Drop Tanks... Back From the Dead?
- Thread starter Ol'Weedy
- Start date
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
I don’t have a drop tank variant to test. I’ll have to work one up to know for sure. It probably would make it but I’ll find out for sure tomorrow.
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
Docking clamps holding 18 50,000 pods external to the ship. These have fuel but I have cargo, low berth, and passenger pods, too.
I wonder...
Getting back to the regular ship that's just saving costs by using drop tanks vs internal tankage, it seems to me there might be a case there for a cheaper version that uses compatible tanks but lacks the rapid ejection option, so you can ONLY jump with them attached, or using internal tankage if you drop them before starting the jump sequence. External fuel pods give the same effect, but I think the drop tank gear is usually smaller and cheaper than the equivalent docking clamp, and if you're making a cheaper, reduced capability one that might make sense.
Getting back to the regular ship that's just saving costs by using drop tanks vs internal tankage, it seems to me there might be a case there for a cheaper version that uses compatible tanks but lacks the rapid ejection option, so you can ONLY jump with them attached, or using internal tankage if you drop them before starting the jump sequence. External fuel pods give the same effect, but I think the drop tank gear is usually smaller and cheaper than the equivalent docking clamp, and if you're making a cheaper, reduced capability one that might make sense.
Is there any functional reason those pods could not be done as External Cargo Mounts? Much cheaper at Cr1000 per ton and no extra cost to attach. Or am I missing something?
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
No.
But, like all free lunches, you're waiting for the other shoe to drop.
But, like all free lunches, you're waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
This. I went with docking clamps for reliability beyond what the rules mention. The external cargo mounts seem so ad hoc.
Last edited:
Well, they're only good for cargo. A big box without even access between the ship and itself. If you want to do anything with it other than pickup or delivery, you'd need a hull.
The clamp ship can act as a ferry or a tender.
There probably should be some rules about external cargo and incoming damage. Maybe just make it that Cargo hits don't benefit from hull armour? I could see there not being much difference between cargo held in an external box and one sitting behind an unarmoured hull anyway.
The clamp ship can act as a ferry or a tender.
There probably should be some rules about external cargo and incoming damage. Maybe just make it that Cargo hits don't benefit from hull armour? I could see there not being much difference between cargo held in an external box and one sitting behind an unarmoured hull anyway.
Last edited:
boggo2300
Cosmic Mongoose
not true if you fit an Unrep system, that will let you transfer the fuel from the container on the clamps to the ships fuel tanks
Well... technically the same applies either way. Neither docking clamps or external cargo give you any built in way to transfer stuff. Drop Tanks at least have their built in fuel transfer ability. I was mostly thinking of the external cargo angle from Terry's description of delivering fuel to a depot.
An UNREP would make sense for more than just that role, but I got the impression that Terry's ship was really designed around NOT spending any time loading or unloading the pods.
Maybe take along a fuel transfer/space station pod with its own docking clamps and lots of UNREP.
Last edited:
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Or just have the fuel handing equipment on the station and not on the ship. Much better solution. No need for the ship to have UNREP if the station/jump bridge has it.
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
This.
I dunno, but this whole discussion thread seems like crib notes for rules lawyers on ways to get around the rules. Traveller rules are already kinda full of contradictions depending on which version and book you want to cite (and, I think, most of the versions have been cited in this thread - cept maybe T20 and GURPS).
Has anyone considered that drop tanks have only been fitted to very small craft in our reality? First we had actual drop tanks, then conformal (i.e. permanent) ones were added, and then air-to-air refueling. The closest that seaborne vessels get has been to carry additional tanks of fuel - sometimes as cargo and sometimes anywhere they could find space for them. As far as I know, nobody has tried towing a barge of fuel or bolted on bilge-like creations to hulls. Granted that the vacuum of space and the drag from water are two different things (and all aerial tanks have to be streamlined since lift is a thing with aircraft).
It seems obvious that with the severe limitations imposed upon Traveller starships vis-a-vis the requirement of fuel to travel between the stars that there's gonna be a LOT of effort and ingenuity applied towards ways to address that. And therein lies the biggest contradiction of all - drop tanks would be sought after at TL9 when you see the first star ships being created because the limitation is inherent within the system (as opposed to the classic violence and oppression that is inherent in the system...) of fuel taking up so much volume.
Since that limitation is there from day one, why don't we see ALL starships with drop tank options to min/max their capabilities? A starship is a very large sunk cost. So both civilian and military operators are going to be looking for ways to get the biggest bang for their buck. We see the Gazelle with them (even though the design violated the rules) - but that's like the singular example from all the books (there certainly could be more, that's the only one I can recall of top of my head).
If these are to be a thing I'd think they'd have been more heavily integrated into the rules and we'd see variants of every design type outfitted with drop-tank capabilities since the payoff is so great. But we don't / didn't.
So would this really be a thing in the Traveller universe or is it really more of a min/max exercise?
Has anyone considered that drop tanks have only been fitted to very small craft in our reality? First we had actual drop tanks, then conformal (i.e. permanent) ones were added, and then air-to-air refueling. The closest that seaborne vessels get has been to carry additional tanks of fuel - sometimes as cargo and sometimes anywhere they could find space for them. As far as I know, nobody has tried towing a barge of fuel or bolted on bilge-like creations to hulls. Granted that the vacuum of space and the drag from water are two different things (and all aerial tanks have to be streamlined since lift is a thing with aircraft).
