Frieght charges IMTU

[coliver988]

I get deck plans & minis and the PDFs include the registered tons. Converting to the 13.5m³ means you just multiple the registered tons by .2098.

From what I read, a registered ton is 100 cubic feet, which is 2.83m³.

So 2088ft³ is 20.88 registered tons or 4.3dTons. So almost 5 buses for a 20 ton launch does seem off.

But, 8x9x29 = 2.43x2.74x8.832 = 59.1255m³ / 13.5 = 4.37dTons. So I think I got the math right. And the 20dT launches are a bit wider and taller so maybe...

And way back I did use 14m³ but for some reason switched to the 13.5. no idea why...

 

[Proneutron]

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. ...

Thanks for the overview. Have you thought of using Cepheus as your core rules (similar to MgT isn't it?) for your next Traveller game? Seems pretty tight from what I see.

 

[Straybow]

I get deck plans & minis and the PDFs include the registered tons. Converting to the 13.5m³ means you just multiple the registered tons by .2098.
...

And way back I did use 14m³ but for some reason switched to the 13.5. no idea why...

I've only seen plans posted here and few other places and nobody mentions anything except dT.

As I understand, Megatraveller or TNE switched to 13.5 as being 2 x (1.5 x 1.5 x 3) for deck plan convenience.

 

[Straybow]

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.

No, no. Every planet has foliage that looks like Earth plants. It's in all the TV shows and movies except Avatar (which is crap scifi anyway).

Judging by the size of the figure, the launch is even smaller than 20 register tons. Probably 15 register tons. The diameter looks to be about 8', but the circular cross section makes it much smaller (at least 22% for reducing square to circle). The taper in front and back again reduces it from the bus profile if it's only a little bit longer.

 

[coliver988]

I've only seen plans posted here and few other places and nobody mentions anything except dT.

As I understand, Megatraveller or TNE switched to 13.5 as being 2 x (1.5 x 1.5 x 3) for deck plan convenience.

These deck plans / minis are from Kickstarter & the guy uses 3D software so gets the actual volume (and converts to registered tonnage which I then convert to displacement). The accompanying PDF includes that info. They are not really good for Traveller (not enough fuel tankage) but I like them & use them anyway. Very pretty and the posters are fun on the table. Though the 1st I backed was the Grendel, very obviously a Beowulf trader. He is also the artist behind most of the Firefly RPG ships and a few other games.

Yeah, I think though I never played MT per se the deck plans I was accumulating (I'm a deck plan hoarder apparently) made the switch so I did as well.

 

[whartung]

No, no. Every planet has foliage that looks like Earth plants. It's in all the TV shows and movies except Avatar (which is crap scifi anyway).

You're absolutely right. My apologies. I agree.

I'm basically a proponent of Johnny Quest Traveller.

 

[welsh]

No, no. Every planet has foliage that looks like Earth plants.

This is a scientific fact. Indeed, I have learned from Stargate: SG-1 that all alien planets look like the lower mainland of British Columbia.

 

[Grav_Moped]

No, no. Every planet has foliage that looks like Earth plants. It's in all the TV shows and movies except Avatar (which is crap scifi anyway)....

You're absolutely right. My apologies. I agree.

I'm basically a proponent of Johnny Quest Traveller.

This is a scientific fact. Indeed, I have learned from Stargate: SG-1 that all alien planets look like the lower mainland of British Columbia.

The universe has changed over time. Alien planets once all looked like Vasquez Rocks Natural Area Park, north of Los Angeles.

 

[Timerover51]

I am not sure why people are quoting the various rules books as if they are determinant, when this is the In My Traveller Universe thread. That implies that the rules as written are going to be changed by the person using them as a starting point. The original post was showing the freight charges that might be used in his Universe.

