Muster out with a scout ship - A question

[MasterGwydion]

I don't understand why they can#t be non-gravitic...
surely you can choose not to install grav plates in a planetoid hull.

Agreed. I would houserule it and call it done. It hasn't come up in any of My games yet though.

 

[swordtart]

That's one of those rules that makes no sense with the change in available technology. If you have gravitic lifters, you are not going to have that problem. That rule (and the whole emphasis on streamlined/partial/unstreamlined) came from assuming the ships actually "Flew" through the atmosphere. But with lifters, they are not fighting air resistance and dealing with vectors the same way. Might be slower, but it won't be more dangerous.

Not gonna disagree with you, but rules is rules

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

How about a partial non gravity hull? Gravity in quarters bridge and engineering not in the fuel tanks or cargo.

 

[GabrielGABFonseca]

As a fun addendum to this discussion; my one article in the latest batch of JTAS volumes was the Flea Trader, a ship I created as an experiment in making the cheapest, technically still viable, starship.

It's featured in JTAS Volume 17, and to quote from the article itself:

The flea trader was so christened by owners, onlookers and victims alike. Named for its diminutive size, cheap price, even cheaper construction and the fact that, much like actual fleas, no starport wants to be infested with them. Regarded by a naval architect as an exercise in inhumane design and described by an anonymous retired scout as ‘somehow worse than an x-boat’, flea traders have come to be associated with those carrying a naive wanderlust for the stars, some without means to do better and others who know better and simply do not care.

It's a 100 dTon Close Structure light hull (non-gravity) and comes up to a grand total of MCr13.3175.

 

[Condottiere]

I don't understand why they can't be non-gravitic...
surely you can choose not to install grav plates in a planetoid hull.

I studied that issue when the new rules came out.

The best I came up with, is:

1. You can always cut the power to the gravity tiles, and reduce to minimum one power point per twenty tonnes for basic services.

2. Gravity tiles, whether on streamlined hull or a planetoid, cost the same.

3. Actually, the planetoid hull is both too cheap, and possibly, costs less than advertised (to manufacture)

 

[Condottiere]

How about a partial non gravity hull? Gravity in quarters bridge and engineering not in the fuel tanks or cargo.

In theory, yes.

There are loopholes.

In practice, again, you could just shut off all or some power to the rest of the spacecraft.

 

[rinku]

As a fun addendum to this discussion; my one article in the latest batch of JTAS volumes was the Flea Trader, a ship I created as an experiment in making the cheapest, technically still viable, starship.

It's featured in JTAS Volume 17, and to quote from the article itself:


It's a 100 dTon Close Structure light hull (non-gravity) and comes up to a grand total of MCr13.3175.

Love it. I'll keep it in mind, but I'm now in the groove for a mass produced starship that's cheap and flexible not just cheap. doing a 100 ton hull in 20 ton box sections for ease of construction has a big appeal - one for engineering, one for bridge and crew accommodations, three for cargo, extra fuel, passengers or whatever.

 

[Condottiere]

Flea Trader
. μονόξυλον class
. technological level
.. nine
Hull
. one hundred twenty tonnes
. planetoid
.. twenty four tonnes
.. four hundred eighty kilostarbux
.. armour
... organic
... two
.. gravitated
Bridge
. small
.. six tonnes
.. quarter megastarbux
. computer
.. five
.. thirty kilostarbux
. sensors
.. basic
... free
Engineering
. jump drive
.. Venture model
... ten tonnes
... budgetted
.... inflated
... one hundred twenty parsec tonnes
... twelve power points
... nine megastarbux
. manoeuvre drive
.. budgetted
... inflated
.. one and a half tonnes
.. one and four fifths megastarbux
. power plant
.. fusion
... early
... budgetted
.... inflated
.. nine modules
... half tonne
... four power points
... daily fuel consumption 1.7857142857143 kilogrammes
... one hundred eighty seven and a half kilostarbux
.. four and a half tonnes
.. thirty six power points
.. 1'687'500 starbux
. fuel tank
.. thirteen tonnes
Accommodations
. staterooms
.. one
.. four tonnes
.. half a megastarbux
Cargo
. fifty seven tonnes
Software
. manoeuvre
. library
. jump control
.. one
.. hundred kilostarbux

13,817'500.00 starbux

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

In theory, yes.

