150-dTon Modular Transport

[AnotherDilbert]

If I calculate the cost of a regular 150-dTon streamlined hull, it is MCr9. It is 100% contained, no other costs are required to make it spaceworthy.

Agreed.

Now, if I make part of that ship (33.3%) modular, I have to pay an additional 33.33% hull cost (MCr3). What is that cost for? The hull is already complete and streamlined.

You are paying for the extra hatches, extra connections, extra fuel lines, extra power lines, extra air conduits, extra water/waste pipes, and extra structural reinforcement. You can put anything there from electronics to fuel tanks to staterooms, and the space has to be prepared for that. Or something like that...

The extra hull cost is to prepare the ship for the module, not the module itself.

My assumption is that cost is for the hull of the module (MCr0.05 per ton = MCr2.5) and the fittings (mechanical connection points to attach it to the mothership, vacuum-tight doors, utility connections like electrical and life-support), an additional MCr0.5.

A module frame cost an additional kCr 25 per Dt, so 50 Dt * 25 kCr/Dt = kCr 1250 for each module.

If that is the case, then the cost for making the module an "external pod" is already covered.

External pods need regular hulls at kCr 50 / Dt.

 

[tytalan]

2. I think when modularization became an entirely internal issue, it surprised a lot of us.

Which would totally invalidate both the modular cutter and at least a few ships

5. Any streamlining done is by the external hull, or any other hull configuration.

There are numerous example that say this is not the case

I'd say it's a clear case of not thinking the amendment out to it's likely conclusion.

Can you construct a module that would be vacuum proof and configured as it would be an external hull?

Sure.

How much would it cost, no fracking idea, beyond the default fifty kilostarbux per tonne, if gravitated, and modified by whatever hull configuration is chosen.

So, I just assign an external module to podification.

Every example going all the way to the LBBs shows and says that the modules are vacuum proof and external hull. You literally can not find an example that counters this statement. Your whole concept invalidates both the mercenary cruiser and survey scout both of which are unstreamlined, carries multiple cutter modules, and can only change them in open space.

 

[tytalan]

It is an internal module. You pay for the hull on the ship once. Not each module. If you had to pay for modular hull for each module, your assertion would be correct. Recreating the modules to check for errors shows that they use the reduced price and the hull covering is removable and can go with an installed module when removed. It has to be that way considering the fighter module.

Actually you do have to pay for the hull on the module and streamlining. Using your own recreation check so if it internal why does in need streamlining?

 

[tytalan]

External pods need regular hulls at kCr 50 / Dt.

Not really considering that there are still struts and supports connecting the two halves of the cutter the module is protected from the stress of acceleration which is why its hull cost is less. If a module had its own drive then it would have to pay full cost but if that was the case we would be talking about a pod not a module and we would be talking about docking clamps. See in the pic the spine protects the module from much of the stress of acceleration hence the lower hull cost.

Travel in Style with the Versatile Traveller: Modular Cutter

Experience the ultimate in modular travel with the Traveller: Modular Cutter. This sleek and versatile design is perfect for adventurers seeking both comfort and functionality.

pin.it

 

[tytalan]

External pods need regular hulls at kCr 50 / Dt.

No it doesn’t part of the hull costs are the structural supports to compensate for thrust those are paid for in the ships modular hull costs.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Can an internal module be vacuum proofed - sure.

2. Is it the default condition - maybe.

3. Can a module be open to vacuum - yes.

4. Does a module have integrated gravitational field - no.

5. Why - it relies on the one integrated in the host hull.

6. Does a module have life support - only if specific accommodation component is/are included.

7. According to High Guard, it's an internal component.

8. Pods are an external component, but like breakaway hulls, integrated into the primary hull.

9. Docking clamps just allow attachments.

 

[tytalan]

I have another point if the modules are completely internal how do the drop release their vehicles. Truth be told it’s probably closer to say they are partially internal with the ships hull covering about half the module and the other half open to space. This allows the module to launch its vehicles, protects it from the ship’s acceleration and allows it to change modules while floating in space. The real question would be is the top half covered by the ship or a strip on both bottom and top. But either way if you look at the capabilities of modules and the building rules this is the only thing that makes sense

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

so if it internal why does in need streamlining?

For those times it is deployed externally in atmosphere? You wouldn't want a storm to blow it around when it is landed as a base or just for storage while you use a different module.

6. Does a module have life support - only if specific accommodation component is/are included.

The ships basic power with it inside doesn't change. So I would assume ALL systems that would provide for the space the module occupies are provided to the module.

 

[tytalan]

8. Pods are an external component, but like breakaway hulls, integrated into the primary hull.

9. Docking clamps just allow attachments.

Actually it depends on the pod and using Pods with docking clamps is done in several books.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Actually it depends on the pod and using Pods with docking clamps is done in several books.

