When my PCs were expanding their polity, several things kept coming up
* Earth to orbit vehicles - PCs always recover ships but how to get
cargo and passengers to and from the ships.
* Ship maintenance - the journeys from a central port for maint always
took too long, forcing the need to build local advanced ports /
bases fit to do annual maint - which is a type D port and a TL8 +
some population.
* Vehicles - to defeat teds you need tanks and other amour, you can't
bomb them all from orbit.
* Habitation - salvage bases, orbital port, outposts etc all need
habitation / control etc. and the classic advanced base and original
30tn modules are just not up to the task
cheers
richard
On 09/03/2015 06:48, [Traveller_TNE] wrote:
>
> It's really good work. Not like you need me to tell you that, but when
> somebody do stuff with the game that is exactly the sort of stuff you were
> hoping people would see in it, it's cool, and I just want to be clear that
> I'm excited by what you did, thinking about how to fit the technology into
> the real roles and missions and models for use.
>
> > I just worked it out for the worst world - I remember that little
> > regengade spaceplane had a configurable fuel tank to deal with
> > different world sizes.
> >
> > My PCs established a small polity over in the madoc subsector. With
> > recovered relic ships, they managed to re-open trade but as more and
> > more ships were recovered / rebuilt (especially scout vessels and
> > Bastien liners) there was a desparate need to get people and cargo to
> > and from orbit. Mass drivers are fine for bulk good like iron etc, but
> > useless for passengers and delicate cargo.
> >
> > High tech relic small craft had excellent turn around times, and any
> > locally produced vessel would have to have something similar. That
> > leaves out conventional rockets - but there are real designs for the
> > HOTEL type aircraft, + a mention of this approach in hard times and hey
> > presto - 2 shuttle craft that could be turned round on a daily basis
> > (assuming about 6hrs flight + orbit time and the rest of the day for
> > maint checks)
> >
> > On 08/03/2015 21:00, [Traveller_TNE] wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 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
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
* Earth to orbit vehicles - PCs always recover ships but how to get
cargo and passengers to and from the ships.
* Ship maintenance - the journeys from a central port for maint always
took too long, forcing the need to build local advanced ports /
bases fit to do annual maint - which is a type D port and a TL8 +
some population.
* Vehicles - to defeat teds you need tanks and other amour, you can't
bomb them all from orbit.
* Habitation - salvage bases, orbital port, outposts etc all need
habitation / control etc. and the classic advanced base and original
30tn modules are just not up to the task
cheers
richard
On 09/03/2015 06:48, [Traveller_TNE] wrote:
>
> It's really good work. Not like you need me to tell you that, but when
> somebody do stuff with the game that is exactly the sort of stuff you were
> hoping people would see in it, it's cool, and I just want to be clear that
> I'm excited by what you did, thinking about how to fit the technology into
> the real roles and missions and models for use.
>
> > I just worked it out for the worst world - I remember that little
> > regengade spaceplane had a configurable fuel tank to deal with
> > different world sizes.
> >
> > My PCs established a small polity over in the madoc subsector. With
> > recovered relic ships, they managed to re-open trade but as more and
> > more ships were recovered / rebuilt (especially scout vessels and
> > Bastien liners) there was a desparate need to get people and cargo to
> > and from orbit. Mass drivers are fine for bulk good like iron etc, but
> > useless for passengers and delicate cargo.
> >
> > High tech relic small craft had excellent turn around times, and any
> > locally produced vessel would have to have something similar. That
> > leaves out conventional rockets - but there are real designs for the
> > HOTEL type aircraft, + a mention of this approach in hard times and hey
> > presto - 2 shuttle craft that could be turned round on a daily basis
> > (assuming about 6hrs flight + orbit time and the rest of the day for
> > maint checks)
> >
> > On 08/03/2015 21:00, [Traveller_TNE] wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 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
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>