FFS3 for T5

[robject]

Providing detailed design layers in support of Traveller is a strength of Traveller.

T5 seeks to stay in the spirit of CT without slavishly copying it. I think one aspect of CT is the small-starship modular design system; i.e. Book 2.

At the same time, it's plain that T5 needs a resource for cooking up a large range of ships, such as the Azhanti High Lightning, or a Kokirrak, or a Gig. In short, it needs a technical architecture book, along the lines of Fire, Fusion, and Steel.

What I'd like to know is what technical design system -- MT's design system, FFS, FFS2, or something else -- can be useed as a layer under CT's starship design. A layer for creating the modular components used in building guns, vehicles, starships.

Take Book 2. It's a set of finished components for small starships. I would like it to be the output of a technical architecture system close to the level of Fire, Fusion, and Steel.

What, in your opinion, should be used to design components? How close can such a system come to actually producing the charts in Book 2?

I doubt Book 2 ought to be slavishly adhered to; on the other hand, there are some key defining traditions that I think really ought to be preserved: for instance, the Type A Free Trader ought to have a Jump Drive A, Maneuver Drive A, Power Plant A, Model/1 computer, and cost around MCr37.

 

[mike wightman]

A combination of FF&S 1 and 2, and the extra high TL bits from MT, would be the perfect gearheads bible upon which to base a more modular assembly system IMHO.

The people who enjoy such things could design the modules to be listed in the tables, which could then be selected easily in a manner similar to LBB2.

As to how easy this would be to achieve...

 

[robject]

I think you've summed it up.

Easy? Bah! Easy tasks aren't worth attempting...

I'll get started.

What I need now are a couple of patient Travellers who don't mind wading through the formulae... with an eye toward the various modes of Traveller space combat as well... egads, the miasma...

Here, I'll break it out a little more:

</font>

• FFS2 base, tweaked for CT-like results
  </font>
  • </font>
  • Hull creation rules re-aligned
    </font>
    • </font>
    • Hull materials list analyzed!</font>
  • Drive module creation rules re-aligned</font>
  • Laser weapon rules re-aligned</font>
  • more?</font>
• FFS1 alternate tech adapted into the base
  </font>
  • Stutterwarp</font>
  • Stargates</font>
  • Keyhole drives</font>
  • more?</font>
  </font>
• MT high-tech stuff adapted into the base
  </font>
  • TL16-TL21 stuff</font>
  • Alternate power plants</font>
  • more?</font>
  </font>

 

[robject]

Okay Sigg, here's my first question, er, problem. Thruster plates.

In both FFS and FFS2, one cubic meter of drive produces 400 kN of thrust, requires 1 MW of input power, and costs ... ach, I've forgotten the cost. Something like MCr1? But that's no never-mind. Let's move on.

I'm going to be a bit sloppy with the Classic Traveller numbers, in order to make it play nice. After all, it was not intended to be other than what it is.

In Classic Traveller, approximately two tons of drive pushes a 100 ton starship at 2 Gs, costs MCr4, and maybe takes around 1 EP. (I know, it's actually one ton, but the drive progression is by twos, so I made an arbitrary change out of laziness).

I note that FFS and FFS2 use 13.5 cubic meters per ton.

So, 27 cubic meters of drive produces 100 * 10kN = 1000 kN of thrust; therefore, 1 cubic meter produces 37 kN. Are we off by a factor of ten?

But don't answer yet, because the input power per cubic meter is about 9 MW. Are we still off by about a factor of ten? Oh, eleven? My stars.

And finally, the cost per cubic meter is about KCr150. Off by a factor of seven. No surprises there.

So the problem is that FFS thruster plates are just too good for the Classic Traveller world, roughly by a factor of 10.

My next question would be: how do I treat the real tech thrust agencies in FFS? They're probably accurate. And should HEPlaR be changed, or left as-is?

 

[robject]

So, what I'm looking for is something like this:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">TL Type kN/m3 KCr/m3 MW/m3 TT/t MCr/t EP/t
-- --------------------- ----- ------ ----- ---- ----- ----
11 Thruster Plates/11 37 148 9* 50+ 2.0+ 0.5+

* might be lower.
+ derived numbers, by multiplying the previous set by 13.5
(then dividing by 250 for the EPs column),
rounding up, truncating to two significant digits or one decimal place. </pre>[/QUOTE]Chloe is a Naval Architect, and is designing a thruster plate module. She wants it to be able to push a 150-ton ship at 3 G's; consulting the table, she knows she needs 120 cubic meters (3Gs x 150t * 10kN / 37 kN/m3), or 9 tons (3Gs x 150t/50TT/t). She produces these outputs from the process:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Technical Architecture Device Specification (TADS):
KAM TL Name Type Vol kN MCr MW
---- -- ---------- ------------------------ ---- ----- ------ ----
TADS, 11, CH3150, Thruster Plate Device/11, 122, 4514, 18.06, 1098

Technical Architecture Module Specification (TAMS):
KAM TL Name Type Vol TT MCr EP
---- -- ---------- ------------------------ --- ---- ----- ----
TAMS, 11, CH3150, Thruster Plate Module/11, 9, 450, 18, 4.5</pre>[/QUOTE]The system is categorized (Vilani root /kam/) according to output direction (technical device vs simple module) and the output is in a highly-portable CSV format.

 

[mike wightman]

Emm, both versions of FF&S use 14m^3 per displacement ton

Also the rule of thumb in FF&S1 is that 10t of thrust are needed to produce 1G acceleration per displacement ton of ship - provided that the ship's final density isn't greater than 15 tonnes per displacement ton, if it is then the true maneuver thrust has to be calculated.

So a 150t ship would require 4500t of thrust to make 3G, which requires 4500/40 = 112.5m^3 of thrusters or 8 displacement tons rounding to the nearest 0.5 displacement ton.

FF&S2 numbers are a little bit harsher in that 10kN(1tonne) of thrust is required per ship m^3, which means 140kN(14t) of thrust are required per displacement ton per G rating.
Ships are assumed to have a density of 14t per displacement ton.

So that 150dt scout requires 63000kN(4200t) of thrust to produce 3G.

So that requires 64000/400 = 157.5m^3 of thruster plate, or 11.25 displacement tons.

So while the thrust is the same in both editions it is the avergage density of the ship which changes.

 

[robject]

That's really odd, because 13.5 just worked much better in the equations! Funny...

Average density is a bugbear. So that's what Marc was talking about. I suppose I have to go back to the drawing board.

 

[robject]

Here's an example from Marc about density assumptions.

For example, a 10 ton launch. It has a volume of 135 cubic meters. If filled with Liquid Hydrogen, it would mass 10 tons. If filled with water, it would mass 135 tons.

A 3 meter diameter hull section 1.5 meter long is about 15 m^2. Assuming the hull is 10 cm thick, and titanium (4540 kg per m^3) then it's 680 kg per section. Interior fittings could round that out to 1000 kg per 1.5 m section. The cubage of that section 1.5m is 10.6 m^3
(3.14*(1.5^2)*1.5) or just less than one ton (0.8 tons).

Let's assume cargo is half the density of water = 500 kg/m^2, = 7 tons per "ton". Plus one ton per "ton" for structure.

So let's say:

Structure is 1.5 tons (= 1000 kg) per displacement ton. Payload is +12 tons per displacement ton.

A 10-ton launch, empty, masses 15 tons of structure.
A 10-ton launch, payload is (7? Displacement tons) = 84 tons.

A 10-ton launch loaded, is 99,000 kg = 99 tons.


A 727 fuselage is 2.5 squares = 3.7 m wide. And the useful length (omit tail and end section) is about 24 squares = 36 meters long. Empty (counts wings) = 45,000 kg and max = 95,000 kg.

 

[mike wightman]

Well according to the FFS1 approximation a 10t launch would have a mass of 100 to 140 tonnes.

In FFS2 it would be the maximum in that range.

The ships that are likely to break the average density rule are the armoured warships, their dense hulls taking them over the 10-14 t per dt threshold.

 

[robject]

So, in FFS1, Thrust = accel * volume * 10
and in FFS2, Thrust = accel * volume * 140

And FFS1 drive vol(m3) = Thrust/40
and FFS2 drive vol(m3) = Thrust/400

Looks like Marc picked 10TT because it's easier to work with the numbers while still being realistic.

And I suppose if ships are too loaded they would presumably have to use a harsher mechanic.

 

[mike wightman]

Yep, you have to start using actual mass rather than the guesstimate...

 

[Anthony]

Well, unless you decide that manuever drives are actually volume-based, in which case you wind up with some interesting effects (such as really really thick armor).

 

[robject]

And we know that FFS1/2 forced a design evaluation, especially for ships which have excessive armor.

So with these assumptions
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">TL Type TT/m3 KCr/m3 MW/m3
-- --------------------- ----- ------ -----
11 Thruster Plates/11 80 150 9* </pre>[/QUOTE]We get these outputs:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Technical Architecture Device/Module Specification (TADS/TAMS):
KAM TL Name Type Vol TT MCr Power
---- -- ---------- ------------------------ ---- ----- ------ -----
TADS, 11, CH3150, Thruster Plate Device/11, 56, 450, 8.44, 506MW
TAMS, 11, CH3150, Thruster Plate Module/11, 4, 450, 8, 2EP</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[robject]

Here's the standard drives. Since I don't have thrust numbers handy, I'm guesstimating on the later drives.

