Ramscoops on a Deep Space Station

Rifts as originally conceived in Charted Space aren't even a real thing using the current rules. They are more like "inexplicably unmapped spaces".

You would have to liberally apply the Jump Shoals & Reefs far more liberally than currently (from the Great Rift sourcebook) to make them remotely as challenging as the history of Charted Space suggests.
That is the premise of the Weird Uncharted Space
 
At first glance.. .Nah. A ship is a ship, and a station a station. Once you put 1G engines on it should no longer be considered a station but a ship. While, in theory, a station could run its station keeping drives for long periods to accelerate to higher velocities, this is a classic player-inspired way to get around the rules. Starships operate at much higher velocities than stations, thus a station concept like this would fail the common-sense rule. Make the station into more of a ship with at least 1G speed and then you could implement such a thing. As it stands the publisher does not always provide good explanations to defeat such workarounds.
High Guard pg 64

"CONSTRUCTION Space stations are designed and built in the same fashion as ships, with a few differences. Unless stated otherwise in this chapter, all rules that apply to ships also apply to space stations – in effect they are treated as large and (mostly) immobile spacecraft."

It is not a common sense rule when the rulebook says differently.
 
High Guard pg 64

"CONSTRUCTION Space stations are designed and built in the same fashion as ships, with a few differences. Unless stated otherwise in this chapter, all rules that apply to ships also apply to space stations – in effect they are treated as large and (mostly) immobile spacecraft."

It is not a common sense rule when the rulebook says differently.
You are taking it out of context. My statement was referencing the idea of using station-keeping drives in the same manner as m-drives. That "common-sense" is the idea that you could use station keeping drives in the same manner as m-drives (i.e. leaving them on constantly to use them as, essentially, m-drives. Even if they are just puny .01G, the ability to continually fire them means you could use them to accelerate and maneuver - even if they are just very slow at it.

There is also the loop-hole in the explanation. You build a ship with the idea that goes somewhere - meaning your structure is designed to maneuver under G-force. A station is meant to float in place, with minimal need to maneuver, thus your structural needs are minimal in a zero-g environment. Common sense tells you that you could design a station with many distributed and inter-connected structures that floats there just fine. But putting it under anything more than very minimal acceleration could bend/collapse your structure.

I will take common sense overly poorly-written rules any day of the week.
 
You are taking it out of context. My statement was referencing the idea of using station-keeping drives in the same manner as m-drives. That "common-sense" is the idea that you could use station keeping drives in the same manner as m-drives (i.e. leaving them on constantly to use them as, essentially, m-drives. Even if they are just puny .01G, the ability to continually fire them means you could use them to accelerate and maneuver - even if they are just very slow at it.

There is also the loop-hole in the explanation. You build a ship with the idea that goes somewhere - meaning your structure is designed to maneuver under G-force. A station is meant to float in place, with minimal need to maneuver, thus your structural needs are minimal in a zero-g environment. Common sense tells you that you could design a station with many distributed and inter-connected structures that floats there just fine. But putting it under anything more than very minimal acceleration could bend/collapse your structure.

I will take common sense overly poorly-written rules any day of the week.
An M-Drive for a ship and an M-Drive for a station are the same kind of drive. Space stations cost 0.05MCr per ton of hull, same as ships. Therefore, the structure is already there. If they want to change the price of Space Station hulls, then you would be correct. So, your entire second paragraph ignores that in Traveller, they are built the same and cost the same. Could they be built cheaper with less structure? In theory and in real life, sure, but by the rules, no. Although I also don't want to need an engineering degree to design things in games. Sure, We could calculate the exact stresses on said station hull, but why? What does it bring to the game? There is no difference between stations and ships in Traveller other than what drives are mounted on them. Same as there will be no difference between structures and vehicles in Geir's update of the VH. They are both built using the same rules.
 
You'd think so.

Spacecraft manoeuvre drive factor/zero, half percent volume, power points required divide hull volume by forty.

Space station manoeuvre drive factor/zero, quarter percent volume, power points required divide hull volume by ten.
 
You'd think so.

Spacecraft manoeuvre drive factor/zero, half percent volume, power points required divide hull volume by forty.

Space station manoeuvre drive factor/zero, quarter percent volume, power points required divide hull volume by ten.
Where is this from?

HG says,

Ship - M/0 = 0.5% tonnage, PPs = 10% of the hull tonnage x 0.25

Station - M/0 = 0.25%, PPs = 10% of the hull tonnage.

So for a 10,000 ton ship - M/0 = 500 tons and 250PP

and for a 10,000 ton station - M/0 = 250 tons and 1,000 PP

Not sure why there is a difference as it is never really explained. They both put out the same G-rating and yet have different sizes and power requirements.
 
