Question: Ships leaving atmosphere

[Mage]

Hey all. I am a player in a traveller campaign that started last week, and we are all kinda new to it I guess.

I was just wondering how much it would cost to get a Corsair ship with a standard hull off a planet. The rule book states that it is considerably expensive and requires an elaborate launch apparatus or something (not to mention the facilities need to be there beforehand).

Would this be massive fuel consumption or what? Its just I'm reading through the book and getting a headache, and cannot find it exactly.

If anyone can help me it would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks in advance

 

[rust]

I was just wondering how much it would cost to get a Corsair ship with a standard hull off a planet.

It depends a lot on your interpretation of the setting's technology.

In my universe the ship would just take off and leave, because with the
gravitic maneuver drive this should really not be a major problem - even
a small grav vehicle would be sufficient to lift the "weightless" ship off the
ground, where the maneuver drive could take over.

If you prefer to play close to the rule you mentioned, I am afraid you will
have to make up the details of the necessary launch facility and the costs
of the operation, at least I am not aware of any official material covering
this.

 

[Mage]

Thanks for the speedy reply!

I'll beseech the GM to do something like your idea. Cheers!

 

[DFW]

If anyone can help me it would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks in advance

The guy wrote wrote that section of the rules responded to this ~9 months ago on another Trav forum. In a nutshell he said that the editors screwed up the rule as it was designed when they put it in the book. As long as a ship has a thrust equal to the G level of the planet it can land and take off again without any problems or external machinery. Whether it is streamlined or standard hull.

 

[GamerDude]

Hey all. I am a player in a traveller campaign that started last week, and we are all kinda new to it I guess.

I was just wondering how much it would cost to get a Corsair ship with a standard hull off a planet. The rule book states that it is considerably expensive and requires an elaborate launch apparatus or something (not to mention the facilities need to be there beforehand).

Would this be massive fuel consumption or what? Its just I'm reading through the book and getting a headache, and cannot find it exactly.

If anyone can help me it would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks in advance

I've been having this discussion elsewhere... From the Core Rulebook....

A 'standard hull' can land (with difficulty) but yes needs something to get it back into orbit....

Think "Space Shuttle" here... returns to Earth with some difficulty (unpowered, only one shot at landing) and is sent back into orbit on top of a giant gas tank with to Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs).

Streamlined can land and take off like an actual airplane, just it gets into orbit instead of to like 24,000 ft (arbitrary number).

 

[rust]

A ship with standard configuration can land on, and take off from, a pla-
net without an atmosphere, so it obviously has both the necessary avio-
nics and a landing gear.

A ship with a standard configuration can skim unrefined fuel from a gas
giant atmosphere, so it is obviously able to move under atmospheric con-
ditions, even at a considerable speed.

This makes the idea that such a ship would be unable to take off from a
planet with an atmosphere extremely ... unlikely, to put it politely.

 

[far-trader]

The guy wrote wrote that section of the rules responded to this ~9 months ago on another Trav forum. In a nutshell he said that the editors screwed up the rule as it was designed when they put it in the book. As long as a ship has a thrust equal to the G level of the planet it can land and take off again without any problems or external machinery. Whether it is streamlined or standard hull.

Interesting. Do you recall the who and where? Maybe have a link? I'm curious because that (the Core rule) really doesn't sound like a place one could get to from there (the G rated lift ability) through simple editing. If anything it sounds more like the original idea was tossed entirely and a quick rewrite put in instead.

A ship with standard configuration can land on, and take off from, a planet without an atmosphere, so it obviously has both the necessary avionics and a landing gear.

Also interesting, do you recall where it says that because I don't. If it does then there is a disconnect and my take needs to be reevaluated. If not then read on...

Of course I see no problem with the rule as written. It's a matter of interpretation as rust notes.

