Airlocks

[phavoc]

Pg143 – Airlocks: “Ships with cargo space have cargo hatches, allowing up to 10% of their cargo to be transferred at any one time”. This should be clarified to read ships with cargo holds that can be accessed via an external cargo hatch. Some ships have cargo holds inside with no direct access to the outside. And the “at one time” is not a time reference. Ships should be able to transfer 10% of their cargo per turn, per hour?

[AKAramis]

I believe the intent was that the cargo airlocks should total about 10% of the size of the cargo hold... which has no firm basis in prior Traveller canon. Certain deckplans show 5-8% of the cargo volume as cargo locks. Others have no locks at all.

Then again, many of the deckplans are BADLY broken in CT... (many are only correct if you assume 1m squares and/or 2m or 2.5m decks, rather than the specified in CT S7 3m decktop to ceiling.)

[Condottiere]

May actually be dependent more on common commercial container size and configurations.

[phavoc]

May actually be dependent more on common commercial container size and configurations.

Yup.

I believe the intent was that the cargo airlocks should total about 10% of the size of the cargo hold... which has no firm basis in prior Traveller canon. Certain deckplans show 5-8% of the cargo volume as cargo locks. Others have no locks at all.

Then again, many of the deckplans are BADLY broken in CT... (many are only correct if you assume 1m squares and/or 2m or 2.5m decks, rather than the specified in CT S7 3m decktop to ceiling.)

You are right, there's no clarification in the canon materials. Which is why with the newly-proposed rule that would be added to canon that it gets clarified and fixed at the time of publication. Reducing the number of broken rules prior to publication is a wonderful thing!

[AKAramis]

May actually be dependent more on common commercial container size and configurations.

Agreed.

However - some will likely use a vehicle berth, instead... such as an ATV berth... because of operational considerations.

I think it's a case where defining it is counterproductive.

[phavoc]

I think it's a case where defining it is counterproductive.

How can defining a standard to work from be worse than defining no standard? People already drop/modify rules to start with - but at least they have a place to begin with.

"A ship with a dedicated cargo bay may load/unload a cargo hold's capacity at 10% per hour. If appropriate equipment and personnel are available all cargo holds may be unloaded simultaneously. Unused vehicle bays may also be used for cargo storage. Loading and unloading rates should be determined by the referee (Ex - The Empress Marava wants to transport an additional 4 Dtons of cargo in it's empty air/raft hangar. The referee determines a pair of 2 Dton containers can be loaded over the span of 1hr, or it can be manually stacked full of crates in 6hrs."

A baseline has been established from which to work with, you've provide flexibility for a ref/players to make adjustments or fill in the gaps, and they STILL can drop/modify/add to the rule.

So.... how would something like that be counterproductive again?

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Also, it should be clearly stated if the cargo locks are airlocks or just air-tight doors. It can make a difference. Most of the standard designs assume they are air-tight doors, but not airlocks, so you cannot transfer cargo out of the hold while floating in orbit and move it to another ship (using the Spider...) without depressurizing your cargo compartment. Fine for some ships, but if you have a Standard or Dispersed Hull, your ship isn't designed to land and since you have stated that Highports are rare, then you have to have a way to transfer cargo in a pressurized environment.

[AndrewW]

Fine for some ships, but if you have a Standard or Dispersed Hull, your ship isn't designed to land and since you have stated that Highports are rare, then you have to have a way to transfer cargo in a pressurized environment.

I wouldn't say transferring cargo in a pressurized environment is required. Can be useful at times though.

[phavoc]

Also, it should be clearly stated if the cargo locks are airlocks or just air-tight doors. It can make a difference. Most of the standard designs assume they are air-tight doors, but not airlocks, so you cannot transfer cargo out of the hold while floating in orbit and move it to another ship (using the Spider...) without depressurizing your cargo compartment. Fine for some ships, but if you have a Standard or Dispersed Hull, your ship isn't designed to land and since you have stated that Highports are rare, then you have to have a way to transfer cargo in a pressurized environment.

I've yet to see a ship design that has actual cargo bay airlocks. Every published design I can think of simply has cargo bay doors. Well, there is the Type-R that has multiple holds, so technically it could depressurize one at a time. But essentially all cargo ships have only had access doors, requiring a full depressurization.

[Condottiere]

I can think of that fight scene between the Queen and Weaver in Aliens; other than that, I think the cargo bay itself becomes the airlock, exposed to the elements.

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Only if the cargo containers are vacuum rated.

[Condottiere]

Depends on where you open the cargo hatch; if it's on the ground or directly into the starport, not really a problem.

[Captain Jonah]

Depends on where you open the cargo hatch; if it's on the ground or directly into the starport, not really a problem.

More of a problem when you're moving cargo between ships in space, for example transferring the cargo from that captured ship over to your own freighter after the warship did the pirating or transferring goods between smugglers out of sensor range of the Law. Erm I mean the sort of legitimate reasons people have for transferring cargo in hostile environments. Cough.

Its a bit like the 2 weeks fuel on all the ships. They are designed for a sedate Imperium where ships fly from port to port and always open the doors to a space station or downport. Where everything is safe and secure.

None of them are designed or planned for actual adventure or combat, not even the military ships or frontier designs. It's like the simplification of dropping hardpoints because they aren't needed then setting the new campaign in the Trojan reaches. What sort of moron is building ships there that don't have the maximum number of hardpoints on the hull from the start!

[Condottiere]

If making an impromptu transfers between two ships in space, handling, proper or otherwise, would be the major concern of the one recipient, and not something he may want to roll for.

Non-careful recipients should find themselves rolling a lot.

This might explain why I'm such a big fan of solar energy (panels).

[AndrewW]

More of a problem when you're moving cargo between ships in space, for example transferring the cargo from that captured ship over to your own freighter after the warship did the pirating or transferring goods between smugglers out of sensor range of the Law. Erm I mean the sort of legitimate reasons people have for transferring cargo in hostile environments. Cough.

That's ok, we'll just blame it all on the gorilla.

[MongooseMatt]

Just a quick note here - we are very much generalising this in the Core book. High Guard has specific rules for airlocking cargo doors.