An M-Drive for a ship and an M-Drive for a station are the same kind of drive. Space stations cost 0.05MCr per ton of hull, same as ships. Therefore, the structure is already there. If they want to change the price of Space Station hulls, then you would be correct. So, your entire second paragraph ignores that in Traveller, they are built the same and cost the same. Could they be built cheaper with less structure? In theory and in real life, sure, but by the rules, no. Although I also don't want to need an engineering degree to design things in games. Sure, We could calculate the exact stresses on said station hull, but why? What does it bring to the game? There is no difference between stations and ships in Traveller other than what drives are mounted on them. Same as there will be no difference between structures and vehicles in Geir's update of the VH. They are both built using the same rules.
Ah, but there is. This is the common-sense rule again. M-drives are designed to be run constantly, a station-keeping thruster is, by definition,, something you turn on/off. Machinery for such things is different.

I think we have a bit of a disconnect here. I've pointed the same rule flaw out in regards to the original SOM guide that called for regularly exceeding output by 400% for starships to takeoff/land (which mechanically is considered a "bad" idea - and also it's a complete distortion of how machinery operates).

The other point I think you are missing is that this is a prime example of a player imposed idea of min/max that you don't see in reality or even the basic ship book designs. Space STATIONS are, by definition of the word, designed to be STATIONARY. While components would be similar as both are meant to exist in the vacuum of space, space SHIPS are meant to travel from place to place and not stay stationary.

You ask what does it bring to the game. And my answer to that is both realism and common sense. A space STATION should be that - meant to be stationary and not flying around a system under it's own power. Otherwise it's a space SHIP. Words and concepts are important and they bring a lot to a game system.
 
Last edited:
I tend to think they'd be distributed.

Which brings to mind, how much inertial compensation do they compensate for?
Some may, or at least having arms to other facilities or docking arms. But architecturally it makes more sense to build a station in one big conglomeration/sphere/blob/etc. That would mean less travel time, less piping, less wiring - basically more efficient use of space even if space is the one thing you have a near infinite supply of.

I'm sure you would see stations that were designed at one size and grew haphazardly over decades and are a mass of assemblies because the original station was never designed/intended to grow like it did. You see it with cities today - it's ultra-rare to ever see a city designed from the ground up to grow along a master plot. In nearly every case of a city it's grown organically and haphazardly over decades, centuries, and in some rare cases, millenia. Sure there has been parts of it razed/rebuilt over time, but I can't think of any city that ever followed a master plan from the very beginning and stuck with it.

A modern attempt at this is Brasilia. You see some cities like Paris or London that have some rules for parts of the city, but get to the outskirts and away from zoning rules and you get haphazard growth and looks. Even Brasilia is the same outside the original zones.
 
Ah, but there is. This is the common-sense rule again. M-drives are designed to be run constantly, a station-keeping thruster is, by definition,, something you turn on/off. Machinery for such things is different.
D-Drives are not operated in j-space or while not accelerating. You can have M-Drives on your mobile mining station and move it as you run out of asteroids in your local vicinity.
I think we have a bit of a disconnect here. I've pointed the same rule flaw out in regards to the original SOM guide that called for regularly exceeding output by 400% for starships to takeoff/land (which mechanically is considered a "bad" idea - and also it's a complete distortion of how machinery operates).

The other point I think you are missing is that this is a prime example of a player imposed idea of min/max that you don't see in reality or even the basic ship book designs. Space STATIONS are, by definition of the word, designed to be STATIONARY. While components would be similar as both are meant to exist in the vacuum of space, space SHIPS are meant to travel from place to place and not stay stationary.
See below. Space Stations are designed and defined as being mobile. "Station" is a hold-over term from ground-based stations, such as Train Stations, Research Station, Hamburger Station, etc. Just like a shuttle didn't always mean a space shuttle. It also meant airport shuttle, hotel shuttle, etc.
You ask what does it bring to the game. And my answer to that is both realism and common sense. A space STATION should be that - meant to be stationary and not flying around a system under it's own power. Otherwise it's a space SHIP. Words and concepts are important and they bring a lot to a game system.
...and also will disintegrate when you shoot at it, because what you are describing cannot survive combat, which these stations must be able to do.

Also, from wikipedia,


"Space stations are not stationary buildings unlike normal research stations on Earth, they are specially created mobile spacecraft that are built to allow a group of human researchers and crew to inhabit over a span of anywhere from months and even a year.[19] Space stations are intended to be permanently operating in space unlike other kinds of space craft such as satellites."

So, it would seem that both reality and common sense disagree with you.
 
Some may, or at least having arms to other facilities or docking arms. But architecturally it makes more sense to build a station in one big conglomeration/sphere/blob/etc. That would mean less travel time, less piping, less wiring - basically more efficient use of space even if space is the one thing you have a near infinite supply of.

I'm sure you would see stations that were designed at one size and grew haphazardly over decades and are a mass of assemblies because the original station was never designed/intended to grow like it did. You see it with cities today - it's ultra-rare to ever see a city designed from the ground up to grow along a master plot. In nearly every case of a city it's grown organically and haphazardly over decades, centuries, and in some rare cases, millenia. Sure there has been parts of it razed/rebuilt over time, but I can't think of any city that ever followed a master plan from the very beginning and stuck with it.

