Fessor Cargo Multipurpose Ship

[Condottiere]

Minimum one tonne fuel tankage is in the rules, it's why I seriously started looking at diesel engines.

I'd say that combining the breakaways allows all the engineering components to be directly controlled from one central location, probably why you need an appropriate sized bridge.

 

[PsiTraveller]

Yeah the Fessor ignores the minimum 1 ton rule. The sub unit cargo pod (pg 6) has 1.5 tons of powerplant and 0.5 tons of fuel and says it has power for 12 weeks. That (to me anyway) seems to show the thought pattern of 1.5 tons of powerplant, 10 percent of which is 0.15 tons, so 3 times that is 0.45 tons... 0.5 tons for 12 weeks. The RAW would be 1 ton for 4 weeks.

Now if you want to argue that 1.5 tons of powerplant should use less fuel in a month than 10 tons of powerplant I can see the argument. Small plants seem to get hosed on not needing less fuel. This can hurt smaller ship designs since there is no tonnage saving for a smaller powerplant.

 

[Condottiere]

I've looked at the rule, and I've never discovered a loophole.

In the last edition, there was no minimum tonnage for a spacecraft either, so it was pretty easy to design a rocket sled propelled by dual high burn thrusters, the only issue was whether sub ten tonnes qualified for a firmpoint.

Minimum fuel tank not really an issue for larger spacecraft.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello all,

1. Calculating Breakaway hull performance
MgT 2e page 12/PDF page 13 Breakaway Hulls:"...While the sections are together, drives, power plants, and weapons can all be combined when calculating performance...."

My understanding is as follows:

A breakaway hull with jump drives in all section determines performance by combining all the drive tonnages together dividing by the combined hull tonnage and cross referencing on the Jump Potential Table. In theory the combined jump fuel tankage should be enough fuel to perform a jump at the maximum rating.

The gravitic maneuver drive tonnages of all section are combined to determine total tonnage and the maximum thrust.

The power plant tonnages, fuel tank tons, and power output of all section are combined to determine total tonnage, fuel tank tons, and power output.

On the Fessor the only common component between the core hull and the pods are their power plants and fuel tankage. The Fessor's record sheet, page 4, shows that the power plant has a fuel load for 4 weeks of operation which in my opinion is an indicator of performance. The 400 ton hull's combined power plant tonnage is 17 tons which is 0.1 x 17 = 1.7 = 2 tons of fuel. The combined pod power plant fuel tank tonnage is 2 tons which gives combined 400 ton hull another 2 weeks of operation. A single fuel collection pod with 42 tons would allow the combined 400 ton hull to operate for 21 weeks.

Following the fuel tank RAW and all four pods carry 1 ton of power plant fuel would combine to give the composite 400 ton hull power plant an operational duration of 8 weeks and a total of 12 weeks including the core hull's 2 tons of fuel.

I just noticed, thanks to PsiTraveller, that there are two different size of pod power plant. The cargo and passenger pods use a 1.5 ton power plant. The mining, medical, and fuel pods have 2 ton power plants.

Using a 1.5 ton power plant the core hull's power plant's tonnage increase by 1.5, 3, 4.5, or 6 tons
Using a 2 ton power plant the core hull's power plant's tonnage increase by 2, 4, 6, or 8 tons when they are combined
Using a combination of the two power plants the core hull's power plant's tonnage increase by 3.5, 5, 5.5, 6.5, or 7.5 tons when they are combined

With the new information I have to conclude that the 17 ton power plant is not a combination of the power plants of the core hull and any combination of attached pods.

A standard TL 8 fusion power plant per Hg 2e page 15/PDF page 16 has an power output performance of 10 points per ton of plant. A 17 ton power plant has a power output performance of 17 x 10 = 170 points. The Fessor's Zhodani designers have installed a very advanced TL 8 fusion power that produces 20% more power for an power output performance of 170 + (170 x 0.2) = 170 + 34 = 204 points.

All of the pods have standard TL 8 fusion power plants which appears to indicate that the combined 400 ton power plant output performance can be increased by 15, 20, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 75, or 80 points.

2.

