Pondering starship evolution
- Thread starter Spinward Flow
- Start date
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
If these Boxes are docked externally and towed through jumpspace ... not to mention towed through interplanetary space at up to 6Gs ...
Ah, I'm sure it'll be FINE!
Who needs hull metal multiple centimeters thick (and radiation shielding) when you can just use a ... {checks notes} ... millimeters thick roll up ballistic cloth instead!
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Went ahead and did the construction budget for this.
- Starship (including vehicle and collapsible fuel tank): MCr30.77
- 16 ton Stateroom Box: MCr3.152
- 16 ton Cargo Box: MCr1.152
This is where a ... bifurcation of volume production pricing breaks in.
LBB2.81 has a 90% list cost for standard designs (LBB2.81, p23).
LBB5.80 has an 80% list cost for volume production (LBB5.80, p20).
- MCr31.5666 (90% volume production cost)
- MCr28.0592 (80% volume production cost)
For reference, a LBB2.81 Type-S Scout/Courier has a list price of MCr32.7 (100% single construction cost) and a MCr29.43 (90% volume production cost).
So a direct comparison at 100% list price, the construction cost is MCr35.074 vs MCr32.7 ... a +7.26% increase for (what I'm calling) the Type-SP (Scout, Provincial) relative to the legacy Type-S (Scout). Considering the sheer amount of increased loadout flexibility and mission tasking that the "16 ton modular box" variant I've designed here offers (including being able to shuttle external loads between surface and orbit in relay runs using the internal hangar bay in low threat environments) ... I'm thinking that the increase in VALUE well exceeds the increase in (100%) construction cost.
Note that 6x 16 ton Boxes (various types), towed externally, is sufficient to establish a modestly self-sufficient basecamp outpost at almost any location within J1+1 when wilderness refueling is available in destination star systems (not always a possibility) while en route to a deployment.
- Stateroom Box (quarters for 4, typically researchers)
- Stateroom Box (quarters for 4, typically researchers)
- Stateroom Box (quarters for 4, usually basecamp security)
- Laboratory Box (research lab or industrial/factory processor, employs up to 4 persons per shift)
- Cargo Box (fusion power plant and fuel tankage for the basecamp)
- Cargo Box (vehicle bay+workshop, life support and other consumables storage)
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Except that you CAN take a drop tank through both space and jump (just don't drop it) ... and expect it to survive.
So ...
Possible in some rules versions, but not others (as so many details, THAT is edition specific).
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
On the contrary, it was VERY sequitur.
You started out with statements about fitting these boxes INSIDE a hull.
Then the conversation drifted into the PROBLEM of not being able to open the doors when it was INSIDE the hull.
I offered a response that suggested a ROLL UP DOOR as a solution to access for a box INSIDE the hull.
Suddenly the box is strapped to the OUTSIDE of the hull.
I think it best to just leave you to your design. My input seems superfluous.
You started out with statements about fitting these boxes INSIDE a hull.
Then the conversation drifted into the PROBLEM of not being able to open the doors when it was INSIDE the hull.
I offered a response that suggested a ROLL UP DOOR as a solution to access for a box INSIDE the hull.
Suddenly the box is strapped to the OUTSIDE of the hull.
- In some circles, that would be called “moving the goalposts”.
- In some versions of Traveller, any hull entering Jumpspace requires a Jump Grid in the hull - but you mentioned NOTHING about a Jump Grid in the hull.
- In some versions, there are Jump Cables that must be wrapped around the boxes - but you mentioned nothing about Jump Cables around the boxes … which would ALSO interfere with swinging doors.
- In some versions, nothing is required - however you have not been particularly specific about Rule Versions.
I think it best to just leave you to your design. My input seems superfluous.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
No.
No it wasn't.
They need to be inside a streamlined hull in order to transit from orbit to a world surface with Atmosphere: 2+.
That's how CT works.
It's also how THIS worked to bring stuff down from orbit to a planetary surface with an atmosphere.
Put the unstreamlined/partially streamlined "stuff" inside the hangar bay while in orbit ... then use the streamlined hull to enter the atmosphere for landing.
I didn't think this was that difficult a concept to figure out.
Which I pointed out wasn't supposed to be happening under nominal circumstances while traveling, because the Cargo Boxes are for all intents and purposes "shipping containers" (or the TL=9+ interstellar equivalent).
Which was not asked for, was not needed, and not useful as a suggestion for something doing the job of THIS (using different dimensions) ...
You must be "new here" if the idea of modular boxes that can be loaded internally and/or docked externally (as needed/desired) is an unfamiliar concept to you. Allow me to quote the first sentence of Post #1 in this very (by now, quite long) thread, and I'm going to use bold text to make this quote of mine stand out from all the times that I'm quoting you.
I've been posting in this thread to explore this exact topic for almost a YEAR now.
I've built starship designs (plural!) around the concept in The Fleet forum for longer than that.
If the idea that a Box Of Hull Metal can be stowed internally into a cargo hold or hangar bay ... OR docked externally for towing is a "new" concept to you that you were not previously aware of in the context of this thread and EVERYTHING that I've been doing in it ... um ... yeah. That's not my fault.
The goalposts were always where I'd put them, since Post #1 of this thread.
No "moving" of the goalposts happened.
