What works? How are ships and vehicles armed?

[mike wightman]

Sicence fiction, not science fantasy for a reason.

 

[kilemall]

You recall correctly, it says:

"Tech Levels: The various components of missiles have their tech levels noted in the text. These tech levels are the standard tech level for that component and determine on what worlds these components may be manufactured. The primary effect of tech level is on cost.
The credit cost of a component at its standard tech level is shown in the text. At two less than the standard tech level, the cost is 200% of the base price. At one less than the standard tech level, the cost is 150% of the base price. At one greater than the standard tech level, the cost is 90% of base price. At two or more greater than the standard tech level, the cost is 80% of the base price. Components cannot be manufactured if local tech level is three less than standard tech level.
Non-industrial worlds, for various reasons, cannot manufacture missile components and they are not available on such worlds.
Law Levels: Most missile components are available for purchase at the starport of any world capable of producing them. Some components (specifically warheads) may not be available due to local law level restrictions."

Later in the data annex
"LAW LEVELS
Law levels have no effect except for warheads. Nuclear, fusion, and enhanced radiation warheads are illegal at law levels 4+ ; all warheads are illegal at law levels 8+."

Note that once again this is written for the "isolated world" paradigm. In a sub-sector or sector wide polity then trade between worlds should make missiles components available at every starport regardless of the local world.

Also non-Industrial worlds can still have an A class starport - they can assemble starships but not missiles?

As to law level once again the law level of the starport is determined by the polity that operates the starport, not the world.

Pretty much the same as what Spinflow posted. He took my meaning a little more closely, actual IND, which isn’t the case, but does apply to lower case ind that is not NI.

I’d probably apply a 30% cost increase to NI missiles and -30% decrease from IND worlds.

Re the non-IND starport A building starships, I’d say they can assemble out of standardized letter drives but not build custom.

 

[mike wightman]

Which includes missile racks and missiles...

 

[kilemall]

Irrelevant to the truth of missiles. If you can build 1960's rockets, you can build up to 20 G-minute missles.
That's a really sucky Traveller missile, at 1G1, but it's just enough to matter.

Sprint missiles did powered 200g for a few seconds so yes 1G1- but they were more bay missile sized.

 

[kilemall]

Which includes missile racks and missiles...

Shrug, interpretation. If you accept the supplement as RAW, no, ignore it yes. Effectively preference.

 

[mike wightman]

Sprint missiles did powered 200g for a few seconds so yes 1G1- but they were more bay missile sized.

And the rest... the Sprint is 3,500kg, Seventy times larger.

 

[mike wightman]

Shrug, interpretation. If you accept the supplement as RAW, no, ignore it yes. Effectively preference.

I call it a glaring inconsistency.

 

[Rupert]

Sprint missiles did powered 200g for a few seconds so yes 1G1- but they were more bay missile sized.

1G1 is 1,200 g-seconds. The sprint missile did 100g for 5s (according to wikipedia), which isn't even half that, and was a two-stage missile weighing 3.5 tonnes. A two-stage 50kg missile that also includes a guidance package and warhead that can do 1G1 at TL6 is a very big ask. Chemicals won't cut it. The nuclear options at TL6 are too heavy and have poor thrust/weight ratios. Nuclear pulse is right out on something that small (and would be unhealthy for the launching craft).

 

[kilemall]

1G1 is 1,200 g-seconds. The sprint missile did 100g for 5s (according to wikipedia), which isn't even half that, and was a two-stage missile weighing 3.5 tonnes. A two-stage 50kg missile that also includes a guidance package and warhead that can do 1G1 at TL6 is a very big ask. Chemicals won't cut it. The nuclear options at TL6 are too heavy and have poor thrust/weight ratios. Nuclear pulse is right out on something that small (and would be unhealthy for the launching craft).

Oh I have no problem assigning some grav/maneuver drive for missiles. I ignore the concept of chemical reaction alone. Perhaps grav neutralization and chemical propulsion so you get game effect limited powered flight.

I assume more mass reduction and a miniaturized fusion plant that burns through fuel as both reaction and coolant. Whatever works at your table is my guiding motto.

