In a message dated 99-01-25 18:01:51 EST, you write:
<< Standardized Cargo module:
Mass 20
Fragile Hull (2 pts) 18 Cargo Spaces Total Cost: 24
And now the Tugs:
Medium Cargo Tug: (can tow up to 4 cargo modules)
Mass 30
Fragile Hull (8 pts)
Thrust 4 (by itself-Th2 with 1 module, Th1 with 2-4 modules)
FTL with Mass 80 Tug ability
2 PDS
Total cost 92
Small Cargo Tug: (can tow up to 2 cargo modules)
Mass 16
Fragile Hull (2 pts)
Thrust 4 (by itself-Th2 with 1 module, Th1 with 2 modules)
FTL with Mass 40 Tug ability
1 PDS
Total Cost 49
Micro Cargo Tug: (can tow 1 cargo Module)
Mass 9
Fragile Hull (1 pt)
Thrust 3 (by itself-Th1 with 1 module)
FTL with Mass 20 Tug ability 1 PDS >> They seem like the freighters from WC3,
I think that they are a good idea.
-Stephen
> In a message dated 99-01-24 14:04:46 EST, you write:
> i don't have the fleet book, but this still does not interfere with
> Tom
Luckily we have a way to represent Tom's style freighter - Tugs with
cargo modules!
Standardized Cargo module: Mass 20 Fragile Hull (2 pts) 18 Cargo Spaces Total
Cost: 24
And now the Tugs:
Medium Cargo Tug: (can tow up to 4 cargo modules) Mass 30 Fragile Hull (8 pts)
Thrust 4 (by itself-Th2 with 1 module, Th1 with 2-4 modules)
FTL with Mass 80 Tug ability 2 PDS Total cost 92
Small Cargo Tug: (can tow up to 2 cargo modules) Mass 16 Fragile Hull (2 pts)
Thrust 4 (by itself-Th2 with 1 module, Th1 with 2 modules)
FTL with Mass 40 Tug ability 1 PDS Total Cost 49
Micro Cargo Tug: (can tow 1 cargo Module) Mass 9 Fragile Hull (1 pt)
Thrust 3 (by itself-Th1 with 1 module)
FTL with Mass 20 Tug ability 1 PDS
So how do they rate?
Ship Cap. Cost $/cap Hits Thr. Defense
--------------------- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- -------------
FB1 Free Trader 8 47 5.88 4 4 1xClass-1
FB1 Light Freighter 27 67 2.48 4 2 1xPDS
FB1 Medium Freighter 55 131 2.40 8 2 1xPDS
FB1 Heavy Freighter 83 195 2.34 12 2 1xPDS
Micro Tug w1 module 18 53 2.94 3 1 1xPDS
Small Tug w1 module 18 72 4.00 4 2 1xPDS
2 modules 36 97 2.69 6 1 1xPDS
Med Tug w 1 module 18 116 6.44 5 2 1xPDS
2 modules 36 140 3.89 7 1 1xPDS
3 modules 56 164 2.92 9 1 1xPDS
4 modules 72 188 2.61 11 1 1xPDS
you could shave a few points by eliminating the PDS, but I decided to keep the
same relative protection as the freighters in the FB.
The largest difficulty comes from the fact that the damage points are
distributed between the Tug and 2 per module. Maybe an adaptation of the MT
Supership rules could handle this.
This also necessitates some sort of hit location, but at least it is not hit
location 'inside' the ship - just which set of damage boxes to mark to
damage to. How about something like this:
- Damage location is determined for each volley.
- Even chances of hitting the Tug or each individual module
- Tug thresholds roll once for each module attached; if the test fails,
the module is separated and remains behind.
- If a module is destroyed, the Tug makes a threshold check at it's
current level
- If a module takes more damage in a single volley than it has
remaining, the excess damage passes to the Tug damage track.
Tugs may voluntarily drop Modules during their orders in order to gain
additional thrust. (as noted in the tug descriptions above.)
So what do you think?
> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Jared E Noble wrote:
you know, i do seem to have a thing about freighters. they're big,
cost-effective and they carry loads of freight. that's really cool.
