Tugs & Firing Arcs

The miniature and figure scales are disparate that even if the tug is towing a
kilometre long string of barges (unlikely, but let it pass) one small
miniature is still perfect to represent it. As to firing arcs, a pod might
block the tugs rear arc but otherwise don't really worry about it.

> The miniature and figure scales are disparate that even if the tug is
one
> small miniature is still perfect to represent it.

Terrestial trains can be miles long, why couldn't tugs tow
kilometer-long
strings of barges?

> As to firing arcs, a pod might block the tugs rear arc but otherwise

Only if you restrict yourself to thinking in 2 dimensions. While FT abstracts
down to 2-D, whose to say that the target is exactly on the same plane
as
the firing ship? Could still be in your rear arc, but at a large Z+ or
Z-.
(always have had difficulty with the rear-arc restrictions in firing
'cause
space is a 3-D place, though I know this is an artifact or feature of
abstracting into 2-D)

Just some random responses for a monday...

Oh, wait, it's thursday!  :-}

Mk
__......................................................................
...__
McCoy: "Angry, Mr Spock? Or frustrated, perhaps?"

Spock: "Such emotions are foreign to me. I am merely testing the strength of
the door."

McCoy: "For the 15th time?"
                                 - ST:TOS, 'Bread & Circuses'

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, What else is on this list of things you're not
> supposed to tell me? wrote:

Terrestrial trains have rails to keep them together. They also have airbrakes
taht activate all along the train length in addition to the Dynamic Braking
system in the Locos.

Terrestrial Tugs may tow a set of barges all lashed together, but usually they
will push those from the rear where they can use vectored thrust (the rudder)
to steer them through the water. Space doesn't have the hydrodynamic
properties of water (a long thin object is happy moving sideways as well as
straight) so that rear ended unit isn't as effective

in steerage. Think of the physics.

Lash a bunch of castored plates (castors on all four wheels) together end to
end with play. Then pull them along. Now slow down suddenly. Good luck getting
them all to stop. The Tug is going to have to have a Hard connection to those
items. Any flexible connection will be a pain in the ass.

> On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, What else is on this list of things you're not

Put a drive unit at both ends of the pod train. The front module does the main
drive (engines on long outriggers?), and the rear one has
forward-facing outrigger drives for the "retroes". Pull from the front
to go, pull backwards from the rear to stop! Dunno how you'd steer,
however..... :-)
Note this isn't a game solution, but a thought on how it might be wmade to
work in "reality".....
(Anyone else here seen Space Truckers...?) ;-)

> On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, What else is on this list of things you're not

Why couldn't there be the equivelent of air brakes on the barges in space?
Each barge could have a small propulsion system controled via radio signals
from the tug. Computers would sense the position of each barge and make fine
adjustments. Since they'd only be used when stopping, not much fuel would be
needed, just don't try to stop too quickly.

Enjoy,

In a message dated 11/11/99 11:33:39 AM Central Standard Time,
> jon@gzero.dungeon.com writes:

<< Put a drive unit at both ends of the pod train. The front module does the
main drive (engines on long outriggers?), and the rear one has
 forward-facing outrigger drives for the "retroes". Pull from the front
to go, pull backwards from the rear to stop! Dunno how you'd steer,
 however..... :-)
Note this isn't a game solution, but a thought on how it might be wmade to
work in "reality".....
 (Anyone else here seen Space Truckers...?) ;-)

Jon (GZG) >>

Saw it, funny (bad) movie. The idea in the movie of packaged cargo, and the
haulers was just about the way I've always seen interplanetary (or
interstellar) cargo haulage. Your idea should work though. If you had puller
engines on the front of the "train", and decelleration engines on the back,
you could make a flexible linkage system work, if your couplings were
engineered strong enough. If the engines were also capable of vectored thrust,
you could have an interesting manuever envelope, albeit at a slow rate.

BTW, does anyone who is better at the math than I want to hazard some
non-FTL
towing rules? It seems that at least in the commercial sector of the GZG

universe it would be a common thing.

