Can't build the ISS?

[MasterGwydion]

The International Space Station is 100% modular, correct? In Traveller, modules are all internal to a craft or station and no more than 70% of the craft can be modular. On top of that, you can not include a bridge, power plant, or any drives at all in a module.

What is the fix for this? Or have I missed some rules somewhere?

 

[Geir]

Call it a dispersed structure* (non-gravitic, so a really cheap hull).

*some assembly required

 

[MasterGwydion]

Call it a dispersed structure* (non-gravitic, so a really cheap hull).

*some assembly required

lolz. Does that overcome the 70% rule?

 

[Geir]

Well... again, constrained by rules which are debatable when mapped from game to reality... it's either a completed dispersed structure (when complete) or it's a serial (or recursive? nah, not technically) breakaway hull situation. The definition of breakaway does say "two or more independent vessels" - it also says each must have an appropriate bridge and power plant to operate it - but I would rule that only mattered for the sections actually broken away, not while attached (and stations don't technically have bridges anyway). So add 2% to each module at MCr2 per ton for the connectors and call it good.

This ties back to the major refit thread. As written, it's restrictive without Referee creativity. One could argue that the definition of both Dispersed and Close structure hull would allow for replacement of whole 'modules'.

 

[Arkathan]

Zvezda is the propulsion and control hull. Call that a breakaway if you like, but bridge and maneuver can't be in a Mongoose Traveller module. The unity module contains the gyros, so breakaway hull there too. The Russian Progress and European ATV are docked craft when attached. The trusses hold the solar power generation. Those are not Mongoose Traveller modules either. Don't confuse built in pieces with modular. All configured into an overall dispersed structure, as Geir said.

 

[Shardan13]

Does this suggest with dispersed hull space stations there is a case for increasing hull displacement over time?

 

[Condottiere]

Podularization.

 

[ottarrus]

If you can find it, look for the Mongoose Traveller 1st ed book, Space Stations. It might help with some of the finagling.
Failing that, look at the new edition of 2300AD and the Aerospace Engineer's Guide. LOTS of stuff on stations in there.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Well... again, constrained by rules which are debatable when mapped from game to reality... it's either a completed dispersed structure (when complete) or it's a serial (or recursive? nah, not technically) breakaway hull situation. The definition of breakaway does say "two or more independent vessels" - it also says each must have an appropriate bridge and power plant to operate it - but I would rule that only mattered for the sections actually broken away, not while attached (and stations don't technically have bridges anyway). So add 2% to each module at MCr2 per ton for the connectors and call it good.

This ties back to the major refit thread. As written, it's restrictive without Referee creativity. One could argue that the definition of both Dispersed and Close structure hull would allow for replacement of whole 'modules'.

I was looking at pics of the ISS when I started this thread. I didn't realize that I found another needlessly restrictive rule, just like the refit one... Oops. I need to quit thinking.

I like your idea though. Add 2% for the connectors and ignore the, "every section must have a bridge, power, and drives" part.

Again, thank you Geir! Great idea.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Does this suggest with dispersed hull space stations there is a case for increasing hull displacement over time?

I would say that, they should be able to increase in size over time. Look at Charted Space. How many of those Starports do you think started out at the size they are now? Most of them, I would say, grew organically, but the current rules do not allow for that. Although, technically, I tlhink you can just weld sections together and call them one ship. I do not believe this actually violates any rule except for common sense....lol...

 

[Shardan13]

The use of sections also comes up in the Saturn V rockets though opposite of the ISS. The Saturn V losses it sections in its flight and changes displacement. I'm pretty certain most of those sections don't have a bridge though they do have engines.

 

[Arkathan]

Upper stages of the Saturn V are closer to docked craft or external cargo attached by clamps, which get explosively released at a set time.

 

[Geir]

A fully automated ship doesn't shouldn't a bridge, even if the text says so...
Where the language gets wonky is "must have a bridge that contains basic controls, communications equipment, avionics, scanners, detectors, sensors and other equipment for proper operation of the ship."

