Hard Space Redux

[wellis]

I'm wondering, is mind uploading a think in Hard Space?

Because you might be able to have piloted fighters if you do them like this from the Hegemony-verse?:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/beam-rider-kill-4920094

Anyway, these little pocket-rockets are beam-powered. Potent but unfocused laser beams from the mother ship target the parabolic reflector, which concentrates the beam onto fuel pellets for an incredible thrust-to-mass ratio. Onboard AI/Transhuman ego upload is the pilot. The Intercepter is armed with Excalibur bomb-pumped lasers (the long ones) and a cluster of smaller but more powerful grasers as a ship-killing weapon.

 

[Golan2072]

I'm wondering, is mind uploading a think in Hard Space?

Technology is not advanced enough for this, though this won't stop some corporations and/or cults for experimenting with this...

 

[Golan2072]

One thing I'm looking for is a "universal lander" design - 10-ton and 30-ton variants of a small craft, probably with chemical engines (as "nuclear lightbulbs" are risky in an atmosphere) capable of landing on both atmospheric and vacuum worlds. This is for use as a general interface craft for the smaller starships (such as the Type-S) which are too small to carry both a spaceplane and a vacuum-world lander.

 

[epicenter00]

Doing a bit of research on the trade table ... I take back what I said about not doing research. This is silly but intentional. The price per ton of radioactives is ten times as valuable as the next most valuable trade good (Pharmacutical products are only 100k per ton vs. 1 million per ton of radioactives).

The problem is that I cannot imagine any use for radioactives that would justify such an astronomical price. Precious metals are only 50k per ton (rare earths for industry apparently only 20k). Spices 6k. I'd think that exotic alien spices, meats, and similar products that can be marketed easily for their novelty and "terroir" would be some of the most valuable trade goods in an interstellar economy if they take off, but those are cheap.

Radioactives are some weird anomaly; I think you're better off just noting "ha ha yeah radioactive prices are silly, lump them with rare earths. It's not the Spice Melange."

 

[Golan2072]

Indeed, I'm thinking about modifying these trade prices for Hard Space.

 

[Golan2072]

I'm looking for interface craft to be carried by smaller starships such as a 100-ton Prospector. Or will interacting with worlds with breathable atmospheres require larger starships capable of carrying a larger lander?

Still thinking of the nuclear option for interface crafts, as I see this option discussed quite often as a launch vehicle from Earth surface:

http://www.angelfire.com/space/nuclearm ... cript.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_core_reactor_rocket

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/r ... cnrliberty

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2007/07/g ... berty.html

 

[kilemall]

One thing I'm looking for is a "universal lander" design - 10-ton and 30-ton variants of a small craft, probably with chemical engines (as "nuclear lightbulbs" are risky in an atmosphere) capable of landing on both atmospheric and vacuum worlds. This is for use as a general interface craft for the smaller starships (such as the Type-S) which are too small to carry both a spaceplane and a vacuum-world lander.

Well someone posted this recently- perhaps cut out the LOX tank and put a cargo bay in that space instead.


https://contest.techbriefs.com/2015/entries/aerospace-and-defense/6232

 

[Ulsyus]

Doing a bit of research on the trade table ... I take back what I said about not doing research. This is silly but intentional. The price per ton of radioactives is ten times as valuable as the next most valuable trade good (Pharmacutical products are only 100k per ton vs. 1 million per ton of radioactives).

The problem is that I cannot imagine any use for radioactives that would justify such an astronomical price. Precious metals are only 50k per ton (rare earths for industry apparently only 20k). Spices 6k. I'd think that exotic alien spices, meats, and similar products that can be marketed easily for their novelty and "terroir" would be some of the most valuable trade goods in an interstellar economy if they take off, but those are cheap.

Radioactives are some weird anomaly; I think you're better off just noting "ha ha yeah radioactive prices are silly, lump them with rare earths. It's not the Spice Melange."

Fair point there. Supply & demand should moderate prices. The spices would need a price variable that was based on their relative availability. Pepper may be grown and available every in a form that is pretty similar to the Terran rootstock. But a variety that had properties that weren’t easily available in other spices or peppers would likely cost more based on it not being as available in all marketplaces.

 

[kilemall]

Indeed, I'm thinking about modifying these trade prices for Hard Space.

Well I think a big thing to think about when looking to redo speculation is to decide what a dton of cargo is.


I have a hard time accepting the 1000kg per 14m³ value, just because that is a LOT of wasted volume one has to build in.


Something more like water density seems more flexible and able to justify value. Or the very simple 10000kg per dton, less weight and the rest tare weight for packaging which may include up to 4000kg (container/tank/weight-bearing pallet).



I've already shown that the radioactives are reasonably valued, its much more likely that other items are undervalued.


As a quick fix, might I suggest the following- roll 1d6 for each cargo, on a 6 the cargo is 'premium' rare or desirable, multiply the base price buy/sell by 10x.

