Ship Construction idea: Piggyback external Mounts

[Anonymous]

Given that the overhead for a m-drive is only a few percent, it wouldn't be ridiculous for the cargo module to fly itself to the high port after you jump in, depending on how long it takes you to dock your megafreighter.

But I still don't see why you can't just dump certain things in space, and the high port can send a tug for them.

By the way, cargo modules are complete administrative nightmare, like another layer of containers on top of containers. For example, just try to work out where a box is and who needs to be paid if it vanishes. So it's in a shared container, in a shared module, both the container and the module are owned by different companies, neither of which owns or operates the ship, and you paid a shipping agent, who has no connection to any of the above. And your buyer is also making a claim. And the ship might call "general average" assuming Traveller has that. This takes weeks to resolve today, with light-speed information transter. Good luck with commnications limited to the speed of jump!

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Given that the overhead for a m-drive is only a few percent, it wouldn't be ridiculous for the cargo module to fly itself to the high port after you jump in, depending on how long it takes you to dock your megafreighter.

You can, but in addition you need a power plant, fuel, and a computer with software. It gets expensive...

I suspect you can make an economic case for that, by decreasing ship turnover time to hours rather than days. Jump in, release the cargo (& fuel) pods, attach new pods waiting at the projected jump point, jump out...

But I still don't see why you can't just dump certain things in space, and the high port can send a tug for them.

You can, but I suspect ATC won't appreciate unguided masses at lethal velocities whizzing around traffic lanes/orbits.

At the receiving end a spacecraft has to match vectors with the cargo, and retrieve it. The process would be risky and require prepared infrastructure.


You also need to load new cargo...

 

[phavoc]

Not 20. Container ships are down to 10-12 knots right now. Fuel costs. This means a new generation of ships with different engines. Container ships average 10 years olds for efficiency reasons, so the fleet is very modern.

However, ports are under great pressure to reduce turnaround times with ever faster loading and unloading.

Concorde's operator's economy was actually not that much worse than a regular plane (like x2 the cost or something). However the plane was narrow and uncomfortable, the passengers were charged a premium, and sonic booms made many routes unavailable.

I actually think passenger comfort was what killed it. You could have a suite in a 747 what you paid for a tiny seat in a concorde, the only real benefit of it being exciting because it was concorde. The time wasn't really a significant saving after all the airport hassle and the limited routes. Though back then airports were a lot less hassle than they are these days, though check-in time for first class (about 1/2 hr before takeoff) hasn't really changed much in most airports.

Did a little digging, and it would appear container ships avg speed is around 17kts:
Analyzing vessel movement data from January 2012 to March 2019, SeaIntelligence found that headhaul speeds from Asia to North Europe have fallen steadily from an average of 17.46 knots in 2012 to an average of 16.61 knots in 2018. During the first three months of this year, the sailing speed on Asia-North Europe fell to about 15.6 knots, and the trend was similar on the Asia-Mediterranean trade.

Average sailing speeds constantly decreased between Asia and the East Coast of North America, although the Asia-US West Coast trade has remained at a relatively consistent 18-19 knots once the massive slowdown in sailing speeds around the US West Coast port labour dispute and resulting congestion in late 2014 and early 2015 is removed. Source - https://www.joc.com/maritime-news/container-lines/drewry-carrier-gains-be-made-limiting-ship-speed_20190513.html

The Concorde was never a money maker. From a fuel perspective it used as much fuel as a 747 did, but the 747 could fly twice as far and carry 4x the number of passengers. While tickets were pricey for the Concorde ($10k at the end), the costs associated with that ticket were equally staggering. Passengers were picked up in limo's, given champagne, etc. Some of the tickets were also given away as miles-based rewards. Financially the Concorde's for Air France and British Airways never made a profit (if you assumed regular capital costs). Most don't realize, but the cost to develop the Concorde was underwritten by the French and UK governments and the planes were given to the national airlines when the program closed because there was no market. That's a HUGE cost savings. Operationally they made a profit initially, but their fuel-gulping engines were an economic albatross after the price of aviation fuel jumped. Neither Air France nor BA have been willing to share the true costs to operate their flagship planes, though I did find this site (http://www.concordesst.com/retire/faq_r.html) that is about BA and claims over the lifetime of the Concorde program BA made money (Air France, it claims, made much less). Again, not having to actually pay for the plane helped on the profit side of things. All the airlines were on the hook for were operational costs (fuel, parts, personnel).

 

[Anonymous]

Did a little digging, and it would appear container ships avg speed is around 17kts ... headhaul speeds from Asia to North Europe

They're only considering the megaships on the pendulum routes. Most container ships are smaller and just shuffle around the local coast.

Concorde

Going by what you wrote, I don't think we disagree on Concorde - the main points seem to be that it was overpriced to passengers and offered less than a 747 suite (car and complimentary booze is pretty much standard for first class on a good airline), though economically it didn't seem that bad for the airlines at the time.

I note Singapore Airlines now have double bed suites in the A380 (suite as in a cabin with actual walls). Assuming rich, then cannot really justify a tiny concorde seat compared to that. 1x in your life just to say you've done it, then first class suites on a "jumbo" for actual travel.

