Modular Cutter: What do modules cost?

[phavoc]

Breakaway hulls need to have separate bridges, however. And not being streamlined is a bad thing for a smallcraft that's supposedly the workhorse of known space.

There's no need to streamline. They should be able to reach LEO (2,000km) in a little over an hour poking around at 1,250 kph. Which is a reasonable speed for a standard hull design. If you need speed dedicated streamlined shuttles would be the recommended fast-interface.

 

[Condottiere]

Arguably, unstreamlined configurations at dead slow or blimp speeds can safely reach orbit from an atmospheric world, with gravitational based motors.

 

[Reynard]

Streamline, by the game mechanics, isn't about speed but controlling the craft during adverse conditions. A partial or unstreamlined vessel is no slower, they just maneuver like a garbage scow. That's not a property an interface craft wants to deal with.

 

[Condottiere]

The real issue is reentry at speed, which gravitational motors nullify.

 

[phavoc]

Streamline, by the game mechanics, isn't about speed but controlling the craft during adverse conditions. A partial or unstreamlined vessel is no slower, they just maneuver like a garbage scow. That's not a property an interface craft wants to deal with.

The rules, depending on the rule set, aren't that clear. But aerodynamics is. Streamlining anything allows it to go faster with less thrus and less resistance. You cannot have a ship that is unstreamlined go as fast as a streamlined ship if they have equal thrust value.

There is also the question of what you have sticking outside the hull- at higher speeds antennas and such will be ripped off due to stress. And some of the designs, such as the fat trader, have their own aerodynamics working against them by building up walls of resistance to their passing through an atmosphere.

And there is the perennial question of how much thrust an m-drive is capable of because it's measurement of power is in G forces, not an actual one. It's a game so lots of things can be hand waved, but streamlining is a pretty basic concept that a game doesn't need to do handwave. Common sense works best.

 

[Reynard]

I was using Atmospheric Operations on page 143 of the Core Rulebook for a definitive mechanic as to what Streamline does. No mention of effects to speed just the ability to maintain control against adverse conditions of flight in an atmosphere.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello Ursus Maior,

Presumably they are just ad hoc values taken from thin air.

Note that this was for external modules with their own hull. Internal modules in MgT2 should be cheaper?

1) They are in fact the exact prices from Classic Traveller, I looked into the starter box from the early 80s and the German translation respectively and that's the price from 35 years ago.

Checking in my PDF copy of the Traveller Bibliography 3rd edition 2012-2017 1st printing the Traveller Starter Edition Boxed Set was published in 1983.

During one of my searches through my books I found and documented the following sources discussing a 50-ton modular cutter prior to 1983:

1. CT Supplement 7 traders and Gunboats 1980 8th printing page 41 the text mentions that "...A typical modules has 12 acceleration couches (6 tons), fifteen tons of cargo hold, and an additional nine tons of fuel tankage. Other modules carry all fuel (30 tons), all cargo (30 tons), or even all passengers." There was no cost listed for the modules.

2. GDW JTAS 5 pp.6-9 LSP Modular Cutter lists seven modules each with price attached. The modules
Assault Boat (16 troops) Base Price MCr2.5, Weapons Pod (Single turret beam or missile, missile magazine, life support for 4) Base Price MCr7.2, Fuel Skimmer (Capacity 26 tons + cutters 15 ton fuel tankage) Base Price MCr2.0, Zero-G Mining (major bay for storing ore samples, waldo arm pressurized control station, living space for two) Base PriceMCr3.5, Passenger and Cargo Module (24 passengers or 24 tons of cargo) Base PriceMCr3.0, ATV Transport Module Base Price (excluding ATV) MCr1.3, and Pressurized Shelter (Staterooms for 8 [double occupancy], power plant, life support, grav plates) Base Price MCr4.5.

3. GDW JTAS 8 Broadsword Class Mercenary Cruiser pp. 26-27 lists the following modules: ATV Cradle MCr 1.8 (including ATV), Personnel Transport MCr2.0 (60 passengers), Cargo Transport MCr1.0 (25 tons of cargo), Fuel Skimmer MCr1.0 (28 tons of fuel), Assault Boat MCr2.5 (16 troops), Pressurized Shelter MCr4.5 (8 persons), Weapons Module MCr8 (Computer Model/1 or FC and triple laser turret), and Fighter Frame MCr2.0 (4x 6-ton fighter).

4. CT LBB 2 Starships 1977/1981 6th printing pp. 18 & 23 with an ATV MCr 1.8 or Fuel MCr1.0 (30 tons of fuel), or Open MCr2.0 (customizable to accommodate passenger couches, fuel, cargo, cabins, or staterooms).

Note that I probably missed other sources during my searches but the four mentioned above are rock solid.

How the cost of the basic 30 ton module was determined I have not figured out, however the cost of the module does appear to be increased by the components with a cost that have been added.

2) Well, it seems to me, that internal and external modules are a difference that wasn't around before this edition of Highguard. It seems to me that "external modules" could not be constructed under these rules since they're neither simply "modular hulls" nor yet "breakaway hulls".

