Garth L. Getgen:

A shuttle, fighter, heavy shuttle, heavy fighter, medium bomber, heavy freight shuttle, very heavy freight shuttle, or heavy bomber ready for flight. Yeah, you cannot carry those on cargo shuttle (no carrying a size-1 fighter or admin shuttle on a heavy transport shuttle to near its destination and then launching it which is what the rule intends).

But any of those broken down as cargo (not ready for flight as noted in Annex #7K) is cargo, no matter that the cargo can then be assembled into a fully functional unit in its own right. And can be hauled as cargo. That is how a Freighter delivers bombers to a colony planet when bombers cannot be carried by any ship "ready for flight" to land themselves, or made ready for flight after being unloaded at a commercial platform and then flying down to the planet.

Note, that I am mentioning bombers because no typical base can assemble them (a starbase probably could inside a docking module). A colony getting a bomber base (or getting replacement bombers for its existing medium bomber base but lacking the infrastructure to construct medium bombers from scratch) would have the medium bombers delivered by freighter, and the bombers would be shuttled down AS CARGO by VFS shuttles and then assembled. (Heavy bombers would basically need to be delivered by Free Traders which can land on planets.)

But a VFS can move 100 points of cargo, and can move a medium bomber STORED AS CARGO (not ready for flight). But a VFS could not carry two fully operable fighters (nominally each 50 cargo points), just as you cannot stick 25 fighters in the 25 cargo boxes of a small freighter and launch them as a surprise for your opponent.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Thursday, December 05, 2019 - 03:13 pm: Edit

Ah, okay, then. Not the way I read it, but I can see that as being the intent.


Garth L. Getgen

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - 05:23 pm: Edit

While this has less to do with the Pol than ship deck plan projects in general, I would suggest amending the protocols to include direct access between cargo and shuttle bay as well as a cargo docking port. Basicly, a ship should have a hatch that accommodates a standard shipping container that would fit the dimensions of the cargo elevators seen on already published plans. It should also have a way to get a bunch of pallets or t-bombs to the suttles without monopolizing the turbolift.

By Jack Bohn (Jackbohn) on Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - 07:59 pm: Edit

I don't see a problem with monopolizing the turbolift, moving cargo is not a daily evolution, moving t-bombs and drones even less so. Probably a software lockout in each car's programming to keep the shafts needed clear, approved by the OOD in advance.

I see a note about disassembling drones that don't fit in a turbolift car, do they have to fit in the car, though? With all the cars sent away from the involved shaft (WS III is probably Condition Zebra, minimum freedom of movement,) we can just move them up the shaft, with physical chains, tractor/antigravity, or a platform-only "car." That is if we can "move the couch around the corner," turn the drone from horizontal to vertical while getting it in the shaft, and vice versa getting it out of the shaft, or within the shaft if we want to use it for horizontal travel closer to our destination.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, December 11, 2019 - 09:43 pm: Edit

I checked the T-bombs on FFG plans, and it appears I need to shrink mine down a little.

Drones are three meters long, which is too long to fit in the tuborlift without being broken down into two segments.


Garth L. Getgen

By Steve Zamboni (Szamboni) on Thursday, December 12, 2019 - 05:53 pm: Edit

Had a mental image of an engineer powering up a drone, pointing to the hangar deck on the ship schematic on the wall, and pushing into the empty turboshaft.

"Hangar bay, stat!"
"Acknowledged." *whoosh*

(After three hundred years of AI development, I'd think stevedores would just getting in the way of cargo getting to where it's needed.)

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, December 12, 2019 - 06:18 pm: Edit

Garth, how big is the FFG Tbomb, I used 1m radius as a placeholder and then forgot to doublecheck …

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Thursday, December 12, 2019 - 07:29 pm: Edit

Stewart, they're 100-cm diameter / 50-cm radius.


Garth L. Getgen

By Douglas Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, December 12, 2019 - 09:23 pm: Edit

3 meters is too long to fit in horizontally or vertically, but it might well make it slanted at an angle. It's less than 10' and 6' tall and 8' of horizontal space isn't unreasonable, especially if the 8' of horizontal space is angled in the lift car. You could have a specialized cart to carry them angled like that.

Now, the diameter adds a bit to the required space, but I think a drone sized object could fit in the lift cars we see on dramatizations.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Thursday, December 12, 2019 - 09:53 pm: Edit

Honestly, I really don't understand why some people object to the idea that drones come with a label "Some Assembly Required." {sigh} Drones are about three meters long, based on published ADB clipart, and most deck plans have ceilings right at 3.00 meters. It just makes sense, given all the rules that allow for different warheads to be mounted on a drone, that they're come from the factory as two separate segments, and thus are stored as such for safety reasons.


Garth L. Getgen

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, December 12, 2019 - 10:26 pm: Edit

It might make sense, but I dunno if that's actually in the source material for SFB anywhere...

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Thursday, December 12, 2019 - 11:12 pm: Edit

Disassembling a multi-warhead drone leaves a non-functional warhead and non-functional engine. The sub-munitions still work once placed in the correct launcher.

If drones could be disassembled, that might allow currently illegal concepts like taking a fast engine stripped of multi-warhead sub-munitions gaining an explosive warhead removed from a slower engine.

I think it might be easier in many places to assume that the walls on either side of a turbolift door could also be removed giving a much larger entryway to move larger objects.

By Steve Zamboni (Szamboni) on Friday, December 13, 2019 - 12:12 am: Edit

The various done models don't necessarily come from the same manufacturer. They may all come apart for shipping and maintenance, but the pieces from different drones aren't going work with each other - either mechanically or in software. If they're not being shipped in launch canisters, then breaking them down into a manageable sizes for being manhandled in the field would be a viable option.

This is why ships have to buy complete drones before the scenario - warhead and engine as a set - and not a box of interchangeable parts to be assembled as the battle warrants.

(Integration and stabilization of the AI payloads is also really something that needs to done at the factory. You don't want half your magazine screaming "no disassemble" while the other half is ranting about "false data".)

By Steve Petrick (Petrick) on Friday, December 13, 2019 - 04:21 pm: Edit

Garth L. Getgen:

There are no rules in SFB that allow you to take part of drone A and attach it to drone B.

While I would agree to some extent that there might be some assembly, this all seems to be done before the drone arrives on the ship.

There is no weapon status level that says "assemble reload drones." If you have a 500 drone stockpile on heavy carrier, all 500 drones are ready for use, no time is list in assembly, you simply move them to the fighter ready rack, or the drone reload storage or to the shuttle bay to be loaded on a shuttle (either as cargo or because you are going to use the shuttle as a scatter-pack).

Again, it is possible that for long-term storage at a major supply or production facility that the drones are still in components, but the weapon status rules and the lack of anything that says "it takes this long to assemble a drone from parts in storage' pretty much says that once it arrives "in the supply system" is is all put together and ready to go.

The only "preparation time" is the actual loading of the drone onto some kind of launcher (being generous in essentially describing a fighter ready rack as a launcher, the actual launcher is the fighter drone rail). At that point, about the only thing there is time to do is update the drone's programming (this is the command code you will follow when are launched, obviously a much more complicated set of instructions in some ways for a bombardment drone with 3,200 hexes range), and disengage the PAL (you may explode when you reach your target). Other than that, the warhead is already there and the engine is already fueled.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, December 13, 2019 - 04:49 pm: Edit

Petrick: I never suggested and did not mean to imply that drone parts might be interchangeable.

As far as assembling the segments, in my mind, I envision it being a simple slide the top part into the tube of the bottom part and giving it a half-twist to lock the lugs into place.

I remember back when I put up weather balloons and helped the rocket guys one day. The weather rockets stand about 7 or 8 foot tall when put in the launcher. They come in a box about 5 foot long; take the lid off and there
are two tubes side by side, the engine and the instrument dart. They'd just slide together, kind of like cammo-net poles.


Garth L. Getgen

By Steve Zamboni (Szamboni) on Saturday, December 14, 2019 - 12:12 am: Edit

That era probably has access to some ridiculously powerful electromagnets as well. The transformer coming off the warp coil is going to make sure those lugs aren't ever coming apart once they're lined up.

By Jack Bohn (Jackbohn) on Saturday, December 14, 2019 - 09:17 am: Edit

Those lugs aren't coming apart until... well, you know.

By Jack Bohn (Jackbohn) on Saturday, December 14, 2019 - 09:57 am: Edit

For any two atoms left next to each other, odds are, they are from drone assembly parts.

By Steve Cain (Stevecain) on Saturday, December 14, 2019 - 05:40 pm: Edit

There is a lot of real world munitions that involve the *some assembly required note. I recall US Navy recruitment videos that were showing something akin to an early Standard launcher. The missle came into a prep room on a rail, fins were attached (the honestly looked more like small wings), were bolted and then out to the launcher through a hatch on the front of the superstructure. Also, supply underway videos typically show ordinance transfers of bombs, tales, and guidance all as separate lots. That is just two examples. Now, I do agree with Petrick's underlying point that there is no Weapons Status statement. This doesn't nessisarly cover "bulk cargo movement". Also, I think perhaps we are overusing drone's in this discussion. What about when someone has to move a probe, or there was that one time that the US Navy dropped a toilet in Vietnam. There are tons of different "cargos" that the discussion includes. Lets not bog down too much on one example.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Thursday, February 13, 2020 - 06:21 pm: Edit

To answer an e-mail inquiry, no, I have not done anything more with the POL plans since I sent them to SVC/SPP. I'm waiting until they tell me what needs "fixed" and how to do so.

I do know that SVC said I need to get rid of a few item that are "too unique" to this set of plans. For example, the phased-array lateral sensors (PALS) are pretty cool, but as no other ship has anything like them, I need to turn that space into something else. Originally, I didn't think the space was big enough for air/water tanks, but I have since re-measured and found that it is big enough. Easy change.

SVC also said I don't need the aft target sensors or sub-space radio antenna. I suppose those can become thruster controls or some such. Another easy change.

As to the requisite cargo lifts, I "think" I could stretch the aft hull by 2.0 - 2.5 meters to make room for the lifts, and still not do horrible things to the overall design. Decks 3/4/5/6 are all crew quarters, so that would add a pair of storage closets to each of those decks. Deck 7 is the Mess Hall, and no matter how I shoehorn cargo lifts in, I'll have to redraw this anyway. Decks 1 & 2 will be a bit of a headache no matter what I do.


Garth L. Getgen

By Gregory S Flusche (Vandar) on Thursday, February 13, 2020 - 06:24 pm: Edit

Welcome to ship building Garth. The worse part is when it comes in for a overhaul. Then How do we get to those access plates. Oh we will just cut a big hole in the side then weld it back up latter after we get the old equipment out and the new in.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Friday, February 14, 2020 - 11:38 am: Edit

The biggest PITA in the Masterson-class to the Callahan-class conversion is changing the engine pylons and all the internal bracing to sweep the engines back.


Garth L. Getgen

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Thursday, April 02, 2020 - 09:40 am: Edit

I stretched a aft hull by 262.5-cm to make space for a pair of 2.5x2.5 meter cargo lifts. Decks 1 & 2 came out better than I expected. It did screw up the Mess Hall on Deck 7, as I predicted. Decks 3-6 worked out nicely EXCEPT that now I have a 2.0 x 2.5 meter room on Deck 6 with no access points. I have no idea what to do with it. I already have a "Black Box" Flight Data Recorder to fill in a different no-access compartment, and I don't want another Black Box. Any thoughts??


Garth L. Getgen

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, April 02, 2020 - 10:23 am: Edit

Emergency water storage?

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, April 02, 2020 - 10:24 am: Edit

Canon in STar Trek holds that the Federation Computers work on a kind of “main frame” basis.

Namely that there presumably is one space somewhere that houses the main computer.

I only remember one episode that ever showed on screen just what that kind of space looked like.

I think of it being some sort of solid state server farm.

You could just designate it as a protected location where the ships computer systems reside. Normally not accessible during refits or depot maintenance at a shipyard.

The other idea might be as a “Heat Sink” where thermal energy gets stored. At least until it can be bled out as convenient. Call it a unique feature of the POL.

Maybe only seen on That particular class POL as a new feature, but failed during actual service. There is a apocryphal story (no way to know if it’s true) that during the Vietnam war (real world) the U.S. Air Force tried to deploy a missile guidance system that would Target the electromagnetic emanations present in internal combustion engines. The idea was, these missiles could target the resupply trucks the communists were using on the “HO CHI MINH” (spelling?) trail.

Only a couple of problems with that idea.

First, the soviet style trucks used were diesel engined, and did not generate the same levels that c engine trucks do. Second, the Communists were using human labor to carry the supplies.

Obviously, the system failed its combat test.