The abilities of the Venturer...

[Kage2020]

Again, I don't think that it is going to be a problem.  It's just useful to realise where ship and reality - or plausibility - depart from each other.

Kage

[Tynesh]

I would expect that a large amount of the internal space within the vessel would be 'cargo bays' and 'storage'.  These might not necessarily be large bulk holds, but smaller chambers for specific storage, the odd silo and hanger etc.  Most would be filled with equipment for its missions etc.  Some may have been retro-fitted with new weapon systems and shuttle bays etc.  Stuff I would like us to detail...

- Command Deck
- Engineering
- Habitation Areas
- Lower Decks "it's dark down 'dere!"
- Holds
- Hanger Deck

I'll try and find my old Trek technical manuals and blueprints when I'm at home this Christmas, I'm sure they will be of use!

[Dragon Lord]

I seem to recall from our earlier debates about ship propulsion that GURPS suggested conventional rockets would require far too much fuel for Imperial ships to have sufficient mobility without 90% of the hull consisting of fuel tanks. As a compromise, we landed on a mix between conventional propulsion and hypothetical super advanced propulsion that gave the ship thrust without expelling large amounts of material (IIRC this was the reactionless thruster). Thus, the fuel(s) needed for Imperial ships will probably not have the same function as the fuel in your typical rocket. This is just from the blurry archives of my brain, and given that I know next to nothing about physics, I'm probably a bit off here.

I, and I believe EarthScorpion, are both physicists and thus ought to be able to help in regards to any physical problems.  I don't know exactly what GURPS defines as a 'convential rocket', but there are some current technologies like ion drives that go some way towards reducing fuel requirements (though admittedly at present the acceleration they provide is very low).
In any case I was thinking more generally about providing power for the ship rather than specifically providing it with propulsion which is a slightly separate matter and I'll hang back from any detailed discussion of starship propulsion as that would be for a dedicated thread.

- Command Deck
- Engineering
- Habitation Areas
- Lower Decks "it's dark down 'dere!"
- Holds
- Hanger Deck

In addition to those areas we also of course have the various weapon emplacements that will most likely be sited in a number of different locations around the ship and we will also have things like an infirmary, galley, the sensor arrays, navigator chamber, astropath chamber(?), armoury, shield generators and Gellar field generators which may or may not be mixed in with the areas listed above.  Also throughout the ship there would probably be damage control points from which equipment can be collected/teams despatched to deal with damage to the ship.  Hmmm I think I should start a thread to deal with the internal structure of the Venturer separately...

[Kage2020]

I would expect that a large amount of the internal space within the vessel would be 'cargo bays' and 'storage'.  These might not necessarily be large bulk holds, but smaller chambers for specific storage, the odd silo and hanger etc.

While I"m not sure of the proportions involved, one would imagine that this is the case.

- Command Deck

I think that this is one of those things that it would be very hard to avoid detailing.

- Engineering

This is probably going to be one of the harder ones to detail since one would imagine that ala traditional 40k imagery it is going to be rather pipe-heavy.

- Habitation Areas

Indeed.  From the lowest to the highest.

- Lower Decks "it's dark down 'dere!"

The whole "bilge" approach is something that I would actively like to not explore.  Do we need even more "Age of Sail" imagery then we already have?

- Holds

A big square with a door on it?

- Hanger Deck

I have a sneaking suspicion that you would have to fight CELS for him not to include this.

I'll try and find my old Trek technical manuals and blueprints when I'm at home this Christmas, I'm sure they will be of use!

I was thinking of the blueprints when originally conceptualising the project.  I find them remarkably interesting in an incredibly geeky way, so thought that it would be interesting if we did something similar for the 40k universe.  Admittedly they had something like 20 (?) sheets of blueprints for a 600m-ish vessel.   

I, and I believe EarthScorpion, are both physicists and thus ought to be able to help in regards to any physical problems.  I don't know exactly what GURPS defines as a 'convential rocket', but there are some current technologies like ion drives that go some way towards reducing fuel requirements (though admittedly at present the acceleration they provide is very low).

I gave up physics to do archaeology, and that was 15 years ago, so I'm sure that I can speak for many when I say that we will appreciate any help that you can lend.  At the same time, as always, we must not feel ourselves constrained by science when something "fundamental" to the universe is needed.  You'll probably find that the application of this statement involves a lot of hypocrisy but... well, it tends to work.

