Pondering starship evolution

[kilemall]

Shrug, your party, but that module won’t fit in many of the bigger vehicles independent of the hull form.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Shrug, your party, but that module won’t fit in many of the bigger vehicles independent of the hull form.

Hence why I mentioned this ...

Going to see if I can fit any vehicles into this form factor before moving on.

Although, more to the point, I'm not sure how "helpful" changing the form factor from a squarish-rectangle to a rounded tube would help much with vehicle form factors.

Still, "by the numbers" (only) ... 16 tons is "plenty" for most vehicles, including 10 ton ATVs.

 

[atpollard]

Still, "by the numbers" (only) ... 16 tons is "plenty" for most vehicles, including 10 ton ATVs.

Aircraft had foldable wings to accommodate aircraft carriers. HEIGHT will be the biggest issue for most Vehicles (real trucks need about 4 meters of clearance) and virtually ALL ships have sub-3 meter ceiling heights. That suggests a market for vehicles that “kneel” to lower the headroom … leaving just Length and Width as the critical dimensions.

 

[kilemall]

Hence why I mentioned this ...

Although, more to the point, I'm not sure how "helpful" changing the form factor from a squarish-rectangle to a rounded tube would help much with vehicle form factors.

Still, "by the numbers" (only) ... 16 tons is "plenty" for most vehicles, including 10 ton ATVs.

It’s the length that is the problem, unless you set them diagonally and waste a lot of space.

 

[atpollard]

It’s the length that is the problem, unless you set them diagonally and waste a lot of space.

It might be the vehicle designs.
It should fit an M2 Bradley or an MV7000 Truck … two large Army vehicles.

 

[Spinward Flow]

It might be the vehicle designs.

Given that the intention here is TL=9 and explicitly interstellar, it would be extremely strange to want to put anything other than grav vehicles into one of these 16 ton Boxes for transport (except as 3rd party freight).

• 2x Air/Raft (4 tons each) + 1x G-Carrier (8 tons)

Guess I can make it work ...

 

[kilemall]

Given that the intention here is TL=9 and explicitly interstellar, it would be extremely strange to want to put anything other than grav vehicles into one of these 16 ton Boxes for transport (except as 3rd party freight).

• 2x Air/Raft (4 tons each) + 1x G-Carrier (8 tons)

Guess I can make it work ...

Sure you should be able to get 4 air/rafts in no problem. G carrier isn’t fitting through those doors and the 10 dton ground stuff is longer.

 

[Spinward Flow]

G carrier isn’t fitting through those doors

If you open both pressure doors on either end (vertical hinges, doors swing outwards), there is plenty of room for the G-Carrier (and Air/Rafts) to drive out.

The pressure double doors on the fore/aft ends are also asymmetrical (3+2=5) so as to put a manual hatch into the end of one of the doors along the longitudinal centerline.

 

[atpollard]

If you open both pressure doors on either end (vertical hinges, doors swing outwards), there is plenty of room for the G-Carrier (and Air/Rafts) to drive out.

Convert one end to a single full width door (like an aircraft hangar) with a "door within a door" mandoor in the tilt-up door.
The opposite side can be dual roll-up doors with a fixed operable door in the center.
This provides operational flexibility for the user.
[image deleted to save bandwidth]

 

[atpollard]

Given that the intention here is TL=9 and explicitly interstellar, it would be extremely strange to want to put anything other than grav vehicles into one of these 16 ton Boxes for transport (except as 3rd party freight).

I agree. I meant that a G-Carrier larger than an M2 Bradley or a Class 7 Truck is probably too large of a vehicle for most needs. It is the design of the G-CARRIER that may be too large (rather than the "box" being too small). There are VERY FEW Motor Homes that would not fit in that space ... are the Grav Vehicles too large for Urban Environments (like modern Main Battle Tanks are?)

 

[Spinward Flow]

Convert one end to a single full width door (like an aircraft hangar) with a "door within a door" mandoor in the tilt-up door.

What ARE you talking about?

Tilt up/down means horizontal axis hinges.
I specified vertical axis hinges, so the doors swing out to the sides ... like big swing out barn doors.

If you open the pressure doors, they swing open like this (because the doors are asymmetrical to accommodate the manual hatch on the centerline) ...

