How come there's no cargo rack engineer offering bigger storage G1= 1 ton - g5=5 tons of think traders would appreciate a few extra tons
Engineers Cargo rack engineer?
- Thread starter Wyldwiisel
- Start date
Tardis module?
I don't know about putting 5 cubic feet into a 1 cubic foot box without serious compression... and the people in those escape pods might not like it but... Seriously
How about introducing dividing walls to partition a module?
There are two ways to go with it,
either 512=2x256, 256=2x128, 128=..... you know the rest, you can all count
OR, taking a bit of pain,
512= 1x256 & 1x128, 256= 1x128 & 1x64, 128= 1x64 & 1x32... etc
there is of course a third way of making 'Module dividers' a % of the module being split up, like 5% or 10% but this will mess with the maths and could cause headaches
What are your thoughts?
How about introducing dividing walls to partition a module?
There are two ways to go with it,
either 512=2x256, 256=2x128, 128=..... you know the rest, you can all count
OR, taking a bit of pain,
512= 1x256 & 1x128, 256= 1x128 & 1x64, 128= 1x64 & 1x32... etc
there is of course a third way of making 'Module dividers' a % of the module being split up, like 5% or 10% but this will mess with the maths and could cause headaches
What are your thoughts?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Just think of the number of HRPs that could be installed into an optimally subdivided Class 8 module bay....
Just think of the number of HRPs that could be installed into an optimally subdivided Class 8 module bay....
Funny
what you want in your ship would be up to you... others would make the same choice no doubt and while you two could begin the battle to end all battles,[yesnod] the rest of the galaxy could go about their business multitasking in their 'preferred' ship [heart]
Or
We could have an addendum whereby only a complete module can be partitioned
Or
We could have an addendum whereby only a complete module can be partitioned
this reminds me of some of the problems and misconceptions in IRL ships and shipping.
as you have tonnes/tons which are purely mass based pertaining to tonnes (1000kg/~2204lb) and tons (long ~1016kg/~2240lb), you also have tonnes/tons which are volumetric weight, which is volume of enclosed spaces of a specific type divided by a factor which are also called tonnes/tons or tonnage but it is not mass it is volumetric weight.
to exemplify, in the same space you can fit 1 tonne of pure water (1m3), you can fit 21.4 tonnes of platinum, 19.6 tonnes of tungsten, 19.32 tonnes of gold, 18.9 tonnes of uranium, at the upper end, or more middling mass metals like mercury at 13.56 tonnes, lead 11.34 tonnes, silver 10.49 tonnes, or at the lower end, copper 8.93 tonnes, nickel and rolled steel 8.8 tonnes, tin 7.28 tonnes, zinc 7.135 tonnes, titanium 4.5 tonnes etc down to the likes of beryllium 1.84 tonnes and magnesium at 1.738 tonnes.
if we move to other thing liquid oxygen would be 1.14 tonnes at -183C, whereas the likes of liquid butane are 0.599 tonnes and propane 0.583 tonne respectively.
so if we were to keep the above in mind an engineer could upgrade cargo racks, so the point loading of the rack would better be able to cope with high mass low volume materials, conferring an advantage in the number of tonnes of platinum, tungsten, gold etc etc etc down to the likes of titanium etc that could be carried, but in doing so you wont be able to carry as much high volume low mass items, as the act of strengthening cargo racks, increases the cargo racks own mass but also reduces it volume.
likewise engineer could upgrade cargo racks going the opposite way, increasing their volume for to cater for high volume low mass items at the expanse of how much low volume high mass platinum, tugston, gold etc etc down to titanium etc could be carried.
and with both the above you have suitable positive and negative effects, extra cargo rack mass + more cargo rack integrity + can carry more items of higher density but less items with a lower density on the one hand vs. lower cargo rack mass + less cargo rack integrity + can carry more items with a low density but less items of a high density.