 

[Golan2072]

Well someone posted this recently- perhaps cut out the LOX tank and put a cargo bay in that space instead.


https://contest.techbriefs.com/2015/entries/aerospace-and-defense/6232

Doesn't it need to LOX tank to fly? Or could we replace it with a "nuclear lightbulb" engine and save that space?

 

[wellis]

Well I think a big thing to think about when looking to redo speculation is to decide what a dton of cargo is.


I have a hard time accepting the 1000kg per 14m³ value, just because that is a LOT of wasted volume one has to build in.


Something more like water density seems more flexible and able to justify value. Or the very simple 10000kg per dton, less weight and the rest tare weight for packaging which may include up to 4000kg (container/tank/weight-bearing pallet).



I've already shown that the radioactives are reasonably valued, its much more likely that other items are undervalued.


As a quick fix, might I suggest the following- roll 1d6 for each cargo, on a 6 the cargo is 'premium' rare or desirable, multiply the base price buy/sell by 10x.

Can dtons of cargo be matched reasonably okay with kodern conventions on international cargo size dimensions or weights and such?

Because I figure corporations would try to use modern (as in what has been laid down in international treaties and such) ideas and sizes and dimensions for cargo containers wnd such to ease shipping and trade.

 

[kilemall]

Can dtons of cargo be matched reasonably okay with kodern conventions on international cargo size dimensions or weights and such?

Because I figure corporations would try to use modern (as in what has been laid down in international treaties and such) ideas and sizes and dimensions for cargo containers wnd such to ease shipping and trade.

Well in researching this question, it seems that shipping companies are getting smarter, being less concerned about weight unless it is something like iron ore and more about volume.


A shipping term I ran across for LCL type shipments was CBM, or one cubic meter.

Different companies have different standards, but the most common sense one I ran across was that they were concerned with quoting rates based on CBM and would only start charging weight over 2000 lbs per CBM. That's 900+ kg, so in our ballpark of 'a little less weight then water density'.

I expect that in the Traveller world most 1 dton lots are various LCL shipments bundled together by a freight company to ship to a common destination, and that the subsidized mail runs are small package trade beyond whatever 'data packs' are sending messages/databases.


The other two standards are TEU for containers, twenty foot equivalent unit and containers come in 20 and 40 foot lengths and a few hi-cube higher versions (US has domestic containers at 53 feet to fit trucks), and just plain old break bulk, what you would use for aggregated shipments AND odd pieces like starship components, ATVs, farm/construction equipment, etc.

The containers as I understand it have strict weight limits since they have to maintain integrity and will be stacked in shipment and storage, bearing the weight of several containers. Also of course I expect load shifting is a major factor/concern.

Less of an issue for our ships most of the time if for no other reason then we would likely bolt the containers only one to two in height, but we do have to keep in mind we aren't operating boats so much as planes carrying boat-like tonnage.

Specialized bulk commodity shipments have ships tailored to handle them (tankers, ore/coal, grain, concrete, etc.) and while I would expect the TravVerse to have the functional equivalent of these ships, most players won't be operating them. Good to keep them in mind though, as they could be good adventure fodder or maybe a private mid passage out of an otherwise unserved system.


Interesting thought, if we go to a 10000 kg per dton standard, radioactives get too 'cheap' for fueling, and it would probably be best to consider it as ore instead of finished product. Alternatively, you could rule that it's 1000kg per dton of finished radioactives and the other 9000kg is shielding/containment.

Overthinking? Maybe. But the min/max players are always out there....

 

[aramis]

Can dtons of cargo be matched reasonably okay with kodern conventions on international cargo size dimensions or weights and such?

Because I figure corporations would try to use modern (as in what has been laid down in international treaties and such) ideas and sizes and dimensions for cargo containers wnd such to ease shipping and trade.

Well, the TEU is the closest unit, and it's 2.4 to 2.7 Td... and total weight about 58,000. lbs. (about 26 metric tons).... which puts containerized cargo at about 10 tonnes per Ton-displacement.

 

[wellis]

Hmm since Hard Space doesn't have cheap gravitics to abuse, what are some ways one can make it easier to get payloads up to space using it, for like freight or items and such?

Of course, I figure in the future, containers may get lighter due to more advanced materials science?

Like if you're a standard private small free trader crew, what might be the best option here?

In fact, do you think here most adventure player character crews would be more working for small companies than fully being on their own in this setting?

 

[kilemall]

Doesn't it need to LOX tank to fly? Or could we replace it with a "nuclear lightbulb" engine and save that space?

Your drivetech is up to you and the needs of your world.


I was more suggesting a form factor that fits with the 'vibe' I get from your world- interface craft that is interchangable whether atmo or not and therefore mass-produced, tailsitter cause again no gravitics, 70%+ fuel and engines and little relative cargo.


And don't forget the most important part- limits the landing party to just a few people and just a small vehicle or a few tools/weapons- because space horror needs underequipped adventurers.



