Academy Trainer

I've been working on a wripe-up for the Batam-class trainer from the Stafleet Academy boxed set and have run into a problem. Spefically, a power problem.

As the trainer lacks a warp drive, it it left with only it's Class 3A impulse engine(s) and some auiliary reacotrs for power. If I give the ship two impulse engines, it only generates around 56 power-which isn't enough when you compare the ship to shuttlecraft.

Anyone got any ideas on how to boost the ship up so that it can power its shields, and basic systems?

Given that space stations don't have warp drives and yet have massive amounts of power available (or should), I'll ask this silly question:

Can you give it a warp engine without having warp nacelles?


BJ

I think that if you look at the DS9 tech manual, it states that the station is powered by a huge fusion reactor. As Spacedock does not provide for larger reactors than those used as aux power, the only way to simulate this would be to use a warp core. Perhaps in a similar manner to SFB's aux warp reactor, except on a larger scale. Just my thoughts on the matter

You can have a warp core without nacelles, just to provide power.

Power for impulse-only ships is one of those issues that simply can't be resolved satisfactorily given the conflicts between canon information, game balance, and other such considerations. Impulse-only ships (including separated saucers) have enough Power to do whatever's necessary on the shows because the writers want them to have that much power. But in game terms, if impulse engines are made that powerful, they become unbalancingly effective, and also run into problems related to canon and quasi-canon information, and such.

In the end, I recommend this solution: wing it. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif

Steve Long

Seve Long said:
"Power for impulse-only ships is one of those issues that simply can't be resolved satisfactorily given the conflicts between canon information, game balance, and other such considerations....But in game terms, if impulse engines are made that powerful, they become unbalancingly effective, and also run into problems related to canon and quasi-canon information, and such."

I understand the "game balance" question but what cannon and semi-cannon sources contradict the idea the fusion reactors can power a ship?

------------------
Just remember, even though it’s a vacuum,
In space no one can hear you Clean.
-J.T.


[This message has been edited by J T (edited 04-25-2001).]

Thanks for the Warp Engine idea folks. I reread the description of the trainer, and it states that the ship lacks a warp drive-but says nothing about a warp core.
I put in a Type 1/A warp core with an output of 90 and it works like a charm. I should have the stats ready for upload by tomorrow (got to proffread it and check my math).

JT-
THe cannon and semi-cannon stuff Mr. Long was reffering to is most general TREK lore dating back to Roddenberry and TOS, and still mentioned in the "modern trek era" the reason why most starships have a warp core is in order to be able to generate enough power for Faster-Than-Light travel. This was becuase anitmatter propulsion was considered an efficient form of power generation in the 60s.

According to the TNG TECH MANUAL the power cost for Warp Travel increases in a non-lineral curve-almost a logithimic progression. This would be a pain for a RPG (picture running a Galaxy-class starship with 650 MILLION power points).
,

Quote:

---

I understand the "game balance" question but what cannon and semi-cannon sources contradict the idea the fusion reactors can power a ship?

---

Let me make sure I'm clear about a couple of things here. First, I'm not referring to using impulse engines to attain warp speeds; that's definitely not possible. I'm talking about using impulse engines to supply power to all other systems, basically.

Second, I never said that impulse engines couldn't "power" a ship. What I said, if perhaps unclearly, is that impulse engines alone can't provide the power needed to run an entire ship -- particularly weapons and shields, which suck up lots of power. While it might be possible, even in game terms, to run most of the systems on a ship using impulse power -- after all, most systems don't cost much Power -- when you throw the tactical systems into the mix, it seems to me that it won't work (even if you have really weak shields and the best type of impulse engine).

The "canon and semi-canon" sources I was referring to weren't anything specific so much as they were negative implications. Warp cores take up a lot of space, and it seems to me that a lot of small ships that don't really need warp capability -- such as fighters -- wouldn't bother with them if they could provide sufficient Power via impulse engines alone. Furthermore, AFAIK, no source, such as the TNGTM, makes any reference to running large ships solely off of impulse power. I find it hard to believe that this wouldn't crop up somewhere if it were possible.

OTOH, there are two sides to this argument. One can point, for example, to the Bajoran Impulse Ship and Assault Vessel, neither of which have warp cores. Surely they must have some shields, mustn't they?

And then we've got the game balance and complexity consideration issues to take into account. I won't bother delving into them in-depth, since I think most people grok them pretty well. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/wink.gif

Obviously, reasonable minds may differ on these issues. So, if you want to jigger things around to make impulse engines better at powering a whole ship, go for it! http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif

Steve Long

I did work out a table of larger Fusion Reactors, though I never got any responses on it. The table was derived from the Warp Cores and the Impulse Engines with the Aux reactor as the base. I hope this helps; also any suggestions would be appreciated.

