Brute Heavy yard Tug, with stats

[wbnc]

Had this loitering around..so I used it for some weathering practice...gave it a few dings and dents...

I have had this around for a while in rough form waiting for the HighGuard release. So I reworked it and tried a few tricks to create a 50 ton craft that is capable fo lifting 400 tons of cargo while safely maneuvering in an atmosphere. Using and External Cargo Mount makes the craft extremely difficult to pilot in atmosphere so I had to get creative. I purchase a cargo crane capable of lifting 450 tons..just to be safe..and cargo nets. these are externally mounted but I felt it was a good workaround to avoid it being a suicide machine if it had to land cargo.

It uses TL-10 tech so it's limited i acceleration but since i included enough drive tonnage to move a 450-ton ship it won't have any problem generating Thrust one even when it's fully loaded.

It comes equipped with tow cables, grappling arms, cargo net, and a forced linkage system so it can capture objects that aren't quite stable, or out of control.


To make up for being a bit unwieldy it has a holographic bridge to give the pilot a slight edge on is checks...it has a crew of two one pilot and one co-pilot who set in control cabins at opposite ends of the craft, there's no walkway through the hull since most of it is taken up by the various bits of hardware. However, both pilots can operate all the ships systems and use the manipulator arms and linkage system from their station.

So what do you think, this ship is a bit gimmicky but it is fairly solid as far as costs, tonnages, and performance....

 

[-Daniel-]

I like it. It looks like something you would see working the space yards. Good Job.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I like the concept, but I'm afraid I have a few problems with the design.

The Hull specifies a 23 dT module. What is in the module? Are there other modules?

I think a cargo crane is something like this:

It can carry a single cargo container, the 450 t part of the specification tells that the bridge of the crane can traverse a 450 dT cargo hold.

I think a cargo net is intended to rope in cargo floating in space into the regular cargo hold, it's not intended to hold cargo securely during manoeuvres.

Likewise I would not want to contemplate towing say a Fat Trader into an atmosphere. Dangling 400 dT (a mass of thousands of tonnes) off a tether in an atmosphere sounds suicidal.

The Forced Linkage should work to let the craft hold on to something, but like a Docking Clamp it would probably make the vessel unstreamlined.

So, I do not think this craft can handle large cargoes in atmospheres. In space, yes, but you would need e.g. external cargo mounts.

I'm sorry to be so negative.

 

[wbnc]

don't worry about being negative. I asked for feedback If I wanted to hear nothing but "hey You're great " or "great Idea" I'd train a parrot

I was mostly using the cargo crane, tow cables and cargo net as a stand in for a cargo handling system in general, so I could get a cost and tonnage for the system. there really isn't a good way to handle extremely large objects such as prefab structures, and modules you would see in something like a mining, or military operation.

The easiest route is using external cargo clamps. Which is probably what I will end up using. Combined with several docking clamps of various sizes to allow it to lock onto and tow starships with some degree of precision. I was trying to find a way to handle large objects without having to impose a bane on the landing operations.

Carrying a massive object is not impossible it just has to be done very slowly and very carefully a system of straps, cables, and netting to stabilize the load is what I imagined instead of a rigid framework. sky cranes can move high tension towers and small houses sling loaded but they have to use a fairly complex system of cables and frames to keep it from twisting and swaying if it hits a crosswind. Even then they move reaaalllll slow when loaded to avoid setting up any sort of pendulum movement in the cargo.

The modular hull represents the fact you can pull off everything but the drives power plant and bridge and re-equip the ship with new hardware very easily. all of the cargo handling gear could be stripped off and a pressurized cargo pod attached for instance.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The easiest route is using external cargo clamps. Which is probably what I will end up using. Combined with several docking clamps of various sizes to allow it to lock onto and tow starships with some degree of precision. I was trying to find a way to handle large objects without having to impose a bane on the landing operations.

I may have simplified this a bit too much in my head, but I have come to the understanding that carrying anything outside the hull makes the ship unstreamlined, and letting unstreamlined ships anywhere near an atmosphere is a bad idea.

Bane?

An unstreamlined ship is completely non-aerodynamic and if it enters an atmosphere it runs the risk of sustaining serious damage. Such a ship must make a Pilot check at DM-4 when it enters an atmosphere and for every minute of flight. Each failed check in inflicts 1D damage to the ship, ignoring any Armour.

To me this mean something like: you burn up if you try re-entry, unless you are extremely lucky (i.e. the Referee really wants you to survive, despite attempting to achieve a Darwin-award).


I have come to the conclusion that to land, or skim fuel, I have to carry things inside the hull. It even seems reasonable?
(Note that e.g. a carrier with craft in docking clamps can simply drop the carried craft, refuel without them, and reattach the carried craft when outside the atmosphere again).

 

[wbnc]

The easiest route is using external cargo clamps. Which is probably what I will end up using. Combined with several docking clamps of various sizes to allow it to lock onto and tow starships with some degree of precision. I was trying to find a way to handle large objects without having to impose a bane on the landing operations.

I may have simplified this a bit too much in my head, but I have come to the understanding that carrying anything outside the hull makes the ship unstreamlined, and letting unstreamlined ships anywhere near an atmosphere is a bad idea.

Bane?

An unstreamlined ship is completely non-aerodynamic and if it enters an atmosphere it runs the risk of sustaining serious damage. Such a ship must make a Pilot check at DM-4 when it enters an atmosphere and for every minute of flight. Each failed check in inflicts 1D damage to the ship, ignoring any Armour.

To me this mean something like: you burn up if you try re-entry, unless you are extremely lucky (i.e. the Referee really wants you to survive, despite attempting to achieve a Darwin-award).


I have come to the conclusion that to land, or skim fuel, I have to carry things inside the hull. It even seems reasonable?
(Note that e.g. a carrier with craft in docking clamps can simply drop the carried craft, refuel without them, and reattach the carried craft when outside the atmosphere again).

Banes
Corebook: Pg 59

f a Traveller is hindered in a check, such as with poor tools, a dimly lit environment or other negative circumstances, he receives a Bane. This means he rolls an extra dice during a check and discards the highest

HG: PG 39

Cargo carried externally can only be accessed outside the ship by vacc suit or transport vehicle. Landing a ship with external cargo mounts is a dangerous procedure (a Bane is imposed on all Pilot checks made for landing such a ship), so these ships can have difficulties trading at worlds without a shuttle fleet or highport.

Burning up on entry is caused by the fact an object is moving at orbital or superorbital speeds..well of 20k Mph. A starship or small craft with Traveller style drives can cheat, and slow down to far slower speeds before hitting the atmosphere. Mostly because they can burn their engines for more than 20 or 30 minutes before running out of fuel. Space X uses a rocket that descend very slowly on its rockets instead of free fall...so it doesn't heat up and turn into a pretty, pretty fireball in the sky.

In theory, if you put enough rockets on an office block, and gave those rockets enough fuel it could take off, orbit and land without a hitch...assuming it could hold together, and didn't tumble out of control since office buildings aren't very well balanced for flight. however, people have turned a porta-potty into a rocket...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et4UqrkknxQ


in traveller it seems Streamlined is is a catch-all for "designed for atmospheric operation" which might be a better designation for some ships that are classed as streamlined but obviously arent...at least from their images.
a streamlined ship can operate in an atmosphere without penalties, a partially streamlined ship suffers penalties but can enter very thin atmospheres , while semi-streamlined ships can only make entry into trace atmospheres....hmmm there's a snag I overlooked...dern it.have to build it as a streamlined hull...sheesh.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

HG: PG 39

Cargo carried externally can only be accessed outside the ship by vacc suit or transport vehicle. Landing a ship with external cargo mounts is a dangerous procedure (a Bane is imposed on all Pilot checks made for landing such a ship), so these ships can have difficulties trading at worlds without a shuttle fleet or highport.

I had forgotten about that. Unfortunately p39 also says "A ship using external cargo mounts will become unstreamlined". I guess you will have a bane when you roll for damage every minute during re-entry...

in traveller it seems Streamlined is is a catch-all for "designed for atmospheric operation" which might be a better designation for some ships that are classed as streamlined but obviously arent...at least from their images.

