Modular Cutter: What do modules cost?

[AnotherDilbert]

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."

The CT version used an external pod, the MgT version does not. The JTAS description does not apply to the MgT version.

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.

The MgT version does not have an external pod but an internal module, hence the module has no hull.
The CT module presumably has a hull, but the cost is different.

The calculation is not relevant to either version.

 

[NOLATrav]

Check this out...

Standard Imperial 30 dton Cutter Modules

Basic Cargo Module
Base Cost of MCr1.5 provides a sealed container, much like today's shipping containers. It is inaccessible to the crew of the Cutter and must be loaded and unloaded elsewhere but allows a full 30 dtons to be carried.

Working Cargo Module
For an additional 10% of the basic module's cost, a secure cargo ramp is added so that the module's interior can be accessed at any time, even while attached to the Cutter. Cargo capacity is reduced to 25 dtons. MCr1.65. Feel free to round up to MCr1.7.

HEV Cargo Module
For an additional 25% of the basic module's cost, a 5 dton airlock and L/S is added so cargo lots up to 5 dtons may be loaded and unloaded in vacuum or other hazardous environments. Cargo capacity is reduced to 20 dtons. MCr1.88. Feel free to round up to MCr1.9.

Basic Passenger Module
For an additional 10% of the basic module's cost, a secure access doorway, shared fresher and life support system allows for the ferrying of up to 50 passengers. Acceleration couches must be purchased at standard rates. MCr1.7 + couches.

Long Haul Passenger Module
For an additional 15% of the basic Passenger module's cost (+25% the cost of a basic module), a secure access doorway, shared fresher, life support system and an auto chef is installed, for up to 30 passengers. The remaining space is used for 30 sleeping nooks, which Imperial law forbids being occupied during orbital or landing/docking maneuvers. This configuration requires a Co-Pilot who also acts as Steward. Acceleration couches must be purchased at standard rates. MCr1.9 + couches.

Fuel Module
For an additional 10% of the basic module's cost, pumps, fittings and monitoring machinery can be installed, allowing the Cutter to skim for wilderness fuel and ferry 25 dtons to its mother ship or port. There is no refining capability in this configuration. MCr1.7.

Refined Fuel Module
For an additional 25% of the basic module's cost, pumps, fittings and monitoring machinery can be installed, along with a small refining system and tank partitions. This allows the Cutter to purify it's haul while returning home. 20 dton capacity. MCr1.9.

ATV Module
For an additional 10% of the basic module's cost, a secure ramp is added, along with a small maintenance and stores area, allowing the Cutter to carry vehicles such as ATVs. Equipment is provided that secures the vehicle(s) during maneuvers. Vehicles must be purchased at standard rates. MCr1.7.

I haven't run the fittings, couches, airlocks, etc thru High Guard or CSC but I thought I'd throw this out there; hopefully it can help find a consensus on what the costs should be. It's house-ruling I suppose but I'm a big fan of Rule 0.

 

[Condottiere]

An interesting comparison would be drop tanks.

The key is double entry book keeping - don't pay for the same thing twice.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Check this out...

Looks good, but...

HEV Cargo Module
For an additional 25% of the basic module's cost, a 5 dton airlock and L/S is added so cargo lots up to 5 dtons may be loaded and unloaded in vacuum or other hazardous environments. Cargo capacity is reduced to 20 dtons. MCr1.88. Feel free to round up to MCr1.9.
...
Fuel Module
For an additional 10% of the basic module's cost, pumps, fittings and monitoring machinery can be installed, allowing the Cutter to skim for wilderness fuel and ferry 25 dtons to its mother ship or port. There is no refining capability in this configuration. MCr1.7.

5 Dt is a lot for a small craft, to much to write off at a whim.

I would let capacity be 25 Dt cargo respective 30 Dt fuel.

 

[NOLATrav]

5 Dt is a lot for a small craft, to much to write off at a whim.

I would let capacity be 25 Dt cargo respective 30 Dt fuel.

