Cargo size and shape

Maolagin

M
Vandaahl said:
From various descriptions (wiki's and all that). Both a metric or a shipping tonne can store about 12 imperial slaves. Provided they are not too fat.
Click to expand...
I don't think those sources are accurate, at least with respect to the E: D universe. Slaves, like all other cargo, follow the relationship of 1 canister = 1 ton = 1 unit. Now I'm not positive that it is affirmatively stated anywhere that one "unit" of slaves is one individual person, but it is nowhere implied that a unit is more than one person.

Soron Silin said:
Two of them fit in my cargo racks if their sizes are 1 x 0.4 x 0.4, with space for scaffolding around them. That's close enough to the right aspect ratio, but the cargo racks would have to double in size if they are 2m long, plus another 25% if they are 1m wide. It that across flats or across points? I couldn't find an authentic reference for that, only a comment on the Wiki. They must have a defined size -- they have a model after all.
Click to expand...
They must, yes. Attempts to measure them in-game indicate that they are about 2m long, but it's not trivial to accurately measure something that small. 2m is also consistent with how large they appear next to cargo hatches, which are known from exported models to be 5m square. But if anyone has gone to the trouble to export a model for a cargo canister, I'm not aware of it.
 

[Diplomacy] Carnegie

[Diplomacy] Carnegie
Factabulous said:
Wut? Mine can only carry 3, then it has to make more - how do I get the upgrade?
Click to expand...

If the DSS can create a sensor package attached to an FSD out of the interstellar medium it gathers whilst traveling less than 100m then it should be able to construct void an entire new ship every couple of hours.

Clearly that would be ridiculous, so it must be carrying the probes instead.

They're limited by the loading mechanism, not the storage capacity.
 

aRJay

aRJay
Soron Silin said:
I found myself wondering, if each cargo rack is twice the size of the previous one, then is there a shape that maintains the same aspect ratio and can be stacked efficiently.

It's not obvious, because when you chop something in half, you usually change its shape. You have to chose the relative dimensions exactly right. (In fact they are in the ratio of the cube root of 2, like European paper sizes use the square root of 2.)

So here is my guess as to what the various sizes of cargo racks look like.
View attachment 142688
Click to expand...
Such dedication making and stacking all those blocks, but maybe make miniatures next time.
 

aRJay

aRJay
RamirezKurita said:
But also far fewer ways to arrange a fighter assembly bay or a shield generator; remember that optional internals don't just have cargo bays installed in them.
Click to expand...
The fighter bay sits in a different bit of the ship, that is why only some ships carry them the explanation why they also take an internal slot is because they connect to its control and power feeds of the internal slot..
 

aRJay

aRJay
Morbad said:
On a ship powered by a fusion reactor and equipped with powerful synthesis devices (that can make oxygen, SRV parts, and bullets out of rocks in seconds), you could probably make any compound from hydrogen on the fly.



Now if only the shield bubble was air tight!

Still, wouldn't take a very thick atmosphere for an exploration conda to become a dirigible.
Click to expand...
Now there is a thought, you actually need downwards thrust and anchors to do an atmospheric landing in an Anaconda.
 

Soron Silin

Soron Silin
For the purists, scaled up by a factor of two with standard size cargo canisters, 2m by 1m diameter. The space they are fitting in there is equivalent to a class-1 cargo rack (the red one behind them.) There's plenty of space around them for the structure to hold them in place.

142730


Edit: If we take 1m^3 as 1 tonne, a cargo canister should be 1.7m x 0.85m diameter. Since size estimates are only vague, this is probably within the margin of error. If this is right then we need to scale the above down by 15% and you can assume the figure above is a shortish woman instead of a tallish man. (5'2" rather than 6'1", Kaylee rather than Jayne)
 
Last edited:

Schmack

Schmack
Let's just agree you cannot possible fit those canisters into an SRV or a small ship and then we can begin to heal.
 

RamirezKurita

R
Morbad said:
On a ship powered by a fusion reactor and equipped with powerful synthesis devices (that can make oxygen, SRV parts, and bullets out of rocks in seconds), you could probably make any compound from hydrogen on the fly.
Click to expand...

The big difference is that all those things are synthesised chemically, which is trivial compared to attempting to fuse hydrogen into things. Even with modern tech we could make a small machine that can turn specific minerals into certain things, such as extracting oxygen from oxides or mass-producing bullets out of raw ore, the problem would normally be the commercial viability and the energy efficiency which obviously don't affect our ships.