I would call it the definition of streamlined: "designed for atmospheric operation". Most illustrations are not made by aero-engineers, so are probably not all that much better streamlined than a brick.

a streamlined ship can operate in an atmosphere without penalties, a partially streamlined ship suffers penalties but can enter very thin atmospheres , while semi-streamlined ships can only make entry into trace atmospheres....hmmm there's a snag I overlooked...dern it.have to build it as a streamlined hull...sheesh.

Partial streamlining allows a ship to skim gas giants and enter Atmosphere codes of 3 or less, acting in the same way as streamlined ships. In other atmospheres, the ship will be ponderous and unresponsive, reliant on its thrusters to keep it aloft. All Pilot checks will be made with DM-2.

Partially streamlined ships are workable if you have good pilots, but I would not want to try to land outside a starport:

Ships have landing gear, allowing them to touch down ‘in the wild’, which requires an Average (8+), Difficult (10+) or even Very Difficult (12+) Pilot check, depending on local terrain. They can also land on bodies of water. Failing a Pilot check while attempting a landing means the ship has landed improperly or even crashed.

Difficult checks with a negative DM starts to get iffy even with very good pilots.

 

[phavoc]

Interesting design. Based on the view it looks like there is supposed to be a cockpit at both ends?

Regarding the cargo net and tow cable for cargo in space... I've always labeled those as "ugh". Using plain physics it's just a bad idea. They work great under gravity, but in zero-G, to actually tow something around? Ugh. Mr. Newton's laws are present in the existing system (except where the idea of tow cables came about). The only way to make that work without a lot of hand wavium would be for the cable to be very specialized, so that, for example, when an electrical charge is applied to the cable it become firm and holds it's shape. You could even call it a "smart" cable so that you could program exactly what shape you want it to assume once you energize it. This would be within the realms of advanced technology, and it doesn't break the laws of physics. Anybody who has ever towed a car with a chain or something else and the towed car had no breaks will know exactly what I'm talking about.

With anti-gravity, you can EASILY move cargo to/from orbit safely and effectively with no need for bane rolls. That's just plain dumb, regardless of what the rules say. The ability to control your ascent/descent means you can SAFELY and EASILY achieve orbit - albeit at a reduced speed, especially if you are carrying outsized cargo that makes you more susceptible to wind currents. Otherwise anything in atmosphere under anti-grav should have to do a bane roll. From the image I'm assuming those pegs between fore and aft are supposed to be your attachment points for cargo? If you plan on carrying containers you'd need a more robust system to provide support in a gravity well. But in zero-g you don't. I would say that you would be better off creating a cargo lighter, more like a floating barge, to carry cargo from orbit to ground, or vice versa. It provides more support as well stability. But in orbit your tug would be fine.

If you have a cargo crane, it doesn't appear on the illustration, so would it be underneath the craft? If so you may want to bulk up the middle section to allow for cables, machinery, etc.

Also, are the engines also mean to double as landing struts? I don't see any obvious external areas where they would be, so if you do plan on making them landing struts maybe you would want to take a page out of the SW universe and the Y-wing engine designs, where the cowls were removed from the rear. This would allow for thrust to occur while on the ground without any sort of blockage. Granted you would be using anti-grav to lift off and land, but you never know what environment or such you may be in, thus you'd want the design to accommodate as many variations as possible.

 

[wbnc]

Interesting design. Based on the view it looks like there is supposed to be a cockpit at both ends?

Regarding the cargo net and tow cable for cargo in space... I've always labeled those as "ugh". Using plain physics it's just a bad idea. They work great under gravity, but in zero-G, to actually tow something around? Ugh. Mr. Newton's laws are present in the existing system (except where the idea of tow cables came about). The only way to make that work without a lot of hand wavium would be for the cable to be very specialized, so that, for example, when an electrical charge is applied to the cable it become firm and holds it's shape. You could even call it a "smart" cable so that you could program exactly what shape you want it to assume once you energize it. This would be within the realms of advanced technology, and it doesn't break the laws of physics. Anybody who has ever towed a car with a chain or something else and the towed car had no breaks will know exactly what I'm talking about.

