Drop Tanks... Back From the Dead?

[Ol'Weedy]

I think the fact that the last thread that had any real discussion on drop tanks was at least 6 years ago, shows how often they are added to designs these days.
I've never added them to any of my ships, because there seems to be better options. My opinion may have changed, when designing my last ship.
It's an in-system freighter, so has no need for them in the traditional sense. The ship is only 100 tons, but the engines are geared for 300 tons, so it can attach a pair of 100 ton external cargo mounts. I'd envisioned it being also used for fuel skimming, but operating a ship with ECM's in an atmosphere is apparently a bad idea, and there's oh so much atmosphere in a gas giant. No such restriction is applied to drop tanks however, so theoretically they can be used for skimming... they just wouldn't get 'dropped'.
That's what I'm house ruling anyway...

 

[Condottiere]

They're a sort of a one shot deal.

Also, technically, despite the original gangsta design, you can't add firm or hardpoints to it.

 

[Vormaerin]

I don't use them. I thought they were awful the first time I encountered them, though the intrigue and sabotage around their introduction to the Marches was amusing.

My problem is that, like many of these interesting side technologies, they should dramatically change how things work. Leastwise, they would if they become reliable. And I don't believe that they would persist in that high risk state. They would either be quickly improved (because they would make a very big difference along major shipping routes where large corporations could reuse them regularly) or they would prove impossible to improve and be tossed out. I prefer to go with the latter option.

 

[MasterGwydion]

They're a sort of a one shot deal.

Also, technically, despite the original gangsta design, you can't add firm or hardpoints to it.

There is nothing that says they can't have firmpoints or hardpoints. When attached to a ship they still can't exceed the 1 hardpoint per 100 tons rule. They already cost 25kCr per ton plus 500kCr per ton of mount. Add another 25kCr/ton and include this tonnage in the basic calculation for Power for Basic Ship Systems 0.2 PP per ton. Then it is wired anyhow, so you might as well mount a gun on it. I guess. Still not sure why you'd want to though. You don't have the weapon after the jump. lol

 

[MasterGwydion]

I don't use them. I thought they were awful the first time I encountered them, though the intrigue and sabotage around their introduction to the Marches was amusing.

My problem is that, like many of these interesting side technologies, they should dramatically change how things work. Leastwise, they would if they become reliable. And I don't believe that they would persist in that high risk state. They would either be quickly improved (because they would make a very big difference along major shipping routes where large corporations could reuse them regularly) or they would prove impossible to improve and be tossed out. I prefer to go with the latter option.

I don't use them either. At TL-15 they are pretty good though. No chance of failure, but they never improve on the 2d6 Diff 8 roll to see if they are destroyed or warped beyond repair. Seems like a lot of money for something that can only be reused less than half of the time.

 

[Condottiere]

There is nothing that says they can't have firmpoints or hardpoints. When attached to a ship they still can't exceed the 1 hardpoint per 100 tons rule. They already cost 25kCr per ton plus 500kCr per ton of mount. Add another 25kCr/ton and include this tonnage in the basic calculation for Power for Basic Ship Systems 0.2 PP per ton. Then it is wired anyhow, so you might as well mount a gun on it. I guess. Still not sure why you'd want to though. You don't have the weapon after the jump. lol

While I came to that conclusion myself, I couldn't find anything to support it.

Cos', I was thinking, anti torpedo bulges.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Actually, just mount a nuke in your drop tanks. Make sure the pirates that are chasing you are going to overtake you within a round of your jump. Drop tanks detonate next round. Poor pirates.

Also, angry Imperium, but you can't please everyone. lol.

 

[Condottiere]

Ortillery torpedo warhead.

Technically, not restricted.

 

[Sigtrygg]

There are at least two conflicting paradigms for drop tanks.

originally drop tanks were single use if used, although they could be carried along indefinitely if they were not used, explosive bolts would jettison the tank and break it up so as not to interfere with the jumping ship. The ship needed special jump capacitors as well which had a TL and cost.
The special capacitors were removed by High Guard 80

The original setting material presented in GDW JTAS via TAS News bulletins explained that high jump number merchant vessels and jump 6 xboats were in use in the core sector of the Imperium (something later authors eith don't know or are deliberately ignoring/retconning) and that plans were afoot to extend this to the Spinward Marches. A lot of people in the Marches didn't want increased Imperial control that would come with such a network (understandable for a new frontier, not so understandable for a region settled for over a thousand years but that is a different rant). Oddly there were accidents, drop tank construction facilites blew up and a drop tank liner exploded when its capacitors had a fault. - some suggested sabotage but the Imperium denied this.
Months later A Spinward Marches Oberlindes lines vessel, the Bloodwell, was destroyed by accident by an Imperial colonial cruiser, then later there would be rumours of Ine Givar freedom fighters started to grow. An xboat station was put out of action and an open rebellion kicked off on Efate...

Somewhere and somewhen in fanon someone had the idea that drop tanks didn't need to be destroyed on use, they could be recovered, refilled and reused. This is the second paradigm.

Which is where the setting destroying can of worms is opened.