Good point. Was just roughing things in, will take a closer look in a bit. Cheers

 

[phavoc]

GURPS went into a lot of detail for their Modular Cutter book. Many modules in that book. One thing they did different was to look at the cylinder and create two levels, much like an aircraft, for a number of their designs.

I think the first place to start is to come up with the cost of an empty module. From there you can use it as a building block for all other modules. The external hull, since it's basically integral to the cutter, would be of the same materials as any other small craft hull.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hi AnotherDilbert,

Hopefully third time is the charm in completing a reply.

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."

The CT version used an external pod, the MgT version does not. The JTAS description does not apply to the MgT version.

The illustration on MgT HG 2e p. 102/PDF 103 looks like two pieces to me. The (1) 50 ton modular cutter that has a cargo door opening to take onboard a (2) custom designed 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.

The MgT version does not have an external pod but an internal module, hence the module has no hull.
The CT module presumably has a hull, but the cost is different.

The calculation is not relevant to either version.

The aerospace definition of a Module: A self-contained unit of a spacecraft that performs a specific task or class of tasks in support of the major function of the craft. Examples that I can think of are command module, lunar landing module, and the various modules that make up the International Space Station.

The CT 50-ton Modular cutter does not have external pods either.
Supplement 7 p. 41 "The remaining 30 tons is allocated to a cylindrical module..."
GDW JTAS 5 p. 6 "ORIGINAL MODULES"
GDW JTAS 8 p. 26 "...As procured, the ship is furnished with two 50-ton cutters and a total of four 30-ton interchangeable modules...."

You are correct that for MgT my calculation is not relevant since MgT HG 2e has the rules to create a modular hull on p. 35/PDF 36.

"Modular Hull
A portion of a ship’s hull may be designated as modular, allowing it to be swapped out easily for another module. This allows a ship to be configured for specific missions and roles. For example, a modular ship may have a choice of a module containing a lot of missile bays (making it a missile carrier), laboratories (to act as a research vessel) or hangar space (allowing it to transport smaller ships). This practice of using modules is more common among small craft, but there is no theoretical maximum size to the ship that can use them.

Up to 75% of a ship’s internal tonnage may be designated as modular. This tonnage may not include the bridge, power plant, drives or any structure or armour options.

Making a modular hull increases the cost of the overall hull by the percentage designated as being modular.

For example, a 100 ton hull normally costs MCr2. If 30% of the ship’s hull is to be made modular, then the cost of the hull is increased to MCr2.6, which is 130% of the original cost. This results in 30 tons of the ship’s components being easily swapped out from mission to mission."

A 50-ton cutter designates 30-tons of hull as being modular. The modular percentage of the 50 ton hull is 30 / 50 = 0.6 = 60%. The cutter's streamlined hull has a base cost of MCr3 by designating 60% of the hull as modular the price is increased by MCr3 x 0.6 = MCr1.8.

My guess is that the MCr1.8 is for the basic 30 ton module configured as a removable cargo hold about 420 m^3 of undefined material.

On MgT HG 2e p. 103/PDF 104 the available modules are.

1. ATV with a cost of MCr1.8. Does the cost include or exclude the cost of an ATV?

2. Fuel with a cost of MCr1. Can the fuel be used directly from the module? Is the 30 ton fuel module be considered a demountable tank?

3. Open with a cost of MCr2. What is an open module? Why does it cost more than an ATV or Fuel module?

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello NOLATrav,

Off topic: The spell checker has suggested the spelling of Travollta.

Check this out...

Standard Imperial 30 dton Cutter Modules

Basic Cargo Module
Base Cost of MCr1.5 provides a sealed container, much like today's shipping containers. It is inaccessible to the crew of the Cutter and must be loaded and unloaded elsewhere but allows a full 30 dtons to be carried.

Working Cargo Module
For an additional 10% of the basic module's cost, a secure cargo ramp is added so that the module's interior can be accessed at any time, even while attached to the Cutter. Cargo capacity is reduced to 25 dtons. MCr1.65. Feel free to round up to MCr1.7.