With anti-gravity, you can EASILY move cargo to/from orbit safely and effectively with no need for bane rolls. That's just plain dumb, regardless of what the rules say. The ability to control your ascent/descent means you can SAFELY and EASILY achieve orbit - albeit at a reduced speed, especially if you are carrying outsized cargo that makes you more susceptible to wind currents. Otherwise anything in atmosphere under anti-grav should have to do a bane roll. From the image I'm assuming those pegs between fore and aft are supposed to be your attachment points for cargo? If you plan on carrying containers you'd need a more robust system to provide support in a gravity well. But in zero-g you don't. I would say that you would be better off creating a cargo lighter, more like a floating barge, to carry cargo from orbit to ground, or vice versa. It provides more support as well stability. But in orbit your tug would be fine.

If you have a cargo crane, it doesn't appear on the illustration, so would it be underneath the craft? If so you may want to bulk up the middle section to allow for cables, machinery, etc.

Also, are the engines also mean to double as landing struts? I don't see any obvious external areas where they would be, so if you do plan on making them landing struts maybe you would want to take a page out of the SW universe and the Y-wing engine designs, where the cowls were removed from the rear. This would allow for thrust to occur while on the ground without any sort of blockage. Granted you would be using anti-grav to lift off and land, but you never know what environment or such you may be in, thus you'd want the design to accommodate as many variations as possible.

Yeah, there are control cabins at both ends of the ship. The Pilot sets in one co-pilot in the other...Holographic displays allow them to see all around the ship but sometimes there is no substitute for a pair of eyes. Or at least ts more reassuring to be able to put a set of eyes on a problem...


A good game of crack the whip will demonstrate the principle of unsecured cargo at the end of a rope....

I am thinking more of an array of straps with a semi-rigid set of spacers the tug gives a nudge to get the object moving then moves around behind to apply a braking force if needed turning the entire load around. if you have a handy gravity well around or are moving toward the gravity well you just slow the object down below orbital velocity and hang it "under" the ship using the ships thrusters to keep braking until you are at the velocity you desire and slowly descend. gravity supplies a stabilizing force at that point.

but no, not even on a bet, not even on a drunken bet between frat boys would I try to manage a multi-ton object without some sort of rig that had a stabilizing force, or stabilizing jets...


what I am imagining for sling loading an object in gravity would look a bit like this..only far more robust

I am still tweaking the design as I get feedback...new eyes on a rough idea never hurts...and it cuts down on the inevitable "That's stupid, that will never work" comments later on if you show it to a fairly freindly audience to begin with and let them pick it apart first although the negative and pretty rude comments will never go away.

I am working out a few items in my head as I let my brain cool down from other projects. refining and experimenting on the ones already I near final form as I go. mostly add ons to show a few ways cargo can be secured

the thrust pods do act as landing gear....and I may adjust the drive pods a bit..good idea.

 

[phavoc]

For moving any sort of cargo to/from orbit, a lighter-style will always be superior. The ability to set the cargo down in a gravity well, and then secure it with straps/cables as you ascend to orbit means you can carry pretty much anything that will fit on the base.

I've sketched up that as an idea, which is basically a large platform, with the control booth at one end (at the same level as the cargo area, to allow for cargos that go over the sides) and the drive pods in the back. It's primary purpose is to 'float' up or down with its cargo, never going more than say 100-125kph. And with grav capabilities you can slow that speed down even further depending upon what you are transporting.

Then the only issues you need to deal with would be atmospheric storms and high-level cross-winds, much like rockets and the space shuttle do today. But with no need for real lift, you have advantages that those don't (i.e. you can move in any direction at speed or not without fear of crashing).

The tug would be better suited for moving craft and larger cargo in orbit and leave bringing things to the ground to the lighter style craft. If you do something like that you could shorten the length of your tug to make it look, well, more tuggier (short, fat and powerful). The cockpit in the rear makes sense, though you'd probably want an access tunnel to the other control section. You could keep the grapples at the rear, and for your crane, make it more of a roving style arm on the top (maybe for the crane controller you make it so the rear control section has an observation bubble on the top to observe activities of the crane visually towards the front, sort of like how the shuttle has observation windows into the cargo area and to the top of the shuttle where the crane operates).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

With anti-gravity, you can EASILY move cargo to/from orbit safely and effectively with no need for bane rolls. That's just plain dumb, regardless of what the rules say. The ability to control your ascent/descent means you can SAFELY and EASILY achieve orbit - albeit at a reduced speed, especially if you are carrying outsized cargo that makes you more susceptible to wind currents.

