Vehicle Maker Confusion and Confustication!

[david.wendelken]

Ok, I tried the Vehicle Maker rules last night.

They were pretty darn confusing. First of all, it starts with a very clear list of terms to describe a vehicle. The terms, like a UPP, are supposed to be in a particular order.

Then the text proceeds to wander thru various terms in a random order. What's worse, the terms all seem to overlap one another when it comes to actual values one can choose.

I finally come to some checklists and a form that gives some coherency to the above material. (This is a common failing with a number of T5 sections. The material often just seems to be in the wrong order.)

I tried to design an LTA vehicle like the Hindenburg (but with less flammable gas).

I can't make sense of the instructions.

Here's specs for the real life Hindenburg:

LZ-129 Hindenburg statistics:
■Length: 803.8 feet
■Diameter: 135.1 feet
■Gas capacity: 7,062,000 cubic feet
■Lift: 511,500 lbs
■Cruising Speed: 125 km/h (76 MPH)
■Maximum Speed: 135 km/h (84 MPH)
■Main Powerplant: 4 Daimler-Benz 16-cylinder LOF 6 (DB 602) Diesels
■Crew: 40 flight officers and men, 10-12 stewards and cooks
■Passengers: 50 sleeping berths (1936); 72 sleeping berths (1937)
■First flight: March 4, 1936

I believe that would be about Tech Level 5.

I'm interested in trying out a TL5 power plant and a fusion cell power plant option.

If anyone can show me how, I would be obliged!

 

[robject]

Don't beat yourself up over it. VehicleMaker is about describing its use and effects, rather than engineering its details. What's more, LTA support is not robust.

Taking those two points into account, if we already know the outputs of the real deal, then let's simply run with those. Our loose ends are price and protections.

A vehicle entry has this data:

Name/type
TL
Volume (tons)
Speed
Load (tons)
Protections
Cost

So let's fill it out based on what we know, and some safe assumptions.

TL is 4 or 5.

Volume. It holds 50 crew and 50 passengers, roughly. Assuming 1 ton per sleeping berth, that would be 100 tons of living space, plus more for a control room and open spaces for dining and socialization. Say 150 tons total.

The gas-bag adds a bit (how much?) when deflated (and for completeness, that's 14,000 tons displacement when inflated).

Speed. Using page 295, we map 125/135 kph to Speed=6.

Load. This is cargo container-style load capacity, not sleeping room and open air spaces. If this critter had to haul heavy cargo, that number could be low. If I back-engineer it and say it's going to be equal to seating space for those 100 crew+passengers, then I get 25 tons.

Protections. For armor value, we know the Hindenburg's gondola is nothing special, so give it an AV equal to its tech level (4 or 5). Likewise, soundproofing and insulation will likely be present -- call it 20 each. Sealing will be light, probably TL or less. Call it a 1.

Cost. For cost, any conversion that makes sense is fine. MCr 3. KCr 300. I don't know.


Passenger Zeppelin-4, 150 tons, Speed 6, 25 tons load, AV 4 [So 4 In 4 Se 1], KCr 300.

 

[Reban]

Just to point out for a 150ton Zepplin the total volume will be x10 or 1500tons, thats 20250m3 or roughly 715000 cubic feet,

In other words what VehicleMaker designs is the cabin and engineering spaces not the gas envelope.

 

[Reban]

Just working through the VehicleMaker process:

Lighter Than Air or LTA (in this case the best fit for a Zeppelin) is:
TL6
40tons
Speed 5
Load 10

To get it in the right size range we can make it VHeavy:
TL8
120tons
Speed 3
Load 13

To get it back to TL5 (which may or may not be possible) make it Very Early:
TL6
121tons
Speed: 2
Load: 12

Thats as early as I can get it without messing with its propulsion. You'll also notice that its cruising speed is Speed 2 and Max Speed is 3

Interpreting this design I'd say its probably powered by internal combustion engines which would be fairly standard for TL6 craft.

At TL6 Experimental Fusion is available, but what VehicleMaker tells you from the outputs above is that a TL6 LTA craft powered by experimental fusion can only travel along at Speed 2 (either experimental fusion engines are not powerful enough or the hull structure won't take the speed),

What we can do is look at options like High Powered or Fast which sacrifice Load for Speed, but also increase TL.

