General A Starship is (NOT) a Starship is (NOT) a Starship …

[atpollard]

There is an assumption among most Traveller players that the different rules all represent the same universe using different Game Mechanics. I always made that assumption. I have been recently reminded that “you can’t prove it from the Ship Design Rules”.

For me, the goal was something simple. I wanted to create a 100 dTon cylinder as a starting point for a low TL interplanetary shuttle (orbit to orbit). As a fortuitous coincidence, a real world rocket from 1968 happens to exist to use as a baseline for comparison: The SATURN II.

• 1968 Saturn II = 10m diameter x 25m tall = 140 dTons; 39 metric tonnes empty mass; $ 290 million. The five engines cost The inflation adjustment from 1968 to 1971 is small enough to ignore, so the cost is MCr 290.

Let us ignore everything except for the HULL (no engines or minimal avionics) and create a 100 dTon hull using the various Traveller rules to compare the ships side by side.

• CT LBB2:81 = 100 dTons; unk. Tonnes; MCr 10
• CT LBB5:80 = 100 dTons; unk. Tonnes; MCr 10
• CT Striker: TL 6 Hard Steel = 100 dTons; 1774 Tonnes; MCr 4.4; (222 cu. m. shell)
• MegaTraveller: TL 6 Hard Steel = 100 dTons; 1320 Tonnes; MCr 1.4
• TNE FF&S: TL 6 Hard Steel = 100 dTons; 1742 Tonnes; MCr 0.3; (218 cu. m. shell)
• CT Striker: TL 7 Composite Laminate = 100 dTons; 776 Tonnes; MCr 7.8; (111 cu. m. shell)
• MegaTraveller: TL 7 Composite Laminate = 100 dTons; 581 Tonnes; MCr 9.8
• TNE FF&S: TL 7 Composite Laminate = 100 dTons; 762 Tonnes; MCr 0.5; (109 cu. m. shell)
• CT Striker: TL 10 Crystaliron = 100 dTons; 554 Tonnes; MCr 5.0; (55 cu. m. shell)
• MegaTraveller: TL 10 Crystaliron = 100 dTons; 409 Tonnes; MCr 4.9
• TNE FF&S: TL 10 Crystaliron = 100 dTons; 545 Tonnes; MCr 0.3; (54 cu. m. shell)
• CT Striker: TL 12 Superdense = 100 dTons; 475 Tonnes; MCr 4.4; (32 cu. m. shell)
• MegaTraveller: TL 12 Superdense = 100 dTons; 211 Tonnes; MCr 4.4
• TNE FF&S: TL 12 Superdense = 100 dTons; 467 Tonnes; MCr 0.3; (31 cu. m. shell)
• CT Striker: TL 14 Bonded SD = 100 dTons; 238 Tonnes; MCr 4.4; (16 cu. m. shell)
• MegaTraveller: TL 14 Bonded SD = 100 dTons; 185 Tonnes; MCr 4.4
• TNE FF&S: TL 14 Bonded SD = 100 dTons; 233 Tonnes; MCr 0.3; (16 cu. m. shell)

So painting with a broad brush, all of the Traveller weights and volumes are in the same “order of magnitude” irrespective of rule system (for those systems that have them) and all are much higher than the Historic Rocket. The COSTS are all over the place with the CT:LBBs and MT most closely matching each other, CT Striker being a factor of 10 higher (and closest to Historic Rocket price) and TNE FF&S being a factor of 10 lower than the LBB prices.

Without comparing real and imaginary DRIVES and POWER PLANTS across editions, the "Hulls" alone appear to describe fairly significantly different realities from one another.

[I am not making any point beyond the observation that the rules are significantly different.]

EDIT: Correct CT Striker Prices (move decimal point 2 places) on 3/25/2023.

 

[Captain_Ahab]

in MT, using 'Hard Times' section on low tech rockets, if the hull is disposable, it would only need an armor rating of '8' so would have a mass of 80 tonnes (hard steel) or ~35 tonnes (composite laminates)
Half that if the stage is not meant to leave the atmosphere

that's without engines, of course

 

[atpollard]

Yeah, each rule system has "cards" that you can play.

CT: LBBs have Drop Tanks that cost less and are "fragile" in combat.
CT: Striker has options for thinner armor (33.6 is just HG Armor 0).
MT Hard Times has "disposable" Rockets.
FF&S has "per-G" armor.

It was looking at all of the options and trying to create a basic TL 12 100 dTon ship in all the different systems as a baseline for comparison that forced me to realize how fundamentally DIFFERENT each ship design system was from each other ... so the ships created by each system MUST be just as different as the systems. Especially in the area of COSTS!

 

[Spinward Flow]

how fundamentally DIFFERENT each ship design system was from each other

Well, they are each fundamentally different paradigm strategies for how to detail the construction of a starship.

 

[mike wightman]

Reality wars - very high TL cultures in T5 can manipulate reality.

When designing TNE Frank Chadwick and Dave Nilsen wanted to go back to reaction mass engines as CT had intended, according to their paradigm there were no reactionless thruster based m-drives in the OTU, nor had there ever been.