Yes, but this is a spacecraft with M-drives, not a grav vehicle. We could probably install both M-drives and Contra-grav in the same vessel, but we have no rules for that.

As far as I know grav vehicles takes many hours to reach orbit, whereas spacecraft takes perhaps half an hour.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

what I am imagining for sling loading an object in gravity would look a bit like this..only far more robust

I would imagine the natural replacement for the helicopter is the grav vehicle.

I think the concept you describe would fit better as a grav vehicle.

 

[wbnc]

what I am imagining for sling loading an object in gravity would look a bit like this..only far more robust

I would imagine the natural replacement for the helicopter is the grav vehicle.

I think the concept you describe would fit better as a grav vehicle.

its basically a 50 ton grav vehicle with a big set of Plasma rockets for extra oompff...of course ya don't want to fire off those rockets close to the ground...ever, unless you really jus do not like yer boss.

 

[phavoc]

With anti-gravity, you can EASILY move cargo to/from orbit safely and effectively with no need for bane rolls. That's just plain dumb, regardless of what the rules say. The ability to control your ascent/descent means you can SAFELY and EASILY achieve orbit - albeit at a reduced speed, especially if you are carrying outsized cargo that makes you more susceptible to wind currents.

Yes, but this is a spacecraft with M-drives, not a grav vehicle. We could probably install both M-drives and Contra-grav in the same vessel, but we have no rules for that.

As far as I know grav vehicles takes many hours to reach orbit, whereas spacecraft takes perhaps half an hour.

Space craft with M-drives have contra-gravity capability. A Free Trader can do exactly the same thing, but with an enclosed hull and cargo capabilities there is no reason why it should. That is not the case here.

A ship equipped with anti-gravity can be flown like a hot air balloon - with the main difference of being able to control your direction instead of relying upon the wind.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Space craft with M-drives have contra-gravity capability.

They do? Says who?

 

[phavoc]

Space craft with M-drives have contra-gravity capability.

They do? Says who?

Well, that's a fair question. And the answer is they must have, or else no scout or free trader or any other craft would ever be able to land so precisely in the landing pads at star ports.

But you are right, it's not explicitly called out.

 

[wbnc]

Space craft with M-drives have contra-gravity capability.

They do? Says who?

Well, that's a fair question. And the answer is they must have, or else no scout or free trader or any other craft would ever be able to land so precisely in the landing pads at star ports.

But you are right, it's not explicitly called out.

it's not specifically stated in Mongoose. But in older books like Starship operators Manual do include detailed descriptions of how drive plates, gravitics etc work. I don't know if it's canon, but I like to use that version lacking any official comment from Mongoose.

 

[-Daniel-]

Space craft with M-drives have contra-gravity capability.

They do? Says who?

I admit I have always assumed this was the case. Curious, wonder where I got the idea from.

Well if that is not the case then it is a major missing add-on to the ship design. I mean, if it were not included, I would expect to see it listed as something that could be added to a ship.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Well, that's a fair question. And the answer is they must have, or else no scout or free trader or any other craft would ever be able to land so precisely in the landing pads at star ports.

I'm unconvinced. SSOM describes how spacecraft can land. It seems it can even be done today:

Space X uses a rocket that descend very slowly on its rockets instead of free fall...so it doesn't heat up and turn into a pretty, pretty fireball in the sky.

MT goes into detail with M-drives, Contra-grav, and Artificial gravity. Spacecraft generally do not have Contra-grav, even though the design sequence allows it.

 

[-Daniel-]

MT goes into detail with M-drives, Contra-grav, and Artificial gravity. Spacecraft generally do not have Contra-grav, even though the design sequence allows it.

Where is it listed as an optional add-on? I must have missed it.