Modular Cutter: What do modules cost?

[AnotherDilbert]

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.

You play as you like, of course, but Traveller convention, detailed in S7 is that staterooms are not air-tight. Only bulkheads holds pressure.

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

That is not the modular cutter, that is some other type of cutter.

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.

The modular cutter is not a LBB5'80 design as far as I can see.

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.

Sloppy definitions; non-starship is anything without a jump drive, including both small craft and interplanetary ships.

The standard small craft in LBB2'77 can certainly not be built using the non-starship design rules.

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

Unless we modify the cost for e.g. streamlining or non-starships. A 100 Dt custom non-starship hull would cost MCr 10 in LBB2'77.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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.

There was no (published) system for designing small craft in LBB2, so it can hardly have been broken.

The published ships do follow the rules, with the customary occasional mistake.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The modular cutter is not a LBB5'80 design as far as I can see.

I will have to take that back, it might to be a TL8 design:

Note that it does not follow the description completely; it already has a computer, so can't be equipped with another computer.

S7 describes it as a TL9 design, which does not compute.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hi AnotherDilbert,

I'm going to try to combine the first reply with this one, but I'll start here

The modular cutter is not a LBB5'80 design as far as I can see.

I will have to take that back, it might to be a TL8 design:

Note that it does not follow the description completely; it already has a computer, so can't be equipped with another computer.

S7 describes it as a TL9 design, which does not compute.

I have found that more often than not my results do not follow the description completely either.

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.

You play as you like, of course, but Traveller convention, detailed in S7 is that staterooms are not air-tight. Only bulkheads holds pressure.

Please provide the page number in CT Supplement 7 that provides the stateroom details?

Thank you for using telepathy to show me that on CT Supplement 7 page 5 Interior Walls is the source.

MgT HG 2e Fuel Tank Compartments p. 45/PDF 46 appear to be an exception.

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

That is not the modular cutter, that is some other type of cutter.

I did not say that the CT LBB 2 1977 cutter was the CT LBB 2 1977/1981 modular cutter. I included the note that no modules were mentioned. Though I probably should have stated that it was not the same as the standard module cutter, my apologies for not being more specific.

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.

The modular cutter is not a LBB5'80 design as far as I can see.

I did not say that the modular cutter was clearly a CT LBB 5 HG 2e design but there is evidence that between 1977 and 1980 the design came out. In the material I have on hand the first mention I found is in CT Supplement 7. Unfortunately, I'm still not clear as to which designs are from Book 2, Starships, of Book 5, High Guard, as described on p. 4 Starship Encounters item number 6.

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.

Sloppy definitions; non-starship is anything without a jump drive, including both small craft and interplanetary ships.

The standard small craft in LBB2'77 can certainly not be built using the non-starship design rules.

I agree that the definition is sloppy, but that was what was written in 1977 and was corrected in CT LBB 2 1977/1981 that small craft, not non-starships, can not be designed using the revised rules.

Again, I did not say that the small craft were clearly designed using the CT LBB 2 1977 Starship Construction rules. I provided the original rules as written. My attempt to recreate the non-starships in CT LBB 2 1977 got as far as determining that 20 tons remained to allocate for the controls/bridge, passenger seating, power plant, computer, and maneuver drive.

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

Unless we modify the cost for e.g. streamlining or non-starships. A 100 Dt custom non-starship hull would cost MCr 10 in LBB2'77.

You are correct that a non-starship would cost MCr10, my error was not thinking in terms of a non-standard hull. Thank you for the catch.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Please provide the page number in CT Supplement 7 that provides the stateroom details?

CT S7, p5:

Interior Walls: lnterior walls are partitions: non-load-bearing panels firmly fixed in place. They are not pressure-tight, and cannot withstand a concerted assault.

Sliding Doors: Set in interior walls are sliding doors. Such doors save space over conventional swinging doors, and so are standard on most starships. They are not air-tight, and and serve merely as privacy screens.

p6:

Bulkheads: The major structural components of a ship are the bulkheads, and they represent the compartmentalization of the ship for damage control and environment maintenance as well as the outer hull of the ship.

lris Valves: lris valves are pressure-tight automatic portals set in bulkheads.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hi again AnotherDilbert,

Please provide the page number in CT Supplement 7 that provides the stateroom details?

