150-dTon Modular Transport

[AnotherDilbert]

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!

Of course we can have "irregular" design in the core books, we always have...
Generally, it just doesn't matter that much.
The Modular Cutter works perfectly well in Space: 1999, CT, and MgT2 even if it is a bit outside the design rules.
If you want to build something similar, you just have to talk to your Referee about it...

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

Agreed, no need to throw anything out, what we have is perfectly workable.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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

Sorry.

Cool ship, like a jump version of the cutter...

What's the external look of the ship? Is it flat as a pancake with a uniform 3 m deck height, or is it more oval?

It's nice for a adventuring party, but I fail to see the economic use case for it... It has too many "nice to have" features to be remotely profitable as a merchant, and the Scouts could presumably do almost anything it can do with a far cheaper 100 Dt ship (perhaps with a 30 Dt "module")?

 

[Sageryne]

Sorry.

Cool ship, like a jump version of the cutter...

What's the external look of the ship? Is it flat as a pancake with a uniform 3 m deck height, or is it more oval?

It's nice for a adventuring party, but I fail to see the economic use case for it... It has too many "nice to have" features to be remotely profitable as a merchant, and the Scouts could presumably do almost anything it can do with a far cheaper 100 Dt ship (perhaps with a 30 Dt "module")?

I don’t have the skills to illustrate it, but I would like it to be more ovoid shape.

Economics are a hard one. The ruthless drive to make ships as profitable as possible make for narratively boring ships. The focus here was on making a different vessel. You don’t see many modular ones. I wanted a ship that could swap from module to module and take on different missions.

If the Kestrel started out as a military or scout design, economics would not be such a big concern.

Interesting you mention a 30-dTon module. That is where I started, with a 100-dTon ship and 30-dTon modules. Each of them had to be custom made. Robert Pearce has done a huge amount of work with his geomorph series of deck plans. He has 50-dTon quarter modules. It seem foolish to create my own 30-dTon custom ones when I could upsize the mothership and use this huge collection of ready-made modules.

 

[Terry Mixon]

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

It has a connection. The drop tank mount. It’s not the same as anything else, though.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

It has a connection. The drop tank mount. It’s not the same as anything else, though.

It isn't the same in the fuel connections. The other aspects of the mount that allow the ship to carry it would be the same. Substitute power connections for the fuel connection and you have a module connection and just as the original price is arbitrary you can use that price for the power connection equally arbitrarily.

Arguably it would qualify as a non gravity hull and take half power. It would be of limited use, cargo for example but not personnel.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I don’t have the skills to illustrate it, but I would like it to be more ovoid shape.

I understand, but that should steal some space. Generally I would hide the fuel tanks in the curvature. The formal deck plans should then be a bit smaller than the ship tonnage.

Economics are a hard one. The ruthless drive to make ships as profitable as possible make for narratively boring ships. The focus here was on making a different vessel. You don’t see many modular ones. I wanted a ship that could swap from module to module and take on different missions.

If the Kestrel started out as a military or scout design, economics would not be such a big concern.

Even the massive bureaucracies of the Navy and Scouts care about budgets, but if that doesn't matter to your game...

We can skimp a bit without defanging functionality completely.

Interesting you mention a 30-dTon module. That is where I started, with a 100-dTon ship and 30-dTon modules. Each of them had to be custom made. Robert Pearce has done a huge amount of work with his geomorph series of deck plans. He has 50-dTon quarter modules. It seem foolish to create my own 30-dTon custom ones when I could upsize the mothership and use this huge collection of ready-made modules.

I would use a bigger ship for 50 Dt modules, perhaps two modules in a 200 Dt ship, or four in a 400 Dt hull?
Several modules allow much more flexibility, perhaps one habitation module and a mission module?


I might make something like this (sorry, I'm a bit obsessed with flexibility and efficiency):
200 Dt light streamlined hull with aerofins and radiation shielding. Minimum TL for J-2.
Budget J-2 & M-2 drives with just enough power for either thrust or jump.
Two 50 Dt modules & five 1 Dt modules for better sensors, docking clamps, repair drones, batteries, etc.
Cheap at MCr 46 in quantity, noticeably cheaper than the 150 Dt design.

Can be operated by a single person in cramped quarters, with a lot of software support...
Normally one module would contain more crew space.
J-1 (20 Dt) worth of fuel in fuel/cargo container, so can be used as cargo space when not doing J-2.
J-1 (20 Dt) worth of fuel in demountable tanks, can be removed for another 20 Dt cargo.
Drop tank mounts for two 40 Dt drop tanks.
Collapsible tanks for a bit of extra range, if free cargo space is available.
Can carry a few external pods or smallcraft in modular docking clamps, reducing performance.
So, can operate as a ~300 Dt 2×J-1 ship with close to 200 Dt payload...
m/10bis computer with a m/5bis/fib backup, so can run J-2 and Virtual Crew at the same time.



If you are a bit less obsessed about cost, make it 250 Dt and have decent crew space, still under MCr 60:



OK, that is much bigger than the original design, but not much more expensive, and much more capable.

 

[Sageryne]

Looks like you are having a good time coming up with a competitor!

I look forward to seeing your mapped and detailed ship.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Looks like you are having a good time coming up with a competitor!

It's just my way of understanding the design; recreate it and tinker with it...

I look forward to seeing your mapped and detailed ship.

Deck plans takes a lot more time.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If we embrace the concept of modules as external pods (à la the HG'22 cutter) we can make silly designs.

How about a 200 Dt J-1 ship with three 50 Dt modules, that can operate as a 100 Dt J-2 ship with one 50 Dt module?
Or 200 Dt with two modules, 20 Dt cargo (courtesy of fuel/cargo containers), a drop tank, and a boat in a (modular) docking clamp?
All for the princely sum of MCr 33 plus modules:

With two modules and a few drop tanks it can do 3×J-1, so range isn't a problem.

 

[coolAlias]

I think OP's design looks like something that would probably be done in the real far future, especially for ships where having the entire hull armored and sealed as one unit isn't critical - things like haulers, explorers, miners, and perhaps even some military ships.

Is it 100% Core/HG-22 rules compliant? I have no idea, but since they are more like guidelines anyway, if I squint it looks just right.

Thanks for sharing these designs, I can tell you put a lot of work into it!

 

[rinku]

To be honest, I have issues with the spine-and-cylinder design just from a structual point of view, especially for the cutter under thrust or other stress. A far more robust design would have a ventral as well as a dorsal spine and a module that was flattened on the bottom as well as the top, swapped laterally.

Otherwise, the design with bay doors that can close and keep the craft streamlined also means the cutter can drop off a module and return empty far easier. The bay doors don't need to open like a clamshell - it would work for them to just retract around the hull, possibly in more than two sections. Exposing the belly is likely the best way as it simplifies depositing the module in gravity.

Assuming this is never meant to happen in flight, the cutter could be unstreamlined while it does this, like any ship delivering cargo with big bay doors open. But since the craft can hover on lifters, it shouldn't need to leave them open while moving fast in an atmosphere, unless making a hot drop.

Something like this, but better drafted:


There's a few ways to engineer it. Clamshell isn't bad, though I do reckon belly doors would be better than side ones.

 

[Condottiere]

Semi double hull.

 

[rinku]

Also, I came in late on this one, but those are superb deckplans.