[Spaceships] Are spaceships unrealistically cheap?

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Vehicles can be really cheap. We don't usually make them that cheap because cheap = cruddy. Bear in mind, spaceships actually operate in a very forgiving environment.

Umm, I'd say quite the opposite when it comes to environment. When my car breaks down I don't have to worry about the environment killing me or being a billion miles from the nearest rescue vehicle. Nor does the oxygen I breathe come directly from the car itself. Airplanes and Spacecraft cost a lot to buy and maintain because the results of a system breakdown, any system breakdown, can be catastrophic.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold

On a tangentially-related note, I think that including kind of generic vehicle-design system similar to GURPs Spaceships would be a good idea. There are already seeds of it in the Spaceships system, they just need to be generalized better and cross-checked to make sure that a space-fighter isn't cheaper than an air-fighter.

You might want to check out the article Alternate Spaceships from Pyramid #3/34, it includes rules for creating ground and water vehicles using Spaceships. With these additions the only egregious oversight is propellers for prop-driven airplanes.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by GreatWyrmGold

On a tangentially-related note, I think that including kind of generic vehicle-design system similar to GURPs Spaceships would be a good idea. There are already seeds of it in the Spaceships system, they just need to be generalized better and cross-checked to make sure that a space-fighter isn't cheaper than an air-fighter.

If you give a space fighter and an atmosphere fighter the same level of capabilities (i.e. armor, weapons, etc) except for propulsion they'll be different in price only by the cost of the propulsion system.

[Bruno]

Currently all aircraft and spacegraft have to operate within Earths gravity well, in the significant portion of the atmosphere. Spacecraft further have to leave the well, and then do re-entry.

Those are some harsh conditions. Spacecraft operating at a sane distance from a gravity well can be "parked" much like a car - with a reasonable certainty that you know where it will be in a week or a year (moving, admittedly, and still under the force of gravity, but predictably moving and with really relatively little to bump into once you're out of the orbital trash field).

The lifesystem problems are nothing to sneeze at, but once you get out of the well and the atmosphere and the trash field, you don't have the "blink and everyone dies in a gigantic fireball or horrendous kinetic kill incident" problem that cars and airplanes and shuttles have.

Cars in particular are inherently dangerous vehicles because they operate so close to the Earths surface, where all the collision hazards love to go due to gravity. A car is not safe to have break down when moving, because a loss-of-control incident is likely to lead to hitting something. Airplanes give you a shocking amount of time to try and recover, cars do not.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

Umm, I'd say quite the opposite when it comes to environment. When my car breaks down I don't have to worry about the environment killing me or being a billion miles from the nearest rescue vehicle.

Well, yes, the consequences of problems can be dire, but the environment itself doesn't do much to damage the vehicle.

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Well, yes, the consequences of problems can be dire, but the environment itself doesn't do much to damage the vehicle.

The problem is that any damage or breakdown can be catastrophic, which means that building spacecraft cheap has much harsher consequences than building cars cheap.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Cars in particular are inherently dangerous vehicles because they operate so close to the Earths surface, where all the collision hazards love to go due to gravity. A car is not safe to have break down when moving, because a loss-of-control incident is likely to lead to hitting something. Airplanes give you a shocking amount of time to try and recover, cars do not.

Keep in mind that most car accidents are not mechanical in nature, they are driver errors. And even at speed, many mechanical breakdowns in a car do not necessarily lead to an accident. An engine blowing up can mean the car comes to a very fast halt, but does not necessarily mean the car will crash.

Most aircraft and spacecraft accidents can be traced directly to mechanical failures. This is largely due to the increased training and safety procedures, but also due the safety and redundant systems built into aircraft and spacecraft.

[sir_pudding]

A spacecraft at minimum is just propulsion and navigation, (plus life-support, if manned). If you don't need to worry about escape velocity or reentry the requirements are pretty minimal. Which is why you have the trope of teenagers on space stations building ships out of junk. A fire extinguisher and a space suit is all it takes for a rudimentary "ship". Of course the same thing happens with go-karts built from salvaged lawnmowers on Earth.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

If you give a space fighter and an atmosphere fighter the same level of capabilities (i.e. armor, weapons, etc) except for propulsion they'll be different in price only by the cost of the propulsion system.

Only if you include a aerodynamic, lift-generating hull design in the 'capabilities', which is rather unfair to the space fighter.

If you don't it will be cheaper by omitting wings at a minimum, and is likely to ditch streamlining to lower the cost (or mass) of armor.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

The problem is that any damage or breakdown can be catastrophic, which means that building spacecraft cheap has much harsher consequences than building cars cheap.

Remember it's a three way tradeoff, not a two way. If you want cheap and reliable, you just have to tolerate low performance.

[Lord Azagthoth]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Well, yes, the consequences of problems can be dire, but the environment itself doesn't do much to damage the vehicle.

I don't see small rocks flying at 36.000kph towards my car or its passengers getting radiated by the sun or cosmic radiation.