The way I see it a "standard hull" is a very rough configuration. Yes it can enter atmosphere but has no real lift (it falls from space, it is an unpowered landing) and would require a lot of room for a landing (I'd hesitate to even call it a landing, think crash landing). Nor is there mention of landing gear, in fact the rule hints quite strongly at none. The elaborate launch setup to get it back up again would be some additional lift capacity (rockets, contra-grav, whatever) and the considerable expense would be that plus the repairs for all the damage from the landing (crash). Sure you can skim a GG (upper atmo, thin) for fuel, but note "the process will be
much more difficult and less efficient" and you have to pay extra to have the scoops added in the first place. That more difficult could include a high probability of damage or even destruction. Again the ship is not designed for it, you do so at your own considerable risk.

Quite simply the rules mean you don't get to operate a "standard hull" just like a "streamlined hull". Why? Because you didn't pay for one (with all the extras like powered lift for controlled landing and takeoff). The interpretation comes in with how you explain the differences. All the extras like landing gear, structural strength to handle it, streamlining to improve handling, and even the lifters to allow you to land in a controlled manner on the landing pad, and lift off again. You don't get to simply interpret the rule away if playing by the book. But you're free to ignore it or change it as you like.

 

[GamerDude]

A ship with standard configuration can land on, and take off from, a planet... without an atmosphere, so it obviously has both the necessary avio-
nics and a landing gear.

Rust, read the book again...

Without atmosphere everything pretty much gets into orbit the same way... point its nose to the sky and have strong enough engines. Taking off and landing when the planet/moon has no atmosphere is well.. you're landing a rock, or the Lunar Lander from the Apollo moon missions.

Standard hull "A standard-hull ship may have scoops for gathering fuel from a gas giant but the process will be much more difficult and less efficient." (and we're talking GAS GIANT, Jupiter not Earth)

Streamlining "a ship increases the cost of the hull by 10%. This streamlining includes fuel scoops which allow the skimming of unrefined fuel from gas giants or the gathering of water from open lakes or oceans." It's aerodynamic.

Amazingly, I've been having this discussion on another forum (with a side helping of 'gravitic M-Drive means the ship has contra-grav even if the book expressly left that off'). I know contra-grav has been around in previous versions of Traveller (IMSM) but all the items that have a contra-grav are actually called 'anti-grav' and are vehicles not space ships and star ships.

The biggest pitfall in their argument that they ignore is... they see any vehicle or ship with some kind of "gravitic' device meaning it has 'contra-grav' (again, which doesn't exist)... ignoring other 'gravitic' devices like the Densitometer, which uses gravitics but doesn't have contra-grav.

*sighs*

 

[DFW]

Interesting. Do you recall the who and where? Maybe have a link? I'm curious because that (the Core rule) really doesn't sound like a place one could get to from there (the G rated lift ability) through simple editing. If anything it sounds more like the original idea was tossed entirely and a quick rewrite put in instead.

I was searching the web. I believe it was the COTI site. (I remember it was the largest TRav site I'd been to) It was a conversation and the point was brought up that given the rule, NO ship could do a wilderness landing & take off from an airless world per the rules. I don't remember the guys name. But, from what I read he did write the original material for hire and said that the editor did screw it up when placing it. As you can see, the argument about streamlined ships taking off and landing like the shuttle does mean no landings on airless planet without launch facilities. I have no idea if MGT will errata this obvious mistake.

 

[rust]

Without atmosphere everything pretty much gets into orbit the same way... point its nose to the sky and have strong enough engines.

Even an air/raft, or a prospector's buggy on a planet without atmosphe-
re, can reach orbit, and I have never imagined it to point its nose to the
sky or to have unusually strong engines. And I have yet to see any offi-
cial description that a ship's maneuver drive is fundamentally different.

 

[DFW]

Without atmosphere everything pretty much gets into orbit the same way... point its nose to the sky and have strong enough engines.

So, no special launch facilities needed for take off for any ship.

 

[rust]

Also interesting, do you recall where it says that because I don't. If it does then there is a disconnect and my take needs to be reevaluated. If not then read on...

