Heavy Haulers-Big Rigs of Space

[zephyrus]

for the sake of argument (figuratively speaking) could you consider the 'fuel tanker' idea as being psudo-Highports? While not as big or as complex as a true-highport they could function similarly and with more of them with one or two of these Tanker-Port's per a corperate trading entity with their own designated zones of operation.

Simiarly the individual JumpCapable-CargoPods will be in need of inspection with greater regularity (perhaps monthly) if you plan on them being crewless. A 100T jump2 capable ship with as much cargo space as you can squeeze into it is gonna get 40+ tons of space in it. More if the rules were refined to remove some or most of the 'bridge'.

 

[kaladorn]

Hmmm, I agree with some of your points, not with others.

1. I was thinking of traffic inbound to the mainworld. Traffic merely passing through the system would not be in any rush to get to the surface so transhipping (if you even bothered changing ships) would want to happen either in space or at the highport.

2. An orbit at 100D on a 8000mi diameter world would be 800,000mi D. Which would be about 2.5 or 2.6 million miles. I'm not sure how to calculate the correct orbital velocity, but I'm not sure that the rotation would be a single std. day (it may be less, it may be more). So waiting for the 100D rendezvous may or may not be simple.

Jump preserves momentum, but since emergence direction is somewhat random (good navs make it less random), you could be moving away from the direction you want, or across the orbit. It may be very tough to sync up with the orbit of the highport (though, as annoying as this task is, most ships can probably manage or standard orbits couldn't happen). But you may end up killing quite a bit of time waiting for the Port (ie a day may well be longer than the time it would take you to thrust in to a high port in near orbit).

Jump emergence points aren't inherently predictable - part of it is the random factors, part of it is the random time of arrival. This means that you'll not (most times) be able to drop things 'on a dime'. Canon says jump is typically 168 hours plus or minus 10%. So that means you could be precipitating out anytime between 150 or so hours out to about 184 or so hours. That 30 hour swing will represent a huge amount of travel for your highport. Yes, a Nav-4 or Nav-6 pilot (or a damn good bit of computer software) will help ensure your vector on jump exit is what you planned it to be, but since the time of emergence is widely variable, that's only of moderate use.

None of this, BTW, is IMTU. I believe this is all supported by the actual historical game mechanics.

3. Could one establish a network of refueling and cargo points (say for argument 12 stations of smaller size orbiting at 100D) that make this kind of approach feasible in high traffic regions? Oh I'd think so. But they'd be small trade ports, not the main highport. The main highport is going to want to do a lot of business with the mainworld, and is also going to do things like orbital shipbuilding, etc. which require a labour poool, and for stuff like that (plus legal an political things) being in orbit of the mainworld is a huge asset.

So I don'r preclude 100D stations/refueling points/transhipping points - I just suggest there should be more than one, they should be smaller, and the highport should still be around the mainworld. Now, the high port might *not* be around the mainworld if there is little or no population or it is of little industrial or political significance. In this case, the highport might be out at 100D.

One thing you do have to change with this is the 'controlled space'. A highport Traffic Control Authority will want controlled space near it. Many people assume 100D as the entry into controlled space. But if the port (or even trade ports) are out at 100D, then they'd need to control additional space around themselves.

I think I might use the idea you have for the 'transfer stations' (I think that's what I'll call them) in populous areas. I'll have to decide what BTN value (or equivalent) represents the point at which these would make economic sense. And in any case, the LASH (or would that be FOFO - Float On, Float Off) ships would be a good design.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

 

[zephyrus]

3. Could one establish a network of refueling and cargo points (say for argument 12 stations of smaller size orbiting at 100D) that make this kind of approach feasible in high traffic regions? Oh I'd think so. But they'd be small trade ports, not the main highport. The main highport is going to want to do a lot of business with the mainworld, and is also going to do things like orbital shipbuilding, etc. which require a labour poool, and for stuff like that (plus legal an political things) being in orbit of the mainworld is a huge asset.

So I don'r preclude 100D stations/refueling points/transhipping points - I just suggest there should be more than one, they should be smaller, and the highport should still be around the mainworld. Now, the high port might *not* be around the mainworld if there is little or no population or it is of little industrial or political significance. In this case, the highport might be out at 100D.