CT S7, p5:

Interior Walls: lnterior walls are partitions: non-load-bearing panels firmly fixed in place. They are not pressure-tight, and cannot withstand a concerted assault.

Sliding Doors: Set in interior walls are sliding doors. Such doors save space over conventional swinging doors, and so are standard on most starships. They are not air-tight, and and serve merely as privacy screens.

p6:

Bulkheads: The major structural components of a ship are the bulkheads, and they represent the compartmentalization of the ship for damage control and environment maintenance as well as the outer hull of the ship.

lris Valves: lris valves are pressure-tight automatic portals set in bulkheads.

I found the pages after I made the first post and then I tried to get back before you replied, as usual I was too late. Thank you for the source information.

 

[Condottiere]

A good yardstick is the default cost per tonne.

If a twenty foot four tonne module is listed at, say, a thousand Credite Imperiale, than it it's basically a standard container.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hi Condottiere,

A good yardstick is the default cost per tonne.

If a twenty foot four tonne module is listed at, say, a thousand Credite Imperiale, than it it's basically a standard container.

1. GDW JTAS 5 pp.6-9 LSP Modular Cutter lists seven modules each with price attached. The modules consist of a
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.

2. 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).

3. CT LBB 2 Starships 1977/1981 6th printing pp. 18 & 23 has a modular cutter 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).

4. MgT HG 2e p. 103/PDF 104 has a modular cutter with an ATV MCr 1.8 or Fuel MCr1.0, or Open MCr2.0.


Which 30 ton module from the above list do you use to determine the base cost?

 

[Condottiere]

Let's take the three megabux passenger module as basis.

Fifty kay bux per tonne default equals one a half megabux for the module, that leaves another one a half megabux for the fittings, which one assumes is twenty four half tonne acceleration seats, which at thirty kay a piece equals to seven hundred twenty kay bux, and should leave eighteen tonnes available for other facilities, such as a fresher and a galley.

If it's an overnighter, which would be seven and a half staterooms, let's say seven, then you're looking at five megabux cost.

If we compromise and use cabin space at one and a half tonnes, which comes to precisely twenty passengers, that's exactly three megabux.

Cargo would be whatever handling facilities you'd include, plus one and a half megabux.

The one percent surcharge per percent allocated to modularity, is accounted for by the hosting spacecraft, since it's for accommodating the module with the correct plumbing connections and hatches, and the cost is based on the host's hull, not the module's.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello Condottiere,

Let's take the three megabux passenger module as basis.

Fifty kay bux per tonne default equals one a half megabux for the module, that leaves another one a half megabux for the fittings, which one assumes is twenty four half tonne acceleration seats, which at thirty kay a piece equals to seven hundred twenty kay bux, and should leave eighteen tonnes available for other facilities, such as a fresher and a galley.

If it's an overnighter, which would be seven and a half staterooms, let's say seven, then you're looking at five megabux cost.

If we compromise and use cabin space at one and a half tonnes, which comes to precisely twenty passengers, that's exactly three megabux.

Cargo would be whatever handling facilities you'd include, plus one and a half megabux.

The one percent surcharge per percent allocated to modularity, is accounted for by the hosting spacecraft, since it's for accommodating the module with the correct plumbing connections and hatches, and the cost is based on the host's hull, not the module's.

1. Here is the information for the Passenger and Cargo Module from GDW JTAS 5 p. 9

"Passenger and Cargo module. A simple concept, this module has perhaps seen the most wide spread use; it converts the cutter to a standard civilian model. The seating (four abreast) accommodates 24; when the seats are removed, cargo in standard containers can accommodate total 24 tons. While passengers enter and leave through the entry hatch (forward, at the airlock to port, cargo (especially large items) is off-loaded by detaching the module and sliding the containers out the module ends. Base price: MCr3.0."

CT LBB 5 HG 2e p. 36 Accommodations
Staterooms: 4 tons at Cr 500,000
Small Craft Staterooms: 2 tons at Cr 50,000
Small craft couches: 0.5 tons at Cr 25,000

I agree that in passenger mode there are 24 passenger seats that consume 12 tons of the 30 ton module's internal space and that the remaining 18 tons is consumed by the airlock, other facilities, and cargo. The cost of passenger and cargo module per ton is MCr3.0 / 30 is MCr0.1.

