Measurement

[locarno24]

Spaceships don't displace anything at all though; they aren't floating in an ocean of liquid hydrogen after all.

They are during jumps, supposedly.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

The Displacement is the Enclosed Volume of the hull. That is why the hull itself does not take up any volume (just cost).

Traveller has always been a bit vague about the exact volume of a Displacement Ton (D-Ton). Anything between 13.5 and 14 cubic meters has been used in official products as others have said.

It is based on the volume of Liquid Hydrogen, where 1000 kg of Liquid Hydrogen displaces 13.5 cubic meters (14 cubic meters in rough numbers).

GAMERS seem to be much more concerned about the exact volume of a D-ton than the writers ever were.

 

[far-trader]

...GAMERS seem to be much more concerned about the exact volume of a D-ton than the writers ever were.

Because players will want to cram every cu mm with stuff and the ref will want to make sure they pay for it

As for the hull being zero volume (or external to the calculations) and the dtons being what the hull contains, I guess that's one way to look at it. Might have saved me some sanity over the years

It has always seemed to me that it was more a case of magic that a 5ton cargo crate could fit inside a 5ton cargo hold, the hold itself being inside a 30ton module that fits inside a 30ton frame of a 50ton cutter, the cutter itself sitting in a 50ton hanger aboard...

...like the famous Russian nesting dolls only infinitely tighter. Theoretically being able to stack any number of same tonnage units inside any number of other same tonnage units in basic CT. Granted some later versions finally made some allowances but only rarely enough realistically.

 

[rust]

It has always seemed to me that it was more a case of magic that a 5ton cargo crate could fit inside a 5ton cargo hold, the hold itself being inside a 30ton module that fits inside a 30ton frame of a 50ton cutter, the cutter itself sitting in a 50ton hanger aboard...

Just insert an "approximately" before each number, and take a
look at the early official deck plans to see how "cavalier" an ap-
proach the authors had to that "approximately". :lol:

 

[Reynard]

Many use the phrase "It's maaagic." to describe something that seems impossible in reality. In the world of gaming better to say "It's only a game.". Anything written as game mechanics aren't always ment to be exact science or measures. They were written to fullfil a game's need in whatever level of realism that makes the game interesting and fun.

Traveller was NEVER ment to be a technical manual for real world minutiae. It describes things that seem plausible and do it in simple game terms. That goes for physical science, biology or social interactions. Since I first bought Traveller back in the late 70s I played the game and enjoyed building people, vehicles and worlds without worrying if it was all true as long as it felt right. I'm more interested in the math in any formulas used so the stated amount of jump fuel can fit in my starship.

Doesn't have to be real just feel real.

 

[Gruffty the Hiver]

Traveller was NEVER ment to be a technical manual for real world minutiae. <snip!> I'm more interested in the math in any formulas used so the stated amount of jump fuel can fit in my starship.

....take a look at T4 and TNE's Fire, Fusion and Steel books.... :shock: :twisted:

 

[rust]

Yep, even MegaTraveller's ship design system is far more
detailed than that of Mongoose Traveller, it uses the volu-
me and the weight of the ship's hull material.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Adding Hull volume would have fixed so many problems...

Hull volume could go down with TL based on improved materials offset by rising costs, like armour.

Then, when you designed smaller things (like modules) you have a design point for material and cost.

That way 6 5-ton boxes don't fit into a 30-ton module inside of a 30-ton cargo hold etc. You lose a bit each time to add another "hull".

Oh well..

 

[PFVA63]

It has always seemed to me that it was more a case of magic that a 5ton cargo crate could fit inside a 5ton cargo hold, the hold itself being inside a 30ton module that fits inside a 30ton frame of a 50ton cutter, the cutter itself sitting in a 50ton hanger aboard...

Just insert an "approximately" before each number, and take a
look at the early official deck plans to see how "cavalier" an ap-
proach the authors had to that "approximately". :lol:

Hi,

I think that's probably the best approach. The way I look at things is that when someone says that they have "X" dtons of cargo to ship, it doesn't really mean that the item is exactly "X" dtons in size but rather that it'll take a hold notionally sized "X dtons" to carry it.

This can especially become an issue if you assume that deck heights are about 3m apart but include about 0.5m of space consumed by structure and services and such (as suggested in some versions of the game).

Since its not really clear, I just assume that it means whatever is being offered is enough to fill up a hold space of notionally "X" dtons.

Regards

Pat

 

[GypsyComet]

Adding Hull volume would have fixed so many problems...

Hull volume could go down with TL based on improved materials offset by rising costs, like armour.

Armor already does that in MGT, though in an odd way (straight volume percentage).

T4's middle design system (the SSDS) boiled it down best. You had structure that was based on expected thrust loads and TL-dependent materials, and armor on top of that. Without being the kitchen sink of either FF&S it conveyed that, yes, the hull itself took some of the available volume. On the other hand, you weren't paying discrete volume for life support, so suck it up and go shopping!