Round Trip?
- Thread starter Rigel Stardin
- Start date
DangerousThing
SOC-13
From what I remember of history, a Greek philosopher calculated the diameter of the Earth within 10% in sometime BC. He observed the behavior of sunshine in deep wells.
Thank you.
Rigel Stardin
SOC-13
My statement about Columbus was intended to point toward the attitude of the culture at the time. I’m well aware his voyage was more about the trade and economics otherwise the Queen of Spain wouldn’t have hocked the family jewels. Such attitudes can hinder exploration especial since those advising the King saw his ideas about the planet as utter nonsense.
I should have made myself clearer at the beginning of this thread. Basically I want to discuss early space travel when the only Jump Drive you have is a Jump 1.
Fuel Scoops and Purification Plants allow you to harvest fuel from any environment containing Hydrogen; the issue is ships without this equipment, where do they get their fuel from? Yes, I’m aware you can just dump water in the fuel tanks and let your power plant do the cracking. But there are dangers involved in doing this. Early traders and explorers might do this but they run the risk of damaging their ships.
There is also a technical point here as well. Isn’t using water similar to using Diesel in a gasoline engine? Most early cultures are not going to have the ability to us water in their power plants since they designed them to run on pure hydrogen. That is a later development along with fuel scoops and purification plants.
This brings me back to the point I was making about trading in hostile territory, even if you can separate hydrogen from the environment, it would be a specialized piece of equipment. It would take time for this device to crack the hydrogen fuel needed for your ship and that could get you killed.
Traveller setting is based mature stellar culture. Everything you need to travel the stars is there without such concerns. I’m just trying to figure out how they got there…
I should have made myself clearer at the beginning of this thread. Basically I want to discuss early space travel when the only Jump Drive you have is a Jump 1.
Fuel Scoops and Purification Plants allow you to harvest fuel from any environment containing Hydrogen; the issue is ships without this equipment, where do they get their fuel from? Yes, I’m aware you can just dump water in the fuel tanks and let your power plant do the cracking. But there are dangers involved in doing this. Early traders and explorers might do this but they run the risk of damaging their ships.
There is also a technical point here as well. Isn’t using water similar to using Diesel in a gasoline engine? Most early cultures are not going to have the ability to us water in their power plants since they designed them to run on pure hydrogen. That is a later development along with fuel scoops and purification plants.
This brings me back to the point I was making about trading in hostile territory, even if you can separate hydrogen from the environment, it would be a specialized piece of equipment. It would take time for this device to crack the hydrogen fuel needed for your ship and that could get you killed.
Traveller setting is based mature stellar culture. Everything you need to travel the stars is there without such concerns. I’m just trying to figure out how they got there…
If you don't know how to make jumps into empty space and don't have neighboring systems one parsec away, then you have a problem. But it's a problem that has nothing whatsoever to do with fuel capacity. If you're on a main, you can go four parsecs out and still have enough fuel to return without refuelling.
Just make sure you have a fuel purifier plant aboard your ship and it'sw not a problem.
You don't use the water directly. You run current through it and separate out the hydrogen. The oxygen is discarded. That gives you unrefined fuel. Run it through a fuel purifier and you get refined fuel.
Assuming the enemy is able to guard every source of fuel in his system (an extremely unlikely assumption), you simply keep enough extra fuel aboard to make a jump to some fuel source the enemy isn't camping.
Hans
The design rules will let you easily work this problem. Referring to canon ships designed 1000's of years after this phase doesn't really buy you much.
Then don't do that. If you're going someplace where there's no fuel, bring fuel with you. If your ship can't carry enough, build a new one that can.
They got there by taking chances. They got there by preparing for their journeys up front and using specialized equipment. They explored the low hanging fruit of star systems that have Gas Giants in place for refueling. If they encountered a gap they could not cross, then they made the gap crossable by caching fuel in the dead spots along the way and making several trips back and forth.
And if they jumped in to a dead spot expecting to find their previous cache, but instead couldn't find it at all, or found it had failed, then -- they died a slow, cold death playing canasta until they ran out of supplies or their power plant failed.
That early "Frontier" "exploration" stuff was dangerous for a reason.