A modern attempt at this is Brasilia. You see some cities like Paris or London that have some rules for parts of the city, but get to the outskirts and away from zoning rules and you get haphazard growth and looks. Even Brasilia is the same outside the original zones.
Cities are fairly unregulated versus space stations. Space stations, in Traveller anyhow, are usually built by a single controlling entity with total control over any future design and construction. Not even close to similar to how cities grow. This is a false equivalency. Building a structure outside of the city limits, the city doesn't care about and you are grandfathered in if they annex your property later. If you put a hole in the side of a space station to build a house for yourself, you are going to prison for risking the lives of all onboard.

See how they are not at all the same?
 
D-Drives are not operated in j-space or while not accelerating. You can have M-Drives on your mobile mining station and move it as you run out of asteroids in your local vicinity.

See below. Space Stations are designed and defined as being mobile. "Station" is a hold-over term from ground-based stations, such as Train Stations, Research Station, Hamburger Station, etc. Just like a shuttle didn't always mean a space shuttle. It also meant airport shuttle, hotel shuttle, etc.

...and also will disintegrate when you shoot at it, because what you are describing cannot survive combat, which these stations must be able to do.

Also, from wikipedia,


"Space stations are not stationary buildings unlike normal research stations on Earth, they are specially created mobile spacecraft that are built to allow a group of human researchers and crew to inhabit over a span of anywhere from months and even a year.[19] Space stations are intended to be permanently operating in space unlike other kinds of space craft such as satellites."

So, it would seem that both reality and common sense disagree with you.
Why would j-space be brought into this? Anything jump-space related would (or at least should) automatically relegate the vessel/station to being classified as a star ship and thus render this discussion moot.

Space stations are not space/star ships. They have two separate missions, otherwise they would have the same name. There is no disagreement that they both share similar systems - but they are distinctly different in purpose, hence they have different names and would be built to (arguably) different purposes.

I don't see this discussion going anywhere useful, so we can agree we have different views and I will leave it at that.
 
Why would j-space be brought into this? Anything jump-space related would (or at least should) automatically relegate the vessel/station to being classified as a star ship and thus render this discussion moot.

Space stations are not space/star ships. They have two separate missions, otherwise they would have the same name. There is no disagreement that they both share similar systems - but they are distinctly different in purpose, hence they have different names and would be built to (arguably) different purposes.
but space stations could be former spaceships. Imagine a space station that is a decommissioned Warmonger-class Battle Tender. Your type only allows for the Dispersed Structure type. That is not even the most common type of station in Traveller.
I don't see this discussion going anywhere useful, so we can agree we have different views and I will leave it at that.
 
Cities are fairly unregulated versus space stations. Space stations, in Traveller anyhow, are usually built by a single controlling entity with total control over any future design and construction. Not even close to similar to how cities grow. This is a false equivalency. Building a structure outside of the city limits, the city doesn't care about and you are grandfathered in if they annex your property later. If you put a hole in the side of a space station to build a house for yourself, you are going to prison for risking the lives of all onboard.

See how they are not at all the same?
I will disagree on this for two reasons.

1 - The extremely long length of time that many stations have been in existence. Captain HipHop parked his tanker at the end of the arm and it just stayed there, now it is a fuel depot for system boats, and things just were built around it.

2 - The rules governing Starports/Stations are very different in the Imperium than they are in the Reach, or all of the other polities. Would GeDeCo want just anyone plugging into a station and adding a wing? Not without paying the access fees, connection fees, conduit maintenance fees, etc. But I can easily see them allowing someone to bring in a new wing for a station and then charging them enough fees that eventually they effectively own that wing also.
 
I will disagree on this for two reasons.

1 - The extremely long length of time that many stations have been in existence. Captain HipHop parked his tanker at the end of the arm and it just stayed there, now it is a fuel depot for system boats, and things just were built around it.
What starport lets derelict ships take up valuable docking space?
2 - The rules governing Starports/Stations are very different in the Imperium than they are in the Reach, or all of the other polities. Would GeDeCo want just anyone plugging into a station and adding a wing? Not without paying the access fees, connection fees, conduit maintenance fees, etc. But I can easily see them allowing someone to bring in a new wing for a station and then charging them enough fees that eventually they effectively own that wing also.
How many stations are built on a dispersed structure in Charted Space? Most examples seem to be enclosed, not something you can just plug into. I am not saying that they don't exist, but they seem to be in the vast minority.
 
Chances are that the Imperium starports have a standardized growth strategy.

With everyone else, it would be the whole range of possibilities.
 
Chances are that the Imperium starports have a standardized growth strategy.

With everyone else, it would be the whole range of possibilities.
Although, this brings up another problem... (I could be wrong as I have been drinking) How do you increase the size of a station if it is not a dispersed structure?
 
Back
Top