Cargo Capacity and volume and mass

[AnotherDilbert]

I like that ... but I find all VOLUME metrics questionable since they are bounding boxes on one component in a room fill of components plus controls plus access space, plus wires and plumbing.

Agreed, that is a massive problem. That's why I used tank engines, they are clearly bounded modules intended to be pulled out in the field. I suspect a large part of why the modern engine has a higher density is simply that it is better packaged into a smaller box, having a development time of a decade rather than six months in wartime has its advantages....

Even the old engine is fairly good at filling its bounding box:

I suspect that is a general feature, experience and development (TL) allows us to package the necessary machinery more tightly, increasing density. Compare the engine bay of a 50 year old car with a modern car, the old car is mostly empty under the bonnet, whereas the modern car is packed.

Eventually I found weight (kg) per MW (or kW) was a far easier metric to gain accurate data on or calculate. Try comparing those two tank engines and assume that a 1 MW engine will fit in the same Engine Room with space around it. How has TL impacted "tonnes per MW"?

Agreed, mass is much easier to determine.

As above, the modern tank/car is better packaged, and hence denser than the older comparison.

In general would expect a higher TL item to be simpler, more compact, and have less moving parts than a low tech item. Compare a light bulb with a LED light, which is more compact, more dense? Compare an 10 year old tower PC vs a 5 year old laptop vs an iPad, which is more compact, more dense? The iPad is lighter but also much smaller, hence higher density, there is no excess space...

Do you really view ENGINEERING on a ship as a room crammed full of equipment like the space between parts on a modern Main Battle Tank Engine?

I don't really bother to have an opinion, I just use the game defaults for things I have no idea what they are or how they work, such as fusion power plants, reaction-less manoeuvre drives, or jump drives.

If anything I would expect them to be more solid-state, rather than a few of spinning things in a lot of empty space (ICE), hence denser. If an M-drive is a solid-state clump of metal and silicon at 5 tonnes/m³, that would make the engineering compartment 60% air at 2 tonnes/m³.

 

[atpollard]

If anything I would expect them to be more solid-state, rather than a few of spinning things in a lot of empty space (ICE), hence denser. If an M-drive is a solid-state clump of metal and silicon at 5 tonnes/m³, that would make the engineering compartment 60% air at 2 tonnes/m³.

A valid POV. I don't have to agree to see its merit.

 

[Rupert]

Ships and heavy vehicles still use diesels, not rockets, just as they did in WWII, for obvious reasons.

Ships used steam in WWII, in the vast majority of cases. Large diesels had terrible energy density, especially in terms of energy per unit of volume. They had better fuel economy, and slightly better output per unit weight, but you just couldn't fit a big diesel into a ship and have room for other stuff. Oh, and the big diesels they tried broke down all the time (though to be fair so did most cutting edge steam plants).

 

[Rupert]

I suspect that is a general feature, experience and development (TL) allows us to package the necessary machinery more tightly, increasing density. Compare the engine bay of a 50 year old car with a modern car, the old car is mostly empty under the bonnet, whereas the modern car is packed.

Try working on the modern engine vs the old one - the modern one will need to be taken out for a lot more things than the old one will.. Of course, the old one needs to be worked on it a lot more often (so it's just as well that it could be worked on by the average person with a bit of training, rather than often needing a specialist).

By the way, if you compare compact British cars of the post-war period to US cars, you'll find that the British cars had less space around the engine, so they'd give a different impression of volume to weight to power.

 

[Rupert]

And then the ugly effect of armour being a percentage of hull volume results in the same factor of the same type of armour on ships having vastly different thicknesses at different vessels tonnages. For example, using Cystaliron from MgT2e (1.25% per factor) we get (thicknesses in mm; for a cube-shaped vessel):

Tonnage	Armour Factor
1​	5​	10​	15​
100​	23.4​	119.0​	243.5​	374.0​
1,000​	50.4​	256.5​	524.6​	805.9​
10,000​	108.6​	552.6​	1,130.3​	1,736.2​
100,000​	234.0​	1,190.5​	2,435.1​	3,740.5​
1,000,000​	504.2​	2,564.8​	5,246.2​	8,058.6​

There's a reason I use FF&S or GURPS Traveller as the foundation for Traveller ship and vehicle design. This is an example of it.

 

[aramis]

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.

In the US, a for profit corporation is required by law to prioritize profits.
If they don't, it's grounds for suing the BoD.
Some can get away with not doing so (such as Alaska Deluxe Inc.) because the shareholders in total are the BoD, and comprise the founders... not that they don't pursue profits - they do - just not maximum. (Their ice cream is wonderful. I put on 20 lbs working for them one summer.)
Non-Profit corporations and (in states where recognized) public benefit corporations are not required to do so, but both are required to remain solvent.

I was on the final board of a non-profit... when we discovered that not only was the director an alleged rapist and a confirmed violator of professional ethics, but also appeared to be an embezzler, and that the misfeasance he engaged in left the prospects for solvency low, we turned over the files to the prosecutor and dissolved the corporation. In that order. The non-compete for certain employees was also released before we dissolved it. (She was a professional conservator for mentally ill patients.)

