OTU Only: Shugushaag (600Td J5 Freighter, LBB2 2nd Ed.)

[Spinward Flow]

In re cargo efficiency: containerizing always results in lost capacity, if only that occupied by the container itself.

And this is where we run into Containerization vs CT rules disputes.

LBB2 (and later, LBB7) specify that Major cargo lots are multiples of 10 tons and Minor cargo lots are multiples of 5 tons, with Incidental cargo being multiples of 1 ton.

• Major cargo: 1D x10 tons
• Minor cargo: 1D x5 tons
• Incidental cargo: 1D tons

This is wonderfully simple for Players and Referees to deal with since it keeps the math simple (most people can count in 1s, 5s and 10s no trouble in their heads).

But as soon as you start figuring standardized containerization rules (which, to be fair, would have been developed later than 1977) you start running into problems with standard containers "not wanting to be 1, 5 or 10 tons" in mass displacement.

In fact, the Standard Cargo Container sizes instead want to be 2, 4 or 8 tons each instead of 1, 5 or 10 tons each ... which makes A LOT more sense when you think about things in terms of deck plans and cargo volume spaces, instead of just wanting to do the "quick and easy" thing of multiples of 1/5/10 for sheer simplicity at the gaming table.

Also note that 2/4/8 tons maps very neatly onto Cabin/Stateroom sizes of 2 or 4 tons, while 1/5/10 does not except at specific multiples.

And, of course, Mail as 5 tons of dedicated cargo essentially equated to a single minimum size Minor cargo lot, so if you shrink Minor cargo lots from multiples of 5 down to multiples of 4 in tonnage, there ought to be a knock on effect in which Mail also shrinks from 5 dedicated tons down to 4 dedicated tons (but still at Cr5000 per ton to keep the revenue density per ton constant).

Powers of 2 make more sense for standardized cargo containerization than fractions of 10.

However, the flipside to that argument would be that 8 ton standard containers require "10 tons of cargo hold capacity" in order to account for needing to secure everything for shipment and flight, with that extra "25% waste tonnage" going towards starship design factors such as strengthening the floors for heavy loads (or just high gravity world environments) and environmental controls (so as to be able to put "almost anything" into the cargo bay), walk space/crawl space around the cargo for access during shipment, safety standards and so on and so forth. That way, the actual billing is still in fractions of 10 even though the actual contents being loaded are containerized in powers of 2.

In other words, handwavium can still work in YTU if you want it to with CT rules and standardized containerization of cargoes. You just need to get a little creative in how you think about such things.

 

[Condottiere]

Going by the cargo crane entry, the upper end are thirty two and sixty five tonne variants.

 

[kilemall]

I disagree that the 5-ton and 10-ton container cannot be a thing. They are just a bit longer.

As to the container eating up usable volume, assuming that we give any credence to the 1dton = 1000kg limit bit then the heavier density of most objects to be carried means there is plenty of empty space to not worry about. This happens in RL containers too.

 

[Grav_Moped]

One of the ship's features is specifically cargo-oriented: the ceiling of the cargo hold includes hoists that can drop through the door opening to lift containers and position them in the hold. The area above the doors also incorporates latches to suspend containers from the ceiling so cargo does not rest on the doors.

There is also a loading ramp stowed under the floor that can extend forward to facilitate roll-on cargo.

It's worth mentioning that the cargo door opening will clear anything that could fit through the doors of a Subsidized Merchant. The cargo hold is, obviously, far shorter than that of the Type R.

 

[Condottiere]

What's the point of containerization?

Efficiency, on the assumption that you minimize docking fees and labour costs.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Standards make efficiency more obtainable.

 

[Grav_Moped]

What's the point of containerization?

Efficiency, on the assumption that you minimize docking fees and labour costs.

And that's something that the rules don't actually cover. It takes a week planetside to get your cargo. How much of that time is spent loading/unloading, and is the port infrastructure ever the limiting factor?

 

[Spinward Flow]

It takes a week planetside to get your cargo.

