AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
If it's much smaller, it's not a ship, but an uncommonly unwieldy smallcraft?
E.g. at 5 m × 25 m × 37.5 m ≈ 780 m³ ≈ 55 Dt.
Type ST Transport Scout: 199Td, J4/2G (LBB2 2nd Ed.)
- Thread starter Grav_Moped
- Start date
E.g. at 5 m × 25 m × 37.5 m ≈ 780 m³ ≈ 55 Dt.
I'm not sure using all the different drawings of the Type S are going to give you the same measurements. They are all just a little different. Page 28,36, and 42 Starter Traveller and page 17 CT S7. So, it's going to come down to the deck plans. If the ship must be made to fit the deck plans in S7, make it larger than listed or making new deck plans to fit the 100-ton hull as listed.
I always liked the look of the S7 deck plans and would like to see a larger Type S that those plans would work on. Call it a Type S+.
I always liked the look of the S7 deck plans and would like to see a larger Type S that those plans would work on. Call it a Type S+.
Oh, and just for a laugh I ran the numbers in my head as a 100Td TL-13 HG design, and demonstrated why the XBoat isn't a HG build: it wouldn't need to be an XBoat, and much of the canon XBoat System infrastructure becomes unnecessary.
It's J4/2G, 1 turret, 1.5 mandatory staterooms (pilot in single, gunner in half of one), and 7Td payload (which could be "stateroom(s) and/or fractions thereof", or an Air/Raft, and/or both.
To put it differently, if you build it in HG at TL-13, there is no real point in leaving out the maneuver drive or the other stuff that keeps it from being an ordinary starship.
I'll probably do a full write-up shortly.
It's J4/2G, 1 turret, 1.5 mandatory staterooms (pilot in single, gunner in half of one), and 7Td payload (which could be "stateroom(s) and/or fractions thereof", or an Air/Raft, and/or both.
To put it differently, if you build it in HG at TL-13, there is no real point in leaving out the maneuver drive or the other stuff that keeps it from being an ordinary starship.
I'll probably do a full write-up shortly.
Last edited:
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
Using LBB5.80 you can make a J6 XBoat fit into 150 tons without needing any L-Hyd Drop Tanks at all @ TL=15.
Pretty sure you'd be able to give it a maneuver drive and Configuration: 6 for streamlining into the deal, removing the need for Express Tenders as we've known them.
Bargain, really ...
J5/1G is possible in 100Td at TL-15. A basic 6Boat (no maneuver) is in the 135Td range.Using LBB5.80 you can make a J6 XBoat fit into 150 tons without needing any L-Hyd Drop Tanks at all @ TL=15.
Pretty sure you'd be able to give it a maneuver drive and Configuration: 6 for streamlining into the deal, removing the need for Express Tenders as we've known them.
Bargain, really ...
The point of all this is that the only reason the XBoat is the "J4 and nothing else" edge case jump machine that we all know and love, is that it came out of LBB2. Even in '77, it couldn't have a maneuver drive without cutting into the 10Pn power plant fuel requirement. This could have been done -- but would have required explicitly stating the reason why the requirement was 10Pn (it's for a week of acceleration at the m-drive's max rating, using the small craft fuel burn rates from that part of the rules). And that would have blown a hole in the "we're not saying what the starship fuel burn rate is, but it's all used in one trip regardless" handwave.
Last edited:
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
The advantage of going high enough to add in a 2G maneuver drive would be that the "6XBoats" would no longer require Tenders (and their associated expenses) in order to operate.
To quote a mildly famous Solomani industrialist who lived in pre-interplanetary habitation times ... "The best part is no part. The best process is no process."
An unarmed J6/2G XBoat that is under 200 tons displacement would be the IISS equivalent of the armed J6/2G Fleet Courier that is 400 tons and detailed in LBB S9, p20.
IISS = unarmed, jumps "on network only"
IN = armed, jumps are unrestricted
So the 6XBoat would still be "outsourcing its protection" (armament) to other assets controlled by the IISS (such as small craft fighter patrols, for example) while "insourcing its maneuver and refueling" operations, removing a primary rationale for the continued existence of the Express Tender in its legacy form, needed to retrieve/service/refuel/launch 4XBoats in the legacy system of operations. It would be a massive refactoring/overhaul/replacement effort for the entire Express Network ... but by the 1100s it is something that the Third Imperium would be capable of doing.
The contracts ALONE would be enough to get the megacorporations sharpening their financial knives ...
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
For maximum speed of communication tenders will still be needed.
With a tender near the jump arrival the xboat can be refueled and on its way in under an hour.
If it has to maneuver to a starport to refuel then the boat is not jumping as often.
With a tender near the jump arrival the xboat can be refueled and on its way in under an hour.
If it has to maneuver to a starport to refuel then the boat is not jumping as often.
Jump cadence gets slowed if the ships do their own refueling, but message transmission is still at lightspeed between arriving and outgoing ships.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
Exactly. Relay racer baton pass operation. Once the (data) baton is passed, how long it takes for a specific XBoat to refuel and prepare itself for the next outbound jump falls way down the list of priorities. So long as a "fresh" XBoat is ready to depart as quickly as possible after the completion of data transmissions (the "baton pass") then that's good enough.
What's important is how fast the data packets move between star systems, rather than how long it takes for a single unique starship container to complete its replenishment and position itself ready to jump again. I would even argue that a 24 hour cycle of jump point to refueling back out to jump point would be adequate under most circumstances to keep the baton relay for data transmissions running smoothly. For star systems where the jump shadow ephemera means that it's going to take longer than 24 hours for a single XBoat to "splash for fuel" and return to a readiness state in the rotation will require 1 of two possible adjustments in operations.
- Additional "rotation slack" in the refueling cycle (more than 1 XBoat cycling for fuel at any given time for a specific jump point) to even out the availability
- Fuel tenders maintaining station near jump shadow limits with fuel shuttles cycling (instead of making the XBoats do it) so as to operate as mobile fuel caches
It's worth noting that the J6 versions would be (in normal use) kept on world pairs that could benefit from the range. They're too expensive to be sending them through the 1-4 parsec stop-and-go stretches.
Then again, this digression is about what you get instead of the canon XBoat network if the smallest/cheapest J4 ship isn't J4/no-maneuver.
Then again, this digression is about what you get instead of the canon XBoat network if the smallest/cheapest J4 ship isn't J4/no-maneuver.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
Maybe in a its own thread?Welcome to the Analysis of Alternatives.
ROUND 1
FIGHT!
Because I'm bored (tonight's assignment in my POL 332 "International Security" course turned out to be far simpler than I'd expected), here's a near-zero-effort version of the deck plans for this one. Stitched it together from the first version upthread (post #120) and my revised Sulieman plans. Honestly, I did those revised Sulie plans in the first place so I could do precisely this.
It deserves better, but that's not happening tonight.
Last edited:
One problem with most Suleiman layouts is that people forget to take account of the cross section. I know from my own 3D printed model that the bridge crew when seated would be bashing their heads on the ceiling. It would be much better to bring it back a few squares and just make the front fuel tankage.
Yep. As drawn here, it's a low-ceilinged cockpit with the seats leaned way back.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
You've got it! Sports-car supine, not van vertical.
I'm sure it'd be an ergonomic mess, but it's an intentional artistic choice.
That'd be a much better fit for my tailsitter version (prolate spheroid).
And that's why I felt compelled to do those revised deck plans in the first place -- the upper and lower spaces simply didn't fit into the hull as described.
