Muster out with a scout ship - A question

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

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.

But High Guard rules are 1 ton of fuel/10 tons of fusion reactor for 4 weeks. So unless you are using more than 10 fusion reactors and cut it to a lower multiple of 10 High Guard doesn't cut your fuel use. The Small craft book allows it if you have less than 10 tons of reactor.

 

[MasterGwydion]

But High Guard rules are 1 ton of fuel/10 tons of fusion reactor for 4 weeks. So unless you are using more than 10 fusion reactors and cut it to a lower multiple of 10 High Guard doesn't cut your fuel use. The Small craft book allows it if you have less than 10 tons of reactor.

I always ignored that rule anyway. They just made it official when the Small Craft Catalogue came out.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

I always ignored that rule anyway. They just made it official when the Small Craft Catalogue came out.

Should make the typical PC ship have longer times for the fuel lasting. Type J Scout gets 30 weeks. Or 10 if you increase cargo by 2 tons. Assuming I didn't slip a digit.

 

[Condottiere]

But High Guard rules are 1 ton of fuel/10 tons of fusion reactor for 4 weeks. So unless you are using more than 10 fusion reactors and cut it to a lower multiple of 10 High Guard doesn't cut your fuel use. The Small craft book allows it if you have less than 10 tons of reactor.

They're not sarlaccs, digesting a meal over a millenia.

Current rules allow one tenth of a tonne fuel tank, and if only on damage control grounds, I'd attach one to the fusion reactor.

Of course, with larger reactors, you scale up the feeder tank.

 

[Sigtrygg]

"power plants require fuel tankage equal to 10% of their size (rounding up, minimum 1 ton) per month of operation."

A 3t power plant requires 0.3 tons of fuel for 4 weeks. The minimum sized fuel tank is 1 ton, I therefore have enough fuel for 12 weeks.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

"power plants require fuel tankage equal to 10% of their size (rounding up, minimum 1 ton) per month of operation."

Quite, but the key word is "round up".

A 3t power plant requires 0.3 tons of fuel for 4 weeks. The minimum sized fuel tank is 1 ton, I therefore have enough fuel for 12 weeks.

A 3 Dt PP requires 3 / 10 round up = 1 Dt fuel for a month.

Example (Scout: HG, p160):

With 4 Dt PP, it requires 4 / 10 round up = 1 Dt fuel per four weeks, so 3 Dt fuel for 12 weeks, in addition to 20 Dt jump fuel.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

... constant boost for g (can you do that in jump space?).

At least by T5, you can't do that with gravitic drives.

You can do that with reaction drives, if you could carry a weeks worth of reaction mass...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

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.

Nearly all Traveller rule sets avoid spelling such things out explicitly, and MgT is no exception. So, your assumption is as good as any other.

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."

Sure, but they still work as a single system, and when knocked out by a crit, is completely knocked out.

We have drawn power plants and drives as multiple components since the '70s.
JTAS#4:

Still a single system for fuel consumption and damage purposes.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Deckplan illustrated engineering modularization is transferable.

2. Except for jump drives, that require a five tonne overhead for each iteration.

3. For each small craft, you are provided with three options. The easiest is to keep fuel tonnage at its original amount (one ton) and simply extend the operation time (as marked in the Endurance column) to match, which will result in very high endurance craft. Alternatively, you can use the Cargo column and assume that each craft has four weeks’ operational time and instead receives an increase in cargo space. As a further option, you can assume a two week operational time and increase cargo space further.

4. Likewise, fuel tankage does not have to be a neat multiple of four weeks’ endurance. A fuel tank can be any size down to 0.1 tons.

5. Once it scales to one tonne, doesn't really matter.

6. Also, if combined with a fuel tank for a jump drive, by default, it tends to be subsumed, in any event.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Nearly all Traveller rule sets avoid spelling such things out explicitly, and MgT is no exception. So, your assumption is as good as any other.


Sure, but they still work as a single system, and when knocked out by a crit, is completely knocked out.

We have drawn power plants and drives as multiple components since the '70s.
JTAS#4:
View attachment 4434
Still a single system for fuel consumption and damage purposes.