> Standardized Cargo module:
well, i wasn't thinking quite in standardised cargo pod terms, but it does
make sense.
i envisage long, thin ships, like 2001's 'discovery', with cargo pods wrapped
around them. this is a bit like one of the freighters in the 'tie fighter'
computer game (the one with three trapezoidal pods around a rodlike core), and
also like a freighter that's drawn somewhere in the back of FT. it's also a
little like the ships in "silent running" (bonus
points if you've seen that one - extra bonus if you spotted the ship
being attacked in an episode of battlestar galactica...).
i was wondering about containerisation in the context of interstellar trade.
specifically, since there will be a larger volume of stuff to be shipped
around than now, and since it is probably going to fewer places (there must be
hundreds of major ports in the world), it would make sense to use bigger
containers. currently, standard basic containers are 20 feet long, and weigh
in at about 20 tonnes each (i think); this would be 0.2 mass in ft2.5 terms,
no?
i was thinking that (for offworld shipping at least, maybe not on-planet
haulage) you'd use big huge containers. if you stacked regular containers in a
cubic lattice, 10 to a side, it'd be 2000 tonnes. that's 20 mass. result!
of course, heavily industrialised planets would build large-gauge
railways to carry entire kilocontainers around, and similarly big cargo
lorries.
perhaps this was the origin of ogre technology :-)
> So how do they rate?
they look a bit pricey, but that's what you pay for the added convenience. of
course, if you just model the kilocontainers as part of the ship, this problem
mostly goes away.
> The largest difficulty comes from the fact that the damage points are
could be below ft's granularity. we don't bother figuring out where warships
were hit, after all. you could just roll threshold checks for each container,
or something.
> This also necessitates some sort of hit location, but at least it is
that might be a bit excessive - it would penalise containerised ships
far more than bulkers.
Tom
> i was wondering about containerisation in the context of interstellar
This does not necessarily follow. A container should be the right size for
convenient transport to the end destination. In the case of modern cargo, this
may mean you have a ship carrying truck trailers. The ship could carry more
stuff if it weren't containerized, but it's faster just to pull up to the dock
and transfer trailers from the ship to a railcar and go. You
wouldn't believe what a cargo ship pays in port charges--they have a
real incentive to speed things up.
In the case of starships, you have to have it fit the ship, the interface
lander, and the surface transportation to get to the end user. You also need a
container which you have a reasonable likelihood of filling, as there's no
point in building a 2000 ton box if nobody needs to ship more than 200 tons at
a time.
I think you were thinking of smaller containers being put into a large
lattice, but why bother with what amounts to repackaging them?
> On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Laserlight wrote:
> >i was wondering about containerisation in the context of interstellar
i certainly can't argue with that.
> In the case of modern cargo,
quite; the savings in cargo handling - both in terms of time and
manpower,
as containers are easily handled by mechanical lifting gear - outweight
the cost of containerisation in this case.
> In the case of starships, you have to have it fit the ship, the
unless you use space elevators. i don't know if we know if the inhabitants of
the Tuffleyverse do. of course, you do have to fitthe kilcontainer on the
elevator, but if you're going to build something big, build it properly big.
> and the surface transportation to get to the end user.
i was positing macrotrains to complement the kilocontainers and elevator; i'm
inspired by the cargo transport system mentioned in one or two lines in "The
City and The Stars" or "Against the Fall of Night" by arthur clarke (one of
those two), where huge robotic trains carried freight
through underground vacuum-filled tunnels at extremely high speed. this
is all very much a Big Engineering approach to industrial infrastructure, and
possibly more suited to the apo-Tuffleyverse that will come to pass in
2300 or so. i can wait :-).
> You also need
i'd have thought a lot of people want to ship 2000 tonnes at a time. what's
that: 3000 cars or something? all in a day's output for the AutoFacs of Nissan
Prime.
> I think you were thinking of smaller containers being put into a large
if it saves handling costs. a thousand containers need lots of tug trips to
move them; a single kilcontainer only needs one. if you have five thousand
million tonnes of cargo a day going through (not that anywhere will; that's
just an extreme example), i should imagine you'd want to make the containers
as big as possible to minimise the number. the optimal size would depend on
the exact throughput and the costs associated with each step.
the alternative to packing containers into kiloboxes is to just put them in
holds in the ship's hull; this is basically the same material cost, and means
you have volume restrictions too, whereas a modular feighter could fit
passenger modules, bulk cargo bays, container lattices, liquid hydrogen tanks,
etc, as needed.
of course, the sv approach, based on biotech, is to pack them into a large
lettuce. or so i'm told.
anyway, just pushing the envelope. this may all be daft.
Tom
> At 23:08 26/01/99 +0000, you wrote:
SNIP
> i envisage long, thin ships, like 2001's 'discovery', with cargo pods
(bonus
> points if you've seen that one - extra bonus if you spotted the ship
SNIP
> Tom
Yes, I recall the Valley Forge turning up in Battlestar Ponderosa. Sublime to
ridiculous?