Minimum one tonne fuel tankage is in the rules, it's why I seriously started looking at diesel engines.

A diesel for a small craft, system ship, or star ship?

I'd say that combining the breakaways allows all the engineering components to be directly controlled from one central location, probably why you need an appropriate sized bridge.

HG 2e Chapter Seven (actually Six) page 64/PDF page 65 Virtual Crew: "...Indeed, ships can be designed without a bridge, relying purely on this software package in order to function as a drone..."

3.

I've looked at the rule, and I've never discovered a loophole.

PDF HG 1e downloaded 3/24/2016 page 60 Small craft Design has a Power Plant Fuel Requirement based on hull size allowing an operational duration of 2 weeks at the bottom of the page. At the top of the right hand column on page 60 is an inset with the title of Small Craft & Fuel requirements that allows a designer to operate for less than 2 weeks. HG 2e omitted the option.

In the last edition, there was no minimum tonnage for a spacecraft either, so it was pretty easy to design a rocket sled propelled by dual high burn thrusters, the only issue was whether sub ten tonnes qualified for a firmpoint.

PDF HG 1e downloaded 3/24/2016 page 57 Small craft Design The Hull table shows the smallest hull as 10 tons.

Minimum fuel tank not really an issue for larger spacecraft.

I agree that larger star ships and system ships do not have any real issue with minimum fuel tankage.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Ten tonner, of course; not much point in using a diesel in anything larger, because cost of power production is the same as early fusion, without being a gas guzzler.

2. Breakaways are supposed to operate as if they were independent spacecraft, when apart, which tends to incline me to believe that includes a minimum fuel tank size.

3. As regards to bridges, that would be the default manned one being the appropriate size; doesn't apply if you automate the spacecraft.

4. As regards to either jump or manoeuvre drives, lowest common denominator applies: all drives need to be capable individually of the performance expected of them; if one drive is factored below expectation, whether permanently or temporarily, as long as it's linked or ganged with the others, the spacecraft can't perform above that.

 

[snrdg121408]

Howdy Condottiere,

1. Ten tonner, of course; not much point in using a diesel in anything larger, because cost of power production is the same as early fusion, without being a gas guzzler.

How does a diesel engine move a small craft through the vacuum of space?

2. Breakaways are supposed to operate as if they were independent spacecraft, when apart, which tends to incline me to believe that includes a minimum fuel tank size.

I agree that a ship configured as a breakaway hull is capable of operating as two or more independent vessels that each section have the minimum fuel tankage to operate separately.

3. As regards to bridges, that would be the default manned one being the appropriate size; doesn't apply if you automate the spacecraft.

Thank you for the clarification which I probably should have understood from the start.

4. As regards to either jump or manoeuvre drives, lowest common denominator applies: all drives need to be capable individually of the performance expected of them; if one drive is factored below expectation, whether permanently or temporarily, as long as it's linked or ganged with the others, the spacecraft can't perform above that.

Using the HG 2e page 12/PDF page 13 breakaway example.

A 1,000 ton hull is configured as a breakaway hull that splits into two independent vessels of 400 tons 600 tons.

The 400 ton hull with a Thrust of 5G has a 20 ton MD hull and the 600 ton hull with a Thrust of 9G has a 66 ton MD. When combined the 1,000 ton hull has an 20 + 66 = 86 ton MD with a Thrust of 8Gs. To check if the combined 1,000 ton with an 86 ton MD is capable of 8G divide 86 by 1,0000 = 0.086 or 8.6%. Looking at the MD Thrust Potential Table 8.6% falls between 8% which cross references to 8G and 9% equaling 9G. Per CRB 2e when dividing round the result down unless told to do something else the 1,000 ton hull's 86 ton MD has a maximum thrust of 8G, actually the maximum thrust is 8.6G.

I agree that if one of the separate hull's MD Thrust performance is reduced the combined 1,000 ton hull's Thrust rating is reduced, I do not agree the rating will drop to the damaged MD's altered Thrust rating.