 

[Captain_Ahab]

I'd think one of the biggest issues is that CT ignored mass, MT half-assed estimated it by assigning a specific density for all ships
Neither really did reaction engines, for the sake of ease of play most likely

Therefore, Striker, or any system using FF&S (1 or 2) will give different results, all other things being equal

I think most of the differences come down to 'how much paperwork are you willing to put up with'

 

[AnotherDilbert]

• CT LBB2:81 = 100 dTons; unk. Tonnes; MCr 10
• CT LBB5:80 = 100 dTons; unk. Tonnes; MCr 10

Pedantic point: LBB2 minimum cost MCr 20, or MCr 2 for a standard hull..
Add MCr 2 for streamlining, if we are discussing something that can land.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

[I am not making any point beyond the observation that the rules are significantly different.]

Yes, the editions are different, but the resulting ships are not quite so different:

Scout:
LBB2: 100 Dt, MCr 29 (4 state, 3 Dt cargo)
LBB5: 100 Dt, MCr 41 (4 state, 15 Dt cargo) [TL-11]
LBB5: 100 Dt, MCr 31 (4 state, 23 Dt cargo) [TL-15]
MT: 100 Dt, 900 tonnes, MCr 29 (4 state, 3 Dt cargo) [TL-15]
TNE: 100 Dt, 700 tonnes, MCr 50 (4 state, 11.5 Dt cargo) [TL-15]

Are they in the same ballpark (with some massaged designs [MT?])? I would say yes...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Striker, TL-12:

Cylinder 10 m diameter, 25 m tall (~140 Dt).

Area:
Circle: π5² ≈ 78.5 m², top and bottom ≈ 157 m²
Cylinder: Base: 2π5 ≈ 31.4 m × 25 m tall ≈ 785 m²
Total 157 + 785 ≈ 942 m².

AV 40 ≈ 33.6 / 7 ≈ 4.8 cm superdense armour.
942 m² × 0.048 m ≈ 45 m³.
Mass: 45 × 15 ≈ 675 tonnes.
Cost: 45 m³ × 14 kCr = 630 kCr = MCr 0.63.

Your Striker costs are a factor 1000 off?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It was looking at all of the options and trying to create a basic TL 12 100 dTon ship in all the different systems as a baseline for comparison that forced me to realize how fundamentally DIFFERENT each ship design system was from each other ... so the ships created by each system MUST be just as different as the systems. Especially in the area of COSTS!

No, the components balance out to a large degree. MT&TNE hulls may be cheaper, but they have more components to account for, e.g. avionics and life support. The resulting ships are not at all as different as the components.


Simple TL-12 100 Dt, J-2, M-2 ship:

LBB2:

SC-12222R1-000000-00000-0       MCr 28,4         100 Dton
bearing                                            Crew=1
batteries                                           TL=12
                           Cargo=8 Fuel=40 EP=2 Agility=2

Single Occupancy    LBB2 design                     8        31,5
                                     USP    #     Dton       Cost
Hull, Streamlined      100 Dt          1          100         
Configuration       Cone               2                      3
Scoops              Streamlined                               

                                                              
Jump Drive          A                  2    1      10        10
Manoeuvre D         A                  2    1       1         4
Power Plant         A                  2    1       4         8
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-2, 4 weeks            2      40         
                                                              
Bridge                                      1      20         0,5
Computer            m/1bis             R    1       1         4
                                                              
Staterooms                                  4      16         2
                                                              
Cargo                                               8

LBB5:

SC-12222R1-000000-00000-0       MCr 40,9         100 Dton
bearing                                            Crew=1
batteries                                           TL=12
                          Cargo=21 Fuel=22 EP=2 Agility=2

Single Occupancy                                   21        51,1
                                     USP    #     Dton       Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             1          100         
Configuration       Cone               2                     11
Scoops              Streamlined                               0,1
                                                              
Jump Drive                             2    1       3        12
Manoeuvre D                            2    1       5         3,5
Power Plant                            2    1       6        18
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-2, 4 weeks            2      22         
Purifier                                    1       6         0,0
                                                              
Bridge                                      1      20         0,5
Computer            m/1bis             R    1       1         4
                                                              
Staterooms                                  4      16         2
                                                              
Cargo                                              21

MT:




TNE:

(Note the cost is higher because there is no standard rebate in TNE. Otherwise the cost would be the same as LBB5.)


All are 100 Dt, J-2, M-2 with 4 staterooms.
The costs vary from about MCr 30 to MCr 50.
Payload varies from 8 Dton to 30 Dt.
Different? Yes.
Fundamentally different? I would say no.

 

[atpollard]

Striker, TL-12:

Cylinder 10 m diameter, 25 m tall (~140 Dt).

Area:
Circle: π5² ≈ 78.5 m², top and bottom ≈ 157 m²
Cylinder: Base: 2π5 ≈ 31.4 m × 25 m tall ≈ 785 m²
Total 157 + 785 ≈ 942 m².

AV 40 ≈ 33.6 / 7 ≈ 4.8 cm superdense armour.
942 m² × 0.048 m ≈ 45 m³.
Mass: 45 × 15 ≈ 675 tonnes.
Cost: 45 m³ × 14 kCr = 630 kCr = MCr 0.63.