I think most of the current fuel cost disparity comes form the invention of the high bypass jet engine. I am not sure but I do not think airliners had that tech when they started to design concorde.

 

[phavoc]

They're only considering the megaships on the pendulum routes. Most container ships are smaller and just shuffle around the local coast.

Yes, I was only referring to the larger ships that haul 8-10kt TEU's. There are many smaller ones plying secondary and tertiary routes. But those vessels were always the slower ones. I didn't average for the fleet as a whole. The Sealand example was across the Atlantic and during the day when cross-Atlantic cargo trade made up a lot of the ship-borne container commerce.

Going by what you wrote, I don't think we disagree on Concorde - the main points seem to be that it was overpriced to passengers and offered less than a 747 suite (car and complimentary booze is pretty much standard for first class on a good airline), though economically it didn't seem that bad for the airlines at the time.

I note Singapore Airlines now have double bed suites in the A380 (suite as in a cabin with actual walls). Assuming rich, then cannot really justify a tiny concorde seat compared to that. 1x in your life just to say you've done it, then first class suites on a "jumbo" for actual travel.

I think most of the current fuel cost disparity comes form the invention of the high bypass jet engine. I am not sure but I do not think airliners had that tech when they started to design concorde.

Probably not. Transportation on the Concorde was limited to the very wealthy, but it's also not necessarily a good thing to model since it's so heavily distorted by being a free resource to the airlines. However it was very fuel inefficient, which at points made it a money loser due to very high fuel costs that could not be spread to more than 100 passengers.

The original Concorde engines were afterburning to get the speed needed, and they were very fuel inefficient (most are until the advent of the F-22 engines with their supercruise non-afterburning capability). I agree that the technology has leaped considerably ahead since the 60s era design. But airlines have continued to put profits over speed, which is why the average airliner speed has dropped slightly since the introduction of the 707. Slower speeds are more fuel effecient, and that translates into higher theoretical profits.

The A380 is an interesting variant. Etihad was (I think) the first to offer suites on the A380. Etihad calls it "the Residence", and it's a three room suite with it's own butler. It costs anywhere from $13k to $29k for a one-way ticket. The variability in pricing is the route being offered. FROM NYC to Abu Dhabi is highest, but if you reverse the direction the price drops to $19k. It's only for the very rich. Then again only the very rich can afford to drop a few measily million on a yacht. Not a world that I live in.

 

[Anonymous]

Then again only the very rich can afford to drop a few measily million on a yacht. Not a world that I live in.

You can get a second hand Searay for the price of an average car. 13 meter/40 foot thing for a couple for a weekend. Can probably make the carribean from florida. If you prefer sail, you'd have global range for that price - you can find a Contessa 22 everywhere!

edit: Searay not Sunray.

 

[Old School]

Lol. A 40’ foot Sea Ray, 20 years old and in need of refurbishment, will easily set you back $100,000. One in decent shape, say 10 years old or less or completely redone, will cost you $200,000. Brand new, they’re $500k. And most yacht owners would scoff at you calling that a yacht.

Which raises the question, what kind of car do you drive?

 

[Anonymous]

Lol. A 40’ foot Sea Ray, 20 years old and in need of refurbishment, will easily set you back $100,000. One in decent shape, say 10 years old or less or completely redone, will cost you $200,000. Brand new, they’re $500k. And most yacht owners would scoff at you calling that a yacht.

Which raises the question, what kind of car do you drive?

I found one pretty quickly.

https://imgur.com/ggb6fEq
1996 Sea Ray 420 Aft Cabin $30,000

Plenty of old boats out there, maintained by the owner, that need a bit of work.

Isn't that the condition of many PC Free Traders in Traveller?

edit: And yes, I understand that work needs parts, which cost money.

 

[Old School]

Of course you would find one that isn’t seaworthy to make your point. There’s a reason that boat is going for less than 1/3 the price of others the same age. Oh well, Not worth arguing about.

 

[Anonymous]

Of course you would find one that isn’t seaworthy to make your point. There’s a reason that boat is going for less than 1/3 the price of others the same age. Oh well, Not worth arguing about.

In the photo, it's clearly floating ... you've inspected it? Probably fine as a marina houseboat or for short trips. I'm not prepared to commit to anything without seeing it, but it is in the water, which means something.

 

[GamingGlen]

Of course you would find one that isn’t seaworthy to make your point. There’s a reason that boat is going for less than 1/3 the price of others the same age. Oh well, Not worth arguing about.

In the photo, it's clearly floating ... you've inspected it? Probably fine as a marina houseboat or for short trips. I'm not prepared to commit to anything without seeing it, but it is in the water, which means something.

So is the Titanic. :mrgreen:

 

[Anonymous]

And the swimming pool on the Titanic still works after all that time. Surely a marvel of modern engineering. Why does it get such a bad rep?

 

[Linwood]

A boat is a hole you pour money into.

So a starship is - a hole in space you pour money into?

 

[NOLATrav]

Back in my college days I used to work the big boat shows in Chicago and one person described owning a boat as taking a cold shower and tearing up thousand dollar bills :wink: