Why isn't Andromeda shaped like a ball? Tetzner Nietzschean You know, I have been htinking about this for quite a long time. A ball with a ring of engines around it. A ball would have certain advantages: THe greatest volume in relation to the hull. So there would be much more room for reaktors, crew departements and weapons. You wouldn't have to turn the ship around any longer, because you'd just have to rotate it. A longer rate of fire would be allowed to, because you just rotate the ships to another section after the weapons of that section are empty. It would only provide more maneuverbility, because the engines are placed around the whole hull and can therefore maneuver the ship quicker. So, any comment about that? Curufea Pyrian I can see several reasons (aside from it'd look boring) :- Volume to surface area - A sphere has a greater ratio than the current Andromeda. Possibly to mount extra systems while keeping a lower mass? Defenses - The current configuration allows a protective area to be placed around areas of the ship. This may be possible with a shere too - but it would no longer retain its spherical shape (wasted space). Mass distribution - Worst case scenario of missiles getting through defences - the gaps in Andromeda may confuse the targeting systems. Engine placement - With a larger shape than a sphere, the Andromeda can mount engines further from the centre of mass, allowing for more torque. While neat, a sphere has problems with placements of systems - it would not allow easy access to bays and maintenance areas while docked (possibly). Tetzner Nietzschean Because a sphere ahs teh better surface-volume ratio, it is possible to place more extra systems in it-symply because of more room. Why wouldn't a sphere have it's protective area to? Space wouldn't eb wasted, because more defensive sytems could be amounted to a sphere surface, which could work with more energy, since there is more room for reactors. missiles getting throuigh defenses? A sphere would eb harder to destroy, because it si more compact. Also a sphere has more chance of deploying the force of impact around the armour. confusing targeting systems on missiles? Can't see how that'd work- wiht proximity fuses on the missiles, gaps wouldn't work. Anyway, when a missile gets through defenses, I cannot see how it could miss something as huge as the andromeda's main part. Engine placement- could be compensated by the ring of engineas around teh sphere, as I mentioned above. And you could always place engines on top or at the end of the sphere-which would be then still far away. Placement with systems? Can'T see the problem here htrough. A sphere can have acces tunnels just like Andromeda. or see : www.perry-rhodan.net That one for the boring part-go to technik, and click on "Raumschiffe", search for LEiff >Erikson, then you'll see what I mean Denmark Vesey Pyrian Because the Magog tried a bouncing ball attack and it didn't turn out too well. Since then spheres have fallen into disfavor among starship designers. Tetzner Nietzschean Or the boprg protested. The Sarge Perseid If you put engines pointing in all directions, you'll only use a small fraction of your engines at any time. All the other engines will be nothing but extra mass that needs to be dragged around. That reduces your thrust-to-weight ratio, which means lower acceleration, so your design would be slower and less maneuverable than one with all the thrust going aft. You'd also need to have fuel supplies for the extra engines. Even if you're only routing extra AP lines from central fuel tanks to the redundant engines, there will be a greater chance of a hit detonating your fuel supply. Besides, who'd want to answer Rommie, armed with 40 missile tubes, plus AP and plasma cannon, PDLs, combat drones, Tweedles, and slipfighters, when she asks, "Does this hull make me look fat?" ------------------ Rex Amundi Human In the Nights Dawn trilogy all starships are spherical, because to go through a wormhole you have to be. The only reason they didn't like it was because of aestetics, the fact that a ball simply didn't look right. Probably been corrupted by the sci-fi shows that make ships streamlined. Other than that it was a good idea. Despite all the ships being of the same design heritage they were all different, with various sizes and extra on the outside. As for the whole webbed mesh on the battleblades of Andromeda I don't think they make much sense. All you're doing is turning one object travelling at high speed into many, a bullet into a shotgun blast. You'd have to mop up more damage with more spread. Something with the mass of Andromeda would be much smaller, and therefore harder to hit anyway. Docking may actually be simpler with more airlocks around it. Engines mounted at the six main points would make it more maneuverable. Another point I thought of is that weapons may have more power, and a greater protection. If you store thoudsands of missiles in the centre of the ship, with launch tubes running outwards you'd get more acceleration. Same could be done with fuel. Protection would be better for various systems. The outside could consist of a several-metre thick radiation-reflecting material. Weapons would also have a better field-of-fire, with no fiddly bits of a aerodynamic spaceship to make sure you dont hit. Exawatt Human Andromeda has a plasma cannon? DWF Avatar Actually, if it's shaped like a ball, you can use a more gravity based drive, and you wouldn't engines pointing in every direction. I'm sure the gravity field created by the AA, is more or less round in shape. With the ship shaped like it is, it reduces the overall mass of the vessel. Jorgasnarova Jeath quote: Originally posted by Exawatt: Andromeda has a plasma cannon? No, I don't think so; at least it hasn't been mentioned on the website or by any of the writers. Andromeda is equipped with AP or Anti Proton cannons, essentially