X-Boat Launch Stations

[Patron Zero]

Once again stirring the pot of convention and canon with radical ideas as usual.

As discussed in a previous thread concerning express boat stations and the lack of materials concerning their construction and accommodations, I'd like to add a 'variant' to said facilities.

Essentially similar in construction and appearance to a 'standard' XBS, this particular differs with it's core-centered open framework 'tunnel' extending away from the base proper.

The central axis oriented launch 'tube' is a massive linear accelerator, pretty much a rain gun capable of sending an outgoing X-boat on it's way to it's jump-point with reasonable efficiency.

Mind that a launch station would only operate along the central routes of the express boat network to handle the constant outbound traffic of regularly scheduled departing ships.

Said facility would have it's small contingent of auxiliary small craft to assist in recovery of inbound X-boats as well, to ferry about such to maintenance bays and refueling slips.

The launch 'tube' operations, in theory, would free up an ancillary craft from returning home 'empty' while increasing departure capacity for wherever it's point of placement along the main-lines such might be.

I suggest the open-framework as a 'compromise' to ease of operations and maintenance, said construction having it's design and roots from the large skeletal-mounted main guns found on dedicated naval vessels none the less.

"Transferring control to craft, prepare to launch"

 

[aramis]

Essentially similar in construction and appearance to a 'standard' XBS, this particular differs with it's core-centered open framework 'tunnel' extending away from the base proper.

The central axis oriented launch 'tube' is a massive linear accelerator, pretty much a rain gun capable of sending an outgoing X-boat on it's way to it's jump-point with reasonable efficiency.

Which sends the station going the other way with an equal number of meganewtons of thrust - given a typical 600-1000Td station, vs a 100Td XB, and similar mass ratios, 1/6 the speed, which now has to be made up for by the station. Assuming it doesn't slam the world.

This is elementary school level physics, mate: equal and opposite reaction.

 

[atpollard]

Which sends the station going the other way with an equal number of meganewtons of thrust - given a typical 600-1000Td station, vs a 100Td XB, and similar mass ratios, 1/6 the speed, which now has to be made up for by the station. Assuming it doesn't slam the world.

This is elementary school level physics, mate: equal and opposite reaction.

You could design it to function like a tether and sling the object (and later catch another) ... so it will balance out in the long term and just oscillates a bit in its orbit.

 

[Brandon C]

Which sends the station going the other way with an equal number of meganewtons of thrust - given a typical 600-1000Td station, vs a 100Td XB, and similar mass ratios, 1/6 the speed, which now has to be made up for by the station. Assuming it doesn't slam the world.

This is elementary school level physics, mate: equal and opposite reaction.

It makes the most sense for the station to be near the 100D limit, which makes recoil much less of an issue. At that range, launch speed probably doesn't need to be launched at more than 0.1G, which a station should eadily be able to handle.

 

[aramis]

It makes the most sense for the station to be near the 100D limit, which makes recoil much less of an issue. At that range, launch speed probably doesn't need to be launched at more than 0.1G, which a station should eadily be able to handle.

at which point, a launch tube is a waste of space. 200m at 0.6G isn't a whole lot of vector, and isn't significantly better than pushing with the whole cradle, then backing away.

Which, by the way, is a whopping 49m/s or so. Better to just do a 1G burn for 10s, unlock the clamps, and a 1G burn the other way for 20s, then another 1G burn for 10s, getting the same speed.

 

[Brandon C]

at which point, a launch tube is a waste of space. 200m at 0.6G isn't a whole lot of vector, and isn't significantly better than pushing with the whole cradle, then backing away.

Which, by the way, is a whopping 49m/s or so. Better to just do a 1G burn for 10s, unlock the clamps, and a 1G burn the other way for 20s, then another 1G burn for 10s, getting the same speed.

You could just use a jettisonable chemical rocket, much like a RATO on aircraft.

Although the X=boat is a prime example of why maneuver drives should be allowed under 1G.

 

[BillDowns]

My take on X-Boats:

Assumption 1: Modeled on a process similar to Pony Express; i.e. minimal downtime at change-over points which are at every system in the path.

Assumption 2: Since X-Boats do not have M-Drives, Tenders are required at every change-over point.

Conclusion 1: X-Boats always try to be near a designated junction point far beyond any 100D limits

Conclusion 2: Inbound and Outbound X-Boats try to be "close" to each other to minimize transfer connectivity.

Conclusion 3: Operationally, the tender drops off the Outbound X-Boat well before the ETA of the Inbound then repositions to near the Expected Arrival Point. At this time, the Outbound X-Boat will already have or be in the process of acquiring new data so it is as ready to go as possible.

Conclusion 4: Inbound X-Boat initiates connectivity to Outbound X-Boat as its first task and transfers all forwarding data

Conclusion 5: Outbound X-Boat jumps out as soon as the data transfer from the Inbound X-Boat is complete.

Conclusion 6: Inbound X-Boat then transfers data destined for the current system.

Conclusion 7: Tender picks up Inbound X-Boat, reconditions/updates/maintains said boat and also has a another already for the reverse trip.

 

[wbyrd]

A small drone with overpowered drives and a docking clamp would be enough to move an X-boat to it's tender. Position one, let it run on solar panels until it detects an x-boat jumping into a system, then the drone meets the x-boat, and tows, or pushes, it to the station.

Using a drone with Solar panels would reduce the cost of the system since it wouldn't need life support or fuel to loiter for days or weeks waiting for the X-boat to arrive.

it would also be a good way to launch x-boats. The drone/X-boat combo accelerates away form the station on the drones drives, once the x-boat reaches jump limit the drone detaches and returns to base.

A more sophisticated drone could also be equipped with a large fuel bladder, and life support storage cells allowing it to refuel and resupply the X-boat and transfer a fresh pilot to the x-boat on site. An automated cargo bay and transfer system would also allow for recovery or delivery of a containerized "mail Bags"

the relief pilot simply rides out on the drone, waits while the automated systems do the work then switches over to the x-boat as the x-boats current pilot takes his place in the drones passenger bay. Presto..low cost, low overhead rapid refit and resupply achieved.

 

[Selandia]

Actually, a station would have 3 options:

Unless the incoming boat is scheduled for maintenance or signal need for repair, there is no need to get it into be serviced by a large tender or an orbital station

A) The "pilot" of the Jumper calls the all clear and a resupply shuttle (more or less droned) shows up with50 t of fuel, the mail bag, the Life support supplies, whatever material for in jump maintenance... a Freight Handler, a J-drive expert to run extended diag on the iddle J-drive and the replacement crew.

B)M-Tug (more or less "droned") pulling the Jumper to the Station for a solution to problems

C) As substitute for A or B, the Tender close on the Jumper and dock it to perform all of A, plus solve on the spot the problems found (or start working on it asap). If unsolvable within the required time: drop a substitute Jumper.

have fun

Selandia

 

[Orr]

Isn't all of this presuming a faster operational tempo than the canonical one?

ISTR, Mr. Miller saying that, due to jump's temporal accuracy, systems see one x-boat arrival per day per link. Also, given jump's physical accuracy of 3000km per parsec jumped, a tender need only picket a surprisingly small region.

Yes, we'll want the "hand over" between boats to be as fast as possible, but we've got ~24 hours to prepare between "hand overs".

Take Roup for example. That system has two links; one to Regina and the other to Feri. There'd be a Feri arrival/departure region and a Regina arrival/departure region each with it's own tender and various other craft. While the regions will be well past any jump limits and probably "above/below" the system ecliptic, the position of those regions within the Roup system would also be selected with factors like in-system comm/travel time and (if you use them) the jump masking/shadows associated with system on the other "end" of the link. The position of these regions will also change over time in a predictable manner.

The start of Day One at the Feri region would see previously prepared x-boat awaiting that day's inbound arrival. The boat is already fueled and manned. Any parcels or passengers are already aboard. If you use it, the boat is also already on a vector which will be helpful in the Feri system. The inbound boat from Feri drops into the Roup system, it's "cargo" of files is transmitted to the waiting boat (perhaps via the tender and perhaps not), and the waiting boat jumps away (perhaps back to Feri or perhaps onward to Regina).

There are now ~24 hours until the next boat's arrival.

The tender or other craft will rendezvous with the newly arrived boat. Limited maintenance can be done. Pilots can be changed out. Parcels and passengers can be removed. Refueling can be done. If required, the newly arrived boat can be replaced in the jump queue and it's replacement prepped instead for the next jump.

At the beginning of Day Two, a previously prepared x-boat - maybe the one that arrived yesterday and maybe not - will be awaiting that day's inbound arrival. When the inbound boat arrives, the prepared boat jumps away as soon as possible, and the procedure begins all over again.

While the time spent in the "hand off" is as little as possible, the time spent between "hand offs" is roughly a day. And a day usually gives the tender plenty of time to do whatever it needs to do.

Increase the system's operational tempo, that is decrease the time between "hand offs", and you'll need all the ships, systems, and whatnot suggested in this thread. Keep the operational tempo at one boat per day per link and the job of a tender is a fairly leisurely one.

 

[rancke]

Isn't all of this presuming a faster operational tempo than the canonical one?

ISTR, Mr. Miller saying that, due to jump's temporal accuracy, systems see one x-boat arrival per day per link. Also, given jump's physical accuracy of 3000km per parsec jumped, a tender need only picket a surprisingly small region.

It differs. Some links have one departure every six hours.

Yes, we'll want the "hand over" between boats to be as fast as possible, but we've got ~24 hours to prepare between "hand overs".

Or more, depending on how many extra Xboats the station has.

Take Roup for example. That system has two links; one to Regina and the other to Feri.

Plus (logically) a link to Efate and a link to Boughene. Xboat links don't have rails laid in space and don't have to pass through every whistlestop along the line. An Xboat link is an Xboat and the decision to send it somewhere within a four parsec radius. It makes absolutely no sense (not even if the Xboats are a complete boondoggle) that when the hot news from Regina arrives at Roup, it won't be sent directly to Efate. And interposing an extra jump between Roup and Boughene makes no sense either. If Feri has managed to snaffle itself an Xboat link of its own (presumably as part of the boondoggle), it makes a lot more sense that the news to Kinorb goes Roup - Boughene - Kinorb, and that the jumps to Feri are a sideline (any jumps between Feri and Boughene would be 100% redundant).


Hans

 

[aramis]

It differs. Some links have one departure every six hours.

I don't recall any canonical references to more than 1 per day.

 

[rancke]

I don't recall any canonical references to more than 1 per day.

I could be mistaken. I thought it was in Traders and Gunboats but it's not. I remember calculations and arguments based on the six hour figure, but perhaps that's fanon rather than canon.

Incidentally, I couldn't find any canonical references to 1 per day either, or any regular number at all.

The closest I can come is a statement in T&G about "high population and high technology star systems can be expected to have up to twelve xboats present at one time, probably distributed evenly between arriving and departing ships. Lower population systems will have fewer xboats" [T&G:10].

Seems to me that twelve xboats sounds a little high for one boat per day, even if it's 'up to twelve' not 'twelve'. I think I could make an argument for 4 per day, but I admit that it wouldn't be proof of anything.


Hans

 

[aramis]

I could be mistaken. I thought it was in Traders and Gunboats but it's not. I remember calculations and arguments based on the six hour figure, but perhaps that's fanon rather than canon.

Incidentally, I couldn't find any canonical references to 1 per day either, or any regular number at all.

The closest I can come is a statement in T&G about "high population and high technology star systems can be expected to have up to twelve xboats present at one time, probably distributed evenly between arriving and departing ships. Lower population systems will have fewer xboats" [T&G:10].

Seems to me that twelve xboats sounds a little high for one boat per day, even if it's 'up to twelve' not 'twelve'. I think I could make an argument for 4 per day, but I admit that it wouldn't be proof of anything.


Hans

Hans, J4 has access to 60 target hexes. On average, 20 of them will have worlds, 30 in the denser spots.

12 boats in system cannot support even 1 per day per potential target...

Except that a given X-boat linked system usually connects to 3-4 other such systems, not to all in reach, and in a couple of cases, 5 or 6.

So, "up to 12" would imply up to 6 systems being connected, not "every 4 hours to the next system".

There's strong implications of daily X-Boats in TTA, in that travel times of messages are about 7 days per hop.

 

[rancke]

Hans, J4 has access to 60 target hexes. On average, 20 of them will have worlds, 30 in the denser spots.

12 boats in system cannot support even 1 per day per potential target...

So the statement presumably means per link.


Hans

 

[aramis]

So the statement presumably means per link.


Hans

No. We canonically know that the XBoat system does NOT send X-boats to every system.

It only hits major systems. It relies upon scout couriers to provide the J1 and J2 linkages to most of the rest.

 

[rancke]

No. We canonically know that the XBoat system does NOT send X-boats to every system.

So what? The statement can still apply to each link separately.

It only hits major systems. It relies upon scout couriers to provide the J1 and J2 linkages to most of the rest.

It relies upon scout/couriers to provide further dissemination beyond the Xboat network. Not the same thing at all.


