Tail Landers

[Grav_Moped]

Just as G_d and R.A. Heinlein intended.

 

[nobby-w]

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 had some thoughts on this, for a lower tech campaign in a setting where ships specifically did not have grav modules.

• A tail lander might be interesting for specialised applications like heavy lifters.
• A tail lander might be able to carry more payload overall as it dispenses with heavy lifting surfaces or elaborate thrust vectoring systems needed to make a VTOL space plane or lifting body.
• For a shuttle or other craft designed to land on a vacuum world it makes sense as there is no need for aerodynamics.

The downside is that the cargo bay is some distance off the ground, although maybe not so far if you imagine an egg-shaped craft with engine pods mounted on the sides. Therefore the ship must either carry a crane (maybe limiting the size of individual cargo items) or be reliant on cargo handling facilities at the starport.

For a heavy lifter designed to carry a large single payload, you would be dependent on cargo handling facilities to load the cargo, or would have to carry these facilities as well - perhaps some sort of folding gantry crane arrangement with legs that unfold to stand on the ground. The crane would, of course be quite heavy. A ship like this might be used to carry outsize payloads, perhaps in conjunction with a jump shuttle.

For a non-streamlined ship that's not intended to land, the decks could be in any orientation. Azhanti High Lightning cruisers have decks that are perpendicular to the thrust of the main engines - the same orientation as a tail stander. If you want another standard OTU design like this, Broadsword class mercenary cruisers are set out in this way as well.

 

[aramis]

A totally unstreamlined tail-sitter can land almost anywhere, and can handle one more G of thrust.

Keep in mind that, in TNE and T4, G_compensation is roughly TL-9 G's.