Ship Design Philosophy

Spaceships: Accommodations and Thirty Tonne Container

High Guard says our tonne is fourteen cubic metres.

Using that as the basis:

Two tonner is twenty eight cubic metres; one by quarter by quarter.

Ten tonner is one hundred forty cubic metres; one by one by one.

Thirty tonner is four hundred twenty cubic metres; three by one by one.

Sixty tonner is eight hundred forty metres; six by one by one.

Cube root one hundred forty is 5.19249410185 metres.

Which is 17.03574180396982 feet.

So, seventeen footer.

Square root 5.392398999646312 is 2.322153956921529 metres.

So a seventeen footer would nominally be 5.19 metres by 2.32 metres by 2.32 metres.

The standard intermodal container is 19 feet 10.5 inches (6.058 m) long and eight feet (2.44 m) wide.[1] The height of such containers is most commonly 8 feet 6 inches (2.59 m) but ranges from 4 feet 3 inches (1.30 m) to 9 feet 6 inches (2.90 m).

Another standard container is slightly more than twice as long: 40-foot (12.19 m), dubbed a forty-foot equivalent unit (often FEU or feu).

The reason the smaller container is 1.5 inches short of 20 feet is to allow it to be stacked efficiently with 40-foot containers. The twistlocks on a ship are set so that two standard 20-foot containers have a gap of three inches, allowing a single 40-foot container to fit precisely on top.

The 40-foot containers have found wider acceptance, as they can be pulled by semi-trailer trucks. The length of such a combination is within the limits of national road regulations in many countries, requiring no special permission. As some road regulations allow longer trucks, there are also variations of the standard 40-foot container; in Europe and most other places a container of 45 feet (13.72 m) may be pulled as a trailer. Containers with a length of 48 feet (14.63 m) or 53 feet (16.15 m) are restricted to road and rail transport in North America. Although longer than 40 feet, these variants are put in the same class of forty-foot equivalent units.

The most common twenty-foot container occupies a space 20 feet (6.1 m) long, 8 feet (2.44 m) wide, and 8 feet 6 inches (2.59 m) high, with an allowance externally for the corner castings; the internal volume is 1,172 cubic feet (33.2 m3). However, both 9-foot-6-inch-tall (2.90 m) High cube and 4-foot-3-inch (1.30 m) half height containers are also reckoned as 1 TEU. This gives a volume range of 680 to 1,520 cubic feet (19 to 43 m3) for one TEU.

Twenty-foot "heavy tested" containers are available for heavy goods such as heavy machinery. These containers allow a maximum weight of 67,200 pounds (30,500 kg), an empty weight of 5,290 pounds (2,400 kg), and a net load of 61,910 pounds (28,080 kg).[citation needed]

Spaceships: Accommodations and Thirty Tonne Container
The dimensions of a 17-foot container are:

Exterior Dimensions (in meters): 5.19m long x 2.44m wide x 2.59m high

Minus three inches.

5.19 metres minus 7.62 centimtres equals 5.118 metres.

The side walls of shipping containers are typically always made of corrugated steel, and the depth of the corrugation is normally 1 inch (25mm).
6.1-5.898=0.202 // 3.31147540983607%

2.44-2.352=0.088 // 3.60655737704918%

2.59-2.393=0.197 // 7.60617760617761%

Twenty eight cubic metres divided by 5.118 equals 5.470887065259867.

Square rooted 2.338992745875854 metres.

Corrugated steel side walls, top and back.

Base floor.

Front double doors.

Cube root one hundred forty is 5.19249410185 metres.

Half that is 2.596247050925 metres.

So the two tonner has some buffer space top and sides.

Spaceships: Accommodations and Thirty Tonne Container

Alright, let's try this from a different perspective.

A ten tonner would occupy the same volume, or more specifically, space, as two times two two tonners.

Three ten tonners occupy the same space as a thirty tonner.

We turn the two tonners sideways, they'd be stacked two up and six long, to take up the same space as a thirty tonner.

In theory, you'd have to give a three inch buffer to the ten tonners as well, so that three can be bundled together into thirty tonnes.

Bit more complex with the two tonners, since a brick would be two times six, to fit into a thirty tonne space.

Spaceships: Accommodations and Thirty Tonne Container

If we need a six inch buffer between containers, for three times ten tonners, we'd either need to decrease the width by four inches each, or increase the length of the thirty tonner by twelve inches, to get the exact same space.

The two tonners under a thirty tonner would need to divide thirty inches among six containers, or increase the length of thirty tonner by two and a half feet.

You could compromise by increasing the length of the thirty tonner by a foot, and decrease the width of the two tonners by three inches each.

You'd want two tonners directly underneath a ten tonner, and since their buffer space would be the same, hop over another six inches to the next containers.

Starships: Engineering and Jumpspace Physics

1. First of all, all the astrogation charts are two dimensional; coincidence, I think not.

2. Despite appearances, you can't get anywhere fast.

3. Jumping basically involves an intrusion of third dimensional space into a second dimensional one.

4. Hence, jump bubble in a two dimensional plane, where a third dimension can express itself, since I don't think our technology, or biology, can survive a transformation into two dimensions.

5. Which now leaves us with gravity wells leaking into jumpspace.

6. Since jump technology, as well as most other Travellerized technological advancements, is based on gravity, this does not seem implausible.

7. Gravity wells also form a bubble, but superficially, having only a surface layer, and no substance.

8. Which leaves us with the lanthanum grid.

9. It creates a three dimensional environment within it's field, but acts more as a needle.

Spaceships: Accommodations and Thirty Tonne Container

The thirty tonner is the basis of containerized standards, which means 5.1925 metres, minusculing rounding up, height and width.

