Simple Complexity.. or is it Complex Simplicity..

Hard science fiction spacecraft design seems to necessitate complexity, but is that true?  There is no doubt that some complexity is needed in order to reflect real world engineering limitations and physics, but does that mean the entire design sequence must therefore be complex?  I think not.

The target here is a design process somewhere between CT Bk2 and CT Bk5 in simplicity but with the addition of a few items specific to the setting, inclusion of a few popular items, and removal of anything not supported by the setting.

Hull section replaced by:

Hulls - Take 2 - Mass Effect?

Hull
A Dark Stars hull specification has a size in displacement tons, an atmospheric rating, and a structural rating.  The first is simply the overall size of the spacecraft in familiar Traveller (CT) displacement tons.  The atmospheric rating is a combination of overall shape and atmospheric performance.  The structural rating is a combination of armor value, maximum acceleration rating, and agility rating (basically rate of turning).

Unfortunately realistic hull designs require a fair bit of math.  A table of common hull sizes is provided to alleviate this in most cases.

Code	Atmospheric rating	Hull cost modifier	Waste hull volume percentage
0	Non-atmospheric	1.0	0
1	Partial streamlining	1.1	2
2	Streamlined	1.2	5
3	Lifting body	1.5	10

The structural factor of a spacecraft is given by the following formula:Sf =  (Td/1000)^(3/2); the square root of the cube of Td divided by 1000.
The structural rating is then given by:
Sr = Sf * Gq * Aq * 0.25 ; where Gq is the hull G rating in quarter G's, and Aq is the structure Agility rating in quarter G's.  Minimum values for Gq and Aq are 1.
The minimum structural rating is 1.

The minimum armor value is 1 (corresponds to Striker AV32; AV2 would be AV40 or High Guard 0).
Armor volume correction = 10 / Td^(1/3); ten divided by the cube root of Td.
The armor material rating is the armor value multiplied by the armor volume correction factor.
The maximum armor value is equivalent to the tech level of hull construction.
The minimum armor material rating is 1.

The material volume required is given by multiplying the sum of the armor material rating and the structural rating by the material volume tech level modifier.

TL	Percent of craft per material rating
7-9	2.0
10-11	1.5
12-13	1.0
14-15	0.5

Hull cost is MCr 1.0 per Td of hull material multiplied by the hull cost modifier.

Maximum number of hardpoints =0.75 * Td^(1/2); three quarters of the square root of Td.
Turrets and fixed weapon mounts require one hardpoint each; 50 Td bays require three hardpoints each; 100 Td bays require five hardpoints each.


The following table gives structural factors, armor volume multipliers, and maximum hardpoints for a variety of common hull sizes.

Hull size	Sf	AVM	Max Hardpoints
10	0.01	4.65	2
15	0.01	4.06	2
20	0.01	3.69	3
25	0.01	3.42	3
30	0.01	3.22	4
35	0.01	3.06	4
40	0.01	2.93	4
45	0.01	2.82	5
50	0.02	2.72	5
55	0.02	2.63	5
60	0.02	2.56	5
65	0.02	2.49	6
70	0.02	2.43	6
75	0.03	2.38	6
80	0.03	2.33	6
85	0.03	2.28	6
90	0.03	2.24	7
95	0.03	2.2	7
100	0.04	2.16	7
150	0.06	1.89	9
200	0.09	1.71	10
250	0.13	1.59	11
300	0.17	1.5	12
350	0.21	1.42	14
400	0.26	1.36	15
450	0.31	1.31	15
500	0.36	1.26	16
600	0.47	1.19	18
700	0.59	1.13	19
800	0.72	1.08	21
900	0.86	1.04	22
1000	1	1	23
1100	1.16	0.97	24
1200	1.32	0.95	25
1300	1.49	0.92	27
1400	1.66	0.9	28
1500	1.84	0.88	29
1600	2.03	0.86	30
1700	2.22	0.84	30
1800	2.42	0.83	31
1900	2.62	0.81	32
2000	2.83	0.8	33
2100	3.05	0.79	34
2200	3.27	0.77	35
2300	3.49	0.76	35
2400	3.72	0.75	36
2500	3.96	0.74	37
2600	4.2	0.73	38
2700	4.44	0.72	38
2800	4.69	0.71	39
2900	4.94	0.71	40
3000	5.2	0.7	41
3100	5.46	0.69	41
3200	5.73	0.68	42
3300	6	0.68	43
3400	6.27	0.67	43
3500	6.55	0.66	44
3600	6.84	0.66	45
3700	7.12	0.65	45
3800	7.41	0.65	46
3900	7.71	0.64	46
4000	8	0.63	47
4100	8.31	0.63	48
4200	8.61	0.62	48
4300	8.92	0.62	49
4400	9.23	0.62	49
4500	9.55	0.61	50
4600	9.87	0.61	50
4700	10.19	0.6	51
4800	10.52	0.6	51
4900	10.85	0.59	52
5000	11.19	0.59	53
5100	11.52	0.59	53
5200	11.86	0.58	54
5300	12.21	0.58	54
5400	12.55	0.57	55
5500	12.9	0.57	55
5600	13.26	0.57	56
5700	13.61	0.56	56
5800	13.97	0.56	57
5900	14.34	0.56	57
6000	14.7	0.56	58
6100	15.07	0.55	58
6200	15.44	0.55	59
6300	15.82	0.55	59
6400	16.2	0.54	60
6500	16.58	0.54	60
6600	16.96	0.54	60
6700	17.35	0.54	61
6800	17.74	0.53	61
6900	18.13	0.53	62
7000	18.53	0.53	62
7100	18.92	0.53	63
7200	19.32	0.52	63
7300	19.73	0.52	64
7400	20.14	0.52	64
7500	20.54	0.52	64
7600	20.96	0.51	65
7700	21.37	0.51	65
7800	21.79	0.51	66
7900	22.21	0.51	66
8000	22.63	0.5	67
8100	23.06	0.5	67
8200	23.49	0.5	67
8300	23.92	0.5	68
8400	24.35	0.5	68
8500	24.79	0.49	69
8600	25.23	0.49	69
8700	25.67	0.49	69
8800	26.11	0.49	70
8900	26.56	0.49	70
9000	27	0.49	71
9100	27.46	0.48	71
9200	27.91	0.48	71
9300	28.37	0.48	72
9400	28.82	0.48	72
9500	29.29	0.48	73
9600	29.75	0.48	73
9700	30.22	0.47	73
9800	30.68	0.47	74
9900	31.15	0.47	74
10000	31.63	0.47	75

A couple of notes:
The maximum hardpoint figure is based on estimated surface area with a break even (to normal rules) at 5600Td.
Under 1000Td armor requires more volume for a given value, this reflects the non-linear surface area vs volume relationship.
The 1000Td figure is also the breakpoint for structural volumes, high G-rated, high Agility value large hulls require extensive structural support.

This is still a work in progress but I believe it is a good starting point.
Till next time,
Omnivore out