Removing the couches would bring the cargo variant's base price to MCr3.0 - 24 x MCr0.025 = MCr0.6 = MCr2.4. In cargo mode the module is capable of handling 24 tons standard containers with 6 tons allocated to the airlock and other items the designer can think to install. An empty cargo variant has a MCr2.4 / 30 = MCr0.08 per ton of module hull.

Unfortunately, the assault boat, fuel skimmer, and ATV modules cost less than the passenger and cargo module when configured for passenger service. The fuel skimmer and the ATV modules cost less than the passenger and cargo module when configured for cargo service.

 

[Condottiere]

Fuel skimmer module would be basically the tank, so free, and a fuel processor; fuel skimming itself dependent on the host's hull.

Cargo module is basically free, modifying it for passenger use requires adding in fittings, so time and labour in addition; exception would be acceleration couches.

ATV is basically garage facilities, plus cost of ATV; here it gets problematic, since when the module was external, access ramp and hatch would be part of and cost included to the module, and if it's entirely internal, either the module hatch has to open up and permit the ramp to extend, or an additional sub hatch and ramp has to be built into the hull.

 

[Ursus Maior]

ATV is basically garage facilities, plus cost of ATV; here it gets problematic, since when the module was external, access ramp and hatch would be part of and cost included to the module, and if it's entirely internal, either the module hatch has to open up and permit the ramp to extend, or an additional sub hatch and ramp has to be built into the hull.

That's part of the problem, yes. The other problem is: Since when is a cargo container free, just because I already installed the clamps for it on my vessel? Same goes for a fuel container.

This all wouldn't be a problem if:

1. Modular hulls would have a rule for buying an empty model, e. g. "half the cost is for the hull, half of it for the prime module installed" would suffice.
2. Or basic cargo space and fuel space would generally cost a certain amount, e. g. "Cr1,000 for clamps and moutings per dton of cargo space" and "Cr2,000 for pipes and fittings per dton of fuel tankage".

There, problem solved.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Or just say the cost is negligible:

Budgeted in MegaCredits. Ship component costs are expressed in MegaCredits (and sometimes decimal fractions). Costs below MCr0.01 (about KCr10 or Cr10,000) are inconsequential and can be ignored. For example, a Maneuver Drive may cost MCr10 and the cost is important to the final ship design; several rifles in the Ship’s Locker may cost Cr1,000 each and their cost can be ignored.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello AnotherDilbert,

The modular cutter is not a LBB5'80 design as far as I can see.

I will have to take that back, it might to be a TL8 design:

Note that it does not follow the description completely; it already has a computer, so can't be equipped with another computer.

I have checked the USP against CT LBB 2 HG 2e 1980 the High Guard Statistics Universal Ship Profile example on p. 52

Y = Yacht
Y = Shuttle; Cutter
0 = Tonnage Code for hulls < 100 tons
2 = Configuration Code = Cone; Streamlined - Yes, Price Mod: +10%
0 = Jump Rating
4 = Maneuver Drive Acceleration Rating in Gs
4 = Power Plant EP output
0 = Computer Model Code looking at CT LBB 2 1977/1981 p. 22 or CT LBB 5 HG 2e 1980 p. 26 a Model 1 computer has a USP Code 1 a code of 0 (zero) means no computer is installed.
1 = Crew Code Crew Size is between 1 and 9.

The CT Supplement 7 50 ton modular cutter does not have a computer.

GDW JTAS 5 pp. 6-9 LSP Modular Cutter by Marc W. Miller details are a bit scant.

"The LSP Modular Cutter is essentially an alloy cylinder* thirty meters in length and six meters in diameter. The nose is hemispherical and simple manufacturing techniques are used through out. Displacement is 50 tons (or 700 cubic meters) and the ship is capable of accelerations up to 4G. Normally unarmed, the cutter carries fuel tankage of 15 tons. Base price is MCr9.25, excluding modules...."

