Dalton replied to me:
> I see an arcology as having two basic types of corridors; those rated for
> vehicular traffic, and those rated for pedestrian traffic *only*. The
> first kind would have contact power strips built into the ceiling during
> the initial construction phase, a width of at least 3 meters (10 feet) for
> one-lane mixed traffic (this includes a single one meter wide pedestrian
> path) or 2 meters (80 inches) for one lane vehicle-only corridors (this
> provides the bare minimum right angle turning clearance for 9'x5' vehicles
> assuming slightly rounded corners) and would be specially reenforced to
> bear the weight of said vehicles. Pedestrian only corridors would be less
> than 2 meters wide and structured to bear loads of a half ton or less;
> however I see these as mainly residential and branching no more than 30
> meters (100 feet) off the nearest vehicular corridor for safety reasons.
* I see at least five categories:
1) No vehicles possible.
2) Emergency/special permit vehicles possible after clearing out
the pedestrians.
3) Routine one-way traffic possible.
4) Routine two-way traffic possible.
5) Ample room, but no routine traffic allowed.
* Corridors might also have a variable height. Even if the straight
pieces have an uniform ceiling, they might open into multi-story
'indoor plazas'.
> I can only go by the costs "reflected by the rules."
Sometimes I DON'T do something that would be legal by the rules
because the rules seem broken or stretched beyond their spirit.
That means my vehicles are still "legal" GURPS Vehicles designs,
just not "perfectly optimized under the rules". For example, I'd
never try to save 1 cf in a 1,000-cf vehicle just to get a lower
size modifier.
> Contact power systems
> have been around since GTL/6 and are AFAIK almost painfully simple,
> comprising of (in descending order of maintenance requirements) a
> mechanical contact with the grid, a transformer and a distribution bus.
The mechanical contact must provide reliable power while the
vehicle is moving. For vehicles which do not run on rails,
that is non-trivial. It is possible, sure, but harder than on
rails.
> Any arcology that installed a contact power grid system (CPGS) must have
> considered maintenance and support costs when doing so, and obviously
> decided that the benefits were worth the expense.
Chicken and egg. You cannot argue that there will be a grid because
vehicles use it and that there will be vehicles because there is a
grid. You can argue that the investment in a grid is worthwhile
because it makes the vehicles cheaper (and independent of recharge
stations), but that is a different approach.
> The presence of a CGPS indicates a government commitment to contact power
> as its primary vehicular energy source; as such, all government owned
> vehicles would be so equipped.
Power cells and CGPS are not power sources, they're power storage and
transmission systems. Both could be run from the same fusion reactor
or solar farm. So it isn't quite the same as a government decision to
back electric cars over internal combustion.
> While for emergency operations these
> vehicles might rely more on stored power than contact, such operations are
> generally of short duration and do not require extensive energy banks.
A valid point.
> >* Depending on the design, contact power lines could be a hazard
> > for playing kids in the corridors.
>
> Which is why I have specified *ceiling* power strips.
If you can reach it without a major mast on the vehicle, it is in
reach of kids. I'm thinking of ten-year-olds on a dare, not three-
year-old toddlers.
> I assumed the mini workshop came with its own wall, doors and locks as its
> volume was included in the vehicle body. Silly me.
You can design it that way. You don't have to. I was thinking of
vehicles like the Volkswagen Caddy, just a bit smaller.
http://www.volkswagen-vans.co.uk/newcaddy/
Having a bulkhead is great for safety if you have to brake hard,
but many craftsmen prefer the convenience of being able to reach
in.
> I can see this with fire engine (since the water cannon might require an
> enclosed gunner/sensor op position) and even the police cart (one cop
> drives while the other handles the sensors and other electronics) although
> a driver should be able to operate the latter alone, but for the other
> vehicles the "shotgun" position really has nothing to do with vehicle
> operation (the driver should be able to handle communications by
> themselves).
Over here, it is illegal to operate a cellphone without hands-free
set while driving. The computer terminals in my vehicles require a
second crewmember or a stop at the roadside.
> >* The interference was the reason to take a powerful radio - at
> > TL9, it should be able to sort through echoes and get some
> > signal even through modest walls.
>
> But then you get problems with EMI disrupting un-hardened civilian
> electronics and posing a possible health hazard with prolonged exposure.
Which is why civilians don't get it.
> >If a tight net of cellphone cells is currently operational ...
> >not the way I'd bet in a major fire.
>
> Unless there was separate network designed for this sort of thing. (See
> above.)
Even if they are hardened, you're relying on systems that were in
place when the disaster struck.
> >I would expect substantial negative modifiers to the sensor
> >roll from smoke, etc., hence you need a good nominal range.
> >Other than that, a reasonable choice, especially the
> >universal mount.
>
> Tell me what negative modifiers you might expect, and I'll uprate the
> sensors.
A sprinkler system would probably count as rain. I guess foam
is somewhere between a blizzard and blackout gas. So call it
-6 to -12 for trying to see a dozen yards ahead through some
nasty stuff.
> How about special model series names? There could be situations (either
> environmental or political) that would preclude investment in a CPGS; in
> this case your original designs would be used. For example, a substantial
> fraction of the workforce might commute to terraforming or resource
> development and collection jobs outside the arcology, and would still need
> access to its service vehicles "beyond the wall". I like the idea of
> ArcoTech having two separate (possibly rival?) divisions serving customers
> with different needs. (The intermural bumper car championships would be
> ... interesting.)
Traveller has so many megacorps, and mine isn't even canonical.
If the CPGS is a proprietary standard, that sounds like something
Delgado might do :-)
Onno
_______________________________________________
GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]>
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
