RE: [OFFICIAL] Freighters/Merchants question

The other huge advantage of containers is they can go
from the ship to trains, to trucks with no repacking
and very little human involvement (just a driver and
crane operator, I believe).

 Sci-fi containers will need to do the same. Ship to
interface shuttle, then to train / truck / boat. 
Spheres really don't seem very compatible with any of
the ground side requirements. 

The other option would be to have containers that are
capable of reentry on their own after being pushed out
of orbit (memory plastic?). Of course it would
probably be cheaper to just have gliders you slot the
containers into, that way the gliders are environment
specific and you don't have to pay to transport them
around the galaxy.

I'm not terribly familiar with the gzg background
universe, are there orbital beanstalks?

-Adrian

--- B Lin <lin@rxkinetix.com> wrote:

> Actually the sphere is the best shape for surface
> area to volume considerations.  If a cargo module
> will never have to sit on the ground, then there is
> no physical reason at all that they all shouldn't be
> spheres.  The only advantage blocky containers might
> have is that if the final packaging is a crate,
> which is blocky, then they would fit more
> efficiently in a blocky container.
> 
> The most efficient packing of spheres is hexagonal
> closest packing (basically a pyramid of oranges,
> although the mathematical proof of this apparently
> takes 300 pages) so a cargo ship may actually be a
> command module, a bunch of spheres in a pyramid-like
> shape, then an engine/fuel module at the base.  Each
> cargo module does double duty as both storage and
> structure.
> 
> Reading about UPS's (United Parcel Service) current
> commitment to further streamline their package
> delivery process to include shipping infomation
> directly inputted by the sender (weight, size etc)
> they will be able to plan where a package will be
> located within a specific truck to optimise packing
> space and delivery order.  In the future, I would
> assume that such abilities will be routine and with
> future tech RFID's, routing and tracking materials
> across the galaxy through multiple transitions will
> be a common event. So transport would look something
> like a bunch of cargo modules that can be attached
> and detached like train-cars or legos at will, and
> at each stop, the appropriate modules will be
> removed and added as necessary.
> 
> A cargo ship owner, would then own the command and
> maneuver modules, but nothing else.
> 
> So perhaps you just need to model a command and
> maneuver module (and maybe a bottom plate to attach
> the stand to), and the modeler then purchases BB's
> or marbles and glues them together into the
> appropriate sizes.
> 
> Just some more ideas,
> 
> --Binhan
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Siebold [mailto:gamers@ameritech.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 3:13 PM
> To: gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [OFFICIAL] Freighters/Merchants
> question
> 
> 
> 
> I think most of the arguments about ship designs has
> missed the point. Don't ask what should the ship
> look
> like, ask what is the ship carring and how to most
> efficiently carry it.
> 
> For those of you who havn't been following modern
> ship
> designs (wet ship) the fastest growing catagory is
> container ships. The advantage is that the container
> is only loaded and unloaded once.
> 
> So for container (reload cargo is ->):
> origin -> container to train/truck to storage area
> to
> to ship to storage area to train/truck as container
> ->
> destination
> 
> old transport method:
> origin -> train/truck -> warehouse -> ship ->
> warehouse -> train/truck -> destination
> 
> So what I would propose is that there be two types
> of containers one for bulk liquid (cylinder like)
> and one for bulk solid (rectangular cube like) with
> a
> standardised ship connection. The ships could then
> be of any design from intersystem drones
> (attachments
> for three cargo pods and an engine) to large bulk
> transports (three(+) sets of four(+) transport pods
> with engines to rear and crew quarters to front.
> Even
> some of the present ship designs now sold could be
> rerofited with these pods for bulk storage. The
> attachment points might prove useful for carrying
> landingcraft into system (an LCI or LCT on a mount
> with the standardised ship connrction).
> 
> An interesting point would be that if you were
> building a space station you could make (sell?) a
> framework to attach the cargo pods to represent
> cargos in transit.
> 
> Scott Siebold
> 
> 

		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! 
http://my.yahoo.com