  the increments are chosen to show just how much more efficient 30 LY/7 days really is-your 'upper limit' has the shortest proportional charge times-that is, shortest charge for the (Maximum) distance traveled, meaning that a 30LY ship beats out a 25 on the same 60 LY trading route, not only because it stops to charge less often, but because it gets more 'bang for the buck' with each stop over time.

BUT...if your local route is SHORTER, then you don't have to take as long between charges, since you arent charging for as long.

even if proportionally, the 'standard' or 'standard compact' core ship IS more energy/time efficient at the top end.

Another way, would be to have an offshoot of LFB tech that lines up with those primitive drives, but funcitons as a percentage of Core Mass.

say, Add 10% to your core mass at each level and gain the equivalent of an LFB-at the cost of haivng to charge twice as long as before (like an LFB) this rEALLY emphasizes why everyone standardized on the 30 LY core as fast as they could-because it's STILL MORE EFFICIENT OVER LONGER DISTANCES.

Literally your 'puddle jumper cores' end up being just that-excellent for short hops or in-system jumps, but kind of trash for anything with an extended distance/duration due to taking a bit longer to charge (and in this case, bigger really IS better-you can do a tiny 1 LY core, and yeah, you can recharge it in a day, or with capacitor, two days...but that's still going to take 30 days to go where a 30LY core goes in 1 day...assuming you have enough fuel to hot-charge it and you don't break anything.)

"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3625
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #35 on: 16 November 2023, 15:51:57 »
It makes sense if we consider just how much Jump Core technology has developed from the 2200s.

Of course, it would just require people capable of understanding Jump Core in order to provide a Core that had that limited Jump Range and low power requirement at the same time.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37384
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #36 on: 16 November 2023, 17:17:02 »
Hmmm... I'm thinking a full day is too long for a "mere" 1 LY (or less) jump...

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10501
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #37 on: 16 November 2023, 20:35:01 »
Hmmm... I'm thinking a full day is too long for a "mere" 1 LY (or less) jump...

It's a deliberate inefficiency.  (*in this case, deliberate enough to let someone with a modern 7th grade education to figure out that it's inefficient.  gotta have teh rules simple enough for a general audience.)

a better layout (at least, more satisfying) might be to use exponents rather than straight add-and-subtract groups of five...but you run out of variations rather quickly that way.

"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37384
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #38 on: 16 November 2023, 20:58:21 »
Good point... I was trying to look out for the Ferry Service... ;)

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3625
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #39 on: 17 November 2023, 00:52:04 »
A Ferry Jumper could have one that recharges in a matter of hours (or even one), but only has a range of like 100 AU or less (2-3x the distance of the Sun to Pluto), or half a light-day, give or take.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1712
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #40 on: 17 November 2023, 01:13:23 »
I'd like to think hyperspace has a certain similarity to friction.  More or less, it takes much more energy to overcome the initial movement, then to keep moving once in motion.

So like, bursting through reality into hyperspace is the hard part requiring a lot of up front energy.  Traveling 10 versus 20 light years is very little compared to the initial friction of busting through normal space.

I would think a 1 AU jump and a 1 light year jump would be, cosmically, the same thing.  Something like Half the total energy is needed to enter hyper space, the other half Id do an exponential growth line with the limit approaching 30, such that 31 is kinda like warp 10 with current engine tech.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1800
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #41 on: 17 November 2023, 07:22:18 »
A kind of "puddle jumper", if you will?

I think it would be interesting to have something similar that could make a transition from the planetary plane to the Zenith/Nadir, but charge fast enough to make it worth it.  Think of it as an in-system bus.

So basically it would be faster to fly to/from Earth from/to Saturn's orbit (provided Saturn wasn't there) then to fly obliquely to the equivalent of Saturn's orbit "above" or "below" the sun.  They connect at "Saturn", Jump, disconnect, shift to an actual Jump Ship.  The in-system taxi does a quick recharge and is ready to take in the Dropships of the next incoming Jump Ship.

Only workable in a star system with regular traffic, but that's part of the point.

That would be an another interested one but what I imagine is something that is able to jump at least 5~10LY. It does not need to jump more than 15~20LY, and it is surely the supposed drawback on it.

