Re: Transport Capacities

>Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 18:10:42 -0400
>From: "Thomas Barclay" <Thomas.Barclay@sofkin.ca>
>Subject: Transport Capacities
>
>Jeff Lyon made some good points:

Thanks.  And thanks for the continued good feedback.  Comments follow.

>Post 1:

>At this point, I'd be inclined to suggest the following conversion:
>    1 DS2/SG2 capacity point = 500 kg (0.5 metric tonnes)

>From some of your comments below, this may need to be clarified to
include
a volume component as well; something along the lines of:

    1 DS2/SG2 capacity point = up to 500 kg (0.5 metric tonnes) or
			       a volume normally rated for carrying
			       a cargo of similar mass.

The idea being that 500 kg of dense, heavy junk will fill a certain
volume,
(say 0.5 cubic meters or whatever).  If that same volume is filled with
less dense stuff, then you've still used up the given capacity, but the
vehicle's fully loaded mass is lighter than "average" (whatever that
is).

>So here are my latest suggestions for conversion rates:
>
>  1 FB Mass = 100 metric tonnes = 200 DS2/SG2 capacity points
>
>Vehicles require (size x8) capacity points plus (size x4) for
>each level of regular armor or (size x6) for each level of
>reactive or ablative armor.

Note that EACH level of armor increases the weigh of the vehicle by
(size
x4) capacity points.

>- -----------------------------------------------------
>** Okay, let's try a couple of examples I use.
>Size 3 APC with twin DFFG/1 and twin SAW. Armour 2. You are telling
>me that effectively this would take  8x3 = 24 + 2x4 = 8 -> 32
>points total. Fine and good. This is about 16 Metric Tons or 35,300 
>pounds.

See above.  You've only counted the first level of armor.  Should have
been:

8x3 (=24) + 2x2x4 (=16) = 40 points/20 metric tons/~44,000 lbs.

>Size 5 MBT with level 5 armour. This would take 60 capacity points.
>This is about 30 Metric Tons or 66,000 pounds.

Again, see above.  This is just one level of armor.  Should be:

8x5 (=40) + 5x5x4 (=100) = 140 pts./70 metric tons/~154,000 lbs.

>Size 1 hoverjeep. Armour 1. this would be 12 capacity points which
>is about 6 Mt, or about 13,200 lbs. A tad on the heavy side.

Agreed, but see comments below.

>If it was soft skinned, you've got 8 capacity points, 4 Mt, and
>about 8800 lbs. which is still too heavy.

And while we are at it, 500 kg is also too much for a leg trooper and
kit.
Probably by a factor of three or so.

As shown in these examples, you're right; a direct capacity points to
tonnage conversion doesn't quite cover all of the bases.  This is an
example of where one may need to consider a volume component as well; in
other words, if an MBT is 30 times the mass of a jeep or 1000 times the
mass of a leg trooper with full kit, that does not necessarily mean that
you can fit 30 jeeps or 1000 leg troopers into an MBT-sized dropship. 
Not
in ready to use condition, anyway.  :)

So we might want to say that the minimum capacity requirement (size x8
points) for small, light-weight vehicles does not necessarily mean that
they are massing 4 metric tons, but that they are being alloted a volume
of
cargo space that would normally be used to carry up to 4 metric tons of
other cargo.

Likewise, our leg troopers with full kit don't actually weigh 500 kg
each,
but are instead taking up a volume of space in your APC that could have
been filled with 500 kg of armor, weapons, fuel, ammo or electronics. 
Or
in the case of transport vehicles could have carried 500 kg of water
cans,
ammo boxes or whatever.

>What conclusions can we draw?	Vehicle masses do not increase
>linearly with size!

Yup.  Noticed that too.  Unfortunately, the capacity requirements from
DS
and SG do.  Therefore something's got to give; one must either shrug off
the inconsistencies in favor of the simple, linear calculation given as
canon or adopt a different, non-linear formula for calculating vehicle
mass.

The approach I took was intended as a compromise; instead of just
completely ditching the 8/5ths rule for vehicles, I tried to keep it as
the
minimum amount of capacity that a vehicle of a given size would require
and
use the armor level time vehicle size to give the non-linear effect that
would seem to more closely model what we see in the real world. 

Also, instead of either completely ditching the vaguely defined capacity
points used in DS2/SG2 in favor of something more concrete or continuing
the MT model which requires yet another vague unit of measure (cargo
spaces) as an intermediate step for converting capacity points to FB
mass
units, I wanted to have a relatively simple, generally applicable
conversion rate from one to the other.