There are loopholes.

In practice, again, you could just shut off all or some power to the rest of the spacecraft.

But that way there is no cost savings.

 

[Condottiere]

There's this thing called operating costs.

And, one assumes, if you dial down the fusion reactor, it eats less fuel.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I think they meant production cost, not operating cost.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Nuts! Now I want to go and try and make a starship with the lowest possible operating costs...

 

[Condottiere]

There are budget options.

But, there's no such thing as a free launch.

 

[boggo2300]

There are budget options.

But, there's no such thing as a free launch.

This aphorism is blatantly untrue, in my life I have received quite a few free lunches.

 

[Condottiere]

Someone is paying for it.

And in this interconnected karmic universe, so will you, eventually.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

There's this thing called operating costs.

And, one assumes, if you dial down the fusion reactor, it eats less fuel.

But you still paid for that reactor you aren't using. Also of course by high guard rules you almost certainly wouldn't have reduced your # of active reactors enough to reduce the fuel usage since we are talking of a small starship.

Yes I am aware of the option in the Smallcraft book to reduce fuel usage further than High Guard allows but that has yet (to my knowledge) been officially applied to starships. It would take a LONG time to pay for it with saved fuel cost of not using it. Costs that you would have saved in any case by not buying the reactor in the 1st place.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

I don't understand why they can't be non-gravitic...
surely you can choose not to install grav plates in a planetoid hull.

Also why they can't be partially streamlined? You are taking a chunk of nickel iron alloy, deep scanning to get a shape with no fractures you can't weld up and cutting out the shape you want hollowing it out and adding reinforcements where needed. It shouldn't be shaped and coloured like a random rock picked up at the side of the road.

Can you tell I REALLY dislike the images of asteroid hulls in the book? Sure SOME of them retain a "natural" look as much as practical but that is for stealth where they aren't intended to be recognized easily by an invader until too late.

So I would allow a non gravity hull.

I'm working on a design which is a close non gravity hull takes off and lands vertically, constant boost for g (can you do that in jump space?). Currently14.7 MCr as a standard design, Solo Class for the lone wolf who flies alone.

 

[Condottiere]

But you still paid for that reactor you aren't using. Also of course by high guard rules you almost certainly wouldn't have reduced your # of active reactors enough to reduce the fuel usage since we are talking of a small starship.

Yes I am aware of the option in the Smallcraft book to reduce fuel usage further than High Guard allows but that has yet (to my knowledge) been officially applied to starships. It would take a LONG time to pay for it with saved fuel cost of not using it. Costs that you would have saved in any case by not buying the reactor in the 1st place.

Doesn't explicitly state anywhere in the rules that you can actually regulate your onboard fusion reactor; fission we would usually just move the rods.

However, just in case that becomes a sticking point, I started just using separate modularized fusion reactors, which would just be turned on or off, depending on the energy load.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Doesn't explicitly state anywhere in the rules that you can actually regulate your onboard fusion reactor; fission we would usually just move the rods.

However, just in case that becomes a sticking point, I started just using separate modularized fusion reactors, which would just be turned on or off, depending on the energy load.

I have always been of the belief that Fusion Power Plants in Traveller these days are Fusion+, so basically, they are multiple small fusion reactors that work together. How else do you lose 10% of your power output from a critical hit? Or 50%. If it was one monolithic fusion reactor, one critical hit and the whole thing would go away, not just 10% or 50%. This also allows you to maintain your fusion plant while in space. Shut down what you don't need and do the maintenance work, then rotate through the rest of the units. This gives you way more resilience than one big reactor, which seems to be what is represented in the game.

Edit- Found it! SOM page 124

"Most power plants have multiple reactors, primarily to allow for partial function should damage or accident disable one, but this allows an engineer to shut one down for maintenance while the others remain active."

 

[Condottiere]

That depends on rules making that very clear, that Mister Fusion is onboard.

I do have a range of monopower point power plants.