If you’re using space magic to put 5000T in the PC2, then why does it not apply to the ICutter too?
You either have internal consistency, or you don’t.
New ship: Panther Clipper
- Thread starter Rubbernuke
- Start date
If you’re using space magic to put 5000T in the PC2, then why does it not apply to the ICutter too?
You either have internal consistency, or you don’t.
How about a Tardis cargo rack. A class 2 Tardis rack could carry 50,000t of cargo. Even a small ship like the Imperial Courier could still jump if you use a FSD booster.
That methodology is useless though, think about it. I can fill up a cargo rack full of water and I'm told it's X tons. Then I fill up that same rack full of hydrogen or helium (or something more dense than water) and I'm told it's the same tonnage as the rack full of water. How does that make any sense?
This CANNOT be resolved because instead of using internal volume as the measure of a cargo rack, they went with tonnage. Which, of course, is kind of silly because various things have different densities!
I'm not using space magic though. I AM being internally consistent. You must think 5,000 tons is some unbelievable payload or something that requires a Death Star to carry. I'm telling you a ship the size of the Panther Clipper would haul that for breakfast.
Because each tonne is stored in a canisters that’s exactly the same size.
Gasses can be compressed, denser materials will still fit in the canisters. I chose water as it’s not easy to compress.
I spent a decade as a Deck Officer on Container ships, I probably understand 5,000 tons (and 5,000 tonnes) better than you do.
The Panther Clipper had a Maximum gross mass 2,500 tonne so definitely can’t haul 5,000 tons for breakfast.
What was that about consistency?
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not really - because the structural design of the cargo rack, its integration into the ship's structure and the effects of ship acceleration on the cargo racks and cargo need to be taken into consideration if the ship isn't going to rip itself apart....
As to cargo density, and using current gen containers as an example, the maximum permissible gross mass of a 20' TEU is 24,000kg while its internal volume is c.33.2m³ - so the structure that holds the container is designed to its permissible gross mass so as not to lose containers or worse at sea (too often, noting that some container ships do lose containers in very bad weather) while the average density of the container's contents cannot exceed 651kg/m³ (less than that of water), allowing for a tare weight of 2,400kg for the container itself. While a 20' TEU could be filled with gold it would likely rip itself apart if lifted or transported as the cargo mass of over 640,000kg would exceed the design limit by c.26x.
And did your container ships fly in zero gravity?
Also we're talking about the Panther Clipper MKII so we don't know what the maximum gross mass is. Nothing I've said isn't 'consistent'.
Robert you make a great point. I guess in the end we just don't have the information from FDEV to make these determinations. As forcefields are in the game (shield generators) one could argue that technology is incorporated into cargo holds to keep everything in place. And that the cargo racks are made of Unobtanium super-matter. Or the whole cargo hold is a zero-G field etc etc. We just don't know.
One could argue inertia itself has been nullified in the Elite universe via technology, as I can SCO boost into a planet at FTL speeds and drop to real-space instantly without my body and ship turning into a fine bloody powder
A tonne of cargo is a tonne of cargo.
And the mass, rather than volume is more important on a space craft, which is probably why they use mass for the cargo capacity rather than volume.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The lore of this game is that artificial gravity technology does not exist.Robert you make a great point. I guess in the end we just don't have the information from FDEV to make these determinations. As forcefields are in the game (shield generators) one could argue that technology is incorporated into cargo holds to keep everything in place. And that the cargo racks are made of Unobtanium super-matter. Or the whole cargo hold is a zero-G field etc etc. We just don't know.
One could argue inertia itself has been nullified in the Elite universe via technology, as I can SCO boost into a planet at FTL speeds and drop to real-space instantly without my body and ship turning into a fine bloody powder
As to inertia being nullified in supercruise - I seem to remember something about the FSD creating a bubble where the "rules" are different while in supercruise. Noting that, as a sometime Cutter pilot, there is most definitely inertia while flying that ship in normal space.
But that's pointless to the actual debate here: Internal volume vs outside dimensions of a ship.
A ton of cargo is NOT a ton of cargo in that context. If I'm hauling 10 tons of quail feathers and you are hauling 10 tons of osmium, who needs the bigger ship?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The cargo canisters are a standard size to fit in standardised cargo racks - so the volume required by a particular mass of cargo is to an extent irrelevant (unless at the very low density end of the scale).
The question is really "how many standard cargo canisters can this ship take".
It is when it’s all stored in a standard cargo container, like in ED.
As @Robert Maynard alluded to a 24 tonne 20’ container of quail feathers is in all intents and purposes the same as a 24 tonne 20’ container of Osmium. - the centre of gravity is a little different, but it makes no practical difference. Overloading is a problem, which is usually the reason why containers are lost at sea.
The apparent cargo rack/pod assembly leads me to suspect that at least a large portion of the cargo capacity will not be optional internals, but a new kind of dedicated cargo space. I wonder if we might see more cargo capacity than can be achieved by conventional internal slots but no flexibility to build a zero-cargo-all-hull-reinforcement battering ram. Might this be the first ship with a fixed (or nearly fixed) cargo capacity?
Well artificial gravity exists such as habitat rings. What does not exist in the Elite universe is anti-gravity (on-demand, gravity generators).
The PC Mk II might have denser cargo storage which means the canisters are stacked closer together.
Last edited:
It would seem a little out of character for FDev, but it would be interesting to have a super specialised ship.
Sound like a good idea, you'd end up with too many option slots for a large cargo huller using class 8 slots.
1000t fixed cargo slot
x2 class 8
x1 class 7
x1 class 6
x2 class 5
x1 class 4
x1 class 3
x1 class 2
x1 class 1
10 option slots.
This way you can't turn it into a massive passenger ship.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... a specialised ship, with a specialised cargo handling system, would presumably require specialised cargo handling facilities - that would be incompatible with the super-quick loading and unloading of standard cargo canisters.
Noting that containerised cargo replaced other cargo handling methods due to time and labour savings.
Indeed, one of the limitations on container ship design is the size of the gantries loading them. Holds have to be spaced far enough apart so they don’t interfere with each other.
Edited for clarity.