Richard--
I am also impressed by the attention you paid to the fact that values
would vary from world to world, the issue that always took the other 90%
of design time.
> 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 shuttleâs fusion rocket could be safely ignited to
> boost the shuttle out of the upper reaches of the atmosphere and into
> orbit. The designâs 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
>>
>>
>
>
I am also impressed by the attention you paid to the fact that values
would vary from world to world, the issue that always took the other 90%
of design time.
> 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 shuttleâs fusion rocket could be safely ignited to
> boost the shuttle out of the upper reaches of the atmosphere and into
> orbit. The designâs 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
>>
>>
>
>