Prev: RE: Ainsty INAPs Next: RE: FT the shirt

Re: New Low Rates (shorter now)

From: "Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@j...>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 13:54:16 -0500
Subject: Re: New Low Rates (shorter now)

	From: "Oerjan Ohlson" <>
	Noam wrote:
	> Diaspora-G (Sinai) Colony ship:

	>  Screen / 1
	Screens on a Fragile hull? As I said to Tony Francis, this is
a waste
	of resources - the same Mass of armour gives at least twice
	against all weapons except needle beams and possibly EMP
	the armour is cheaper :-/

I did it for a couple reasons. Colony ships are non-military, and most
civilian hulls I have seen are weak or fragile. I also wanted something
ish to denote that the ship expects to face more environmental dangers
radiation) than attack.

	>  Cargo Space: C40 C40 C40 C40 Four colonial Drop Pods
	>  Cargo Space: HL40 HL40 SP34 Two Heavy Lifters and one 
	>  Station Pod 
	You're mixing MT and FB design rules here, or else the HLs
	supposed to be able to re-dock with the Sinai after they've been
	(nor able to load cargo from the Sinai). Bays able to carry two
	ships have a total Mass of 120 in FB, not 80.

Yes, I am mixing rules to a point. FB rules don't really cover
ships beyond a few freighter templates, nor do they detail things like
modular ships.
All the pods and heavy lifters are secured onto the hull, not carried in
bays. Once they are detached, however, they can't be easily re-attached
outside a dockyard facility. The link uses bare minimum for a secure
and doesn't include mechanics for re-attachment. So, no the HL's aren't
supposed to be able to re-dock to or off-load cargo from the Sinai.
main function is to serve as sub-orbital tranport on the colony world,
colony-to-orbit lift and return.

	Do the colonists landed by the HLs live in the HLs during
	journey? The Sinai has no space for them except in the colony
	pods,but those are supposed to land themselves. (Not that I'd
to be in
	one of them when it tries - see below!)

Yep, the HL bays are packed outgoing. It ain't luxury accomodations.
Some to
most colonists might, or even should, be in cryosleep.
	> Gimel Class Colonial Drop Pod
	> Dispolacement: 40
	> Complement: 600 Colonists and equipment @ 15/Mass (well 
	> stocked); 1000 @ 25/mass (moderate supply); 2000 @ 50/mass 
	> (low supply). 
	> Each pod is redundant.

	Um... English isn't my first language, but my dictionaries
	"redundant" roughly as "superfluous" with a touch of " long
	haven't lost the primary unit" - and I wouldn't be willing to
tell a
	bunch of colonists that their landing craft is that, or that
	:-/ What does the word mean in reality?

In engineering terms redundant means repeated, backup, alternate. On the
NEAR spacecraft for example, there are redundant flight computer systems
duplicate identical computer) to switch to in case the first fails (the
also has many other similarly duplicated systems). There are also
"functionally redundant" systems - not exact duplicates, but able to
reproduce the essential functions of the primary system should it fail.
example, if the star cameras (used for navigation) on NEAR fail, the
MultiSpectral Imager (MSI) - one of the main optical instruments on the
can fulfil its function with some cost to the science return. Almost all
space missions are designed to have redundancy of as many primary
and goals as possible. So, in this FT case, if one colony pod is lost or
damaged on landing and it's com gear or generators are irrepairable,
are three others that should be fine. If that may seem _too_ redundant,
contractor can certainly opt for more different supply/equipmet at the
of reduced backups. Sabra Colonial believes that the most essential
for the viability of a new colony should be present in each drop pod,
that is the basic package.

	> Power/Locomotion: Unidirectional atmospheric entry. Grav/retro
	> assist.

	These should count as Streamlining - at the very least Partial,
	probably Full. Even so, the indicated complete lack of
	makes it rather unlikely to survive atmospheric entry - even a
near-miss from a
	PDS would destroy it <shudder>

Perhaps I shouldn't have, but I assumed that basic one way stuff could
accounted for "off book". I based it on a discussion I had with Thomas
Barcaly about the per/mass capcity for colonists. Converting from his
trooper estimates he came up with numbers up to twice mine for the "low
supply" version (i.e. up to 100 colonists/mass). I assumed that if I
that max in half, I could broad-brush say that the one-way orbit-to
capability was part of the package.

As for susceptibility to fire, anyone who would try to colonize a
planet (or hang around a warzone in a civilian ship) deserves what they

	> Magen III Class Station Pod/Outpost
	> Hull Displacement: 34
	> Point Cost: 124+24 for shuttles

	128 + shuttles (34 [hull size] + 14 [hull integrity] + 9
[screen] +
	[armour] + 18 [beams] + 6 [PDS] + 8 [FCs] + 33 [shuttle bay]).

	>  Hull: 2/2/1/1

	Should be 2/2/2/1. 

Roger those.

	A bit too small to use a screen too - particularly since
	missiles are the weapon of choice to kill immobile targets.

I used the same logic as for the colony ships, but in this case, you've
convinced me.

Prev: RE: Ainsty INAPs Next: RE: FT the shirt