Ishmael said:This amount corresponds to the upkeep costs for soc-8.
That cost INCLUDES rent. So, it is not relevant.
Ishmael said:This amount corresponds to the upkeep costs for soc-8.
Ishmael said:And yet, this cost has been part of the official setting for a bit more than a quarter century.
Actually, I'm beginning to think that the amount spent would give an idea of the 'social standing'* of the ship itself, aka the kind of accommodations exist. The clientèle would end up being related to the ship's social' which might range from surplus MRE's and bare walls, to filet mignon, goose live pate' and wine within richly panelled staterooms and deluxe beds/fine linens, etc.
The amount that the ship's owners feel is proper will determine passenger and crew comfort for a trip.
*btw, the social standing upkeep costs make no sense and should be a log function, not linear. This would allow the upkeep to follow wealth and income curves such that a lowly pilot on a tramp frieghter wouldn't be able to live like a Soc-16 noble with cash to spare.
Captain Jonah said:Since the Cr2000 is a fixed value and refers to only basic food stuffs what is it that the passengers are eating and drinking?
It costs the same Cr2000 for a high passenger as it does for a middle passenger or for packing in two of your unwashed crew. Or as we have said, when the stateroom is empty.
far-trader said:phavoc said:And an interesting aside... if you have aliens with fast metabolism, the life support cost is doubled (and slower ones are halved).
In the rules? That would be interesting. I've houseruled it for decades but a rule cite would be a bonus, however...
...the issue is still one of just who is drinking all that generic BEER and eating all that generic NOODLES etc. when you still have to pay Cr2000 per month per stateroom even with NOBODY living there. Never mind why one is paying those extortion level prices for generic blandness.
The interesting bit about the alternate costs for different metabolisms is why is an EMPTY stateroom only costing half as much to NOT HAVE a slow metabolism alien instead of NOT HAVING a regular metabolism human? And if I instead DO NOT HAVE a high metabolism alien instead of NOT HAVING a regular metabolism human, do I pay double?
:wink:
There's your fix of course, IF that bit about metabolism IS in the rules. Just choose to NOT HAVE empty staterooms occupied by deceased passengers. Their life support needs would be ZERO for that trip. Problem solved.
Think its pretty obvious that number isn't even remotely realistic / based on anything. Another of those "that looks good" decisions. So the question is, what numbers do make more sense? Seems like there were some good ideas for starting numbers earlier in the thread.Captain Jonah said:So as has been asked and still not answered, just what is this huge life support cost you are paying for :wink:
mr31337 said:Has anybody considered that also included in life support ought to be energy/fuel for heating 4dtons of stateroom?
F33D said:mr31337 said:Has anybody considered that also included in life support ought to be energy/fuel for heating 4dtons of stateroom?
With a space ship + fusion PP, the problem is getting rid of heat not producing it. the energy (electricity) is already accounted for with the PP. So, there is no added cost for those.
mr31337 said:... since the CRB tells us life support is good for two weeks without power and we know space is very, very cold (2.73 kelvin), where is the heat for that two weeks coming from?
mr31337 said:Doesn't look like you read the rest of my post.
What my last two sentences are interested in is if indeed the energy storage required to heat a 4dton room, to room temperature from 2.73kelvin for two weeks would require subtancial tonnage or cost...or not.F33D said:Read the last 2 sentences of your own post...
mr31337 said:What my last two sentences are interested in is if indeed the energy storage required to heat a 4dton room, to room temperature from 2.73kelvin for two weeks would require subtancial tonnage or cost...or not.
While there is no conduction or convection, heat will radiate into a vacuum. Given that the temperature differential is so vast it might be reasonable to suspect it would become very cold very quickly on the ship, even if insulated. Unless there are some Traveller insulation products from higher tech levels that I’m unable to recall at the moment, I’d imagine it would require an impractical displacement of insulation on a ship to be effective.F33D said:You would only have to heat from -454ºF to ~72ºF if you started with a "cold" ship. Otherwise, you just have to maintain a highly insulated environment in vacuum (which greatly slows heat loss anyway).
mr31337 said:While there is no conduction or convection, heat will radiate into a vacuum. Given that the temperature differential is so vast it might be reasonable to suspect it would become very cold very quickly on the ship, even if insulated. Unless there are some Traveller insulation products from higher tech levels that I’m unable to recall at the moment, I’d imagine it would require an impractical displacement of insulation on a ship to be effective.F33D said:You would only have to heat from -454ºF to ~72ºF if you started with a "cold" ship. Otherwise, you just have to maintain a highly insulated environment in vacuum (which greatly slows heat loss anyway).
MLI is used on satellites and so on, giving them their gold colour, but as to how practical this would be in Traveller I think is open for further discussion. It would certainly reduce heat loss through radiation, perhaps by as much as half.F33D said:No need. We have low mass insulating products at TL 7 that fit the bill... So, unless TL's run backwards there's no problem. :wink: