On 5 Aug 2016 at 18:27, Abu Dhabi wrote:

> Extrapolating the drive performance tables, I've come up with
> something to the tune of a 750 dton fusion power plant required to
> perform at rating 1. Since this is a space station, all it needs is
> some light station-keeping, I figure a 200 dton or so M-drive will
> suffice for that and keeping artificial gravity working. This all
> would eat about 500 dtons of hydrogen fuel per two weeks, so I figure
> a 5000 dton storage tank would be nice to have - with adequate amounts
> of processors to sell refined fuel to ship who dock here. A backup
> power plant would be nice to have - maybe a small (100-200 dton)
> fission plant with a few weeks worth of radioactives stored, in case
> someone knocks out the primary plant; enough to run sensors and
> weapons, but not all the lights and artificial gravity. 

Well, given the size, it might be a thought to spin it for gravity
(remember that you need a rather larger radius for comfort than we
used to think). That'd avoid some problems if you get power knocked
out.

> Speaking of sensors, I'd just go overboard with backups - basic
> military sensors are very cheap in space and credits, and being
> blinded because of destroyed sensors sucks. For weapons, I'd figure an
> even split between various types of lasers, missile launchers and
> sandcasters, plus a couple of bay weapons. Typical 4-point crystaliron
> armour - though not sure about that, since it would seriously inflate
> the cost of the already ginormous (~10 GCr) hull cost.

Put some of the sensors *and* some of the weapons on remote
platforms. But seperately (ie don't put weapons *and* sensors on the
same platform).

This not only gives you extra redundancy, it also gives you both
weapons and sensors that are spread out over a fair volume (say a
good chunk of the jump limit for the station or planet)

Makes it harder to snheak up, and the spread has advantages for both
locating things and targetting things.
--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com