>I'll have to try some math to fit something to this model.
>A bunch of data points and some fooling about ought to yield
>a better model. If it does, I'll post it.

I've glanced through the material at the URL you posted later, but have
not
examined it at length.	I'll try to comment in more detail when I've
looked
at it more closely, but the first thing I did notice was the note at the
top:

"1 Mass = 100 Mt = 200 cargo units (which is not I repeat NOT
necessarily
an SG2 cap point)"

As I said in my comments above, I think I'd rather have a direct
capacity
points to mass units conversion than yet another unit of measurement
that
is "not necessarily" one or the other.

For vehicles, I'd like to keep as much of the canon rules and the 8/5ths
ratio as possible.  What I intended was for a vehicle to still have a
maximum internal capacity of (size x5) but to require at least (size x8)
+
(armor level x size x some factor) capacity points to be carried inside
another vehicle.  To my mind, this is most often going to be an issue
with
dropships, which are limited both by their interior volume and their
lift
capacity.

Note that this means the 8/5ths ratio will only work one way; an
extremely
massive, heavily-armored vehicle cannot carry 5/8ths its own weight as
internal capacity ... it is still limited to an internal capacity of
(size
x5).  Or put another way, the 8/5ths ratio describes the minimum
capacity
requirement for a vehicle designed to carry it; for heavily armored
vehicles, the ratio may actually be 28/5ths or more.

<snip>

>>Personal kit for vehicle crews can be assumed to be stowed
>>aboard their vehicles or kept in quarters.
>
>** You should be able to use in-vehicle space to store kit
>to cut down on wasted space.

Good point, as a logical extension of the "mounted up" rule from MT and
my
comment above regarding personal kit for vehicle crews you should also
be
able to do this for the kit of leg elements normally assigned to a
vehicle.

>Post 2:
>
>>50 persons/mass unit - Crowded conditions (not uncommon for
>>troop transports); officers share a double occupancy cabin,
>>ratings or troops are quartered four to a cabin (probably 
>>with two-shift "hot bunking").

>** Is hot bunking an option for ships that have to manoevre?
>You need a crash frame for all crew members and they can't be
>hot bunked.

Good question.	Let's assume that with this level of crowding, when the
ship goes to general quarters, everyone on board will either be at a
duty
station that has a crash frame or will be in quarters and that the bunks
are designed to double as a crash frame.

>100 persons/mass unit - Very crowded conditions ("normal 
>emergency" occupancy); all cabins and some common areas are
>utilized at maximum occupancy and a strict rotation schedule
>is used for "hot-bunking", galley access, etc.  Ships at such
>crowded levels would not normally engage in combat or high-G
>maneuvers.
>
>** Same comment as my last.

And let's assume that at this level of crowding there are not enough
crash
frames to go around; hence the restriction on high-g maneuvers and
combat.

I'd assume certain number of passengers and crew are expected to be
using
common areas (galleys, gym, etc.) in order to stay out of the way of
both
the on-duty and off-duty shifts and that they would not have access to a
crash frame unless a) they climb into a lifepod or b) every compartment
has
some sort of rudimentary crash frame that folds down out of the wall or
something.  (I'm suddenly visualizing a piece of emergency gear; some
sort
of hammock thingey anchored to an eyehook in each of the eight corners
of
the room by some sort of bungie cords.	Might save someone's neck. 
Might
not.)

>>200 persons/mass unit - Life boat conditions (extreme
>>emergency occupancy)...  Such crowded conditions should be
>>considered a hazard to the health and safety of all aboard.

>** High G manoevres would kill people in this crowding level.

Agreed.

>>A ship with a "very strong (50%) level of hull integrity MAY
>>(at designer's option) have sufficient mass devoted to crew
>>quarters to satisfy the "luxury" level of occupancy for the
>>ship's crew and up to one element (5 capacity points) of ship's
>>marines per crew factor.
>
>** And if not?

I'd say this depends on the design philosophy of the fleet; might be
opulent suites for the senior officers, quarters for a larger than
average
crew or marine complement, larger common or rec areas, extra redundant
systems, more science labs or some combination of some or all of the
above
... whatever seems appropriate to the background.

>BTW, good work Jeff. Other than not being happy yet with your
>formula for vehicle weighting, I'm pleased enough.

Please take another look at it with comments I've made above in mind and
see if it seems any better to you.  I'll try to take a look at yours and
see where we differ and where we agree.

Thanks.

Jeff