(cargo racks would need their own mass, and all commodities would need a density factor)
as you have tonnes/tons which are purely mass based pertaining to tonnes (1000kg/~2204lb) and tons (long ~1016kg/~2240lb), you also have tonnes/tons which are volumetric weight, which is volume of enclosed spaces of a specific type divided by a factor which are also called tonnes/tons or tonnage but it is not mass it is volumetric weight.
to exemplify, in the same space you can fit 1 tonne of pure water (1m3), you can fit 21.4 tonnes of platinum, 19.6 tonnes of tungsten, 19.32 tonnes of gold, 18.9 tonnes of uranium, at the upper end, or more middling mass metals like mercury at 13.56 tonnes, lead 11.34 tonnes, silver 10.49 tonnes, or at the lower end, copper 8.93 tonnes, nickel and rolled steel 8.8 tonnes, tin 7.28 tonnes, zinc 7.135 tonnes, titanium 4.5 tonnes etc down to the likes of beryllium 1.84 tonnes and magnesium at 1.738 tonnes.
if we move to other thing liquid oxygen would be 1.14 tonnes at -183C, whereas the likes of liquid butane are 0.599 tonnes and propane 0.583 tonne respectively.
so if we were to keep the above in mind an engineer could upgrade cargo racks, so the point loading of the rack would better be able to cope with high mass low volume materials, conferring an advantage in the number of tonnes of platinum, tungsten, gold etc etc etc down to the likes of titanium etc that could be carried, but in doing so you wont be able to carry as much high volume low mass items, as the act of strengthening cargo racks, increases the cargo racks own mass but also reduces it volume.
likewise engineer could upgrade cargo racks going the opposite way, increasing their volume for to cater for high volume low mass items at the expanse of how much low volume high mass platinum, tugston, gold etc etc down to titanium etc could be carried.
and with both the above you have suitable positive and negative effects, extra cargo rack mass + more cargo rack integrity + can carry more items of higher density but less items with a lower density on the one hand vs. lower cargo rack mass + less cargo rack integrity + can carry more items with a low density but less items of a high density.
(cargo racks would need their own mass, and all commodities would need a density factor)
Very scientific... and no doubt spot on, however, those little blue and white/brown and white kegs... they're a ton... 64 of em go in a 64 ton rack, it don't really matter what's in em.
I don't know about putting 5 cubic feet into a 1 cubic foot box without serious compression... and the people in those escape pods might not like it but... Seriously
How about introducing dividing walls to partition a module?
There are two ways to go with it,
either 512=2x256, 256=2x128, 128=..... you know the rest, you can all count
OR, taking a bit of pain,
512= 1x256 & 1x128, 256= 1x128 & 1x64, 128= 1x64 & 1x32... etc
there is of course a third way of making 'Module dividers' a % of the module being split up, like 5% or 10% but this will mess with the maths and could cause headaches
What are your thoughts?
It would be neat if you could add smaller modules to a ship this way. For example, Adv Discovery Scanner and Detailed Surface Scanner sit in size 4 compartments of my Conda. If I could divide one of them and put both scanners in these 2 additional size 2 compartments, that would be great. Or even if the result was 2x size 1 compartments, to me that would still be worth the hassle of gathering materials.
Another possibility could be adding option to create corrosion resistant compartments of any size. There may not be many things one could do with compartments, but it would be nice to see some more customisation options in the game.
I don't know about putting 5 cubic feet into a 1 cubic foot box without serious compression... and the people in those escape pods might not like it but... Seriously
How about introducing dividing walls to partition a module?
There are two ways to go with it,
either 512=2x256, 256=2x128, 128=..... you know the rest, you can all count
OR, taking a bit of pain,
512= 1x256 & 1x128, 256= 1x128 & 1x64, 128= 1x64 & 1x32... etc
there is of course a third way of making 'Module dividers' a % of the module being split up, like 5% or 10% but this will mess with the maths and could cause headaches
What are your thoughts?
I rather like this idea a lot. It bugs me putting an advanced discovery scanner in a class 5 and a surface scanner in a class 3. Or seeing a class 7 or 8 cargo module only being half or one third full and unable to take any more passengers. Even if you can only mod a module one time, at time of purchase perhaps I think it would be worth it.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - our ships are more the equivalent of container ships for assorted cargo than bulk carriers. It matters not what's in the container as long as it is the correct mass.