Hmm, rethinking this, I'm thinking maybe you have an extra cargo deck in-between the fuel tanks and the engines. Wider base, one 'story' taller, ramp comes out and allows rapid rough field loading/unloading without specialized gantries/cranes or lugging down ladders/winches. That should allow for a mini-ATV in the 5-6 ton range, or aerocycles and a base camp.

 

[aramis]

Hmm since Hard Space doesn't have cheap gravitics to abuse, what are some ways one can make it easier to get payloads up to space using it, for like freight or items and such?

The standards of Hard SF should apply:
Airless Only:

• Mass driver to coplanetary orbit insertion †
• Space Tower

Air Only

• skyhook
• balloon launched to stratosphere (saves ≥50% of fuel! Has massive other risks, tho'.) §
• air-fountain to stratosphere ‡
• Water fountain to stratosphere ‡
• Laser launcher ‡
• Space Dirigible ★
• Aircraft to Stratosphere, rocket thereafter §

Either

• Beanstalks
• Orbital rings ❖
• Non-surface population ❖

† You cannot mass-driver to orbit of the body you're on. Orbits don't work that way. You can, however, launch from the moon into a planetary capture from a planet to a lunar capture. Atmospheric variability makes it problematic to calculate, and even in Very Thin, the drag of atmosphere and the shockwave is going to be a noise issue.
‡ While all three are essentially "throw stuff up, and recover it as it falls", not a one is good for orbital velocity, only vertical. Also, all three need to ramp up power as the altitude increases. Isaac Arthur has a good video on active support structures; these are actually MORE useful for space towers than as direct launchers, but they CAN be used for direct launch.
★ Literally, fly to the edge of the stratosphere, then exit on thrust from there. Not practical on earth at present, but it's one of those ideas that is technically feasible once you have the materials for the process
❖ Technically, neither of these is getting surface to orbit; both are "you don't need to get down from orbit to do business. Orbital rings generally will also have some means of downside connect, one of the most reasonable being skyhooks connected to the ring, which then swing you up to the ring proper.
§ Various versions of the Scaled Composites solution: One purely atmospheric fully reusable stage on a locally sourced and more fuel efficient method up, launching a much smaller craft from the edge of the stratosphere. The Space Dirigible is different in that it's a single stage... Less efficient, but it can land in atmosphere, too.

 

[wellis]

Do you think a setting that is forced to rely on non-gravitic tech may actually introduce innovations in materials or other such things, that a setting with gravitic tech might not have due to brute force grav-tech helping, due to needing to find ways to more easily get payloads into space or around places?

 

[atpollard]

For what little it might be worth ...

I just read a cost analysis that suggested that there would never be an economic case for a space elevator on Earth. A space elevator requires materials and technology that does not exist to build something that may reduce the cost to orbit to $25 per pound. The SpaceX BFR uses existing materials and proven technology to reduce the cost to orbit to $35 per pound. Those same super materials needed to build a space elevator would also allow the construction of a better Rocket.

The Space Elevator may have a high “cool factor” but will probably never be the more economical choice.

 

[Golan2072]

Hmm since Hard Space doesn't have cheap gravitics to abuse, what are some ways one can make it easier to get payloads up to space using it, for like freight or items and such?

Of course, I figure in the future, containers may get lighter due to more advanced materials science?

Like if you're a standard private small free trader crew, what might be the best option here?

In fact, do you think here most adventure player character crews would be more working for small companies than fully being on their own in this setting?

Most worlds have local interface services even if there is no high port. Starport A and B have beanstalks; Starport C has a high port with regular heavy shuttle service to and from the surface; starport D has a shuttle service, including refueling service, but no high port to dock with. Only on Starport E you have to bring your own lander, or on uncolonized worlds (Starport X).

So traders still function, though offloading and loading cargo at Starport D can take longer time than in the baseline Traveller rules and you pay shuttle fees rather than berthing fees.

Trading with a Starport E is difficult as you'll usually have to use your own lander, or the local small shuttle when available.

Note that most astronomical bodies in extrasolar systems, other than the main worlds, are either uncolonized or have very small colonies on them. So if you go deeper into a system beyond the main world, you'll need to bring along your lander.

 

[wellis]

Most worlds have local interface services even if there is no high port. Starport A and B have beanstalks; Starport C has a high port with regular heavy shuttle service to and from the surface; starport D has a shuttle service, including refueling service, but no high port to dock with. Only on Starport E you have to bring your own lander, or on uncolonized worlds (Starport X).

So traders still function, though offloading and loading cargo at Starport D can take longer time than in the baseline Traveller rules and you pay shuttle fees rather than berthing fees.

Trading with a Starport E is difficult as you'll usually have to use your own lander, or the local small shuttle when available.

Note that most astronomical bodies in extrasolar systems, other than the main worlds, are either uncolonized or have very small colonies on them. So if you go deeper into a system beyond the main world, you'll need to bring along your lander.

I wonder if in many solar systems the "main world" will be some large space station/space colony ala Ceres in the Expanse.