Here's what I got from a few minutes with a spreadsheet:
Data is for enough Grav modules to reach the stated thrust and enough
powerplant to provide them with energy.
Grav modules the best at TL
Thrust: 20tons 50tons 195tons
TL tons KCr tons KCr tons KCr
9 40,8 2040,0 42,0 2100,0 47,8 2390,0
10 8,6 900,0 9,5 1650,0 13,9 5275,0
11 4,6 700,0 5,5 1450,0 13,7 5265,0
12 2,0 6080,0 5,0 15200,0 7,8 58695,0
13 1,2 6053,3 3,0 15133,3 6,8 58694,0
14 1,2 6053,3 3,0 15133,3 6,8 58694,0
15 0,7 6026,7 1,7 15066,7 5,2 58630,0
Grav modules the best except for the 300kCr per kl ones:)
Thrust: 20tons 50tons 195tons
TL tons KCr tons KCr tons KCr
9 40,8 2040,0 42,0 2100,0 47,8 2390,0
10 8,6 900,0 9,5 1650,0 13,9 5275,0
11 4,6 700,0 5,5 1450,0 13,7 5265,0
12 3,8 660,0 5,5 1450,0 13,7 5265,0
13 2,2 606,7 5,5 1516,7 9,8 5135,0
14 2,2 606,7 5,5 1516,7 9,8 5135,0
15 1,1 553,3 2,8 1383,3 7,8 5069,0
Just standard grav modules.
Thrust: 20tons 50tons 195tons
TL tons KCr tons KCr tons KCr
9 40,8 2040,0 42,0 2100,0 47,8 2390,0
10 8,8 440,0 12,0 600,0 33,8 1690,0
11 4,8 240,0 12,0 600,0 33,8 1690,0
12 4,8 240,0 12,0 600,0 33,8 1690,0
13 3,8 239,0 7,0 433,3 27,3 1690,0
14 3,8 239,0 7,0 433,3 27,3 1690,0
15 2,1 173,3 3,7 266,7 14,3 1040,0
This table is inacurate in two areas:
1. The minimum powerplat volumes at lower TLs make it uneconomic to make
vehicles with as small thrust as less than 200 tons.
2. I'm not 100% sure that I got the scale efficienct right.
COACC engines, give 195t thrust for 4t of engine that costs 300kCr (Fusion
Rocket) or 50t of thrust for 4t of engine (High bypass Turbofan) (add 10t if
an AB is used)
The basic thing still stands: Many 'ordinary' engines give as good thrust
to weight ratio as Grav modules and is usually far cheaper. The drawback is
very high fuel consumption, except for the fusion rocket.
(Sorry, have to rush, I've got a Electronics-3 class in 2 minutes:)
- - -bertil-
- - --
"Words on the net aren't usually worth the paper they are written on."