Transport capacities

Quick "reality" check:

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.  Troops "in cryo" only
take
up 1/4 as much space, so 24-25 troops could be transported in the same
amount of space.

Ship's crew is equal to 1 person per unit of mass for the ship, so a
mass
100 ship will have 100 crew (20 officers, 80 ratings).	If the ship has
a
fragile hull, then the maximum tonnage that could be devoted to
habitable
spaces such as quarters, accessways, control stations, etc. would be 10
mass units.  On the ship's control sheet, only half of those would have
"stars" on them, so let's assume that our crew of 100 would be bunking
in 5
hull boxes of crew quarters and that the other five hull boxes would be
"work areas".  That's 20 crew per point of mass.  If we wanted to add in
a
small ship's marine contingent we could probably go as high a total of
25
personnel per point of mass.  (Note: This is about half the number of
marines per unit mass suggested in MT, even after converting to FB
masses.)

Now since it's a fragile hull, I visualize this as the sort of cramped
living conditions one might expect on a U-boat; but it seems like a good
rule of thumb for maximum density habitation.  As the number of hull
boxes
increases, not only does the ship's superstructure become more robust
(more
pressure doors, double hulls, bulkheads, etc.) both living and working
conditions become less cramped.  (For ships with a great many hull
boxes,
we can assume that much of the volume is devoted to swimming pools,
bowling
alleys, holodecks, etc. and that every ensign has a stateroom bigger
than
my first apartment.)

If this same ship was a carrier with a maximum load of fighters, then
the
crew complement number could more than double.	For the sake of keeping
things neat let's assume that a portion of the mass devoted to the
hangar
bays includes quarters for the pilots as well as ready rooms, flight ops
control centers, machine shops, ammo and fuel stores.  Quarters for the
pilots of a squadron of six fighters should be less than one point of
mass,
with an allowance for up to 4 pilots per fighter.  Support crew for the
bay
itself should come out the ship's crew; a single mass-9 hangar bay would
probably have 2 flight officers, 7 techs/maintenance crew/flight ops
personnel and the equivalent of at least one full-time member of the
ship's
engineering crew.

One might argue that soldiers need more room than ship's crew because of
their kit, but if true then this should apply to vehicle crews as well. 
It
seems that it might be best to calculate quarters and/or cryo space
separately from kit since this will vary according to troop types;
powered
armor troopers will have considerably more kit than a heavy weapons crew
who will have more than regular leg troops.  Vehicle crews would have
the
least amount of personal kit, but their vehicles will take up
considerable
space themselves.

So if we can squeeze 20-25 crew or troops in quarters into 1 FB mass
unit,
then cryo tubes should allow considerably more transport capacity.  In
MT,
the ratio is 4:1 for cryo tubes.  That means one trooper in cryo
requires
one metric ton, or one DS2/SG2 capacity point under the Pournelle
Rosetta
conversion rate.

Note that this is the same amount of space allocated to a leg trooper
with
full kit in the hold of an APC (or half the space allotted by a PA
trooper
on a dropship).  On the whole though, this seems about right; while cryo
tubes require extra machinery, they can also be stored more efficiently
than leg troopers who need to move around.  I think that it would be
most
accurate to say that it isn't so much that leg troopers with kit weigh a
ton each, but that they displace a volume inside an APC that could have
been filled with a ton of armor, fuel, ammo, or electronics.

Couple of side notes; in looking at the calculations to convert vehicles
(particularly the size-3 aerospace fighter) to FB masses, I don't think
it
is really necessary to apply the 8/5ths rule for capacity; unlike an APC
or
dropship, for starships designed to carry cargo, the limiting factor
will
be mass more often than volume.

A cargo bay on any transport vessel would have to be built with
sufficient
volume to accomodate lower density cargoes such as field rations,
medical
supplies and so forth as well as higher density cargoes such as ammo and
armored vehicles.  It is the total mass in those cargo bays that has the
most effect on the ship's engines and jump drive and not how tightly
they
are packed.  A 100-ton bay may be stacked to the ceiling with crates of
cigarettes and toilet paper or may have a single 100-ton MBT chained
down
in the middle.

For calculating the cargo space requirements for vehicles, I'd say go
with
5 CS or up to 20 tons per size class; that way a single class-5 vehicle
has
a FB mass of one.  At this scale, an M1 Abrams would be class-4 (63-69
tons).	Of course, calculating masses from size classes will be a bit
dodgy; a truck may take up just as much space in the hold of a dropship
as
a MBT, but weigh less; that's why I'd say each size class is up to 20
tons
for heavy AFVs.  To be on the safe side, when in doubt I'd go ahead and
allocate the higher lift capacity and have the dropship or transport
running a little light.

As for fighters, I feel that it is safe to assume fighters come in a
variety of sizes depending on their mission; so you may have a size-3,
45-ton interceptor and a size-5, 90-ton fast/heavy torpedo bomber.  But
the
same standard-sized hangar bay would need to support both.  Therefore I
think we should say that fighters are up to 100-tons (or mass-1) each
and
that some (or most) of them are quite a bit less.  

Jeff