If the drop tank can be recovered, why not just build an m-drive into the drop tank? A simple computer brain could pilot it away.
The "drop tank" could be an entire ship that docks with the jump ship, fuels its jump, and then maneuvers to safety. If that is the case why not just build a huge station with really long hoses that can fuel the jump ship.
No jump ship would ever need to carry internal jump fuel again as long as it jumped from worlds with a jump station to worlds with a jump station.

 

[MasterGwydion]

There are at least two conflicting paradigms for drop tanks.

originally drop tanks were single use if used, although they could be carried along indefinitely if they were not used, explsive bolts would jetison the tank and break it up so as not to interfere with the jump in ship. The ship needed spacial jump capacitors as well which had a TL and cost.
The special capacitors were removed by High Guard 80

The original setting material presented in GDW JTAS via TAS News bulletins explained that high jump number merchant vessels and jump 6 xboats were in use in the core sector of the Imperium (something later authors eith don't know or are deliberately ignoring/retconning) and that plans were afoot to extend this to the Spinward Marches. A lot of people in the Marches didn't want increased Imperial control that would come with such a network (understandable for a new frontier, not so understandable for a region settled for over a thousand years but that is a different rant). Oddly there were accidents, drop tank construction facilites blew up and a drop tank liner exploded when its capacitors had a fault. - some suggested sabotage but the Imperium denied this.
Months later A Spinward Marches Oberlindes lines vessel, the Bloodwell, was destroyed by accident by an Imperial colonial cruiser, then later there would be rumours of Ine Givar freedom fighters started to grow. An xboat station was put out of action and an open rebellion kicked off on Efate...

Somewhere and somewhen in fanon someone had the idea that drop tanks didn't need to be destroyed on use, they could be recovered, refilled and reused. This is the second paradigm.

Which is where the setting destroying can of worms is opened.

If the drop tank can be recovered, why not just build an m-drive into the drop tank? A simple computer brain could pilot it away.
The "drop tank" could be an entire ship that docks with the jump ship, fuels its jump, and then maneuvers to safety. If that is the case why not just build a huge station with really long hoses that can fuel the jump ship.
No jump ship would ever need to carry internal jump fuel again as long as it jumped from worlds with a jump station to worlds with a jump station.

I had those same thoughts on the second paradigm.

 

[Terry Mixon]

I don't use them either. At TL-15 they are pretty good though. No chance of failure, but they never improve on the 2d6 Diff 8 roll to see if they are destroyed or warped beyond repair. Seems like a lot of money for something that can only be reused less than half of the time.

Make them mobile with a good drive to get clear and a robot pilot. Singularity has a ship that is modular. This could be, too.

 

[Terry Mixon]

There are at least two conflicting paradigms for drop tanks.

originally drop tanks were single use if used, although they could be carried along indefinitely if they were not used, explosive bolts would jettison the tank and break it up so as not to interfere with the jump in ship. The ship needed spacial jump capacitors as well which had a TL and cost.
The special capacitors were removed by High Guard 80

The original setting material presented in GDW JTAS via TAS News bulletins explained that high jump number merchant vessels and jump 6 xboats were in use in the core sector of the Imperium (something later authors eith don't know or are deliberately ignoring/retconning) and that plans were afoot to extend this to the Spinward Marches. A lot of people in the Marches didn't want increased Imperial control that would come with such a network (understandable for a new frontier, not so understandable for a region settled for over a thousand years but that is a different rant). Oddly there were accidents, drop tank construction facilites blew up and a drop tank liner exploded when its capacitors had a fault. - some suggested sabotage but the Imperium denied this.
Months later A Spinward Marches Oberlindes lines vessel, the Bloodwell, was destroyed by accident by an Imperial colonial cruiser, then later there would be rumours of Ine Givar freedom fighters started to grow. An xboat station was put out of action and an open rebellion kicked off on Efate...

Somewhere and somewhen in fanon someone had the idea that drop tanks didn't need to be destroyed on use, they could be recovered, refilled and reused. This is the second paradigm.

Which is where the setting destroying can of worms is opened.

If the drop tank can be recovered, why not just build an m-drive into the drop tank? A simple computer brain could pilot it away.
The "drop tank" could be an entire ship that docks with the jump ship, fuels its jump, and then maneuvers to safety. If that is the case why not just build a huge station with really long hoses that can fuel the jump ship.
No jump ship would ever need to carry internal jump fuel again as long as it jumped from worlds with a jump station to worlds with a jump station.

This.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Make them mobile with a good drive to get clear and a robot pilot. Singularity has a ship that is modular. This could be, too.

Once you do that you may as well have refueling ships and refueling stations. Colliers and coal stations...

The setting changes instantly.

Not saying this is a bad thing, just that the Imperium as described needs a complete re-imagining as a consequence of re-usable drop tanks.

If only there were a way to Sim... ulate such changes to the setting...

 

[Terry Mixon]

Once you do that you may as well have refueling ships and refueling stations. Colliers and coal stations...

The setting changes instantly.

Not saying this is a bad thing, just that the Imperium as described needs a complete re-imagining as a consequence of re-usable drop tanks.

