Ask MongooseMatt ANYTHING!!!

[Terry Mixon]

Okay, not really anything, but when we post questions about the rules or potential typos in the feedback area, we often don't receive a response, so I'm creating this thread in the hopes of getting some response to questions we have, even if it is "we're looking at that" or some such.

I'll kick this off with a question I posted a few days ago. The emergency low berths in High Guard 2022 Update are listed at MC1 a pop. Seems real pricy since Mongoose 1e and all the previous versions of Traveller we checked had it being KCr100. In Mongoose 1e, it was listed as MCr.1 and we suspect a typo. Can we get some clartity on that so we can update the starship build sheet to reflect what we suspect if we're right? Thanks.

Also, allow me to suggest that adding KCr, BCr (or GCr to please @Geir), and TCr to your repertoire would be really helpful and would minimize the complaints about not having comma separation in your big numbers, too.

And sorry for all the wild AMA questions you're about to get @MongooseMatt.

 

[Condottiere]

There's what's understood as a default Traveller spacecraft airlock.

And, anything else that could be adapted.

 

[Tforbes]

Sure, for values of airlock that make the word essentially meaningless. If you say airlock, everyone is going to expect a foyer with airtight doors one both sides so you can change the atmosphere in a small area when transitioning instead of a huge area.

So, yes, in theory, the foyer could be 90% of your house. But you've stretched the meaning to a point where no one will understand what you are saying.

I'm in complete agreement with regards to how ridiculous and impractical that would be.

Best solution, to solve the problem we were trying to address, would simply be to put a line in the description of cockpits that for purposes of requirements, a cockpit should count as an airlock.

 

[MasterGwydion]

if they closed off the internal doors to the Bridge and crew quarters, then would the rest of the main body of the ship be considered an airlock for purposes of this example about entering into the ship via a hatch?

Oh crap! It just occurred to me that these "free" airlocks may be internal and not external. You have a hatch between the cargo bay and the rest of the ship. This combined with the exterior cargo hatch makes one big airlock. So, on a 100-ton ship maybe that is the only one. One a 200-ton ship, maybe there is a hatch to the bridge as well. That makes the area between the cargo bay and the bridge an airlock. So, those are the 2 "free" airlocks for the 200-ton ship.

Obviously these are just examples and other configurations are possible, but I had not considered these types of "airlocks" before. This actually better fits the rules than anything else I have heard discussed in here. Thanks for this idea!

 

[Condottiere]

 

[MasterGwydion]

A hallway could be used as an interior airlock when transitioning between parts of the ship with Multi-Environment Spaces.

 

[WHULorigan]

Basically, there should be an airlock (or at least a pressure-hatch) between any two proper "compartments" of the hull, as traced out by bulkhead (as opposed to simple interior walls/partitions). Those compartments are pressure-tight and should limit depressurization hazards due to any hull-breach. They should ideally have interconnecting airlocks (or again, at least a pressure-seal hatch and pressure-responsive iris-valve between them).

On many old Classic Traveller deckplans, bulkhead was shown by double-thickness lines for the walls on deck-plan diagrams.

 

[Vormaerin]

I would assume that ships have compartments and air tight hatches so you don't decompress the entire ship with one breach. What distinguishes an airtight hatch from an airlock is the double door creating a separate compartment specifically for adjusting for atmospheric changes between the two sides. You would only really need internal airlocks if you have specialized atmosphere compartments (like staterooms for aquatic passengers or other non standard atmosphere) or like a cargo hold you regularly depressurize, which isn't standard practice in Traveller.

Airlocks can be different sizes depending on how many people you want to be able to send through in one cycle of the atmosphere. Generally, you want the smallest practical airlock for your needs because cycling the atmosphere is time consuming and may have costs associated with it (though none are mentioned as being significant in Traveller, but then I don't think cycle time is discussed either ).

 

[Terry Mixon]

Here is another question for you @MongooseMatt or @paltrysum. If a ship has the software to have a virtual crew (or a ship's brain) and robots to handle the mobile tasks such as in engineering, is a physical bridge required for the drone ship? My take is that the 10% buffer in tonnage for a ship would allow the equipment housed in a bridge to go into the walls, floors, etc and that the bridge proper is for parking sophont butts (should they have butts). Others disagree.