Actually, it's 4 days unless you pay to put a "rush" on the cargo's delivery.

How much of that time is spent loading/unloading, and is the port infrastructure ever the limiting factor?

CT Beltstrike has this to say about loading speeds on page 5 under the Mining heading.

On an average, given the difficulties of mining in zero-G, one individual can load two tons of ore in the course of a watch.

A single watch lasts 6 hours (so 4 watch rotation every 24 hours, hence a desire for a 4 or 8 man crew for long term prospecting so people get adequate rest).

That's basically 1 ton per 180 minutes per person under zero-G conditions that qualify as a type X starport (for our purposes) for "loading by hand" essentially.

The 6 starport types are A, B, C, D, E and X.
If we then build a matrix for loading time required per ton, starting with 1 ton per minute at type A starport facilities, we can do something like this:

• A = 1 ton per 1 minute per person (1)
• B = 1 ton per 3 minutes per person (1+2)
• C = 1 ton per 6 minutes per person (1+2+3)
• D = 1 ton per 10 minutes per person (1+2+3+4)

This then represents the relative sophistication of the cargo handling equipment to assist with loading and unloading. The "per person" in this case would be the number of crew members assigned to coordinate with the cargo handlers dockside for cargo transfers onto and off the ship (larger crews can afford to spare more crew members to coordinate and with the dock workers to get the job done more efficiently, more hands make short work and all that). That way, smaller crews that can afford to spare less people for oversight of cargo transfers take longer to load and unload relative to larger crews that can spare more people for cargo handling oversight.

Type E and X starports are basically "no facilities" locations with respect to cargo handling, so they get pretty severely penalized in terms of efficiency in moving cargo on and off the ship.
E = 1 ton per 30 minutes per person (10+20)
X = 1 ton per 60 minutes per person (10+20+30)
At that point, you basically just need to apply a 3x multiplier for zero-G working conditions and you've got your 1 ton per 180 minutes per person under zero-G conditions specified in Beltstrike.

I would also stipulate that having use of an Air/Raft gravitic vehicle capable of transporting 4 tons of cargo would be exceptionally useful as a "cargo hold forklift" type of vehicle when operating above zero-G for loading and unloading cargo. In C, D, E and X starport conditions above zero-G, having an Air/Raft will 2x the amount of cargo that can be loaded or unloaded per person from the crew overseeing the cargo loading and unloading. This then provides a defined game mechanical reason for merchant ships to carry at least 1 Air/Raft aboard to assist with cargo shuffling at any location without a type A or B starport.

The above can then be extrapolated over and mapped onto the type F through Y spaceports featured in the LBB6 Extended System Generation for additional world UWPs.

 

[Condottiere]

Would depend on the extent of the access, bottlenecks would be stuff like the size of the cargo hatches, rather than the number of longshoremen.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Would depend on the extent of the access, bottlenecks would be stuff like the size of the cargo hatches, rather than the number of longshoremen.

We're assuming that the cargo hatches are large enough (otherwise the cargo simply isn't getting loaded or unloaded).

 

[whartung]

Would depend on the extent of the access, bottlenecks would be stuff like the size of the cargo hatches, rather than the number of longshoremen.

This is not a problem simply because you don't schedule cargo for ships on which they don't fit. Obviously there's always edge cases, but routine stuff, you have the dimensions of the carrier as part of the standard routine for getting the cargo. All of this stuff is done up front, not on the tarmac with two guys arguing and pointing at a box next to a too small door.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Would depend on the extent of the access, bottlenecks would be stuff like the size of the cargo hatches, rather than the number of longshoremen.

This is not a problem simply because you don't schedule cargo for ships on which they don't fit. Obviously there's always edge cases, but routine stuff, you have the dimensions of the carrier as part of the standard routine for getting the cargo. All of this stuff is done up front, not on the tarmac with two guys arguing and pointing at a box next to a too small door.