If only there were a way to Sim... ulate such changes to the setting...

You’re not wrong. I’m inclined to just leave it like the rules are written. Say the time interval is too small.

 

[shirgall]

Once you do that you may as well have refueling ships and refueling stations. Colliers and coal stations...

The setting changes instantly.

Not saying this is a bad thing, just that the Imperium as described needs a complete re-imagining as a consequence of re-usable drop tanks.

If only there were a way to Sim... ulate such changes to the setting...

The idea of a Battle Tender or a Pirate Cartel pre-positioning logistical refueling stations in otherwise uncharted "empty sectors" was a hook I had for a smuggling operation the Travellers got involved with.

The idea that refueling could be in the form of drop tanks is straightforward, but would require crew and a task chain with Mechanic [inspection and assembly checklist, lots of fuel connections and power conduits], Engineering/Power or Engineering/Jump [no one would jump without a function check first, right, and those flow regulators have to be perfect!]. Such a thing is likely routine at a shipyard but Very Difficult in the field.

This is no different than the idea that Battle Tenders or extremely large frieghters are needed to move SDBs and stations from the really good shipyards to other systems even if they are no jump-capable themselves. Why not fuel depots? And if you move a fuel depot, why not drop tanks?

 

[MasterGwydion]

The idea of a Battle Tender or a Pirate Cartel pre-positioning logistical refueling stations in otherwise uncharted "empty sectors" was a hook I had for a smuggling operation the Travellers got involved with.

The idea that refueling could be in the form of drop tanks is straightforward, but would require crew and a task chain with Mechanic [inspection and assembly checklist, lots of fuel connections and power conduits], Engineering/Power or Engineering/Jump [no one would jump without a function check first, right, and those flow regulators have to be perfect!]. Such a thing is likely routine at a shipyard but Very Difficult in the field.

Actually it wouldn't. This isn't D&D. In Traveller checks are only made when it has dramatic value. If you can use a docking clamp in space, then why would this be any different? The docking clamp contains the connections. Drop tanks on airplanes are not Very Difficult to put on and they have explosive bolts for dropping their tanks too, plus most of the same connections.

CRB page 58

"The referee should only call for checks when:
• The Travellers are in danger.
• The task is especially difficult or hazardous.
• The Travellers are under the pressure of time.
• Success or failure is especially important or interesting

This is no different than the idea that Battle Tenders or extremely large frieghters are needed to move SDBs and stations from the really good shipyards to other systems even if they are no jump-capable themselves. Why not fuel depots? And if you move a fuel depot, why not drop tanks?

Fuel depots are gas stations. It is just like pulling up the starport to refuel. Fuel Depots/Fuel Caches and Drop Tanks are nowhere close to the same thing. If a Battle Tender shipped several 50,000-ton fuel pods to an empty hex, they are gas stations, not drop tanks with explosive bolts.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

Take a purpose built Seeker 80 tons. 20 tons of fuel in a drop tank, all other components the same as the current Seeker (Scout conversion). It carries the drop tank through Jump and is therefore large enough to jump. The ship is somewhat cheaper and for the mining function if it carries a Jump Net can tow more mass without the drop tank than with it and still make 1 g.

Also I see no reason that drop tanks (with the usual 20% premium) can't be streamlined like a hull or module and carried in atmosphere. Military aircraft have done this for the best part of a century.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

"The referee should only call for checks when:
• The Travellers are in danger.
• The task is especially difficult or hazardous.
• The Travellers are under the pressure of time.
• Success or failure is especially important or interesting

Or as a red herring.

 

[shirgall]

Actually it wouldn't. This isn't D&D. In Traveller checks are only made when it has dramatic value. If you can use a docking clamp in space, then why would this be any different? The docking clamp contains the connections. Drop tanks on airplanes are not Very Difficult to put on and they have explosive bolts for dropping their tanks too, plus most of the same connections.

CRB page 58

"The referee should only call for checks when:
• The Travellers are in danger.
• The task is especially difficult or hazardous.
• The Travellers are under the pressure of time.
• Success or failure is especially important or interesting

Fuel depots are gas stations. It is just like pulling up the starport to refuel. Fuel Depots/Fuel Caches and Drop Tanks are nowhere close to the same thing. If a Battle Tender shipped several 50,000-ton fuel pods to an empty hex, they are gas stations, not drop tanks with explosive bolts.

Yes, if they take more time to connect a drop tank in the field, they can get that +2 DM. That's standard.

My thinking is that the sheer amount of fuel that has to be delivered very quickly is what makes the consequence of failure of the fuel connection big, not the docking clamp itself. And you have to arm explosive bolts now? Next to a giant fuel tank? The consequences include mis-jump, screwing up with an explosive bolt (either fails to disconnect or fires at the wrong time), leaky connection, ... there's plenty of good ones.

Getting rid of a tank only requires re-sealing the system. I can see that as routine.

With my group, I only make them roll things like this a couple of times until it "becomes routine". For something to become routine they cannot be rolling failures...

 

[shirgall]

Left a piece out. A battle tender can deliver almost anything. Why not a full drop tank ready to connect?