C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[iceball3]

And why can't they do that if I build it in factories?  Its not like the design has any fewer crew quarters if I include a habitat module.  In fact, it has MORE.

This is not build-able in a factory:

Code: [Select]

New Class #4213 class Terraforming Base    25 750 tons     110 Crew     629.6 BP      TCS 515  TH 0  EM 0
1 km/s     Armour 1-77     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
MSP 15    Max Repair 500 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Spare Berths 0   
Terraformer: 1 module(s) producing 0.0015 atm per annum


This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes

This IS build-able in a factory:

Code: [Select]

New Class #4213 class Terraforming Base    277 700 tons     140 Crew     1140.2 BP      TCS 5554  TH 0  EM 0
1 km/s     Armour 1-379     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
MSP 3    Max Repair 500 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Spare Berths 2   
Habitation Capacity 50 000   
Terraformer: 1 module(s) producing 0.0015 atm per annum


This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as an Orbital Habitat for construction purposesIf I need a habitat module to support the terraformer/sorium-harvester/asteroid-mine workers on the version that's made in a factory, why don't I need one on the version that's made in a shipyard?  If the 110 crew of the shipyard version is enough to man a terraformer, why do I need a habitat module if I want to build it with factories?

I think the only answer is that its a way to nerf factory-produced stations.  But I don't really think they NEED nerfed.  The fact that they need a tug is a big enough nerf.

I imagine it is some manner of "City-in-the-sky" sized structural supports and compartmentalization that allows the object to be built in the first place, and with the sheer mass, the living spaces are sort of rolled up into it for the heck of it.

[Barkhorn]

What I'm saying is, I do not understand why the addition of a habitat module allows it to be built in a factory instead of a shipyard.  What about shipyards means I can get away with 110 crew instead of 50,000?  The terraforming module is the same.  Deployment time is the same.  The habitat module is just dead weight on the factory version.  Why don't I need those "city-in-the-sky" supports if I build it in a shipyard?

[Bremen]

What I'm saying is, I do not understand why the addition of a habitat module allows it to be built in a factory instead of a shipyard.  What about shipyards means I can get away with 110 crew instead of 50,000?  The terraforming module is the same.  Deployment time is the same.  The habitat module is just dead weight on the factory version.  Why don't I need those "city-in-the-sky" supports if I build it in a shipyard?

If I were taking a stab at a realism reason, I'd say that most ships needed a shipyard for logistic reasons, but with an orbital habitat they effectively used the habitat itself as the logistical hub, making the habitat basically the shipyard itself.

Gameplay wise, it's because if you didn't then no one would use shipyards.

[Barkhorn]

I don't mind having shipyards for actual ships, that's fine.  Anything with an engine should have to use a shipyard, like it does currently.  I just don't really see that its fair or necessary to have 250,000 tons of dead weight on a commercial station just so I can build it from factories.

[Detros]

I don't mind having shipyards for actual ships, that's fine.  Anything with an engine should have to use a shipyard, like it does currently.  I just don't really see that its fair or necessary to have 250,000 tons of dead weight on a commercial station just so I can build it from factories.

You can also prepare some ship parts with factories and complete it in shipyard. Much faster.
If you were using factories so that you don't have to retool shipyards too often use an expensive template class as the core.

[Person012345]

And why can't they do that if I build it in factories?  Its not like the design has any fewer crew quarters if I include a habitat module.  In fact, it has MORE.

This is not build-able in a factory:

Code: [Select]

New Class #4213 class Terraforming Base    25 750 tons     110 Crew     629.6 BP      TCS 515  TH 0  EM 0
1 km/s     Armour 1-77     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
MSP 15    Max Repair 500 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Spare Berths 0   
Terraformer: 1 module(s) producing 0.0015 atm per annum


This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes

This IS build-able in a factory:

Code: [Select]

New Class #4213 class Terraforming Base    277 700 tons     140 Crew     1140.2 BP      TCS 5554  TH 0  EM 0
1 km/s     Armour 1-379     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 1     PPV 0
MSP 3    Max Repair 500 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months    Spare Berths 2   
Habitation Capacity 50 000   
Terraformer: 1 module(s) producing 0.0015 atm per annum


This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as an Orbital Habitat for construction purposesIf I need a habitat module to support the terraformer/sorium-harvester/asteroid-mine workers on the version that's made in a factory, why don't I need one on the version that's made in a shipyard?  If the 110 crew of the shipyard version is enough to man a terraformer, why do I need a habitat module if I want to build it with factories?

I think the only answer is that its a way to nerf factory-produced stations.  But I don't really think they NEED nerfed.  The fact that they need a tug is a big enough nerf.

"Intended deployment time 3 months"

A habitat likely includes more facilities than would be included on a ship.

[iceball3]

Honestly, the cost difference wouldn't be such a big deal anyway if the habitats were just made with a lot more modules to justify it. Run 5 or 10 terraformers in the ship instead of one, and the orbital habitat starts to look more like a margin.

[TCD]

I don't mind having shipyards for actual ships, that's fine.  Anything with an engine should have to use a shipyard, like it does currently.  I just don't really see that its fair or necessary to have 250,000 tons of dead weight on a commercial station just so I can build it from factories.

But that doesn't work, because you can use tugs and massive weapon stations as an alternative to warships. Even more so for carriers.

In some ways what is actually needed is for factory built stations to be unmovable. Then you could remove all the restrictions on what can be built without factories. I'm not entirely convinced that some massive orbital shipyard should be towable by a tug anyway. Stations are  probably not designed to exist in the Aurora TN fluid state that allows ships to move without momentum, so you'd have all sorts of issues when the engines started.

Instead I'd prefer that station are move like PDCs in that they are pre-built by factories but then assembled in situ by constructions ships. Even better if you can move them only by having a construction ship repack them, cargo ships move the parts and then the construction ship rebuild in the new position.

So I guess I'm arguing for a change to a system where anything intended to move in TN space, under its own power or not, needs to be built in TN space in the specialized TN environment of a shipyard. But that stationary items can be prebuilt and deployed/packed as needed by a construction ship, effectively like an orbital PDC.

[Barkhorn]

"Intended deployment time 3 months"

A habitat likely includes more facilities than would be included on a ship.

Then why can I still use the ship version? It honestly just feels super arbitrary.

I really like TCD's idea about construction ships; it'd give them more of a purpose and it would bring a lot of classic sci-fi possibilities to Aurora that have been sorely missing.  Specifically I'm thinking of the MAC platforms of Halo, the Halos from Halo, the Death Star (albeit without the planetkilling laser), the Citadel from Mass Effect

[Person012345]

There is a momentum conservation law - you cannot change your momentum forward, if you don't toss smth back.

Well, I would point out gravity assists which I don't believe require any "tossing" of anything - the principle is the same of course, the planet's orbit loses energy and gives it to a spacecraft, but it doesn't do this by tossing anything out of the spacecraft or bouncing things off of it, unless gravitons just have some odd physical properties - except that I clearly think your original post was NOT referring to plasma bouncing off the spacecraft from an outside source and that you're just trying to be right by rationalising. It was referring to normal rocketry and ion propulsion. I could also point out solar sails, which have the same general idea of having energetic particles bounce off the spacecraft to provide momentum, but at no point is anything expelled from the spacecraft. But I supposethat would still fit your revised statement as things are being bounced off the craft.

[Barkhorn]

There's also electrodynamic thrusters, which involve extending a long cable into the Earth's magnetic field and running power to it.  The magnetic field acts on the current in the cable and propels the spacecraft.

Currently they're used for minor changes to orbits, like stationkeeping.

[serger]

Person012345, what are you talking about?.. There was a point about propulsion drive, not a gravity maneuvre or light sail.
Surely, momentum conservation law is valid on close systems only, so if you want to use planet or star, then you must include them in your momentum equation.
But we are talking about NP propulsion drive (or another effective drive, not a cheap non-fiction one).
And NP propulsion drive is tossing plasma back, as I say. From the back of the ship, surely, not from the head. And it's how it works. Open drive camera - yes, but the same principle of tossing propulsion mass back, somehow or other.

[Garfunkel]

If I need a habitat module to support the terraformer/sorium-harvester/asteroid-mine workers on the version that's made in a factory, why don't I need one on the version that's made in a shipyard?  If the 110 crew of the shipyard version is enough to man a terraformer, why do I need a habitat module if I want to build it with factories?

I think the only answer is that its a way to nerf factory-produced stations.  But I don't really think they NEED nerfed.  The fact that they need a tug is a big enough nerf.

It's because otherwise nobody would use shipyards and just use factories to build all ships. Or alternatively, building orbital stations of any size would be impossible as it is rare for shipyards to get that big.

[Person012345]

Person012345, what are you talking about?.. There was a point about propulsion drive, not a gravity maneuvre or light sail.
Surely, momentum conservation law is valid on close systems only, so if you want to use planet or star, then you must include them in your momentum equation.
But we are talking about NP propulsion drive (or another effective drive, not a cheap non-fiction one).
And NP propulsion drive is tossing plasma back, as I say. From the back of the ship, surely, not from the head. And it's how it works. Open drive camera - yes, but the same principle of tossing propulsion mass back, somehow or other.

First, you stated the best way to propel yourself was by "throwing hot gases out the back end of the ship". In doing so, you're clearly referring to propulsion methods which dominate the modern day, whereby you expel gas from the back of a ship and the equal and opposite reaction propels you forward. This quite the same as NPP (yes you expel an object from the ship, but this action has little to do with the propulsive effect - it's when it explodes and blasts the particles back towards you that the propulsion occurs). I also decided to throw in solar sails. Someone pointed out that plasma isn't a gas but totally counts (and fair enough) and you tried saying that technically that NPP totally counts because the particles bouncing off the back of the ship is totally the same as being expelled from the ship. Well, ok though I don't think this is what you meant. But then you also then said that you cannot change your momentum if you don't "toss something back". Assuming you're including particles bouncing off the ship, I thus pointed out gravity assists as a contradiction to your statement (unless gravitons have some odd physical properties that we have no evidence of so far). Unless I am very much mistaken, when using gravity to increase your speed, nothing needs to be "tossed out the back".

[Detros]

Full speed ahead!
Ay, ay, sending more gravitons to the engines, capt'n.