One thing you do have to change with this is the 'controlled space'. A highport Traffic Control Authority will want controlled space near it. Many people assume 100D as the entry into controlled space. But if the port (or even trade ports) are out at 100D, then they'd need to control additional space around themselves.

I think I might use the idea you have for the 'transfer stations' (I think that's what I'll call them) in populous areas. I'll have to decide what BTN value (or equivalent) represents the point at which these would make economic sense. And in any case, the LASH (or would that be FOFO - Float On, Float Off) ships would be a good design.

thats kinda what I was imaginging with the fuel tanker thought. a 'Transfer-Station' sounds good too. What all are you envisioning being involved in a Transfer Station? or a System with Transfer Station? I imagine on a Sector map you could put a + or something similar to the other symbols used for Scout Base, Scout Waystation, Naval Base etc to incidate the System has a one or more transfer stations. Would they be almost the equivalents of Class C ports... D+/C- ports? *chuckles a bit*. A big hybrid fueltanker/carrier?

In addition while we've got that part down. It does leave the question of how to handle the jump craft themselves (we've theorized some things already). Would it be best to just have limited manuverability Cargo-Pods with minimal crew and crew space verging on being a 100ton cargo cersion of a X-boat? If this is the case its similar than the system currently in place where the ships come to the port, instead we bring the port to the ship. Or are we more intested in Cargo 'Trains' where cargo containers are able to be docked to a jump-tug with each cargo container having their own jump drive so as to not require the jump-tug to avoid having to have the massive crew required of larger craft?

What are the rules or effects of Towing other spacecraft/cargo/salvage?

 

[salamander]

Originally posted by Zephyrus:
for the sake of argument (figuratively speaking) could you consider the 'fuel tanker' idea as being psudo-Highports? While not as big or as complex as a true-highport they could function similarly and with more of them with one or two of these Tanker-Port's per a corperate trading entity with their own designated zones of operation.

I think most LASH "transfer points" will start out that way: a transshipment platform which consists of a tanker/tender and regular tug/shuttle runs. But consider: as the amount of LASH traffic increases, the transfer points are going to accrete corresponding services and functionality. Imagine being the first corporation to offer "hotel cannisters" at the transfer point, allowing passengers to change liners without lengthly detours into the well.

What if you were the first broker to rent a stateroom on the tanker/tender, thereby giving yourself an opportunity to be first on the scene where deals are being made?

Kaladorn has convinced me that the highport probably wouldn't be located as far out as 100D but in very busy systems where megacorps have significant presence, these transfer stations are going to be hubs of not-insignificant commercial activity. There may even be ongoing tension between them and highport brokerages which can be good adventure fodder.

Then again these LASH-TSs may be off limits to everyone except the megacorps and their contractors for this exact reason.

Simiarly the individual JumpCapable-CargoPods will be in need of inspection with greater regularity (perhaps monthly) if you plan on them being crewless. A 100T jump2 capable ship with as much cargo space as you can squeeze into it is gonna get 40+ tons of space in it. More if the rules were refined to remove some or most of the 'bridge'.

Right, so this would enforce my idea that you need more than a tanker out there. You'd probably have a small maintenance fleet for both the LASHC and the cutters/tugs.

~ C

 

[salamander]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
1. I was thinking of traffic inbound to the mainworld. Traffic merely passing through the system would not be in any rush to get to the surface so transhipping (if you even bothered changing ships) would want to happen either in space or at the highport.

And I'm thinking of the amount of traffic that one or several megacorps would generate in heavily populated regions, such as Capital. I don't think these concepts work very well in frontier areas of the Imperium.

Jump preserves momentum, but since emergence direction is somewhat random (good navs make it less random), you could be moving away from the direction you want, or across the orbit. It may be very tough to sync up with the orbit of the highport (though, as annoying as this task is, most ships can probably manage or standard orbits couldn't happen). But you may end up killing quite a bit of time waiting for the Port (ie a day may well be longer than the time it would take you to thrust in to a high port in near orbit).

My handwave for this is that LASHCs would employ the most skilled navigators, the best jump software and the most up-to-date survey data available, but your objections are good and I'm going to revise my model to account for them.

3. Could one establish a network of refueling and cargo points (say for argument 12 stations of smaller size orbiting at 100D) that make this kind of approach feasible in high traffic regions? Oh I'd think so. But they'd be small trade ports, not the main highport.

