Historically, Airbus, with it's 'smarter than humans' restrictions on pilot controls, has caused more incidents by preventing pilots from recovering or even knowing they need to recover and letting them stew in somatographic illusion, where a little excursion on the climb control and a shout of the stall alarm would wake everyone up, but yes, Boeing's management, since their recent merger, has made a series of catastrophically idiotic decisions of putting money in their pockets rather than safety in their planes. 737Max being a prime example. I realize as I write this that I am setting myself as a target for Boeing's hit squads.
Cargo Capacity and volume and mass
- Thread starter Badenov
- Start date
casquilho
SOC-13
Is there any corporation today left that does not have Shareholder profit and Exec Bonuses prioritized above all else. Even to the expense of the survivability of the company? super short-term thinking and single focus on the profit for shareholders has killed several companies and yet it seems that is all that exists anymore. 
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
I can think of several, but let's say, that long term strategic aims override the quarterly profit.
casquilho
SOC-13
Any of them in the Fortune 100 or even Fortune 250? And are they traded, or family owned?
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Disney has been accused of a political agenda, though it may have more to do with large investor hedge funds trying out some form of Machiavellian strategy that's meant to mess with their rivals.
Twitter is hemorrhaging capital, and goodwill.
Chinese companies identified as national champions can run at a loss through substantial loans and subsidies.
And then you have Chinese corporations involved in real estate and infrastructure.
Twitter is hemorrhaging capital, and goodwill.
Chinese companies identified as national champions can run at a loss through substantial loans and subsidies.
And then you have Chinese corporations involved in real estate and infrastructure.
casquilho
SOC-13
Disney just laid off hundreds for the second wave this year to ensure their bottom line met Shareholder expectations. Agenda or not, they fit the short-term thinking I spoke about.
But I will stop here as this is for sure plunging into political discussion and not Traveller related conversations.
I also do not have anything to contribute to the topic at hand, "Cargo Capacity and volume and mass" so I will not only stop but step back into the darkness of lurking.
A lot of that is distrust of un-supervised machines. The other large issue is of liability - with a manned aircraft or ship there are well-established rules about that (though in the case of ships they're probably obsolete and need updating), but if the craft is unmanned and it crashes, who's liable? The owner? The designer? The company who coded the flight controls? The person who coded the flight controls? With a manned craft, it's relatively simple - you blame the pilot/captain.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
I keep debating with myself as to posting on this thread, but it has strayed so far from the original post that I think that any post of mine would be lost in the postings.
casquilho
SOC-13
Thread derive is allowed, but this one is stepping too close to political discussion, so, please, return to original discussion
So, back to the main thread: if 1000kg/m^3 is the density of water, then a vessel with a mass of 1000kg/m^3 will float roughly just with the top edge on the surface of the water and nothing above the water. Most things I design using Mongoose book 6 Military Vehicles come in between 200 and 600kg/m^3 depending on how heavily I armor them. Even the heavy bulldozer is ~660kg/m^3, and nearly half that mass is armor. (In our Traveller game we wound up wanting an armored vehicle for one mission; it was way past the law level to get one, so we rented a bulldozer and spent some time modifying it into a killdozer, and small arms ammo made pretty sparks and did not hurt us. Great fun was had except by the gangers we'd been hired to take out, and the owners of the building they'd fortified. It looked suicidal to try and go in through any of the entrances the gangers guarded, so we went in through the wall.)
Is it the case in CT that it's hard to design vehicles that exceed 1000kg/m^3? I can do it, but the vehicles are so weighted down they barely move. In my recent attempt at a light cargo speeder with about 1/3 the space alloocated to cargo, I managed to get the cargo up to 3000kg/m^3 or 18,000kg for a 6 m^3 cargo space. The vehicle was slowed to 62kph top speed/46kph cruise.