.... and the containers must have a usable volume of about 14m³ (as we can carry a tonne of hydrogen in one).
and back in the real world, shipping containers have maximum floor loadings for any given length that a load will be applied, so heavy high density items which have high point loadings have to go on special open containers which just have end walls and a floor that is about 3 to 4 time deeper than a normal floor, so it very much matters the density, as a standard 20ft container has a 4.5 tonnes per running meter (AKA: line load) load limit, while a standard 40ft only has a 3 tonnes per running meter load limit, (a running meter is the width of the container x 1m of container length, so to carry a solid 1m3 21.4 tonne lump of platinum it would have to be a specific shape in excess of >4.755m long for a 20ft container, or in excess of >7.1333m long to be carried in a 40ft container, if it was less than either of the two specific lengths and despite being under the containers maximum payload it could not be carried)
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
They also have a maximum permissible gross weight of c.30t. Intermodal containers come in several different sizes - in the E: D galaxy they come in one size with one maximum payload.
Maybe a little OT but it gets to the point where you have to wonder whether the ship designers have been sniffing glue.
Why, oh why, did the people at Core Dynamics and Gutamaya both see fit to only install one #1 slot in the Cutter and Corvette?
Surely they must know that additional #1 modules (for scanners or even a DC) are going to be almost standard fitments on these ships?
But, no. We'll fit one #1 slot, one #3 slot and after that it'll be #4 or #5 slots so you'll HAVE to stick things like your satnav, surface scanner or DC in a stupidly big slot.
On topic, I don't really see why cargo racks couldn't be engineered.
Presumably your ship just has a giant cargo bay which is then fitted with some kind of racks to store cargo.
A rack which is designed better, or built from superior materials, could quite reasonably fit more cargo into the same space.
It needn't be a huge improvement; just incremental to the point where G5 gives you an extra, say, 10% storage space.
Or, alternatively, another option might be "secure cargo racks" which prevent cargo getting lost in the event of a hatch failure or limpet attack.
Why, oh why, did the people at Core Dynamics and Gutamaya both see fit to only install one #1 slot in the Cutter and Corvette?
Surely they must know that additional #1 modules (for scanners or even a DC) are going to be almost standard fitments on these ships?
But, no. We'll fit one #1 slot, one #3 slot and after that it'll be #4 or #5 slots so you'll HAVE to stick things like your satnav, surface scanner or DC in a stupidly big slot.
On topic, I don't really see why cargo racks couldn't be engineered.
Presumably your ship just has a giant cargo bay which is then fitted with some kind of racks to store cargo.
A rack which is designed better, or built from superior materials, could quite reasonably fit more cargo into the same space.
It needn't be a huge improvement; just incremental to the point where G5 gives you an extra, say, 10% storage space.
Or, alternatively, another option might be "secure cargo racks" which prevent cargo getting lost in the event of a hatch failure or limpet attack.
they may have a GW of 30.4 tonnes, and a payload of 27.5t to 28.2t, but IF the running meter load is exceeded the payload remaining is irrelevant in the real world, and 99% of things that carry goods in the real world have floor loading limits, and if they fly rather than move on the ground or water, they have wall and roof limits to and an expectation to withstand >150% of the aircrafts maximum G-load which further changes the running meter load limit. (as an aside, did you know that the Boeing 747 owes its shape to shipping containers)
as for ED, yes an extremely inefficient 14.114m3 volume per tonne (by the definition of liquid hydrogen), or to put that into perspective, a 20ft container with a 8'6" roof has ~33.15m3 (+-0.05m3) of in internal volume.
we all know, a cargo container in ED is ALWAYS a cylinder of 1m diameter and 2m hight. (~6m³)
This means, they could actually only hold a maxium of 444kg of hydrogen if i didn't calculate that wrong
only escape pods are cuboid, and micro-materials are sometimes in triangular prism shaped container.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=117145&d=1490561916
Last edited:
if they are 1m diameter and 2m tall at best they would be ~1.57m³ if they were prefect cylinders, but they have rounded ends, so would have comparatively less volume.
~3.14159265359 * 0.5m * 0.5m * 2m = ~<1.57m³ (<1.570796326795m³) due to the rounded ends, if they were 1m radius thus had a diameter of 2m then they would be something less than <6.28m³, but if they were 2m wide and 2m high with rounded ends you would have something very close to a sphere, which would mean if they are 2m wide than they to have the shape they have must be ~4m tall, which would be something less than <12.57m³ due to the rounded ends.
but assuming they are 1m wide and 2m tall, then they would hold an amount of liquid hydrogen something less than (due to rounded ends)
~70.85kg * <1.570796326795m³ = something less than ~<111.2909kg of liquid hydrogen.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Do we?
.... and a 1m Ø cylinder, 2m in height would have a gross volume of only 1.571m³