Re: Transport capacities

On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Jeff Lyon wrote:

> 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

I would imagine that the more compartmentalized (and more damage points
a 
given hull gets, the less space there would be for crew. Compartments 
break up the usable space to a degree. I will point out that the NAC has

the best ships crew accomodation wise and they tend to be the lest
damage 
resistant. Weak and Average ships. 

> 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

I'd imagine that purchasing the weapons and fitments includes the cost
of 
adding crew to man said weapons. A civil ship (freighter) isn't going to

have much in the way of crew compared to a military ship. 

> 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.

The USN gets a lot of people on their transport and assault ships. I 
understand the jar^h^h marines spend quite a bit of time spread out 
cleaning things and doing typical marine like things...

> 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.

One metric ton for equipment, storage of his gear, power systems, 
monitors etc. 

> 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.

In space craft, Mass is the critical factor, not volume. 

> 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.  

It avoids unnecessary complication...

I'm of the opinion a detachment of AWACS would be a nice addition to a 
NAC carrier. 

------------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@turner.com	    I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@mindspring.com 	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -
- '85 Honda CB700S  -  '72 Honda CB750K  - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo  -
------------------------------------------------------------------