2 Space Vehicle Questions

[hemulen]

Ok, 2 more questions, 1 rules related, and one more general:

1/ Bridge size for ship: minimum of 20 dt, and according to p 262 costs Cr5000/ton of ship. The standard designs seem to use Cr 5000/ton of bridge e.g.

Lab Ship (400dt), 20dt, MCr 0.1

except for:

Far Trader(p327) 200 dt, bridge 20dt, cost MCr0.5.

I'm assuming that the table on p262 should read Cr 5000/dt of Bridge...or are the designs incorrect?

2/ Can you use an Air/Raft to move between vehicles in deep space? i.e. do they need a significant mass, like a planet, to react against? Ships manoeuvre in space using the same technology, but they have much larger drives.

It would seem useful for game purposes if you could use Air/Rafts in space, but just wondering if there is anything specific.

cheers,

Mark

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Mark B,

Here is my Cr.02 on your questions, or at least on the first question.

Originally posted by Mark B.:
Ok, 2 more questions, 1 rules related, and one more general:

1/ Bridge size for ship: minimum of 20 dt, and according to p 262 costs Cr5000/ton of ship. The standard designs seem to use Cr 5000/ton of bridge e.g.

Lab Ship (400dt), 20dt, MCr 0.1

except for:

Far Trader(p327) 200 dt, bridge 20dt, cost MCr0.5.

I'm assuming that the table on p262 should read Cr 5000/dt of Bridge...or are the designs incorrect?

Yes, the bridge cost is based on displacement or the volume of the vehicle being designed not the mass.
By convention all Traveller design sequences use displacement to measure the vehicle, starship, spaceship, or robot size. Also by convention displacement is annonated as tons. While weight/mass is measured in short or metric tons depending the design system and usually has mass, stons, or mtons listed either before, after, or above the entry.

2/ Can you use an Air/Raft to move between vehicles in deep space? i.e. do they need a significant mass, like a planet, to react against? Ships manoeuvre in space using the same technology, but they have much larger drives.

It would seem useful for game purposes if you could use Air/Rafts in space, but just wondering if there is anything specific.

cheers,

Mark

This is a personal opinion and may vary from the other people posting here. Yes, an air/raft could be used for a short distance crossing between two vessels in space. That distance would have to be agreed upon between the players and the GM. However, vacc suits with maneuver units or making airlocks would also work. This all supposes that the vessel does not have a subordinate small craft to do the shuttling between ships. Hope this helps.

 

[sandman]

Originally posted by Thomas Rux:
Morning Mark B,

Here is my Cr.02 on your questions, or at least on the first question.

[snip snip]

Repeating yourself a bit there, aren't you, Thomas?

I guess the Air-Raft would have a somewhat less than perfect maneuverability in space, no? (Unless they were specifically design for Space)

 

[snrdg082102]

Lo Sandman,

Well, Yes I apparently hit the post button rather than the post edit button. However, in my own defense the time was after 5:00 AM PST, there were problems when I tried editing, I was late for work, and finally the day was developing into a bad Monday on a Friday. However, I have fixed the problem and probably left some of the errors I tried correcting.

Originally posted by Sandman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Thomas Rux:
Morning Mark B,

Here is my Cr.02 on your questions, or at least on the first question.

[snip snip]

Repeating yourself a bit there, aren't you, Thomas?

I guess the Air-Raft would have a somewhat less than perfect maneuverability in space, no? (Unless they were specifically design for Space) </font>[/QUOTE]Well the air/raft is not really meant for open/deep space deployment. Heck, even in atmosphere the thing is mainly a Yugo anology of the future.

 

[hemulen]

Originally posted by Thomas Rux:
Morning Mark B,

Mornin'...

Yes, the bridge cost is based on displacement or the volume of the vehicle being designed not the mass.
By convenetion all Traveller design sequences use displacement to measure the vehicle, starship, spaceship, or robot size. Also by convention displacement is annonated as tons. While weight/mass is measured in short or metric tons depending the design system and usually has mass, stons, or mtons listed either before, after, or above the entry.