 

[aramis]

Not in 50kg you can't.

Yes, you can. It's not going to leave room for a warhead... but that's trivial in space combat. It's going to be a liquid fuel expendable, and generate the whole 1000 g•s in about 10 s of them. But it's also liquid fueled.

 

[aramis]

1G1 is 1,200 g-seconds.

That actually varies by which CT edition, and TNE is also different.

CT-77 is 600 s
CT-81 is 1000s turns
If using HG, the turn is 1200s


SS3 is not for HG; it's actually released for CT-81.. but it was use by a mixture of 77 and 81 Bk2. There's no point to SS3 if using HG.

 

[mike wightman]

Yes, you can. It's not going to leave room for a warhead... but that's trivial in space combat. It's going to be a liquid fuel expendable, and generate the whole 1000 g•s in about 10 s of them. But it's also liquid fueled.

The motor is a minimim mass, the guidance system has a minumum mass, the fuel tanks are a minimum mass, now add the mass of fuel needed for a 1000s burn and you can't do it in a 50kg package. Run the numbers, you need around 140kg of fuel for 1g for 1000s for a dry mass of 10kg (guidance, motor, fuel tank structure)

You need:
- much higher exhaust velocity than a chemical rocket can produce
- a more energy dense power generation method and alternative reaction mass
- lower the dry mass of the guidance system-motor-energy storage-reaction mass
- invoke space magic - a miniature null grav module to reduce inertial mass, a magic reaction mass less engine, space dragon dust as fuel.

 

[Condottiere]

Sensors would have a minimum size.

Warhead depends on desired effect.

Rocket and fuel tank should be scalable to acceleration and range.

 

[Rupert]

Oh I have no problem assigning some grav/maneuver drive for missiles. I ignore the concept of chemical reaction alone. Perhaps grav neutralization and chemical propulsion so you get game effect limited powered flight.

I assume more mass reduction and a miniaturized fusion plant that burns through fuel as both reaction and coolant. Whatever works at your table is my guiding motto.

At TL6... The problem isn't the performance. It's the performance at low TLs.

 

[Rupert]

That actually varies by which CT edition, and TNE is also different.

CT-77 is 600 s
CT-81 is 1000s turns
If using HG, the turn is 1200s


SS3 is not for HG; it's actually released for CT-81.. but it was use by a mixture of 77 and 81 Bk2. There's no point to SS3 if using HG.

FF&S has a serious drop-off in efficiency for small solid fuel rockets, so you won't be using those (and at TL6 they'll only get 800 g-seconds for a 500+ kg missile that's all rocket anyway). A TL6 liquid fuel rocket can manage ~890 g-s. Neither will get you 20 g-minutes (1200 g-s, which was what was first mentioned) with a payload in 50kg.

However Traveller is not, and has never been, a hard "as in engineers agree it's possible" SF game so I don't think it's terribly important. If it is to someone's TU, then they can either change the rules, or use a rules set that matches what they want better. In this case that means FF&S1/2, GURPS Vehicles, or homebrew, because CTs various rules for space missiles don't reflect physics as we understand it, nor do MT, and nor do any other sets based on those that I'm aware of - Mongoose's certainly don't (I think it was MgT 1e that had space missiles that could turn around and get a second attack roll...).

 

[Spinward Flow]

Neither will get you 20 g-minutes (1200 g-s, which was what was first mentioned) with a payload in 50kg.

Nobody "shoots" at the immediate beginning of the combat round and then expects a "hit" by the absolute end of the combat round (a full 20 minute burn time!).

Much more reasonable would be an "assumption" of a 10 minute burn duration per turn (or even 5 minutes for high velocity missile fires). The shorter the burn time (accelerating) the "better" the performance tradeoffs. Can even go 1 minute if you want to.

For example, a missile could do a 1 minute burn at high G (say, 10G for 60 seconds) to get it "pointed" in the right direction of its intended target ("thataway") ... and then use the remaining burn for any terminal guidance course corrections to bring the warhead into range. So, quick acceleration and then a coast phase ... before entering the terminal "no escape" envelope of the missile's arrival on target.

It all depends on how you "shape" the delta-v profile of your missiles.