Still I don't deny that it is interesting. While it does not able to travel through the stars easily, it would allows 'combat jump' so it would be useful as the tactical naval combat and/or move through zenith and nadir.

I'd like to think hyperspace has a certain similarity to friction.  More or less, it takes much more energy to overcome the initial movement, then to keep moving once in motion.

So like, bursting through reality into hyperspace is the hard part requiring a lot of up front energy.  Traveling 10 versus 20 light years is very little compared to the initial friction of busting through normal space.

I would think a 1 AU jump and a 1 light year jump would be, cosmically, the same thing.  Something like Half the total energy is needed to enter hyper space, the other half Id do an exponential growth line with the limit approaching 30, such that 31 is kinda like warp 10 with current engine tech.

Yeah. Open the gate through the another plain part would costs the vast majority of the energy. I can't understand how the K-F drive moves the ship, but I can hardly imagine that the energy required to move within the hyperspace would be more than the energy required to open the gate through it. The 'move' part is not always means actually moving the ship through the space, though, but I don't understand how it actually moves in the hyperspace so I can't say about this well.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37384
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #42 on: 17 November 2023, 18:50:26 »
I just checked IO, and had totally forgotten about the "15 LY minimum".  If we're ignoring that and the 50,000 ton minimum limit for Primitive JumpShips, I think I'd keep the minimum (1 LY) jump engine at 4,000 tons (8% of 50,000) regardless of the size of the ship.  That would preclude jump capable Small Craft and such.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10501
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #43 on: 18 November 2023, 01:33:17 »
I just checked IO, and had totally forgotten about the "15 LY minimum".  If we're ignoring that and the 50,000 ton minimum limit for Primitive JumpShips, I think I'd keep the minimum (1 LY) jump engine at 4,000 tons (8% of 50,000) regardless of the size of the ship.  That would preclude jump capable Small Craft and such.

That makes some sense, though it's kind of a shame we don't have the rules set up based on power output instead.  That would also prevent Jump-capable small craft, and meet the tonnage minimum ("It takes X amount of power to tear a hole into hyperspace, less and you're just overheating components") while still permitting things like the Bug-Eye spy ship.

"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

idea weenie

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4883
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #44 on: 18 November 2023, 03:19:13 »
That makes some sense, though it's kind of a shame we don't have the rules set up based on power output instead.  That would also prevent Jump-capable small craft, and meet the tonnage minimum ("It takes X amount of power to tear a hole into hyperspace, less and you're just overheating components") while still permitting things like the Bug-Eye spy ship.

How about a k + % model?  You have a certain fixed minimum mass for the KF core, plus a percentage of the ship's hull.  These values can be adjusted based on range of the KF drive.

For example, how about 3 kilotons + 25% (exact numbers TBD):
Ship mass - KF Core mass
4 kilotons - 4 kilotons
6 kilotons - 4.5 kilotons
15 kilotons - 6.75 kilotons
40 kilotons - 13 kilotons
100 kilotons - 28 kilotons
etc

So larger vessels get an advantage as the main factor is the percentage of mass, while smaller ships either go with shorter jump ranges or eventually run out of space.


I got the idea of a fixed minimum plus percentage of mass from the Honor Harrington series, where the described the Light Assault Craft, Courier Boats, and Frigates.  You can have ~10 kiloton Light Assault Craft with box launchers on each side, some point defense, and an energy weapon.  You can also have a 38 kiloton Courier vessel that is little more than FTL core, in-system drives, minimum personnel, and a computer core to receive, store, and pass on messages.  A ~50 kiloton Frigate has about the same armament as the Light Assault Craft.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37384
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #45 on: 18 November 2023, 06:23:22 »
Finally found the rules on Sub-Compact KF Drives... they're in TO:AUE.  They weigh 50% of ship mass and can be installed on ships between 5,000 and 25,000 tons.  They also can't mount any DropShip collars, so they're totally unsuited for ferries.

As a rough sketch, I'm thinking a 1 LY (in-system) ferry would be about 10,000 tons with 2 Drop Collars, 2 Small Craft Cubicles, a Station Keeping Drive, Jump Sail, 6 SI (the max with a Station Keeping Drive), 5 tons of armor (the max), 12 Small Lasers for Point Defense, 49 crew (40 enlisted, 9 officers), 2 Small Grav Decks, (Bay quality) passenger accommodations for 600 (held over from pre-Drop Collar days... I figure it's SAR capacity now), 100 Life Boats (same), 650 tons of fuel, 2,000 tons of cargo, and 450 reserved for consumables.

idea weenie

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4883
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #46 on: 18 November 2023, 11:11:45 »
Finally found the rules on Sub-Compact KF Drives... they're in TO:AUE.  They weigh 50% of ship mass and can be installed on ships between 5,000 and 25,000 tons.  They also can't mount any DropShip collars, so they're totally unsuited for ferries.

As a rough sketch, I'm thinking a 1 LY (in-system) ferry would be about 10,000 tons with 2 Drop Collars, 2 Small Craft Cubicles, a Station Keeping Drive, Jump Sail, 6 SI (the max with a Station Keeping Drive), 5 tons of armor (the max), 12 Small Lasers for Point Defense, 49 crew (40 enlisted, 9 officers), 2 Small Grav Decks, (Bay quality) passenger accommodations for 600 (held over from pre-Drop Collar days... I figure it's SAR capacity now), 100 Life Boats (same), 650 tons of fuel, 2,000 tons of cargo, and 450 reserved for consumables.

10 kilotons to jump a pair of Dropships each massing up to 100 ktons?  I'd be tempted to increase the ferry's mass and decrease the number of Dropships it can carry.

Existing Jumpships need ~50 ktons of ship to jump a single Dropship (potentially 1:2 ratio), this ferry has a 1:20 ratio.  You are only getting 1/30 the range, so that does somewhat even it out.

I guess personal preference is making me want to change it to 15-20 ktons and only jumping one Dropship at a time (changing it to a 1:5 ratio).

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37384
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #47 on: 18 November 2023, 11:16:19 »
You could probably cram a single drop collar on something in the 6-7,000 range.  Off to the scratch pad...

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37384
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #48 on: 18 November 2023, 11:35:04 »
Yep, just barely in 6,000 tons.  That's for 1 Drop Collar, 1 Small Craft Cubicle, Sail, Station Keeping Drive, max SI and armor for that (36/3 tons), 12 Small Lasers, crew quarters for both the crew (49, including 9 officers) and the shuttle crew (5), a Small Grav Deck, 8 Life Boats, 100 tons of fuel, and 24 tons for consumables (about 3 months' worth).

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3625
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #49 on: 18 November 2023, 13:04:03 »
Also keep in mind that a system that has one of these Ferry Ships would have a Jump Ship yard of their own, as it would take far too long for a Ferry to make it to another world in most cases.

Which makes sense, as a system would need sufficient traffic to make having such ferries worth considering.

Come to think of it, I always found it a little odd as to how few Jump Yards there were.  Honestly, if I was a potentate of the Sphere, I'd be making sure each district/March/whatever had a few just to make sure that the loss of one territory didn't cripple my nation.  But those are considerations that would have applied before the first Star League fell. 

I could see the Raven Alliance territory suddenly having a relative explosion of such yard development, though.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10501
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #50 on: 18 November 2023, 14:02:00 »
Also keep in mind that a system that has one of these Ferry Ships would have a Jump Ship yard of their own, as it would take far too long for a Ferry to make it to another world in most cases.

Which makes sense, as a system would need sufficient traffic to make having such ferries worth considering.

Come to think of it, I always found it a little odd as to how few Jump Yards there were.  Honestly, if I was a potentate of the Sphere, I'd be making sure each district/March/whatever had a few just to make sure that the loss of one territory didn't cripple my nation...

apparently, this didn't happen, even when they could rebuild, it didn't happen.

Lyran Commonwealth/Alliance right after the Jihad (3079)



Total Jumpship yards not rendered into smoking rubble and scrap? One left, it's at Gibbs.

Guess how many shipyards the Lyrans built between 3079, and:


3145?

ZERO.

apparently goods move between star systems on methods other than jumpships, since the following nations have no shipyards at all:

Taurian Concordat
Magistracy of Canopus
Capellan Confederation

shall we go on?  More don't, than do.

so obviously, they can't be that important or that useful.  maybe the jumpships are breeding somewhere in the background like Farscape's Leviathans...

"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37384
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #51 on: 18 November 2023, 14:57:44 »
Shipyards were top of the target lists in the early Succession Wars.