Right, that all seems ok, but I was really thinking about the costs - they don't seem to add up to what the rules say - a 400 dt ship has 20dt of bridge, which in the standard designs is costed as 0.1 MCr, but that is 20 * 5000 Cr, not 400 * 5000 Cr as the table in the design chapter says...I assume that's a typo and the cost should be Cr 5000 * dtons of bridge, not dtons of ship!

cheers,

Mark

 

[snrdg082102]

Lo Mark B,

My apologies for not understanding the question about cost verses displacement. Going back to CT: Book 2: Starships (pp. 13-14 starships/spaceships, rules do not indicate % of bridge required for a small craft) and Book 5 High Guard (p. 27 starships/spaceships, p. 34 small craft) the cost requirements are correct as written in the table at the bottom of THB p. 262. Which means that the costs listed in the Starship/Spaceship Standard design section are in need of errata. Now, this condition may have already been pointed out and is just awaiting the revision of the errata page to include this and other noted items. Of course the above conculsion may or may not be the same that other Travellers, GMs and players, have arrived at. Hope, I have the answer right this time.

Originally posted by Mark B.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Thomas Rux:
Morning Mark B,

Mornin'...

Yes, the bridge cost is based on displacement or the volume of the vehicle being designed not the mass.
By convenetion all Traveller design sequences use displacement to measure the vehicle, starship, spaceship, or robot size. Also by convention displacement is annonated as tons. While weight/mass is measured in short or metric tons depending the design system and usually has mass, stons, or mtons listed either before, after, or above the entry.

Right, that all seems ok, but I was really thinking about the costs - they don't seem to add up to what the rules say - a 400 dt ship has 20dt of bridge, which in the standard designs is costed as 0.1 MCr, but that is 20 * 5000 Cr, not 400 * 5000 Cr as the table in the design chapter says...I assume that's a typo and the cost should be Cr 5000 * dtons of bridge, not dtons of ship!

cheers,

Mark </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[hemulen]

Originally posted by Thomas Rux:
Lo Mark B,

My apologies for not understanding the question about cost verses displacement. Going back to CT: Book 2: Starships (pp. 13-14 starships/spaceships, rules do not indicate % of bridge required for a small craft) and Book 5 High Guard (p. 27 starships/spaceships, p. 34 small craft) the cost requirements are correct as written in the table at the bottom of THB p. 262.

Thomas,

Ok, thanks for checking! Interesting find - I would have gone with the fixed cost per ton of bridge, since with a bigger ship you need more bridge anyway, but I think your conclusion does seem more likely.

I did think that Cr 5000/dt was a bit cheap though, but as you say, if that is per dt of ship, rather than per dt of bridge then it makes the costs look more realistic(whatever that means). I guess the reason being that the "bridge" doesn't just cover the bits where people sit and steer, but also the electronics, fly-by-wire etc that snakes all round the hull, hence the cost per ship dt would make more sense.

Excellent, thanks for the info!

Mark

 

[snrdg082102]

Hi again Mark B.,

You are welcome, I am just trying to share what knowledge I have of Traveller. Yep, the bridge, either in a starship, spacecraft, or small craft, includes all the goodies to handle the ship. Look at cars, planes, trains, and ships everyone of them have a form of control center that could be considered a bridge.

Originally posted by Mark B.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Thomas Rux:
Lo Mark B,

My apologies for not understanding the question about cost verses displacement. Going back to CT: Book 2: Starships (pp. 13-14 starships/spaceships, rules do not indicate % of bridge required for a small craft) and Book 5 High Guard (p. 27 starships/spaceships, p. 34 small craft) the cost requirements are correct as written in the table at the bottom of THB p. 262.

Thomas,

Ok, thanks for checking! Interesting find - I would have gone with the fixed cost per ton of bridge, since with a bigger ship you need more bridge anyway, but I think your conclusion does seem more likely.

I did think that Cr 5000/dt was a bit cheap though, but as you say, if that is per dt of ship, rather than per dt of bridge then it makes the costs look more realistic(whatever that means). I guess the reason being that the "bridge" doesn't just cover the bits where people sit and steer, but also the electronics, fly-by-wire etc that snakes all round the hull, hence the cost per ship dt would make more sense.