The MD Thrust Potential Table indicates that 1G of thrust requires 1% of the hull. The 400 ton section's MD's Thrust is reduced from 5 to 4G. Subtracting 1% from the 1,000 ton hull's 8% drops to 7% which equals 7G.

The 400 ton independent vessel is restricted to 4G until repaired or replaced MD which means that the combined 1,000 ton hull's maximum Thrust drops from 8 to 7G.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hi again,

The Fessor record sheet on page 4 lists the cost of a Pop-UP Triple Turret (Missile Rack x2, Sandcaster) as 5,500,000.

My calculations are

Triple Turret 1,000,000 + Pop-Up Mount 1,000,000 + Missile Rack 750,000 x 2 + Sandcaster 250,000

1,000,000 + 1,000,000 + 750,000 x 2 + 250,000 = 1,000,000 + 1,000,000 + 1,500,000 + 250,000 = 2,000,000 + 1,500,000 +250,000 = 3,500,000 + 250,000 = 3,750,000.

Did I miss something?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Triple Turret 1,000,000 + Pop-Up Mount 1,000,000 + Missile Rack 750,000 x 2 + Sandcaster 250,000

Looks good, I get:

 

[snrdg121408]

Hi ANotherDilbert,

Triple Turret 1,000,000 + Pop-Up Mount 1,000,000 + Missile Rack 750,000 x 2 + Sandcaster 250,000

Looks good, I get:

Thank you for confirming I did not miss anything and another bit of errata for the Fessor I think.

 

[Condottiere]

Diesel is what I term the chemical option.

As regards linking or ganging up of breakaway engineering components, electrical generators don't matter, because with them it's just a matter of power point; whereas with propulsion drives, factor are closely related to technological levels they were manufactured at, and the production process used.

If you have a lame horse, the rest of the team is going to move at the lame horse's pace.

 

[snrdg121408]

Morning Pacific Standard Time Condottiere,

Diesel is what I term the chemical option.

Thank you again for the clarification that diesel = chemical.

As regards linking or ganging up of breakaway engineering components, electrical generators don't matter, because with them it's just a matter of power point; whereas with propulsion drives, factor are closely related to technological levels they were manufactured at, and the production process used.

If you have a lame horse, the rest of the team is going to move at the lame horse's pace.

The HG 2e example did not use electrical generations when determining the combined 1,000 ton hull. There is a big difference between a lane horse and a ship that has multiple propulsion systems. An modern four engine aircraft's airspeed decreases when one of the engines is not performing well while the other three engines performance are not affected.

 

[Condottiere]

You can turn it off.

However, it really is an issue with jump drives.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello again Condottiere,

You can turn it off.

Yes, the aircraft's Captain can indeed feather the engine and does so if it is having adverse effects on the aircraft's performance and/or is a safety hazard.

However, it really is an issue with jump drives.

The original Fessor has one Jump Drive so damage that knock outs the drive or loss of fuel kills the ability of interstellar flight. Based on the breakaway hull maneuver drive example my opinion is that combining the jump drives of the sections works in a similar manner.

If I ever get a function spreadsheet going building a breakaway hull that combine jump drives will be on of the tests.

 

[dmccoy1693]

You know, this is by far the most discussion I think I've ever gotten on one of my works. Maybe I should make a mistake more often? *Joking*

 

[snrdg121408]

Afternoon from the Pacific Northwest dmccoy1693

You know, this is by far the most discussion I think I've ever gotten on one of my works. Maybe I should make a mistake more often? *Joking*

I'm not sure that a mistake was made since the work is based on instructions that are not 100% fixed.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hi all,

Another update in my work with the Fessor.

I've put together a basic worksheet that can build the Fessor as a standard 400 ton starship which does, with the exception of the cost for the two triple turrets, matches the record sheet on page 4. The actual tonnage is 162 tons without the 38 tons allocated as onboard cargo capacity.

To help me out I would like to ask the author, Mr. Dale McCoy, Jr. some questions for clarifications:

1. Does each of the Fessor's pod maneuver drives combine with to make up the 8 ton maneuver drive?
2. Does each or the Fessor's pod power plants and fuel tankage combine with the 17 ton (TL 8, energy efficient x 2) Fusion power plant?