 

[atpollard]

What ARE you talking about?

Without the swing lines, your graphics looked like two movable doors with a fixed door and posts in the center. I simply misunderstood your graphics.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Convert one end to a single full width door (like an aircraft hangar) with a "door within a door" mandoor in the tilt-up door.
The opposite side can be dual roll-up doors with a fixed operable door in the center.

For the record (in case anyone comes along much later to read all of this) ... this kind of "same information, completely different interpretation" phenomenon is something I keep running into ALL THE TIME on these forums (and others, but let's not talk about them). It gets really frustrating for me when I take the common source reference material, demonstrate the correct interpretation of that material ... and people stubbornly refuse to alter their perspective to be in line with the correct interpretation of the material.

I want to THANK @atpollard for being receptive to understanding an alternative interpretation (correct vs wrong) and being mature enough to admit to the error ... and learn from that (honestly, superficial) error in interpretation of the information being given. The fact that this is such a RARE occurrence has convinced me that it is necessary to call out and PRAISE people who are willing to do so and learn from their mistakes.

I honestly don't mind when someone has an "error of interpretation" following a "first contact" with new information.
What I do object to is when people stubbornly persist in maintaining their "error of interpretation" after repeated explanations, demonstrations, proofs, practical examples (and so on and so forth) showing the "correct interpretation" of information consistent with intent by the authors/creators. It's that "resistance to learning" in response to education that really rubs me the wrong way.

So ... thank you ... @atpollard for showing the maturity of allowing your perspective to be "shifted" in line with the intended interpretation of reference information provided. May WE ALL learn from your example.

 

[Spinward Flow]

On a completely different train of thought (so shifting here) ...

It occurs to me that @ TL=9, there are some very interesting applications for a 16 ton Box modular form factor like I'm working up here.

The "wackiest" notion was a mild redesign of the 100 ton Type-S Scout/Courier so as to enable a "drop in crew quarters" module into the hull, which would provide ... 4 staterooms of accommodation. The REAL trick would be to finesse a way to make a Type-J Seeker conversion almost trivial, via having 2x 16 ton Boxes inside the 100 ton starship hull. I say that would be a "neat trick" because:

• 15 tons for A/A/A drives (code: 2/2/2)
• 40 tons for fuel (20 tons for J2, 20 tons for PP2)
• 20 tons for bridge
• 1 ton for computer
• 1 ton for turret fire control

15+40+20+1+1 = 77 tons

• 32 tons for 2x 16 ton Boxes (stateroom + cargo)

77+32 = 109 tons ... not gonna fit.



Ah ... but ...
If you "pull a Seeker" and reduce the (main) fuel tankage from 40 down to 30 tons, and then put a 10-12 ton collapsible fuel tank into the Cargo Box, you get this ...

• 15 tons for A/A/A drives (code: 2/2/2)
• 30 tons for fuel (10 tons for J1, 20 tons for PP2)
• 20 tons for bridge
• 1 ton for model/1bis
• 1 ton for turret fire control
• 32 tons for internal hangar bay
  1. 16 tons for Stateroom Box (4 staterooms)
  2. 16 tons for Cargo Box (4 ton air/raft, 12 tons cargo hold)
     • 12 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank
• 1 ton for cargo hold

15+30+20+1+1+32+1 = 100 tons

The Type-J Seeker conversion would then only need to swap out the 4 ton air/raft (MCr0.6) for a 4 ton prospecting buggy (MCr0.75, CT Beltstrike, p9) and arm the dual turret with a (single, mining) pulse laser (MCr0.5).

This is where things get a bit "house rules" for the Referee, but I would personally rule that it's possible for a 100 ton starship with 30 tons of fuel to execute a 2 parsec jump, leaving 10 tons of fuel remaining. During the jump, the 10-12 tons of fuel in collapsible fuel tank could be pumped into the starship's "main" fuel tanks, so the ship would exit jump with 20+ tons of fuel in its fuel tanks.

However, a 2 ton additional margin in fuel capacity would mean that a 100 ton starship has 30+12=42 tons of fuel available onboard, without needing to refuel. That means that such a starship COULD execute J2+2 within a reasonable time frame ... giving the starship a "2 parsec round trip" fuel endurance capacity before needing to refuel (20 days of EP: 2 output, costing 0.1 tons of fuel per day @ EP=2).

