Potential problems of deck orientation in spider drive ships

So, the decks of a spider drive ship are perpendicular to the acceleration axis. Or to put it another way, like the floors of a skyscraper laid on it's side. It was pointed out somewhere that the triple skeg form would allow for three (six?) missile broadside arrays.

But if the decks are laid out perpendicular to the acceleration axis that would mean that each missile tube would have to be split up between however many decks needed to fit them in. I picture it as being one deck for each tube along with all off it's service and loading spaces and machinery.

Which brings up an additional problem. Missile stowage, and handling to the various tubes/decks. It seems to me to be a complex problem for the ship's architects to plan for. Not to mention having to design a completely different method to account for the difference from a standard deck configuration. They'd more or less have to reinvent the wheel bc the standard for missile stowage and delivery probably wouldn't be a very good fit.

I wonder how they would get around to missile stowage? Have multiple stowage spaced out up and down the decks, with delivery to only a few in a row being alloted to each storage deck? That would also mean many more separate nissile stowage bays rather than just two or three. Not very efficient.

Yes, I know that I'm trying once again to find ways to have spider drive ships be as much trouble to operate to detract from their obvious positive aspects as possible to give the good guys a leg up in a bad situation. There are just too many ways that spider drive ships have advantages built in, that there should be disadvantages offsetting some of that.

Can anyone see any additional problems that need to be accomodated due to the required layout of the decks in a spider drive ship?

Or ANY disadvantages of a spider drive ship at all. I've already pointed out (in another forum) it's (relatively) low acceleration rates. No spider drive ship will be running away from a manty ship. Stuff like that.

From an engineering perspective, orientation for missiles etc makes zero difference. On top of that Honorverse appears to use grav collars to move missiles etc making G force vector truly irrelevant.

Spider drive, when operational, might invalidate a ships greatest armor: its sidewall. Spider drive requires tractor beams grabbing alpha wall at various angles one would presume and not fixed(though it is possible to move via fixed tractors as well, but redundancy should be a bit odd to implement. Spherical sidewalls should be able to be made and they **should** be able to make windows in them as forts have them, but we do not know if those sidewall windows which normally allow missiles/graser/lasers out are compatible with their tractor beams. The above statement should not be valid as we have Electronic warfare drones off port/starboard which we know are tractored with power sent along said tractors, but we do not know if those windows are static or not. I would think they do not need to be static, but is this true on a spherical sidewall? We have seen said windows on SD's on normal sidewalls but never from forts. Personally I think it is a moot argument and would invalidate ones ability to have a Lenny Detweiler class ship to begin with.

Relax wrote:From an engineering perspective, orientation for missiles etc makes zero difference. On top of that Honorverse appears to use grav collars to move missiles etc making G force vector truly irrelevant.

And even within conventional ships the missiles need to move horizontally and vertically to get from the magazines to every missile tube on the ship, as starting with (IIRC) CAs you start to have multiple "gun-decks" of missile tubes - instead of a single line of them along the max beam of the hull. (Though with size creep this may have moved down to the new larger CLs) So naval architect already had to deal with moving missiles along and between decks. (And through all the structural and armored bulkheads that break those decks up into compartments)

Having more decks due to the skyscraper orientation of a spider ship doesn't really change that challenge. And keep in mind that even the Sharks probably have at least a 170m diameter decks -- 2-3x as wide as the skyscrapers we're used to. There's a lot of room in there for lift shafts, missile feed tubes, and other engineering infrastructure without cutting too deeply into usable floorspace.


Now depending on just how large the Graser Torp is I guess it's possible that the feed and launch tubes for that are taller than a single deck -- but that'd be true whichever way the decks were oriented.

Relax wrote:From an engineering perspective, orientation for missiles etc makes zero difference. On top of that Honorverse appears to use grav collars to move missiles etc making G force vector truly irrelevant.

Spider drive, when operational, might invalidate a ships greatest armor: its sidewall. Spherical sidewalls should be able to be made and they **should** be able to make windows in them as forts have them, but we do not know if those sidewall windows which normally allow missiles/graser/lasers out are compatible with their tractor beams. The above statement should not be valid as we have Electronic warfare drones off port/starboard which we know are tractored with power sent along said tractors, but we do not know if those windows are static or not. I would think they do not need to be static, but is this true on a spherical sidewall? We have seen said windows on SD's on normal sidewalls but never from forts. Personally I think it is a moot argument and would invalidate ones ability to have a Lenny Detweiler class ship to begin with.