HEV Cargo Module
For an additional 25% of the basic module's cost, a 5 dton airlock and L/S is added so cargo lots up to 5 dtons may be loaded and unloaded in vacuum or other hazardous environments. Cargo capacity is reduced to 20 dtons. MCr1.88. Feel free to round up to MCr1.9.

Basic Passenger Module
For an additional 10% of the basic module's cost, a secure access doorway, shared fresher and life support system allows for the ferrying of up to 50 passengers. Acceleration couches must be purchased at standard rates. MCr1.7 + couches.

Long Haul Passenger Module
For an additional 15% of the basic Passenger module's cost (+25% the cost of a basic module), a secure access doorway, shared fresher, life support system and an auto chef is installed, for up to 30 passengers. The remaining space is used for 30 sleeping nooks, which Imperial law forbids being occupied during orbital or landing/docking maneuvers. This configuration requires a Co-Pilot who also acts as Steward. Acceleration couches must be purchased at standard rates. MCr1.9 + couches.

Fuel Module
For an additional 10% of the basic module's cost, pumps, fittings and monitoring machinery can be installed, allowing the Cutter to skim for wilderness fuel and ferry 25 dtons to its mother ship or port. There is no refining capability in this configuration. MCr1.7.

Refined Fuel Module
For an additional 25% of the basic module's cost, pumps, fittings and monitoring machinery can be installed, along with a small refining system and tank partitions. This allows the Cutter to purify it's haul while returning home. 20 dton capacity. MCr1.9.

ATV Module
For an additional 10% of the basic module's cost, a secure ramp is added, along with a small maintenance and stores area, allowing the Cutter to carry vehicles such as ATVs. Equipment is provided that secures the vehicle(s) during maneuvers. Vehicles must be purchased at standard rates. MCr1.7.

I haven't run the fittings, couches, airlocks, etc thru High Guard or CSC but I thought I'd throw this out there; hopefully it can help find a consensus on what the costs should be. It's house-ruling I suppose but I'm a big fan of Rule 0.

I like the material presented. I can go with either MCr1.5 or MCr1.8 for a basic 30-ton module.

 

[phavoc]

Ah, a good point was made. One has to first decide which version of the venerable modular cutter you want. In the original versions, the module itself was left behind when dropped, this the external portion of the module was built to small craft standards. When the cutter leaves it's module behind it just has a framework on top that connects the front and rear spaces (much like the Eagle transporter from Space: 1999).

Mongoose (at least v2) has changed that where the module is carried within the hull of the cutter, thus the cutter appears no different once it's dropped off it's module (and according to illustrations, the module sides open up to remove the module. So the module itself could be built of fiberboard, since it isn't necessarily exposed to space.

I had forgotten that Mongoose changed it.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The aerospace definition of a Module:

Traveller have it's own definition, depending on edition.

The CT 50-ton Modular cutter does not have external pods either.

The CT Cutter clearly has an external module:

Performance of the cutter is affected by its 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; ...

My guess is that the MCr1.8 is for the basic 30 ton module configured as a removable cargo hold about 420 m^3 of undefined material.

That is not the cost of the module, it's the extra cost of the Cutter hull, presumably for the socket and hatches for the module.

1. ATV with a cost of MCr1.8. Does the cost include or exclude the cost of an ATV?

Spacecraft generally include the cost of carried craft, so presumably the ATV is included.

2. Fuel with a cost of MCr1. Can the fuel be used directly from the module? Is the 30 ton fuel module be considered a demountable tank?

Module components are natively useable by the parent ship, so regular fixed tanks in the module counts as regular fixed tanks in the parent ship.

3. Open with a cost of MCr2. What is an open module? Why does it cost more than an ATV or Fuel module?

It's just a base for your own custom modules:

The open module is a customizable frame with 30 tons of excess space which can be allocated to passenger couches, fuel, cargo, cabins or staterooms. It costs MCr2.