As someone who does that, can you point me at the specifics? I want to see if my take jibes with theirs.

 

[tytalan]

For those times it is deployed externally in atmosphere? You wouldn't want a storm to blow it around when it is landed as a base or just for storage while you use a different module.

Streamlining has nothing to do with this. 90% of RVs and all of modular homes are unstreamlined. Your Stretching it with this answer

 

[Condottiere]

Currently, High Guard does not have docking clamps with plumbing connections to connect attachments to the primary hull.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

Streamlining has nothing to do with this. 90% of RVs and all of modular homes are unstreamlined. Your Stretching it with this answer

Empty they will/can be pretty light.

Most but not all cutter modules in the Small Craft book are stream lined, why? Personally I have cheaper variants with standard, light modules.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Every example going all the way to the LBBs shows and says that the modules are vacuum proof and external hull. You literally can not find an example that counters this statement. Your whole concept invalidates both the mercenary cruiser and survey scout both of which are unstreamlined, carries multiple cutter modules, and can only change them in open space.

MgT "module" ≠ CT cutter "module"...

MgT "modules" are internal.
Mothership tonnage does not change, drive potential isn't recalculated, mothership streamlining isn't changed, mothership armour covers the "module".

CT Cutter "Modules" are external, what MgT2 and T5 calls "pods". Note there are no rules for how to do this in CT.
Craft tonnage changes when "pods" are carried, and drive potential is recalculated, streamlining is affected.


For some reason the MgT2'22 authors (unlike MgT and MgT2'16) choose to recreate the classic Cutter, using the MgT modular hull mechanism, but not according to the rules in HG'22.

Neither the CT Cutter nor the MgT2'22 Cutter are quite covered by the rules.

Can you do external "modules" ("pods")?
Sure, the Cutter is proof that it can be done in both CT and MgT2. We just don't have any specific rules for how to do it...

 

[Condottiere]

I'm going to address the streamlining aspect.

At least half the flights the cutter takes will involve planetary atmospheres.

You can get away with reentering a planetary atmosphere with an unstreamlined hull, as long as you have a gravitationally based manoeuvre drive, but it's likely going to be at a dead slow crawl.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

We can get fairly close to a classic cutter using Breakaway Hull:
https://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/threads/classic-breakaway-cutter.121675/post-931833

It's just more expensive...

 

[Sageryne]

For some reason the MgT2'22 authors (unlike MgT and MgT2'16) choose to recreate the classic Cutter, using the MgT modular hull mechanism, but not according to the rules in HG'22.

Neither the CT Cutter nor the MgT2'22 Cutter are quite covered by the rules.

Can you do external "modules" ("pods")?
Sure, the Cutter is proof that it can be done in both CT and MgT2. We just don't have any specific rules for how to do it...

Good to know.

I know I have said this at least three times in this thread, I think the modular hull option needs a rule expansion and clarification (perhaps as a Journal of the Travellers' Aid Society article, or in some other book release).

A lot of people have stated their opinions or interpretations of the rules, but it would be great to get the rules more clearly laid out by Mongoose to remove the ambiguity.

Specifically, I would like to see options for both internal modules and external modules, including costs, details about when bonuses or penalties are applied (i.e. streamlining), etc. It would be nice also to see rules for umbilicals.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

A drop tank would be an external "module". Use the same connection cost plus possibly an airlock if it needs human access.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I know I have said this at least three times in this thread, I think the modular hull option needs a rule expansion and clarification (perhaps as a Journal of the Travellers' Aid Society article, or in some other book release).

Sure, that would be nice.


With Pangloss, in the best of all worlds, we could even wish that the official ships would be designed under the rules, e.g. with respect to modules and bridge sizes, but in the real world...

 

[Sageryne]

Sure, that would be nice.

With Pangloss, in the best of all worlds, we could even wish that the official ships would be designed under the rules, e.g. with respect to modules and bridge sizes, but in the real world...

I am encouraged by the fact Mongoose has recognized that 'Vehicles' was broken and they have committed to a new version that actually works.

I like High Guard'22 a lot. It is not too detail heavy, but it mostly allows you to build the ship you want. I agree, all the ships in all their publications need to be reviewed and 'fixed' to bring them into compliance with the rules. You can't have sample ships that break the rules in the same book!

I don't think we need to throw the 'baby out with the bath water.' High Guard could just use some improvements.

Another major request of mine...

EVERY SINGLE SHIP RELATED ITEM OR RULE from all of their other publications needs to be brought together in one place! I have bookmarked one fan created list

Ship Components.png

drive.google.com

just to try and keep up with all the other rules or systems.

This thread has certainly been an education. I have learned a lot about High Guard. And, it shows the system is alive and well with lots of very passionate fans (which is always a good sign).

- Kerry

PS, any comments on my actual article (not to do with how modules are priced)?