I'm thinking that such a marginal/minor tweak to the endurance profile could have some rather remarkable mission capability implications in terms of flexible tasking for exploration and survey missions, because the starship wouldn't be "required" to refuel at the destination or be lost due to fuel exhaustion.

Seekers would simply "decline to fill the collapsible fuel tank" so as to have 10 tons of cargo hold space available (the minimum) in order to do ore processing and sample storage while prospecting (CT Beltstrike, p3).



One "fun" side effect of this kind of thinking is the notion that there might be 100 ton Scout/Courier Q-ships (maybe call them a Scouts Courier, just to be intentionally confusing? ).

• 15 tons for A/A/A drives (code: 2/2/2)
• 30 tons for fuel (10 tons for J1, 20 tons for PP2)
• 20 tons for bridge
• 2 tons for model/2
• 1 ton for turret fire control
• 32 tons for internal hangar bay
  1. 16 tons for Stateroom Box (4 staterooms)
  2. 16 tons for Cargo Box (4 ton air/raft, 12 tons cargo hold)
     • 12 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank

15+30+20+2+1+32 = 100 tons

Only real difference is deleting the 1 ton cargo hold and increasing the computer from a model/1bis to a model/2. I'm imagining that such a variant would be more suited to Communications Office courier duties, but the bump in computer capability also helps prevent the starship from being "hopeless" in combat while also increasing the data storage capacity for communications.



Needless to say, NONE of these options are "possible" without LBB5.80 and the ability to construct small craft ... but I'm thinking that this sort of "variation on the theme" of the classical Type-S seems like a really fun "sideline business" opportunity that can open up more possibilities for Travellers to adventure with.

And that's before I think about reworking the J1 Free Trader and J2 Far Trader in ways that can make use of 16 ton Boxes in a modular transporter kind of way.

 

[atpollard]

I say that would be a "neat trick" because:

• 15 tons for A/A/A drives (code: 2/2/2)
• 40 tons for fuel (20 tons for J2, 20 tons for PP2)
• 20 tons for bridge
• 1 ton for computer
• 1 ton for turret fire control

15+40+20+1+1 = 77 tons

• 32 tons for 2x 16 ton Boxes (stateroom + cargo)

77+32 = 109 tons ... not gonna fit.

Personally, I would just go with the ubiquitous HOUSE RULE (made official in almost EVERY other version except Classic Traveller) and install the 10 dTon Bridge on the 100 dTon Starship ... sort of like the Deckplans already show.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Personally, I would just go with the ubiquitous HOUSE RULE (made official in almost EVERY other version except Classic Traveller) and install the 10 dTon Bridge on the 100 dTon Starship ... sort of like the Deckplans already show.

Unfortunately, my intellectual honesty prevents me from stooping to that solution.

As for what the LBB S7 deck plans show, the "bridge" isn't just the "cockpit" with 2 workstations in it. There's also the avionics spaces and some of the common areas (the "aft bay" on the portside which can be used for databanks when the ship is outfitted for courier duty).

So thanks for the option, but I'm going to have to decline the offer.

 

[bookwyrm]

From what I understand, the 20 dton bridge minimum/bridge is 2% of starship tonnage, is a hard number.

In T20 it's the same... but there is an optional rule for using 10 dtons for the bridge and the other 10 dtons are for other necessary functions that might be in other parts of the ship, like an equipment locker and the computer and a few other things that will all add up to the 20 dtons bridge, or more for starships over 1k dtons.

 

[kilemall]

Personally, I would just go with the ubiquitous HOUSE RULE (made official in almost EVERY other version except Classic Traveller) and install the 10 dTon Bridge on the 100 dTon Starship ... sort of like the Deckplans already show.

I keep the full bridge on the theory that it’s loaded with automation that makes the single pilot possible, and also a good deal of sensor fit that makes those scout sensors go.

IMTU the starship bridge gets a standard set of every sensor EM bandwidth that functions as the 1/8 locate doggo/stealth no matter what set.

That set needs x space, and gives every ship a complete close safety detection and incidental planetary survey capability. Quite handy for Seekers for instance.

The planetary survey capability doesn’t work automated, needs a Survey/Prospecting skilled person to do manually, or more powerful computers start with the Model/3.

