Adding a shuttle to a Starship.

[Marikir]

My playgroup has a 200 Ton Ship that they are going to be refitting to suit their purposes.

One idea put forward is to get a small ship and to, I'm quoting here, "bolt that bad boy on the side."

As I'm trying to be open to their ideas and not squash their fun outright, I looked to see if there was any rules on this. I didn't see any, but I figured that the main rules were a little light on rules for modding ships.

Is such a situation covered in HG? If so, cool, I'd just like to know.


If it isn't covered in the rules yet, does anyone have suggestions? My initial thought is that it will cost them 1 Hardpoint, some money (maybe based on what style of ship they want to "bolt" on), and will also increase the fuel consumption for Jumps.

 

[Emperor Herdan]

From memory (as I'm at work)

It won't cost them a hardpoint per se. But it does (or rather could) change a lot of the ships mass.

Just using a snug connection means that they can't do any maintenance on the smaller ship (they basically can scramble in through the airlock) and if the small ships displacement mass is removed from any cargo space, all well and good... No changes really necessary to the stats of the ship save they've lost cargo space (and maybe some crew cabins, etc... anything that can be converted/yanke out that they don't think they need...)

But if they don't want to change anything on the mothership, then things get different. As you pointed out, the Jump tankage requirement (10% of the new displacement per jump) goes up. Likewise the maneuvering drive becomes less ((Original value x 200) devided by (200+x)) , and probably the Power Plant is running less optimally as well so they might not be able to fire, evade, and try to jump out-system all at the same time....that is if they don't run out of Fuel for the Powerplant in jump space....

Could be fun for you... bad for them (smile)

Take care

E. Herdan

 

[Marikir]

Hmmm, this gives me stuff to think about.


I think I've come up with 3 options actually.

Internal bay. (uses up tonnage)
External Attachment collar. (uses Hardpoint, allows access via internal airlock, will affect fuel consumption/maneuvering)
"Bolting" it on. (no hardpoint use, access only via Zero-G, will affect fuel consumption/maneuvering)

I think I'll draw up some house rules on these until I can take a look at HG and see what they say to address this issue.

 

[MrUkpyr]

note: i don't have my copy of Starship Operator's Manual handy, so I can't look up certain details - but the explanation remains the same

Jump capable starships have an electronic web built into their hull (built out of Lanthium if I recall but I could be wrong). The Jump-Drive sends energy into this web, which creates the bubble which puts the ship into jump space.

Bolting a smaller ship onto the 200ton ship will affect the jump-web, and will prevent the ship from correctly going into jump.

Note the wording "correctly going into jump."

The ship might still go into jump, but the jump-space bubble that surrounds the ship and enables it to go into jump might not be stable - thus increasing the chance of a misjump.

They would have to use a more powerful jump drive in order to create a larger jump-space bubble.

 

[Marikir]

Is there any guideline into how large the bubble is? Is it skintight? A certain radius away from ship?


Although, the requiring of a larger jump drive might be an interesting side effect, especially if it's one of the larger "craft" they attempt to bolt on. Perhaps a Pinnace would bump it up while a Ship's Boat might not?

More stuff to consider...

 

[kristof65]

Is there any guideline into how large the bubble is? Is it skintight? A certain radius away from ship?

I'm not even sure the MT Starship Operators manual says this, but for some reason, I've always assumed the bubble was only 1 meter out from the hull. I'll have to check with the Starship Operators manual, because if that data is anywhere, it's probably there.

EDIT:

Okay, I found it in the Starship Operators Manual, and that explains why I thought it was a meter:

As the rift closes, the protective jump field "bubble" around the ship is also sealed. This bubble keeps out the strange physics of jumpspace, and serves to provide a safe region for the ship, where the normal physics of our universe operate. The bubble follows the contour of the jump grid exactly, and appears as a dull, gray, undulating "wall" about a meter from the surface of the ship's hull.

Later on it mentions it again, and talks about deformations, and how close you can get to the field before getting "jump sickness"

 

[GypsyComet]

The OTU Jump envelope is roughly a meter off the hull, yes. Whether it projects based on a hull grid or on some field emissions tuning done within the jump drive itself is a matter of edition variation.

 

[Ishmael]

IMTU...

I do not use a 'jump bubble' and I base jump performance on mass, so displacement issues are not a problem.
However I do use jump grid inlaid in the hull and unless the non-jump hull had those built in AND the jump-controller's firmware has been updated/reprogrammed with the new grid and mass configuration..it won't work..aka misjump....catastrophic misjump.

if the bolted on part has a jump grid that can interface with the ship's jump drives and jump-drive has been reprogrammed to work, the extra mass will degrade performance ( less range for a given amount of fuel ).

 

[GypsyComet]

Because external docking clamps are not uncommon in the OTU, any subcraft that is a fully qualified spacecraft on its own should have the necessary bits to support the jump field, which ever version of that you use.

Once you go ATU, its up to you, but if the option to use an external mount exists, then presumably the issue has been addressed by the engineers and shipyards in that TU.

 

[Marikir]

Because external docking clamps are not uncommon in the OTU, any subcraft that is a fully qualified spacecraft on its own should have the necessary bits to support the jump field, which ever version of that you use.

Once you go ATU, its up to you, but if the option to use an external mount exists, then presumably the issue has been addressed by the engineers and shipyards in that TU.

That would make sense with two spacecraft (ships with Jump Drives). I'm just trying to figure out some options for a spacecraft having a non-spacecraft clamped on or something. A 200 ton spacecraft with a 30 ton Ship's Boat (that has no Jump drive) clamped on.

 

[Emperor Herdan]

Check out the Lab ship... The non-jump ship is clamped off from the inner pylon (so its right at the center of the "wheel" where an axle would be)

Likewise the Liner (I think its the 600 dtn Liner...) has a launch clamped at the top aft of it (flush fitting).

Take care

E. Herdan

 

[AndrewW]

Yes High Guard covers this as a Docking Clamp. You need to add the tonnage of the spacecraft and the docked craft together, rounding up for the hull size to figure the drive sizes. Probably resulting in reduced performance.

 

[kristof65]

Here's how I'd handle it:

1 - it definitely requires a docking ring and associated clamps being installed.

2 - the change in displacement (or mass) would definitely affect drive performance. If the ship was already J1 and/or M1 to begin with, this could result in the engines having to be upgraded.

3 - I would say that the changes in performance would require tweaking of the ship's software - I'd probably go with a 10% or so of full price charge for that.

4 - Jump bubble. I like the MT Starship Operators manual, and that's what I would use as my reference. Based on the info in there, I see no reason an attached craft actually has to be completely inside the jump bubble in order to travel through j-space. However, if the jump bubble didn't enclose the attached craft, that space would be uninhabitable during jump - IE, anyone going in there durinig jump would immediately get jump sickness and probably die. Various types of cargos would not be storable in the attached craft because of possible damage by jump space physics, etc.

4a - if the PCs wanted the space in the attached craft to be inhabitable during j-space, they would have to add a lanthanum grid to it's hull. I would use the numbers in HG to extrapolate the cost of a j-drive for a small craft (even though it's impossible) and use 10 to 20% of that number as my cost of adding the grid.


Bottom line is, I'd allow the PCs to do it, but there would be costs involved - either upfront cash, or hidden pitfalls that I'd happily exploit as a GM. You don't want to add the lanthanum grid to your attached shuttle? No problem, but don't complain when someone stows away in there later on, and the jump sickness turns them into a raving lunatic who attacks you all before keelinig over and dying.

Anyway, that's how I would handle it.

 

[GypsyComet]

4 - Jump bubble. I like the MT Starship Operators manual, and that's what I would use as my reference. Based on the info in there, I see no reason an attached craft actually has to be completely inside the jump bubble in order to travel through j-space. However, if the jump bubble didn't enclose the attached craft, that space would be uninhabitable during jump - IE, anyone going in there durinig jump would immediately get jump sickness and probably die. Various types of cargos would not be storable in the attached craft because of possible damage by jump space physics, etc.

The problem here, traditionally, is that if the jump bubble doesn't envelope the subcraft, the subcraft either stays behind (probably damaged) or is lost in j-space.

Simple solution is to assume that ALL space-rated craft of any size have the grid already in place, while things like air/rafts do not. Part of the docking connection links the subcraft grid to the main ship's grid automatically.