VehicleMaker takes a lot of tweaking to get the outputs you want and you'll always have to compromise somewhere.

Using Mission creatively could help you get a more accurate TL. For example Scientific will make this LTA four times larger with more Load space at TL5.

The final version above can have 121 operators and passengers (the 121tons contains crew and cabin spaces for all) and you can customize the Load space with passenger capsules.

Hope this helps.

 

[atpollard]

I don't know if this is relevant, but TL 5 airships (like the Hindenburg) were bleeding edge prototype technology. The British and American airships of the period often lacked adequate safety margins and many of the construction materials and techniques were being used for the first time ever.

TL 6 may actually be more appropriate (Just like the V-2 rocket isn't typical of TL 5 technology either).

 

[david.wendelken]

Ok, the examples you all gave give me an idea of what it's expecting. I had sort of guessed that, but wasn't sure.

The problem with speed 2 for the Hindenburg is that that's way too slow.

I was considering that, in the Traveller universe, fairly small fusion power cells would be fairly ubiquitous. I can imagine that they would be exported fairly cheaply to other worlds that weren't ready to manufacture their own.
I would expect there is even a design standard for many of them so they could be interchangeably plugged into various devices.

While there would be plenty of room for high end, custom modules, I think the bulk of the trade would treat them as interchangeable commodities.

If that makes sense, then low TL LTA vehicle powered by a Tech 10-14 fusion power cell makes a lot of sense.

 

[pendragonman]

Ahhh, but is it still then really a TL5/6 LTA? Could you not then just import the whole thing, and fill the gasbags with local helium? Or Hydrogen in the Hindenburg's case.

 

[david.wendelken]

Let's say you want to start developing a planet. Local tech level is 6.
Population is about 8 million, fairly spread out because it's an agricultural breadbasket.

You want to boost the population by a lot over the next 100 years, but still leave much of the planet untouched or agricultural in nature.

That way, you can develop an eco-tourism industry.

You don't want to clutter up the landscape with lots of highways and trains. So, sea, river and air transport are needed.

You want to improve the industrial capability of the world so you need to manufacture what you can, but you don't want to be limited to just TL 6 products. Industrial capability is more than just factories, it's education, exposure to current technology, science, and a workforce that understands and expects factory work.

My idea is to see what a TL 6 industrial base can make with access to TL15 knowledge and selected imported parts, tools or materials. That way, you start ratcheting up the industrial capability and get relatively cheaper products. You're also not using up precious imperial currency reserves buying things you can build locally. (That's a real problem in many developing countries today.)

 

[robject]

David, I think that sounds pretty neat. An atomic-age world with access to 17 liter fusion+ powerplants would have a neat, unique feel to it. Zeppelins which can fly for a year before needing powerplant maintenance. For that matter, DC-3s which only refuel once a year. The Spruce Goose could be viable.

Yeah, I like it.

And you may have Luddites, who think things are progressing too fast... and Progressives who think things aren't moving fast enough... and they'll tangle with each other in the political arena... and that will spill over into private lives, which may result in duels and clan rivalries...

 

[Timerover51]

I don't know if this is relevant, but TL 5 airships (like the Hindenburg) were bleeding edge prototype technology. The British and American airships of the period often lacked adequate safety margins and many of the construction materials and techniques were being used for the first time ever.

TL 6 may actually be more appropriate (Just like the V-2 rocket isn't typical of TL 5 technology either).

Bleeding edge prototype technology? They were straightforward extrapolations from the Zeppelins used by the Germans in World War 1. The USS Macon and Akron even used German Maybach engines. They did use helium, rather than hydrogen, so would have been a lot harder to destroy, given the 12 gas bags for the helium, rather than the Hindenburg's hydrogen filling.

As for adequate safety margins, the Macon, Akron, and Shenandoah were all lost in bad weather. The Los Angeles, built by the German as part of the WW One War Reparations, was operated safely, and was only dismantled in 1940.

Go here for images and information on the Macon.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/ac-usn22/z-types/zrs5.htm

And go here for a full discussion of the US Navy's Lighter-than-Air experience.
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/lta-m.html

The German Graf Zeppelin used what was called "blau gas", which weight about as much as normal air, so its use did not change the weight factor of the Zeppelin. The Wikipeida article on the Graf Zeppelin has a useful diagram of the gondola.