The costs are presumably not based on any system, so I have no idea where the prices come from.

 

[Condottiere]

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello AnotherDilbert,

My fourth attempt worked at making a post.

The aerospace definition of a Module:

Traveller have it's own definition, depending on edition.

The CT 50-ton Modular cutter does not have external pods either.

The CT Cutter clearly has an external module:

Performance of the cutter is affected by its 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; ...

The images provided above, in my opinion, fit he aerospace definition of a Module: A self-contained unit of a spacecraft that performs a specific task or class of tasks in support of the major function of the craft. Examples that I can think of are command module, lunar landing module, and the various modules that make up the International Space Station. The function of the 30-ton modules support the major function of the Modular Cutter.

Combing through CT Supplement 7, JTAS 8 CT The Traveller Book PDF, MT, TNE, T4, GT, and T20 the 50-ton Modular Cutter has modules not pods.

To make the JTAS 5 citation complete: "Performance of the cutter is affected by its 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."

Sadly, I sent an email to Donald McKinney the creator and keeper of the Consolidated Errata documents about six months before his passing with two recommendation. 1) Change the JTAS 5 entry from 30-tons to 20 tons, which in my opinion was the simplest solution or 2) Change all of the other documents from 20-tons to 30-tons. I did get a reply that my suggestion was under review.

The CT 50-ton Modular Cutter removed a 30-ton or 20-ton section out of the hull to cargo some type of cargo. Yes, I consider the passengers, gunners, weapons, fuel, etc. to be cargo. With the module section installed the cutter is 50 tons and capable of 4-G based on the tonnage consumed by the maneuver drive. In CT the maximum acceleration is 6-G working from the drive tonnage back to percentage of hull required if the a 30-ton or 20-ton hull exceeds the 17% required on CT LBB 5 HG 2e 1980 p. 23.

My guess is that the MCr1.8 is for the basic 30 ton module configured as a removable cargo hold about 420 m^3 of undefined material.

That is not the cost of the module, it's the extra cost of the Cutter hull, presumably for the socket and hatches for the module.

The 50-ton Modular Cutter, MgT HG 2e p. 102/PDF 103, appears to have a large effectively dedicated cargo bay that receives 30-ton modules as cargo. The cargo/module bay has a very long cargo hatch which does not consume tonnage or increase the cost of the hull, per MgT HG 2e p. 22/PDF 23 in a side bar(?) discussing airlocks and cargo hatches. If the cargo/module bay is to be loaded/unloaded in a hostile environment the cargo hates text directs you to MgT HG 2e p. 44/PDF 45 which states that standard airlocks consume 2 tons with a cost of MCr0.1 per ton. The 50-ton Modular Cutter's record in the Systems block has Airlock; 2 tons; MCr0.2. The airlock appears to be standard which is large enough to cycle two humans per minute between the interior and exterior, or vice versa. If I understand the Airlock rules to have the cargo/module operate as a cargo airlock it would have to be 30 tons and cost MCr3.0.

The MgT HG 2e Modular Cutter's socket is probably a Type I 30 ton docking clamp from MgT HG 2e p. 43/PDF 44. The depiction of the cutter appears to have a very long cargo hatch, MgT HG 2e p. 22/PDF 23 which does not consume hull tonnage or have a cost.

Since the 50-ton Modular Cutter has a cargo/module bay the maximum acceleration is 4-G with and without a 30 ton module being carried.

1. ATV with a cost of MCr1.8. Does the cost include or exclude the cost of an ATV?

Spacecraft generally include the cost of carried craft, so presumably the ATV is included.

The ATV module is not a spacecraft it is a 30-ton cargo container specifically designed to fit into a MgT 50-ton Modular Cutter's cargo/module bay. The cargo container/module has been outfitted to hold an ATV.

2. Fuel with a cost of MCr1. Can the fuel be used directly from the module? Is the 30 ton fuel module be considered a demountable tank?