If it were trivial to fuse hydrogen into any of the lighter elements to make any exotic compound to order, then why would simple things like mineral oil be more expensive than the specialised hydrogen fuel blend? If a basic sidewinder could synthesise whatever elements it needs for exotic hydrogen capture chemicals we use, why would this technology not have been adapted to synthesise water, other basic chemicals or light metals? Should we not be seeing entire economies spring up around sidewinder farms that exist to mass produce basic commodities with the added by-product of powering the entire planet?

There's also the point that attempting to synthesise even just a single kilogram of oxygen from raw hydrogen would obliterate our ship from the heat. Scooping generates heat, yes, but not enough to represent fusing hydrogen into heavier elements by the tonne.
 

Soron Silin

Soron Silin
Isn't it strange that some metals -- aluminium, copper, silver -- cost pennies and we haul them around by the tonne. Others -- iron, nickle -- can't be bought for love nor money and we have to either travel large distances to barter for them or pick them up kilogram by kilogram from natural deposits. I assume Mars is still there, (there's a reason it's red) and the most common type of asteroid in the Sol system is iron-based, followed by nickle. Yet iron is far rarer than even gold and platinum. It makes no sense whatsoever.

And where would Agatha Christie be if her characters had to travel to a distant world to find Arsenic?
 
Last edited:

Morbad

Morbad
RamirezKurita said:
The big difference is that all those things are synthesised chemically
Click to expand...

What chemical reaction of iron and nickel can replace air lost to space?

RamirezKurita said:
If it were trivial to fuse hydrogen into any of the lighter elements to make any exotic compound to order, then why would simple things like mineral oil be more expensive than the specialised hydrogen fuel blend? If a basic sidewinder could synthesise whatever elements it needs for exotic hydrogen capture chemicals we use, why would this technology not have been adapted to synthesise water, other basic chemicals or light metals? Should we not be seeing entire economies spring up around sidewinder farms that exist to mass produce basic commodities with the added by-product of powering the entire planet?
Click to expand...

The whole Elite psuedo economy is easily the most far fetched thing about the entire game.

RamirezKurita said:
There's also the point that attempting to synthesise even just a single kilogram of oxygen from raw hydrogen would obliterate our ship from the heat.
Click to expand...

Probably the best argument against ship-board nucleosynthesis.

RamirezKurita said:
Scooping generates heat, yes
Click to expand...

I don't think scooping generates heat in and of it self.
 

IndigoWyrd

IndigoWyrd
Soron Silin said:
Isn't it strange that some metals -- aluminium, copper, silver -- cost pennies and we haul them around by the tonne. Others -- iron, nickle -- can't be bought for love nor money and we have to either travel large distances to barter for them or pick them up kilogram by kilogram from natural deposits. I assume Mars is still there, (there's a reason it's red) and the most common type of asteroid in the Sol system is iron-based, followed by nickle. Yet iron is far rarer than even gold and platinum. It makes no sense whatsoever.

And where would Agatha Christie be if her characters had to travel to a distant world to find Arsenic?
Click to expand...

In London.

Point taken, though I would point out that even the far easier to produce Carbon can also not be purchased in any quantity, nor are gold, silver, copper, platinum or palladium utilized as “ingredients” in any Engineering capacity. So these are trade-offs.
 

RamirezKurita

R
Morbad said:
What chemical reaction of iron and nickel can replace air lost to space?
Click to expand...

Well, the oxygen one could well be using the iron as a catalyst. Iron can catalyse the reaction from CO2 to oxygen, which could feasibly be used to prolong the oxygen reserves of our suits in the absence of a full life support system.
 

IndigoWyrd

IndigoWyrd
Morbad said:
What chemical reaction of iron and nickel can replace air lost to space?.
Click to expand...

www.quora.com

What are chemical oxygen candles and how are they used?

Answer (1 of 2): A chlorate candle, or an oxygen candle, is a cylindrical chemical oxygen generator that contains a mix of sodium chlorate and iron powder, which when ignited smolders at about 600 °C (1,112 °F), producing sodium chloride, iron oxide, and at a fixed rate about 6.5 man-hours of oxy...
www.quora.com www.quora.com

Um, THAT chemical reaction maybe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom