Containerized freight and Air/truck

[spank]

Here's something I have been working on for a while, a standard method of shipping freight. While working on an adventure idea I codified the concept a bit more.
First up the standard 5 dTon shipping container: 2.9 x 2.9 x 7.4 meters. It's the standard cargo handling device across the Imperium.


Next the Air/truck, unloaded it takes up about 6 dTons, and costs 1.8 MCr, and can carry 3 passengers. It is specially designed to haul Imperial standard 5 dTon shipping containers. It can carry 3.3 Dtons of cargo within it's footprint stacked, on pallets or in a reduced height version of the standard container. If carried on a starship with a reduced height container the Air/truck displaces 6 dTons and carries 3.3 Dtons of cargo.




Loaded with a single 5 dTon cargo container the Air/Truck consumes nearly 9 dTons of cargo space. The actual space use is 8 dTons, however the non-standard height wastes approximately 1 dTon of space.

 

[kilemall]

Very nice visualization.

I go the extra meter, double the length go 10 dton container, the functional equivalent of current earth 20 foot vs 40 foot. Settles up with the lot system.

 

[Spinward Flow]

First up the standard 5 dTon shipping container: 2.9 x 2.9 x 7.4 meters. It's the standard cargo handling device across the Imperium.

I'm going to quibble ... simply because we KNOW that there are things that are larger than 5 tons displacement which do not take kindly to "some (dis)assembly required" types of shipping arrangements.

Game mechanically ... it makes absolutely no difference (because of how the rules were written).
But PRACTICALLY ... you need a minimum size that is "the biggest small/the smallest big" compromise to use as your basic standard building block.

For example ... sawing a 10 ton ATV in half so you can squeeze a pair of "halvsies" into a pair of (separate) 5 ton cargo box modules doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

This is why, for my own deck plans research purposes, I'm looking at vehicles like the 10 ton ATV and 8 ton GCarrier for the "volumetric footprint" of a standardized shipping container module box form factor. Everything then becomes "multiples" of those minimum requirements of being able to fit vehicles with those deck plan footprints into box hull shapes.

 

[spank]

Theoretically a 10 ton container would be ~15 Meters, which would put it a shade under 50 Feet.
I was thinking of keeping the same Air/Truck and adding 2 Dton grav-dolly, You could probably store it on the bed of the truck.
What really tickles my mind after mocking up the low profile container is the idea of interchangeable modules for the Air/Truck. You could have passenger modules, a habitation module for longer stays on a hazardous planet, or.......

 

[ady]

Nice idea. One thing to consider is if your actually need the large underplate to lift something with gravatics? Could it pick something up just by attaching to the side or top and extending the grav field 'lift' around the object? This would mean that the vehicles would only need to be a cab and engine when unattached without the large, fixed, cargo specific underplate extending ftom it? The 3d artist Magmagmag has some examples here, (the yellow cabs) consisting of much smaller grav pods/air rafts transporting cargo containers to a Scout/Courier. By having just the pod, it allows the vehicle to carry containers of different sizes and shapes, as well as taking less room in a starship when the vehicle is transported alone. An underplate would be good for loose cargos though, as seen by the flat air/raft in the foreground.

 

[Takei]

Nice idea Ady but I'm not sure that's how anti-grav works in Traveller. Then again if that's how you want it to work in your Traveller, it does!


I've always liked the idea of the OP; a flat bed vehicle with a cab to lock a container onto. There must be millions of them of all shapes and sizes. The same with the classic white works van (panel van?)

 

[Rupert]

I assume that the standard Imperial container is 4 DTons (3x3x6m). Actual cargo holds are a big bigger than the tonnage they claim, to allow for wastage around them, and they themselves are a fraction under. There's also a smaller 'cube' of ~2 Dtons, and a long container of 8 DTons.

 

[Condottiere]

Depends on what the containers are constructed from, and their design templates.

Five tonnes is the minimum for spacecraft derived ones.

I'm sure you could use Vehicles.

 

[spank]

After some more mock-ups this is what I came up with for a larger 10 dTon container and handling Them.

I was fairly happy with the GravDolly and the fit on the container. But the Air Truck seemed a bit oversized in this set up. So, I shortened it up to be closer to a "semi-truck" instead of a "Flat bed". I found this more aesthetically pleasing, but it doesn't seem to be able haul both 5 and 10 ton containers.