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3653
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #52 on: 18 November 2023, 16:37:37 »
Shipyards were top of the target lists in the early Succession Wars.

That's even just top-down, bottom-up the entire infrastructure broke down as subcontractors got hit as well (plus financing)

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10501
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #53 on: 18 November 2023, 23:45:44 »
That's even just top-down, bottom-up the entire infrastructure broke down as subcontractors got hit as well (plus financing)

While it's fun to go down the rabbit hole on this *(and boy  did I screw up doing exactly that).  Let's get back to the topic without going into the other topic of why FASAnomics means you abandon all logic (Including internal setting logic) and just accept what you're told by TPTB, because everything in the setting is purely arbitrary.



"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37384
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #54 on: 19 November 2023, 07:00:20 »
Heading sort of back in that direction, what do you think about my sketches of ferries? :)

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1712
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #55 on: 19 November 2023, 19:21:22 »
My issue with the in-system ferry is how it interacts with fuel/charging versus stock torchdrive.  Like, if the ferry is moving dropships insystem, a thing designed to move on its own, how efficient they are runs into how efficient torchships are.  Its like building a cargo ship to move slightly smaller cargo ships that would otherwise sail themselves just fine.

Like Sol/terra is a very well traveled system.  If a ferry would work anywhere it would be there.  The travel time is only 9-10 days from earth to zenith with a dropship.  The cost of a dropship moving itself is 10 burn days is the same as 10 burn days of fuel you dump with reactor charging an engine, but the dropship has a very low tonnage cost per day.  Now a tiny ferry drive rated to 1 LY presumably is so tiny it can affordably transport multiple dropships cheaper then they can move themselves.  Also, if the drive is too efficient, then 1ly warships, which would quickcharge their way across conventional 30ly leaps, would have massively more room for weapons and armor at a fraction of the cost, only spending a little longer making big jumps but having far too great an efficiency once in system.

If the ferry is more efficient in both speed (charging time) and fuel (transporting multiple big civilian droppers for less fuel then the droppers would spend) then we wouldnt see dropships with interplanetary drives in the same manner.  The ferry would be the defacto solution.  Already, we can use civvy jumpships to spend 183 hours charging with a solar sail to bypass the dropship transit time, so the ferry needs to also be more efficient then civilian jumpers with a sail.

I dont see a great design space for the ferry without it just completely taking over how all travel is done.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37384
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #56 on: 19 November 2023, 19:38:48 »
Cannonshop's AU has them in a binary system with a ridiculously long transit from zenith/nadir to planet.  They make sense there.

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3625
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #57 on: 19 November 2023, 23:02:45 »
Like Sol/terra is a very well traveled system.  If a ferry would work anywhere it would be there.  The travel time is only 9-10 days from earth to zenith with a dropship.  The cost of a dropship moving itself is 10 burn days is the same as 10 burn days of fuel you dump with reactor charging an engine, but the dropship has a very low tonnage cost per day.  Now a tiny ferry drive rated to 1 LY presumably is so tiny it can affordably transport multiple dropships cheaper then they can move themselves.

First question is how much time is saved by burning to (effectively) Saturn's orbit from Earth than going to either Zenith or Nadir.

Second question is how expensive it is to build such ships initially.

Third question is the general cost of maintenance.  One thing to consider in that is how much it costs to maintain a sail versus the Dropship fuel saved.

Then from there is how long it takes for that ferry ship to "pay for itself" in how much it "saves" everyone in its operation.

Also, if the drive is too efficient, then 1ly warships, which would quickcharge their way across conventional 30ly leaps, would have massively more room for weapons and armor at a fraction of the cost, only spending a little longer making big jumps but having far too great an efficiency once in system.

Unfortunately, any JumpShip that can go 30 lys per Jump is pretty much doing it on solar power, and can (usually) guarantee they will land near a star.  While a 1ly "ferry" ship would almost guarantee that MOST of their Jumps will not be near a star so must be using fusion engines/fuel for recharging the core.  That would not be an efficient use, even if it could "theoretically" get their faster with a slightly faster charging Core per Light Year.

