That's actually pretty darn interesting. I wonder if we could do a semi-timeline of orbital launch capacity. I.e. show the most efficient TL 7 launch platform (efficient = least $/ton into orbit), then TL 8, then TL 9, aso. (I.e. TL 8 means nothing over TL 8, so the below launch platform would count as TL 9).
It would be interesting (to me) to see the cost per ton drop as the TL goes up.
For example your launch vessel below would be:TL 9: MCr 54 @ 50 dtons = 1.08 MCr/dton (reusable)
Adding in the resuable costs and turn-around time would be nice.
Todd Kes
From: "rjperks [Traveller_TNE]" <>
I managed to knock up a 100tn quick turn around shuttle that got 50dtns into orbit at TL8/9 using the FF&S rules.
25MW fission plant + batteries, contra-grav to neutralise weight and then turbofans for flight into the upper atmo and then the thermal fusion rocket for the last burn into low orbit. Reverse to get down. The contra-grav meant that the drives only had to provide thrust for movement rather than keeping the craft in the air. Even had a spare 1.8 minutes of fusion burn for orbital operations. Snap at only MCr 54
cheers
richard
It would be interesting (to me) to see the cost per ton drop as the TL goes up.
For example your launch vessel below would be:TL 9: MCr 54 @ 50 dtons = 1.08 MCr/dton (reusable)
Adding in the resuable costs and turn-around time would be nice.
Todd Kes
From: "rjperks [Traveller_TNE]" <>
I managed to knock up a 100tn quick turn around shuttle that got 50dtns into orbit at TL8/9 using the FF&S rules.
25MW fission plant + batteries, contra-grav to neutralise weight and then turbofans for flight into the upper atmo and then the thermal fusion rocket for the last burn into low orbit. Reverse to get down. The contra-grav meant that the drives only had to provide thrust for movement rather than keeping the craft in the air. Even had a spare 1.8 minutes of fusion burn for orbital operations. Snap at only MCr 54
cheers
richard