I believe you are correct that HG 2e does not specifically mention how to construct internal modules, external modules, or internal systems.

I have not been able to determine how a construct external/internal modules in CT, MT, or T20 either. Okay, CT Striker Book 3 appears to be capable of being used to make a module.

TNE and T4 FF&S can be used to construct just about anything. GT using GURPS Vehicles is another way to construct just about anything.

In HG 2e using docking clamps and any of the 50-ton modular cutters 30-ton modules would technically make them external modules.

 

[Ursus Maior]

Thank you for your extensive research and insight given.

I will figure out a houserule then. Maybe splitting the cost of the modularization 50:50 between module and hull, making new modules having a cost of 50% of something plus all the components it contains.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hi again Ursus Maior,

Thank you for your extensive research and insight given.

I will figure out a houserule then. Maybe splitting the cost of the modularization 50:50 between module and hull, making new modules having a cost of 50% of something plus all the components it contains.

You are welcome to the information and anything else I dig up which is my way of paying back all the help I've received.

HG 2e p. 35/PDF 36 Modular hull allows a module to use up to 75% of the ship's internal tonnage with the cost increase by the same percentage. The 50 ton cutter hull devotes 30 tons of the hull to a module which is 60% of the hull. The 50 ton streamlined modular cutter cost is 50 x 50,000 = 2,500,000 + 20% for streamlining is 2,500,000 x .2 = 500,000 for a total cost of 2,500,000 + 500,000 = Cr 3,000,000. A 30 ton module increases the cost by 3,000,000 x 60% = Cr1,800,000.

Unfortunately the details on HG 2e p. 103/PDF 104 have a 30 ton empty fuel module with a cost of MCr1.

As a suggestion use the rules for a modular hull on MgT HG 2e p. 35/PDF 36 to construct your own modules. When using the 50 ton modular cutter use the modules at the cost determined by the Modular hull rule and make a special note about the cost difference.

If you do create a house rule then please for what little sanity I have left, I'm a retired submarine sailor, please add a note on how the cost was determined.

 

[Condottiere]

The modular cutter is a legacy design, and thirty tonne modules are supposed to be Imperium standard, possibly one reason docking clamp type ones are rated at that tonnage.

 

[snrdg121408]

Howdy Condottiere,

The modular cutter is a legacy design, and thirty tonne modules are supposed to be Imperium standard, possibly one reason docking clamp type ones are rated at that tonnage.

I can design a 50 modular cutter using the MgT HG 2e construction rules, but like the earlier Traveller sources I can not design any of the modules to match the legacy costs.

You are probably right about the reason about the docking clamps.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

In HG 2e using docking clamps and any of the 50-ton modular cutters 30-ton modules would technically make them external modules.

Internal modules don't have a Hull, hence can't be expected to be pressurised, braced against acceleration, protected against radiation, or have a hard shell for the clamps to lock on to.

I wouldn't expect an internal cutter module to be much more than scrap metal after hanging on a clamp for awhile.


External modules or pods have to be built more or less as complete space craft. I can't see any particular problem with building "cutter modules" as complete small craft as long as they fit the size limitation imposed by the cutter specification.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello AnotherDilbert,

In HG 2e using docking clamps and any of the 50-ton modular cutters 30-ton modules would technically make them external modules.

Internal modules don't have a Hull, hence can't be expected to be pressurised, braced against acceleration, protected against radiation, or have a hard shell for the clamps to lock on to.

I wouldn't expect an internal cutter module to be much more than scrap metal after hanging on a clamp for awhile.

I disagree with you. The bulkheads separating each compartment and the hull plating are internal modules. A bridge is an internal module that is pressurized. A cargo hold is an internal modules that may or may not be pressurized. A stateroom is an internal module that may or may not be pressurized.

External modules or pods have to be built more or less as complete space craft. I can't see any particular problem with building "cutter modules" as complete small craft as long as they fit the size limitation imposed by the cutter specification.

If the modules are complete small craft then they need to be attached to the hull in some manner. That would be by docking clamps, docking space or a full hangar. Unless of course the designer ignores the source material.

I have tried to build the cutter modules as small craft using CT LBB 5 HG 2e rules. A 30 ton hull has a cost of 30 x Cr 100,000 = Cr 3,000,000 which is Cr 1,000,000 to Cr 2,000, more than a fuel module depending on the CT source.

In MgT HG 2e a 30 ton module built as a small craft hull has a cost of 30 x Cr 50,000 = Cr 1,500,000. For two of the sources I listed earlier the cost is Cr 500,000 more and on one it is Cr 500,000 lower.

The Foreven Worlds Single Ships: Fessor Cargo-Class Multipurpose Ship by Dale C. McCoy, Jr published by Jon Brazer Enterprises have five 49-ton autonomous pods that are small craft. Mr. McCoy used the breakaway hull rule.

 

[Condottiere]

It's a mess.

However, hull skin is so thin that it's non existent, so you could presume that modules have the same ruggedness in regard to environmental factors, let alone combat damage.

In theory, they are not supposed to be armoured; in practice, armour should be permitted, but it has no effect when calculating the exterior protection.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I disagree with you. The bulkheads separating each compartment and the hull plating are internal modules. A bridge is an internal module that is pressurized. A cargo hold is an internal modules that may or may not be pressurized. A stateroom is an internal module that may or may not be pressurized.

We are way past what any rule system specified, but I would argue that the bulkhead are part of the internal bracing of the hull, hence part of the hull system. The bridge and other internal systems are built into the compartments created by the bulkheads. I.e. the walls are not included in the room, but the house.

I have tried to build the cutter modules as small craft using CT LBB 5 HG 2e rules. A 30 ton hull has a cost of 30 x Cr 100,000 = Cr 3,000,000 which is Cr 1,000,000 to Cr 2,000, more than a fuel module depending on the CT source.

The cutter is presumably not made with the LBB5 system, but with the, I believe, unpublished LBB2 small craft system.

In the LBB2 system a 100 Dt hull can cost from MCr 2 to MCr 20. I don't think we can pin down the cost of a CT cutter module hull given the information we have.

 

[phavoc]

What you are finding is that Traveller designers did not follow their own design rules for ships and small craft. They (the rules) were created after the vehicles and fixing that was never resolved.

And that issue has been brought forth in every version ever since.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hi Condottiere,

It's a mess.

I agree that not running the previous designs through a new system has created a mess.

However, hull skin is so thin that it's non existent, so you could presume that modules have the same ruggedness in regard to environmental factors, let alone combat damage.

In theory, they are not supposed to be armoured; in practice, armour should be permitted, but it has no effect when calculating the exterior protection.

To be honest I have always thought the cutter modules were constructed with the same materials as small craft, system ships, and star ships.

 

[phavoc]

The modules act like a starship or small craft when attached, this by default their hill must be as stomrong as any starship.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hi phavoc,

The modules act like a starship or small craft when attached, this by default their hill must be as stomrong as any starship.

The module's hull whether or not attached, as I think you are saying, should be of the same hull material, which is how I look at them since the beginning.

 

[snrdg121408]

My apologies AnotherDilbert for not replying sooner, the notification link skipped to the newest reply.

I disagree with you. The bulkheads separating each compartment and the hull plating are internal modules. A bridge is an internal module that is pressurized. A cargo hold is an internal modules that may or may not be pressurized. A stateroom is an internal module that may or may not be pressurized.

We are way past what any rule system specified, but I would argue that the bulkhead are part of the internal bracing of the hull, hence part of the hull system. The bridge and other internal systems are built into the compartments created by the bulkheads. I.e. the walls are not included in the room, but the house.

In more than one game, not just Traveller, I've played in staterooms do not lose their atmosphere when the hull or bulkhead is in the compartment they are in, unless of course they are the point of damage.

I have tried to build the cutter modules as small craft using CT LBB 5 HG 2e rules. A 30 ton hull has a cost of 30 x Cr 100,000 = Cr 3,000,000 which is Cr 1,000,000 to Cr 2,000, more than a fuel module depending on the CT source.

The cutter is presumably not made with the LBB5 system, but with the, I believe, unpublished LBB2 small craft system.

Here is the information I have:

CT LBB 2 1977 p. 16 has a list of Non-Starships: Life Boat, Ship's Boat, Pinnace, Cutter, and Shuttle. There are instructions below the list.

"Cutter: The cutter displaces 50 ton,s carries 12 passengers, and is capable of accelerations up to 4 Gs. Cargo hold capacity and fuel tankage each equal 15 tons. Standard armament is one beam laser, The base price for a standard cutter is set at Cr 28,000,000." There are no modules mentioned with the cutter.

"The above are standard design; other non-starships may be designed in accordance with the starship design rules, but leaving out the jump drive. Such vessels may not be converted to take a jump drive at a later time. Construction cost is 50% of the price for a similarly priced starship."

CT LBB 5 HG was published in 1979

CT LBB 5 HG 2e published in 1980

CT Supplement 7 was published in 1980 the in the Small Craft section p. 41included a 50 tons cutter with three modules.

The revised CT LBB 2 was published in 1981 with the 50 ton Modular Cutter plus three modules.

Following the publication trail it seems that the modular cutter may have been constructed using CT LBB 5 HG 2e, however there is no indication that I have found for instruction on how to construct a module.

In CT LBB 1977 there is a suggestion that the non-starships, a.k.a. small craft, used the starship rules. Unfortunately, my efforts for them failed too.

In the LBB2 system a 100 Dt hull can cost from MCr 2 to MCr 20. I don't think we can pin down the cost of a CT cutter module hull given the information we have.

CT LBB 2 1977/1981 p. 13
The Hull second paragraph: "The standard hulls table shows six standard hulls which are available at reduced prices and construction times. Any other hull must be produced on a custom basis of MCr0.1 per ton; minimum price MCr20. Construction (or build) times for custom hulls are shown in the last column of the drive potential table."

Following the instructions a 100 ton hull is either MCr2 or MCr20, there is nothing in between.

I agree that there has never been a way to recreate a cutter module's cost.