Small craft by contrast don’t have this full sensor fit in their little bridges and can be surprised more readily.

 

[kilemall]

What ARE you talking about?

Tilt up/down means horizontal axis hinges.
I specified vertical axis hinges, so the doors swing out to the sides ... like big swing out barn doors.

If you open the pressure doors, they swing open like this (because the doors are asymmetrical to accommodate the manual hatch on the centerline) ...

Ok, sort of works, except correct me if I’m wrong but I thought these were mostly internal fitments for a modular reallocation of function not cargo containers. Swing doors won’t work in hull.

Any length overhang vehicle or other long cargo could work if you had two or more of these with the doors opened or swung inside- works if one side is open to the back of the cargo bay, but otherwise they would have to be bolted together and moved/lowered as a unit.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Ok, sort of works

We make every pretense of competency around here ...

except correct me if I’m wrong but I thought these were mostly internal fitments for a modular reallocation of function not cargo containers. Swing doors won’t work in hull.

{ ... deep breaths .. }

You are correct that swing doors are not intended to be opened while a Cargo Box is loaded into an internal cargo hold or hangar bay for transport. That's why there are manual hatches on the sides in order to be able to access the interior without needing to swing out the big pressure doors on the ends.

However, the way the Cargo Boxes are intended to be used is substantially similar to how you use one of these:

To be clear, that's a wikipedia image of a 20ft ISO shipping container.
Notice the vertical hinges on the doors at the end?
Those doors aren't intended to be freely opened while the container is being transported, but they DO need to be opened in order to load/unload the contents of each container.
Hence ...

You then move the loaded Cargo Box into the cargo hold/hangar bay (easier to do in a hangar bay, which has "docking assistance" unlike a cargo hold) and transport the Cargo Box which contains the cargo/freight to be shipped.

Alternatively, since the 16 ton Cargo Box has a "starship grade hull" (16 tons, configuration: 4, MCr0.96 construction cost) it can be pressure sealed and optionally docked externally to other parent craft for towing (barge style). The parent craft will need to "pick up the tab" on housekeeping energy demands, which in the grand scheme of things are pretty negligible (16/2000=0.008 tons of power plant fuel consumption per 7 days) for each Box, but with enough Boxes can start to add up (33x 16 ton Boxes needs 0.008*33=0.264 tons of power plant fuel consumption per 7 days). For reference, 1 EP of power plant output consumes 0.35 tons of power plant fuel per 7 days, to give you a sense of scale.

The important point is that these modular Box containers can be transported internally or externally by small craft, non-starships and starships in order to create a modular transportation system ... as opposed to a purely breakbulk transport system.

Any length overhang vehicle or other long cargo could work if you had two or more of these with the doors opened or swung inside- works if one side is open to the back of the cargo bay, but otherwise they would have to be bolted together and moved/lowered as a unit.

The way I build these is that they have "external docking hangar capacity" on each Box. Basically the same as an "internal hangar" allocation, except it's on the outside (at no change in price for the docking capacity allocated). Since according to LBB5.80, p32 the price for "hangar" facilities is Cr2000 per ton, that means that 16 tons of hangar capacity costs MCr0.032 (whether inside or outside). I then make the assumption that since these Boxes are rectilinear in shape, with 6 sides, that means that any 1 Box may be stacked in an array adjacent to (and therefore needing to connect with/dock to) up to 6 other Boxes (fore/aft, port/starboard, dorsal/ventral). Therefore, the hull construction is "upgraded" with 16*6=96 tons of "hangar" capacity (external), costing an additional MCr0.192 on top of the MCr0.96 price for 16 tons of metal hull constructed in configuration: 4 (close structure).

And yes, this means that if something is longer than a single Box, simply open/fold/remove the pressure doors of as many Boxes as are needed and dock/mate them together into a "longer" pressurized/hull sealed shape needed for transport of whatever needs to be put inside of them. Basically, anything longer than 9.3m really ought to be using 2+ Cargo Boxes "joined" together to provide the necessary length required.

So if you need to take your Wheeled ATV Canyonero somewhere, you really want to be using 2x Cargo Boxes to transport it.
♪ Twelve yards long
♪ Two lanes wide
♪ 65 TONS of American pride!
♪ Canyonero-o!