Module components are natively useable by the parent ship, so regular fixed tanks in the module counts as regular fixed tanks in the parent ship.

I can agree that the cutter can also use contents of the fuel module. I do not agree that they are fixed tanks since fuel modules can be swapped out in a similar manner to demountable tanks MgT HG 2e p. 36/PDF 37.

3. Open with a cost of MCr2. What is an open module? Why does it cost more than an ATV or Fuel module?

It's just a base for your own custom modules:

The open module is a customizable frame with 30 tons of excess space which can be allocated to passenger couches, fuel, cargo, cabins or staterooms. It costs MCr2.

The costs are presumably not based on any system, so I have no idea where the prices come from.

All of the modules are 30-ton that are open and can be customized to fit passenger couches, fuel (fuel module), cargo (ATV), cabins, or staterooms.

MgT has, in my opinion, made a number of fixes to Traveller most of them I like, unfortunately some items like the other rule sets were not fixed but copied into the rule set.

I like NOLATrav's idea and a thought just occurred that if Mongoose does not have a problem the work should be submitted to Freelance Traveller.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The CT 50-ton Modular Cutter removed a 30-ton or 20-ton section out of the hull to cargo some type of cargo. Yes, I consider the passengers, gunners, weapons, fuel, etc. to be cargo.

They may be payload, but "cargo" and "cargo hold" has a specific meaning in Traveller. Space allocated to other things like quarters or other systems is not "cargo". See HG, p22.

With the module section installed the cutter is 50 tons and capable of 4-G based on the tonnage consumed by the maneuver drive. In CT the maximum acceleration is 6-G working from the drive tonnage back to percentage of hull required if the a 30-ton or 20-ton hull exceeds the 17% required on CT LBB 5 HG 2e 1980 p. 23.

4 G at 50 Dt requires 50 Dt × 11% = 5.5 Dt M-drive.
6 G requires 17% of the displacement: 5.5 Dt / 17% ≈ 32.35 Dt maximum.
The CT cutter presumably has a 5.5 Dt LBB5 M-drive or perhaps a LBB2 "A" M-drive. Either way it is enough for 6 G at 20 Dt (or even up to 32 Dt) displacement.

The 50-ton Modular Cutter, MgT HG 2e p. 102/PDF 103, appears to have a large effectively dedicated cargo bay that receives 30-ton modules as cargo.

Modular space is technically not cargo. An "Open" module may be installed with cargo space.

The MgT HG 2e Modular Cutter's socket is probably a Type I 30 ton docking clamp from MgT HG 2e p. 43/PDF 44.

Modular Hull (HG,p35) has nothing to do with Docking Clamps (HG,p43) used to carry spacecraft externally.

The ATV module is not a spacecraft it is a 30-ton cargo container specifically designed to fit into a MgT 50-ton Modular Cutter's cargo/module bay.

It is a spacecraft module, i.e. a part of a spacecraft. It is not just a cargo container, e.g. a Free Trader can't use it in the same manner as a Cutter, even if it may be able to carry (but not use) the module as cargo.

CT Adventure 7: Broadsword p19 specifies that a standard ATV is included, not that it necessarily means anything in MgT.

I can agree that the cutter can also use contents of the fuel module. I do not agree that they are fixed tanks since fuel modules can be swapped out in a similar manner to demountable tanks MgT HG 2e p. 36/PDF 37.

More or less any system (except a few stated exclusions) can be made modular and directly used as a part of the spacecraft when installed. Just as a screen device can be used and controlled when installed, regular fixed fuel tanks can be used when installed.

Modular Hull (HG, p35) has nothing to do with Demountable Tanks (HG, p36), even if they can both be used to achieve similar results.



I can't help but think that you are overcomplicating something that is actually rather simple: Modules cost as much as the components they contain, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[phavoc]

"CT Adventure 7: Broadsword p19 specifies that a standard ATV is included, not that it necessarily means anything in MgT."