Anyway, working through the numbers from the somewhat crunchy GURPS Vehicles 3e, which will, I hope, be replaced by a new edition something this decade, as well as the 'fluff' tends to pretty much lump us with a fusion drive.  The game gave two options: optimised (used water), and normal (used hydrogen).  Either was a problem, since you really needed the weight of the hydrogen, but the efficiency of the water...

GURPS Starships handles things differently such that you don't go around calculating the number of gallons of fuel required per pound of thrust.  Instead, things are a bit... neater.  Now they're all hydrogen fueled and you just stack the number of engines that you want, make sure that you have fuel, and, erm, that's it.  The only problem with this is that we don't get as much information about the volumes, but when it comes down to drawing the floorplans, I would imagine that  people aren't going to be hugely interested in calculating the storage volume of a foot locker...

Anyway, as I was saying, it's a more modular approach now.  We just select what acceleration we want, decide how much fuel to throw in, and then decide if we want to use hydrogen or water (water gets three times the acceleration), and whether we want it to be high efficiency (doubles the acceleration).

In any case I was thinking more generally about providing power for the ship rather than specifically providing it with propulsion which is a slightly separate matter and I'll hang back from any detailed discussion of starship propulsion as that would be for a dedicated thread.

Fair enough and, with regards to the last bit, feel free to start it.  

The only guidelines that we had was that it was meant to take around 4-8 weeks to travel from Earth to 17.26 AU from Earth, which requires a hellish amount of fuel and acceleration.

In addition to those areas we also of course have the various weapon emplacements that will most likely be sited in a number of different locations around the ship and we will also have things like an infirmary, galley, the sensor arrays, navigator chamber, astropath chamber(?), armoury, shield generators and Gellar field generators which may or may not be mixed in with the areas listed above.

All good points.  You forgot a church, though.

Hmmm I think I should start a thread to deal with the internal structure of the Venturer separately...

You da man...

Kage

[CELS]

I'd like to continue the discussion we've head split across other threads regarding the possibility of making the Venturer have a two-stage design, a detachable module of some kind. For the record, I'm open to the idea, but I can't really think of any explanation for it that makes sense. I like the idea of ships with detachable modules, but I'm not sure if the idea is right for this specific concept.

Assuming we all agree that the Seeker class clipper was built for the purpose of colonisation (though as part of a colonisation fleet, not to single-handedly colonise the galaxy), it makes sense of the detachable module has something to do with colonisation. As the ship changed hands and perhaps also changed function, the module may or may not have been used for something else instead. Alternatively, but less likely, is the possibility that the ancient ship was refitted to become a two-stage design to better serve its present function.

Now, the first option seems more likely to me, because we're talking about something very comprehensive indeed and I think the ship would have to be designed from scratch with the intention of giving it a detachable module. Unfortunately, the second idea is more interesting to me, because I don't really see how a detachable module is useful for a colonisation ship with full mobility. I get the idea of the Seeker class landing on a planet, detaching a vast terraforming component and then flying back into space. But... then we're basically talking about a basic container transport, like the standard Imperial transports with huge containers attached to their thin central structure. (Basically the space ship equivalent of the Sikorsky Skycrane)

I could see why you'd want a detachable module if, for example, the vessel was a troop transport and then the ship would deploy to land the troops while an ortillery module provided cover from orbit (or vice versa, with the module landing and the ship providing cover). Or, alternatively, you could have a detachable refuelling module which would be lowered into the body of a gas giant to collect and process materials to create fuel. Or something like a detachable communication satellite which can be left behind at the edge of a given system to act as a relay. But to be frank, I think a standard cargo hold would be a better option than any of these, considering the size of the Seeker class.

So, in conclusion, I'm not opposed to the idea of a two-stage design. I just remain to be convinced. If someone has a great idea that works with our concept, then cool. Or maybe we have to change the concept in order to make sense of a two-stage design. <shrugs> 

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, at any rate.

[Malika]

Hmm, I'm not so much into the idea that this ship had a "single purpose" as in being overly specialised in something. I like Kage suggestion that this ship was used to "maintain an empire", meaning that it had to be capable of carry out military, transport, colonisation and communication missions if needed to. Especially since the smaller empires we are dealing with would have a harder time of building large specialised warships and such. In a way you could compare this stuff to the VOC (Dutch East India Company) during the 17th century. The idea of having such empires based on mercantile capitalism to me is very interesting, or at least that (Dark/Golden) Age of Technology humanity was organised in (mercantile) capitalist societies rather than a single united controlled/totalitarian model is more appealing to be than simply it being yet one big mighty empire.

