Badenov
SOC-12
Except that the equation is really 'A'. It just happens based on the engine relative to the volume being pushed. M is never really involved, so F is problematic to calculate.To be fair, ground vehicle powered by ICE with transmission and wheels used for towing is a VERY DIFFERENT CONTEXT from mating two craft together in orbit by docking and then applying F=MA thrust to the combination on a specific vector.
The ground vehicle is "limited" by all kinds of engineering constraints (RPM, torque, transmission losses, power to load matching at speeds, contact patch friction limits on wheels, etc. etc. etc.) that simply do not apply when in orbit in space (with no friction worth mentioning and effectively in free fall). In space, it's all about F=MA thrust vectored through the center of mass (miss the center of mass with your vector and you start spinning).
In space, the F=MA reality is that if you 1/2x of the Mass (or in the CT context, combined displacement) you 2x the Acceleration from the exact same amount of Force.
Agreed.This is why A/A/A drives are codes: 2/2/2 in a 100 ton hull (see: Type-S Scout/Courier) and the exact same type of A/A/A drives are codes: 1/1/1 in a 200 ton hull (see: Free Trader).
2x the mass (or displacement) = 1/2x the acceleration
Well, that's a COMBAT consideration, as opposed to being an economic/merchant type of reason.
I concur. that it makes sense that it's possible, but it seems like a scam to me because the established, proper way is to have the carrying hull enclose everything, as Lurenti does even with the riders outside. The riders also pay for their own hull, so there's no synergy. Anything that involves not paying for that full hull cost for the total volume being jumped seems like trying to pull a fast one on the system. But I am OK with that method if there's some other tradeoff, like chance of misjump. That said, your campaign, your rules.The SHIP will.
However, if you're doing a modularized container system (like I am) you're "still paying for" the hull metal somehow.
Falling back on the napkin math I was using before:
So the hull construction cost for the tug itself is lower.
- A 2000 ton craft pays MCr200 for its hull (before configuration modifiers)
- A 12,000 ton craft pays MCr1200 for its hull (before configuration modifiers)
Sorry for being slow on that bit.I view the 110% for Big Craft requirement as being "always operative" regardless of tender configuration.
Concur here.So a 12,000 ton configuration: 7 tender can allocate 9900 tons for facilities to dock 9x 1000 ton Big Craft which can all be launched and recovered in a single combat turn (because, configuration: 7). If a tender wanted to accommodate a 10,000 ton Battle Rider, the tender would need to devote 10,000*1.1=11,000 tons to the docking facilities necessary for that purpose, regardless of tender hull configuration (and whether those facilities were accounted for as being "internal or external" to the hull with regards to berthing/towing). It's just that a configuration: 7 tender can "launch and recover EVERYTHING" in a single combat turn, unlike all other hull configurations which have launch and recovery constraints/limitations.
This is the part where I got lost. I wil press the 'I believe' button so we can move forward.Somebody still has to pay for the hulls of the external loads.
The tug/tender might be cheaper, but the barges still need to be paid for (by someone) in order to exist.
Which is why I've gone to such pains as to define the modularized container form factor in my research in this thread ... and settled on the 16 ton form factor as the "best biggest small that is also the smallest big" (if that makes any sense) building block unit for interstellar trade because of how multi-purpose the form factor winds up being. Under CT, the 16 ton form factor "works wonders" up until you reach the point where your combined overall tonnage exceeds 1000 tons (starship+external loading), at which point a different solution becomes preferable/more economical. At over 1000 tons, the market incentives switch back towards "internal cargo" accounting due to a variety of "efficiency" factors.
Cool! Sounds like you have things worked out.But for the ACS "small time free trader/speculator" market, external loading and containerized shipping makes for an extremely compelling business model for what amount to "mom & pop" type independent operators working the "lower end" of the interstellar trade economy. It makes it possible to design "flexible" starships that can survive and thrive in a variety of world market conditions that would be difficult for a more "one size fits all" type of starship to profit from quite so reliably.
In other words, there's a niche/boutique market for these kinds of ACS designs that I'm coming up with.
The closest we've got to that IMTU are cargo modules that are delivered in 30 dT lots by the supposedly ubiquitous Modular Cutter. Most of the cargo haulers IMTU carry the 30dT containers as it's a convenient and fast way to load and unload a ship. The military has attempted to use this configuration-by-modules method to make generic ACS-sized ships thet can do various roles based on the module loadout in kind of the same way that was planned for the newer US Navy ships, with modules for weapons, sensors, marines, and so on.