Doors and Door Pressures

[Reynard]

You're right but that's a very vague statement. Seems not really related to the paragraph. What does the integrity of a door frame have to do with a non-mechanical lock?

Until we hear differently, the official word must be that all walls and doors are sealed and airtight. I hope the fresher cabinet has life support vents in case the door closes. :shock:

 

[sideranautae]

You're right but that's a very vague statement. Seems not really related to the paragraph. What does the integrity of a door frame have to do with a non-mechanical lock?

Until we hear differently, the official word must be that all walls and doors are sealed and airtight. I hope the fresher cabinet has life support vents in case the door closes. :shock:

I agree with you. I just pointed it out. It is indeed VERY vague and, out of place subject wise. Weird editing for sure.

 

[Reynard]

Wait.... did we just totally agree on something?!

 

[sideranautae]

Wait.... did we just totally agree on something?!

Red alert! :lol:

 

[wbnc]

And it was written in the last days before chaos and fire descended across creation the Lesser Spotted mongoose, and the Greater spotted mongoose would be in accordance...

Book of the Great Eater of Snakes

I can recall when I was working on a large ship, most walls weren't much more than metal sheeting. watertight bulkheads were somewhat thicker and could stand up to a great deal of punishment. If ya wanted a good example look at submarines, or the shuttle and see how their pressure bulkheads are laid out.

If I had to make a guess, since it takes 50 points of damage from conventional heavy weapons to do one point of damage to a starship...and small arms are no effect... you would need to do 51 points with laser or plasma weapon, or explosive device, to punch a hole in a pressure bulkhead.

 

[travchao999]

And it was written in the last days before chaos and fire descended across creation the Lesser Spotted mongoose, and the Greater spotted mongoose would be in accordance...

Book of the Great Eater of Snakes

I can recall when I was working on a large ship, most walls weren't much more than metal sheeting. watertight bulkheads were somewhat thicker and could stand up to a great deal of punishment. If ya wanted a good example look at submarines, or the shuttle and see how their pressure bulkheads are laid out.

If I had to make a guess, since it takes 50 points of damage from conventional heavy weapons to do one point of damage to a starship...and small arms are no effect... you would need to do 51 points with laser or plasma weapon, or explosive device, to punch a hole in a pressure bulkhead.

You're just talking about a bulkhead, not a hole in the hull, right, because I thought that the hull points was the integrity of the hull, while a point of structure lost was a bulkhead that makes up the structure of the ship breaking. See, I wish the advanced combat rules in high guard was more like Attack Vector: Tactical, which I believe is the best starship combat simulator out there, I wish I had people to play it with.

 

[sideranautae]

If I had to make a guess, since it takes 50 points of damage from conventional heavy weapons to do one point of damage to a starship...and small arms are no effect... you would need to do 51 points with laser or plasma weapon, or explosive device, to punch a hole in a pressure bulkhead.

That sounds like a good rule of thumb

 

[wbnc]

hmmm let see what i can dig out of another book......


Material TL Hull & Structure Mass per M3(kg) Cost per Base Armour
Multiplier M3 (Cr.)
Wood/Organic Materials 1 0.5 85 100 1
Iron 3 0.8 110 150 2
Steel 5 1 100 200 3
Light Alloys 6 1.1 80 250 2
Advanced Composites 7 1.25 90 500 4
Crystaliron 10 1.5 125 1,000 6
Superdense 12 2 150 5,000 7
Bonded Superdense 14 3 200 10,000 8

hull and structure for vehicles,(and I'd say structures) is cubic meters/3

So I'd have to go with if it's less than a cubic meter in volume it has hull 0, structure 1....since these numbers are for personal scale. Normal weapons affect them. If you punch through with wepon the hole is the size of the projectile, while an explosive would probably blow hole...

Hole size in feet = penetrating damage/base armor

If you us a grenade to blast a hole in a wooden wall and it does 10 points of damage...the armor of would is 1, so 9 points get through...that's probably going to blow out the entire wall.

A good way to figure out the M3 of an object is take its size, compare it to mass per M3.

Of course the person placing the charge would have to have some skill with explosives, and make a check to get the charge in the right place.

If your using a plasma weapons I'd go with the same process. Since a plasma weapon is basically a shaped charge it would act like an explosive charge if it hit a structure. But you'd halve armor for penetration of the shot. then reduce the size of the hole to say 1/4 the size of an explosive blast...since the plasma bolt is extremely confined.

 

[sideranautae]

So I'd have to go with if it's less than a cubic meter in volume it has hull 0, structure 1....since these numbers are for personal scale. Normal weapons affect them.

Even if your target is that 1 meter size, if it is ship hull material, the other rule applies. It is the toughness of the material that prevents damage by small weaponry...

In other words, if one was to take a section of a ships hull and prop it up at the local pistol range. You would be SOL trying to affect it with your laser pistol.

 

[wbnc]

So I'd have to go with if it's less than a cubic meter in volume it has hull 0, structure 1....since these numbers are for personal scale. Normal weapons affect them.

Even if your target is that 1 meter size, if it is ship hull material, the other rule applies. It is the toughness of the material that prevents damage by small weaponry...

