Smallcraft in 1977 Book 2 [p17]

[AnotherDilbert]

(1) It would be 6G, since that's the max in 1977.

Agreed. I just wanted to point out that A drives are very overspecced for a lifeboat.

(2) The secret of the Drive Limiter is unsolved at this time.

In LBB2, yes. In LBB5 it is specified that it is limited by the inertial compensator.

By implication we can reach higher acceleration if we dispense with live crew and compensators.

I figure it is a turret + fire control.

Whatever you want, but it should be the same 2 tons as the Boat.

Re the shuttle, since the 80 ton cargo bay seems impossible, a retcon can be any amount; for example, 71 tons (which is what 1981 used).

Sure, but it is 70 tons of cargo + 2 crew, not 70 tons of cargo + 30 people.

Shuttle QS-9A30 Columbia MCr24.4

Same thing, it is 70 tons of cargo + 3 crew, not 70 tons of cargo + 30 people.

 

[kilemall]

Something I noticed with the two small craft that can mount two lasers- they have quite a price bump. That bump seems to be in line with a Power Plant B mated to a M-drive A, yielding extra power for the weapons.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Something I noticed with the two small craft that can mount two lasers- they have quite a price bump. That bump seems to be in line with a Power Plant B mated to a M-drive A, yielding extra power for the weapons.

In LBB2'77 none of the smallcraft can carry two lasers.


In LBB2'81, where the smallcraft are presumably designed using LBB5'80, an PP A would yield up to 2 EP and the craft would be capable of carrying 2 lasers.

I don't see any such price bump: E.g. Pinnace (2 lasers, MCr 20) vs Slow Pinnace (one laser, MCr 18).

 

[mike wightman]

Anyone care to try and explain the stats for the 95t shuttle in LBB2 77

95t, 3g, 30 passengers, 80t cargo, 9t fuel.

89t are cargo and fuel - 6t for 30 passengers and a 3g drive.

I would reason that the passengers take away from cargo space if they are carried.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Anyone care to try and explain the stats for the 95t shuttle in LBB2 77
...
I would reason that the passengers take away from cargo space if they are carried.

Agreed, the Shuttle should have less capacity:

The Lifeboat presumably has smaller drives, and the Shuttle larger drives.

...
Shut: 95 t - ~7 t[drives] -  9 t[fuel] - 80 t[cargo]       = -1 tons for 30 people. Oops.

Agreed, the Shuttle does not work.

Otherwise it basically looks like 1 ton per person, not 10 people per ton. Even the Lifeboat works if an ELB is 2 tons (=4 low berths).

That would make the Shuttle work with ~50 tons of cargo capacity.

 

[robject]

Same thing, it is 70 tons of cargo + 3 crew, not 70 tons of cargo + 30 people.

Hah! You're right! Good catch.

Anyone care to try and explain the stats for the 95t shuttle in LBB2 77

95t, 3g, 30 passengers, 80t cargo, 9t fuel.

89t are cargo and fuel - 6t for 30 passengers and a 3g drive.

I would reason that the passengers take away from cargo space if they are carried.

Maybe we can put the passengers on the wings.

But, yeah, Dilbert and I are thinking that there's less tonnage here than shown. Maybe it's marketing hype.

 

[robject]

Columbia II

Anyone care to try and explain the stats for the 95t shuttle in LBB2 77

Close, but not quite.

30 passengers, 76t cargo. Really really horrible "bridge". I imagine pilots who have done a year or two flying these would have stories to tell.


Can't do it, but I can get close using ACS (not close enough, but close enough, if you know what I mean):

This thing is ONLY for surface-orbit and orbit-orbit transfers. ONLY. No fooling around. You want longer trips, you gotta give more room to the pilot and those passengers.


Oh yes: I haven't accounted for its ability to transfer cargo in vacuum. Maybe that's easy, e.g. a bulkhead between the living area and the cargo area. Or maybe there's a 2t large cargo door that has to be placed, in which case there goes another 2t of cargo.


Shuttle QS-9A30 Columbia II MCr21.5

Overtonnage: 5 tons (95t)
Crew comfort: -5
Passenger demand: -5

   Tons	 Component                          	  MCr	Notes
-------	 -----------------------------------	-----	--------------------
     90	 Airframe Hull, lifters, 0 a/l free 	  8.3	A, lifters, 0 a/l free
      0	 Jump Fuel (0  parsec)              	    0	0 parsec jump, at 0t per parsec
    1.3	 Plant Fuel (0.5 months)            	    0	0.5 months
      3	 Maneuver Drive-3 (B)               	    6	3 G
      7	 PowerPlant-3 (B)                   	    7	P 3
    0.5	 Cramped Bridge                     	  0.2	1cc 0op 0ws
    7.5	 15x Steerage                       	    0	#15 x 2 Space Bunks
     76	 Cargo Hold Basic                   	    0

 

[robject]

Columbia III

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I am now convinced by Mike's suggestion, that the "80 ton cargo hold" is indeed intended to be configurable space, and that passenger seating is taken from that 80 tons.