It seems obvious that with the severe limitations imposed upon Traveller starships vis-a-vis the requirement of fuel to travel between the stars that there's gonna be a LOT of effort and ingenuity applied towards ways to address that. And therein lies the biggest contradiction of all - drop tanks would be sought after at TL9 when you see the first star ships being created because the limitation is inherent within the system (as opposed to the classic violence and oppression that is inherent in the system...) of fuel taking up so much volume.
Since that limitation is there from day one, why don't we see ALL starships with drop tank options to min/max their capabilities? A starship is a very large sunk cost. So both civilian and military operators are going to be looking for ways to get the biggest bang for their buck. We see the Gazelle with them (even though the design violated the rules) - but that's like the singular example from all the books (there certainly could be more, that's the only one I can recall of top of my head).
If these are to be a thing I'd think they'd have been more heavily integrated into the rules and we'd see variants of every design type outfitted with drop-tank capabilities since the payoff is so great. But we don't / didn't.
So would this really be a thing in the Traveller universe or is it really more of a min/max exercise?
The rules clearly make them not practical. Single use, expensive, increase risk of misjump. Zero chance they'd be in commercial use under those circumstances. Limited applicability in military situations, too. One could easily argue that the Gazelle was a proof of concept design that failed to prove the concept.
But then we have the JTAS 2 TAS reports that say that drop tanks are increasingly common in the Core, having been made commercially viable more than a decade ago. And, obviously, drop tanks or fueling stations or whatever would absolutely revolutionize ship travel in the Imperium.
Equally, one of the things that has gone by the wayside over the decades is the idea that the Imperial Core is more advanced than the Fringes. So "the rules" for ships in the fringe might not be "the rules" for ships built in the Core. That was the gist of the TAS entries, advances in the Core spreading to the fringes, after all.
The fact that the rules make "never dropped" drop tanks better than fuel hull for many purposes is a flaw in the rules, imho. But if you made drop tanks actually work, then, yes Charted Space would be very different than published.
But then we have the JTAS 2 TAS reports that say that drop tanks are increasingly common in the Core, having been made commercially viable more than a decade ago. And, obviously, drop tanks or fueling stations or whatever would absolutely revolutionize ship travel in the Imperium.
Equally, one of the things that has gone by the wayside over the decades is the idea that the Imperial Core is more advanced than the Fringes. So "the rules" for ships in the fringe might not be "the rules" for ships built in the Core. That was the gist of the TAS entries, advances in the Core spreading to the fringes, after all.
The fact that the rules make "never dropped" drop tanks better than fuel hull for many purposes is a flaw in the rules, imho. But if you made drop tanks actually work, then, yes Charted Space would be very different than published.
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
Alright, @MasterGwydion, I've worked up a J4 Hercules that uses drop tanks. The ship's displacement without the drop tanks is 320,000 dtons. It displaces 1,420,000 tons with the addition of 23 50,000-ton pods (which the engines are built to handle. It will use 529,200 tons of fuel from the drop tanks on the way out (from the drop tanks) and deliver 1,110,700.59 tons of fuel in those pods.
To get back, I needed to include internal fuel tankage for the return trip. That has 115,200 tons of fuel preloaded for the return jump. That means it does not need to touch the 1.1 million tons of fuel it brought. MixCorp is once again pleased to be able to meet your needs in this matter. Please don't hesitate to contact us for future work! MixCorp: Making tomorrow's ships today!
To get back, I needed to include internal fuel tankage for the return trip. That has 115,200 tons of fuel preloaded for the return jump. That means it does not need to touch the 1.1 million tons of fuel it brought. MixCorp is once again pleased to be able to meet your needs in this matter. Please don't hesitate to contact us for future work! MixCorp: Making tomorrow's ships today!
Last edited:
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Well damn! Now we know who got the Navy Contracts for supplying the navy's jump bridges for the Islands Cluster.
Or this...
Atu'l Fleet Transit - Traveller
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
I made a math error. I had to reduce the number of pods, and it can only haul 23 of them. That's still 1.1 million tons of fuel, though. The above post has been updated.Well damn! Now we know who got the Navy Contracts for supplying the navy's jump bridges for the Islands Cluster.
Or this...
Atu'l Fleet Transit - Traveller
wiki.travellerrpg.com
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Oh no! Only 1.1 million tons! Contract cancelled! lol!
Fluffy Bunny Feet
Cosmic Mongoose
That part is inaccurate. You can reuse them indefinitely IF you never drop them.
Their chance of being destroyed drops with TL. At high TL where they are most likely recoverable they make long distance trade/travel more practical as the cost per ton of cargo exceeds (at J-6) the cost per ton of the drop tank and you increase your cargo/passenger load by nearly as much tonnage as the drop tank.
People have even cited official statements of it being in use in the 3rd Imperium core worlds.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
I think the original Trillion Credit had external fuel tanks, and may have been able to feed the jump drive directly.
As regards our real life ones, they're fire hazards, and mass matters to aeroplanes.
As regards our real life ones, they're fire hazards, and mass matters to aeroplanes.
