Imperial Navy Refueling Operations

[MasterGwydion]

If you capture the fuel, you can jump out and get away from responding forces. Hardly suicidal. You just have to do it before larger forces can intercept. They could easily be days of travel time away. It just means that refueling forces have to consider the possibility their fuel shuttles will be intercepted, and escort them. Naval base planners will want to consider where the fuel in the system is when locating their bases so this doesn't become a problem. However, there are other factors too, and the fight might be going on elsewhere, so they might not always be able to put their base right next to a natural fuel source. Bases can also be stocked up. It might be a good idea to diverted a comet so you've got a billions of tons of fuel source in orbit right next to your base.

Mines or SDBs within the gas giant make it suicidal.

 

[steelbrok]

Mines or SDBs within the gas giant make it suicidal.

Given the size of gas giants you'd need very large numbers on mines/SBDs.
I'd say an SDB would be somewhat like a U-Boat in the Atlantic, hoping to contact a target and avoid a proper escort/hunting group. But over a distance (and depths) many times larger

 

[MasterGwydion]

Given the size of gas giants you'd need very large numbers on mines/SBDs.
I'd say an SDB would be somewhat like a U-Boat in the Atlantic, hoping to contact a target and avoid a proper escort/hunting group. But over a distance (and depths) many times larger

I agree that the numbers would be huge, but it is Canon. I am just not sure how they do it. lol

SDBs would be easier, since they can move at high acceleration and can fire an almost unlimited number of times. You would need less of them. The problem with SBDs is that they are manned, and they are more expensive.

 

[rinku]

Well, it's circumstantial. Fleets only have so many ships, and the enemy squadron in question might be too much for the SDBs, escorts or other defenses stationed in THAT gas giant.

Mines in an ocean going sense probably don't work in orbit. What you'd need would be something like stealthed torpedoes placed in orbits with specific kill triggers, maybe needing an activation signal for practical safely reasons.

 

[Condottiere]

Depends on the mines' payload.

Companion has them as independent missile and torpedo launchers.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Well, it's circumstantial. Fleets only have so many ships, and the enemy squadron in question might be too much for the SDBs, escorts or other defenses stationed in THAT gas giant.

Mines in an ocean going sense probably don't work in orbit. What you'd need would be something like stealthed torpedoes placed in orbits with specific kill triggers, maybe needing an activation signal for practical safely reasons.

Remember, I am responding to a post about a system with a Naval Base. They should have no lack of SDBs and as Condottiere pointed out. Space Mines in Traveller seem to be a one-clip missile or torpedo platform. Very small, very hard to detect before they launch.

 

[Condottiere]

Drone minesweepers.

Probably, drone minelayers.

Likely, drone maintenance spacecraft, to ensure the mines are still working.

Submariner should continue to be a branch in the space force.

 

[rinku]

Remember, I am responding to a post about a system with a Naval Base. They should have no lack of SDBs and as Condottiere pointed out. Space Mines in Traveller seem to be a one-clip missile or torpedo platform. Very small, very hard to detect before they launch.

Yeah, I guess I was thinking more in general. Under normal circumstances any refueling point in a Navy Base system is going to be heavily guarded.

 

[MonsterX]

Yeah, I guess I was thinking more in general. Under normal circumstances any refueling point in a Navy Base system is going to be heavily guarded.

In principle, this is what you'd want to do. The number of objects and their distance from each other make this a massive commitment, which would spread out your fleet, making it possible to defeat them piecemeal. You'd have to cover any object with gases or ices that have hydrogen atoms in them, that are big enough to refuel a significant number of ships, which is a lot of them, probably 1000s of them in most systems. To a certain extent you might want to keep the locations of good fuel sources secret. Obviously, it doesn't work for planets, but smaller objects maybe, especially if the system is not convenient for enemy spy ships to stake out - if it is, they can plop down a spy telescope in the Kepler belt, and gradually map all the objects. You might also gather up the smaller objects and divert them to be near your bases, so they can be monitored and used by your own ships. Obviously it doesn't work for planets, but that gives you a much smaller number of places to monitor.

 

[MasterGwydion]

In principle, this is what you'd want to do. The number of objects and their distance from each other make this a massive commitment, which would spread out your fleet, making it possible to defeat them piecemeal. You'd have to cover any object with gases or ices that have hydrogen atoms in them, that are big enough to refuel a significant number of ships, which is a lot of them, probably 1000s of them in most systems. To a certain extent you might want to keep the locations of good fuel sources secret. Obviously, it doesn't work for planets, but smaller objects maybe, especially if the system is not convenient for enemy spy ships to stake out - if it is, they can plop down a spy telescope in the Kepler belt, and gradually map all the objects. You might also gather up the smaller objects and divert them to be near your bases, so they can be monitored and used by your own ships. Obviously it doesn't work for planets, but that gives you a much smaller number of places to monitor.

According to the Deepspace Exploration Handbook, you can detect such objects from over a parsec away, so you do not even need to go to the system to map out fuel sources.

 

[Condottiere]

One would assume that current astronomy would improve substantially, by then.

Plus analysis, thereof.

Question would be at, at what scale?

Small moon, with some ice at the poles?

 

[Arkathan]

As stated, the Deep space Exploration Handbook tells you what can detect what from how far, and how long it takes.

 

[rinku]

How long it takes is the kicker. At interstellar distances, with really good tech you might be able to do it within a few years of observations. And by that, I mean the orbital periods of the objects you're observing.

Quicker observations would tell you if there's indications of ice in the system... but since the answer to that question is almost certainly "yes", it's not as helpful.

 

[MonsterX]

How long it takes is the kicker. At interstellar distances, with really good tech you might be able to do it within a few years of observations. And by that, I mean the orbital periods of the objects you're observing.

Quicker observations would tell you if there's indications of ice in the system... but since the answer to that question is almost certainly "yes", it's not as helpful.

Yeah, it's not whether it is possible - there are rules for doing it a many parsecs' distance but how much work do you need to put into it. DNR has rules to detect objects, but its really just about finding one object, not all of the them. For the DNR campaign, one is enough, and you're good to jump there, but for a fleet, the object might be guarded or mined or used up, or it might be in a disadvantageous position vis-a-vis the enemy. I'm sure the Zhodani have mapped the objects around Jewell pretty thoroughly, but parking a survey fleet close enough the Rylanor for months during peacetime would be a bit of a logistic strain. Easier to manipulate someone at the University of Rylanor Department of Astronomy to do it for you. That sounds like an adventure hook.

The more I think about it, the more likely it seems that there would be an effort to clear out random refueling objects to minimize the number of places that need to be defended.

 

[Sigtrygg]

How long it takes is the kicker. At interstellar distances, with really good tech you might be able to do it within a few years of observations. And by that, I mean the orbital periods of the objects you're observing.

Quicker observations would tell you if there's indications of ice in the system... but since the answer to that question is almost certainly "yes", it's not as helpful.

It takes two observations a few hours apart with today's tech.

 

[MasterGwydion]

How long it takes is the kicker. At interstellar distances, with really good tech you might be able to do it within a few years of observations. And by that, I mean the orbital periods of the objects you're observing.

Quicker observations would tell you if there's indications of ice in the system... but since the answer to that question is almost certainly "yes", it's not as helpful.

Your information will be as many years out of date as the light takes to reach the observer, but the actual observation itself only takes 2D6 days.

Deepspace Explorers' Handbook page 4

 

[Condottiere]

It depends on what you hope to learn.

If it's a potential refuelling source, years out of date probably doesn't matter.

If it's keeping the ear on the ground for gravitational waves and/or jump flashes for transitions, probably more useful for annual patterns.

 

[rinku]

It takes two observations a few hours apart with today's tech.

To locate an ice asteroid? I think not.
You might be able to pin a hot gas giant or two just from wobble or if you are lucky with the ecliptic from occultation. Maybe.