In other words, if one was to take a section of a ships hull and prop it up at the local pistol range. You would be SOL trying to affect it with your laser pistol.

Pretty much. I was talking about interior materials and common structures.

I'd be pretty confident in saying that the exterior hull of a starship is far more resistant than an interior pressure wall. the interior sections aren't expected to survive micro-meteor impacts, hard radiation, and exposure to rapid changes of heat and cold.

 

[sideranautae]

So I'd have to go with if it's less than a cubic meter in volume it has hull 0, structure 1....since these numbers are for personal scale. Normal weapons affect them.

Even if your target is that 1 meter size, if it is ship hull material, the other rule applies. It is the toughness of the material that prevents damage by small weaponry...

In other words, if one was to take a section of a ships hull and prop it up at the local pistol range. You would be SOL trying to affect it with your laser pistol.

Pretty much. I was talking about interior materials and common structures.

I'd be pretty confident in saying that the exterior hull of a starship is far more resistant than an interior pressure wall. the interior sections aren't expected to survive micro-meteor impacts, hard radiation, and exposure to rapid changes of heat and cold.

That makes sense.

 

[Reynard]

"sections aren't expected to survive micro-meteor impacts, hard radiation, and exposure to rapid changes of heat and cold."

Or anti-ship weaponry. Just strong enough to stop decompression and shrapnel from hull breaches.

 

[sideranautae]

"sections aren't expected to survive micro-meteor impacts, hard radiation, and exposure to rapid changes of heat and cold."

If it is a part of the hull just cut out then yes, it has to. Do you REALLY think that a micrometer hits the entire hull rather than a teeny tiny part??? :lol:

 

[Reynard]

Not my quote but to be sure, micro meteors aren't always just single pea sized objects. A hull probably faces both a an occasional tap and at other times a raining rat-tat-tat from a mass of particles spreading their high acceleration energy over a larger surface. Thankfully, in our real world and in the lands of Traveller, probes, ships and stations aren't regularly obliterated by BBs from space. Hulls are built to resist well enough so you don't hear about regular maintenance done vs. accumulated meteor damage similar to annual barnacle cleanings. This can be a good explanation for a 10 to 1 ration of toughness for hull compared to bulkhead and why physical weapons have no real effect.

 

[wbnc]

the numbers are fairly large I admit, and to say that every square centimeter of a hull is built like a bank vault door is a bit of a stretch. But without specifying every possible piece of structure of a ship, the general number is as good as it gets for game purposes.I'd have to say the huge difference is reasonable.

My reasoning.....

One piece of pea sized junk has the impact of a high powered rifle round when it is encountered at orbital velocities. at interplanetary flight speed a hand full of pea sized rocks has the same effect as a burst from a high powered machine gun.

BB and pea sized debris would be rather rare in open space, however dust smaller than a grain of rice would be as destructive as a load of birdshot. A ship could literally have its surface scoured away every time it flew through a dust cloud, or near an icy body.

On any one flight the odds of a chance encounter with a hand full of BBs is very low, over a ten or twenty year service life...almost certain. So you use titanium, high density, high strength ceramics, advanced alloys etc.... In multiple layers, with overlapping panels to protect various parts and pieces.


So In any one location the hull may not be as thickly protected but as a whole it is far more robust than anything short of a main battle tank.

 

[Rick]

Hmm, I agree that open space might well have less small debris, but most of the ships in Traveller are likely to be going places where said small debris is relatively common. So it makes sense to have an armoured hull - a bit like a car or light van; if the car body couldn't stand up to, at the very least, a fierce hailstorm or light impacts, it wouldn't be doing a very good job.

 

[Reynard]

And they do say an 'unarmored hull' protects against micrometeors so the term is relative. It's effectively unarmored against purpose built weapons but tough as nails against the common rigors of space which is still considerable.

Far more normally, the inner bulkhead has absolutely no need to be anywhere that tough nor is it expected to be ready for boarding events. Commercialism guarantees it. It is armor for violent breaks in the hull reducing effects of decompression and possible shrapnel. Inner walls are even less crucial for protection and are essentially for comfort and modesty so they are comparably cheap paper walls dressing up a protected bulkhead section. Again, commercial necessity.

If you are truly that kind of paranoid then have a ship built with Armored Bulkhead from High Guard (pg. 41) and treat that like the toughness of the hull damage points.

 

[wbnc]

that would definitely do the trick. assigning the cost and tonnage for the bulkheads would give the internal sections the same reinforced structure as the hull.

 

[Rick]

Heh - just thought of designing a ship with a (very) concealed airlock somewhere, but a (very) obvious airlock that just opens into an area between 2 armoured bulkheads, with no exits and an armoured shutter than rolls down behind them! :twisted:

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Heh - just thought of designing a ship with a (very) concealed airlock somewhere, but a (very) obvious airlock that just opens into an area between 2 armoured bulkheads, with no exits and an armoured shutter than rolls down behind them! :twisted:

There was an old 'White Dwarf' that had that + a VRF Gauss gun's muzzle pointing in.