Quick Jump Turnaround

[Hardwire]

The jump drive doesn't draw power once it drops down the rabbit hole.

Jump capacitors are infamous for not being able to hold a charge over the long term.

I haven't gotten around to reading my copy of the Starship Operator's Guide, but my advice would be, beware of copy paste, which doesn't correspond to current spacecraft design concepts.

Unfortunately that should correlate, The Operators Manual is a breakdown of how things work. If they don't match that isn't on the reader.

EDIT: If a book is introduce and the someone says that the information in that book is just fluff and has no barring on the rules at hand then it sounds like we are being milked by fluff pieces. There should be a disclaimer that states "This is just fluff and has no barring on the rules".

 

[MasterGwydion]

Unfortunately that should correlate, The Operators Manual is a breakdown of how things work. If they don't match that isn't on the reader.

EDIT: If a book is introduce and the someone says that the information in that book is just fluff and has no barring on the rules at hand then it sounds like we are being milked by fluff pieces. There should be a disclaimer that states "This is just fluff and has no barring on the rules".

Or simply put rules in rulebooks and fluff in setting books. Wow! That was easy.

 

[Vormaerin]

Fluff is also in the eye of the beholder. There's stuff that needs to be resolved with mechanics and there's stuff that is useful to know so you can decide the right way to deal with it using the existing mechanics. And then there is stuff like history and whatnot, that is potentially relevant if you are using that particular setting.

I don't consider the Starship Operator's Manual to be fluff, but someone else might. It suffers from the problem that Traveller generally suffers from: 50 years of material by five different companies talking about space magic. It makes a valiant attempt to harmonize sources, but some of those sources (IMHO) should have been tossed out rather than harmonized.

 

[Hardwire]

Right, but being told to quote only stuff that "correspond to current spacecraft design concepts" stuck in my craw. If that doesn't correspond to current spacecraft design concepts that isn't our issue it is Mongoose Publishing issue.

 

[Vormaerin]

Well, when someone says "I haven't read the book, but it might not be accurate", I put a lot more weight on the "I haven't read the book" part.

 

[Condottiere]

I tried powering through, despite being bored.

I think I've had a copy on the tablet that I take along when commuting, but haven't been tempted.

It seems similar to it's last iteration.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Well, when someone says "I haven't read the book, but it might not be accurate", I put a lot more weight on the "I haven't read the book" part.

Makes sense to me.

 

[Condottiere]

I don't see any point in obfuscating what I haven't read.

 

[To Tha Moon!]

As far as I'm aware, a Scout using Drop Tanks can Jump from the Fuel in the Drop Tanks, arrive one week later, find their exit point, spool up anther Jump Astrogation roll, and using Fuel from its own Tanks, Jump at that point. You do have to verify that you Exited at the right system to create the new Astrogation plot. But I've never seen anything about waiting except for the Astrogation plot before re-Jumping using Drop Tanks.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

As far as I'm aware, a Scout using Drop Tanks can Jump from the Fuel in the Drop Tanks, arrive one week later, find their exit point, spool up anther Jump Astrogation roll, and using Fuel from its own Tanks,

So that is what is missing from the Scout/Courier, drop tanks. Have to see about revising it for MTU. Also makes the Seeker more interesting as with drop tanks for moving from system to system for prospecting (very rare) it can do without onboard jump fuel enabling it to carry more cargo when mining.

 

[Condottiere]

Scout/Courier design predates drop tanks.

Possibly, the Scout Service came to the conclusion, it wasn't worth retrofitting.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Scout/Courier design predates drop tanks.

Possibly, the Scout Service came to the conclusion, it wasn't worth retrofitting.

Drop tanks don't have a minimum tech level, so drop tanks predated spacecraft.

 

[Condottiere]

That would be gravitional drop tanks.

 

[MasterGwydion]

That would be gravitional drop tanks.

That would be the drop tanks in HG

 

[Sigtrygg]

Drop tanks don't have a minimum tech level, so drop tanks predated spacecraft.

When first introduced they did, this TL was likely still in the mind of the authors for a long time.

HG79 TL12

JTAS TAS News - have only been used since 1,093 for civilian use (so likely earlier for trial purposes), the military has been using them a lot longer.

Gazelle class laid down1084, so they pre-date that.

 

[MasterGwydion]

When first introduced they did, this TL was likely still in the mind of the authors for a long time.

HG79 TL12

JTAS TAS News - have only been used since 1,093 for civilian use (so likely earlier for trial purposes), the military has been using them a lot longer.

Gazelle class laid down1084, so they pre-date that.

Then they need to add that to the next update of HG, so that it has a minimum TL again. Currently you can use drop tanks on a TL-9 J-1 ship. You're going to die, but you can do it.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Drop tanks don't have a minimum tech level, so drop tanks predated spacecraft.

And with pods, they don’t actually need to be dropped.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I have an issue with carrying drop tanks and external cargo pods rather than dropping them and it is this, the ship energy requirement should be for the total ship, carried drop tanks, carried external cargo pods the lot. And the bridge should be of a necessary size to cover the requirements for the full sized vessel.

Ah you say, but the drop tanks/external pods don't have artificial gravity, life support, and inertial compensation - to which my argument is a non-gravitic hull is still required to pay half EP cost, so we know what the gravitics costs energy wise. The other half is environmental control.

Now consider drop tanks and external cargo pods - they are not receiving the mitigation of the ship's inertial compensation.

So if a ship has to accelerate at multiple g or has to conduct multiple g evasive maneuvers (a less than 1g fighter can experience double digit "centrifugal" g) your drop tanks and external cargo pods are not protected by the ship's inertial compensation field and run the risk of being damaged or destroyed.

 

[Terry Mixon]

I have an issue with carrying drop tanks and external cargo pods rather than dropping them and it is this, the ship energy requirement should be for the total ship, carried drop tanks, carried external cargo pods the lot. And the bridge should be of a necessary size to cover the requirements for the full sized vessel.

Ah you say, but the drop tanks/external pods don't have artificial gravity, life support, and inertial compensation - to which my argument is a non-gravitic hull is still required to pay half EP cost, so we know what the gravitics costs energy wise. The other half is environmental control.

Now consider drop tanks and external cargo pods - they are not receiving the mitigation of the ship's inertial compensation.

So if a ship has to accelerate at multiple g or has to conduct multiple g evasive maneuvers (a less than 1g fighter can experience double digit "centrifugal" g) your drop tanks and external cargo pods are not protected by the ship's inertial compensation field and run the risk of being damaged or destroyed.

The jump and maneuver drives are adjusted in size to handle them, which changes their tonnage and power requirements. As the maneuver drives are upsized, they do provide the inertial compensation. On @Arkathan’s spreadsheet, it uses adjusted tonnage on the drives tab.

I don’t think the bridge size is altered for the external pods. That’s something to think about.

 

[Sigtrygg]

The hull energy cost is required regardless of maneuver drive if the ship is to have gravitics.

Technically you can not install a gravitic maneuver drive on a non-gravitic hull, otherwise what are the additional EPs being charged for if the gravitic maneuver drive handles the artificial gravity and inertial compensation...

or can we now have acceleration compensation without artificial gravity? If so always choose a non-gravitic hull to halve the EPs and design your ship as a tail sitter for m-drive acceleration based artificial gravity with the comfort of acceleration compensation provided by the gravitic maneuver drive...

or as I imagine to be the intent - gravitic maneuver drives require a grav plate equipped hull to also bolt on the acceleration compensation.