I don't know, it seems to me that from an efficiency standpoint, at least, that having multiple smaller missile storage decks, and all the associated delivery mechanisms over and over again is a definite negative to that needed in a ship with only two, or three storage areas. I saw a cutawzy of an Honorverse ship once and storage and delivery is straightforward with a normal configuration. Loading missiles into storage requires fewer access points rather than multiple access hatches, and isn't a hatch a potential weakness in the hull?

I like the point about sidewalls. Without the wedge to stitch the sidewall to, you're forced to a spherical sidewzll. I don't think that I've ever read anything about the relative strength or reliability in a spherical sidewall as opposed to a standard sidewall. It might be that the greater surface area of a spherical sidewall would allow more hits to be able to land and weaken it. Not to mention more angles of attack too. And that's all good as far as I'm concerned

Mycall4me wrote:

Relax wrote:From an engineering perspective, orientation for missiles etc makes zero difference. On top of that Honorverse appears to use grav collars to move missiles etc making G force vector truly irrelevant.

Spider drive, when operational, might invalidate a ships greatest armor: its sidewall. Spherical sidewalls should be able to be made and they **should** be able to make windows in them as forts have them, but we do not know if those sidewall windows which normally allow missiles/graser/lasers out are compatible with their tractor beams. The above statement should not be valid as we have Electronic warfare drones off port/starboard which we know are tractored with power sent along said tractors, but we do not know if those windows are static or not. I would think they do not need to be static, but is this true on a spherical sidewall? We have seen said windows on SD's on normal sidewalls but never from forts. Personally I think it is a moot argument and would invalidate ones ability to have a Lenny Detweiler class ship to begin with.

I don't know, it seems to me that from an efficiency standpoint, at least, that having multiple smaller missile storage decks, and all the associated delivery mechanisms over and over again is a definite negative to that needed in a ship with only two, or three storage areas. I saw a cutawzy of an Honorverse ship once and storage and delivery is straightforward with a normal configuration. Loading missiles into storage requires fewer access points rather than multiple access hatches, and isn't a hatch a potential weakness in the hull?

Why would you have to break the missile storage up differently? It's not like a magazine on a conventional ship fits into a single deck; nor does it have human walkways within it. It's basically a cube of automated storage machinery; and won't much care which direction gravity is pointing.

You can lay out the exact same missile distribution tubes as you would on a conventional ship; except now they go vertically through floors and ceilings rather than horizontally through bulkheads. But the missile moving machinery won't care. It's not like it's sliding the missile along rollers on the horizontal floor of the tube. (And, as per my previously post, larger Honorverse ships, some CAs, all BCs, BBs, DNs, and SD, have multiple gun-decks; all served by the deeply buried central magazines -- so missile tubes moving them vertically is a solved problem.

[/quote]Why would you have to break the missile storage up differently? It's not like a magazine on a conventional ship fits into a single deck; nor does it have human walkways within it. It's basically a cube of automated storage machinery; and won't much care which direction gravity is pointing.

You can lay out the exact same missile distribution tubes as you would on a conventional ship; except now they go vertically through floors and ceilings rather than horizontally through bulkheads. But the missile moving machinery won't care. It's not like it's sliding the missile along rollers on the horizontal floor of the tube. (And, as per my previously post, larger Honorverse ships, some CAs, all BCs, BBs, DNs, and SD, have multiple gun-decks; all served by the deeply buried central magazines -- so missile tubes moving them vertically is a solved problem.[/quote]





Okay I'll buy that. But if I can't have THAT as a weakness, what are your thoughts about the spherical sidewall thing? I know I'm reaching here, but I really want to be able to find SOME weaknesses to spider drive ships to offset their advantages. It just seems so damned unfair just trying to find the damn things, I really would like for something if we DO manage to find them.

So sperical sidewalls, more chances and angles to hit a sperical sidewall and weaken or damage it. Yes?

Low accelleration, not being able to run away from any ship that does find it. True? Anything else?

No reason spider drive ships cannot have an impeller wedge as well as long as the triple skeg fits within the compensator field. Now total volume of used compensator field will be MUCH less than a normal impeller drive ship which tries to use every available cubic meter, but...