So I stretched the Air/Truck back out a little and came up with a 5dTon model, It works better with the 5 dTon containers, and OK with the 10 dTons containers. But honestly it feels a bit too long to work as a Semi-Tractor. I came up with a smaller GravDolly and tried it in a few different configurations, But it just doesn't feel right.



Ultimately I think the two setups that I like best are the original 6 dTon "Flatbed" with the 5 dTon container, and the small "semi tractor" and double dolly with the 10 dTon Container

I'm going to quibble ... simply because we KNOW that there are things that are larger than 5 tons displacement which do not take kindly to "some (dis)assembly required" types of shipping arrangements.

Game mechanically ... it makes absolutely no difference (because of how the rules were written).
But PRACTICALLY ... you need a minimum size that is "the biggest small/the smallest big" compromise to use as your basic standard building block.

For example ... sawing a 10 ton ATV in half so you can squeeze a pair of "halvsies" into a pair of (separate) 5 ton cargo box modules doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

This is why, for my own deck plans research purposes, I'm looking at vehicles like the 10 ton ATV and 8 ton GCarrier for the "volumetric footprint" of a standardized shipping container module box form factor. Everything then becomes "multiples" of those minimum requirements of being able to fit vehicles with those deck plan footprints into box hull shapes.

 

[spank]

I find a 3 meter width and 3 meter height to work well, then the length can be 1.5 Meter increments, which give you 1 dTon every 1.5 meter increment. That's how I got to 7.5 meter and 15 meters for the 5 and 10 dTon containers. For vehicles, I figure there will be a little slop.
I mocked up a number of real world vehicles last year.
Vehicle dimensions.
Here for example I have an M113 (4 dTons), BTR-60, 5 dTons, and a British Mark IX (7 dTons)
None of them really fill the full 3 meter height, But overall I find it an OK way to approximate vehicle foot prints. Especially if there is a standard "Connex" type container, most things are going to fit into that footprint, or be made to fit into it for shipping.

I'm going to quibble ... simply because we KNOW that there are things that are larger than 5 tons displacement which do not take kindly to "some (dis)assembly required" types of shipping arrangements.

Game mechanically ... it makes absolutely no difference (because of how the rules were written).
But PRACTICALLY ... you need a minimum size that is "the biggest small/the smallest big" compromise to use as your basic standard building block.

For example ... sawing a 10 ton ATV in half so you can squeeze a pair of "halvsies" into a pair of (separate) 5 ton cargo box modules doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

This is why, for my own deck plans research purposes, I'm looking at vehicles like the 10 ton ATV and 8 ton GCarrier for the "volumetric footprint" of a standardized shipping container module box form factor. Everything then becomes "multiples" of those minimum requirements of being able to fit vehicles with those deck plan footprints into box hull shapes.

 

[spank]

That's not a bad assumption, the Merchant in Traders and gunboats includes a shipping container that is pretty close to 4 dTons.
I think they are assuming a container 3 x 3 x 6, which gives 54 cubic meters. At 14 Cubic Meters per dTon that comes out to 3.85 Tons.

I assume that the standard Imperial container is 4 DTons (3x3x6m). Actual cargo holds are a big bigger than the tonnage they claim, to allow for wastage around them, and they themselves are a fraction under. There's also a smaller 'cube' of ~2 Dtons, and a long container of 8 DTons.

But I like 5 and 10 tons because it approximated the large and medium freight lots generated when looking for cargo.

 

[spank]

He does some excellent art, I wish I could do something half that good.
Looking at my mockups the Grav/Dollies are approximately 1 meter high, the deck on the Air/Truck would be about the same.
I suppose I could squeeze I down a bit further, but I don't think 1 Meter is to terribly tall.

Nice idea. One thing to consider is if your actually need the large underplate to lift something with gravatics? Could it pick something up just by attaching to the side or top and extending the grav field 'lift' around the object? This would mean that the vehicles would only need to be a cab and engine when unattached without the large, fixed, cargo specific underplate extending ftom it? The 3d artist Magmagmag has some examples here, (the yellow cabs) consisting of much smaller grav pods/air rafts transporting cargo containers to a Scout/Courier. By having just the pod, it allows the vehicle to carry containers of different sizes and shapes, as well as taking less room in a starship when the vehicle is transported alone. An underplate would be good for loose cargos though, as seen by the flat air/raft in the foreground.

 

[Rupert]

But I like 5 and 10 tons because it approximated the large and medium freight lots generated when looking for cargo.

That's a pretty good reason to go with multiples of 5 DTons.

Of course if you're using MT or TNE (and possibly other rules, but I can't be bothered checking them) things aren't in nice even multiples of five for whatever reason (it seems to originate in MT, with a change from 1dx5 and 1dx10 to 1d+5 and 1d+10 for lot sizes). MgT sensibly reverts to the CT numbers.

 

[spank]

That's what I thought as well. Last year I was doing some projections on the likelihood of getting a minimum amount of cargo by world size. Projecting the amount of cargo you could expect to get atleast 90% of the time. When I switched to Megatraveller I used the 1D+10 size for the large cargos and 1D+5 for the medium. It made a major (downward) difference. But someone pointed out that the errata changes it back to 1DX10 and 1DX5. I think it was probably just an error, the X got changed to a +, that or somebody decided later on to errata it out.
It doesn't look like TNE was ever errata'd.

That's a pretty good reason to go with multiples of 5 DTons.

Of course if you're using MT or TNE (and possibly other rules, but I can't be bothered checking them) things aren't in nice even multiples of five for whatever reason (it seems to originate in MT, with a change from 1dx5 and 1dx10 to 1d+5 and 1d+10 for lot sizes). MgT sensibly reverts to the CT numbers.

 

[Condottiere]

Containerization is basically bundling cargo in a simple and standardized manner.

Then you have ease of handling.

And, what's too small, and what's too large.

As I recall, a thousand tonnes was the largest amount mentioned in Classic.

Five tonnes is about a forty footer.

We have a crane that does sixty five tonnes.

 

[Spinward Flow]

After some more mock-ups this is what I came up with for a larger 10 dTon container and handling Them.

This is where you're going to start running into issues of baseline assumptions ... and where those assumptions "come from" in order to generate constraints.

For example.
Why are multi-modal ISO shipping containers that size and shape? Why does the TEU have those dimensions?

Simple answer: To "fit" within the constraints of dimensions allowed for road and rail transport under 1G environmental conditions.

Road (and rail) infrastructure has limits on the width of stuff that can be transported safely (without contact with the surroundings).

Likewise, road (and rail) infrastructure passes under bridges, which have height limits, and you don't want to be "can opener on contact" with bridge works overhead while transporting stuff.



The choke point here is that the road and rail infrastructure all existed prior to the development of the ISO standard multi-modal shipping container ... so the "standard box" had to fit within the constraints already in place for those modes of transportation.

Gravitics CHANGES ALL OF THAT.



With gravitics, you aren't "limited" to transport routes along a world surface. You can literally "move stuff through the sky" (with or without atmosphere!) and have "plenty of room" to work with. You don't HAVE the same dimensional constraints as surface transport (road, rail, water, etc.) need to "fit" within.

Low bridge?
No problem. Just use your gravitics to fly over it.

Narrow tunnel?
No problem. Just use your gravitics to fly over the terrain feature that required making a tunnel.

Can't do 2 lane Oversized Load transport on roads?
No problem. Just use your gravitics to fly over the road so you don't get snarled and block the road traffic.



With gravitics, you need to stop thinking in terms of "trucking" as your form factor to start with and start thinking in terms of skycrane/helicopter type slung loads.

For example, the flatbed truck form factor requires loading stuff ON TOP of the flatbed.
But if you invert that (into a "flat roof" form factor?) you have something that can hover DOWN on top(!) of a standard container, "grab on"/secure the load from the dorsal ... and then just lift upwards into the sky and start laterally moving where the container needs to go. You shift from a notion of putting things ON TOP of other things in order to move them around, to being able to SLING UNDER other things in order to move them around ... because with gravitics, vertical height is less of a constraint.

The surface infrastructure necessary for mobility with gravitics is more of a "helipad" type arrangement, and in a lot of cases you can "pick up and put down" almost anywhere, sky crane style.



