For really low-margin, high-bulk, non-perishable cargoes, I can easily see ballistic trajectories being used, with tugs pushing "barges" onto the right transfer trajectory, and other tugs catching them at the destination. The "barge" would just need to be a framework to hold the cargo together. Depending on your m-drive and g-compensator model, it would probably not even have to deal with acceleration stresses.

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Jeffrey Schwartz <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Tim <xxxxxx@little-possums.net> wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:36:45PM -0700, (via tml list) wrote:
>> On 24 May 2016 at 0:15, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) wrote:
>> > How far would you have to be travelling in order to require, let's say
>> > it's the standard 'scout ship', a two-week constant 2G accell (towards
>> > the 'target'), a coasting time of one week, & then a two-week decell
>> > in order to arrive w/ only a small relative diff in velocity?
>>
>> If you have jump drive you'd never do this unless you *wanted* to
>> waste a month for some reason. Because you can do it in a week by
>> using the jump drive.
>
> If you have the jump fuel to waste, yes. There are plenty of reasons
> why you might want to get to the destination with full tanks.
>

Or it might be an in-system cargo hauler, where there's economic
advantage to not having 10% of the hull taken up by fuel and the
expense of a J-drive

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=PltOdItWBSgOP4y0Q6abkGbDI1eus0lz

Craig Berry (http://google.com/+CraigBerry)
"Eternity is in love with the productions of time." - William Blake