Another possibility would be to go with either a heat shield/parachute
system or a dead glider (think space shuttle re-entry) system for getting
the pod down, and an engine system to get back to orbit. That way you only
need fuel for a one-way trip. And you could add the fuel *after* it was on
the ground, so less weight to take down in the first place.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Tim O'Reilly <> wrote:
>
>
> Interesting I didn't think of the heat shield - parachute delivery ...
> that may make a pod more of a one use system, but the cost effectiveness may
> be retained is it's intended to be used for years - decades even. hmmm
> T
>
> --- On *Tue, 11/30/10, Jim/Mathias <>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Jim/Mathias <>
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Support Ship Contest
>
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2010, 10:53 AM
>
>
>
> Well, the question there is whether the *ship* or the *pods* would need
> to be streamlined. If the "pod" were in fact capable of getting itself to
> and from orbit, you're good. Or, if the pod can get itself down (say with
> heat-shields and 'chutes for a orbital drop, ala Apollo capsule returns),
> then all you need is a means to get it back up. Would the fueling auxiliary
> that I seem to recall the clippers carrying have the capability to bring the
> pod up? Or even carry it both ways between orbit and surface?
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:21 AM, DED <<http://us.mc398.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=>
> > wrote:
>
>
> Roger wrote:
>
> DED asked about my pod idea and how it would be different from the
> Aurora/Maggart class Clippers.
>
> First, the Coalition can't afford many of these ships. Building a pod
> that can be dropped, letting the ship return to Coalition space for
> other missions while the pod was left behind presents maximum usage of
> the ship. Also pods are cheap (in construction time, credits and
> people-power) compared to building another ship.
>
> Second, the ship could be used as a freighter in and around Coalition
> space. As a salvage ship for bulky items or even small starships, items
> too big for even BUFF (see BARD) to carry.
>
> I think the big difference would be the pod would be designed to be
> cheap and something that could be left behind as a semi-permanent
> instillation, that would argument and support bootstrap operations.
>
> Also I own a copy of "Death of Wisdom" in it a Hiver colony on a member
> world is stricken with a disease. I always wondered how the Coalition
> would/could respond. Sure they would send doctors, supplies medicines
> and support staff. Mercy, on hearing of the outbreak could check its
> records for the nearest hospital/research pod. Jump there pick it and
> volunteer medical /research personal and drop the pod right on the
> doorstep.
>
> The big difference between what I'm thinking of and the Clipper pods is
> flexability.
>
> Can a Clipper pod land on a planets surface? I don't know. I think there
> are space-based only.
>
> ==================================================
>
> I'm no expert on RC ships but in looking at my copy of RCEG, the
> clippers have a lot of the same functionality. There's four pages worth
> of modules that perform various tasks running from fuel refiinery to
> cargo to troop quarters. There might even be more modules over on BARD
> but I haven't checked. You are correct that both ship classes are
> unstreamlined so their usefulness is limited to vacuum boneyards.
> Perhaps a streamlined version is in order? Not sure if that's possible
> given the necessary configuration of the ship, but I'll leave that up to
> the gearheads to answer.
>
> \_/
> DED
>
>
>
>
>