In practical terms, this means that the "ideal shape" for a gravitics lifted modular container stops being a "long thin box" modeled after the TEU and other multi-modal ISO shipping containers meant for surface transport networks exclusively.

Instead, what you start looking for are "prismatic shapes" (so sticking with rectangular sides for stacking/packing efficiencies) that minimize the surface area of the ventral/dorsal plate sections ... so something that is more of a square-ish type of form factor in 2D. You then want to make the 3D height something that is "convenient" for the types of (interstellar) transport you're going to be wanting to do.

This is where the "single deck" 10 ton Box and the "double deck" 20 ton Box form factors start coming into play, when you've got gravitics available to marshal and move them around.



Working backwards from a 1 ton = 14m³ baseline, and assuming a "single deck" height of 3m (so as to be able to load into starship holds):

• 10 * 14 = 140m³ / 3 = 46.66666667m²
• √46.66666667 = 6.83130051m

For reasons of practicality (not to mention, deck plan sanity!), you could use a 6.75m x 6.75m x 3m = 136.6875m³ form factor, which on deck plans would be 4.5x4.5 deck squares in size, for the containers.



Now, for a surface transport (road, rail, water, etc.) ... a 2D footprint of 6.75m x 6.75m seems LUDICROUS.
That's 22'2" wide/long (for those still using archaic measurement systems) ... and for anything dealing with road/rail network transport, you'll require MORE space than that just for clearance around such an Oversized Load (that takes up 2 lanes of standard width/gauge traffic).

But for a mobility and delivery systems that rely on gravitics ... it makes perfect sense.
You get the "greatest volume" in the smallest 2D footprint within the limitation of a 3m height form factor that can be loaded into starship cargo holds for interstellar transport.



There's "room" to play around with the exact specifications, such as saying that the containers need to be 2.8m high because the starship hull ventral bulkhead to dorsal bulkhead (middle of to middle of) distance needs to be set at a STANDARD of 3m ... and in order for the standardized shipping containers to "fit" within that constraint, the containers need to be "shorter" than 3m in order to obtain clearance for loading/unloading.

In that case ... you could do 7m x 7m x 2.8m = 137.2m³ as your 10 ton form factor (4.67 x 4.67 deck squares) baseline.

But then, once again, you're going to run into problems with trying to "play TETRIS" and fit some vehicle types into that form factor.
For example, the Geomorphs tile set for deck plans has GCarriers (8 tons) and ATVs (10 tons) in the inventory of shapes to be used for deck plans ... and they'll usually be more like 9m long and 4.5m wide.
Oops.

In fact, using the high resolution Geomorphs tile set ... a 10 ton Wheeled ATV requires 1825x806 pixels just for the ATV itself (never mind "clearance" space around it for "access" when berthed). At 300 pixels per deck square scaling, that means 9.125m x 4.03m (6.0833x2.6867 deck squares) MINIMUM in order to "fit" the 2D footprint of an ATV when it comes to deck plans.

So in order to "fit" the form factor of a 10 ton ATV, you need to abandon the notion of using a "square" form factor shape and return to something that is more rectangular/boxy.



If you shift over into an assumption of 2L/1W for the rectangle shape to fit an ATV (and to make Jenga stacking easier) and continue the assumption of a 2.8m "single deck" height for a modular container that needs to "fit" within the 3m clearance of starship single decks for loading into cargo holds ... you find, THIS:

• 10m x 5m x 2.8m = 140m³ = 10 tons
• 6.667 x 3.333 deck squares

Therefore ... by process of elimination and due to starting from first principles ... I submit to you that the "standard" 10 ton multi-modal interstellar shipping container intended for use in a gravitics technology logistics system would be ... 10m x 5m x 2.8m = 10 displacement tons ... in size.

You could then "stack" that form factor in arrays to achieve larger "blocks" of volume ... such as double wide (10m x 10m x 2.8m = 20 tons) ... before moving into "double deck heights" for 20 tons/40 tons segmentation of enclosed volume spaces.

But the 10m x 5m x 2.8m "box" form factor is what you ought to be using for your "grav truck" lift notions ... whether that be a cab+flatbed dorsal loader type, or a cab+spine ventral lifter type of logistics vehicle.