I am working up ship design rules based on the Cepheus Engine rules, with a fair number of changes. The cost of a ship's hull no longer is based on an arbitary jump of anywhere from 4 to 16 Million Credits for an increase of hull size by 100 Traveller displacement tons (which I treat as the volume of 1 metric ton of Liquid Hydrogen, approximately 14 cubic meters, rounding also to 500 cubic feet or 5 gross register tons, the actual volume is 14.114326 cubic meters or 498.44 Cubic Feet). The reason for using Gross Register Tons is that I have a large amount of actual cargo stowage data based on the Gross Register Ton of 100 cubic feet and the Measurement Ton of 40 cubic feet and the volume occupied by 1 long ton of 2240 pounds, slightly larger than the metric ton equivalent to 2205 pounds.

A 800 dTon hull size represnts an increase if volume over a 100 ton ship of 8, but the surface area of the ship, the hull, if of similar shape, will only go up by a factor of 4. The cost of an 800 dTon hull in Cepheus is 80 Million Credits compared to a 100 dTon hull at 2 Million Credits. That is an increase of hull cost by a factor of 40, which is basically an arbitrary number without any supporting explanation. I am going with a flat charge of 20,000 Credits per ton of hull displacement, with a drop in cost per ton for ships larger than 1000 tons. This still is higher than it should be for larger ships, but it avoids getting into things like two-thirds roots for computing surface area. Plugging this is means that a 600 dTon Subsidized Merchant hull costs 12 Million Credits instead of 48 Million Credits. Jump Drive costs stay the same, but Power Plant and Maneuver Drives change a bit in cost. The Power Plant must match the Maneuver Drive, as I am using the reactionless Dean Drive for maneuver.

Before someone jumps in and claims that it too low and makes trading easy, I am also plugging in much more reasonable charges for the annual overhaul, changing form 0.1 per cent of the cost of the ship per year to 1 per cent of the cost of the ship per year. The ships are also required to be crewed with 3 watches, so your crew cost roughly triple, as I am adjusting crew pay as well. Then there is the matter of insurance. That I am still working on.

I am still crunching numbers as to cargo charges, but as most of the planets in my Out Rim Sector are 2 to 4 parsecs apart, standard cargo fees may vary a bit from the Rules As Written ones. Then there are the Hyperdrive Ships to plug in as well. They take longer to get places, either one parsec a month or one parsec a week, but can carry more cargo and/or passengers as they do not have the massive Jump Fuel requirement. Their Hyperdrives also cost more than Jump Drives. I am still working on that.

As for vegetation, I am working on collecting as wide a range of images of various vegetation, from Australian Bottle Trees to Banyan Trees to desert cactus to trees ferns, so that every planet does not look alike. There are planets that resemble the vegetation of the various types of jungle found on the island of New Britain in the South Pacific to the cool temperate rain forests of the Pacific Northwest, to the plains of the Midwest to the forests of New England, and the rolling hills of the Lake District of Great Britain. Then there are variations in terrain as well, from coastlines with rugged cliffs to sandy beaches, along with mountains and desert images. Some will be in color, and others black and white to be customized as you want

Shameless publishing plug. For some idea as to images of other planets, check out my Free Clip Art sampler at DriveThru, http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=38936
and my images of possible Martian terrain in the Imperial Museum of Art under Locations.

 

[Straybow]

No, I was wrong. The rounded shapes and viewing angle throw off the eyeball measurements for the man and the launch. DLed the pic and made some careful measurements: a smidge under 13' diameter, and about 44' long, with the front 13.5' tapering to a snub cone. Assuming the person is an average 5' 9" man the volume of the ship would be about 4750 cu ft, which is about 10 dT. A type K Safari Yacht normally has one 20 dT launch, but perhaps this has two 10 dT mini-launches.

I would bet that a floor plan has a significant amount of wasted space. The diameter is a bit less than the A320, which seats 2-and-2 in first class with a seat pitch a bit over 3 feet allowing about 6 rows in the middle section of this craft (with two seats removed for access) totaling 22 seats. I've only seen one 20 dT floor plan with 22 passenger seats, most have about half as many. The A320 has about 1/3 of the fuselage below the floor dedicated to standardized luggage/cargo containers, while floor plans typically stick close to standard 3 m height and ignore the idea of a cargo deck.

However, I'm correct about the A/R. To be 4 dT it would need to be 4/10 the size of the mini-launch. It's about 1/3 the length and probably less than half the height, but more rectangular. Somewhere near 1½ dT.