It isn't though. How do you shut down 10% of your power plant due to a Critical Hit? That is not completely knocked out, it is only 10% knocked out.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It isn't though. How do you shut down 10% of your power plant due to a Critical Hit? That is not completely knocked out, it is only 10% knocked out.

It does not matter if you have 1 reactor or 100, the same crit takes 10% of the power production off-line.

It's one system, regardless of how many components.

 

[Condottiere]

This depends on how you plan redundancy.

But, a simple scheme would be one hundred fifty percent anticipated load, divided into three power plant modules.

Have them running at two thirds, increasing to full on two if one is off line.

 

[Vormaerin]

I'm not sure what the discussion is about. It is a game, not a simulation. The appropriate levels of redundancy, emergency reserves, and all that are assumed to be in place as determined by the engineers working on the actual systems these mechanics represent. The game mechanics for combat reflect degradation of these systems as a result of battle damage. Highly simplified so that it can actually be resolved.

Trying to determine the correct way to make a robust system out of elements whose function we don't understand so they can resist damage from fictional sources of damage whose actual operation we know nothing about it seems kind of pointless.

You can obviously design ships that take advantage of the simplifications of the game, but you are modelling the flaws of the game mechanics not anything about the actual systems or how they would work.

 

[MasterGwydion]

It does not matter if you have 1 reactor or 100, the same crit takes 10% of the power production off-line.

It's one system, regardless of how many components.

If you damage one part of a fusion reactor, it doesn't produce 10% less power. It doesn't produce any power.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If you damage one part of a fusion reactor, it doesn't produce 10% less power. It doesn't produce any power.

I have no idea how a Fusion+ plant works.

If it's a 10% power reduction, I would guess is a hit on the power distribution system, which is presumably also a part of the "Power Plant" system.

How would you explain a "Power reduced to 0" result, if the power system is completely distributed?

 

[Vormaerin]

Fusion + distributed power is only a thing in T5 AFAIK and, like most things in T5, it's not really explained in a readily comprehensible form. But the short version seems to be that the various systems that are "general power" in MgT2 are not powered by the power plant. So power plant damage would only affect your engines and possibly weapons (I'd have to try to read that again to be sure).

Basically makes it more likely that power plant damage disables your ship's maneuvering capability because your comms, lights, toilets, etc all have their own micropower source so you can't shut them down to save power.

 

[collins355]

Originally (TNE/T4) I believe Fusion+ was "cold fusion" (Fleischman/Pons).

 

[Vormaerin]

I'd have to look at FF&S again, but I don't think 'distributed power' was a starship option in it. Could be misremembering.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Fusion + distributed power is only a thing in T5 AFAIK and, like most things in T5, it's not really explained in a readily comprehensible form. But the short version seems to be that the various systems that are "general power" in MgT2 are not powered by the power plant. So power plant damage would only affect your engines and possibly weapons (I'd have to try to read that again to be sure).

My point was better formulated by you:

Trying to determine the correct way to make a robust system out of elements whose function we don't understand so they can resist damage from fictional sources of damage whose actual operation we know nothing about it seems kind of pointless.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Originally (TNE/T4) I believe Fusion+ was "cold fusion" (Fleischman/Pons).

Yes, Fusion Plus was Milieu 0 (T4):

T4 Milieu 0, p83:
Fusion Plus forces deuterium-enriched water (”heavy water,” which can be produced on any TL5+ world by various means, including electrolysis) into a solid-state matrix. The matrix causes the deuterium (a hydrogen isotope) to fuse, heating the whole and generating electricity (usually via some type of thermoelectric junction, but other mechanisms are possible).
Fusion Plus is “cold" fusion only in comparison to the millions of degrees generated in a normal fusion reactor’s core. Electrical generation is most efficient when the reactor core is significantly hotter than the surrounding heat sink. Fusion Plus reactors generally use their fuel as a coolant, and continuously boil off small amounts of water to keep the core temperature under control (above a certain temperature, the structure of the core begins to break down, and it loses the properties that allow the reaction to continue).

That's a lot of words, but no engineering specification...