Not to quibble, but this is CotI after all, were you planning on opening up a storefront with that container full of firearms to be able to sell them onesy twosy at retail, or were you going to off load them to a wholesaler?
Frieght charges IMTU
- Thread starter Proneutron
- Start date
Not to quibble, but this is CotI after all, were you planning on opening up a storefront with that container full of firearms to be able to sell them onesy twosy at retail, or were you going to off load them to a wholesaler?
Proneutron
SOC-13
Just searched (have it digitized) LBB 2. Nothing written that 1,000kg is a ship ton. Please quote rule so I can correct my game.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Sure, since you can't find the quotes let me help you:
Note that this is used pre-construction chapter and indicates a ship ton is 1000kg.
The ship construction chapter introduces the term tons of mass displacement, yet nothing says it is 14 cubic metres.
I'm pretty sure you can find the trade quote since it is in several editions which clearly shows that 1 ton of cargo is 1000kg.
So there you have it - there is confusion as to what a ship ton is in CT 77.
If you begin reading LBB2 you come across the term ton many times then you get the equivalence between 1 ton and 1000kg. The mass displacement ton is not defined and at he end of the book one cargo ton is 1000kg.
page 6
Note that this is used pre-construction chapter and indicates a ship ton is 1000kg.
The ship construction chapter introduces the term tons of mass displacement, yet nothing says it is 14 cubic metres.
page 17
I'm pretty sure you can find the trade quote since it is in several editions which clearly shows that 1 ton of cargo is 1000kg.
So there you have it - there is confusion as to what a ship ton is in CT 77.
If you begin reading LBB2 you come across the term ton many times then you get the equivalence between 1 ton and 1000kg. The mass displacement ton is not defined and at he end of the book one cargo ton is 1000kg.
Last edited:
Proneutron
SOC-13
LBB 2 Page 13: REQUIRED STARSHIP COMPONENTS
"The Hull: Hulls are identified by their mass displacement, expressed in tons. As a rough guide, one ton equals 14 cubic meters (the volume of one ton of liquid hydrogen)."
:coffeesip:
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
That's 81 LBB2, not 77 edition which is where the confusion comes from and persists in the trade chapter up until MT.
Another example is that the first mention of tons is the high passage entitles you to one ton of baggage, while middle passage is only 100kg
Another example is that the first mention of tons is the high passage entitles you to one ton of baggage, while middle passage is only 100kg
Proneutron
SOC-13
Why, it is what the VAST MAJORITY of people use who design using the LBBs
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
This is the post I was referring to.
You claim that they have never been mixed up - I have shown that in 77 edition CT they were.
The only reference to mass displacement in 77 edition does not define it and every other example shows that a ton is 1000kg.
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
My examples were given to show that the assumption of 1000 kg for trade items can potentially work for some items based on the pricing given, but the assumption of a 14 m³ dT for trade items is unworkable based on that pricing.
The typical spec trade listing can fit two or more lots of the item into a dT. By modern standards a short ton of goods can generally fit into 100 cubic feet of cargo space, called the British register ton. The dT is nearly five register tons.
As another example, the standard 53' road trailer used in the USA trucking industry is designed for 32 tons gross and measures 3300 cubic feet. The net load would probably be about 28 tons. If you look inside these trailers, they are rarely loaded floor to ceiling except when carrying boxes of lightweight goods that aren't close to the weight limit. Of course, trucks are sometimes packed to 32 tons net and get waivers for the overweight.
The typical spec trade listing can fit two or more lots of the item into a dT. By modern standards a short ton of goods can generally fit into 100 cubic feet of cargo space, called the British register ton. The dT is nearly five register tons.
As another example, the standard 53' road trailer used in the USA trucking industry is designed for 32 tons gross and measures 3300 cubic feet. The net load would probably be about 28 tons. If you look inside these trailers, they are rarely loaded floor to ceiling except when carrying boxes of lightweight goods that aren't close to the weight limit. Of course, trucks are sometimes packed to 32 tons net and get waivers for the overweight.
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
When I later saw deck plans that I didn't know were based on 14 m³ tons, I remember taking careful measurements of an aircraft carrier to determine the volume of a ton, and concluded that the deck plans were about 6 times too big. I wasn't too far off. I had never heard of register tons at the time.LBB2 '77 said:
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Baggage for high passengers was defined as 1 ton in LBB 2 77, then 1000kg in LBB2 81.
The more definitive rule is the example of shotguns as cargo in LBB2 81 page 48, where it is clear the calculation of 266 x 3.75 kg shotguns makes it clear the per ton weight limit IS 1000 kg. The example goes on to say use 200 shotguns and the rest is packaging/crating. This example is duplicated on page 104 of TTB.
Hmm, went back and looked at LBB2 77, same exact example. It's literally been there since the beginning.
So literally, the cargo rules defining what a ton IS in terms of individual subcomponents/lots defines weight limits as 1000kg per ton. It IS part of the original CT rules.
<Shrug> whether you stick with it as a hard rule IYTU or not, the intent and effective ruling on RAW is there.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Straybow, there was an errata placed in LBB4 that adjusted the pricing for air/rafts to Cr 600000 and ATV/AFVss down two to I want to say Cr30000 and Cr70000.