As for experimental Fusion plants at Tech Level 6, no comment.

Edit Note: There are several books on Project Gutenberg available for download concerning Airships and their construction. The following is one of them that might be useful to would be Lighter than Air designers.

British Airships, Past, Present, and Future, by George Whale

 

[david.wendelken]

I think people forget how various bits of "modern" technology get inserted into societies.

For example, my wife came back from a trip to Mongolia with photos of nomadic people that still live in yurts (tents) and relocate so their horses get new pasturage. They have solar-powered satellite dishes for their yurts out in the middle of the plains.

Here's an example from the web 'cause I'm too lazy to root thru her photos to find a similar one:

http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/42-18129549/mongolian-yurt-with-satellite-dish-and-solar

It makes for a much more interesting technological blend of possibilities.

Some modern items would have been easily made with lower TL equipment but no one invented the item sooner. Once one has the knowledge of how to make it, one can adapt the designs to available tools and skills.

 

[david.wendelken]

TimeRover51, thanks for the good info. I'll look it over!

As for experimental Fusion plants at Tech Level 6, no comment.

No! No! No! An IMPORTED proper Tech Level Fusion Plant.

Not EVERYTHING in a TL 6 object has to be built at TL 6!

 

[atpollard]

Bleeding edge prototype technology? They were straightforward extrapolations from the Zeppelins used by the Germans in World War 1.

As for adequate safety margins, the Macon, Akron, and Shenandoah were all lost in bad weather. The Los Angeles, built by the German as part of the WW One War Reparations, was operated safely, and was only dismantled in 1940.

Like the Rockets and Jet engines of WW2, Germany was at the leading edge in Rigid Airship research. The British R100 and R101 were far less capable craft than their German contemporaries. In 1929, the US built the Metal Clad ZMC-2 ... also far less capable than the German Zeppelins of the same era. The US and UK were primarily focused on non-rigid airships, where the they held a technological and experience advantage over Germany.

I may be wrong, but I view TL 5 as generally the technology from 1900 to 1940, making the 'typical' TL 5 item closer to the 1920 version of that item. The Hindenburg was (IMHO) a late TL 5 version ... and based on the state of indigenous production in the US, UK and France, closer to a TL 6 prototype.

The various US and UK Navy Blimps of the interwar years are closer to what a TL 5 airship would be like. Anyone and everyone is free to disagree, but that is how I see it.

PS.
(1927) The ZMC-2 was the first aircraft to be constructed of Alclad - now commonly used for aircraft construction.
(1928) LZ 127 Graf Zepelin being the first Zeppelin to be made of Duralumin.
(1929) R100 was constructed using a prototype of the geodesic airframe fuselage of the WW2 Wellesley, Wellington and Windsor bombers.
(1936) The Hindenburg was only the second Zeppelin to be made of Duralumin and the first to use latex gas cells rather than goat skin.

 

[Reban]

Ok, the examples you all gave give me an idea of what it's expecting. I had sort of guessed that, but wasn't sure.

The problem with speed 2 for the Hindenburg is that that's way too slow.

I was considering that, in the Traveller universe, fairly small fusion power cells would be fairly ubiquitous. I can imagine that they would be exported fairly cheaply to other worlds that weren't ready to manufacture their own.
I would expect there is even a design standard for many of them so they could be interchangeably plugged into various devices.

While there would be plenty of room for high end, custom modules, I think the bulk of the trade would treat them as interchangeable commodities.

If that makes sense, then low TL LTA vehicle powered by a Tech 10-14 fusion power cell makes a lot of sense.

The actual method of propulsion isn't actually defined by VehicleMaker, thats part of what the designer fleshes out once they have the output from the Maker. So you can go ahead and say your Hindenburg is fusion powered, no problem with that. Otherwise a designer can assume that standard propulsion methods for the tech level are used.

However there are two things to consider. First if the out put gives Speed 2 that may be as fast as a fusion module can push it or thats as fast as the airframe/envelope can sustain. The outputs from the VehicleMaker system are supposed to provide game balance across tech levels.