Well, I present the DA1 version of the Annic Nova as that edge case. Its only door from the cargo bay to the outside is through the small-craft docking port, and the small craft can only carry 10Td at a time (as written under '77 rules -- if it were the '81 pinnace instead, it could haul 20Td or so). To transfer cargo from a hired shuttle would require floating individual continers across, stopping them inside the docking port, getting them lined up properly, then shoving them sideways into the cargo bay. One at a time. For about 150Td of cargo.

That ain't gonna go quickly.

In fairness, Annic Nova wasn't really supposed to be a practical design, and didn't need to be one. At best, it was weird because it was alien, at worst, it was impractical because it was less a starship than a setting for a "haunted house" scenario. The only rational explanation I can come up with is that it was meant for long-term exploration and the holds provided for storage of consumables.

 

[Condottiere]

If cargo is on external mounts, as long as the dockside facilities are available, loading and unloading containerized cargo is probably quite fast.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The only rational explanation I can come up with is that it was meant for long-term exploration and the holds provided for storage of consumables.

At 150 person/weeks per ton of life support consumables (Beltstrike, p3), you're looking at A LOT OF YEARS of continuous spaceflight being possible (ignoring annual overhaul maintenance requirements) given the size of the cargo hold on the Annic Nova.

 

[Grav_Moped]

At 150 person/weeks per ton of life support consumables (Beltstrike, p3), you're looking at A LOT OF YEARS of continuous spaceflight being possible (ignoring annual overhaul maintenance requirements) given the size of the cargo hold on the Annic Nova.

This might have included spares. The ship was equipped with extensive shop facilities, so maybe it could do its own annual maintenance as it went along?

(My retcon was to turn the shop facilities into Maker devices because 40 years of SF changed readers' expectations.)

 

[Condottiere]

Speaking of access, I just made the realization that empty weapon bays are free in terms of construction, so you could stuff anything that fits in them, and have immediate access when the bay hatches are opened.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I just made the realization that empty weapon bays are free in terms of construction

So are cargo holds.

Bay weapons require 1000 tons of hull per bay weapon ... just like turrets require 100 tons of hull per turret hardpoint.
Hard to put a bay weapon into a 600 ton hull.

Oh and it looks like that assumption of yours isn't quite right.

LBB5.80, p30

Weapons bays cost Cr10.000 per ton
Empty weapons bays may be put to a variety of uses, such as holding small craft (air/rafts, ATVs, fighters, pinnaces, etc), or storing cargo. Vehicles and craft may be carried in otherwise unused bays at 50% wastage (100 tons of bay holds 50 tons of vehicle or craft).

 

[Condottiere]

You have to visualize it this way.

You have a dedicated volume, that has almost complete access to the exterior.

And unlike turrets, construction of such has no price tag.

 

[Grav_Moped]

On the matter of the Shugs' cargo bay:

It's designed for cargo operations on planetary surfaces. There is no cargo airlock, and any docking tube would have to be a custom fit. Worse, the doors cannot be closed over a docking tube; instead, the tube would have to be disconnected before the bay could be sealed.

I suppose one could put a large hatch in the aft end of the cargo bay floor that could be used to transfer materiel to orbital stations or other ships, but that starts cutting into the available fuel tank space.

Basically, it's built to handle either containers from planetside, or bulky cargo (complete starship drives and drive components) that can tolerate adverse environments. The idea was that it shouldn't ever need to reject a cargo because it won't fit through the doors.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Jump governors are only "a thing" needed for LBB2.77 drives.
LBB2.81 drives are already "updated" in such a way that jump governors are already "built into" the jump drive (the fuel formula got updated, basically) and become an obsolete item. So it's only the LBB2.77 rules that needed the correction.

T5 has them implicit except for Early (required TL+1), Prototype (TL+2), or Experimental (TL+3). That is, if you're building a ship with a higher Jn than is standard at your TL, you don't have one (and the hull gets expensive). It's harsher than '77 rules, too. You not only burn the whole jump fuel allocation regardless of distance, you must do the full jump distance unless you aim for and hit an intervening gravity well. And on a full-distance jump, you exit some distance outside the 100D limit.