I was thinking heat sink, too. I picture the station rolling to position the tower away from the primary threat axis in an attack, so it can concentrate its shields and weapons one direction and angle the heat sinks away from the attack in the same movement. Of course, swarming attacks would complicate that, but that would be true regardless.
Since these stations will probably be deployed not only in deep space but also close to planets they will be subject to full gravitational pull. So they’ll need large repulsors to keep a stationary position above a planet or else be restricted to move around the planet in a stable orbit. I could imagine those repulsor arrays to also be located inside the tower.
Fully agree that repulsors are a very common technology in the SWU. I just think that the effect that a technology has (levitation) should have a plausibly sized machinery causing it. And we have a pretty big mass here after all to keep from falling from the sky.
But it’s even easier to justify with this station than it is with a Star Destroyer, since the station doesn’t have to make room for sublight and hyperdrives. No other ship in the SWU has needed externally obvious repulsorlifts, but they’re clearly there and functioning. Why would this station be any different?
The Wookieepedia write-up mentions “36,000 repulsorlift engines”. The ventral tower with the reactor bulb is described as part of the city’s tibanna gas mining function.
It would probably most often be left in stable orbit or lagrange points, or just out in near interplanetary space. Repulsors are definitely assumed though.
It would probably most often be left in stable orbit or lagrange points, or just out in near interplanetary space. Repulsors are definitely assumed though.
Also, there’s an obscure optional rule in one of the WEG sourcebooks where a ship can use static discharge vanes to bleed off ionization effects. Maybe something similar here, only far more robust due to the prominence of the tower? Being able to better resist ion attacks when you can’t evade or run away would be definite asset.
Case
2 years ago
That looks absolutely sick, I can always rely on your posts to make my day a little more interesting
Markov
2 years ago
The ball like features at the top remind me of the trade federation core ships, which served as bridges. With the amount of possible bridge positions, where is the bridge? Also what size escort would it have, in terms of fighters or support ships?
Probably a station deeply buried in the main hull. The platform normally would be part of an integrated defense grid. The hangar space exists for several wings of fighters if needed, but as part for a larger grid it would not necessarily get them.
I always pictured the Golans as only having minimal utility hangars, all tucked away out of direct line of sight. Having an exposed hangar like that seems like an enormous weak spot. What do you picture insofar as steps to offset that weakness?
95%+ of any ship or platform’s survivability comes from the shielding, not armor. It’s not really a weakness. In a gunnery duel against enemy capital ships, you’d be pointing the ‘top’ at the main threat vector anyways, limiting the chance of any local burnthroughs.
Even if that 95% number is accurate, how much of that shielding is coterminous with the hull itself, in the form of magnetic sealing, tensor fields or some other form of structural integrity field system? To my way of thinking, armor isn’t just defined by how well it can absorb damage on its own, but by how well it functions as a wave-guide for the augmentative energy fields that underpin so much of SWU tech. A big, open, exposed hangar bay isn’t going to have that level of protection.
Well, 1) make the hangars themselves completely dispensable with 2m internal blast bulkheads/blast doors and internal shielding layers, and 2) not lose shields and put them down-threat like you’re supposed to. I think for a platform like this they’d allow for starfighter complements if needed, but a lot of the time they’d be there to ease the logistics burden.
There’s a bit of scifi brainbug that “hangars are directly connected to the main reactor/magazines/volatile main power source”, but it really need not be the case, especially when things like shields and force fields exist. Hangars are sort of like… pedestrian gates for castles. They are a structural weakness, and at the same time worth it for the convenience and if those weaknesses can be mitigated so why not?
That’s fair. I suppose it’s a question of how much volume the hangar takes up, and how isolated and compartmentalized it is from the “guts” of the station. The Carrack took this to an extreme by being so compartmentalized that it could only carry starfighters externally. With this being a relatively immobile platform, I can easily see the designers beefing up the internal framework and compartmentalization (ala the Carrack) as much as possible, but that’s directly contrary to the wide open spaces necessitated by hangar bays. Of course, if those bays take up a relatively small percentage of the station’s total volume, and are outside of the “citadel”, it makes more sense.
Yeah by volume we’re talking <10%. You wouldn't shame the boat storage for a battleship for being weakly protected 🙂 It's necessary on a normal basis but if shit hits the fan it's ultimately completely disposable.
Megabalta
2 years ago
Nice touch with the positioning engine, now the bottom tower makes sense instead of just being a visual gag.
Does the station have point defense systems? Laser cannons, dual purpose or light turbolasers, missile systems, jamming countermeasures?
What’s your vision for the tower’s functions, apart from angling the platform?
I was thinking heatsink/power systems. Mostly equipment and mostly unmanned.
I was thinking heat sink, too. I picture the station rolling to position the tower away from the primary threat axis in an attack, so it can concentrate its shields and weapons one direction and angle the heat sinks away from the attack in the same movement. Of course, swarming attacks would complicate that, but that would be true regardless.
Since these stations will probably be deployed not only in deep space but also close to planets they will be subject to full gravitational pull. So they’ll need large repulsors to keep a stationary position above a planet or else be restricted to move around the planet in a stable orbit. I could imagine those repulsor arrays to also be located inside the tower.
Repulsors are pretty much a given in the SWU; you could probably get your kitchen sink equipped with repulsors without too much trouble.
Fully agree that repulsors are a very common technology in the SWU. I just think that the effect that a technology has (levitation) should have a plausibly sized machinery causing it. And we have a pretty big mass here after all to keep from falling from the sky.
But it’s even easier to justify with this station than it is with a Star Destroyer, since the station doesn’t have to make room for sublight and hyperdrives. No other ship in the SWU has needed externally obvious repulsorlifts, but they’re clearly there and functioning. Why would this station be any different?
Since the station is quasi stationary I would rather compare with Cloud City, but I can’t remember if the cross sections depict any repulsors.
The Wookieepedia write-up mentions “36,000 repulsorlift engines”. The ventral tower with the reactor bulb is described as part of the city’s tibanna gas mining function.
It would probably most often be left in stable orbit or lagrange points, or just out in near interplanetary space. Repulsors are definitely assumed though.
It would probably most often be left in stable orbit or lagrange points, or just out in near interplanetary space. Repulsors are definitely assumed though.
Also, there’s an obscure optional rule in one of the WEG sourcebooks where a ship can use static discharge vanes to bleed off ionization effects. Maybe something similar here, only far more robust due to the prominence of the tower? Being able to better resist ion attacks when you can’t evade or run away would be definite asset.
That looks absolutely sick, I can always rely on your posts to make my day a little more interesting
The ball like features at the top remind me of the trade federation core ships, which served as bridges. With the amount of possible bridge positions, where is the bridge? Also what size escort would it have, in terms of fighters or support ships?
Probably a station deeply buried in the main hull. The platform normally would be part of an integrated defense grid. The hangar space exists for several wings of fighters if needed, but as part for a larger grid it would not necessarily get them.
I always pictured the Golans as only having minimal utility hangars, all tucked away out of direct line of sight. Having an exposed hangar like that seems like an enormous weak spot. What do you picture insofar as steps to offset that weakness?
95%+ of any ship or platform’s survivability comes from the shielding, not armor. It’s not really a weakness. In a gunnery duel against enemy capital ships, you’d be pointing the ‘top’ at the main threat vector anyways, limiting the chance of any local burnthroughs.
Even if that 95% number is accurate, how much of that shielding is coterminous with the hull itself, in the form of magnetic sealing, tensor fields or some other form of structural integrity field system? To my way of thinking, armor isn’t just defined by how well it can absorb damage on its own, but by how well it functions as a wave-guide for the augmentative energy fields that underpin so much of SWU tech. A big, open, exposed hangar bay isn’t going to have that level of protection.
Well, 1) make the hangars themselves completely dispensable with 2m internal blast bulkheads/blast doors and internal shielding layers, and 2) not lose shields and put them down-threat like you’re supposed to. I think for a platform like this they’d allow for starfighter complements if needed, but a lot of the time they’d be there to ease the logistics burden.
There’s a bit of scifi brainbug that “hangars are directly connected to the main reactor/magazines/volatile main power source”, but it really need not be the case, especially when things like shields and force fields exist. Hangars are sort of like… pedestrian gates for castles. They are a structural weakness, and at the same time worth it for the convenience and if those weaknesses can be mitigated so why not?
That’s fair. I suppose it’s a question of how much volume the hangar takes up, and how isolated and compartmentalized it is from the “guts” of the station. The Carrack took this to an extreme by being so compartmentalized that it could only carry starfighters externally. With this being a relatively immobile platform, I can easily see the designers beefing up the internal framework and compartmentalization (ala the Carrack) as much as possible, but that’s directly contrary to the wide open spaces necessitated by hangar bays. Of course, if those bays take up a relatively small percentage of the station’s total volume, and are outside of the “citadel”, it makes more sense.
Yeah by volume we’re talking <10%. You wouldn't shame the boat storage for a battleship for being weakly protected 🙂 It's necessary on a normal basis but if shit hits the fan it's ultimately completely disposable.
Nice touch with the positioning engine, now the bottom tower makes sense instead of just being a visual gag.