And this is exactly why there is no point in snippets of explanations between different publishers versions - it doesn't necessarily mean anything in the version you are playing with. MGTv1 and MGTv2 clash with each other and T5, as does every other version of Traveller. Not everything, of course.

People want to argue which version is canon when the answer is very simple - it's whichever version you are working with is canon to your play. It's great to pull things from other versions, or even make your own, at the end of the day it's about having fun playing with your friends.

 

[Ursus Maior]

I can't help but think that you are overcomplicating something that is actually rather simple: Modules cost as much as the components they contain, nothing more, nothing less.

Unless you buy one of the three canonical stadardized modules, which cost way more than what they come equipped with: namely 30 dtons of cargo space or fuel for a regular cost of zero Credits or an ATV and some cargo spacem which should still be cheaper that what the text in Mg HG2 says it costs.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello AnotherDilbert,

The CT 50-ton Modular Cutter removed a 30-ton or 20-ton section out of the hull to cargo some type of cargo. Yes, I consider the passengers, gunners, weapons, fuel, etc. to be cargo.

They may be payload, but "cargo" and "cargo hold" has a specific meaning in Traveller. Space allocated to other things like quarters or other systems is not "cargo". See HG, p22.

Payload is a synonym for cargo and is considered the part of the load that generates revenue. In Traveller revenue is generated by carrying passengers, equipment, and other goods.

With the module section installed the cutter is 50 tons and capable of 4-G based on the tonnage consumed by the maneuver drive. In CT the maximum acceleration is 6-G working from the drive tonnage back to percentage of hull required if the a 30-ton or 20-ton hull exceeds the 17% required on CT LBB 5 HG 2e 1980 p. 23.

4 G at 50 Dt requires 50 Dt × 11% = 5.5 Dt M-drive.
6 G requires 17% of the displacement: 5.5 Dt / 17% ≈ 32.35 Dt maximum.
The CT cutter presumably has a 5.5 Dt LBB5 M-drive or perhaps a LBB2 "A" M-drive. Either way it is enough for 6 G at 20 Dt (or even up to 32 Dt) displacement.

I thought I said that the CT 50-ton modular cutter without the module could achieve 6-G. Since neither edition of LBB 2 has small craft design rules I'll stick with CT LBB 5 or MgT HG 2e rules.

The 50-ton Modular Cutter, MgT HG 2e p. 102/PDF 103, appears to have a large effectively dedicated cargo bay that receives 30-ton modules as cargo.

Modular space is technically not cargo. An "Open" module may be installed with cargo space.

Modular space in MgT HG 2e is a place holder for a specifically sized payload.

The MgT HG 2e Modular Cutter's socket is probably a Type I 30 ton docking clamp from MgT HG 2e p. 43/PDF 44.

Modular Hull (HG,p35) has nothing to do with Docking Clamps (HG,p43) used to carry spacecraft externally.

The module is docked into the modular space/bay/hold and held in place. I would call the system as docking clamps. A Type I docking clamp reversed to the underside of the modular cutters spine is still a docking clamp.

The ATV module is not a spacecraft it is a 30-ton cargo container specifically designed to fit into a MgT 50-ton Modular Cutter's cargo/module bay.

It is a spacecraft module, i.e. a part of a spacecraft. It is not just a cargo container, e.g. a Free Trader can't use it in the same manner as a Cutter, even if it may be able to carry (but not use) the module as cargo.

CT Adventure 7: Broadsword p19 specifies that a standard ATV is included, not that it necessarily means anything in MgT.

I stated that the 30-ton cargo container was specifically designed to fit a MgT 50-ton Modular Cutter, but failed to include the additional wording of modular space/bay/hold which means that no other vessel will get the same benefits.

I can agree that the cutter can also use contents of the fuel module. I do not agree that they are fixed tanks since fuel modules can be swapped out in a similar manner to demountable tanks MgT HG 2e p. 36/PDF 37.

More or less any system (except a few stated exclusions) can be made modular and directly used as a part of the spacecraft when installed. Just as a screen device can be used and controlled when installed, regular fixed fuel tanks can be used when installed.