Second, in the technology chapter around p.500 there is the Base TL-4 rule which says technology is just not available four levels below the base tech level of a technology. For fusion power in T5 this means that the Base TL for Fusion is TL10, Experimental Fusion is available at TL7 and at TL6 Fusion is just not available. For whatever reason the technology cannot be produced or maintained in a TL6 society.

If you introduce a fusion module for your TL5 or TL6 Hindenburg you'll also have to import a TL7 minimum (more likely TL10 the standard TL for fusion) tech base and off world technicians to maintain it. So thats something to think about.

 

[Reban]

Just a word on Lighter Than Air Tech Levels.

VehicleMaker assumes that LTA is a mature and standard technology at TL6 which is approximate to the 1950's (remember that this includes all rigid airships, blimps, hot air balloons and other gas balloons).

You could make a Very Early Fossil LTA vehicle at TL2 which is approximate to 1500 to 1690.

No that doesn't mean it is a steampunk style galleon sailing the skies (but it can be), what it reflects is the ability to produce hot air or hydrogen gas balloons. historically its a little early for such craft, but given a daVinici and a technologically progressive society it might be done.

Certainly a Very Early or a Fossil LTA craft could be produced at TL4 which approximates 1900AD and could certainly be done.

The designer's interpretation is required to say a Very Early LTA (TL4) is probably powered by an IC engine or electric motor, while a Fossil LTA (TL4) is probably powered by a steam generator or engine.

 

[Timerover51]

Just a word on Lighter Than Air Tech Levels.

VehicleMaker assumes that LTA is a mature and standard technology at TL6 which is approximate to the 1950's (remember that this includes all rigid airships, blimps, hot air balloons and other gas balloons).

You could make a Very Early Fossil LTA vehicle at TL2 which is approximate to 1500 to 1690.

No that doesn't mean it is a steampunk style galleon sailing the skies (but it can be), what it reflects is the ability to produce hot air or hydrogen gas balloons. historically its a little early for such craft, but given a daVinici and a technologically progressive society it might be done.

Certainly a Very Early or a Fossil LTA craft could be produced at TL4 which approximates 1900AD and could certainly be done.

The designer's interpretation is required to say a Very Early LTA (TL4) is probably powered by an IC engine or electric motor, while a Fossil LTA (TL4) is probably powered by a steam generator or engine.

Alberto Santos-Dumont was building dirigibles and non-rigid airships in 1898 powered by an internal-combustion engine. As seen below, he flew flew around the Eiffel Tower in 1901. His book, My Airships, was published in 1904, and can be downloaded at Project Gutenberg.

Finding that the cords with which his dirigible balloon cars were suspended offered almost as much resistance to the air as did the balloon itself, Santos-Dumont substituted piano wire and found that the alteration constituted greater progress than many a more showy device. He altered the shape and size of his No. 4 to a certain extent and fitted a motor of 12 horse-power. Gravity was controlled by shifting weights worked by a cord; rudder and propeller were both placed at the stern. In Santos-Dumont's book there is a certain amount of confusion between the No. 4 and No. 5 airships, until he explains that 'No. 5' is the reconstructed 'No. 4.' It was with No. 5 that he won the Encouragement Prize presented by the Scientific Commission of the Paris Aero Club. This he devoted to the first aeronaut who between May and October of 1900 should start from St Cloud, round the Eiffel Tower, and return. If not won in that year, the prize was to remain open the following year from May 1st to October 1st, and so on annually until won. This was a simplification of the conditions of the Deutsch Prize itself, the winning of which involved a journey of 11 kilometres in 30 minutes.

The Santos-Dumont No. 5, which was in reality the modified No. 4 with new keel, motor, and propeller, did the course of the Deutsch Prize, but with it Santos-Dumont made no attempt to win the prize until July of 1901, when he completed the course in 40 minutes, but tore his balloon in landing. On the 8th August, with his balloon leaking, he made a second attempt, and narrowly escaped disaster, the airship being entirely wrecked. Thereupon he built No. 6 with a cubic capacity of 22,239 feet and a lifting power of 1,518 lbs.

With this machine he won the Deutsch Prize on October 19th, 1901, starting with the disadvantage of a side wind of 20 feet per second. He reached the Eiffel Tower in 9 minutes and, through miscalculating his turn, only just missed colliding with it. He got No. 6 under control again and succeeded in getting back to his starting-point in 29 1/2 minutes, thus winning the 125,000 francs which constituted the Deutsch Prize, together with a similar sum granted to him by the Brazilian Government for the exploit. The greater part of this money was given by Santos-Dumont to charities.

