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
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
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
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
I thought a campaign during the collapse of virus would be horrifying.
Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 9, 2015, at 3:55 PM, [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
> 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 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
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
We figured we'd skip that so as to forestall remarks about, "GDW is just
making a dark gloomy gothic trendoid setting because they're all just dark
gloomy gothic trendoid guys wearing dark gloomy gothic trendoid
underwear."
It didn't work.
> I thought a campaign during the collapse of virus would be horrifying.
>
> Derek Stanley
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Mar 9, 2015, at 3:55 PM, [Traveller_TNE]
>> <> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
My NSA monitor is named 'Bob', or at least that's what I imagine he is named.
Hi Bob, just me talking sci-fi again. Go to Starbucks this morning, the danish is wonderful today. I'll be talking technology and boring academic stuff later this afternoon, and I have a staff meeting, but you might want to tell the late shift people that I'll be looking through some of my sci-fi writings later for timeline research, oh and I'll be online later on the cheaperthandirt.com web site looking at camping gear and maybe AR-15 accessories I shouldn't buy (seriously, there are more accessories for AR-15s than Barbie dolls), unless I decide to take a nap instead. Have a nice day, Bob!