Modular Hull (HG, p35) has nothing to do with Demountable Tanks (HG, p36), even if they can both be used to achieve similar results.

A demountable fuel tank fits into an otherwise open space/bay/hold to providing additional fuel that can be used by the ship.

A 50-ton Modular Cutter fuel module fitting into modular space/bay/hold can provide additional fuel to the cutter.

I can't help but think that you are overcomplicating something that is actually rather simple: Modules cost as much as the components they contain, nothing more, nothing less.

MgT HG 2e does not provide the cost of the systems needed to pump fuel from the tanks to the jump drive or power plant. A fuel module has a cost of MCr1.0. The cost of 30 tons of refined fuel is Cr500, , MgT CRB 2e p. 145/PDF 146. If the module costs as much as the component it contains then the fuel module should cost 30 tons x Cr 500 = Cr15,000 or MCr0.015. The module is costs MCr0.985 more than the fuel.

From MgT CRB 2e p. 139/PDF 140 a wheeled ATV costs Cr 155,000 and a tracked ATV costs Cr 175,000 the cost of the ATV Module is MCr1.8.

The modules do not cost as much as the components they contain.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello phavoc,

"CT Adventure 7: Broadsword p19 specifies that a standard ATV is included, not that it necessarily means anything in MgT."

JTAS 5 1980 LSP Modular Cutter excludes the ATV from the modules cost.
JTAS 8 1981 Broadsword Class Mercenary Cruiser includes the ATV cost.
CT Adventure 7: Broadsword 1983 appears to be be taken from JTAS 8.

And this is exactly why there is no point in snippets of explanations between different publishers versions - it doesn't necessarily mean anything in the version you are playing with. MGTv1 and MGTv2 clash with each other and T5, as does every other version of Traveller. Not everything, of course.

People want to argue which version is canon when the answer is very simple - it's whichever version you are working with is canon to your play. It's great to pull things from other versions, or even make your own, at the end of the day it's about having fun playing with your friends.

The 50-ton Modular Cutter originated in CT and was imported into MgT. The cutter's hull design was modified to fit with MgT HG 2e construction rules. The modules on MgT HG 2e p. 103/PDF 104 are directly imported from CT without any modifications to cost.

I have not referred to any version being canon.

No further comments from my side of the peanut gallery will be made.

 

[Condottiere]

1. The All Terrain Vehicle module seems a Mercenary legacy from the Broadsword; whether this is an optimal solution to ground transport is probably another issue.

2. Open frame seems the infrastructure for an Eagle Transporter, assuming it's external, which at the moment, it isn't.

3. I'll assume the reason you can't use fuel balloons to drive the jump turbines is due to the pressures from the sudden flow of the hydrogen, both on that specific plumbing installed for the condoms, as well as on the rubbery material itself; with the correct plumbing, static hydrogen storage areas can be connected directly to the jump turbines.

4. Acceleration calculation is a combination of mass attached and engine rating, which is capped by the manufacturing process.

5. An empty enclosed modular bay can still be utilized; question is whether adjacent artificial gravity fields exert an influence, and how much.

 

[Reynard]

I'm getting bleary-eyed trying to read all the posts here and hope I'm not repeating this information. Has anyone else seen the LSP Modular Cutter article in the new Journal of the Traveller's Aide Society Vol. 3? I notice an empty 30 ton module is a basic hull, streamlined for MCr.1.8. There are eight examples of module variants using the empty frame as a foundation plus an inventory of fittings. The ATV module does not include an ATV in the base price but has a configurable cradle to fasten down various vehicles up to 12 shipping tons.

Hope this helps. This is the way I understood and have been designing modules.

 

[NOLATrav]

Reynard, thanks for the reference. I figured there was already a solid write-up but wasn't sure where to find it.

Same here as regarding design.

Snrdg121408, thank you for the kind words upthread but it seems Mongoose have beaten me to it. I should look into getting the new JTAS Vol 3.