Yes, I agree. A rosette of stations at 100D would be more feasible than trying to maintain a highport out that far. Still, because the Transfer Stations are the sight of major activity, they may even be more important to the system than the highport is. I'll bet this varies from system to system and can be a good way to establish local "colour".

The TS could also be an interesting place to hang out if you wanted to pick up some quick charter or consignment work, though a free trader crew would probably need strong connections and inside information to capitalize on these opportunities.

So I don'r preclude 100D stations/refueling points/transhipping points - I just suggest there should be more than one, they should be smaller, and the highport should still be around the mainworld.

Agreed. Your idea actually increases adventure possiblities: always a good thing.

One thing you do have to change with this is the 'controlled space'. A highport Traffic Control Authority will want controlled space near it. Many people assume 100D as the entry into controlled space. But if the port (or even trade ports) are out at 100D, then they'd need to control additional space around themselves.

Again, this can be a source of interesting tension if the TSs try to create their own "handoff zone" at 100D. On the other hand, the Starport Authority may have decided that this is within their balliwick and maintained the additional handoff zone themselves.

I think I might use the idea you have for the 'transfer stations' (I think that's what I'll call them) in populous areas. I'll have to decide what BTN value (or equivalent) represents the point at which these would make economic sense.

If you do get some numbers crunched, I'd love to see them. My pet theory is that LASH only makes sense on really well-travelled lanes but I have only a hunch to support this. The territory off the beaten path is the balliwick of interface lines and their fleets of subbies. Beyond that, it's the beat-up far trader and the detatched duty Scout trying to patch things together.

To close, here are a some additional adventure possiblities:

- if each megacorp maintains its own TS in a systsem, what happens when a trade war erupts? Methinks the TSs are going to be ripe targets. PCs can be hired by either side for strikes, false flag operations, sabotage or they may just find themselves out in the open when the shooting starts.

- there's about a thousand different ways in which the PCs could acquire a patron who has some influence at a TS. Could they inadvertently become involved in smuggling operations or customs-evasion schemes?

- what about hijacked cargo shipments, terratoriality disputes between highports and TSs, strikes, lockouts, union politics...? Like terran seaports, the TSs and highports can be very interesting places.

This discussion as given me dozens of ideas for a campaign. Hopefully I can post some here soon.

~ C

 

[zephyrus]

If you do get some numbers crunched, I'd love to see them. My pet theory is that LASH only makes sense on really well-travelled lanes but I have only a hunch to support this. The territory off the beaten path is the balliwick of interface lines and their fleets of subbies. Beyond that, it's the beat-up far trader and the detatched duty Scout trying to patch things together.

Likewise I would like to see them too. I however would like to add that... what if any significant difference is it between a Far-Trader with an improved manuvering engine tugboating/towing Jump-Capable-Container-Craft (JC3's I guess for now I guess). And a Purpose built Jump-Freighter designed to pull JC3's in docking cradles? Im my oppinon and vision little (asside from the purpose built ones would have the advantage of improved duriability and interface).

It reminds me a bit of seeing a Semi-Truck pulling two 1/2 containers vs a realy big Ford F150 (or whatever they call the double-rear-tire versions) towing a big camper van or boat. Both a Jump-Freighter and a Far-Trader are Jump2, Both could tow JC3's. Thus these Jump-Frieghters could theoretically replace or at least be an alternative to traditional Trade vessels.

True this could/would radically alter quite possible the apperance and economics of a Traveller Setting (making it different but hopefully not wrong). I could see Far-Traders getting bigger and having Jump drives in the 3 and 4 range thus truely acting as frontier vessels reaching hard to reach places and getting paid a premium to do it.

If in such a Alternate Traveller universe (or at least a Sector, quadrant or sub-sector) even in a not as heavily populated systems the mechanism could work. The presense of Transfer Stations would be less likly or even abscent and Jump-Freighters would have to goto the highport to deliver JC3's. That or I could imagine some truely industrious or cleaver inovations made whereby Frontier Jump Frieghters of sufficient size might even have one or more Tug's in an interal craft bay to take a JC3 to highport for it
and/or a small fleet of fast fuel-skimmers to grab fuel.

In all I think the idea of Jump-Frieghters have added character/flavor over other trade ships.