 

[kristof65]

4 - Jump bubble. I like the MT Starship Operators manual, and that's what I would use as my reference. Based on the info in there, I see no reason an attached craft actually has to be completely inside the jump bubble in order to travel through j-space. However, if the jump bubble didn't enclose the attached craft, that space would be uninhabitable during jump - IE, anyone going in there durinig jump would immediately get jump sickness and probably die. Various types of cargos would not be storable in the attached craft because of possible damage by jump space physics, etc.

The problem here, traditionally, is that if the jump bubble doesn't envelope the subcraft, the subcraft either stays behind (probably damaged) or is lost in j-space.

This is really going to depend on the rule version you're basing it on, and your interpretation of things. I'm partial to the the MT Starship Operator's Manual for my base assumptions, and based on the information in there, my interpretation works.

In most cases, my interpretations of things like this are primarly motivated by answering the following question: How can I give the players what they want and give me things that I can use as a GM to make things more interesting for them? See, I'm basically all about giving the players what they want on the surface - it's just that everything typically has a catch.

As long as I then stay consistent within MTU, it works for me. YMMV.

Simple solution is to assume that ALL space-rated craft of any size have the grid already in place, while things like air/rafts do not. Part of the docking connection links the subcraft grid to the main ship's grid automatically.

Simple solution, yes, but it then begs the following question to be answered - why pay for a lanthanum grid on a hull that has no jump drive? Particularly when the vast majority of them will never need that grid. This is perfectly acceptable, too - but for consistencies sake, the GM should probably have an answer to that question.

There are other possible solutions as well - frex, you could say that the Docking clamp includes some sort of cable/arm/field extender or other type of device that "warps" or extends the field to include the attached craft.

All in all, do what works or sounds best for YTU. My suggestion was based solely on what I would do.

 

[Dave Chase]

I'm more a CT follower though I have some of each of the other versions.

I think there is a slight missing a cylinder on the MT version.

The bubble follows the contour of the jump grid

This is just the Jump Field that follows the contour of the jump grid.
In the older version of Traveller (CT) a Jump Bubble was a large round thing that was set for the ship it was installed on and anything that was attached to the ship and outside that bubble's radius would cause a misjump and cut of the offending part.

kristof65 is more than likely correct about the MT version of things.

Basically I would be more concern with attempting to jump (no matter what version) with something attached to the ship that the engines were not setup to handle.

Dave Chase

 

[GypsyComet]

In the older version of Traveller (CT) a Jump Bubble was a large round thing that was set for the ship it was installed on and anything that was attached to the ship and outside that bubble's radius would cause a misjump and cut of the offending part.

kristof65 is more than likely correct about the MT version of things.

If you had seen the amount of debate the Starship Operators Manual caused when it was released, you would not say that so quickly.

The bubble being just off the hull dates well back into CT. The hull grid was DGP's rationalization of that, since GDW had not explained it.

CT cited "Lanthanum coils" in the jump drive itself, while MT/DGP moved some or all of the lanthanum out to the hull in a racially-distinctive grid.

Basically I would be more concern with attempting to jump (no matter what version) with something attached to the ship that the engines were not setup to handle.

From the pure rules POV, this is in fact the only concern.

If you needed any more evidence that we aren't all playing the same game despite using the same rulebooks, add this to the pile...

 

[kristof65]

I'm more a CT follower though I have some of each of the other versions.

I think there is a slight missing a cylinder on the MT version.

Probably. It's all hand-wave "science" no matter what the version anyway. I'm just partial to MTs Starship Operator Manual because it's pretty thorough in it's explainations of the routines and hand-wave physics for "operating" a starship. More so than any other rules version I own.

If Mongoose releases a similar product for MgT, good chance that would become my new "bible", even if it deviated from the MT version.

 

[kristof65]

If you needed any more evidence that we aren't all playing the same game despite using the same rulebooks, add this to the pile...

Heh heh. It would still be that way even if CT were still the only version. The fact there are what - nine* versions of Traveller rules, each with their own assumptions, just mixes things up even more.

As long as each GM is consistent within their own TU, they all work for me.




* Classic, Mega, TNE, T4, Mongoose, T5, T20, GURPS, Hero. Did I get them all?

 

[Marikir]

Yes High Guard covers this as a Docking Clamp. You need to add the tonnage of the spacecraft and the docked craft together, rounding up for the hull size to figure the drive sizes. Probably resulting in reduced performance.

Ah, success!

Okay, that at least lets me know that HG does have something in it concerning this.