Same errata allows for bulk buys of small arms up to 60% off, so buy in quantity and save save save.
LBB4 Page 43.
Carry on.
Same errata allows for bulk buys of small arms up to 60% off, so buy in quantity and save save save.
LBB4 Page 43.
Carry on.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Ten kilogramme allowance for low berth.
It makes sense for airlines to limit based on weight, since basically it requires more fuel per kilogramme kilometre.
For our spaceships, fuel usage is based on volume, as well as other ship systems.
It makes sense for airlines to limit based on weight, since basically it requires more fuel per kilogramme kilometre.
For our spaceships, fuel usage is based on volume, as well as other ship systems.
Proneutron
SOC-13
Yes, should be by litres rather than kilos. 100 litres = 1/10 cubic meter. Would probably be the correct volume.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
That would make a lot more sense.
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
The resale roll is supposed to cover all the possibilities: can only find a wholesaler who pays less than you originally paid, find a better wholesale deal, find a buyer near or at retail price, or find a really lucky high demand low supply situation. But for anything other than shotguns the pricing doesn't work.
The one-table-fits-all isn't a great buy-sell model, but it makes the trade mechanics simple.
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
uh, those are the prices I used... my point was that they obviously are neither a 1000 kg lot, nor a 1 dT lot.
Proneutron
SOC-13
US Navy ships don't use register tons for displacement measurement but use water displacement tons (2,000lbs.) which = 1 cubic meter. Commercial ships use register tons. Traveller uses volume of 1 metric ton of LHyd. The displacement tonnage of a navy ship is not the volume of the entire ship but only the volume of water it displaces.
Last edited:
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
Register tons work as a measurement because loading a ship in seaworthy manner (can't push the center of gravity too high, can't allow things to shift, etc.) requires that much room. You might notice, I didn't arrive at the same measure as the register ton. An aircraft carrier actually has more empty space than register tonnage would dictate because of the need to move aircraft around on the hangar deck.
Register tonnage is more useful than displacement tonnage precisely because it doesn't merely measure the amount of seawater displaced. Register tonnage doesn't change depending on the actual loading. It measures the whole rather a derived and variable quantity.
A starship isn't floating on, or submerged in, a body of LH2. So calling it "displacement tons" is a misnomer. It's measuring volume in terms of a ridiculously awkward and counterproductive unit.
For example, take the baby brother of the Traveller standard small craft, the 20 dT launch. Is it small? A 737-500 is a bit over 100 feet long, 12x14 foot oval cross section, with a long taper at the rear. A bar-napkin calc of fuselage volume comes to 10,500 ft³, which is about 21 dT. Would you consider a 110+ seat passenger plane (plus cargo space typically in excess of passenger luggage requirements) a "small craft?" I certainly would not. Is that how the launch is depicted in any Traveller art? Definitely not.
A fair amount of Traveller art shows the launch as being more like the size of a city bus compared to human figures nearby. A smallish city bus is roughly 8' x 9' x 29' (just the body, ignoring wheels and ground clearance beneath the body). I'll give you a minute to do the volume calculation...
Register tonnage is more useful than displacement tonnage precisely because it doesn't merely measure the amount of seawater displaced. Register tonnage doesn't change depending on the actual loading. It measures the whole rather a derived and variable quantity.
A starship isn't floating on, or submerged in, a body of LH2. So calling it "displacement tons" is a misnomer. It's measuring volume in terms of a ridiculously awkward and counterproductive unit.
For example, take the baby brother of the Traveller standard small craft, the 20 dT launch. Is it small? A 737-500 is a bit over 100 feet long, 12x14 foot oval cross section, with a long taper at the rear. A bar-napkin calc of fuselage volume comes to 10,500 ft³, which is about 21 dT. Would you consider a 110+ seat passenger plane (plus cargo space typically in excess of passenger luggage requirements) a "small craft?" I certainly would not. Is that how the launch is depicted in any Traveller art? Definitely not.
A fair amount of Traveller art shows the launch as being more like the size of a city bus compared to human figures nearby. A smallish city bus is roughly 8' x 9' x 29' (just the body, ignoring wheels and ground clearance beneath the body). I'll give you a minute to do the volume calculation...
Spoiler:
That's a nice scene. It just makes me think how poorly that camouflage pattern would work on the planets with the pink and purple foliage.
I can't speak for "Most" but I can speak for why I do...
Bk2 is a funky textural universe with the 600Td cargo hauler being the prime mover.
Bk5 is the simplest version.
MT's is building HG ships using Striker rules. It's clumsy, and unfun for many. I used to love it.
FF&S is MT crossed with Frank's design approaches for 1889... and statted out for compatibility with Command Decision Minis. It came out as the wave front sustaining fully integrated simulationism started to collapse in the market. GURPS hogged the Tube, and surfed out with a great finish... GDW hit the reef.
FF&S 2 for T4 was a hot mess. Typographic and layout errors
And all the bad elements of FF&S retained while adding only a few little used ones. Long term Life Support being one.
T20 is the same design system as Bk5... except for computers, streamlining vs airframe being distinguished, and allowing mounts of multiple sizes of a given type, much as MT had done.
GT uses its own systems (plural - G:V and G:T)
I need to slim down my house rules before I even think about running Traveller again.
