[Crazy Idea Time] Folding Starship

[phavoc]

I think it would be difficult to allow PC's to do simply because it would mean money is no longer an issue - they could do this for a year and be rich and retire.

Or Tukera, Oberlindes and Akerut all start noticing and use more aggressive trade policies on the PCs' routes... couple of pulse laser hits here and there and you could easily bleed off a few million Cr in repairs every couple jumps. Or a small bomb in a cargo container, knocks a little hole in the ship and destroys 100 tons of cargo. Or a high passenger that's actually... you get the idea.

A little trade war never hurt anyone... Just gotta be careful and not kill anyone to cause the Imperials to get involved.

I guess my biggest issue with the whole drop tank idea is that it breaks the system too much. Regular shipping and passenger travel between systems that could support a DT infrastructure would be using them regularly because the economics would dictate it. Travel to smaller systems, or poorer ones with lower class star ports would have to utilize onboard fuel most of the time.

I'm not saying it's wrong, but I wonder if when it was included in the rules if they thought about the ramifications of all this. The idea has been around since CT days, but if you notice all the official designs, nobody is using drop tanks. And that's how it's been since then.

How many people use them in their adventures as a norm? I know for my gaming they aren't used.

 

[Reynard]

Unless your referee is running a My Drop Tank Universe there's no need or reason. The descriptor in all editions never made the drop tank concept cheap or easy. Even fuel bladders have its drawbacks so you don't get the best of all worlds. Traveller has always been about earning your way. I have never seen a need. If I were a player as part of an assault squadron, there you are. If a scout or science team needed to drop into a new system that could be vital and there's no detectable gas giant then yes. A trader class vessel? Are you kidding?

As an after market conversion, this will be a shipyard operation costing time and money beyond the cost of the tank and associated components. You won't be solving an adventure issue tomorrow and the solution better be worth the cost. Not sure how many patrons want to pimp your starship for a mission.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Not sure how many patrons want to pimp your starship for a mission.

This often depends on whether the patron gets to pick the paint job.

 

[Condottiere]

One issue with the droptanked X-boat line, is that you can't transition under hundred tonnes, otherwise you'd only need to push fifty plus tonnes or so of volume.

 

[PsiTraveller]

Well if nobody has tried out the idea in 30 years, I figure it is time. Ideas for challenging the players have covered military operations, sabotage, megacorporation agents posing as passengers, piracy and trade war combat. That's sounds like a fun campaign!

If the players pull it all off and become rich as kings, let them write up how they spend the rest of their lives and end the campaign. They can buy you dinner since they are so rich. Or take the campaign into a new area and have them try and buy their way into the upper levels of power. Whatever you want to do to have fun, enjoy.

Make the next campaign have the players as pirates focused on this new Megacorp that has all the money and big fat trading ships full of loot, and heavily armed escorts.

 

[Jame Rowe]

Assuming you can use a drop tank of fuel to run a jump drive, then your ship uses all of the fuel right at jump, and not over the course of the trip.

A jump drive's fuel use and range is based on the volume of the jumping ship.

So...pump the fuel by compressing the entire fuel tank, thus collapsing it at the same time. Presto! Your 200 ton with 70 tons of fuel can now go 5 parsecs instead of 3 because it's compressed down to 130 tons!

I actually prefer the concept of a collabsible fuel tank instead of a drop tank - I'm more in favor of reusability (getting extra drop tanks means getting more expenses).
My justification is that in the future, materials technology could have figured out how to solve the issue of storing liquid hydrogen in a collapsible storage unit (naysayers aside; technology DOES advance at some point).

The particulars are best left to the specific group, though, including not using it.

 

[rust2]

The idea has been around since CT days, but if you notice all the official designs, nobody is using drop tanks.

Mostly true, but there is for example the Gazelle Class Close Escort, and I seem to remember some more official ship designs with drop tanks.

 

[phavoc]

The idea has been around since CT days, but if you notice all the official designs, nobody is using drop tanks.

Mostly true, but there is for example the Gazelle Class Close Escort, and I seem to remember some more official ship designs with drop tanks.

Yes, there was that one. But if I recall the 'official' design had a logic error in it's calculations?

 

[rust2]

But if I recall the 'official' design had a logic error in it's calculations?

I think so, although I do not remember what exactly the problem was. Many of the early ship designs did not follow the rules very well.

 

[Condottiere]

That would be the extra hardpoint.

I think it's allowable, if it's affixed on the drop tank(s).

