A bigger version of the settler designed to get 100dtn units into orbit
- my polity tended to build saucer shaped ships -cheap and atmo capable,
only a few yards had orbital facilities
Developed by the Shield Polity in 1204 to provide heavy orbital transfer
capability using the basic TL8 and emerging TL9 technologies at the new
starports opening within the polity. Its purpose was to provide a small
shuttle capable of lifting 100 displacement tonnes into orbit, and
manoeuvring to a space station, whilst allowing a rapid turn around on
par with the relic Heplar powered shuttles.
The rapid turn around provision prevented the use of solid fuel
boosters. Conventional turbofans are used to provide motive power to
raise the shuttle to its orbital insertion point (90%) whilst the new
contra-grav system neutralised the crafts weight. At the high orbital
insertion point, the shuttle’s fusion rocket could be safely ignited to
boost the shuttle out of the upper reaches of the atmosphere and into
orbit. The design’s flexibility allowed a significant fuel allowance to
be carried to allow considerable orbital manoeuvring, and even transit
to nearby moons and planets. A small allowance has been provided in the
fuel supply for the turbofans to allow atmospheric manoeuvring.
Small staterooms are provided for all 4 crew.
The fuel supply allows both powered ascent and descent. The turbofans
burn for 151.2 minutes for ascent and descent leaving 16.8 minutes spare
capacity. The fusion rocket requires 16.8 minutes burn (0.14G) for
orbital insertion and de-orbit burn, the remainder can be used for
orbital manoeuvring. The following burn times are for a type A planet,
smaller worlds will provide a greater fuel reserve.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Poni-B Class Heavy Shuttle
Displacement 200 tns; Hull Armour: 10
Length: 17m Volume: 2800m
Price: MCr 95.87407 Target Size: Small
Configuration: SL Sphere,
TL: 8 Mass (L/E): 2934.19 / 1422.19
Engineering Data:
Power Plant: 45MW Fission , Duration 1 year, batteries 22.4MWhrs
Jump Performance: 0
Manoeuvre Gs: 0.5G on turbofans producing 1000tns thrust, 0.5G on fusion
thermal rocket producing 1000tns thrust, contra-gavity
G Hours: 1.4 for turbofans, 0.14 for fusion rocket + 2.1 minutes orbital
manoeuvring
Maint: 182
Electronics:
Computer: 2 x TL9 std
Commo: Radio 30,000km; Maser com, 3,000km
Avionics: TL8 avionics and navigation aids
Sensors: Radar, 300km;
Armament: None
Accommodation: Extended life support
Crew 4 (1 engineering, 2 manoeuvring, 1 elec)
Workstations: 3 bridge, 1 normal, TL9 controls
Crew Accommodations: 4 small staterooms,
Cargo: 1512 cubic metres
Small craft: None
Airlocks 2
Other: 4 large cargo hatches
Notes: No fuel scoops or plant. Fuel: 4.5kl radioactive, 176.4kl liquid
hydrogen, 336kl hydrocarbon distillates.
In sub-orbital flight the shuttle has a power surplus of 0.256MW with
the combined power output of the power plant and the turbo fans. During
orbital transfer, the shuttle uses its batteries to make up the power
shortfall to power the fusion thermal rocket and the additional
contra-grav requirement. In orbital flight with the fusion thermal
rocket operating, and the contra grav switched off, the FTR is powered
down to a 40MW level (0.3G).
On 08/03/2015 17:20, Todd Kes [Traveller_TNE] wrote:
> 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
>
>
- my polity tended to build saucer shaped ships -cheap and atmo capable,
only a few yards had orbital facilities
Developed by the Shield Polity in 1204 to provide heavy orbital transfer
capability using the basic TL8 and emerging TL9 technologies at the new
starports opening within the polity. Its purpose was to provide a small
shuttle capable of lifting 100 displacement tonnes into orbit, and
manoeuvring to a space station, whilst allowing a rapid turn around on
par with the relic Heplar powered shuttles.
The rapid turn around provision prevented the use of solid fuel
boosters. Conventional turbofans are used to provide motive power to
raise the shuttle to its orbital insertion point (90%) whilst the new
contra-grav system neutralised the crafts weight. At the high orbital
insertion point, the shuttle’s fusion rocket could be safely ignited to
boost the shuttle out of the upper reaches of the atmosphere and into
orbit. The design’s flexibility allowed a significant fuel allowance to
be carried to allow considerable orbital manoeuvring, and even transit
to nearby moons and planets. A small allowance has been provided in the
fuel supply for the turbofans to allow atmospheric manoeuvring.
Small staterooms are provided for all 4 crew.
The fuel supply allows both powered ascent and descent. The turbofans
burn for 151.2 minutes for ascent and descent leaving 16.8 minutes spare
capacity. The fusion rocket requires 16.8 minutes burn (0.14G) for
orbital insertion and de-orbit burn, the remainder can be used for
orbital manoeuvring. The following burn times are for a type A planet,
smaller worlds will provide a greater fuel reserve.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Poni-B Class Heavy Shuttle
Displacement 200 tns; Hull Armour: 10
Length: 17m Volume: 2800m
Price: MCr 95.87407 Target Size: Small
Configuration: SL Sphere,
TL: 8 Mass (L/E): 2934.19 / 1422.19
Engineering Data:
Power Plant: 45MW Fission , Duration 1 year, batteries 22.4MWhrs
Jump Performance: 0
Manoeuvre Gs: 0.5G on turbofans producing 1000tns thrust, 0.5G on fusion
thermal rocket producing 1000tns thrust, contra-gavity
G Hours: 1.4 for turbofans, 0.14 for fusion rocket + 2.1 minutes orbital
manoeuvring
Maint: 182
Electronics:
Computer: 2 x TL9 std
Commo: Radio 30,000km; Maser com, 3,000km
Avionics: TL8 avionics and navigation aids
Sensors: Radar, 300km;
Armament: None
Accommodation: Extended life support
Crew 4 (1 engineering, 2 manoeuvring, 1 elec)
Workstations: 3 bridge, 1 normal, TL9 controls
Crew Accommodations: 4 small staterooms,
Cargo: 1512 cubic metres
Small craft: None
Airlocks 2
Other: 4 large cargo hatches
Notes: No fuel scoops or plant. Fuel: 4.5kl radioactive, 176.4kl liquid
hydrogen, 336kl hydrocarbon distillates.
In sub-orbital flight the shuttle has a power surplus of 0.256MW with
the combined power output of the power plant and the turbo fans. During
orbital transfer, the shuttle uses its batteries to make up the power
shortfall to power the fusion thermal rocket and the additional
contra-grav requirement. In orbital flight with the fusion thermal
rocket operating, and the contra grav switched off, the FTR is powered
down to a 40MW level (0.3G).
On 08/03/2015 17:20, Todd Kes [Traveller_TNE] wrote:
> 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
>
>