Sorry, should have stated my reasoning more clearly. (I'll blame lack of sleep, even if it isn't true.
)I started with the 10% base for Jump-1, then added 2 * each added Jump (as CosmicGamer wrote).
Sorry, should have stated my reasoning more clearly. (I'll blame lack of sleep, even if it isn't true.
I started with the 10% base for Jump-1, then added 2 * each added Jump (as CosmicGamer wrote).
for comparison... mt uses
j1 10%
j2 15%
j3 20%
j4 25%
j5 30%
j6 35%
I have been known to use those in T20 and TNE...
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
The reply below is general and directed at all those looking for magic fuel. I just used this quote because it was an easy example. (But really, why screw up CT when you can just play MT?)
That sure blows away a major hurdle for High Guard fleets. This way you can get those J4 ships along with everything else.
I think I would rather see J2-3 fleets and preserve the time delay Traveller originally built into the system.
This tinkering with fuel requirement also allows for fewer types of ships to round out a Fleet for HG & TCS. I like the challenge of building a Fleet that works in proper harmony than building a "Starship Enterprise" that can do it all by itself.
As for merchant traffic it would be a breeze to amass a fortune in no time by speculative trade. The "right" market would be within reach nearly all the time.
Sarcasm now begins:
If we go this route we will take a page from the Japanese Merchant Marine. The difference will be in replacing their "Maru" with "Munchkin".
One thing I've always liked about Traveller is the subtle way it defeats the "I want it all" syndrome.
But, if we are going to do this, I want Armor that stops any weapon you have and a weapon that always hits the first time and does just exactly the damage I want at the time.
Never mind...I just discovered my very own pocket universe and its full of Phlebotinum, Unobtainium, and, of course, Handwavium in unlimited quantities...
I guess we all want to be TWO PLUS tech levels ahead of everyone else.
Note the heavy sarcasm before the flame war begins...
Well, I use the reduced fuel rates because it makes HG designed merchantmen actually able to turn a profit at book rates for J2 at TL 9, without having to go to per parsec pricing.
YMMV, but I don't build my ATU's around warships (and in fact consider such as a stupid idea), but around what allows shipping to happen profitably and changes in the texture of the starmaps.
YMMV, but I don't build my ATU's around warships (and in fact consider such as a stupid idea), but around what allows shipping to happen profitably and changes in the texture of the starmaps.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
My HG (Drive Table p23) doesn't allow J2 until TL 11
Per parsec pricing always made more sense to me. Why am I going to pay vastly more for a ship and go broke hauling 3 parsecs at once for the same fee I'll get hauling 1 parsec? Better to haul three times for three fees in a much less expensive ship.
BTW, I'm currently very much enjoying a TL 9 J1 maximum game now. Can be a real challenge!
The "only" difference between a J3 trip and a J1 trip is the fuel involved, and the amortization of the more expensive ship. The benefit given to the J3 trip is the MUCH greater time difference in the trip (1 week v 5 weeks? Assuming 1 week turn around per jump?). So, perhaps rather than parsec pricing, you pay for time, with a little extra added in for the fuel.
Arguably parsec and time pricing are the same thing, but, time pricing take in to account the drive of the ship, not simply the distance. A 3 parsec trip in one jump is likely much more expensive than one in 3 jumps.
Is this a solo game? How are you managing it?
Not so. The two biggest difference is the number of passengers/tons of cargo that the ship can carry and the distance the ship carries you. The more expensive ship has fewer passengers/freight to share the cost.
Hans
I'm assuming a properly scaled ship with the same capacity, not the same ship with a smaller payload to compensate for the larger drive and fuel load.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
Every dTon adds to costs. To get the same cargo and passenger capacity, and J3, is going to cost you at least 3 times as much no matter what.
Look at the drive tables! Up to 1000 dTons a very few things don't add any, or much, cost but most radically add to cost.
Remember, power plant must equal the greater of the jump or maneuver drive's Number, whichever is larger.
Bridge stays the same, Computer does also and crew cost don't go up a whole lot.
How about we do an exercise? I enjoy designing ships so, you pick, or design, a J1 ship of your choice and then we both design the least expensive ship we can to haul the exact same number of passengers and cargo tonnage.
