My take on Traveller PC-scale starships is that they were always intended
to be breakbulk ships, not container ships. The Traveller equivalent of
Sealand, Lykes, and Maersk ships are all multi-Kton megacorp ships, and
you would see the containers from the outside because they would be loaded
and unloaded in orbit. (IMTU the ships that carried the containers up and
down looked like Thunderbird 2.) The containers that I saw in Traveller
starships are like those irregular pentagon cross-section containers they
use for air freight, much smaller than tractor-trailer/container ship
containers.
> This is all off the top of my head but I have 15 years of experience with
> intermodal containers.
>
> Don't forget the dimensions of the grapple for picking up the can, that
> needs cable attachment points, can clocks, hydraulics for activating the
> can locks. Plus a little free space for error and maintenance. Granted
> the heft of the lifting frame is going to be less than what we have now
> but a ceiling gantry is a pretty massive piece of kit.
>
> A standard intermodal currently is 53'L x 8'6"w x 9'6"h (16.15mx2.6mx2.9m)
> 109.17m3 or 7.8dt. The USDoT is currently piloting a 60' long can, the
> problem is at that length they take up 3 lanes of road to take a right
> hand turn without encroaching on the corner. At 60' long you're running a
> smidge shy of 10dt. Cans do come in 10', 20', 40' and 48' denominations
> too, but lets not get to excited by those just yet. They also come in
> 8'6" and 10'6" heights too...
>
> What this means is the front to back dimensions of the gantry and the can
> grapple have to be capable of adapting to different sized containers,
> because lets face it no supercargo worth his salt is going to want to take
> on 2dt worth of cargo in a 10dt box.
>
> Derek Stanley
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Mar 2, 2015, at 10:03 PM, Evyn MacDude
>> [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Derek Stanley
>>> [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>>>
>>> A travel lift crane system inside the ship is going to take up a metric
>>> fucktonne of space. 2m high x width and length of the cargo bay, even
>>> with a modes 10x15m cargo bay that's 300 cubic meters of cargo space
>>> you're wasting.
>>
>> Try 1m tall or less for a strong back lifter capable of lifting a
>> container.
>>
>> But you do bring up a point, the difference between geared and ungeared
>> ships. Smaller ships that serve smaller ports tend to be geared (and
>> thus more expensive) that ships that service larger ports.
>>
>> Realistically the standard traveller 200 dTon "Freetrader" is more akin
>> to a semi truck than a container ship, thus is probably Geared to handle
>> palleted goods and other Pallet sized boxes. Which as we all know means
>> a couple of good Pallet-Jacks.
>> --
>> Evyn
>>
>
to be breakbulk ships, not container ships. The Traveller equivalent of
Sealand, Lykes, and Maersk ships are all multi-Kton megacorp ships, and
you would see the containers from the outside because they would be loaded
and unloaded in orbit. (IMTU the ships that carried the containers up and
down looked like Thunderbird 2.) The containers that I saw in Traveller
starships are like those irregular pentagon cross-section containers they
use for air freight, much smaller than tractor-trailer/container ship
containers.
> This is all off the top of my head but I have 15 years of experience with
> intermodal containers.
>
> Don't forget the dimensions of the grapple for picking up the can, that
> needs cable attachment points, can clocks, hydraulics for activating the
> can locks. Plus a little free space for error and maintenance. Granted
> the heft of the lifting frame is going to be less than what we have now
> but a ceiling gantry is a pretty massive piece of kit.
>
> A standard intermodal currently is 53'L x 8'6"w x 9'6"h (16.15mx2.6mx2.9m)
> 109.17m3 or 7.8dt. The USDoT is currently piloting a 60' long can, the
> problem is at that length they take up 3 lanes of road to take a right
> hand turn without encroaching on the corner. At 60' long you're running a
> smidge shy of 10dt. Cans do come in 10', 20', 40' and 48' denominations
> too, but lets not get to excited by those just yet. They also come in
> 8'6" and 10'6" heights too...
>
> What this means is the front to back dimensions of the gantry and the can
> grapple have to be capable of adapting to different sized containers,
> because lets face it no supercargo worth his salt is going to want to take
> on 2dt worth of cargo in a 10dt box.
>
> Derek Stanley
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Mar 2, 2015, at 10:03 PM, Evyn MacDude
>> [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Derek Stanley
>>> [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>>>
>>> A travel lift crane system inside the ship is going to take up a metric
>>> fucktonne of space. 2m high x width and length of the cargo bay, even
>>> with a modes 10x15m cargo bay that's 300 cubic meters of cargo space
>>> you're wasting.
>>
>> Try 1m tall or less for a strong back lifter capable of lifting a
>> container.
>>
>> But you do bring up a point, the difference between geared and ungeared
>> ships. Smaller ships that serve smaller ports tend to be geared (and
>> thus more expensive) that ships that service larger ports.
>>
>> Realistically the standard traveller 200 dTon "Freetrader" is more akin
>> to a semi truck than a container ship, thus is probably Geared to handle
>> palleted goods and other Pallet sized boxes. Which as we all know means
>> a couple of good Pallet-Jacks.
>> --
>> Evyn
>>
>