Mongoose Traveller core rules, the starship operations chapter, under the
heading "Landing".
I cannot quote it, because I have the German editions, but it mentions ex-
plicitly that the majority of all ships have landing gear for wilderness lan-
dings, and that all ships except those with a segmented configuration can
also land on water.
The only difference it mentions between streamlined and standard hulls is
that a streamlined ship can glide in an atmosphere while a standard hull
ship has to keep its maneuver drive on during the process.

Besides, what about very thin atmospheres, could a standard hull ship ta-
ke off from one, and where would be the "borderline" between a planet
without an atmosphere (ship can operate normally) and an atmosphere
thick enough to prevent the ship from taking off ?

And if you want a specific example, take the Classic Traveller adventure
Broadsword, where a definitely not streamlined merc cruiser landed on
Garda Vilis and took off again, without any special problem mentioned.

 

[DFW]

Mongoose Traveller core rules, the starship operations chapter, under the heading "Landing".
I cannot quote it, because I have the German editions, but it mentions ex-
plicitly that the majority of all ships have landing gear for wilderness lan-
dings, and that all ships except those with a segmented configuration can
also land on water.
The only difference it mentions between streamlined and standard hulls is
that a streamlined ship can glide in an atmosphere while a standard hull
ship has to keep its maneuver drive on during the process.

Okay, the German edition took the material as written by the author and not messed up by whoever edited the English version.

If you get a chance or time, pls cut-paste the German version of the rule in full. I'll be able to figure it out.

 

[rust]

If you get a chance or time, pls cut-paste the German version of the rule in full. I'll be able to figure it out.

Sorry, no, I have only the print version, there is no PDF of the German
version, and typing it would take some time.

Perhaps someone who has the English version could take a look at the
starship operations chapter and copy and paste the relevant part ?

 

[DFW]

Perhaps someone who has the English version could take a look at the
starship operations chapter and copy and paste the relevant part ?

"A standard-hull ship may still enter atmosphere but is very ungainly
and ponderous, capable only of making a controlled glide to the
surface. Getting it back into space requires an elaborate launch
setup and considerable expense. A standard-hull ship may have
scoops for gathering fuel from a gas giant but the process will be
much more diffi cult and less efficient."

 

[rust]

DFW, your quote is from the starship design chapter, what I did mean is
stated under "Landing" in the starship operations chapter further back in
the book.

By the way: The modular cutter. It can take off from planets with an at-
mosphere although it has no lift surfaces of any kind, and it has the same
kind of maneuver drive as a ship.

 

[AndrewW]

BOARDING, DOCKING AND LANDING
Landing: Any ship with a standard or streamlined hull may land on
the surface. Unstreamlined ships suffer a –2 DM to any Pilot checks
made in atmosphere while a ship with a Distributed hull suffers a
–4 DM to any Pilot checks, and is likely to take severe structural
damage if it lands. Landing at a starport is a Routine (+2) task for
most ships taking 10–60 seconds (so most pilots will take extra
time and get a +1 or +2 DM on top of this – see page 50).
Most ships have landing gear, allowing them to touch down ‘in
the wild’, which requires an Average (+0), Diffi cult (–2) or even
Very Diffi cult (–4) check, depending on local conditions. Nondistributed
ships can also land on bodies of water without sinking.
Failing a landing roll means that the ship has landed improperly
or even crashed.

 

[rust]

Thank you very much.

I seriously doubt that any sane person would build standard hull ships with
landing gear for landings "in the wild" if it would take a major engineering
project to construct the facility necessary to enable this ship to take off
again.

 

[DFW]

Thank you very much.

I seriously doubt that any sane person would build standard hull ships with
landing gear for landings "in the wild" if it would take a major engineering
project to construct the facility necessary to enable this ship to take off
again.

So, I take it that the part I posted wasn't added to the German edition?

 

[rust]

So, I take it that the part I posted wasn't added to the German edition?

It is only in the starship design chapter, not in the starship operations
chapter. To me there seems to be a major contradiction between these
two chapters.