That's a fun campaign to run. My last campaign is frozen with the PCs
having loaded up a bunch of cargo pods with gear to set up a bunch of
advance bases and trading posts out in a wilderness/frontier area. The
whole Swiss Family Robinson-Crusoe scenario is compelling.
> 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 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
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
having loaded up a bunch of cargo pods with gear to set up a bunch of
advance bases and trading posts out in a wilderness/frontier area. The
whole Swiss Family Robinson-Crusoe scenario is compelling.
> 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 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
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>