Hope that helps.



And yes, I'm going to be using this analysis of the ATV "box" form factor requirement when I (finally!) get back to working on my own modularized shipping container "box" merchant starship deck plans.

 

[Dragoner]

I like it, because I don't use gravitics. There is some, it's not ubiquitous.

 

[kilemall]

In real world shipping there is container, liquid/dry like oil or grain/mineral, or break bulk. I would expect a lot of the latter for vehicles or the like, on pallets for tie down.

Re the final gravity truck types, I would probably still have the 10 dton container version be a base 6dtons with a bigger cab for double the power plant/lift. And, allow for towed 2 5dton configurations giving it more flexibility delivering in tight urban spaces.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYA-Ouh5a2n3icdgWmXBYudczfdqgclREZzw&s

 

[kilemall]

This is where you're going to start running into issues of baseline assumptions ... and where those assumptions "come from" in order to generate constraints.

For example.
Why are multi-modal ISO shipping containers that size and shape? Why does the TEU have those dimensions?

Simple answer: To "fit" within the constraints of dimensions allowed for road and rail transport under 1G environmental conditions.

Road (and rail) infrastructure has limits on the width of stuff that can be transported safely (without contact with the surroundings).

Likewise, road (and rail) infrastructure passes under bridges, which have height limits, and you don't want to be "can opener on contact" with bridge works overhead while transporting stuff.



The choke point here is that the road and rail infrastructure all existed prior to the development of the ISO standard multi-modal shipping container ... so the "standard box" had to fit within the constraints already in place for those modes of transportation.

Gravitics CHANGES ALL OF THAT.



With gravitics, you aren't "limited" to transport routes along a world surface. You can literally "move stuff through the sky" (with or without atmosphere!) and have "plenty of room" to work with. You don't HAVE the same dimensional constraints as surface transport (road, rail, water, etc.) need to "fit" within.

Low bridge?
No problem. Just use your gravitics to fly over it.

Narrow tunnel?
No problem. Just use your gravitics to fly over the terrain feature that required making a tunnel.

Can't do 2 lane Oversized Load transport on roads?
No problem. Just use your gravitics to fly over the road so you don't get snarled and block the road traffic.



With gravitics, you need to stop thinking in terms of "trucking" as your form factor to start with and start thinking in terms of skycrane/helicopter type slung loads.

For example, the flatbed truck form factor requires loading stuff ON TOP of the flatbed.
But if you invert that (into a "flat roof" form factor?) you have something that can hover DOWN on top(!) of a standard container, "grab on"/secure the load from the dorsal ... and then just lift upwards into the sky and start laterally moving where the container needs to go. You shift from a notion of putting things ON TOP of other things in order to move them around, to being able to SLING UNDER other things in order to move them around ... because with gravitics, vertical height is less of a constraint.

The surface infrastructure necessary for mobility with gravitics is more of a "helipad" type arrangement, and in a lot of cases you can "pick up and put down" almost anywhere, sky crane style.



In practical terms, this means that the "ideal shape" for a gravitics lifted modular container stops being a "long thin box" modeled after the TEU and other multi-modal ISO shipping containers meant for surface transport networks exclusively.

Instead, what you start looking for are "prismatic shapes" (so sticking with rectangular sides for stacking/packing efficiencies) that minimize the surface area of the ventral/dorsal plate sections ... so something that is more of a square-ish type of form factor in 2D. You then want to make the 3D height something that is "convenient" for the types of (interstellar) transport you're going to be wanting to do.

This is where the "single deck" 10 ton Box and the "double deck" 20 ton Box form factors start coming into play, when you've got gravitics available to marshal and move them around.



Working backwards from a 1 ton = 14m³ baseline, and assuming a "single deck" height of 3m (so as to be able to load into starship holds):

• 10 * 14 = 140m³ / 3 = 46.66666667m²
• √46.66666667 = 6.83130051m

For reasons of practicality (not to mention, deck plan sanity!), you could use a 6.75m x 6.75m x 3m = 136.6875m³ form factor, which on deck plans would be 4.5x4.5 deck squares in size, for the containers.