Note I must have a bug in my calculations, because in order to approximate CT's maneuver drive I had to tweak the thrust value.
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Data Used:

TL Type TT/m3 KCr/m3 MW/m3
-- --------------------- ----- ------ -----
11 Thruster Plates/11 75 150 9*

* might be lower.</pre>[/QUOTE]Data:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Technical Architecture Device/Module Specification (TADS/TAMS):
KAM TL Name Type Vol TT MCr Power
---- -- ---------- ------------------------ ---- ----- ------ -----
TADS, 11, Type A , M-Drive Device/11 , 27, 200, 4, 240MW
TAMS, 11, Type A , M-Drive Module/11 , 2, 200, 4, 1EP
TADS, 11, Type B , M-Drive Device/11 , 53, 400, 8, 480MW
TAMS, 11, Type B , M-Drive Module/11 , 4, 400, 8, 2EP
TADS, 11, Type C , M-Drive Device/11 , 80, 600, 12, 720MW
TAMS, 11, Type C , M-Drive Module/11 , 6, 600, 12, 3EP
TADS, 11, Type D , M-Drive Device/11 , 107, 800, 16, 960MW
TAMS, 11, Type D , M-Drive Module/11 , 8, 800, 16, 4EP
TADS, 11, Type E , M-Drive Device/11 , 133, 1000, 20, 1200MW
TAMS, 11, Type E , M-Drive Module/11 , 10, 1000, 20, 5EP
TADS, 11, Type F , M-Drive Device/11 , 160, 1200, 24, 1440MW
TAMS, 11, Type F , M-Drive Module/11 , 11, 1200, 24, 6EP
TADS, 11, Type G , M-Drive Device/11 , 187, 1400, 28, 1680MW
TAMS, 11, Type G , M-Drive Module/11 , 13, 1400, 28, 7EP
TADS, 11, Type H , M-Drive Device/11 , 213, 1600, 32, 1920MW
TAMS, 11, Type H , M-Drive Module/11 , 15, 1600, 32, 8EP
TADS, 11, Type J , M-Drive Device/11 , 267, 2000, 40, 2400MW
TAMS, 11, Type J , M-Drive Module/11 , 19, 2000, 40, 10EP

...etc...</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[mike wightman]

You've used 13.5m^3 per displacement ton in that chart haven't you?

 

[robject]

Good point. I'll revise the script.

Ah, that looks a little better.

