Tail Landers
- Thread starter alveric
- Start date
I'll bite, why would someone create a tail landing trader, when a flat trader is seemingly more efficient for the bulk of trading applications.
I fully agree. A belly lander trader does not ned lifters for the cargo to go to several floors, so making it more efficient.
MThompson016
SOC-12
Take a look at the Droyne Trader in GT: Alien Races 3 page 105. Pretty much standard Free Trader stats, just a VERY different layout.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Once you have artificial gravity installed, this would be a rather rare design for a commercial ship.
Granted, the Swedish Meatball design wouldn't be biased against that layout, but I don't think it's optimized for normal atmospheric landings, more like airless moons.
Granted, the Swedish Meatball design wouldn't be biased against that layout, but I don't think it's optimized for normal atmospheric landings, more like airless moons.
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
There are a few tail sitters around, but most are not actually intended to land. Since that's an important characteristic of fringe traders...
The G+ Community has an A2 hull re-decked to be a tail-sitter as an empty hull. It turns into quite the edifice.
Page:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/109545927566258114273/posts/bUrQzeitkVo
Large plan:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/x...p4Zl54SOjqsrMaEPajnzk6lQEPzW3g=w1280-h1024-no
Last edited:
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
To answer the question, you would have tail landers if gravitic inertial compensation was not up to the Gs you want to regularly run and having the floor oriented tail down gets you an extra G.
I have tail sitters IMTU because the inertial systems can only offset 2G at TL10, so the liners and fast express ships that want to run at 3G without incurring discomfort or potential cargo/passenger/crew damage are therefore tail sitters.
No question that having to have a gantry or a launch/landing pit to service each floor is less efficient, but those ships have sort of a 'fast clipper' business model so they are compensated.
For most ships that are 2G or less, floors oriented belly down are just fine, and that would be most traders.
Now there is a twist, older TL9 ships, particularly detached duty Type S, have only 1 G compensation yet are belly landers, so they are uncomfortable to use at full accel/decel. Some TL9 Type S ARE tail sitters-those are handed out to 'favored' scouts.
TL8 in-system haulers and small craft still in service have no compensators, and so they are mostly tail sitters with a few belly landers where the crew just sucked it up or sat in couches the whole accel period.
I have tail sitters IMTU because the inertial systems can only offset 2G at TL10, so the liners and fast express ships that want to run at 3G without incurring discomfort or potential cargo/passenger/crew damage are therefore tail sitters.
No question that having to have a gantry or a launch/landing pit to service each floor is less efficient, but those ships have sort of a 'fast clipper' business model so they are compensated.
For most ships that are 2G or less, floors oriented belly down are just fine, and that would be most traders.
Now there is a twist, older TL9 ships, particularly detached duty Type S, have only 1 G compensation yet are belly landers, so they are uncomfortable to use at full accel/decel. Some TL9 Type S ARE tail sitters-those are handed out to 'favored' scouts.
TL8 in-system haulers and small craft still in service have no compensators, and so they are mostly tail sitters with a few belly landers where the crew just sucked it up or sat in couches the whole accel period.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Mongoose has thrust three at technological level ten.
However, I am tinkering around with the skyscraper concept more seriously after Azhanti controversy, and I think one and a half gees should be copeable.
However, I am tinkering around with the skyscraper concept more seriously after Azhanti controversy, and I think one and a half gees should be copeable.
I never understood the bias against the sphere in atmosphere. Hundreds of years of experience with cannon balls say otherwise (and have you ever noticed the Russuan space capsule, which seems to re-enter just fine).
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
That's fine, I initially extrapolated that the discovery of gravitics was in it's initial stages and didn't scale up to usable proportions for compensation or artificial gravity until a TL later. IMTU they are the same thing, anti-gravity is pushing or repulsing 'polarity' only.
I ran through the implications then found this happy snarlball o' weird that gives character to the ship designs and milieu.
So MgT TL10 would have tail sitters for constant 4G ships- not a very common design feature then, but perhaps some fast liners or high speed patrollers would go that path. Might be more a design feature at TL9, automatically tells you what TL they are.
Alternatively you could go Expanse with the juice and run higher Gs with a biomed solution- just be prepared to have to cut/reduce engines for any engineering/helping hurt crew drama.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
At technological level eight, we'll have all the energy we can consume; but at nine, everything changes.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
A really good source for tail lander deckplans is the old TSR Star Frontiers game.
Thanks for these suggestions, people - I will hit google again.
My desire for a tail lander is partly that IMTU people travel between stations and belts a lot more.
Also, I remember reading an opinion that a tail lander would reduce the work done by the 'inertial damping' type systems, as the vector of travel is in line with the vector of 'artificial gravity' (on a typical belly lander, the two vectors are at right angles).
My desire for a tail lander is partly that IMTU people travel between stations and belts a lot more.
Also, I remember reading an opinion that a tail lander would reduce the work done by the 'inertial damping' type systems, as the vector of travel is in line with the vector of 'artificial gravity' (on a typical belly lander, the two vectors are at right angles).
leo knight
SOC-12
Winchell Chung's Atomic Rockets site has some cutaway views of tail-sitter spaceships here:
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/deckplans.php
Enjoy!
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/deckplans.php
Enjoy!
leo knight
SOC-12
Some Star Frontiers vertical designs:
http://www.albinjohnson.com/starfrontiers/starships/sfships.html
http://www.albinjohnson.com/starfrontiers/starships/sfships.html
leo knight
SOC-12
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
1. My interest in skyscrapers intensified following the Azhanti reboot.
2. It makes sense if the construction method is mostly modular, as you can stack the decks like pancakes, and if it's large enough to have a spinal mount, use that as the primary structural support.
3. However, you probably don't want to land a skyscraper on a planet with an atmosphere, certainly nothing at cruiser size.
4. There's an inherent instability in the skyscraper configuration, the ship could easily topple over while on the ground, especially with those skinny pogo legs.
5. On the other hand, the cone configuration would make it bottom heavy, as well as having a larger base and lower centre of gravity; I guess that would be the arcology configuration. Or pyramid, if you're hip to be square.
2. It makes sense if the construction method is mostly modular, as you can stack the decks like pancakes, and if it's large enough to have a spinal mount, use that as the primary structural support.
3. However, you probably don't want to land a skyscraper on a planet with an atmosphere, certainly nothing at cruiser size.
4. There's an inherent instability in the skyscraper configuration, the ship could easily topple over while on the ground, especially with those skinny pogo legs.
5. On the other hand, the cone configuration would make it bottom heavy, as well as having a larger base and lower centre of gravity; I guess that would be the arcology configuration. Or pyramid, if you're hip to be square.
While I Use a similar justification, I also would point out the Mayday rules, in which ships are limited to 1g of thrust if they want to do Damage control. (Note evasion also requires a G of thrust).
Another reason for the prevalence of belly landers is the common idea that starships can land on any flat spot. Currently if y'all asked me I would say only the Scout Ship and the smallcraft are equipped for wilderness landings as are a few of the 200 dTon traders, but not all of them.