For a wheeled vehicle, I need to crank the cargo up way past where the vehicle only runs on special roads to get to 1000kg/m^3, and the top speed has dropped to 31kph, which I guess is reasonable for carrying that much cargo, but it doesn't seem like this is an area that is typically used by anyone? I guess if a car runs off a bridge and into the water, it doesn't sink until it fills up with water at least enough to make the overall density over 1000kg/m^3? My experience with cars in the water is strictly limited to television, and I have no faith that Hollywood tries to get the physics right.
Also, I have discovered that putting 400kg in the trunk of a passenger car-type ground vehicle drops the top speed by 1/3 (186 kph to 112 kph) per Book 6. I have moved and packed far more than 400kg in my car in RL, and it was a bit slow, but not anywhere near that much slower.
Am I doing all this wrong or what? It feels broken.
Is it the case in CT that it's hard to design vehicles that exceed 1000kg/m^3? I can do it, but the vehicles are so weighted down they barely move. In my recent attempt at a light cargo speeder with about 1/3 the space alloocated to cargo, I managed to get the cargo up to 3000kg/m^3 or 18,000kg for a 6 m^3 cargo space. The vehicle was slowed to 62kph top speed/46kph cruise.
For a wheeled vehicle, I need to crank the cargo up way past where the vehicle only runs on special roads to get to 1000kg/m^3, and the top speed has dropped to 31kph, which I guess is reasonable for carrying that much cargo, but it doesn't seem like this is an area that is typically used by anyone? I guess if a car runs off a bridge and into the water, it doesn't sink until it fills up with water at least enough to make the overall density over 1000kg/m^3? My experience with cars in the water is strictly limited to television, and I have no faith that Hollywood tries to get the physics right.
Also, I have discovered that putting 400kg in the trunk of a passenger car-type ground vehicle drops the top speed by 1/3 (186 kph to 112 kph) per Book 6. I have moved and packed far more than 400kg in my car in RL, and it was a bit slow, but not anywhere near that much slower.
Am I doing all this wrong or what? It feels broken.
And as a follow-up, spaceships would need to be 14,000kg per dton to be neutrally bouyant. With 10-60% of the volume filled with 1000kg/dton jump fuel, you'd have to pack the rest very hard to get close to 14,000kg/dton averaged over the ship.
As an aside:
The only version I¡ve designed crafts that discriminated among mass and volume tonnage is MT.
On it, when people uses seats instead of cabins/staterooms, each seat massed 0.02 tons (20 kg), but this was for both, empty and loaded craft.
As a house rule, I added 0.1 ton (100 kg) per person on its loaded mass, as IMHO the mass of the people carried must also be considered in this case. This may have little effect on a space fighter, when the mass of other systems makes it irrellevant, but when you desing an APC, a grav bike or a Bus (be it grav or contact powered), things change a lot, as they do in some of the planes designed in COACC.
Those 100 kg/person may even be quite understated, if they go armored (as per MTJ #1, a BD masses among 20 and 35 kg.
I also house ruled that vacc suit equiped people (CA and BD included) cannot use cramped seats, BTW
The only version I¡ve designed crafts that discriminated among mass and volume tonnage is MT.
On it, when people uses seats instead of cabins/staterooms, each seat massed 0.02 tons (20 kg), but this was for both, empty and loaded craft.
As a house rule, I added 0.1 ton (100 kg) per person on its loaded mass, as IMHO the mass of the people carried must also be considered in this case. This may have little effect on a space fighter, when the mass of other systems makes it irrellevant, but when you desing an APC, a grav bike or a Bus (be it grav or contact powered), things change a lot, as they do in some of the planes designed in COACC.
Those 100 kg/person may even be quite understated, if they go armored (as per MTJ #1, a BD masses among 20 and 35 kg.
I also house ruled that vacc suit equiped people (CA and BD included) cannot use cramped seats, BTW
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
This seems to be a problem with MgT1 Supplement 6, not Traveller in general...
No, not in CT (Striker) or MT (RM), especially at higher TLs.
Example: A CT van or small truck with a 8 m³, 8 tonne cargo space:
At 16.3 tonnes in a 18.3 m³ body it is close to 1 tonne per m³, without any armour or heavy equipment.
Example: A MT basic TL-10 grav truck:
At a loaded mass of 86 tonnes and a volume of 68 m³ it is over 1 tonne per m³. Decently fast at 1590 km/h (~1000 mph).
Can still move with 30 tonnes of extra load.
Last edited:
I see that now from your examples. I am sad that I have been using these rules for years and they're so wonky. But changing rulebook sets is expensive, and I've seen CT and when I looked over the shipbuilding rules, I was wildly confused, so I do not expect to be able to convert.
So the maligned MgT1 Supp 6 does have passenger seats at 20kg unoccupied and 100kg occupied. For unpowered soldiers IMTU, 20kg gear is the very heaviest I will load them down (I have a few preeselected 'kits' for various situations, ranging from 11 to 20kg/person), so that allows 60-69kg per soldier, which is probably a bit light for an average given their min stats (I generally require Str 9 End 9 (and some other stuff that's not important here) to pass Imperial Marine Basic Training. They can choose to select only the very fittest, and if 3% of a given population meets the standards, it just makes those who do pass more elite. What this does is guarantee all marines can go around with an 18kg load without being encumbered (per MgT1 encumbrance rules, no idea about other systems).
I had forgotten that power armor weighs more than it encumbers, but IMTU, Powersuited Marines only deploy in High Guard small craft where mass doesn't matter anyway, though I do allow 10x Supp 6 passenger seats per ton in HG ships with the caveat that there's no life support for those seats. It generally doesn't matter for the couple hours they'll be on board, but the full life support seats are 1.5 tons each, and that doesn't allow even close to reasonable passenger counts. MgT 1 does talk about life support capabilities being divided by extra passengers, but 1 pilot's 30 day life support divided between the pilot and 32 marines is nearly a day each, and you get 6x that with the air being 'stale' but no ill game effects. And that's not accounting for suit air in the power armor, which is another 6 hours, or 18 if it has erxtended life support, which I do because it's a small addition for 3x the operational time.
If this all seems twisty and convoluted, welcome to my world, the confused zone.
Most modern submarines have a surfaced displacement of around 900kg/m^3; submerged displacement is usually around 1005kg/m^3.
Whether a starship at 1000kg/m^3 would float (and, if so, how much would be above the water surface) would depend on the temperature and salinity of the water.
Whether a starship at 1000kg/m^3 would float (and, if so, how much would be above the water surface) would depend on the temperature and salinity of the water.
Well, I was quite more generous in space in my landing shuttle1, allowing for 2-3 soldiers per dton, also for short trips (I assumed them to be in CA/BD, so more bulky), but mass was irrlelvant, as the shuttle worked on standard drives, not grav plates....
But if you look at MT:WHB, the Enclosed two-man Casline grav tube (page 43) has unloaded mass of 0.9 ton, and a loaded one of 1 ton, having a thrust of 1.2 ton. If you load two person on it (it has two seats), it sould barely take off, if at all (at least at 1G)...
Same with the Two man Trasea grav "bike" (page 44), with a unloaded mass of 1 ton, a loaded mass of 1.1 and thrust of 1.3, but able to take two person...
This don't use to have improtance in armored vehicles, as they use to hasve more thrust/mass ratio, but civilian ones use to have this problem in MT
Note 1: You can find it following the link in my signature, MgT1 Planetary invasion ships...
I can't speak to the accuracy of the design system (but 'not very' when applied to civilian vehicles would be my guess), but cars do indeed float until the void spaces fill with water. Aside from the passengers compartment and boot (trunk in the US) this happens fairly quickly as most of the car has large openings to let air in (and thus water). The same goes for aeroplanes, though they tend to have smaller holes in most of the fuselage, so often become waterlogged more slowly (jets with the engines not mounted in pods being an exception, as their engines flood really fast).
MegaTraveller managed it by having everything else being really dense. TNE/FF&S allowed it, but it took a fair bit or armour, or large cargo holds and little or no fuel (easier to do if you used reactionless thrusters rather than HEPlaR).