If the ferry is more efficient in both speed (charging time) and fuel (transporting multiple big civilian droppers for less fuel then the droppers would spend) then we wouldnt see dropships with interplanetary drives in the same manner.  The ferry would be the defacto solution.  Already, we can use civvy jumpships to spend 183 hours charging with a solar sail to bypass the dropship transit time, so the ferry needs to also be more efficient then civilian jumpers with a sail.

Nope, sorry.  You're missing some key points.

First, Jumpships cannot bypass Dropship transit time.  Sure they can show up where the ferries would ostensibly show up, but they would have to keep up real time data on where everything is in the system before they Jump in.  There are many reasons why the Zenith and Nadir Jump Points are used consistently instead of just Jumping in on the ecliptic, but reliability of that point is the biggest.

As it is, it only shortens the time, not bypasses it.  As I mentioned above, its the difference of flying up/down at an angle to the center of the system to the Jump Limit versus just flying "out" along the ecliptic.  I don't think it's huge, maybe saving 1-2 days in Sol, to use the example.

Second, not every system could have one.  There will be far more systems without Ferries than with.  So the normal Dropships we have now will be needed.

Third, they same would still be needed for invasions.  There is no guarantee that the ferries would be available in the first place (base protocol would be to Jump out to ecliptic) or be in sufficient numbers to carry the entire invasion force.

So in final point, it only has to be efficient enough to be able see paying for itself and profiting over the duration of its use in order to justify its use.  It doesn't have to be a very high level of efficient, just efficient enough.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

idea weenie

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4883
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #58 on: 21 November 2023, 11:41:15 »
Yep, just barely in 6,000 tons.  That's for 1 Drop Collar, 1 Small Craft Cubicle, Sail, Station Keeping Drive, max SI and armor for that (36/3 tons), 12 Small Lasers, crew quarters for both the crew (49, including 9 officers) and the shuttle crew (5), a Small Grav Deck, 8 Life Boats, 100 tons of fuel, and 24 tons for consumables (about 3 months' worth).

That would be very efficient.

Even if it has to charge using onboard fuel, that is only 10 burn-days for a 6 kiloton platform, rather than 10 burn-days for a 50 kiloton Scout (or bigger).  The recharge time is only 7 days, so if the transit time is over 8? days it will actually be faster for a Dropship to wait for the Ferry to charge, jump to the star-planet pirate point, and the Dropship transits from there.  (Hopefully the 100 tons of fuel will cover 10 Burn-Days)

The Ferry then recharges in 7 days using the abundant solar energy at the star-planet pirate point, and once recharged it can then transport a Dropship heading towards the Zenith or Nadir point.  At the same time it can refuel its tanks from a space station orbiting the L1 point.


So in worst case scenario:
Jumpship arrives at a system with two Dropships, and there are no Ferries at the Z/N point.  Only one Ferry is present in-system and it just arrived at the Pirate Point so its core is empty.  Transit time is 15 days (50% longer than Terra's transit).  One Dropship decides it doesn't want to wait for the Ferry and starts burning in-system.

Second Dropship negotiates fees with the Ferry and the Ferry puts the Dropship on its schedule.

A+7 days later, the Ferry is charged, and jumps to the Dropship (and the Jumpship jumps out).  The Ferry begins recharging either from onboard fuel or the Dropship docks and connects its fuel supply.

A+14 days later the Ferry is charged, and the Dropship is jumped to the Pirate Point.  The Dropship detaches, and spends 1 day transiting to the planet.

A+15 days - both Dropships arrive at the planet.

So how much Fuel is used by the 1 Dropship transiting, vs maintenance costs of the Ferry?


I could see a system with 3 Ferries; one at Zenith ready to go, one at Nadir ready to go, and a third at the L1 recharging and available to pop to either location.  It just needs a local facility to make the KF cores, or some way to plug an existing Core in to the Jumping Core turning the two into a single Core.

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3653
Re: Alternative K-F Drive idea: what about fast charge model?
« Reply #59 on: 21 November 2023, 11:58:08 »
Yeah that would be pretty efficient. Although I probably would direct all incoming traffic with planetary cargo to a single jump point with two ferries on station.

I always fluffed it as systems with long transit times just have space station transshipment points at the Z/N and regular starlift service from the planet to that station. That way a Jumpship Captain doesn't have to wait for the planet's own dropships to complete their transit for a jumpship to continue its voyage. They can simply transfer whatever cargo is going 'down' with whatever is going interstellar.