Rules are a CT (2nd edition) design? Maneuver drive for all ships must not be lower than the first ship (for accurate comparison).
Obviously, you haven't ACTUALLY done the math.
Depending upon which design system, J3 runs between 1.5x and 3.5x the costs of J1 for a given payload size
Bk2 1E allows for under 2x J1 op costs per payload ton.
J4 is universally more than 3x the costs of J1, but how much varies widely.
J6 runs up to 25x the costs.
As for PP TL9 on J2... There's no improvement in PP until TL12. So that TL9 PP holds true until J3.
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
You want to take the challenge, as offered above? CT 2nd Edition.
I mentioned a number of 3 times, or more. That is within your stated range.
1st edition had nothing to do with the challenge so why bring it up?
We were discussing going from J1 to J3 so this is irrelevant.
You are using High Guard here and at Tech Level 9 (as YOU) have interjected, it makes NO difference as Tech Level 9 only allows a Jump number of 1. (Again we were going from J1 to J3, not J2)
High Guard page 23
So, if you want to compare apples to apples, or oranges to oranges, I'll stand by my original supposition.
If you are going to compare apples (or oranges) to eggplant crates, you may just may win this one.
An admittedly POOR example would be to take the Free Trader payload of 116 dtons and then design a ship to carry it at J3. (That being an ubiquitous ship in Traveller).
BTW would it be fair to question your motive in "taking me to task" while you completely undermine the parameters under discussion? Because I have
Design your ship to carry a commercially profitable payload at J1 and then just try to get that same payload to move at J3 for less than 3 times the cost. (It can be done but only by ships vastly over-sized for Traveller player character common use.)
I suggest using ships of 1000T or more for such comparisons, since that eliminates the distorting effect of the bridge.
Wil and I have evidently failed to make it clear that we're comparing performance over the same distance. That is to say, how much it costs to have a J1 ship move stuff 3 parsecs compared to how much it costs to have a J3 ship move stuff 3 parsecs.
The payload of a J3 ship is smaller than the payload of a J1 ship of the same size. But a J1 ship needs to make three jumps in order to move its payload 3 parsecs, whereas the J3 ship can do it in a single jump. So if the payload of a J1 ship is, say, 150T and the payload of the corresponding J3 ship is 100T, the J3 ship moves 300T of payload in the same time the J1 ship moves 150T. Although the J3 ship is more expensive to run than a J1 ship, it is not enough more expensive to outweigh that advantage.
A J1 ship is obviously better for moving stuff 1 parsec than a J3 ship is, and no one is trying to claim otherwise. But 1 parsec is the only distance that a J1 ship is cheaper than a ship with either J2 or J3 (for respectively 2 and 3 parsecs distances).
Hans
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
To re-quote me:
I'm in agreement with the larger ship argument.
And re-quote whartung:
The original point was "a properly scaled ship with the same capacity" My answer to whartung, based on his premise, is correct.
You can not upscale a ship to carry the same J1 tonnage to J3 without increasing the cost of the up-scaled J3 ship at least 3 times.
I'm not in any way disputing the ability of moving tonnage cheaper over the whole run in a single J3 vs 3 J1s.
As I understood whartung's argument it was from the ship owner/captains point of view, not the cargo owners. Any cargo owner wants cheap haulage and you do get it with the J3 ship. Any ship owner/captain wants a profit. You don't get a profit building and operating a J3 ship.
I think we are seeing the same thing from opposite sides of the issue.
1) You can't upscale a ship to just carry the same payload from J1 to J3 at less than 3 times the ship's cost. (whartung's original premise)
2) A J3 cargo haul is cheaper than 3 successive J1 hauls. (Yours and Aramis's argument)
3) A ship owner is going to go broke hauling a J3 cargo at a non-parsec rate. (Fact of CT OTU)
This make everyone happy?
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
I know you have. I've seen it and agree with it. That wasn't and isn't my point. Please see my answer to Hans above so as to not repeat it. Vladika is with an "i" not a "y". I'm assuming you are Wil? My given name is Michael if you would care to be on a first name basis.