It's a very reasonable and easy mistake to make, and apparently patches up all problems with the design as far as I'm concerned.


DETAIL

Now if we take y'all's suggestion that the cargo hold is THE USABLE SPACE, from which passenger space could be carved, then we actually have a snug but very workable design.

It fits 80 tons, a 2 ton cargo lock (for said vacuum transfer), room for three on the cramped "bridge", and even a rudimentary computer.

It just sails in at 95 tons. This is a reasonable design.

It's still best just for planet-based activities; you'd have to double the fuel and add 1+ tons of life support (MCr1/t) to make it work as an interplanetary craft.

Shuttle QS-9A30 Columbia III MCr22.2

Overtonnage: 5 tons (95 tons)
Crew comfort: -5
Passenger demand: -5

   Tons	 Component                          	  MCr	Notes
-------	 -----------------------------------	-----	--------------------
     90	 Airframe Hull, lifters, 0 a/l free 	  8.3	A, lifters, 0 a/l free
    1.3	 Plant Fuel (0.5 months)            	    0	0.5 months
      7	 PowerPlant-3 (B)                   	    7	P 3
      3	 Maneuver Drive-3 (B)               	    6	3 G
    0.5	 Computer Model/0 std               	  0.1	
    1.5	 Cramped Bridge                     	  0.4	1cc 2op 0ws
     80	 Configurable Space                   	    0	
      2	 Cargo Lock                         	  0.4

 

[AnotherDilbert]

   Tons	 Component                          	  MCr	Notes
-------	 -----------------------------------	-----	--------------------
    0.5	 Cramped Bridge                     	  0.2	1cc 0op 0ws
    7.5	 15x Steerage                       	    0	#15 x 2 Space Bunks

By LBB2'77 they are supposed to have 30 days life support, so you need to add a few tons of Life Support.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

   Tons	 Component                          	  MCr	Notes
-------	 -----------------------------------	-----	--------------------
     90	 Airframe Hull, lifters, 0 a/l free 	  8.3	A, lifters, 0 a/l free
    1.3	 Plant Fuel (0.5 months)            	    0	0.5 months
      7	 PowerPlant-3 (B)                   	    7	P 3
      3	 Maneuver Drive-3 (B)               	    6	3 G
    0.5	 Computer Model/0 std               	  0.1	
    1.5	 Cramped Bridge                     	  0.4	1cc 2op 0ws
     80	 Configurable Space                   	    0	
      2	 Cargo Lock                         	  0.4

But it is supposed to be a LBB2'77 craft with 9 tons of fuel.

Unlike LBB2'81, LBB2'77 does not support "configurable space":

The passenger capacity cannot be increased, due primarily to design constraints, and potential overload of life support equipment.

Note that B-drives would give it performance of 4 G. To make it 3 G we would need a drive package about half-way between A and B.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Since:

Life: 20 t -  2 t[drives] -  5 t[fuel] - ~5 t[ELB]         =  8 tons for  3 people.
Boat: 30 t -  5 t[drives] -  9 t[fuel] - 12 t[cargo]       =  4 tons for  5 people.
Pinn: 40 t -  5 t[drives] - 12 t[fuel] - 12 t[cargo] - 2 t =  9 tons for  8 people.
Cutt: 50 t -  5 t[drives] - 15 t[fuel] - 15 t[cargo] - 2 t = 13 tons for 12 people.
Shut: 95 t - ~7 t[drives] -  9 t[fuel] - 80 t[cargo]       = -1 tons for 30 people. Oops.

Most LBB2'77 smallcraft seem to need about 1 ton per carried person.

I would make it:

Shut: 95 t - ~7 t[drives] -  9 t[fuel] - 50 t[cargo]       = 29 tons for 30 people.

 

[kilemall]

In LBB2'77 none of the smallcraft can carry two lasers.


In LBB2'81, where the smallcraft are presumably designed using LBB5'80, an PP A would yield up to 2 EP and the craft would be capable of carrying 2 lasers.

I don't see any such price bump: E.g. Pinnace (2 lasers, MCr 20) vs Slow Pinnace (one laser, MCr 18).

Hmm, I was transcribing into a spreadsheet for comparison, perhaps I erred.

 

[infojunky]

Ok this thread makes me giggle.

Other people going through the same mental hoops I do when I approach the subject.

Consider this the must be at least a couple of interstitial drives on the bottom of the drive list. I call these subA and subB at 100 and 300 tons thrust. This allows for the Slow classification smallcraft.

And as a secondary note thrust is limited by compensation in Traveller.