Your Striker costs are a factor 1000 off?

Thank you!
After staring at so many charts with prices in MCr per cubic meters I missed that Striker was Thousands of Credits per cubic Meter.
That will improve prices across editions significantly.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

After so staring at so many charts with prices in MCr per cubic meters I missed that Striker was Thousands of Credits per cubic Meter.

We have all been there.

Using varying units in the tables borders on deliberate sabotage, but might be motivated in Striker as the vehicles are often quite cheap.

 

[atpollard]

Pedantic point: LBB2 minimum cost MCr 20, or MCr 2 for a standard hull..
Add MCr 2 for streamlining, if we are discussing something that can land.

Correct and the worst waste of valuable paper space in a LBB for a rule in CT.
That was a TERRIBLE rule ... use this hull (best bargain in the game) or suffer a x10 cost penalty (MCr 20 vs MCr 2) that no other hull size (200+ dTons) suffers.

They should have used the space to add a row for 300 dTon hulls. ... or add clear rules for landing on Size 8+ worlds.

 

[atpollard]

We have all been there.

Using varying units in the tables borders on deliberate sabotage, but might be motivated in Striker as the vehicles are often quite cheap.

MegaTraveller CONSTANTLY leaves me trying to guess what the unit is in this table.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

MegaTraveller CONSTANTLY leaves me trying to guess what the unit is in this table.

Designing everything from granny's shopping cart to megaton battlewagon with the same system comes with some problems.

Even funnier M-drives are dimensioned by volume, but grav drives per mass, despite being supposed to be the same basic tech...

 

[kilemall]

One critical aspect is that the ship designs are couched in related but version unique economics contexts, I would tend to focus on game effect market prices.

Another is that while we could use ye olde 1977 dollar as the worth of a credit, you could use those cost/currency conversion charts where modern Earth is a starport D TL 7-8 backwater and thus multiples of local currency to standard A TL15 baseline, bringing most of those costs more in line with historical.

Creates some really weird situations when taken out of their campaign support contexts hence decanonization, but does have one sim feature- proportion of economic resources needed to achieve the same thing.

What’s missing is serious qualitative differences between a TL8 generic tube and the TL15 version, and the tech level development costs built into those vehicles vs number built. Build 100 years more of those boosters on an industrial scale and the costs may well drop to Traveller standards.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Yes, the editions are different, but the resulting ships are not quite so different:

Scout:
LBB2: 100 Dt, MCr 29 (4 state, 3 Dt cargo)
LBB5: 100 Dt, MCr 41 (4 state, 15 Dt cargo) [TL-11]
LBB5: 100 Dt, MCr 31 (4 state, 23 Dt cargo) [TL-15]
MT: 100 Dt, 900 tonnes, MCr 29 (4 state, 3 Dt cargo) [TL-15]
TNE: 100 Dt, 700 tonnes, MCr 50 (4 state, 11.5 Dt cargo) [TL-15]

Are they in the same ballpark (with some massaged designs [MT?])? I would say yes...

I would say no.

The Type S in LBB2 is specifically a corner case that provides a player party with a mobile hotel suite, a flying car, and essentially no cargo revenue capability -- but also with .

The LBB5 variants add the ability to carry a small Major-sized (10Dt increments) lot of cargo, for revenue -- in a fully-subsidized ship. This is a problem for play balance.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The LBB5 variants add the ability to carry a small Major-sized (10Dt increments) lot of cargo, for revenue -- in a fully-subsidized ship. This is a problem for play balance.

Who would subsidise that money-pit, and who would be stupid enough to pay the MCr 6-8 downpayment for the privilege of losing money?

With 20 Dt cargo and a subsidy, it becomes something like this:

AL-13222R1-000000-00000-0       MCr 50,1         100 Dton
bearing                                            Crew=1
batteries                                           TL=12
                          Cargo=20 Fuel=22 EP=2 Agility=2

                                                                
Estimated Economy of Ship     Custom                                       
       Ship price     Down Payment         Mortgage       Avg Filled
        MCr 50,13       kCr 10 527          kCr 209              80%
                                                                
Expenses per jump                       Revenue                 
Bank                  Cr     0          High             Cr     0
Fuel                  Cr 2 200          Middle           Cr     0
Life Support          Cr 8 000          Low              Cr     0
Salaries              Cr 2 400          Cargo            Cr 8 000
Maintenance           Cr 2 005                                   
Berthing              Cr   100                                   
                                                                
Summa                kCr    15                          kCr     8
                                                                
     Income potential per jump     kCr -7                   
  Yearly yield on down payment     -1,6%

 

[Grav_Moped]

Who would subsidise that money-pit, and who would be stupid enough to pay the MCr 6-8 downpayment for the privilege of losing money?

LBB1'81, p.25:
"Fuel is free at scout bases. Maintenance is free at the scout bases at class B starports."

 

[AnotherDilbert]

LBB1'81, p.25:
"Fuel is free at scout bases. Maintenance is free at the scout bases at class B starports."

For Detached Duty Scout ships, which your custom 100 Dt ship isn't?