There is an argument for paying the cost (or some fraction of it) as some equipment isn't necessarily included. Personally, I suspect the cost is eaten up by the parts installed all over the ship. The sensors and avionics would already be there. Not sure what else might be bridge only.

Your thoughts?

 

[paltrysum]

Here is another question for you @MongooseMatt or @paltrysum. If a ship has the software to have a virtual crew (or a ship's brain) and robots to handle the mobile tasks such as in engineering, is a physical bridge required for the drone ship? My take is that the 10% buffer in tonnage for a ship would allow the equipment housed in a bridge to go into the walls, floors, etc and that the bridge proper is for parking sophont butts (should they have butts). Others disagree.

There is an argument for paying the cost (or some fraction of it) as some equipment isn't necessarily included. Personally, I suspect the cost is eaten up by the parts installed all over the ship. The sensors and avionics would already be there. Not sure what else might be bridge only.

Your thoughts?

My take on it is the bridge is an interface for humans to control the systems in the ship. If things are automated, there is no need for a bridge. However, when your Referee says that computer gets hacked and the ship could have been operated "on manual," you'll be up the creek without a paddle. Also, it wouldn't jump with much success since a biological astrogator is required, Hiver automation notwithstanding.

 

[Vormaerin]

That feels like it's more going to be a matter of law than a matter of engineering. You absolutely don't need a bridge if you have a fully automated ship like that.

But, within the Imperium, my understanding is that fully automated ships are not legal. Someone has to be on board and capable of asserting control of the ship. So a bridge is effectively required.

Obviously, if you are not in the Imperium or you don't run your Imperium that way because that fluff is kind of vague and unclear, then roboships without bridges are feasible.

 

[Terry Mixon]

My take on it is the bridge is an interface for humans to control the systems in the ship. If things are automated, there is no need for a bridge. However, when your Referee says that computer gets hacked and the ship could have been operated "on manual," you'll be up the creek without a paddle. Also, it wouldn't jump with much success since a biological astrogator is required, Hiver automation notwithstanding.

The astrogator is understood, but as this is a drone ship discussion, it might not be jump capable at all or someone feels froggy. Roleplaying opportunity!

That said, one could argue there are consoles of some kind in engineering that could be commandeered to fight the hacker or even plot a jump.

Thanks for your insight. I appreciate it.

 

[mavikfelna]

My take on it is the bridge is an interface for humans to control the systems in the ship. If things are automated, there is no need for a bridge. However, when your Referee says that computer gets hacked and the ship could have been operated "on manual," you'll be up the creek without a paddle. Also, it wouldn't jump with much success since a biological astrogator is required, Hiver automation notwithstanding.

If a ship has a ship's brain or robot with Astrogation skill, and there is no bridge, but there is a live person aboard that could check the calculations from their stateroom computer, does it suffer a -8 DM for full automation and no Astrogator check, or just the -4 DM for automated Astrogation? Does having a bridge make a difference to this?
Does a bridge make a difference if it's just the AI rolling with its Astrogation skill?

 

[WHULorigan]

I would assume that ships have compartments and air tight hatches so you don't decompress the entire ship with one breach. What distinguishes an airtight hatch from an airlock is the double door creating a separate compartment specifically for adjusting for atmospheric changes between the two sides. You would only really need internal airlocks if you have specialized atmosphere compartments (like staterooms for aquatic passengers or other non standard atmosphere) or like a cargo hold you regularly depressurize, which isn't standard practice in Traveller.

Yes. But if you do have a breach or pressure differential, do you want to have to decompress a compartment that has atmospheric integrity just to gain access to another that is decompressed or breached? An airtight hatch will maintain integrity, but it won't allow passage between the two without decompressing a non-compromised compartment.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I would assume that ships have compartments and air tight hatches so you don't decompress the entire ship with one breach. What distinguishes an airtight hatch from an airlock is the double door creating a separate compartment specifically for adjusting for atmospheric changes between the two sides. You would only really need internal airlocks if you have specialized atmosphere compartments (like staterooms for aquatic passengers or other non standard atmosphere) or like a cargo hold you regularly depressurize, which isn't standard practice in Traveller.

Airlocks can be different sizes depending on how many people you want to be able to send through in one cycle of the atmosphere. Generally, you want the smallest practical airlock for your needs because cycling the atmosphere is time consuming and may have costs associated with it (though none are mentioned as being significant in Traveller, but then I don't think cycle time is discussed either ).

It is listed as 1 minute or less in the SOM under Airlocks. I do not remember the page number.

 

[paltrysum]

That feels like it's more going to be a matter of law than a matter of engineering. You absolutely don't need a bridge if you have a fully automated ship like that.

But, within the Imperium, my understanding is that fully automated ships are not legal. Someone has to be on board and capable of asserting control of the ship. So a bridge is effectively required.

Obviously, if you are not in the Imperium or you don't run your Imperium that way because that fluff is kind of vague and unclear, then roboships without bridges are feasible.

Hmm. Got a source on that? I don't remember reading that it's illegal not to have a crew on board, but that would make things interesting for a campaign I'm playing in. I'm currently playing a Hiver who managed to obtain a Whimsy-class personal transport, a fully automated ship. We're using it in the Spinward Marches (yes, I flew this thing across Charted Space to get here), which is of course Imperial space. It does have a command centre in place of a bridge, but I'm not sure if that counts.

 

[Vormaerin]

It don't know that it is ever phrased like that. It's always waffle worded like "No one likes having robo ships" and whatnot. That's why I said that the fluff was vague and unclear and you might not play that way.

The crewing "rules" are obviously laws of government, not laws of nature. There used to be mechanics about being short staffed in Engineering, but they went away long ago. There's literally nothing in the mechanics that requires a ship to have even a single person on board, other than the johnny come lately Niven-ism about astrogation computers no longer being able to astrogate without someone thinking happy thoughts. Which I think we determined MJD added to the game out of thin air and was propagated on from there.

However, the clear intention is that ships in have people on them and that kind of widespread culture generally results from laws, not fuzzy feelings. Naval salvage laws IRL have a lot to say about uncrewed ships too. Just saying

But, no, I am not aware of anyone explicitly stating that is a law. It's just the least complex way to explain the fluff of actually human crewed vessels being the norm.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Virtual software says there are drone ships in the description. Details might vary, but mining drone ships are mentioned as well somewhere.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I would think that fully robotic ships would be the norm for intercontinental and interplanetary ships. Fully autonomous vehicles are already a huge thing in Traveller.

 

[Vormaerin]

That's going to get into an argument about what "Drone ships" are. Drone is usually used to mean something a human in monitoring. Like probe drones. So, yes, I am sure there are in system ships controlled by/actively monitored by telemetry. That's different from a fully automated ship that doesn't have anyone associated with running it.

Those drone ships are probably considered legally part of the mother ship/station.

But, ultimately, Charted Space has spent 50 years actively avoiding explaining why it is the way it is and not any other way. So, yeah, there's literally no limits on what can be done because they can't consistently distinguish the generic Traveller rules for sci fi from from the specifics of a setting with clear and obvious tropes in mind.

 

[Terry Mixon]

That's going to get into an argument about what "Drone ships" are. Drone is usually used to mean something a human in monitoring. Like probe drones. So, yes, I am sure there are in system ships controlled by/actively monitored by telemetry. That's different from a fully automated ship that doesn't have anyone associated with running it.

Those drone ships are probably considered legally part of the mother ship/station.

There are range of the transmitters limit that to medium range with no penalties and that might not be very useful in mining asteroids.

Also, the ship I posted above for executives mentioned that it travels without people aboard, so that’s an example of a ship traveling without people on occasion. It calls the vessel that can jump with no crew a drone, so the usage is right for how I did it.



It mentions they can operate autonomously. If that were illegal, the software wouldn’t allow it.

Ships that have no living crew make appropriate checks with a skill level equal to their Virtual Crew score and can also be controlled through the use of the Electronics (remote ops) skill. When using Electronics (remote ops), DM-2 is applied to all checks made if the drone ship is at Long range to the controller and DM-4 if it is at Very Long range. A drone ship cannot be remotely controlled at Distant ranges and must rely on its own programming.