"Performance of the cutter is affected by load. Normally accelerations of up to 4G can be achieved (with new or well-maintained maneuver drives). By operating the cutter without a module, the boat is reduced to thirty** tons displacement; operating under such conditions, it can easily make 6G. Such use is not recommended however, as the single structural strut connecting the bridge and drives is not strong enough to withstand such abuse for long."

*The description says cylinder which should be a configuration code of 3.
*50 - 30 = 20 tons not 30 tons.

GDW JTAS 8 Broadsword Class Mercenary Cruisers by Marc W. Miller p. 26 Modular Cutter:

"The 50-ton cutter is essentially of two piece construction: a 20 ton frame and a 30 ton module. The combination is capable of 4-G operations and carries a crew of two (pilot and gunner). The cutter has a four ton bridge installed and mounts a Model/1 computer. It is armed with a single missile rack. Total craft cost, less module: MCr30.75."

"When the cutter is operated without the module, it has a smaller displacement and thus greater performance: its 4-G of accelerations is increased to 6-G."

Updated (clicked on the wrong button)

GDW JTAS 8 p. 37
CP-10897.1 Cutter YY-0204411-000000-00001-0 MCr30.75 50 tons
Crew-2. Fuel=2. Bridge. EP=2. Agility=4. TL=12 Carries one 30-ton module
Cutter without module functions as YY-0206611 (20 tons)

The bold 1 in the USP is the slot allocated for the computer's model number which corresponds to a Model/1 computer.

 

[phavoc]

Trying to reference every version of Traveller to make sense in just one is rather mind boggling. And the versions already contradict one another in other ways.

It's best to stick with one version and try to flesh things out from there. Other versions (indeed, even other games) can provide hints and influence. But I'd suggest not taking them as gospel, as the designers haven't.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hi Condottiere,

Fuel skimmer module would be basically the tank, so free, and a fuel processor; fuel skimming itself dependent on the host's hull.

Cargo module is basically free, modifying it for passenger use requires adding in fittings, so time and labour in addition; exception would be acceleration couches.

ATV is basically garage facilities, plus cost of ATV; here it gets problematic, since when the module was external, access ramp and hatch would be part of and cost included to the module, and if it's entirely internal, either the module hatch has to open up and permit the ramp to extend, or an additional sub hatch and ramp has to be built into the hull.

I do not know how the following information alters the process to determining what a base module costs in CT.

In CT the 50 ton Modular cutter has at least two CT LBB 5 HG 2e Universal Ship Profiles.

CT Supplement 7 p. 47
Cutter YY-0204401-000000-00001-0; MCr28; 50 tons
Crew-2. Passengers=12. Cargo=15. Fuel=13.5. Agility=4. TL=9

GDW JTAS 8 p. 37
CP-10897.1 Cutter YY-0204411-000000-00001-0; MCr30.75; 50 tons
Crew-2. Fuel=2. Bridge. EP=2. Agility=4. TL=12 Carries one 30-ton module
Cutter without module functions as YY-0206611 (20 tons)

In addition to the USP GDW JTAS 8 p. 26 notes that "The 50-ton cutter is essentially of two piece construction: a 20-ton frame and a 30 ton module."

GDW JTAS 5 p. 6 appears to contradict the USP Configuration code of 2 = Cone. "The LSP Modular Cutter is essentially an alloy cylinder thirty meters in length and six meters in diameter. The nose is hemispherical..." If the modular cutter is a cylinder the installation of fuel scoops increase the cost.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello AnotherDilbert,

Or just say the cost is negligible:

Budgeted in MegaCredits. Ship component costs are expressed in MegaCredits (and sometimes decimal fractions). Costs below MCr0.01 (about KCr10 or Cr10,000) are inconsequential and can be ignored. For example, a Maneuver Drive may cost MCr10 and the cost is important to the final ship design; several rifles in the Ship’s Locker may cost Cr1,000 each and their cost can be ignored.

I do not own T5 which means I cannot check to see if any of the tables that use KCr or Cr.

In CT LBB 5 HG 2e 1980 p. 36 lists the Cost for Fuel Purification Plants, Accommodations, and Ship's Vehicles in Cr. The costs are added to the hull's base cost. A ground car has a cost of Cr 4,000 which under T5 as indicated above would be ignored.

