Pondering starship evolution

[atpollard]

... or use THIS ROLL-UP DOOR and the problem goes away.

Spoiler

Replace vinyl with Ballistic Cloth ... someone will ask, so I might as well state it up front ... it is good enough for human rated EVA Space Suits.

 

[Spinward Flow]

... or use THIS ROLL-UP DOOR and the problem goes away.

Spoiler

Replace vinyl with Ballistic Cloth ... someone will ask, so I might as well state it up front ... it is good enough for human rated EVA Space Suits.

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!

 

[atpollard]

I mean, it’s not like you can take a drop tank through space and Jumpspace and expect it to survive, right? How many points of armor is a Drop Tank anyway?

 

[Spinward Flow]

Type-SP Scout/Courier

• 100 ton standard hull (streamlined) (LBB2.81, p15, p22)
• 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
     • 16 tons for 4 staterooms
  2. 16 tons for Cargo Box
     • 4 tons for air/raft
     • 12 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank (0.12 tons when empty)
• (16*6=96 tons external docking load capacity)
• 1 ton for cargo hold

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

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

30.77+3.152+1.152 = MCr35.074 (100% single production cost)

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.

1. Stateroom Box (quarters for 4, typically researchers)
2. Stateroom Box (quarters for 4, typically researchers)
3. Stateroom Box (quarters for 4, usually basecamp security)
4. Laboratory Box (research lab or industrial/factory processor, employs up to 4 persons per shift)
5. Cargo Box (fusion power plant and fuel tankage for the basecamp)
6. Cargo Box (vehicle bay+workshop, life support and other consumables storage)

One of those same job with better tools/toys when it comes to "building a better mousetrap" for this kind of work.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I mean, it’s not like you can take a drop tank through space and Jumpspace and expect it to survive, right?

Except that you CAN take a drop tank through both space and jump (just don't drop it) ... and expect it to survive.
So ...

 

[atpollard]

If these Boxes are docked externally and towed through jumpspace ...

Possible in some rules versions, but not others (as so many details, THAT is edition specific).

 

[Spinward Flow]

@atpollard ... I am left with only one possible response to your most recent line of inquiry.

 

[atpollard]

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.

1. In some circles, that would be called “moving the goalposts”.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. In some versions, nothing is required - however you have not been particularly specific about Rule Versions.

Thus, my comments have been a [wasted] effort to contribute to your design evolution.
I think it best to just leave you to your design. My input seems superfluous.

 

[Spinward Flow]

On the contrary, it was VERY sequitur.

No.
No it wasn't.

You started out with statements about fitting these boxes INSIDE a hull.

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.

Then the conversation drifted into the PROBLEM of not being able to open the doors when it was INSIDE the hull.

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).

I offered a response that suggested a ROLL UP DOOR as a solution to access for a box INSIDE the hull.

Which was not asked for, was not needed, and not useful as a suggestion for something doing the job of THIS (using different dimensions) ...

Suddenly the box is strapped to the OUTSIDE of the hull.

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.

A few regular readers of these forums may be familiar with my ... research ... into external loading of starships for increased transport capacity and mercantile flexibility using the Tug+Barge design principles.

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.

In some circles, that would be called “moving the goalposts”.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

In some versions, nothing is required - however you have not been particularly specific about Rule Versions.

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.

Thus, my comments have been a [wasted] effort to contribute to your design evolution.

Yes.

I think it best to just leave you to your design. My input seems superfluous.

Thank you.

 

[McPerth]

I mean, it’s not like you can take a drop tank through space and Jumpspace and expect it to survive, right? How many points of armor is a Drop Tank anyway?

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...