Re: Transport capacities

>Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 21:21:59 -0400
>From: "Phillip Pournelle" <emisle@earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: Transport capacities
...
>>Using the Pournelle Rosetta Stone conversion rates (1 FB mass = 25
cargo
>>space = 100 DS2/SG2 capacity) and the MT troop transport guidelines, a
>>squad of 6 troopers "in quarters" take up 24 cargo space, which is
slightly
>>less than one FB mass point or 100 metric tons.
...
>The standard is one Fleet Book Full Thrust Mass is equal to 25 Cargo
>space or 5 Vehicle space. ... One Mass devoted to personnel could
support
>6 troopers >(6 * 4 =  24).

Isn't that exactly what I said?  :)

>...This should change your calculations dramatically. ...

Actually, I intended for my calculations to be different from the
currently
accepted rates; that was the point.

I'm not disagreeing with your conversion rate; indeed, it sounds like we
are in agreement on the cargo requirements for vehicles.  Instead, I'm
suggesting that the cargo space requirements for personnel which have
been
carried over from MT may be too high.

Sixteen metric tons per leg trooper and one hundred metric tons for a
squad
of six?  Don't those sound a little high?  Even counting kit, rations,
and
other overhead, that's still an extraordinarily large allotment of cargo
space per trooper; especially when compared to the number of ship's crew
that routinely serve aboard the smaller ships.

By differentiating between the mass required for bunking troops and the
mass required for stowing their kit, the two values can be calculated
separately and their combined value more accurately determined.

I've seen some good posts on how much kit troops would need, but the old
"4
CS per trooper" rule of thumb keeps muddying the water; especially when
you
start comparing different types of troops.

I'm simply suggesting that we take a look at the question from a
different
angle and see if our assumptions are sound rather than simply accepting
the
MT values as canon just because we've always done it that way.

Jeff