 

[aramis]

Ships used steam in WWII, in the vast majority of cases. Large diesels had terrible energy density, especially in terms of energy per unit of volume. They had better fuel economy, and slightly better output per unit weight, but you just couldn't fit a big diesel into a ship and have room for other stuff. Oh, and the big diesels they tried broke down all the time (though to be fair so did most cutting edge steam plants).

Many ships still use steam... especially submarines and US CV's...
Diesel-electric is taking over some of the shipping, while direct drive diesel is also in use. It varies by mission intended. Azipods work best as Diesel-electrics... simply because it reduces the overall transmission mass, as well as reducing the weight of connecting them. One could make steam-driven azipods... but the mass penalty and volume penalty makes them suboptimal to installing a generator and driving the electric motor in the pod.
Even some sail is coming back - several forms of wind power, including wind driven water-screw using vertical windmills...

 

[Rupert]

Many ships still use steam... especially submarines and US CV's...
Diesel-electric is taking over some of the shipping, while direct drive diesel is also in use. It varies by mission intended. Azipods work best as Diesel-electrics... simply because it reduces the overall transmission mass, as well as reducing the weight of connecting them. One could make steam-driven azipods... but the mass penalty and volume penalty makes them suboptimal to installing a generator and driving the electric motor in the pod.

You could also use steam-turbine-electric azipods. But steam isn't as fuel efficient as diesel these days (nuclear plants excepted), at least in naval applications, and having high-pressure steam lines adds another source of accidents that most operators would prefer to avoid. Those huge two-stroke naval diesels have impressive energy efficiency.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Ships used steam in WWII, in the vast majority of cases.

Sure, and e.g. subs used diesels, such as the example above.

Try working on the modern engine vs the old one - the modern one will need to be taken out for a lot more things than the old one will.. Of course, the old one needs to be worked on it a lot more often (so it's just as well that it could be worked on by the average person with a bit of training, rather than often needing a specialist).

Agreed, and even the engines themselves are too tightly packed, e.g. hot-v engines.

By the way, if you compare compact British cars of the post-war period to US cars, you'll find that the British cars had less space around the engine, so they'd give a different impression of volume to weight to power.

European car were generally smaller, but still fairly airy under the hood, e.g. 70s Volvo:

 

[aramis]

You could also use steam-turbine-electric azipods. But steam isn't as fuel efficient as diesel these days (nuclear plants excepted), at least in naval applications, and having high-pressure steam lines adds another source of accidents that most operators would prefer to avoid. Those huge two-stroke naval diesels have impressive energy efficiency.

All true... but some still use steam boilers. At least as recently as 2020, the SS Badger, and a few others, plus some USN vessels, still used non-nuclear steam on the seas... and at least one US flagged sailing ship had a steam boiler to drive a small steam piston screw as a secondary drive (secondary to the sails. A buddy did a stint in 2021 aboard as an engineering mate. )

Steam's advantage is that almost any flammable liquid can be used. Sure, they're mostly using bunker. But if need be, they can use mo-gas (automotive petrol), diesel, naptha, ethanol, methanol, isopropyl, etc... with tankage and burner bar adaptations, propane, methane, ethane, hydrogen...
Or, in a pinch, pull the burner bars, and manually shovel coal, wood, tar, leaves, dried seaweed, etc... if if will go in an burn above 110°C, it can drive a steam plant.

Further, a steam-piston screw with a boiler is rugged and reliable... since the 1860's.

 

[Rupert]

European car were generally smaller, but still fairly airy under the hood, e.g. 70s Volvo:

Try a 'classic' Mini:

Cars like the Hillman Hunter were no better.

 

[casquilho]

In the US, a for profit corporation is required by law to prioritize profits.
If they don't, it's grounds for suing the BoD.

Slight adjustment, if they are a for profit corporation that is traded on a stock exchange. I can create a corporation and the total shareholders are me and my wife, then Sarbanes Oxley does not apply to me. But take a company like the one I work for, we jump through a hell of lot of hoops to prove we met the SO rules and obligations. Sad, but true. SO made getting a return on your stock investments into an entitlement not a risk. :-(

 

[Condottiere]

You have to be able to convince your shareholders that your actions are in their best (financial) interests, long term.

One problem is, a substantial number look at the quarterly profit statements, and/or want a quick turnover of their stock portfolios, which likely includes your corporation.

Comparatively, another strategy would be growth by reinvesting, recognized by the rising share price, leveraged by getting cheap loans, both by the business and the shareholder, which are then partial tax write offs.

 

[casquilho]

You have to be able to convince your shareholders that your actions are in their best (financial) interests, long term.

Yes and you need to really watch out on what you project as now projections are treated as promises rather than forecasts.

I just read on one corporation that hit its forecasts, but because it was in the bottom half of the forecasts there are actions being taken by the shareholders anyway. Bottom line, in my opinion, the whole system is broken and has been manipulated to benefit a small number of very wealthy people rather than the companies.

But before I get some red text, I am going to stop adding to this conversation as it is clearly not about Traveller now. Back to smashing engines into cars.....

 

[aramis]

But before I get some red text, I am going to stop adding to this conversation as it is clearly not about Traveller now. Back to smashing engines into cars.....

Probably a good choice. But it's a topic that is welcome in the members section...