Here it is: http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/For...ML/000188.html

Makklor

Quote:

---

Originally posted by J T:


I understand the "game balance" question but what cannon and semi-cannon sources contradict the idea the fusion reactors can power a ship?

---

As far as I know there are no canon sources indicating that a fusion reactor can power a warp engine. There ARE canon sources which show that the power source does not have to be anti-matter.


------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

One distinction I make in my games that it seems many people don't is that the "warp core" and "warp engines" are two different things.

The object refered to in ST as a warp core is really an antimatter reactor. It is called the warp core in ST because in Starfleet ships it is physically connected to the warp engines and is primarily used to power FTL flight.

Nothing I have ever seen indicates that the power for the warp engines MUST come from the warp core, and it has been shown that the warp core can be powered other ways than with antimatter.

Again, creating antimater, even in the ST era, is wasteful of power. It takes more conventional energy to create than you get out of it. The only time it is useful is when you need a powerful energy source that will fit into a compact area. Ground installations and most space stations would not use antimatter power.

Conversely, vessels that needed a small source of additional power might have an antimatter reactor even if they don't have warp engines.

I am planning a low tech race for my campaign that uses fusion reactors and energy capacitors to store up energy for "warp jumps".

------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

[This message has been edited by calguard66 (edited 04-26-2001).]

What powered Cochrane's Pheonix?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mig1:
What powered Cochrane's Pheonix?

---

"Canon-wise" we really don't know... the movie doesn't say.

However, as he was using a modified ICBM, I assume he used some sort of fission reactor using the plutonium from the warheads. It was a short jump so, if you assume that a fission reactor couldn't produce the power required, capacitors to store the charge make sense.

It would also explain how they got back to Earth after jumping halfway across the Solar System. They just waited for the capacitors to charge up again.

It doesn't explain how they achieved a sucessfull re-entry.




------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

Sorry for the delay on the trainer, but I've been having problems with the network that have been keeping me from getting acess to the file with my notes.

I will try to get the trainer posted soon.

Here is the write-up for the Batam-class trainer with warp core. I tired to convert it from the FUG system into SPACEDOCK, using Shuttlecraft stats as a guide. I think I need to knock about 40 SUs off the total, but here is what it looks like currently-

Class and Type: Bantam-class Trainer
Comissioning Date:

HULL SYSTEMS
Size: 1 (4m x 3.2m x0.8m, 1 deck; 1.98 metric tons)
SU's Available: 325
SU's USed: 323

HULL
Outer 4
Inner 4

RESISTANCE
Outer Hull: 4 3
Inner Hull: 4 3

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY FIELD
Main: Class 1 [Protection 40/60]
[1 Power/10 Protection/round] 14
Backup: Class 1 [Protection 20]
[1 Power/10 Protection/round] 7
Backup: Class 1 [Protection 20]
[1 Power/10 Protection/round] 7

Specialized Hull: Atmospheric Capability;
Planetfall Capability 4

PERSONNEL SYSTEMS

Crew/Passengers/Evac: 1/1/2
Crew Quarters: None

ENVIORNMENTAL SYSTEMS
Basic Life Support: [2 Power/round] 4
Reserve Life Support [1 Power/round] 2
Emergency Life Support [no emergency shelters] 2
Gravity [1 Power/round] 1
Consumables: None
Replicator Systems: Usually None
Medical Facilities: 1 [+0] [1 Power/round] 5
Recreational Facilities: None
Personnel Transport: Jeffries tubes at the most 2
Fire Suppression System [1 Power/round whem active] 1
Cargo Holds: None
Escape Pods: None

PROPULSION SYSTEMS

IMPULSE ENGINE
Type: Class 3A [.5c/.75c] [5/7 Power/round]
Location: aft 18
Acceleration Uprating: Class Beta (75% acceleration)
[2 Power/round when active] 4
Type: Class 3A [.5c/.75c] [5/7 Power/round]
Location: aft 18
Acceleration Uprating: Class Beta (75% acceleration)
[2 Power/round when active] 4

Reaction Control System [.025c] [2 Power/round when in use] 2

Impulse Thrusters?: Cost 2 power 2SU? on some high perfomrance models.