Length, 15.57744691672023 metres, 51.1071093068249 feet.

15.5775 metres.

Spaceships: Accommodations and Thirty Tonne Container

Easily handled by the cargo crane.

Optionally, you could have something mobile, equipped with a docking clamp type/India, move around the thirty tonne container.

You could daisy chain a series of thirty tonne containers, with the doors at one end, and a docking clamp type/India, at the other; theoretically, any buffer required would be superseded by the one tonne docking clamp(s), which would require, in theory, recalculating how much extra length the one tonne docking clamp with add to the container, so for practical purposes for non spacecraft contraction, maybe not that great an idea.

The six inch buffer might require chopping off three inches from a thirty tonne container, or we add that on a sixty tonne container, so that two thirty tonne container fit perfectly underneath.

Spaceships: Accommodations and Sixty Tonne Container

Double 15.5775 metres, plus six inches or 152.4 millimetres.

31.155 metres, plus 0.1524 equals 31.3074 metres.

Length 31.3074 metres, by height 5.1925 metres by width 5.1925 metres.

Shipping volume 60.29370570294643 tonnes.

Spaceships: Accommodations and Ten Tonne Container

We'll want to standardize the doors, so height and width would need to synchronize with the thirty and sixty tonne containers.

The three ten tonne containers would need to fit exactly under a thirty tonner, and that would two six inch buffers. or four inches each removed from the length of each ten tonne container.

Length 5.1925 metres minus 0.1016 metres, equals 5.0909 metres.

Length 5.0909 metres, by height 5.1925 metres, by width 5.1925 metres.

Shipping volume 9.804366583080357 tonnes.

Spaceships: Accommodations and Two Tonne Container

If two tonnes is the next Lego log. we'll need to fit two, actually four, underneath a ten tonne container.

The question is what to choose for length, 5.1925 metres or 5.0909 metres?

Spaceships: Accommodations and Two Tonne Container

The problem is, there is no preexisting infrastructure or equipment that hints at twenty and forty foot containers.

If we quarterize the ten tonne container, we get a tad under two and a half tonnes, with a facing side of 2.59625 metres by 2.59625 metres, and a length of 5.0909 metres.

The grappling arm has a capacity of two tonnes; if there was a verified rule that allowed a twenty percent leeway, this wouldn't be an issue.

It's possible we could use the six inch buffer to minus off three inches from the width.

I'd guess that to secure the four two tonners within the volume of ten tonne squares, you'd at a minimum have to secure them sideways, with the six inch buffer.

The reason there's no buffer underneath, might be the assumption of the existence of a gravitational field. in the absence of. you probably have to have a six inch buffer on top and bottom.

Starship Operator's Manual has a piece on standard cargo container dimensions, including making accommodations from such a container.

That would make this prior art.

But let's see what they have to say, and if they have the infrastructure to support it.

The bridge seems low to the ground.

I would think a frontier spacecraft would more likely have that higher up and more withdrawn.

Yet more about real tech in space warfare

1. We could segment the lasers, giving each type different advantages and disadvantages.

2. I recall you could upscale lasers in Fire Fusion Steel.

3. I suppose we could introduce phase array lasers, for faster reaction, not necessarily more accuracy.

4. Laser propulsion.

5. Anti laser lasers.

6. I think we'll be shooting down a lot more drones, cheaply.

Inspiration: Myths Hollywood Has Taught Us About Space

Ever wondered if 'In space, no one can hear you scream' is true? Dive into the science behind sound, explosions, and surviving in the vacuum of space!

Inspiration: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) - Behind the Scenes Featurette

Behind the Scenes Featurette from the movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982).

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is a 1982 American science fiction film directed by Nicholas Meyer and based on the television series Star Trek. It is the second film in the Star Trek film series following Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) and is a sequel to the original series episode "Space Seed" (1967). The plot features Admiral James T. Kirk (William Shatner) and the crew of the starship USS Enterprise facing off against the genetically engineered tyrant Khan Noonien Singh (Ricardo Montalbán). When Khan escapes from a 15-year exile to exact revenge on Kirk, the crew of the Enterprise must stop him from acquiring a powerful terraforming device named Genesis. The film is the beginning of a three-film story arc that continues with the film Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) and concludes with the film Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986).

After the lacklustre critical response to the first film, series creator Gene Roddenberry was forced out of the sequel's production. Executive producer Harve Bennett wrote the film's original outline, which Jack B. Sowards developed into a full script. Meyer completed its final script in twelve days, without accepting a writing credit. Meyer's approach evoked the swashbuckling atmosphere of the original series, a theme reinforced by James Horner's musical score. Leonard Nimoy had not intended to have a role in the sequel but was enticed back by the promise that his character would be given a dramatic death scene. Negative test audience reaction to Spock's death led to significant revisions of the ending over Meyer's objections. The production team used various cost-cutting techniques to keep within budget, including using miniature models from past projects and reusing sets, effects footage, and costumes from the first film. The film was the first feature film to contain a sequence created entirely with computer graphics.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was released in North America on June 4, 1982, by Paramount Pictures. It was a box office success, earning US\$97 million worldwide and setting a world record for its first-day box office gross. Critical reaction to the film was positive; reviewers highlighted Khan's character, Meyer's direction, improved performances, the film's pacing, and the character interactions as strong elements. Negative reactions focused on weak special effects and some of the acting. The Wrath of Khan is considered by many to be the best film in the Star Trek series and is often credited with renewing substantial interest in the franchise.

Replies
4
Views
714
Replies
2
Views
472
Replies
171
Views
4K
Replies
21
Views
850
Replies
0
Views
94