I would just rule that they use a standard mount and pod specifications so any
pod capable ship can carry them. An SF equivalent of ISO containers and
container ships so I would expect to see the same pods mounted on plain
vanilla merchantmen as well as auxiliaries. I have an old Clipper kicking
around somewhere, one of the RAFM (?) Traveller ships, I wonder if it would
work as a merchant? Her sister ship ended up with a scratch built spine and
pods made from scored lengths of brass tubing.
As a good example but mostly just out of curiosity does anyone happen to know
if Soviet Russian used the ISO container specifications as well? I think their
aircraft bomb attachment points might have been compatible but I cannot
remember. I thought this was odd at the time so rather suspect it is wrong but
if ancient stocks of Korean War (and older) bombs could be used in Vietnam
(nearly casing the loss of a fission powered carrier) the standard connectors
must be pretty old. I think the Black Buck raid on the Falklands used elderly
bombs as well that turned out not to be so obsolete after all.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
Okay this makes for an interesting question, so what is the "standard"
Container size in GZG unverse?
DOCAGREN
Just a Lurker here on the Digest, But maybe I have a good idea or 2..
    :-)
Or a few questions, that need answering
In a message dated Thu, 15 Nov 2007 04:11:03 -0800, Michael R. Blair
writes:
> I would just rule that they use a standard mount and pod
**************************************
See what's new at http://www.aol.com
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lMichael
> R. Blair wrote:
If you mean comperatible with Western aircraft, then ISTR that they weren't.
This is not to say that it wasn't done, or indeed the other way
around as well (one of my favourite aircraft has always been the
Pakistan Air Force's Shenyang F-6; where else in the world -- when they
first entered service, anyway; these days, what with refits, etc.... --
could you find a Chinese-built copy of a Russian fighter toting American
AAMs and with a British ejection seat? :-D ), but it required a lot of
work. Part of the difference between East and West bombs, IIRC, was
metric /vs/ Imperial/US Customary weights and measures.
> I thought this was odd at the time so rather suspect it is wrong but
Bombs tend not to become obsolete, especially when all that is needed to
make them into a new superwonderweapon is a couple of fins and a
guidance package, as was shown in Vietnam when laser- and
optically-guided bombs first appeared. Take one standard bomb, fit
movable fins, a seeker head and some electronics and you have a bomb that can
take down the Paul Doumer because it can actually hit it in the
right place. And let us not forget the GBU-28 "bunker buster", /alias/ a
length of old gun barrel(?) revamped in much the same way into a
penetration weapon /a la/ Tallboy and Grand Slam, only smaller. Lovely
bit of improvisation there.
Phil
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAt
> 11:58 AM -0500 11/15/07, DOCAgren@aol.com wrote:
:-)
> Or a few questions, that need answering
> At 11:58 AM -0500 11/15/07, DOCAgren@aol.com wrote:
Container size in GZG unverse?
> [quoted text omitted]
I kind of figured on ISO Flatracks and containers getting tweaked but
otherwise keeping their same form for a long time. It's a really useful form
and look how roman wheel widths have stuck with us. So anyhow, when I was
scratchbuilding some of my ships, I tacked on some boxes that were much larger
which I proposed to be cargo modules for a larger FTL tug model that was part
of the GZG line of ships. I put the spine between the engine pod and the crew
module upfront and improvized some attachment points around the hull for three
pods or space cargo containers.
I figure it would work like, this, ISO containers are lightered up to orbit
from the ground with earth to space shuttles OR with a beanstalk. Then the ISO
containers are assembled into blocks which are then anchored into a space
cargo containers that could also take bulks shipments. ISO connectors can
assemble blocks of containers into pretty solid structures (they're great
blocks of stressed members iiuc) and with some row to row connectors, you
could make the blocks up into larger multi row blocks that, in microgravity,
could be easy to move around and insert into a larger space cargo container.
You have assembled containers, your tug shows up, dumps it's modules, picks up
the new space cargo containers which could have ISO containers, bulk cargo or
small vessels anchored inside and then zips off to the next port in orbit
around X planet.
This builds on the existing ISP functions that are already extant with the
modules that are included in some GZG figures and extemporizes current
doctrine more or less on the LASH barge concept. Perhaps you could even
extemporize a lighter that could move a single space cargo container down to
the surface for unloading there. Presumably one of these SCCs would be sealed
and have multitudes of attachment points inside, either for ISO corner lock
attachments OR for other cargo, bulk
material walls/baffles (perhaps they fold against the sides when not
needed), and power terminals for your ISO containers. Presumably, they'd even
be able to accommodate smaller vessels.
The objective would be to modularize your loading and unloading process AND to
allow for automated loading for the ISO components as well as speeding
turnaround time of the FTL capable cargo ships.
I'm sure everyone is familiar with ISO containers. Here's the next step in
size for military applications:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lash.htm
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> On Nov 15, 2007, at 8:58 AM, DOCAgren@aol.com wrote:
> Okay this makes for an interesting question, so what is the
Umm... Big? Some multiple of a Boxcar (100 tons)?
--
Evyn MacDude infojunky@ceecom.net
"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule,
participants are free to use the information received, but neither the
identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other
participant, may be revealed"