Adventure seeds/hooks expecially involving piracy could include jump frieghters dropping cargo upon attack and getting the heck out of their (if based on the principle they are 'towing' the cargo along, dropping load should give them increadable speed once unencumbered). likewise a Pirate need only take out the Jump-freighter to disable the train and then bring in their own frieghter and/or fuel ships to get them out of system (or just grab one or two and bugger off). That or instead attack the docking collars and strip off one or two JC3's.

I also like the idea that JC3's could be pure Fuel pods using all their cargo space for fuel making it possible or more practical to make/hide refueling stations in uninhabited space. while time consuming and perhaps not nessisarly efficient and likly expensive. It makes it possible (if maybe impractical) for pirate bases to exist in empty space and very hard for naval forces to find.

In reference to the above possible pirate activities, what if it wasent a pirate base? (perhaps a rival steller power, government or corperation).

definitly want to see the numbers on this to see the efficiency of it.

(sorry for the long posts, this thread has just got me excited and it is something I want to incorperate IMTU).

Zephyrus

 

[Anthony]

Essentially, what LASH operation gets you is the ability to load/unload cargo very fast, but the result is a more expensive ship for the same cargo capacity.

LASH only makes sense if the reduction in total trip time is greater than the increase in cost. In addition, the reduction in trip time is only significant if the cargo lighters can be loaded with cargo before the starship arrives in port, which means you need an extra set of lighters (the ship jumps in, drops off one set, picks up a new set, and leaves). If you have only one tender operating on a route, ths means that cargo lighters remain in-port for at least two weeks before being picked up again, and that for transfer between two worlds you need lighters with 3x the total cargo capacity of any one ship. On the other hand, if you have 8 cargo tenders, arriving at 2 day intervals, lighters only have two days wasted in-port, and the overhead on cargo capacity is only 25%. In practice, it's probably not efficient to use LASH on a route that supports fewer than 4-5 tenders, and it's completely unreasonable to use LASH on any route where the shipping company doesn't have permanent cargo factors on each of the worlds (to handle loading the lighters).

 

[jchurchill]

A useful link that has LASH definitions:

http://www.trans-inst.org/seawords.htm#j:

The following excerpts:

LASH - Lighter aboard ship: A barge carrier designed to act as a shuttle between ports, taking on and discharging barges.

LASH SHIPS - LASH stand for Lighter Aboard Ship. It is a specialized container ship carrying very large floating containers, or "lighters." The ship carries its own massive crane, which loads and discharges the containers over the stern. The lighters each have a capacity of 400 tons and are stowed in the holds and on deck. While the ship is at sea with one set of lighters, further sets can be made ready. Loading and discharge are rapid at about 15 minutes per lighter, no port or dock facilities are needed, and the lighters can be grouped for pushing by towboats along inland waterways.


LIGHTER - General name for a broad, flat-bottomed boat used in transporting cargo between a vessel and the shore. The distinction between a lighter and a barge is more in the manner of use than in equipment. The term "lighter" refers to a short haul, generally in connection with loading and unloading operations of vessels in harbor while the term "barge" is more often used when the cargo is being carried to its destination over a long distance.

LIGHTER ABOARD SHIP - An ocean ship which carries barges. These barges are loaded with cargo, often at a variety of locations, towed to the ocean ship, sometimes referred to as the mother ship, and lifted or, in some cases, floated on board. After the ocean crossing, the barges are off-loaded and towed to their various destinations. The ocean ship then receives a further set of barges which have been assembled in readiness. This concept was designed to eliminate the need for specialized port equipment and to avoid transshipment with its consequent extra cost.

------------------------------------------------
The other advantage, besides speed, is the lack of need for a sophisticated port system or elaborate loading facilities. In the real world LASH are often used in coastal areas of Southeast Asia and India among others where:

1) simple port facilities exist or

2) the draft of the harbor or river is too shallow for oceangoing vessels but can handle lighter/barges.

ITU terms this could be used so that lesser quality ports good still handle a fair amount of traffic and also streamlined lighters could be brought directly to the planet surface while the unstreamlined mothership further out prepapred to leave.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by salamander:

I think most LASH "transfer points" will start out that way: a transshipment platform which consists of a tanker/tender and regular tug/shuttle runs. But consider: as the amount of LASH traffic increases, the transfer points are going to accrete corresponding services and functionality. Imagine being the first corporation to offer "hotel cannisters" at the transfer point, allowing passengers to change liners without lengthly detours into the well.

What if you were the first broker to rent a stateroom on the tanker/tender, thereby giving yourself an opportunity to be first on the scene where deals are being made?