So ok, we have this mercantile capitalist "empire", if we compare this to the VOC it would be that the ships used back then were of course trade/transport ships but were also capable of delivering a military punch when needed to but also capable of colonising new lands. I imagine the Venturer to be very similar in the perspective. So while it could support colonisation of a world I'm not so sure about it having to remove large components of the ship to terraform a world or whatever since...well it would make the ship too specialised in my opinion. It would be capable of supporting colonisation in the form of transporting people and goods needed for this process but not really being a "terraforming vehicle" of a sorts.

I'm not really into this whole detachable modules yet, unless it's something along the lines of what we see with weapon configurations for Imperial vehicles/Titans, but not the whole idea of the ship splitting itself up and then continuing on as smaller ships or whatever....

[Moff8]

Very interesting thread - hope you don't mind me making a comment.

Why not have the Seeker class made with an attachment at the prow that allows it to 'push' modules. A kind of trailer hook but maybe with an airlock to allow access to the module. That way the ship can be standard but allows it to carry different modules. The module would have its own Geller field for warp travel.

During combat the ship would release the module to gain its agility.

For colonisation the module would carry the main supplies and living quarters. On arrival the module would be released into orbit as a satellite rather than on the planet and would use shuttles to carry goods down. The Venturer could land and deliver a smaller ground station/bunker for the colonists.

The satellite would act as a goods in for ships that don't have atmospheric travel.

[Kage2020]

For the record, I'm open to the idea, but I can't really think of any explanation for it that makes sense. I like the idea of ships with detachable modules, but I'm not sure if the idea is right for this specific concept.

One that was used in the 2300 AD: Man's Battle for the Stars was to have the "stutterwarp drive" of a ship that was landing on the planet detach and remain in orbit so as to remove its somewhat substantial mass to make the landings a bit more forgiving in terms of the fuel.  (The setting was, however, relatively hard sci-fi and as a result didn't have contra/anti-grav systems...)

Of course, the design would have to make sense for that to happen but... Well, it's another suggestion.

Assuming we all agree that the Seeker class clipper was built for the purpose of colonisation (though as part of a colonisation fleet, not to single-handedly colonise the galaxy), it makes sense of the detachable module has something to do with colonisation.

The original suggestion was that something remained in orbit for means of sensor monitoring of the nascent colony.  Of course, there's no reason that need be anything other than a more substantial shuttle that might not necessarily be carried in the shuttle bay, but might be physically docked underneath...

Again, just throwing out ideas.  I'm enamoured of both the two-stage and the "underdock" vessel as well...

Alternatively, but less likely, is the possibility that the ancient ship was refitted to become a two-stage design to better serve its present function.

As you say, somewhat less plausible.

Or, alternatively, you could have a detachable refuelling module which would be lowered into the body of a gas giant to collect and process materials to create fuel.

That's another interesting idea, although I"m a fan of "fuel scoops" being on the main ship itself.  Much quicker than having a smaller ship refuel the beggar...

I like Kage suggestion that this ship was used to "maintain an empire", meaning that it had to be capable of carry out military, transport, colonisation and communication missions if needed to.

Well, the original Arrival Vengeance was sent on a diplomatic mission to the 'power bases' of the Third Imperium.  In the 40k variation, the ship might have travelled to the other subsectors... or something.  It didn't directly maintain it.

....but not the whole idea of the ship splitting itself up and then continuing on as smaller ships or whatever....

No, not a Transformer.   And, once again, I'm just throwing out ideas that might make the ship a bit more interesting, but without it being too unique.

... hope you don't mind me making a comment.

No, not at all.  The more ideas the merrier.

Kage

[Moff8]

I was thinking of something like this - approx 24000 cubic metres, about 20 times the size of the International Space Station. So enough room for approx 100 - 200 colonists and equipment?

sorry for the crudeness of the image merge but I am no artist.

[horizon]

Hmm, no. That doesn't work.

I have to say that I ain't a fan of the modular approach.

Sorry for the somewhat short post but I'm still searching the right location....