POWER SYSTEMS
Warp Engine: Class 1/A (generates 90 Power/round) 24
Location: Aft
Impulse Engines(S): 2 Class 3A (generate 28 Power/engine/round)
Auxiliary Power: 1 reactor (generates 5 Power/round) 3
Emergency Power: Type A (generates 25 Power/round) 25
EPS: Standard Power flow, +100 Power transfer/round 15

Standard Usable Power: 146

OPERATIONS SYSTEMS
Bridge: Forward 15

COMPUTER
Core 1: Amidships [5 Power/round] 2

Navigational Deflector [5 Power/round] 8
Range: 10/20,000/50,000/150,000
Accuracy: 5/6/8/11
Location: Ventral

Sensor Systems
Long-range Sensors [5 Power/round] 18
Range Package: Type 2 (Accuracy 3/4/7/10)
High Resolution: 5 light-years (.5/.6-1.0/1.1-3.5/3.6-5.0)
Low Resolution: 12 light-years (1/1.1-3.0/3.1-8.0/8.1-12)
Strength Package: Class 5 (Strength 5)
Gain Package: Standard (+0)
Coverage: Standard
Lateral Sensors [5 Power/round] 10
Strength Package: Class 5 (Strength 5)
Gain Package: Standard (+0)
Coverage: Standard
Navigational Sensors [5 Power/round] 10
Strength Package: Class 5 (Strength 5)
Gain Package: Standard (+0)
Coverage: Standard
Probes: None

FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEMS
Autopilot: Shipboard Systems (Flight Control) 2, Coordination 1
[1 Power/round in use] 7
Navigational Computer
Main: Class 1 [+0] [0 Power/round] 0
Backups: 1 0
Inertial Damping Field
Main: Class 0.75 [3 Power/round] 2
Backup [2 Power/round] 1
Attitude Control [1 Power/round] 1
Manual Steering ZColulm?

COMMUNCATIONS SYSTEMS
Type: Class 5 [2 Power/round] 10
Strength: 5
Security: -2

TRACTOR BEAMS
Emitter: Class Alpha [3 Power/Strength used/round] 3
Accuracy: 5/6/8/11
Location: Foward

TRANSPORTERS
None

Cloaking Device: None

SECURITY SYSTEMS
Rating: N/A
Anti-Intruder Systems: Yes [1 Power/round] 1
Internal Force Fields [1 Power/3 Strength] 1

SCIENCE SYSTEMS 6
Rating: 1
Specilizaed Systems: None standard; although can be added
Laboratories: None


TACTICAL SYSTEMS

Shields (Foward, Aft, Port, Starboard) 12 (x4)
Sheidl Generator: Class 1 [Protection 120]
[12 Power/shield/round]
Shield Grid: Typce C [50% increase to 180 Protection]
Subspace Field Distortion Amplifiers: Class Alpha (Threshold 40)
Recaharging Systems: Class 1 (45 seconds)
Backup Shield Generators: 4 (1 per shield) 4

AUXILIARY SPACECRAFT SYSTEMS
None




[This message has been edited by tonyg (edited 05-01-2001).]

The episode 'The First Duty' clearly refers to a transporter system udes for bailing out (when talking about the trainer accident), I dont think it would be too far fetched to consider an emergency transporter addition to this template for this purpose...

------------------
Dan.

"A couple of thoughts from a random mind!"

Dan's right. I think they called it the "emergency beam-out transporter". I used the same thing in my Snipehawk design.

------------------

:) <<<<

LUGTrek isn't really dead. Not as long as we remember it.

An emergency tranporter? Thanks for the info-it has been some time since I saw that TNG episode.

I am sort of hoping to go over the design later in the week and trim off about 40-50SUs. The design in the Academy book is similar in performance to a shuttle and so I used the SPACEDOCK shuttle write-up as a basic pattern.

I also am planning of working up a few variants including a high performance model designed for "astrobatics". This might help to explain the fact that the tranier in the sourcebooks looks different than the one that has appeared on screen.

Suggestions from another smallcraft designer

Drop the medical and science systems

Get rid of the tractor beam (though it could be used in some versions)

Get rid of Long Range Sensors (ships in a system can rely on other resources for this.)

Drop the grid type downward (it's a trainer not a high performence fighter.)

No bridge needed (the ODN network performs this role when coupled with the joystick)

And unless your defending yourself from that mad gang of notorious pirate smurfs get rid of the security systems.

Just a few hints http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by Eric R. (edited 05-04-2001).]

I agree with all of the above with two exceptions...

Drop the medical and science systems

- Not quite disagree a zero point science system is simply the minimum neccesary, sure the trainer would be unable to survey planets, conduct experiments, but it would be able to analyse data... Likewise even a trainer is likely to have a medkit aboard (the definition of a 1-point medical system), so in this I disagree

So its not quite the absence of science and medical, simply a lack of need for huge systems.

Get rid of Long Range Sensors (ships in a system can rely on other resources for this.)

- This I definatly disagree with, sure the ship is likely to be flying in known space, sure its going to have access to the data from the nearby spacestation, but when the instructors want to train the cadets in 'hands on' sensor training, they wouldn't limit their range to a single light year...

