Orbital facilities and small starships

[TamsinP]

Looking at LBB-A05, there are exterior demountable fuel tanks which cost an extra Cr500 per ton, so Cr1500/ton; I suspect that would be a more likely cost for vacuum-rated cargo containers.

Edit: The supports for the exterior demountable tanks costs Cr500/ton so mounted; the tanks cost the same as for interior demountable tanks.

 

[kilemall]

Shrug, yes you could have fully sealable containers. However I dug into detail on this and I have full starship hull containers of the sort Spinward favors, and internal hull containers that aren’t vacuum capable at 1/10 the cost.

For a lot of low value cargo and lower tech/facility starports, shaving off transport costs by having much cheaper containers or shipping bulk works much better.

BTW while we have an SC guy here, that game has cargo units and standard packing in cubic meters. So moveable by individuals or little handheld grav tools, and a lot of small package trade in illegals and pirating of cargo piñata style.

There are larger containers that get hauled by very big external mount liners.

This is an example of a Misc C which can go planet fall but expands to a big container hauler. Go to :30m in to skip to the container expansion and loading process. There are bigger container ships then this but in general it’s very much a small ship universe by our standards.

 

[Condottiere]

Our primary concern is volume (and supposedly structural integrity), and theirs would be weight (and corrugated steel?).

Unless, you can leverage corrugated steel to optimize volume.

Though squiggly lines aren't likely to increase space for cartons.

Liquid cargo would more likely go into spheres and cylinders.

 

[kilemall]

Our primary concern is volume (and supposedly structural integrity), and theirs would be weight (and corrugated steel?).

Unless, you can leverage corrugated steel to optimize volume.

Though squiggly lines aren't likely to increase space for cartons.

Liquid cargo would more likely go into spheres and cylinders.

Bulktainers are used in RL.

 

[Rupert]

This would be a "level of detail" further than is strictly necessary (or typically useful) for Traveller Players and Referees to know about, particularly in a Starship Merchant context (cargo is cargo, don't need to know what it's packed into or how).

Don't usually need to know. But when you do, you'll probably wish you knew before you found out that you needed to know.

And that's for freight. For cargo (i.e. stuff that they've bought to on-sell for profit), they really should be checking to make sure they have what they actually paid for, and that's it's properly packaged and stowed.

 

[whartung]

Shrug, yes you could have fully sealable containers. However I dug into detail on this and I have full starship hull containers of the sort Spinward favors, and internal hull containers that aren’t vacuum capable at 1/10 the cost.

That's the beauty of anonymous containers. What's in them and how they are sealed aren't your problem as a shipper (as long as they don't explode, infect, or irradiate anyone). As long as its clear that cargo transfer will (or won't) incur vacuum, the shipper can pick whatever they want.

Same with self contained refrigerated containers or any other specialty housing.

 

[Condottiere]

Subcontainers that can survive vacuum exposure, or have self contained environments.

 

[kilemall]

That's the beauty of anonymous containers. What's in them and how they are sealed aren't your problem as a shipper (as long as they don't explode, infect, or irradiate anyone). As long as its clear that cargo transfer will (or won't) incur vacuum, the shipper can pick whatever they want.

Same with self contained refrigerated containers or any other specialty housing.

My purpose in detailing containers was to provide another revenue source for the merchant shipping providing packing. It also includes expensive dangerous special cargoes at higher costs/fees per ton and subdividing a hold for bulk loads.

Once you get into that, a wise captain knows what’s in those containers so they can handle it. An even wiser captain accepts nothing on board that he doesn’t vet for safety, even if it isn’t speculative or leased containers he owns.

Here is the link to the original posting on it. Nearly ten years ago!

CT Only: - My TC Universe

In addition, there are support and software market aspects to the pricing model. For Astronics, a large part of the fee is a 'lifetime' support contract- physical damage replacement still has to be paid for, but there will be upgrades and updates installed for free during yearly maintenance...

www.travellerrpg.com

Oh yes forgot- this linked to cheaper ship computers partially justifying the hideously expensive CT computers and giving an option to get more commodity level computers running ships. With of course, consequences.

 

[coliver988]

BITS also had 101 cargos (Traveller Wiki link) and rules for various cargo containers, such as temperature and atmospheric rating. While I think this was all T4, the rules are really are edition agnostic. One of my earlier cargo trackers tried to implement parts of that as it generated a code even more complex than CT Bk 5 ship profiles. Kept wanting to put dangerous stuff in there and check if the players scanned the codes to see what it actually meant. Never did that though.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Subcontainers that can survive vacuum exposure, or have self contained environments.

The real distinction at that point is whether the (sub)containers are considered "fragile" or "sturdy" in combat relevant terms. In this context:

• "Fragile" means that any hits or damage destroy the container, just like with external fuel tanks (demountable or drop).
• "Sturdy" means that hits or damage need to be resolved normally using standard combat rules, just like with any other Armor: 0+ craft (small, big, etc.).

Demountable and Drop Tanks are considered "fragile" as far as damage results are concerned.
Armor: 0+ hull construction materials are considered "sturdy" as far as damage results are concerned.

Keeps things simple and in line with known behaviors when under fire in combat (or other emergency circumstance, such as a collision).



Fragile containers are FINE ... so long as nothing goes wrong (oops ... ).
Sturdy containers are BETTER ... just in case something does go wrong.

At which point you need to as yourself ... at what price, security?

Some people are going to be cheapskates who are perfectly happy to take risks, or are more inclined to take the "disposable, one use" option.
Other people are going to be more inclined to invest in safety to ensure fewer opportunities for loss ... particularly over a long(er) time horizon of repeated use/ownership (say ... 40+ years of service life? ).



In terms of life cycle costs, (interior) Demountable Tanks (converted to cargo pods) will cost Cr1000 per ton ... while Configuration: 4 hull metal will cost Cr60,000 per ton. In other words, any hull metal container that you can reuse 60x will break even with the construction cost of a "demountable cargo pod" that is functionally disposable (use once, throw in the trash). At a commercial tempo (1 jump per 2 weeks), starships can jump 24-25 times per year.

In other words, "sturdy" hull metal that lasts for 2.5x years is "cheaper" in life cycle cost terms than using "fragile" (single use?) cargo pods that get discarded after every shipment in a disposable single use manner. The "sturdy" hull metal is more expensive in terms of up front cost (60x per ton), but in the long run is actually cheaper to use because it's longer lasting and you can amortize the construction cost expense over a much longer time horizon of reuse.

 

[Condottiere]

I think it depends.

If you're using (mini)ship hulls as containers, than they aren't fragile, and certainly are supposed to be air tight.

Doors would be treated as cargo hatches.

Depending on the edition, minimums may be required; let's say the current one, five tonnes (compared to supposedly four tonnes for a twenty footer); therefore can't be used as subcontainers for less than five tonnes.

Cartons with Styrofoam packing, have some form of protective buffering.

Plastic wrapped pallets could be considered tied down, as long as gravity field and inertial compensation hold.