Another Galactica connection- last Sunday's (UK) ep of Voyager (which,
of course I only watch to perv over 7of 9 (Ahhh..., not since the heady days
of
Col. Wilma Deering and her spray-on silver trousers (and Ardala for that
matter (does this qualify me as a GZG-list Pervert? (As if I had to
ask..))))) the "Bomar" ships were Cylon raiders.
Rob
> Standardized Cargo module:
Well, How about having several size modules if necessary?
> i envisage long, thin ships, like 2001's 'discovery', with cargo pods
> this is a bit like one of the freighters in the 'tie
Ummm, perhaps it's just me, but doesn't that sound like a description of the
boom of Discovery? in cross section, at least, but the pods are smaller
relative to the rod, and there are more of them...
> and also like a freighter that's drawn somewhere in the
(bonus
> points if you've seen that one - extra bonus if you spotted the ship
Ever seen the Traveller module 'Doom of the Singing Star'?
<Snip>
<serendipity mode on>
> i was thinking that (for offworld shipping at least, maybe not
<serendipity mode off>
> of course, heavily industrialised planets would build large-gauge
Ummm...is that a good thing;)
> So how do they rate?
On a per freighter basis, yes, but it allows a much greater efficiency on a
large scale - for example the process of loading/unloading becomes
quicker,
faster in-port turnaround allows more runs in the same amount of time,
etc. Buying more bulk capacity is cheap. And you can buy the Tugs separately
from the pods, so buy only what you need.
Just for kicks, a larger tug
Large Cargo Tug: (can tow up to 8 cargo modules) Mass 58 Fragile Hull (6 pts)
Thrust 4 (by itself-Th3 with 1 module, Th2 with 3-4, Th1 with 5-8)
FTL with Mass 160 Tug ability 2 PDS Total cost 176
So how do they rate? (chart corrected for errors in earlier:
Ship Cap. Cost $/cap Hits Thr. Defense
--------------------- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- -------------
FB1 Free Trader 8 47 5.88 4 4 1xClass-1
FB1 Light Freighter 27 67 2.48 4 2 1xPDS
FB1 Medium Freighter 55 131 2.40 8 2 1xPDS
FB1 Heavy Freighter 83 195 2.34 12 2 1xPDS
Micro Tug w1 module 18 53 2.94 3 1 1xPDS
Small Tug w1 module 18 72 4.00 4 2 1xPDS
2 modules 36 97 2.69 6 1 1xPDS
Med Tug w 1 module 18 116 6.44 5 2 2xPDS
2 modules 36 140 3.89 7 1 2xPDS
3 modules 54 164 3.04 9 1 2xPDS
4 modules 72 188 2.61 11 1 2xPDS
Large Tug w5 modules 90 296 3.29 16 1 2xPDS
6 modules 108 320 2.96 18 1 2xPDS
7 modules 126 344 2.73 20 1 2xPDS
8 modules 146 368 2.52 22 1 2xPDS
Cargo module 18 24 1.33 2 - none
The large tug still isn't as price efficient as a FB1 hvy freighter for a
single
full load - But with FB freighters you also can't have extra cargo pods
stocked
and waiting for you - outside the scope of FT perhaps, but important is
you want to model 'realistic' options.
The tug version is also more flexible - because without converting
anything else
you can slap on any valid Mass 20 design and change its mission role -
lots of scenario possibilities. Civilian auxiliaries perhaps?
How about a Fighter module?
Mass 20 (20 pts)
Fragile hull (mass 2 / 4 pts)
2x fighter bay (mass 18 / 54 pts)
cost w/o fighters 78
Or a PT boat
Mass 20 (20 pts)
Fragile Hull (2 / 4)
1 Armor (1 / 2)
Thrust 8 (8 / 16)
1 Firecon (1 / 4)
2xSMR (8 / 24) or 8 Subpacks/2 class 1+6 sub packs/etc.
total 20 / 70
> The largest difficulty comes from the fact that the damage points are
> could be below ft's granularity. we don't bother figuring out where
possibly, but then again in an effort to stay legal I built a fragile hull
into each cargo module, and would like to not only take advantage of those
hull points, but also retain the flexibility of a ship that may or may not
retain all of it's cargo modules (and chagning individual damage tracks to
somehow include the 'totals' doesn't work for me.
> This also necessitates some sort of hit location, but at least it is
OK, Keep the above portion (based on your comment below) for allocating damage
nix the following 2
> - Tug thresholds roll once for each module attached; if the test
> that might be a bit excessive - it would penalise containerised ships
Does that even it out a bit?