For When Your Type P Corsair Just Isn't P Enough

[Terry Mixon]

Just carry it with you?
View attachment 3598

Automated smallcraft, Virtual Crew, no bridge.
10 Dt, MCr 3.5 plus software.
M-2 with a 30 Dt pod.
6 Dt internal cargo/fuel/passengers.

I need to go look at mine again. I wasn't able to get a 10-ton pod to move a 30-ton load without running out of space for the required things.

Ah, it's the grappling arm to move the pod off a ship and attach it that bedeviled me. Without the arm, it is almost doable on a crewed vehicle. How does yours unlatch and maneuver a pod off a ship and onto your clamp?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I need to go look at mine again. I wasn't able to get a 10-ton pod to move a 30-ton load without running out of space for the required things.

Ah, it's the grappling arm to move the pod off a ship and attach it that bedeviled me. Without the arm, it is almost doable on a crewed vehicle. How does yours unlatch and maneuver a pod off a ship and onto your clamp?

With the clamp?
Just clamp on the pod from the other direction, release the ship's clamp, done?

 

[Terry Mixon]

With the clamp?
Just clamp on the pod from the other direction, release the ship's clamp, done?

That's brilliant. So simple. *mind blown*

 

[Terry Mixon]

The way the book deals with clamps, I keep forgetting that the ship/pod being clamped doesn't have to be restricted to one clamping. It gives up no tonnage as only the clamping vessel gives up the tonnage. No reason not to have two. Nice. Back to reworking my utility pods...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

That's brilliant. So simple. *mind blown*

To manipulate a 30 Dt pod you'd need three Heavy Grappling Arms à 6 Dt each, not really viable.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The way the book deals with clamps, I keep forgetting that the ship/pod being clamped doesn't have to be restricted to one clamping. It gives up no tonnage as only the clamping vessel gives up the tonnage. No reason not to have two. Nice. Back to reworking my utility pods...

Or even put the clamp on the smallcraft/pod, it can now attach to any ship.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Or even put the clamp on the smallcraft/pod, it can now attach to any ship.

Really, docking clamps need to be on both the tender and the pod, but that's not how the rules are written. As it sits, only one needs it and the other doesn't.

I could either assume anything with a docking clamp can grab a pod from any angle or add docking clamps to the pods as well. I think I'll add two to the cargo pods (in addition to the ship and the utility pod moving it) and solve the issue (in my head), then no grappling arms needed.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Really, docking clamps need to be on both the tender and the pod, but that's not how the rules are written.

That's how T5 does it.

 

[Terry Mixon]

That's how T5 does it.

So let it be written; so let it be done.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So let it be written; so let it be done.

T5.10, p70:
Pods, Barges, and Subhulls are attached to the parent hull with interlocking clamps called Grapples. One Grapple set consists of two 1-ton Grapples (one on the Pod, Barge, or Subhull; one on the parent hull). One set is required for each 35 tons of Pod, Barge, or Subhull.

 

[Terry Mixon]

With the assumption that a cargo pod has two docking clamps of its own (one on the ship and one for a tug to grab and use), here are the updated utility pods. The Type IV and Type V pods (which have to have different builds due to no top weight limit) may be megacorporate or military deals. The Type V for sure as the one I'm presenting here is for the 50,000-ton pods I designed for the 1,000,000-Ton Warmonger Battle Tender in a logistics role or the megacorporate version of it, the 1,000,000-Ton Merchant Tender. The spreadsheets for them and the pods (though I need to add a couple of docking clamps to them) are linked in the document in my signature.

 

[Condottiere]

1. It sort of occurs to me that uncompensated inertia increases the load on a clamp.

2. At least, from acceleration factor/one onwards.

3. As regards grappling arms, they compensate by having range.

4. An amazing amount.

5. As regards docking clamps with integrated airlocks, as I recall, that was really heavily implied in the previous edition.

6. I tend to think you might have had a personnel hatch located next to one.

7. Or cargo.

8. Doesn't take up tonnage, though you would pay for it.

9. It might have been plausible with the twenty and fifty tonne variants.

 

[swordtart]

Really, docking clamps need to be on both the tender and the pod, but that's not how the rules are written. As it sits, only one needs it and the other doesn't.

I could either assume anything with a docking clamp can grab a pod from any angle or add docking clamps to the pods as well. I think I'll add two to the cargo pods (in addition to the ship and the utility pod moving it) and solve the issue (in my head), then no grappling arms needed.

I don't think requiring a clamp on both is a good idea. Sacrificing a ton is quite a lot on a small ship or pod. There are likely attachment points all over ships and pods (like the lifting loops on armoured vehicles or the attachment points on ISO containers). As long as there is something to grab hold of you should be good to go. I would anticipate any airlock would have attachment points by default.

That is not to say that you could not get benefit from a clamp on a pod as that would enable you to daisy chain them - Trains in spaaaace - Very Cowboy Bebop

You could also use additional clamps to lock modules together into ad-hoc space stations.

A docking clamp on your ship might enable you to attach to a star destroyer and float away with the garbage

So not impossible, but I would say not necessary and definitely not RAW.

 

[swordtart]

I would certainly not assume you get a free 2 Dt airlock included with a 1 Dt docking clamp.
One the other hand, a hatch is a no cost option.

You don't need an airlock on the docking clamp if the ship you are attaching it to has one, you just need a door. I would imagine the airlock is the most logical point of attachment for a parasite vessel. Where clamps exist standardisation is also likely.

Technically you don't even need an airlock between two ships. You tend to have one so you can manage any pressure differences, not waste atmosphere to space and provide an interface, but a short flexible connection between two hatches would be enough for crew access. When you detach you will loose the air that is in the connection, but this might not be significant.

For parasite ships too small for an airlock (e.g. with cockpits), hatches are an option as you say.

 

[Terry Mixon]

I don't think requiring a clamp on both is a good idea. Sacrificing a ton is quite a lot on a small ship or pod. There are likely attachment points all over ships and pods (like the lifting loops on armoured vehicles or the attachment points on ISO containers). As long as there is something to grab hold of you should be good to go. I would anticipate any airlock would have attachment points by default.

That is not to say that you could not get benefit from a clamp on a pod as that would enable you to daisy chain them - Trains in spaaaace - Very Cowboy Bebop

You could also use additional clamps to lock modules together into ad-hoc space stations.

A docking clamp on your ship might enable you to attach to a star destroyer and float away with the garbage

So not impossible, but I would say not necessary and definitely not RAW.

Hopefully High Guard 202? Update will clear it up.

 

[GypsyComet]

It is almost fun watching the pirate/bays vs clamps/econ discussion occur cyclically like this. Random thread comments:

-The "Type P" is a dedicated pirate, but it wasn't necessarily built that way originally.
-Type is not Class. Each Class will answer the classic pirate ship Type questions differently.
-The classic Type P is already into questionable territory at 25% carried craft. The OP ship bumps that to ~30%, which is well into "pregnant with (carried class)" territory instead of "nothing to see here". For that reason...
-I'm also a fan of external clamps over high percentage bays.
-The default external clamps do result in an unstreamlined composite, but the Modular Cutter demonstrates that this is not always the case. TNE included external clamp options for every streamlining result.
-The original Type P was stated to be unstreamlined, so atmospheric landings were already not in the cards.
-Of course you recalculate drive performance when you grab another ship and thus change volume. That precedent goes back to the Gazelle (which itself is a topic for another day).