In The Fessor illustration the pods, in my opinion, appear to be a spherical rather than standard hull configuration as indicated in the pod record sheets.

3. Are the pods spherical or standard hull configurations?

 

[dmccoy1693]

1. Does each of the Fessor's pod maneuver drives combine with to make up the 8 ton maneuver drive?

No. Remember, one of the pod options is just extra cargo space with nothing additional. If detached they need tugs to maneuver them.

2. Does each or the Fessor's pod power plants and fuel tankage combine with the 17 ton (TL 8, energy efficient x 2) Fusion power plant?

Again no. The stock options is pods that do nothing but hold cargo. Think of the pods like upgrades to a car. The basic model doesn't have the flash of being able to land cargo on a planet and unload it without any humans being present. If you want those options, you'll have to pay for the upgraded model.

Can they add to the overall power production? Sure. If the ship's power plant takes damage, the pods can feed their power back to the main ship if they are attached. But the basic ship does not assume that to be the case.

3. Are the pods spherical or standard hull configurations?

Standard hill. The basic design is spherical-ish, but it is closer to a flying brick than a sphere, aerodynamicly speaking. The fins and other outer parts negate any assistance the general spherical shape lends to the design.

 

[snrdg121408]

Morning dmccoy,

That you Mr. Dale McCoy Jr. for the clarifications

1. Does each of the Fessor's pod maneuver drives combine with to make up the 8 ton maneuver drive?

No. Remember, one of the pod options is just extra cargo space with nothing additional. If detached they need tugs to maneuver them.

The write-up states that "...While the basic ship includes four pods that can simply be detached and require a tug to maneuver them, the Kebrnof Corporation also manufactures additional pods that are nearly autonomous. Each of these accessory pods have their gravitic M-Drive, power plant, fuel supply and computer, preloaded with Virtual Crew software package. This means that a remote operator at tell the cargo pod to detach from the Fessor Cargo ship, head towards per-determined coordinates, and land with no living creatures on board...."

I do not have any information on the four pods that need tugs to maneuver them, however if they do not have maneuver drives, power plants or power plant fuel tanks they add nothing to the combined hull performance. The Fessor Cargo-Class Multipurpose Ship's record sheet, with exceptions for the missing 4 tons and cost of the breakaway hulls extra bulkheads and connectors and turret costs does have the correct JD, MD, and power plant performances for a 400-ton hull.

I believe that the performance of the 400 - 196 = 204-ton core hull section without the non-autonomous or autonomous pods be:

The record sheet titled Fessor Cargo-Class Multipurpose Ship shows the core has as having a 15 ton Advanced Jump Drive Jump-1 Early jump Drive (TL 10 90-D limit) with 40 tons of fuel is capable of 1x Jump 1. To make a 1 parsec jump requires the core hull to carry a fuel load of 0.1 x 204 x 1 = 20.4 x 1 = 20.4 tons of fuel. The core hull has 19.6 tons of unused jump fuel arriving at the next port.

An 8 ton TL 10 Maneuver Drive takes up 8 / 204 = 0.0392 rounding down to 3% of the hull which cross-references to a Thrust of 3-G at TL 10.

The basic power requirement of the 204 ton core hull is 20.4, the MD to push the core hull at 3-G requires 0.1 x 204 x 3 = 20.4 x 3 = 61.2, and the JD requires 0.1 x 204 x 1 = 20.4 x 1 =20. 4 for a total requirement of 102 power points. The 17 ton Very Advance Fusion Power Plant (TL 8, Energy Efficient x 2) produces 10 power points x 17 x 1.2 = 170 x 1.2 = 204 power points.

Being a breakaway hull the instructions requires that 2% of the combined hull tonnage is dedicated to extra bulkheads and connectors. The hull requires 0.02 x 400 tons = 8 tons of extra bulkheads and connectors. The 204 ton core section requires 204 x 0.02 = 4.08 tons and each 49-ton pod requires 0.98 tons of extra bulkheads and connectors. The extra bulkheads and connectors of the core hull section 4.08 + (4 pods x 0.98) = 4.08 + 3.92 = 8 tons.