You were just completely unaware of the place where the goalposts were located, so when you found out they weren't where you were expecting them to be, you were surprised.
I'm working exclusively with CT.
Other versions of Traveller can be useful for ideas and concepts, which can be "backported" into CT (as best I can).
Beyond that, other versions of Traveller can "take a hike" and be subordinate to the way that CT works.
Clear enough?
The closest that CT gets to this is the LBB S9, p22-23 Brown class Jump Ship, which provides Fluff Text™ about jump net cables for external loading ... and nothing more.
Except in every citation I've made throughout this thread where I reference CT materials at EVERY opportunity.
In post #404 of this thread, I specifically cited LBB2.81 and LBB5.80 ... including page numbers for people who like to "check my work" because they need the verification.
Yes.
Thank you.
Last edited:
Well, the description of he Gazelle allows it to move arround with the drop box, reducing its performance to J4/M4, so I guess the Drop tanks may be kept wile jumping...
Main drawback to drop tanks is that they can't survive a weapons hit (one hit destroys all external tanks). They're ok for carriage through jump, no problem.
I suppose you could build "drop tanks" out of regular hull material, perhaps even with armor. IMTU I'd rule it to be normal tankage, and handle damage the same way. It'd just cost like regular hull material, that's all.
I suppose you could build "drop tanks" out of regular hull material, perhaps even with armor. IMTU I'd rule it to be normal tankage, and handle damage the same way. It'd just cost like regular hull material, that's all.
Well, so, as the squeaky hinge of Pandora Box opens.
Lets talk then of "fuel riders". "That's not a drop tank, it's a fuel rider."
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
As soon as you make drop tanks droppable but recoverable you open that box, fueling stations, oilers, the lot. In MgT the breakaway hull option has the unintended consequence of allowing this...
Last edited:
Just for the record, MY only point was that DROP TANKS survived both "in space" and "in jumpspace" and were "less than the thickness of a standard starship hull" [which was the criticism raised against my roll-up doors]. Thus 40 cm of Hard Steel (or whatever the Striker value is) is NOT the minimum to survive in space, because Drop Tanks do it with much less.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
The basic difference between external tank (demountable or drop) and "hull" metal is the cost.
External tanks = Cr1000 per ton
Hull metal = Cr100,000 per ton
So what's the tradeoff?
The tradeoff is that hull metal is "battle protection" grade while external tanks are giant eggshells (any hostile hit destroys the entire thing).
So in the context of fuel hits, inside of hull metal you lose 1% or 10 tons minimum ... while inside an external tank you lose 100%.
100x the construction cost for 1% loss ... or 1x the construction cost for 100% loss.
It's really that simple.
External tanks are effectively "disposable" and aren't really intended to be brought into combat range of hostile weapons (because, "pop goes the weasel"). The point being that external tanks (demountable or dop) are FLIMSY and aren't expected to have an endurance to match the (hull metal) of the craft they get attached to. If you reuse them, that's a "bonus" rather than the default expectation. Why? Because they're basically "out of warranty" after you use them the first time. It's theoretically POSSIBLE to be able to use them for 40 years ... and if you think you can pull that off, I've got a star system in the demilitarized zone to sell you.
By contrast, hull metal is STURDY and expected to be able to survive battle damage hits without compromising the entirety of the contents ... meaning that large enough displacements of hull metal can take multiple hits without losing overall integrity.
In other words, it's the difference between the hull of a "tank" and a ... soap bubble.
Poke a hole in the tank's hull and it'll retain its overall shape (more or less).
Poke a hole in a soap bubble and ... POP!
As for the notion of a "fuel rider" ... in the "bidnez" we call that a Tanker.
Doesn't matter if the fuel is inside or outside the main hull. What matters is how much fuel can be transferred to other craft.
For the record, we protect the windows on Hurricane Shelters with EITHER BLAST RATED BALLISTIC GLASS or a Kevlar Blanket installed in front of regular safety glass. Both meet the Miami-Dade Impact Test of an 8' 2x4 fired from a canon at 80 mph. [which happens to also pass DOD Blast rating tests for use on Federal Buildings.]
Traveller Space Suits also accomplish both micrometeorite protection and radiation protection with thin, flexible membranes.
[Just saying: the "are you serious?" response was not appreciated and was uncalled for.]
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Compared to orbital velocities, that's practically stationary.
At LEO around Terra, you're looking at ~17,500 mph to remain in an inertial orbit.
If you hit something in a retrograde orbit to your own ... double that.
An 8 foot long 2x4 fired at 80 mph has less impact energy than a retrograde orbital intercept with an object at up to ~35,000 mph (or more, depending on trajectories), relative speed.
For SHORT durations of exposure, measured in hours ... not decades.
Why don’t you calculate the energy of the 2x4 at 35,000 mph in Megatons and tell me how many FEET of armor each Cheyanne Mountain Class Cargo Module has?
The Mars Mission was planning on thin shells with stand-off armor, Kevlar layers and plastic for radiation absorption, which sounds like a Space Suit.
(But I bet you can’t find your quoted limitation in the CT rules. It only applies to things you disagree with.)
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
No one member owns a thread on COTI. You don't get to gatekeep.
Not my circus and I'm not your monkey.
If you actually want to know such details, I advise you to start your own thread discussing the topic and stop trying to commandeer mine with these repeated derailments into unhelpful.