The script is here: http://eaglestone.pocketempires.com/scripts/tads-tp.html

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Technical Architecture Device/Module Specification (TADS/TAMS):
KAM TL Name Type Vol TT MCr Power
---- -- ---------- ------------------------ ---- ----- ------ -----
TADS, 11, Type A , M-Drive Device/11 , 27, 200, 4, 240MW
TAMS, 11, Type A , M-Drive Module/11 , 2, 200, 4, 1EP
TADS, 11, Type B , M-Drive Device/11 , 53, 400, 8, 480MW
TAMS, 11, Type B , M-Drive Module/11 , 4, 400, 8, 2EP
TADS, 11, Type C , M-Drive Device/11 , 80, 600, 12, 720MW
TAMS, 11, Type C , M-Drive Module/11 , 6, 600, 12, 3EP
TADS, 11, Type D , M-Drive Device/11 , 107, 800, 16, 960MW
TAMS, 11, Type D , M-Drive Module/11 , 8, 800, 16, 4EP
TADS, 11, Type E , M-Drive Device/11 , 133, 1000, 20, 1200MW
TAMS, 11, Type E , M-Drive Module/11 , 10, 1000, 20, 5EP
TADS, 11, Type F , M-Drive Device/11 , 160, 1200, 24, 1440MW
TAMS, 11, Type F , M-Drive Module/11 , 12, 1200, 24, 6EP
TADS, 11, Type G , M-Drive Device/11 , 213, 1600, 32, 1920MW
TAMS, 11, Type G , M-Drive Module/11 , 16, 1600, 32, 8EP
TADS, 11, Type H , M-Drive Device/11 , 240, 1800, 36, 2160MW
TAMS, 11, Type H , M-Drive Module/11 , 18, 1800, 36, 9EP
TADS, 11, Type J , M-Drive Device/11 , 293, 2200, 44, 2640MW
TAMS, 11, Type J , M-Drive Module/11 , 22, 2200, 44, 11EP
TADS, 11, Type K , M-Drive Device/11 , 347, 2600, 52, 3120MW
TAMS, 11, Type K , M-Drive Module/11 , 26, 2600, 52, 12EP
TADS, 11, Type L , M-Drive Device/11 , 400, 3000, 60, 3600MW
TAMS, 11, Type L , M-Drive Module/11 , 30, 3000, 60, 14EP
TADS, 11, Type M , M-Drive Device/11 , 453, 3400, 68, 4080MW
TAMS, 11, Type M , M-Drive Module/11 , 34, 3400, 68, 16EP
TADS, 11, Type N , M-Drive Device/11 , 507, 3800, 76, 4560MW
TAMS, 11, Type N , M-Drive Module/11 , 38, 3800, 76, 18EP
TADS, 11, Type P , M-Drive Device/11 , 560, 4200, 84, 5040MW
TAMS, 11, Type P , M-Drive Module/11 , 41, 4200, 84, 20EP
TADS, 11, Type Q , M-Drive Device/11 , 613, 4600, 92, 5520MW
TAMS, 11, Type Q , M-Drive Module/11 , 45, 4600, 92, 22EP
TADS, 11, Type R , M-Drive Device/11 , 667, 5000, 100, 6000MW
TAMS, 11, Type R , M-Drive Module/11 , 49, 5000, 100, 24EP
TADS, 11, Type S , M-Drive Device/11 , 733, 5500, 110, 6600MW
TAMS, 11, Type S , M-Drive Module/11 , 54, 5500, 110, 26EP
TADS, 11, Type T , M-Drive Device/11 , 800, 6000, 120, 7200MW
TAMS, 11, Type T , M-Drive Module/11 , 59, 6000, 120, 29EP
TADS, 11, Type U , M-Drive Device/11 , 867, 6500, 130, 7800MW
TAMS, 11, Type U , M-Drive Module/11 , 64, 6500, 130, 31EP
TADS, 11, Type V , M-Drive Device/11 , 933, 7000, 140, 8400MW
TAMS, 11, Type V , M-Drive Module/11 , 69, 7000, 140, 34EP
TADS, 11, Type W , M-Drive Device/11 , 1067, 8000, 160, 9600MW
TAMS, 11, Type W , M-Drive Module/11 , 79, 8000, 160, 38EP
TADS, 11, Type X , M-Drive Device/11 , 1200, 9000, 180, 10800MW
TAMS, 11, Type X , M-Drive Module/11 , 89, 9000, 180, 43EP
TADS, 11, Type Y , M-Drive Device/11 , 1333, 10000, 200, 12000MW
TAMS, 11, Type Y , M-Drive Module/11 , 99, 10000, 200, 48EP
TADS, 11, Type Z , M-Drive Device/11 , 1600, 12000, 240, 14400MW
TAMS, 11, Type Z , M-Drive Module/11 , 119, 12000, 240, 58EP</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[aramis]

Only MT used 13.5 m^3 per Td.
FF&S1 used the same drive tables, but 14 m^3 per ton.

 

[robject]

There it is, right on page 10.

And yet despite that, the numbers do look better.

 

[robject]

Some suggest that FFS might be a tad too granular to be really useful, if only because gearheads only use something like FFS for their own designs, and that the loss of granularity in producing more abstract versions (what I'm calling modules) of their detailed designs (what I'm calling devices) does not appeal to them.

The suggestion is to mine the more gamist MT system for this kind of system, and let the gearheads derive a more technical basis from it if they want.

While abandoning support for Insular Gearheadism appeals to me, I'm still not sure. I have a lot to think about.

In the meantime, if formulae derived, using FFS1 as a design guide, approximates MT-levels of complexity and produces Book-2-levels of abstraction in parallel with more detailed devices, then nothing is lost (can't lose something that doesn't exist).

 

[robject]

Next up: fusion power.

Again I'm going to have to depart slightly from Book 2 in volumes. The templates I get, assuming Book 2 is TL12 fusion power, is:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Type A power plant
2 EPs @ 3t @ MCr 8; 2t fuel/2 weeks
or
500MW @ 42 kl @ MCr 8; 14 kl fuel/week

and therefore

Type 1/2A power plant
1 EP @ 1.5t @ MCr 4; 1t fuel/2 weeks
or
250MW @ 21 kl @ MCr 4; 7 kl fuel/week</pre>[/QUOTE]I've fiddled with TL here, but I haven't yet tried to square it with High Guard, MegaTraveller, or FFS, or T4. But as an exercise, I played with TL as a performance modifier and initially got this:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">EPs : (TL/4) - 1
Volume : 40/TL
MCr : 100/TL
Fuel : 0.667 kl/kl plant per week</pre>[/QUOTE]I haven't decided if finding formulae matters or not...