 

[FallingPhoenix]

One issue with the droptanked X-boat line, is that you can't transition under hundred tonnes, otherwise you'd only need to push fifty plus tonnes or so of volume.

I know that's the traditional Traveller rule, but is that rule stated anywhere in the current incarnation of the game?

 

[Reynard]

Drop tanks (and external pods) are not a permanent part of the ship except for the necessary internal components, they are an external accessory. Not the ship, not eligible for hard points or any other ship component.

FallingPhoenix: High Guard 2e (and every other edition): "Star Ship: A ship of 100 tons or more that is capable of jump travel." Ignorance of the rules is no excuse.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It is stated in the fluff text before the design system, but not in the design system itself.

Small Craft: A spacecraft of less than 100 tons. Small craft are incapable of jumping to other star systems.
System Ship: A ship without jump drives.
Star Ship: A ship of 100 tons or more that is capable of jump travel.

 

[phavoc]

But if I recall the 'official' design had a logic error in it's calculations?

I think so, although I do not remember what exactly the problem was. Many of the early ship designs did not follow the rules very well.

Yup, it was the Gazelle class escort from CT's Traders and Gunboats. It mounted 4 turrets - 2 lasers, 2 PA's, but only massed 300 tons (400 with the drop tanks installed). So yeah, it violated the stated rules. The ship illustrations also violated the idea of just how much space 100 tons of drop tanks would take up.

 

[AndrewW]

Yup, it was the Gazelle class escort from CT's Traders and Gunboats. It mounted 4 turrets - 2 lasers, 2 PA's, but only massed 300 tons (400 with the drop tanks installed). So yeah, it violated the stated rules. The ship illustrations also violated the idea of just how much space 100 tons of drop tanks would take up.

Note the Gazelle class close escort in the new High Guard is 400 tons not including drop tanks, though does still include drop tank mounts for an extended range.

 

[Sigtrygg]

The reason for the Gazelle is simple. It was designed using CT HG1 rules. In those rules drop tanks as we now call them are designated but are included in overall hull volume. So the Gazelle was always a 400t ship, but it could jettison its fuel tanks to improve its drive performance.

 

[FallingPhoenix]

FallingPhoenix: High Guard 2e (and every other edition): "Star Ship: A ship of 100 tons or more that is capable of jump travel." Ignorance of the rules is no excuse.

Yep, I missed that piece. Thanks for pointing it out.

Although I feel like I remember being surprised that the CT LBB didn't say anything about the 100 ton minimum, but I might be making that up. I'm not sure where I put my CT CD as of now and it's been a while since I looked at it.

 

[PsiTraveller]

Starship book pg 12
Definitions: A vessel is any interplanetary or interstellar vehicle. A ship is any
vessel of 100 tons or more. A starship is a ship which has jump drives and can travel
on interstellar voyages. A non-starship is a ship without jump drives. A small craft is
any vessel under 100 tons; all small craft are incapable of jump.

 

[Condottiere]

I think it got ambiguous, when probably FFS mentioned the minimum size of a power plant or drive had to be fourteen cubic metres, and you're off to the races.

It probably got clamped down hard again, to prevent anyone from reinventing the wheel, or more precisely, jump torpedoes.

 

[Reynard]

Hmm, my Book 2 Starship page 12 has the Computer software list. Be as it may, I am looking in the Starship Construction and it's all about STARSHIP construction with non-starships as pre-builds. All the charts have 100 tons as the smallest size hull. I guess that was a good descriptor rather repeating it in text.

Book 5 High Guard page 21 says non-starships are ships without jump drives and 100 tons or more while small craft are without jump drives and under 100 ton. That leaves starships at 100+ tons and jump engines. So it was there at the very beginning.

Disposable tanks, now called drops tanks, are described as fitted to the outside and dropped away at the time of jump "The result is more interior space for cargo and passengers. Such tanks must be replaced each time they are used so they are only practical on runs to civilized areas." If people want to use that example then they could have purpose built liners or freighters with no internal jump fuel on regular runs between class A and maybe B starports around worlds of 8+ population that have the facilities to retrieve and replace destroyed tanks and fit filled tanks for the next run. Not every world has TL 14+ services and resources so high tech drop tanks will be the exception and TL 12-13 more common so there will be cost of replacement. Quite possibly these vessels carry less maneuver and power plant fuel since they make exacting runs between jump and port like a train. Those limitation guarantee the best return on the costs for such operations.