Excellent, thanks for the info!

Mark </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Thomas Rux:

<snip>

Yep, the bridge, either in a starship, spacecraft, or small craft, includes all the goodies to handle the ship. Look at cars, planes, trains, and ships everyone of them have a form of control center that could be considered a bridge.

And to clarify, the bridge in a small craft (minimum 4 dT) includes 2 crew stations (couches) as printed on page 275 and confirmed by Hunter a couple months back. I mention it because (and and I hope it was noticed for the errata) the small craft designs in the book all show extra volume and credits for crew small craft couches. Mostly an easy fix, make them for passengers or add it to the cargo/custom space and reduce the cost.

As for "the answer" to the second question I'd agree its totally up to you for your game but I don't think its supported in canon. Yes you can use it to slowly attain orbit (albeit I'd think a low orbit) and a craft in orbit could pick you up. By extension some imagine you can also use it to get down from orbit (and it'd be handy for the Scout service for one) but I'm not sure it has the stuff to take re-entry (a streamlined hull for one) so I'd say no or make it very tough on the crew and craft. Hard to do and bad for the chassis. The related grav craft (apc and speeder) by virtue of their design I think could manage re-entry. I'd also disallow the use of either of those for true space travel for the same reason as the air-raft, they're just not built for it.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Mark B.:


<snip>

Can you use an Air/Raft to move between vehicles in deep space? i.e. do they need a significant mass, like a planet, to react against? Ships manoeuvre in space using the same technology, but they have much larger drives.

It would seem useful for game purposes if you could use Air/Rafts in space, but just wondering if there is anything specific.

cheers,

Mark

Right, I could have been clearer and more helpful above.

In most iterations of Traveller grav tech is broken into two related but distinct applications/mechanics.

The first is a kind of null grav technology that is used for planetary based transport and as a lifter for spacecraft. It nullifies about 99% of a planets gravity with relation to the vehicle allowing it to hover, a little more is installed and/or powered in a vectored direction to provide thrust. This is, as far as I can see in T20, included (among other basics) in the "bridge" tonnage for spacecraft.

The second is a reactionless drive system that uses high energy to provide thrust without reaction mass. This is the spacecraft maneuver drive in the design section.

The first is smaller, cheaper, available at an earlier TL and uses less power but loses effectiveness related to the gravity field its in (i.e. an air-raft has 0 thrust in zero gravity).

The second has a minimum size that only makes it practical in larger craft (though that's missing but may be implied in T20 see note below), uses more power, is a little higher TL and costs more, but it works fine without regard to gravity fields.

note - The minimum size implied comes from the fact that the smallest "spacecraft" possible according to the rules looks to be about 6 dT and thats just a little 2 person runabout. Its pretty affordable at Mcr 2.52 (discounted). Lets see thats cr 10,500 a month financed, yeah I think a noble could swing that

This might be what you want for a small intership shuttle in space and its handy for delivering the players into all kinds of trouble

 

[hemulen]

Originally posted by far-trader:
[QBAs for "the answer" to the second question I'd agree its totally up to you for your game but I don't think its supported in canon. Yes you can use it to slowly attain orbit (albeit I'd think a low orbit) and a craft in orbit could pick you up. By extension some imagine you can also use it to get down from orbit (and it'd be handy for the Scout service for one) but I'm not sure it has the stuff to take re-entry (a streamlined hull for one) so I'd say no or make it very tough on the crew and craft. Hard to do and bad for the chassis[/QB]

Good points; it just occurred to me today that while you could attain orbit in an air/raft, gradually getting slower and slower as you ascend, I wouldn't fancy trying to descend in one, as the grav engines won't have a much "grip" for slowing you down. Although, come to think of it, the difference in gravity between the surface of a planet and orbit isn't probably that much, so it might well be ok...

cheers,

Mark

 

[hunter]

Yup the text on 262 is correct, the designs are in correct. This is errata.

Moving to the errata forum

Hunter