Now let's make some measurements. It is about 8' x 14.5', and I'm guessing the seat backs are about 3.5' high from the cabin floor (not a low slung bucket seat, more like a "captain's chair" minivan seat). That comes to 406 cu ft "box" around the A/R. Add 1.5' for headroom and the "box" is 580 cu ft, a bit under 6 register tons, and a bit over 1 dT.

The passenger cabin itself is only 6' wide and 8.5' long from the front of the windscreen. The cabin is only 178.5 cu ft, throw in another 75 cu ft for ~1.5' headroom under a hard top. My minivan has a cargo capacity of 160 cu ft behind the front seats (2nd and 3rd row seats folded into the floor), and seats 6 very comfortably (3x2 instead of 2x3).

 

[Straybow]

I am not sure why people are quoting the various rules books as if they are determinant, when this is the In My Traveller Universe thread. That implies that the rules as written are going to be changed by the person using them as a starting point. The original post was showing the freight charges that might be used in his Universe.

One must understand how thoroughly broken the OTU is in order to make suitable changes IMTU.

As for hull cost, the larger hulls should cost more per unit measurement. Larger spans mean larger cross section structural members to achieve the same strength. If, for example, you start with an I beam and want it to span a greater distance, if material thickness and width stay the same you would need cube root of span ratio beam depth.

If you use that as a very rough guide, the cost per unit area of hull would go up by cube root of dimensional ratio. Frame cost would also go up by the cube root ratio. That size ratio is the cube root of the volume ratio, so the cost goes up by ninth root of volume ratio. Doubling the volume would be 108% of the per volume cost for the same structural shape.

This applies to cylindrical designs that increase only the length (say, launch and boat are the same diameter). The length increase is much larger than it would be if each dimension increased proportionally. The cost per volume would be close enough that the difference can be ignored in a game.

 

[Straybow]

The universe has changed over time. Alien planets once all looked like Vasquez Rocks Natural Area Park, north of Los Angeles.

Those are desert planets. We don't like to hang around on them as much as the planets with nicer foliage.

 

[Proneutron]

I am going with a flat charge of 20,000 Credits per ton of hull displacement, with a drop in cost per ton for ships larger than 1000 tons.

Excellent idea. War ships of course will pay for armor as it should be. But I like the idea.

 

[Proneutron]

A starship isn't floating on, or submerged in, a body of LH2. So calling it "displacement tons" is a misnomer.

No, it is an accurate measurement of the VOLUME of the hull. It matters not what you are measuring for displaced medium as long as it is something that can be quantified and is of a scale to be meaningful. In a spaceship what the enclosed volume is becomes critical when designing for obvious reasons. Not measuring actual enclosed volume for the same is useless in designing.

Anyway this isn't the topic of this thread but rather Freight charges...

 

[Grav_Moped]

Those are desert planets. We don't like to hang around on them as much as the planets with nicer foliage.

This is how we advance in the future: finding better alien planets.

 

[Timerover51]

No, it is an accurate measurement of the VOLUME of the hull. It matters not what you are measuring for displaced medium as long as it is something that can be quantified and is of a scale to be meaningful. In a spaceship what the enclosed volume is becomes critical when designing for obvious reasons. Not measuring actual enclosed volume for the same is useless in designing.

Anyway this isn't the topic of this thread but rather Freight charges...

Freight charges are based on how much can be carried by a means of transport which is intimately connected to how much volume that the means of transport has.

For example, when the water levels of the Great Lakes were low a few years back, the cost to ship cargo per ton went up because the cost of ship operation remained the same, but less cargo could be carried, so the cost of ship operation was spread over a lesser tonnage of cargo. This year, with the Lake water levels at record highs, shipping costs per ton are lower because they are spread over a larger quantity of cargo. The ships are the same, their costs, except for lower fuel costs, are the same, but the amount of cargo carried is greater.

 

[Proneutron]

Freight charges are based on how much can be carried by a means of transport which is intimately connected to how much volume that the means of transport has.

Who said it didn't??? :coffeesip:

 

[whartung]

I am working up ship design rules based on the Cepheus Engine rules, with a fair number of changes. The cost of a ship's hull no longer is based on an arbitary jump of anywhere from 4 to 16 Million Credits for an increase of hull size by 100 Traveller displacement tons (which I treat as the volume of 1 metric ton of Liquid Hydrogen, approximately 14 cubic meters, rounding also to 500 cubic feet or 5 gross register tons, the actual volume is 14.114326 cubic meters or 498.44 Cubic Feet). The reason for using Gross Register Tons is that I have a large amount of actual cargo stowage data based on the Gross Register Ton of 100 cubic feet and the Measurement Ton of 40 cubic feet and the volume occupied by 1 long ton of 2240 pounds, slightly larger than the metric ton equivalent to 2205 pounds.

So, just out of curiosity, why are you making "rules" for your TU for ship design.

Why not just make "ships"? and then decisions by fiat?

How many ships do you plan to have in your TU scenarios that a new design system is justified to be created?

It's all understandable for a rule system, ala Traveller. A set of rules to allow players to build ships for their campaigns and share designs with other using the same basis.

But for an internal campaign? Is it really that important to know how much a ship costs or anything of that nature, vs just grabbing some graph paper, a pencil, and eyeballing out a ship design (i.e. a map of rooms and corridors and how many lasers are on it) in an evening in front of the TV?

Consider, there's not "house design" system in Traveller, yet everyone has maps of rooms, filled with exotic lab equipment, cases of merchandise, secret files, and quarters for armed goons. How much does it cost? Nobody cares. How long did it take to build? Nobody cares. How many watts is the microwave oven? What's the water bill? Nobody cares.

But stick that "house" in space, and, well...That's Different.

I mean, if making a ship design system is your calling, full speed ahead. We muse on the fantastical here. But just curious what the end game is for it vs just making some ships for your stories and your players out of the blue. "Start with a piece of wood, and carve away everything that doesn't look like a starship."

 

[Timerover51]

So, just out of curiosity, why are you making "rules" for your TU for ship design.

Why not just make "ships"? and then decisions by fiat?

How many ships do you plan to have in your TU scenarios that a new design system is justified to be created?

It's all understandable for a rule system, ala Traveller. A set of rules to allow players to build ships for their campaigns and share designs with other using the same basis.

But for an internal campaign? Is it really that important to know how much a ship costs or anything of that nature, vs just grabbing some graph paper, a pencil, and eyeballing out a ship design (i.e. a map of rooms and corridors and how many lasers are on it) in an evening in front of the TV?

Consider, there's not "house design" system in Traveller, yet everyone has maps of rooms, filled with exotic lab equipment, cases of merchandise, secret files, and quarters for armed goons. How much does it cost? Nobody cares. How long did it take to build? Nobody cares. How many watts is the microwave oven? What's the water bill? Nobody cares.

But stick that "house" in space, and, well...That's Different.

I mean, if making a ship design system is your calling, full speed ahead. We muse on the fantastical here. But just curious what the end game is for it vs just making some ships for your stories and your players out of the blue. "Start with a piece of wood, and carve away everything that doesn't look like a starship."

I am planning to publish a variant of the Cepheus Engine rules, along with an entire sector to use them in. There will be some other changes as well with respect to personal weaponry and trade, to say nothing of very odd things being able to occur. Metamorphosis Alpha anyone? Or Silverlock? Mongo? Barsoom?

 

[Straybow]

No, it is an accurate measurement of the VOLUME of the hull. It matters not what you are measuring for displaced medium as long as it is something that can be quantified and is of a scale to be meaningful. In a spaceship what the enclosed volume is becomes critical when designing for obvious reasons. Not measuring actual enclosed volume for the same is useless in designing.

Anyway this isn't the topic of this thread but rather Freight charges...

For a wet vessel, displacement tonnage is important because it changes based on the load. For a vessel that isn't floating on a liquid the use of "displacement tons" is meaningless as there is nothing to displace. Second, the scale of the "hydrogen displacement ton" is not of a scale that is meaningful. That's why we use register tons for measuring useful cargo space.