That said there may well be different varients, a very basic trainer and a slightly more advanced version (possibly a 2 seater) for more in-depth training flights...



------------------
Dan.

"A couple of thoughts from a random mind!"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyg:
I've been working on a wripe-up for the Batam-class trainer from the Stafleet Academy boxed set and have run into a problem. Spefically, a power problem.

As the trainer lacks a warp drive, it it left with only it's Class 3A impulse engine(s) and some auiliary reacotrs for power. If I give the ship two impulse engines, it only generates around 56 power-which isn't enough when you compare the ship to shuttlecraft.

Anyone got any ideas on how to boost the ship up so that it can power its shields, and basic systems?

---

Even if I like your design with the warp core (and I do!) I am not sure if a warp core is really necessary. How about Class 5 or 5A Impulse Engines? Two of those would give you 80 or 88 power per round. I haven't checked the power consumption in detail, but it should work.

My resoning is that Starfleet would rather hand a cadet an underpowered craft for training, than one with a warp core. If there are problems with the warp core during flight, who would take care of it? After all the cadet who pilots this baby has his hands full with flying and warp core problems can get quite serious.
Even if the cadet beams to safety Starfleet could loose the training craft, which I'm sure they wouldn't like. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
"To seek, to strive, to find and not to yield" - Alfred Tennyson

All trainers should be 2 seaters, especially "basic" training craft. Starfleet should have an impulse trainer, and a warp trainer.

Both craft should have a reasonable set of whatever equipment a Cadet pilot would be trained on... sensors, communications, etc.

This is because flight training usually is done in "blocks"... for the sensor block you could use an impluse trainer, even if the student has "graduated" to warp powered craft, because the warp system isn't required for that part of the sensor training.

------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

But what about training cadets in how to read the sensors at warp speed? http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif

Maybe some of the advanced trainers could be equipped with a "mini-Nebula" swappable pod system. One pod could hold long-range sensors, another could hold Type I phasers and a micro-torp launcher, another could hold a heavy cargo transporter, another could have a souped-up shield system and inertial dampers and structural integrity fields to practice high-speed maneuvering in asteroid belts or planetary rings. Any more ideas?

------------------

:) <<<<

LUGTrek isn't really dead. Not as long as we remember it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarge:
But what about training cadets in how to read the sensors at warp speed? http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif

---

That would be another, more advanced block of training. If the POI didn't require warp speed, then you could use the impulse trainers, while somebody else used the warp trainers for something that required warp speed.



------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

Folks,
Thanks for the input. There are a lot of good ideas.

But, I would like to explain that I was trying to convert the trainer from the STARFELEET ACADEMY sourcebook, not design a whole new ship. Some of the systems that found thier way into the tranier came from the LUG write-up of the tranier in STARFLEET ACADEMY. Hence, the ratingings for crew, Long-Range Senseors and tractor beams (besides the tractor beam could be very useful if the impulse drives go off-line).

Power was also determined based upon the fact that the LUG write-up has the ship with slightly less power than a shuttlecraft.

As for a warp core, that was really the only way to reach this level of power. While I could have put in a more powerful impulse system, the LUG stats for a trainer resulted in the choice of the 3A. This left the ship wihtout sufficient enegy to power up its shields. According to the write-up in SFA, the ships lack warp engines only to keep the trainers from getting to far out of system, not becuase of any difficulties with handling a warp core. I figure warp core, like transporters and holodecks, are really much safer to opertate when not the focus of this weeks epsiode.

Likewise medical systems were placed in a Level 1, since even shuttlecraft have this. I suspect this is to represent the emergency medical kits that get pulled out of the walls whenever we see a shuttle crash, and not anything approaching a staffed sickedbay.

This also holds for Level 1 security systems, since even shuttlepods have them.


A bridge, appears to be a requirement of any starship design (even the Starfleet shuttles and fighters have them).

In fact, the idea stressed in STARFLEET ACADEMY Was that the trainers are "workhorses" that get used to teach the cadets how to handle a starship, and trainers are often used to "mimic" handling larger vessels. It seemed that in order to do so effectively, it would be best to incoroporate those systems into the craft.

Personally, there are a few things that I don't think the trainer needs, but that starfleet chooce to incoroprate into the design for training purposes. For example, I don't think deflector shields are really necessary for the trainer, since I don't see cadets being out in situations where shields will be needed. But the original design had shuttlecraft strength shields, so my write does too.

I do think that the idea of modification packages and special mission upgrades made a lot of sense for the trainer.

I was thinking of a few types, but they will have to wait until I get the cost down to around 300, so there is room for other stuff.