It's a bit like that for the ones run by the IISS, but for detached duty ships I reckon the Cutter's Goose model works. For the Type A, I see it more like John Wayne's ship in Donovan's Reef.I really liked that show.
Tales of the Gold Monkey - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I would think that a Type S would be more like a UPS/Fed-Ex type. The Type A more like a Tramp Cargo Ship- LTS, (less than Shipload).
CT Only: What One Thing Would You Change About Classic Traveller?
- Thread starter robject
- Start date
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
From what I recall, the issues with containerships were:
1. Operating costs: labour, fuel, insurance.
2. Capacity: port facilities, route bottlenecks, demand/business cycle (usually lagging, as ordered when high, delivered when low).
3. Speed: lower operating costs by just a couple of knots (same as airliners).
4. Pollution.
5. Alternate routes: Mediterranean instead of North Sea, Thailand and Nicaragua canals.
1. Operating costs: labour, fuel, insurance.
2. Capacity: port facilities, route bottlenecks, demand/business cycle (usually lagging, as ordered when high, delivered when low).
3. Speed: lower operating costs by just a couple of knots (same as airliners).
4. Pollution.
5. Alternate routes: Mediterranean instead of North Sea, Thailand and Nicaragua canals.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
You rapidly run into a deck plan problem though with those tonnages.
5 * 14 / 3 / 1.5 / 1.5 = 10.37 deck squares (basically a 5.1x2 squares)
10 * 14 / 3 / 1.5 / 1.5 = 20.74 deck squares (basically a 6.9x3 squares)
This is why I eventually (after much trial and error) settled upon the 12 ton box hull as the best deck plan compromise.
12 * 14 / 3 / 1.5 / 1.5 = 24.88 deck squares (basically 5x5 squares)
I’m going 5 ton 2 meters wide by 3 meters tall by 11.6 meters long, double length for 10 tons. A TEU container by contrast is typically 2.3 x 2.4 x 6 meters.
I’m going high cube figuring that cargo bays are taller and that lower tech planets with wheeled trucks and trains would want the narrower width. And more likely to fit in the ship.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Airships, especially for planets without extensive transport infrastructure.
Though you do have gravitational motors at technological level eight.
Though you do have gravitational motors at technological level eight.
I had some free time this afternoon so I worked up the basic outline designs for a 24,000 TEU equivalent using LBB5(80). for J2 to J5 I assumed TL 13/14, with TL15 for the J6. I've also assumed M1 for all versions, and allowed some spare tonnage for sub-vessels, screens and armaments; 1 TEU = 3Td:
J2+ 120,000 Td
J3 = 160,000 Td
J4 = 200,000 Td
J5 = 400,000 Td
J6 = 720,000 Td
The container shown in Supplement 7 was given as 3.85 Td (6m x 3m x 3m). I believe that in T5 (where they have switched to 1Td = 13.5 m^3) the standard container sizes are 2, 4 and 8 Td.
Standard TEU is approx 6.0 x 2.4 x 2.5 metres.
I tend to think of the cargo volumes as being the physical volume of the cargo plus the space needed to manipulate and/or inspect it.
So, here's a fun thought experiment.
On the simplistic assumption that all of these ships are active.
This is a Tech 8, X Starport (Actually, I'd give it an E -- we have lots of paved areas to land if we wanted to use them). POP = 9.
On planet were looking at 5370 * 11651 = 63 MDT + 12229 * 9875 = 121 MDT + 13201 * 8541 = 113 MDT or 297 MDT, round that up to 300 Million DTons of shipping capacity. We'll swag 17 trips a year (3 weeks per trip, which is very conservative for some I bet). So, 300 * 17, 5100. 5.1 BDT of traffic per year.
Scatter that across the year. 5100 MDT / 365. 13 Million tons of traffic a day.
Since a J2 100K cargo ship has about 60% cargo space, 13M/60K =216. So, thats 9 very large cargo ship per hour per day. On earth, it's 13 hours at 1G to get to 100D, so that's 117 ships in flight at any one time, solely to service this traffic.
Going on the crass assumption that off planet traffic is similar to on planet traffic.
Just gives an idea of how busy a system might be.
Shrug, that’s fine, for the 1-ton lots I’m figuring those cargo dodecahedrons from Silent Running.
Just easier to justify the standard speculation lots, and I figure they want less tare weight vs volume then the small sub-5 ton containers.