Kaladorn has convinced me that the highport probably wouldn't be located as far out as 100D but in very busy systems where megacorps have significant presence, these transfer stations are going to be hubs of not-insignificant commercial activity. There may even be ongoing tension between them and highport brokerages which can be good adventure fodder.
[/QUOTE]

I think the higher the GT:FT BTN might indicate the amount of traffic moving through a point and it might also indicate the extensiveness of the Transfer Station facilities.

At value X, it might just be cargo offloading and refueling.
At X + a, it might be cargo offloading, basic accomodations and resupply and refueling.
At X + b, it might be cargo offloading, good accomodations, some liesure facilities, extensive resupply, refueling, and maybe a bit of repair work.
At X + c, it might be the same facilities as the HighPort (sans political aspects), thus meaning you may have multiple highport equivalents.

That's just a fer instance...

Then again these LASH-TSs may be off limits to everyone except the megacorps and their contractors for this exact reason.

Also possible. Monopolies and trade wars may be interesting.

 

[kaladorn]

LASH is one interesting approach. RoRo is another key cargo design for moving masses of stuff.

Now, thinking about it, I'm not a gearhead (or only under protest), so I can't say if a jump-tug or a self-jumping pod (X-boat cargo version) is really the answer. If the pods self-jump, have no crew aboard, and a transponder that comes on when they come out along with top-flight Nav software, it might be quite possible to have pods launch themselves from system to system without anyone aboard and just get picked up by lighters. But then that opens the door for poaching. A Jump-tug (train) kinda removes that - in that there is at least someone (the tug) present to deter hijacking.

Note Q-Pods and such would be one way of detering pirates (think Pod loaded with ordinance and a tracking system instead of crew.... for a sudden surprise for the pirate or privateer).

I'm waiting on my copy of GT (up to about a month now) from a fellow whose initials are MWM... (won it on e-Bay). We're having some delivery/admin issues so I still haven't got it in hand yet. So the analysis will have to wait a bit.

But it make sense that mains featuring high pop centers, high tech worlds, and high quality ports would be key centers - and that says 'Core regions'. You might get some operating in the Frontiers, but only at a few key routings.

Out in the frontiers, freighters that actually do fly in to the highport or right down to the planet may make sense. But even here, RoRo design or standard containerized shipping makes sense.

Transfer stations and the whole politics/economics/transport infrastructure do offer a lot of adventure possibilities, and would really distinguish your Pop 9/Port A/Tech 14 world from your Pop 6/Port C/Tech 9 world.

Though it may take a while to arrive at some rules for when different levels of facilities make sense (analysis required of the economics of it, but also of the astrography) and maybe some random factors that may preclude or encourage such setups should enter the picture. And then, of course, there is figuring out how to display such routes and ports.

I'd suggest an additional symbol, and I'd choose a set of route marker lines (like Xboat routes) in some colour that won't conflict (perhaps Orange or Pink or Purple comes to mind) for the map. You could rate them with frequency of jumps or some such rating and assign them a thickness (weight) based on that. I've seen this done with trade routes and it works.

Anyplace that is an endpoint of a LASH route would have some form of facility, but the extent would depend on the weight of the LASH traffic (a result of the trade between the worlds) and the type of port. Those factors would determine the scale of LASH facilities.

But, as of now, I have no clue what sensible values would be for any of this...

 

[jchurchill]

All this made me look at Book 7 and Supp. 7 where I finally found a brief bit about container cargo.

A modest proposal that I don't think has been suggested...high tech containers that have integral grav plates so that rather than using a crane or truck or RO-RO [roll on roll off to the cognescienti

] one or two stevedores could move the 3.85 ton containers by themselves.

Too expensive? Too practical?

ps. I really love the illustration in Book 7 near the table of contents where the crew is unloading wooden crates by hand. Adventures in the far future indeed.

 

[Anthony]

In most Traveller rulesets, adding contragravity capability to freight containers is unacceptably expensive and power-hungry. In GURPS Traveller, contragravity is amazingly cheap and uses very little power, so it makes a lot of sense.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by secretagent:
ps. I really love the illustration in Book 7 near the table of contents where the crew is unloading wooden crates by hand. Adventures in the far future indeed.

It could be simulated wood....

Or high-tech uber-wood....