Now, for a surface transport (road, rail, water, etc.) ... a 2D footprint of 6.75m x 6.75m seems LUDICROUS.
That's 22'2" wide/long (for those still using archaic measurement systems) ... and for anything dealing with road/rail network transport, you'll require MORE space than that just for clearance around such an Oversized Load (that takes up 2 lanes of standard width/gauge traffic).

But for a mobility and delivery systems that rely on gravitics ... it makes perfect sense.
You get the "greatest volume" in the smallest 2D footprint within the limitation of a 3m height form factor that can be loaded into starship cargo holds for interstellar transport.



There's "room" to play around with the exact specifications, such as saying that the containers need to be 2.8m high because the starship hull ventral bulkhead to dorsal bulkhead (middle of to middle of) distance needs to be set at a STANDARD of 3m ... and in order for the standardized shipping containers to "fit" within that constraint, the containers need to be "shorter" than 3m in order to obtain clearance for loading/unloading.

In that case ... you could do 7m x 7m x 2.8m = 137.2m³ as your 10 ton form factor (4.67 x 4.67 deck squares) baseline.

But then, once again, you're going to run into problems with trying to "play TETRIS" and fit some vehicle types into that form factor.
For example, the Geomorphs tile set for deck plans has GCarriers (8 tons) and ATVs (10 tons) in the inventory of shapes to be used for deck plans ... and they'll usually be more like 9m long and 4.5m wide.
Oops.

In fact, using the high resolution Geomorphs tile set ... a 10 ton Wheeled ATV requires 1825x806 pixels just for the ATV itself (never mind "clearance" space around it for "access" when berthed). At 300 pixels per deck square scaling, that means 9.125m x 4.03m (6.0833x2.6867 deck squares) MINIMUM in order to "fit" the 2D footprint of an ATV when it comes to deck plans.

So in order to "fit" the form factor of a 10 ton ATV, you need to abandon the notion of using a "square" form factor shape and return to something that is more rectangular/boxy.



If you shift over into an assumption of 2L/1W for the rectangle shape to fit an ATV (and to make Jenga stacking easier) and continue the assumption of a 2.8m "single deck" height for a modular container that needs to "fit" within the 3m clearance of starship single decks for loading into cargo holds ... you find, THIS:

• 10m x 5m x 2.8m = 140m³ = 10 tons
• 6.667 x 3.333 deck squares

Therefore ... by process of elimination and due to starting from first principles ... I submit to you that the "standard" 10 ton multi-modal interstellar shipping container intended for use in a gravitics technology logistics system would be ... 10m x 5m x 2.8m = 10 displacement tons ... in size.

You could then "stack" that form factor in arrays to achieve larger "blocks" of volume ... such as double wide (10m x 10m x 2.8m = 20 tons) ... before moving into "double deck heights" for 20 tons/40 tons segmentation of enclosed volume spaces.

But the 10m x 5m x 2.8m "box" form factor is what you ought to be using for your "grav truck" lift notions ... whether that be a cab+flatbed dorsal loader type, or a cab+spine ventral lifter type of logistics vehicle.



Hope that helps.



And yes, I'm going to be using this analysis of the ATV "box" form factor requirement when I (finally!) get back to working on my own modularized shipping container "box" merchant starship deck plans.

All that is useful to think about in terms of what grav brings- but there are a lot of TL 8- worlds out there and a need to service them.

Probably a two tier system, like the international's TEU and then the North American domestic 53 foot standard.

 

[Rupert]

That's what I thought as well. Last year I was doing some projections on the likelihood of getting a minimum amount of cargo by world size. Projecting the amount of cargo you could expect to get atleast 90% of the time. When I switched to Megatraveller I used the 1D+10 size for the large cargos and 1D+5 for the medium. It made a major (downward) difference. But someone pointed out that the errata changes it back to 1DX10 and 1DX5. I think it was probably just an error, the X got changed to a +, that or somebody decided later on to errata it out.
It doesn't look like TNE was ever errata'd.



View attachment 6913

So it is. I forgot to look at the MT errata, which was silly of me. In my defence, with both minor and major cargoes being changed, it looked pretty intentional, especially with it being retained in TNE (though given TNE's assumed setting it makes some sense there). I never actually used the Merchant Prince/MT/TNE/T4 trade rules anyway, as they take all the fun out of it, in my opinion.