Shhhhh!!! I had decided not to mention that!

Actually, a marginally smaller box module solves a lot of problems. Make the shuttle a cylinder with a rectangular bay in the middle and Space Shuttle clamshell doors on the underside. With the structure of the cutter extending most of the way around, you can make it strong enough to deal with most has lateral forces. The doors maintain your arodynamics.

Unfortunately, you face the insurmountable problem of no longer looking like a Sikorsky Skycrane.



On Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 18:21 Kelly St. Clair <xxxxxx@efn.org> wrote:
On 11/25/2019 3:35 PM, Jeff Zeitlin wrote:
> The standard cutter module is a cylinder, given as 15m long and 6m
> diameter, for a displacement of 30dT. However, because of the shape, less
> than the full 30dT is usable.
>
> What are the ramifications of building a module with cutter-compatible
> fittings, but square in cross-section, 6m wide, 6m high, and 15m long, for
> a total (and usable) volume of 40dT?

You get a grumpy letter from Gerry and Sylvia Anderson. ;)

Actually, looking at the page that was linked here the other day, I had
the realization that all of the aerodynamic issues that Ethan noted (and
then some) apply to a cutter flying in the "unloaded" configuration.
These issues are probably not insurmountable at TL 12+ - bonded
superdense covers a multitude of sins - but when you have a streamlined
forward section being pushed though atmosphere at high Mach numbers by a
drive section with an exposed flat front, connected by a relatively thin
dorsal spine, the stresses on that spine are going to be /considerable/.

--
---------------
Kelly St. Clair
xxxxxx@efn.org

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=gi277fSUTkyFeQYIkUkn6zf5f3dXCa4l