Hans

 

[Orr]

It differs. Some links have one departure every six hours.

Nowhere I've ever read, but whether it's one per day or 4 per day it doesn't matter.

Starting at rest relative to the system and ending at rest relative to the system, the 1gee tender can cross a 12,000km - a 4 parsec jump accuracy sphere - in around 37 minutes. Whether it's 6 hours between arrivals or 24 hours between arrivals, a ~37 transit time leaves plenty of time to prep a boat for departure.

Or more, depending on how many extra Xboats the station has.

A tender's hangar can hold two boats.

I also think there's a difference between the system's x-boat "station" and the tenders working a system's various arrival/departure regions. In my mind, the term "station" encompasses all the tenders working all those regions.

Plus (logically) a link to Efate and a link to Boughene.

We can add links to Oz or Candyland too and it still doesn't matter. If one tender is working one link or even two, there's plenty of time to prep a boat for departure ahead of an inbound boat's arrival. The boat scheduled to depart next is prepped and in position before the arrival of the boat which triggers that departure and there's plenty of time for that to happen whether a boat arrives every 6 hours or 24 hours.

That's what was being lost in this thread. Everyone was making suggestions about how quickly a boat could be refueled, resupplied, re-manned, etc. after it or another inbound boat arrives. Pony express stations didn't wait to saddle and otherwise prep a horse until after the express rider arrived. The pony was readied before the rider arrived so the hand-off of the mail was a quick as possible. If it was time for the rider to be replaced, the next rider was prepared and waiting too.

The hand-off occurs as rapidly as possible while the preparation is all done beforehand. We don't need mass drivers flinging boats about and we don't 6gee drones delivering fuel, pilots, or parcels. A pokey old 1gee tender can cross the worst case distances involved in about 30 minutes leaving hours to prepare for the next arrival-departure sequence.

 

[rancke]

We can add links to Oz or Candyland too and it still doesn't matter.

No, we can't, because Oz and Candyland are not Xboat stations within four parsecs of Roup.

Be that as it may, that remark of mine was an apropos, not a counter-argument.


Hans

 

[Orr]

Be that as it may, that remark of mine was an apropos, not a counter-argument.

Mine was meant as an apropos too, not a counter-counter-argument.

As I wrote in my first post to the thread, I think people were presuming an operational tempo that doesn't exist in the x-boat system. Whether the boats arrive once a day or 4 times a day, whether the tender is handling one or two links, it all doesn't matter.

Boats get prepped ahead of time, not the instant they're needed. The tender has a 12,000km diameter sphere to cover and can cross that in roughly a half hour so fast fuel/supply/tug drones aren't needed either. There's plenty of time to get the necessary work done and a relatively small area in which that work needs to be done.

Of course equipment failures and the like will foul things up, but the routine is pretty much... well... routine.

I've been mulling over that ...up to 12... comment in Traders and Gunboats. Let's assume for the moment that tenders normally have two boats in their hangar along with another boat sitting off at a safe distance prepped, staged, and ready to go. Then the inbound boat arrives and, for however long it takes to pass it's messages to the staged boat and/or tender, we're looking at four boats associated with one link.

I wonder if three is the average number of links any world on the network may have?

Having four boats present makes the system's operational tempo even less hectic. Consider the following:

• Tender in position.
• Boat A already prepped and staged at a safe distance from tender.
• Boats B & C in hangar with B being prepped.
• Boat D arrives. Begins transmission of messages to A and tender.
• Tender begins rendezvous course to Boat D.
• Boat A jumps away.
• Tender reaches Boat D.
• Boat B's prep is complete and is staged.
• Boat D enters hangar begins inspection, simple maintenance, etc.
• Boat C begins prep.
• Four, 24, whatever hours pass.
• Boat E arrives. Begins transmission to B and tender.
• Tender begins rendezvous course to Boat E.
• Boat B jumps away.
• Tender reaches Boat E.
• Boat C's prep is complete and is staged.
• Boat E enters hangar begins inspection, simple maintenance, etc.
• Boat D begins prep.
• Four, 24, however many hours pass.
• Boat F arrives. Begins transmission to C and tender.
• Rinse, repeat, etc.

Busy? Sure. As frantic or frenetic as previously assumed in this thread? Hardly.

There will be other ships buzzing around too, tankers delivering fuel, shuttles moving people and parcels, scout/couriers getting messages to deliver to systems off the network. Like I said, busy not crazy.