The 1 Td lots would be break-bulk so could be anything - barrels, crates, sacks (small or those huge ones sand gets delivered in by builders' merchants).
You're right that the container sizes not matching the size of minor and major lots doesn't make sense. IMTU I'd make the lot size multiplier 4 for minor, 8 for major.
It gets a whole lot busier if you add in the rest of the ships that I left off that list. Even if you assume that our current number and tonnage (without adjusting size for the larger drives and fuel tanks) of ships are servicing an entire sector it is still much busier than RAW suggests.
Yep, that is what it kinda looks like.
Also to consider Dubai and Bahrain report each 3,000 to 5,000 visits by Dhows each year. Having been in the Indian Ocean at the right time I remember seeing 100's Dhows making passage to places like Singapore from Africa and the the Middle East. Not to mention similar number and sizes of ships/boats throughout Southeast Asia.
With that I could reasonably expect twice the volume of ships as mentioned above. To be real clear ACS ships are more akin to Dhows than the larger ships...
To be absolutely clear my assumption of a TEU volume is 4 dTons, thus a 40' box is 8 dTons...
Kakistocrat
SOC-12
If I’ve done the math right, 100D around Earth has a volume just shy of 1.12 Gm³, so I’d imagine that starport traffic controllers would only need to monitor the traffic in a very small portion of that space.
Kakistocrat
SOC-12
Nope, I’d made a mistake; that volume is a little over 1.1 Gm³ (about 98.5% of my initial calculation).
Just checking - is that 4 Td/8Td the volume of the containers or the volume of containers plus space around them?
I'm of the mind that due to the way jump works and everything else, while in theory you could just leave off in any direction to get to the destination, in fact there is a "best route" between two planets in two systems, and that this enables ad hoc "jump lanes" of traffic as all of the traffic for the same system follows the same, optimal, course at they head to 100D. Mind, these jump lanes shift over time, as they're based on the relative positions of the planets in their orbits, but day to day, or a week, they're consistent.
And since most system don't have that many trading partners, if you were do a top view of a busy system, you'd see a few tendrils of traffic radiating out from the planet. Also, you'd see other tendrils of incoming traffic. The lanes are not necessary bi-directional. The outbound lane for System Y may well be different than the inbound. Also, the inbound lane would be much more scattered to compensate with the varied arrival times imposed by the nature of Jump, whereas the outbound lanes would be more like a tight stream.
Finally, while you can't track people in jump, it's a fair guess that if a ship is heading out in the outbound lane with all the other ships going to System Y, it's probably going to System Y. (Sneaky note for adventurers actually heading for System X and fear they may be being tracked...)
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Agreed.
What is fun is that if you're willing to "spend a little more time maneuvering" out to a jump point, you can "depart from the pack" and take a slightly less than optimal route which is less likely to encounter other craft. Basically the difference between "less traveled back roads" and driving along the paved lane of a highway.
And then you get into the fun notion that due to orbital ephemera, some (relative) positions to jump from can be good for multiple destinations (not just one), even if there is a shorter/quicker maneuver plot to another location that would be "more optimal" for jump departures from the system. In other words, you can choose to maneuver to locations that will camouflage your intended destination simply by increasing the number of probable permutations to where you might be wanting to go.
What is fun is that if you're willing to "spend a little more time maneuvering" out to a jump point, you can "depart from the pack" and take a slightly less than optimal route which is less likely to encounter other craft. Basically the difference between "less traveled back roads" and driving along the paved lane of a highway.
And then you get into the fun notion that due to orbital ephemera, some (relative) positions to jump from can be good for multiple destinations (not just one), even if there is a shorter/quicker maneuver plot to another location that would be "more optimal" for jump departures from the system. In other words, you can choose to maneuver to locations that will camouflage your intended destination simply by increasing the number of probable permutations to where you might be wanting to go.
That would certainly be true for ships capable of more than J1, with the number of potential destinations increasing with Jn.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
True, but with increasing acceleration power (rather than being limited to only 1G) it becomes possible to "feint" in all kinds of directions to throw off a tail. Lull opposition into a false sense of security (they think they know where you're going, so no need to rush an intercept) and then when you're out of range you dial up your maneuver drives and divert your course. That way when opponents gather and lie in wait to ambush you at a time and place of their choosing, you simply "fail to appear" on schedule (because you vectored away a while ago).
Best way to NOT get caught at a choke point is to ... avoid the choke point ... if you've got the option.
I know, that's some radical "four dimensional thinking" going on there ...