John

> Terrestial trains can be miles long, why couldn't tugs tow

Fine. In addition to the other suggestions given (additional
engines/thrusters
on barges, either end of space freight train, etc), why not make the barges
themselves kilometers long?  :-)  Save on that 'flexible connection' a
bit,
no?  :-)  And allow you to pack more into one container. (however,
losing
one container to pirates would hurt; where's your optimum 'cut-off'
point
for length of cargo pod/barge vs risk to being lost to some situation?)

(note: it was a rhetorical question, but feel free to answer if it you want:)

Mk

> On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Tom Granvold wrote:

> Why couldn't there be the equivelent of air brakes on the barges in

But then that isn't a tug, more a modular vessel. Why not go a step further
and make a rigid spine that you attach your cargo containers to that? It would
make an easier method of controlling your thrust and you'd have less time
servicing each cargo container. Just servicing a ship is easier than
additional depot facilities for serivicing containers too.

With a rigid spine form you then have the flexibility of adding additional
spine sections to provide mounting for more containers.

CCCCC CCCCC CCCCC CCCCC DDDDDDD tt CCCCC CCCCC CCCCC CCCCC DDDDDDDD
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSDDDDDDDD tt CCCCC CCCCC CCCCC CCCCC DDDDDDDD CCCCC
CCCCC CCCCC CCCCC DDDDDDD

C Carco Containers tt bow thrusters for control S Spine
D Drive section w/ crew quarters

This has the ability to mount cargo very quicky to the hull then land it

to the surface with shuttles. They are attached to the vessel with hard points
and are less likely to get out of your control. One could also
theoretically separate the drive section from the Crew/Command section.
The latter at the front, the former at the rear.

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, What else is on this list of things you're not
> supposed to tell me? wrote:

> Fine. In addition to the other suggestions given (additional

You wouldn't save on it. The thing about intermodal transport is that you have
very little "infrastructure" invested in the container. Keep in mind these
containers are going to get dropped, bumped, smashed and gennerally abused. Do
you want drive thrusters that some yaahoo on Enders World stuffed garbage down
on your port beam? Assuming they initially show as damaged, then you have to
troubleshoot those thrusters. If the Container

is bad, you have to unpack the container, repack another spare container

and then reattach it. Your customer isn't going to be happy. His shipment is
late and he is pissed. Lets not talk about that incident where that dodgey
contianer thruster failed when you were trying to avoid crashing into that
Military Training vessel. Talk about a mess.

The real life modern contianers are just big metal boxes with numbers on

them. The semi-trailers have all the control systems on them (brakes,
tail lights, etc). The only ones that have any systems are those that reqire
cooling. Those get hooked up to the Containership's power to keep

the cooling going.

> no? :-) And allow you to pack more into one container. (however,

How does having no spinal section allow you to pack more into a container? The
container now has power conduits, fuel pipes, Insulation,

control lines and Thrusters. Sounds like your container just got more
complicated and smaller inside. Not bigger. Good luck keeping all those
containers fixed and running. You've complicated something that the 20th

century got simplified.

> one container to pirates would hurt; where's your optimum 'cut-off'
point
> for length of cargo pod/barge vs risk to being lost to some

Which is why it now makes more sense to mount sensors/weapons on the
Hull of the vessel (no matter how big it is). They are independent of the
containers. Or you could even have wartime containers that eneable a container
ship hull to be fitted out for combat duties or be at least self escorting (ie
Arapaho concept).

Also, the longer your "train" the more difficult it is to turn. Remember

its harder to turn a big long mass than a short round masss.

> owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU at internet 11/11/99 01:43PM >>>

Outrigger engines provide problems of their own such as alignment issues and
susceptibility to damage. I never really worried too much about how the tug
actually towed a ship in FT as you can likely come up with anything to fit
your scenario including tractor beams or large tenders.

Mike

> On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 01:59:28PM -0500, Ryan M Gill wrote:

See the Irregular miniatures "Dornier" class freighter. I have a picture of it
(unassembled) at:

> Ground Zero Games wrote:

Ahhh, a high quality movie! You know, I'd love to see a few more ships
inspired from there one to go along with the truck you have already. Perhaps
even a
boxed pig in 25mm.  :-)

Now all we need is rules for the space Monster Truck Astro SMASH Demolition
Derby!!!!!!

Tom