I think most of the arguments about ship designs has missed the point. Don't
ask what should the ship look like, ask what is the ship carring and how to
most efficiently carry it.
For those of you who havn't been following modern ship designs (wet ship) the
fastest growing catagory is container ships. The advantage is that the
container is only loaded and unloaded once.
So for container (reload cargo is ->):
origin -> container to train/truck to storage area to
to ship to storage area to train/truck as container ->
destination
old transport method:
origin -> train/truck -> warehouse -> ship ->
warehouse -> train/truck -> destination
So what I would propose is that there be two types of containers one for bulk
liquid (cylinder like) and one for bulk solid (rectangular cube like) with a
standardised ship connection. The ships could then be of any design from
intersystem drones (attachments for three cargo pods and an engine) to large
bulk
transports (three(+) sets of four(+) transport pods
with engines to rear and crew quarters to front. Even some of the present ship
designs now sold could be rerofited with these pods for bulk storage. The
attachment points might prove useful for carrying landingcraft into system (an
LCI or LCT on a mount with the standardised ship connrction).
An interesting point would be that if you were building a space station you
could make (sell?) a framework to attach the cargo pods to represent cargos in
transit.
As soon as I get my Mac working again I will post pics. I did something
similar. Two different sizes of pods, one huge and one small. Of the huge
ones, they are almost dropships unto themselves. The transport goes into orbit
and the pod undocks and can land on the surface. Also have several varieties
of the pods. Cargo, fighter carrier, medical, colony, and a purely weapon
system pod for the transport.
Actually the sphere is the best shape for surface area to volume
considerations. If a cargo module will never have to sit on the ground, then
there is no physical reason at all that they all shouldn't be spheres. The
only advantage blocky containers might have is that if the final packaging is
a crate, which is blocky, then they would fit more efficiently in a blocky
container.
The most efficient packing of spheres is hexagonal closest packing (basically
a pyramid of oranges, although the mathematical proof of this apparently takes
300 pages) so a cargo ship may actually be a command
module, a bunch of spheres in a pyramid-like shape, then an engine/fuel
module at the base. Each cargo module does double duty as both storage and
structure.
Reading about UPS's (United Parcel Service) current commitment to further
streamline their package delivery process to include shipping infomation
directly inputted by the sender (weight, size etc) they will be able to plan
where a package will be located within a specific truck to optimise packing
space and delivery order. In the future, I would assume that such abilities
will be routine and with future tech RFID's, routing and tracking materials
across the galaxy through multiple transitions will be a common event. So
transport would look something like a bunch of cargo modules that can be
attached and detached like
train-cars or legos at will, and at each stop, the appropriate modules
will be removed and added as necessary.
A cargo ship owner, would then own the command and maneuver modules, but
nothing else.
So perhaps you just need to model a command and maneuver module (and maybe a
bottom plate to attach the stand to), and the modeler then purchases BB's or
marbles and glues them together into the appropriate sizes.
Just some more ideas,
--Binhan
[quoted original message omitted]
The other huge advantage of containers is they can go from the ship to trains,
to trucks with no repacking and very little human involvement (just a driver
and crane operator, I believe).
Sci-fi containers will need to do the same. Ship to
interface shuttle, then to train / truck / boat.
Spheres really don't seem very compatible with any of the ground side
requirements.
The other option would be to have containers that are capable of reentry on
their own after being pushed out of orbit (memory plastic?). Of course it
would probably be cheaper to just have gliders you slot the containers into,
that way the gliders are environment specific and you don't have to pay to
transport them around the galaxy.
I'm not terribly familiar with the gzg background universe, are there orbital
beanstalks?
-Adrian
> --- B Lin <lin@rxkinetix.com> wrote:
> Actually the sphere is the best shape for surface
> Actually the sphere is the best shape for surface
So the spheres will have to be unloaded and reloaded in space. Also each time
a ship arrives it will have to be disassembled and reassembled before it can
depart. Most of the spheres will not be accessible in space if repairs are
needed.
> The most efficient packing of spheres is hexagonal
So what you are saying is that your spheres will not only have to be strong
enough to support themselves but also be strong enough to be used as a ships
structure. If one of the spheres structurally fails then engine goes one way
the crew compartment goes another and the spheres go every way. With no repair
in transit lets hope that the manufacturer of the shipping spheres did not
cut corners to save money.
Lets try a short story:
The container ship Edward James which has space for up to 32 containers (four
rows of eight containers formed around a central hub) is receiving a warning
signal from container 2-3 (second row third container)
of a leak (each canister has sensors to monitor it's status and power is
supplied to the canister to be used as needed). One of the crew goes out and
while checking the container (all containers can be accessed) finds meteorite
damage which he is able to patch (in any case damage to the container will not
put the ship at risk).
As soon as the ship gets to it's destination four canisters are detached while
three are picked up. Some of the canisters on ship are moved to rebalance the
load and in few hours the ship is on it's way.
Two of the canisters are loaded one each on a laulan (launcher and lander) for
delivery to planet while the other two are stored for transshipment. The
laulan are powered gliders on the way down while more powerful engines are
mounted to get them back into Orbit. After the laulan lands the canisters are
taken off the laulan and loaded on a ground transport to be taken to their
final destination where the canisters will be opened and unloaded.
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 03:46:27PM -0700, B Lin wrote:
> The most efficient packing of spheres is hexagonal closest packing
The problem with packing spheres is that you have very small contact areas,
which greatly increases the stress per surface area; it's not clear whether
gravitic compensation applies to dispersed cargo, but even with that it seems
like a bad idea on structural grounds.
A tesselating solid - which usually means in practice a cube or cuboid
- can use much larger contact areas and thus need less weight in
structural bracing.
R
> From: "B Lin" <lin@rxkinetix.com>
> plan where a package will be located within a specific truck to
This would work IF you had information on what cargo you will be picking up.
BUT, I think the assumption is in the FT universe there is no FTL communicaton
outside messages carried by ships (cannot remember if it is
stated, but beleive it is implied). With no communication beforehand, planning
the most effecient use of you cargo space becomes more problematic. I would
expect the use of ISO (intergalactic standard organisation) containeirs as is
used at present for shipping. If you cannot plan effecient use of the cargo
space (as above) in a ship on one planet, there would be no hope in a
interpanetary scale.
BIF
Havent got the mac going yet but here something I threw together on my pod
idea
http://www.voidgamers.com/images/data/photo/sci-fi/full-impulse/imagegal
lery/ROMMEL_TWEE-freight.jpg