[Kage2020]

That and CELS is adamant that the ship has to land on the surface of a planet.  With contra-grav technology, that isn't going to be a problem, so it kind of defeats the purpose of the "module" as originally envisioned anyway. 

Kage

[CELS]

As I recall, I was not the only member who thought it would be nice if the Venturer could land on planets. If I am, we can by all means ignore the idea.

In regards to the modular approach, I can absolutely see the logic in trying to reduce the mass of the ship before landing on a planet. I am open to the idea, I just haven't seen any ideas I really like. The colonisation module pushed in front of a ship works perfectly well in 'hard sci-fi' where ships look functional and realistic instead of trying to look like cool sailboats in space. However, as a 40k invention, it looks very much out of place. I try not to be moved by image alone, but in this case I have to plead the "Rule of cool"

In regards to the underdock idea, Kage, I was actually looking at the possibility of making a smaller vessel come out of the prow.  If you look at the very tip of the ship, the smoothest part of the prow, I was thinking about a reason for this part (and probably a good chunk inside the hull) to detach, so that the Venturer can launch a smaller ship from its prow. However, I can't really think of any reasons why it would do this, except that it might be useful for exploration when you're looking to map entire starsystems in as little time as possible. A simple shuttle wouldn't have the speed or fuel capacity to travel between planets, but a mini-ship might.

[Kage2020]

As I recall, I was not the only member who thought it would be nice if the Venturer could land on planets. If I am, we can by all means ignore the idea.

I don't have anything against it, I would personally prefer that kilometer-long ships don't land on planets.  With that said, it's not unreasonable so I guess I'll stick with whatever every other people decides.  Guess I'm still in the kibitzing mode and cannot entirely make up my own mind.

However, as a 40k invention, it looks very much out of place. I try not to be moved by image alone, but in this case I have to plead the "Rule of cool"

Going to have to agree with this statement.  Plus, it's also a resource that we want other 40k hobbyists to use.  I've got a sneaking feeling that we're going to be pushing a few boundaries, so hopefully we'll be able to moderate pushing peoples' buttons too much.

In regards to the underdock idea, Kage, I was actually looking at the possibility of making a smaller vessel come out of the prow.

I've seen the concept art and its very cool.

However, I can't really think of any reasons why it would do this, except that it might be useful for exploration when you're looking to map entire starsystems in as little time as possible. A simple shuttle wouldn't have the speed or fuel capacity to travel between planets, but a mini-ship might.

Good points, and I'm going to agree with the mapping idea.  It gives the ship a bit more of a "scout potential," which also allowing it to be more of the "captains gig" that you see, if you'll forgive me, in Star Trek.  Potentially good for diplomatic missions, or that indolent venture to the beach... Or whatever.

Kage

[horizon]

Regarding the small 'prow' vessel.

The Venturer is aprox. 1200 metres.

That could give an estimate of ~max 250 metres length for the small ship.

This will place in the league of the Tau Manta Missile Destroyer.

Thus in BFG: resilient. Not only vs fighters but also a 4+ save against weaponry attacks. This is an idea, supported by some, for the Manta as well.

[CELS]

I don't have anything against it, I would personally prefer that kilometer-long ships don't land on planets. 

We could always make it smaller, of course... (Tongue in cheek, but you get the point)

Good points, and I'm going to agree with the mapping idea.  It gives the ship a bit more of a "scout potential," which also allowing it to be more of the "captains gig" that you see, if you'll forgive me, in Star Trek.  Potentially good for diplomatic missions, or that indolent venture to the beach... Or whatever.

Well, we've got fifteen millennia worth of history to fill in, so we might as well do both.  Err, scouting and diplomatic missions. Not scouting and beach parties.

Regarding the small 'prow' vessel.
The Venturer is aprox. 1200 metres.
That could give an estimate of ~max 250 metres length for the small ship.
This will place in the league of the Tau Manta Missile Destroyer.
Thus in BFG: resilient. Not only vs fighters but also a 4+ save against weaponry attacks. This is an idea, supported by some, for the Manta as well.

Thanks, although that kind of discussion is best kept in the BFG thread With that said, I guess I'll have to check out the rules for the Manta in BFG. Not sure if we want the mini-ship to be geared for combat (and if so, should it be vs attack craft or larger vessels?) but we'll get back to that, I guess.