Or space 1889 liftwood.... (thus eliminating the need for powered CG units....)

 

[jchurchill]

"In most Traveller rulesets, adding contragravity capability to freight containers is unacceptably expensive and power-hungry."

I'll have to go back and look at the costs. I seem to recall that an air-raft can lift 4 tons of cargo so the costs can probably by extrapolated from that. Perhaps at v. high tech levels -- 13 to 15 it might be more practical. thanks for pointing that out. I don't have GURPS Traveller material so the comparison in an interesting one.

 

[jchurchill]

Or space 1889 liftwood.... (thus eliminating the need for powered CG units....)
===============================================
Yes, that must be it. Martian liftwood.

 

[zephyrus]

Question, would it seem reasonable from the economic's standpoint that a JC3 (the Jump Cargo container) cost reasonably less due to further standization and modular design?

If you figure that half the ship is just a housing for the cargo and the other half a housing for the jump drive, fuel and electronics. If the various fuel, electronics and jump drive were moduals could be pulled and replaced as nessisary. The parts in need of servicing could remaine behind to be serviced while the JC3 itself continues on its merry way once the swap out is done cutting maintence time for them down.

Such a system could facilitate a 3 jump a month cargo handling routine which if a Jump system could break even <or come close> a 3 jump routine could make a profit. A jump-train could have 1-2 days downtime between jumps as it was refueled or 2-3 days if resuply and/or minor maintence (component swap out) was done with the latter needed maybe once a month.

What I like the most or like to see the most is the fewer people on board the ship and the smaller the main tow craft the better. Pilot Astrogater and a couple of engineers and your set.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Zephyrus:
Question, would it seem reasonable from the economic's standpoint that a JC3 (the Jump Cargo container) cost reasonably less due to further standization and modular design?

What I like the most or like to see the most is the fewer people on board the ship and the smaller the main tow craft the better. Pilot Astrogater and a couple of engineers and your set.

Seems reasonable. The advantages of mass standardization should show up in both original production costs and in on-going maintenance costs being reduced.

Modular design, a sadly overlooked feature of the gearhead systems, should allow reduced maintenance time and expense at the cost of (perhaps) a bit more expensive design at the front end. But I've never seen this represented.

 

[kaladorn]

I've been thinking about LASH operations. As I understand LASH (as opposed to container shipping by itself), a LASH carrier loads smaller self-mobile lighters aboard. These lighters are capable of inshore operations in unimproved harbours and in places where your normal deep sea vessel might not make it too easily. This was designed for use in some parts of SE asia where good deep water ports are pretty much a no go.

So I thought: What about a design that reflects that particular doctrine? That is to say, a ship which loads smaller 'landing craft' aboard and can deploy them and they are capable of landing, dropping off cargo, and coming back.

I haven't done the larger ship design, though I based the 'lighter' design (to follow) on a 30 ton cylindrical (or boxy) hull. Thus one can have a dispersed structure ship to which many of these are grappled/anchored. It becomes one big spine with engines and fuel and accomodations for some pilots for the lighters. Then upon arrival, it belches out a fleet of lighters that go down, unload and/or load, and return to be reattached.

Here is my preliminary lighter design:

---

Lighter TL: 15 MCr33.594 (Auxiliary) CRAFT ID:
27/67, Displacement=30, Config=3S, Armour=40G (0), Loaded=82.95, Unloaded=-261.88 HULL:
POWER: 0/0, Fusion-F=54.Mw Duration=72hrs/3 days Extended Endurance=72hrs/3 days. No scoops, No purifiers,
No EM Mask. ExtEnd excludes: (0g) Commo.
Jump=0 0/0, Avionics-8 120kph Maneuver=1G 0/0 Agility=1 DRIVES:
COMMUNICATIONS: Radio-FarO x2, Laser-FarO x1, Maser-FarO x1
Radar (FrOb) x1, Ladar (FrOb) x1 Sensor scans: AOS=- AOP=- POS=- POP=- PES=I PEP=- SENSORS:
1 hardpoints; 0 occupied; batteries bearing 100% WEAPONS:
DefDM=4 SCREENS:
CONTROL: Computer=Model 1 x 3, Panels=Holographic Linked x322 HUD holo x1Basic Env(heat/light, Basic LS
(air/water), Grav plates, Inertial Comp, No auxiliary bridge
Crew=1; Bridge=1 CREW:
ACCOMMODATION:
SUB CRAFT:
OTHER: Cargo=344Kl/25 tons, EMLevel=Faint, Fuel=3 Kl/0 tons, ObjSize=Small. One jump requires -1KL/-1 tons
of fuel. Anti-hijack: . Custom Features:
HIGH GUARD: 0301?11-000000-00000-0
TCJMPCC-ASMNGR-LEPMI-F Weapons reflected are highest values.