The five pods that are shown in the Fessor booklet all include maneuver drives, power plants, power plant fuel and a computer running virtual crew software making them autonomous. Per the breakaway hull instructions the drives, power plants and weapons can be combined to find the performance of the combined hull tonnage.

The four pods maneuver drives combined 2 tons pushes the total MD to 10 tons which is 10 / 400 = 0.025 or 2.5% which technically means the 400 ton hull has a Thrust of 2.5-G which is not significant. The contribution to the power points that the pods varies on the combination of pods being carried since two pods have 1.5 ton and three have 2 ton power plants. All the pods dedicate 0.5 tons of fuel to the power plant which totals 2 tons. If the core hull section can access the pods power plant fuel the main power plant's performance can be increased to 8 weeks.

2. Does each or the Fessor's pod power plants and fuel tankage combine with the 17 ton (TL 8, energy efficient x 2) Fusion power plant?

Again no. The stock options is pods that do nothing but hold cargo. Think of the pods like upgrades to a car. The basic model doesn't have the flash of being able to land cargo on a planet and unload it without any humans being present. If you want those options, you'll have to pay for the upgraded model.

Can they add to the overall power production? Sure. If the ship's power plant takes damage, the pods can feed their power back to the main ship if they are attached. But the basic ship does not assume that to be the case.

Thank you for the clarification that the performance of the core hull does not include the performance for the combined power plants, fuel tanks, and maneuver drives of the autonomous pods.

3. Are the pods spherical or standard hull configurations?

Standard hill. The basic design is spherical-ish, but it is closer to a flying brick than a sphere, aerodynamicly speaking. The fins and other outer parts negate any assistance the general spherical shape lends to the design.

The illustration of a sphere hull configuration on HG 2e pages 11/PDF page 12 looks to me to be "spherical-ish" unlike the spherical hulls illustrated in CT, MT, TNE, and T4.

Again thank you for answering my questions.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello all,

I want to thank everyone who has replied to my topics related to the Fessor and breakaway hulls for their help.

With Dale McCoy Jr.'s clarifications my conclusions about the Fessor appear to be totally out to lunch and that the core hull is as indicated in the Fessor's record sheet.

Without all my out to lunch work here is what I think may be errata:

1. I do feel that per the breakaway hull instruction that 2% of the combined hull is required for the extra bulkheads and connectors for should have been applied the the combined 400 ton hull not the combined pod displacement tonnage. I would also like to suggest that the 2% be applied to all of the breakaway hull sections instead of just the combined hull.

2. The core hull's cargo capacity if the 2% breakaway hull requirement is followed would decrease from 38 to 34.

3. Each pod's cargo capacity should be decreased by 1 displacement ton to include the 2% breakaway hull requirement for extra bulkheads and connectors.

4. Pop-up Turret displacement tonnage should be increased from 1 to 2 tons.

5. Pop-up cost should be decreased from 5,500,000 to 3,750,000

Again my thanks for everyone's help.

Oops I forgot to correct the count for my possible errata and as another question concerning the Fessor core hull's power plant fuel requirement.

Shouldn't the 2 tons actually allow the power plant to operate for 8 weeks?

 

[AndrewW]

1. I do feel that per the breakaway hull instruction that 2% of the combined hull is required for the extra bulkheads and connectors for should have been applied the the combined 400 ton hull not the combined pod displacement tonnage. I would also like to suggest that the 2% be applied to all of the breakaway hull sections instead of just the combined hull.

Maybe this should have been made clearer in High Guard but it should be 2% on each breakaway section per connection, so if say a 400 ton hull has two 100 ton breakaway sections that connect to it this would be 2% of 400 x2 and 2% of each 100 ton section.

Oops I forgot to correct the count for my possible errata and as another question concerning the Fessor core hull's power plant fuel requirement.

Shouldn't the 2 tons actually allow the power plant to operate for 8 weeks?

Don't know the size of the power plant, but for fusion power plants it should be 10% rounded up per 4 weeks. So say a 12 ton power plant would require 2 tons for 4 weeks, 4 tons for 8 weeks.