Relax wrote:No reason spider drive ships cannot have an impeller wedge as well as long as the triple skeg fits within the compensator field. Now total volume of used compensator field will be MUCH less than a normal impeller drive ship which tries to use every available cubic meter, but...

I don't remember the thread, but there was a convincing agument that spider drive ships COULDN'T have a wedge. There were 4 or 5 people that agreed with that theory.

As you might guess I was one of them. I really, really would hope that RFC was one of them too. It's a damn shame that he's too damn busy to come on to the forums and let us know what his thoughts are on the matter. After all, if anybody would know something like that it would be him.

Mycall4me wrote:Okay I'll buy that. But if I can't have THAT as a weakness, what are your thoughts about the spherical sidewall thing? I know I'm reaching here, but I really want to be able to find SOME weaknesses to spider drive ships to offset their advantages. It just seems so damned unfair just trying to find the damn things, I really would like for something if we DO manage to find them.

So sperical sidewalls, more chances and angles to hit a sperical sidewall and weaken or damage it. Yes?

Low accelleration, not being able to run away from any ship that does find it. True? Anything else?

The biggest flaws with the spherical sidewall for a spider ship are:
a) It's visible on opponents FTL Warshaski detectors when it's operating. Not from as far away as they could see a wedge; but from quite a ways. So you're giving up invisibility, the whole reason for this crazy new propulsion system, in order to gain some protection.

b) It's generator is huge. We don't know quite how huge, but enough that even an 8+ Mton SD would give up too much firepower to carry one for any navy to take that trade-off. Even though it would give them an unstoppable edge if caught in combat in a grav wave; and probably make them less vulnerable if surprised with the wedge down (I'm assuming you can bring up a spherical sidewall in far less than the 15 minutes it takes to go from hot nodes to a wedge, much less the 40 it takes from cold nodes) -- being able to have some protection to buy time to get the wedge up seems useful. But, apparently, not useful enough to install this reportedly massive generator in anybody's warships.

c) The spider drive can't function while it's up. So the spider ship is visible and essentially unable to maneuver (only what it's emergency thrusters and onboard hydrogen supply can manage). So, seems to me, that if forced to pop up the sidewall it's likely to be pinned in place by harassing fire until sufficient force can come up to crush it despite that shield. (Or it manages to run the harassing force out of ammo, allowing it to drop the sidewall and run)

Jonathan_S wrote:

Mycall4me wrote:Okay I'll buy that. But if I can't have THAT as a weakness, what are your thoughts about the spherical sidewall thing? I know I'm reaching here, but I really want to be able to find SOME weaknesses to spider drive ships to offset their advantages. It just seems so damned unfair just trying to find the damn things, I really would like for something if we DO manage to find them.

So sperical sidewalls, more chances and angles to hit a sperical sidewall and weaken or damage it. Yes?

Low accelleration, not being able to run away from any ship that does find it. True? Anything else?

The biggest flaws with the spherical sidewall for a spider ship are:
a) It's visible on opponents FTL Warshaski detectors when it's operating. Not from as far away as they could see a wedge; but from quite a ways. So you're giving up invisibility, the whole reason for this crazy new propulsion system, in order to gain some protection.

b) It's generator is huge. We don't know quite how huge, but enough that even an 8+ Mton SD would give up too much firepower to carry one for any navy to take that trade-off. Even though it would give them an unstoppable edge if caught in combat in a grav wave; and probably make them less vulnerable if surprised with the wedge down (I'm assuming you can bring up a spherical sidewall in far less than the 15 minutes it takes to go from hot nodes to a wedge, much less the 40 it takes from cold nodes) -- being able to have some protection to buy time to get the wedge up seems useful. But, apparently, not useful enough to install this reportedly massive generator in anybody's warships.

c) The spider drive can't function while it's up. So the spider ship is visible and essentially unable to maneuver (only what it's emergency thrusters and onboard hydrogen supply can manage). So, seems to me, that if forced to pop up the sidewall it's likely to be pinned in place by harassing fire until sufficient force can come up to crush it despite that shield. (Or it manages to run the harassing force out of ammo, allowing it to drop the sidewall and run)

Obviously you're one of the people who believe that impeller drives won't be available in a spider drive ship

Well, all of that is encouraging. On point two about size, I seem to recall that the spider drive is a bulky installation, so that is also encouraging (for the good guys)

Where did you get the idea that a spider drive won't operate in a spherical sidewall field?