Which is fine, so you could argue that even without a seat, you need the list above (at least to function independently) - but if all those things are required, then the cockpit at Cr10000 versus the smallest bridge (you could, twisting words a bit make a 'small' 3 ton bridge at half cost - Cr0.25, if you accepted the DM-1) cost, then, well it's not the chair we're paying for but the stuff around it... so a pay-as-you-go set of controls like for vehicles instead of a 'buy this set' for 'bridge' and 'sensors' approach would be more flexible - and easier to robotize (is that a word - spell check red lines didn't trigger, so I guess so).

Anyway, clamps works as well. Only one part of the ship is a ship, and everything else is a bunch of 'not-ship-things'* attached by a Type I or bigger docking clamp.

Still, we're looking at edge cases here. In general, HighGuard works well. It's fun enough to build ships as a mini-solo game and there are no real gaping 'well how does that work?' issues (a.k.a. I can spec them out with Excel magic). I am currently fighting though the tears to spec some vehicles and still not sure if I have them right - not having fun.

*General constructions rules were thrown into the Drinaixan Companion, but they could use some work. Less than a build-up-from scratch FF&S system amount of work, but still, they could benefit from a better fit and more general distribution.

 

[Shardan13]

Upper stages of the Saturn V are closer to docked craft or external cargo attached by clamps, which get explosively released at a set time.

That's true, I unfortunately didn't think of that. I still think anyone trying to spec out a Saturn V with HG will have fun with the changing displacement.

 

[Arkathan]

Reaction drive, and each stage you just use an alternate volume. My excel ship designer does it, as does the old one that people like Another Dilbert use. (You'd have to ask him for that one)
Now that I think of it, each stage is designed to carry the ones above it, so just subtract the discarded stage and go from there, using a new calculation for each set.

 

[Shardan13]

Thanks, though I got my own Excel ship designer. Probably not as sophisticated as yours, still it's mine. Also thanks for the insight for the Saturn V. Now someone only needs to crazy enough to design it.

 

[Geir]

Thanks, though I got my own Excel ship designer. Probably not as sophisticated as yours, still it's mine. Also thanks for the insight for the Saturn V. Now someone only needs to crazy enough to design it.

Cation: This road leads to madness. I tried to do something similar around TNE times, didn't think the result was realistic, so I had to learn rocket science. Only got me to the point of being a spreadsheet rocketeer, but it did help me work on Pioneer.

 

[MasterGwydion]

A fully automated ship doesn't shouldn't a bridge, even if the text says so...
Where the language gets wonky is "must have a bridge that contains basic controls, communications equipment, avionics, scanners, detectors, sensors and other equipment for proper operation of the ship."

Which is fine, so you could argue that even without a seat, you need the list above (at least to function independently) - but if all those things are required, then the cockpit at Cr10000 versus the smallest bridge (you could, twisting words a bit make a 'small' 3 ton bridge at half cost - Cr0.25, if you accepted the DM-1) cost, then, well it's not the chair we're paying for but the stuff around it... so a pay-as-you-go set of controls like for vehicles instead of a 'buy this set' for 'bridge' and 'sensors' approach would be more flexible - and easier to robotize (is that a word - spell check red lines didn't trigger, so I guess so).

Anyway, clamps works as well. Only one part of the ship is a ship, and everything else is a bunch of 'not-ship-things'* attached by a Type I or bigger docking clamp.

Still, we're looking at edge cases here. In general, HighGuard works well. It's fun enough to build ships as a mini-solo game and there are no real gaping 'well how does that work?' issues (a.k.a. I can spec them out with Excel magic). I am currently fighting though the tears to spec some vehicles and still not sure if I have them right - not having fun.

*General constructions rules were thrown into the Drinaixan Companion, but they could use some work. Less than a build-up-from scratch FF&S system amount of work, but still, they could benefit from a better fit and more general distribution.

Always remember, the Travellers are all edge cases in the wider world, and speaking as a player and as a Referee, "Man do We think up some crazy sh*t to pull off from time to time!" lol

 

[Shardan13]

And I'm sure some of us even hurtle off that edge at full speed!