The cost of fuel, missiles, and sand canisters are not included in the construction cost. Stowing materials in the Ship's locker, like the fuel, missiles, and canisters is not important to the final design so can be ignored.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hi phavoc,

Trying to reference every version of Traveller to make sense in just one is rather mind boggling. And the versions already contradict one another in other ways.

It's best to stick with one version and try to flesh things out from there. Other versions (indeed, even other games) can provide hints and influence. But I'd suggest not taking them as gospel, as the designers haven't.

Thank you for the comment and suggestion to stick with just one version.

MgT HG 2e Modular hull p. 35/PDF 36.

A 30-ton modular hull section for a 50 ton hull requires 30 / 50 = 0.0 = 60% complete hull. The base cost of a standard, partially streamlined 50 ton hull is 50 x 50,000 = 2,500,000. The cost of a 30 ton modular section is 2,500,000 x 60% = 1,500,000.

MgT HG 2e Modular Cutter description: ATV module cost is MCr1.8, Fuel Module cost is MCr1.0, and an Open Module cost is MCr2.0.

Does the ATV Module include an ATV and is the vehicle's cost included in the price?

MgT CRB 2e p. 139/PDF 140 a wheeled ATV has a cost of MCr0.155 and a tracked ATV is MCr0.175

How can a 30-ton fuel module cost less that the 30-ton modular hull section cost?

If the fuel module is capable of skimming for fuel the hull being partially streamlined the installation of fuel scoops, in theory, should increase the price by MCr1.0. Adding an 1 ton fuel processor increases the cost by MCr0.05.

What is an Open Module and what makes it cost more than the 30-ton modular hull section?

My 4 and 7 year old neighbors have stopped by so I must take a break.

 

[Ursus Maior]

Or just say the cost is negligible:

Budgeted in MegaCredits. Ship component costs are expressed in MegaCredits (and sometimes decimal fractions). Costs below MCr0.01 (about KCr10 or Cr10,000) are inconsequential and can be ignored. For example, a Maneuver Drive may cost MCr10 and the cost is important to the final ship design; several rifles in the Ship’s Locker may cost Cr1,000 each and their cost can be ignored.

Well, yes, but the figures I gave were completely made up. What's not made up are the costs for the three basic modules. And there is just no reason for them to cost what they do. If we'd follow the rules as written, cargo and fuel modules would cost nothing. That's the whole point of this thread.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello Ursus Maior,

Or just say the cost is negligible:

Budgeted in MegaCredits. Ship component costs are expressed in MegaCredits (and sometimes decimal fractions). Costs below MCr0.01 (about KCr10 or Cr10,000) are inconsequential and can be ignored. For example, a Maneuver Drive may cost MCr10 and the cost is important to the final ship design; several rifles in the Ship’s Locker may cost Cr1,000 each and their cost can be ignored.

Well, yes, but the figures I gave were completely made up. What's not made up are the costs for the three basic modules. And there is just no reason for them to cost what they do. If we'd follow the rules as written, cargo and fuel modules would cost nothing. That's the whole point of this thread.

The costs of the three basic modules were made up, in my opinion, when the 50 ton modular cutter was introduced back in 1980-1981. I suspect that the author probably can not recall or find the material used to determine the cost of the modules.

The rules as written are for the installation of fuel and cargo space within a single hull that has a cost in MgT HG 2e of Cr 50,000. GDW JTAS 8 p. 26 has this description "The 50-ton cutter is essentially of two piece construction: a 20-ton frame and a 30-ton module."

Piece 1 is the 20 ton frame which has a cost of 20 x MCr0.05 = MCr1.0 and Piece 2 is the 30 ton module which has a cost of 30 x MCr0.05 = MCr1.5. Combining the two pieces we have a 50 ton hull at MCr2.5. A 50 ton hull has a cost of 50 x 0.05 = MCr2.5.

Configuring the 30-ton module as a 30 ton fuel tank does not change the base cost of MCr1.5 even by adding the pipes, pumps and other systems to keep L-Hyd. Using the 30 ton module to haul cargo requires cutting in loading/unloading hatches with the necessary systems to open and close them. This modification as has been mentioned is negligible compared to the base cost and can be overlooked, unless there is someone who wants to track every single credit.