As for German technical superiority, both the US Navy's Akron and Macon operated at "flying aircraft carriers", capable of carrying 5 Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk fighters each. Would someone show something equivalent on the part of Germany?

As for jet engine design, Frank Whittle of the UK is credited with developing the first jet engine, not someone in Germany. The British Meteor jet fighter was operating by mid-1944, shooting down V-1 Flying Bombs. The life expectancy of the Jumo turbo-jet was 25 hours before overhaul, and based on the interview of the German Test Pilot that defected to the Allies with one in 1945, any engine over 15 hours of use was highly questionable. The life expectancy before overhaul of the centrifugal engines used on the Meteor, Vampire, and P-80 Shooting Star (US) was 175 hours.

The US Navy was experimenting the remotely-control TV-guided attack drones in 1943, and was testing them off of the paddle-wheel aircraft carriers in Lake Michigan.

I do get tired of people acting as if the Germans were the only ones on the planet that could possibly developed anything dealing with technology. I do believe that the Wright Brothers, of Dayton, Ohio, did fly the first airplane. Or did some German beat them to it?

 

[HG_B]

No that doesn't mean it is a steampunk style galleon sailing the skies (but it can be), what it reflects is the ability to produce hot air or hydrogen gas balloons. historically its a little early for such craft, but given a daVinici and a technologically progressive society it might be done.

In the Western world manned flight started in 1709, Paris. There is plenty of evidence that it happened in China centuries before that. I watched a docu where people built manned balloons using materials and tech available only in ancient times. So, TL 2 isn't too early for manned balloon flight.

 

[Reban]

In the Western world manned flight started in 1709, Paris. There is plenty of evidence that it happened in China centuries before that. I watched a docu where people built manned balloons using materials and tech available only in ancient times. So, TL 2 isn't too early for manned balloon flight.

Certainly its not too early for hot air balloons, the principles for hot air balloons, as you say, were known in China in the 3rd Century AD.

But the LTA class represents a wide range of lighter than air craft including hydrogen balloons which first flew in 1783. Giffards steam powered airship first flew in 1852.

Basically I'm just saying that the designer should pay attention to the available technology when interpreting the output from VehicleMaker. The technology chart on p.504 is very useful for doing this.

For example, since Petrochemicals have a base TL of TL5 a TL2 LTA vehicle probably only has access to Experimental Internal Combustion Engines if thats what the designer sees his or her craft as being powered by. Of course there are lots of other options such as electric motors, steam engines, beast power and wind or sail power.

 

[Timerover51]

For example, since Petrochemicals have a base TL of TL5 a TL2 LTA vehicle probably only has access to Experimental Internal Combustion Engines if thats what the designer sees his or her craft as being powered by. Of course there are lots of other options such as electric motors, steam engines, beast power and wind or sail power.

Petrochemicals have a base Tech Level of 5? Drake drilled the first oil well in 1859. Kerosene was being refined by 1870. Diesel and Otto were using refined oil and gasoline in the 1880s. The British Royal Navy began to experiment with using oil in boilers in 1898. The USS Holland submarine, using a combined gasoline engine and electric motor propulsion system was adopted by the US Navy in 1900, after being completed in 1897.

Then, of course, you have the Byzantines using Greek Fire, which was clearly petroleum-based in the 700s.

Petrochemicals should be Tech Level 4 at the latest, from a technology level of 1850 onward.

 

[HG_B]

Petrochemicals have a base Tech Level of 5? Drake drilled the first oil well in 1859. Kerosene was being refined by 1870. Diesel and Otto were using refined oil and gasoline in the 1880s. The British Royal Navy began to experiment with using oil in boilers in 1898. The USS Holland submarine, using a combined gasoline engine and electric motor propulsion system was adopted by the US Navy in 1900, after being completed in 1897.

Then, of course, you have the Byzantines using Greek Fire, which was clearly petroleum-based in the 700s.

Petrochemicals should be Tech Level 4 at the latest, from a technology level of 1850 onward.

The first gas refined commercially (petrochemicals) was in the 18th century. Used for lighting in England.