fire-hose stream of antimatter particles. Very satisfying ka-boom. Disadvantage of very limited range, though. The green fireballs we saw launched in "Pitiless as the Sun" were probably the AP cannons. Jorgasnarova Jeath quote: Originally posted by Tetzner: Because a sphere ahs teh better surface-volume ratio, it is possible to place more extra systems in it-symply because of more room. Why wouldn't a sphere have it's protective area to? Space wouldn't eb wasted, because more defensive sytems could be amounted to a sphere surface, which could work with more energy, since there is more room for reactors. missiles getting throuigh defenses? A sphere would eb harder to destroy, because it si more compact. Also a sphere has more chance of deploying the force of impact around the armour. confusing targeting systems on missiles? Can't see how that'd work- wiht proximity fuses on the missiles, gaps wouldn't work. Anyway, when a missile gets through defenses, I cannot see how it could miss something as huge as the andromeda's main part. Engine placement- could be compensated by the ring of engineas around teh sphere, as I mentioned above. And you could always place engines on top or at the end of the sphere-which would be then still far away. Placement with systems? Can'T see the problem here htrough. A sphere can have acces tunnels just like Andromeda. or see : www.perry-rhodan.net That one for the boring part-go to technik, and click on "Raumschiffe", search for LEiff >Erikson, then you'll see what I mean The starships in the German space opera "Perry Rhodan" are globes with the engines housed in an annular ring at the equator. These vessels can be several kilometers in diameter. Spheres are a very sensible design for spacecraft, but they are visually a tad dull. Rex Amundi Human I did some calculations, and if the Andromeda masses in at 96,000 tonnes like people says it does than it's have a diameter of 82 meters. But I don't really believe the figure of 96,000,000 kg, that seems way to small for something the size of Andromeda, yet with their gravirt control technology they may have been able to make the ship lighter thereby increasing acceleration and top speed. Anyway, the figure of 82 m is much smaller than any of the dimensions of Andromeda, so it really would be much smaller and harder to hit. Tetzner Nietzschean quote: Originally posted by The Sarge: Besides, who'd want to answer Rommie, armed with 40 missile tubes, plus AP and plasma cannon, PDLs, combat drones, Tweedles, and slipfighters, when she asks, "Does this hull make me look fat?" That answer could only be yes. But the ships in perry rhodan do not look bad... Brian McGuinness Nightsider quote: Originally posted by Jorgasnarova: The starships in the German space opera "Perry Rhodan" are globes with the engines housed in an annular ring at the equator. These vessels can be several kilometers in diameter. Spheres are a very sensible design for spacecraft, but they are visually a tad dull. As I recall, that was true of the large Arkonide starships and copies made by other civilizations, but I believe that the Springers used cylindrical ships, some other group (the Fantan people?) had wasp-waisted ships, and humans used a variety of shapes, including a bar with a sphere at each end (the Sol?). There were also some smaller, disk-like ships. Spheres don't have to look dull if you plaster enough high-tech-looking junk on the outside. Look at the Borg queen's ship, for example. --- Brian EdBlackadder Nietzschean quote: Originally posted by Rex Amundi: In the Nights Dawn trilogy all starships are spherical, because to go through a wormhole you have to be. The only reason they didn't like it was because of aestetics, the fact that a ball simply didn't look right. Probably been corrupted by the sci-fi shows that make ships streamlined. Other than that it was a good idea. Despite all the ships being of the same design heritage they were all different, with various sizes and extra on the outside. They also had the magority of their thrust directed along the axis of there craft, if i remember right. Tetzner Nietzschean quote: Originally posted by Brian McGuinness: As I recall, that was true of the large Arkonide starships and copies made by other civilizations, but I believe that the Springers used cylindrical ships, some other group (the Fantan people?) had wasp-waisted ships, and humans used a variety of shapes, including a bar with a sphere at each end (the Sol?). There were also some smaller, disk-like ships. Spheres don't have to look dull if you plaster enough high-tech-looking junk on the outside. Look at the Borg queen's ship, for example. --- Brian Not to froget the druuf, teh laren, the Topsiders, tefroders, Lemuren, tradom, eltanen, akonides, barkonides..... I could og on liek this for hours.... Brian McGuinness Nightsider quote: Originally posted by Tetzner: Not to froget the druuf, teh laren, the Topsiders, tefroders, Lemuren, tradom, eltanen, akonides, barkonides..... I could og on liek this for hours.... Ok. I have only read the ACE Books translations of the first 130 or so stories, so my familiarity with some of these is limited to reviews posted on the web by other people who have read them. But anyway, I got the impression that some people thought that all of the ships in Perry Rhodan were spherical, so I wanted to point out that a variety of other shapes were used as well. I personally believe that simpler shapes such as spheres, cylinders, and so on will prove more practical than Andromeda's fractal-like design. But I recall reading somewhere that the Commonwealth could afford to design for aesthetics rather than just for functionality. Fortunately, by the time of the Commonwealth the bozos responsible for today's modern art are long dead, so the Andromeda doesn't look like a bunch of randomly selected trash thrown in a pile and welded together. --- Brian