It features 25 tons of cargo space, one crew member (the pilot) and that crew member brings aboard any food (some MREs) he needs. The vessel has life support for 72 hours, but most times trans-shipment may take less time than that. If
the ship can completely power down while planetside, the duration of operations may be extended (or if fuel may be supplied). It has
fairly basic sensors and commo and relies on the
LASH carrier for larger scanning, life support,
and communications facilities.

Comments? I figure if your large LASH carrier jumps in with 10 or 100 of these attached and debarks the ones required for the local world, that would actually be a fairly efficient way to ship.

 

[robject]

A dude in our Traveller group also thought of the cargo freighter being a bare ship with grapples all over. In his model, they're detached (ejected?) into space upon arrival, and left for a cloud of smaller ships to gather up. Meanwhile, new cargo pods are attached by a different swarm of craft, the freighter is refuelled, crew swapped perhaps, and off it goes.

As for the 100D limit, well let's think about it. Our moon is 240,000 miles away, isn't it? I think so. That's 30 diameters or so, and its period is one month. So then, even that close in, it pays to maneuver to the destination.

Ok, I'm picturing Earth's 100D limit... a shell with a radius of 100D, a circumference of about 628D, its area a bit under 32,000 D^2. Ships could pop in anywhere along that shell, and of course the closest point for all of them is the center. If we put eight freight-service ports at equidistant points, the shell is divided into eight sections: roughly 4000 square diameters, something like 64 D on a side.

Building and maintaining these ports guarantees that a freighter will need to travel, on the average, perhaps 32 D along a chord of that 100 D shell.

Truly only worth it under staggering freight numbers. If you prefer a quieter Imperium, this situation will never arise. On the other hand, if you believe Rhylanor is a serious port, then this could be a reality.

What distances make this design meaninfgul? 100 diameters on a size 10 world is 1,600,000 km, I think, which takes 10 hours at 1 G, and still it would take a bit over 5 hours (on average) to reach a freighter port 32 D away. You've saved 15 hours (from 20 hours there and back, on size A worlds only), so I suppose that could be well worth the investment, since 15 hours is about 10% of a jump saved. But on size 5 worlds, it's 10 hours (total travel time) versus 4 hours, and that's a meager 3.5% of a jump. Certainly not worth it except for a major, major bulk contract.

Unless I've figured something horribly, horribly wrong...

 

[kaladorn]

Good figuring, Robject. I hadn't thought of it quite that way, but it is a pretty sound (though I didn't check your figuring per se) analysis. I think for big ports, this makes sense. The limiting case for transfer stations will be where

dist(avg to transfer stn, measured in Diameters)
is less than or equal to 100D.

So, what is the minimum number of stations to make this true? I'm guessing possibly 4 or 5.

But a transfer station might be as simple as a small truck stop like place (in less travelled areas) and thus maybe not that expensive. In places in Massilia and Core, it may well be a huge small city unto itself (lots of in-space population in the system, why not have some of it here?). Thus the cost of the transfer point may be fairly variable as may be the scale of services.

Still, the presence or absence of these will depend a lot on underlying assumptions about the amount of trade in the Imperium. I assume a very large amount IMTU just because that would be required to support the Emperor's huge fleets and armies along with the civil service and the Nobles. So trade *must* be huge to support that kind of infrastructure in a case where the Empire stays (more or less) out of member worlds territory and worries about the space between worlds (ie trade). So, with that said, I can envision smaller and larger transfer station constellations on the trade mains (or what should be trade mains.... if anyone did useful calculations of trade flow...).

Now, back to the LASH thing: Even the spinal jump tug configuration works with self powered lighters. The only difference is that in this case, instead of having a swarm of small ships that have to loaf around waiting for a ship whose arrival can vary across 48 hours, we have self-powered crewed cargo pods. They take themselves off to their destinations. And waiting ones can be picked up. If you believe in autopilots, there is no reason this couldn't be entirely automated.


Now, back to