Ship Design Philosophy

[Infojunky]

1. Rules as written are meant to be levelling the playing field for everyone, especially in wargames or designing weapon systems since you do not want anyone to have undue advantages and you'd like the design process to have some consistency.

Yes, as Traveller is a collection of somewhat interrelated Mini games you think they would be more consistent between each other. (Hint the only edition to ever do this was TNE, T5 might but that book is such a mess, Who could tell?)

4. My goal is creating legal designs; which wouldn't discourage me from exploiting loopholes, pointing these out and/or commenting on and suggesting solutions for inconsistencies, illogical concepts or bottlenecks.

Without a consistent Mini-game for starship combat what defines legal? Or in another perspective legal is what works for your Traveller game, it has always been a broad framework. The only time specifics where ever invoked where for the CT era High Guard tournament in the early 80's. And to be honest one could pick and choose which design system works for them and express the results of that in Mongoose terms and a majority of people out there wouldn't bitch much...

[Hint I have been more than half tempted to use the 81 edition of CT High Guard to build a base framework for ships and then pull in appropriate bits from other editions to flesh said designs out]

5. Bottlenecks occur when I come across some hindrance to my vision, for example a Jump1/Power 1/Man 1 hundred ton starship.
6. Actually, I'd like to construct smaller ones, but the rule is absolute about hundred tons.
7. The rules are less absolute about drive factors, as demonstrated by the existence of smallcraft engines.
8. There is also no logical reason for not taking the engines out of a dual sectioned 2001 capital ton hull and placing them in a 2000 ton single section adventure hull, the controversy in my mind is whether you actually need the second command module either in the 2001 hull or in the 2000 hull.
9. Gravitic drives may be referenced for starships, but no design process exists to construct them. As such, I list both them and the normal reaction drives as options which as such isn't RAW.

Ok, all of these and a bunch of other little details all stem from a fact that there isn't a over riding tech document for the Mongoose edition, it is a mass of one off rules that riff on two or three mini games none of which have been completely published, edited or referred to by the author of the section in question. Unfortunately this is kinda par for the course over the life of Traveller the RPG.

10. Torpedo barbettes are a rather egregious example; are we looking at an enlarged missile turret or the more traditional torpedo tube agglomeration you can witness on our destroyers? If so, why can't we clump five tubes together? If not, where's the space for the launching equipment? Regardless, the barbette doesn't have space for one ton of fire control, and not quite sure how the torpedoes are going to be reloaded.

Ok, the rules kinda state one thing and indicate another, in that it states a Torpedo barbette has room for two torpedoes, thus from a volume point of view some of that gotta hang outside in the same space turrets languish. Note if you ask me I exactly how big a Torpedo is I would say 1.25 dTons i.e. 1.5 meters square by 7.5 meters long and the other half of the listed space would be the auto loader.

But the is a bigger issue here in that the Torpedo Barbette has two battery rounds, How many do the other missile launchers? (Note in other editions this was nominally 3 per launcher in the turret (both Sand and missiles))

11. If fire control is half a ton for operator space and half a ton for the associated electronics that would be logical. Combined with a single turret, you still have half a ton that can't be accounted for, assuming that the actual space the turret now occupies is half a ton, and there is no space for a gunner.
12. Pop ups provide another problem when calculating volume. For example, a pop up on a hundred ton scout, is the scout 101 tons when it pops, or 99 tons when it depops?
13. Do we allow barbettes to be operated at source? Traveller tropism would indicate so, so that's at least half a ton of operator space that should be allocated. Anything that the weapon system doesn't really need can be eliminated and the remaining tonnage can then be mounted, saving volume at the expense of independent targeting.
14. Bays are easy, because we allocate a lot of space, and the only variable we have to worry about is physical ordnance, if any. No one expects the operator to sit inside one, and even if he did there's more than enough place.

This is a tradition question, mostly it used to be settled that "Fire control" was the volume of the turret, again reaching in to the 81 edition, where turrets had a fixed volume that you accounted for weather or not the Hard-point was occupied. Which in this edition is nebulous.

15. Triple turrets only indicate that you could squeeze in three weapon systems, which just helps to approximate their weight, less than 166 kilos each. A single turret could use the empty sections as a spare linen closet.

Er? Oh I get it.... Rule of thumb, Starship mass is 10 metric tons per Displacement Ton of Volume

Lastly Yes i go into earlier edition for a number of my answers and thoughts, couple major reasons, first and foremost is in a lot of ways Mongoose wrote a good draft based off the material the licencor provided, unfortunately it was the draft that they published. With that and knowing generally what information Marc was drawing on to provide them with the mother document, I as a long time Traveller Game Master can make some general suppositions. I am not claiming any special knowledge here just the experience 25+ years of discussions about the game with my fellow fans and the creators of the game.

Condottiere you make some great observations and requests. I hope this gives you some insight....

 

[Condottiere]

1. Cheers to all who posted.

2. Turrets are just a football to kick around, but important if you have the view that on the normal RPG scale you're more likely to meet and travel on Adventure class starships.


3. Smallcraft starships - I've been mulling this question over last night and this morning I noticed that someone suggested extending spars to create a virtual shape that encompasses the supposed space a hundred ton ship would take and complete the grid.

4. Mongoose perspective - hundred tons is absolute, though I question the requirement that you need an Adventure hull, since we use a jump bubble and the costs between smallcraft and hundred ton Adventure hulls are relatively the same.

5. Minimums - you need a ten ton bridge, sixteen ton A-suite, ten tons jump fuel, two tons power plant fuel, four ton stateroom, half ton airlock, half ton ship's locker, one ton rocket fuel, forty three, which we'll round off to fifty tons.

6. Exposed cargo hold - the basis to initiate transition, besides the equipment, is an enclosed volume of a hundred tons, first I thought you just open up an empty cargo hold to space that would have a capacity of fifty tons, which would half he volume of the starship and doubled the performance of the enigines. Not quite sure I could get away with that.

7. Puffer fish - another option that I thought of were popped out sections, which would increase passenger/crew space/comfort during transition, since after closer examination using fuel bladders to contain jump fuel didn't pan out.

8. Hyper wings - ever notice how the Star Wars shuttles tend to fold and extend their wings? I'm not sure of the optimum configuration, shape or operation, but hull quality wings or extensions, would extend just before the ship jumps to enclose the required space, turning a fifty ton hull to a hundred ton one.

 

[leopard]

Always thought the 100T lower limit reflected more on the smallest size you could make the drive and still have it work.

I.e. if you want to put a jump drive on a 50T hull there is nothing stopping you, but the drive will be the same size it would be on a 100T hull, and use the same fuel, with the same control requirements.

Not overly cannon but doable, not economic for a merchant but possible for special forces type stuff the players will probably never own, but may get to play with occasionally.

Not canon of course, but makes a level of sense

 

[Condottiere]

1. Personally, I'm more of the view that mass is the deciding factor, in which case I'd construct a ship with the densest possible materials that still can fly. But you know, you work with what you got.

2. Also, while the rules indicate an absolute of hundred tons, I rather doubt that God would be that strict when forming up the laws of physics. There probably is some variance there, whether 1% or 10%, but it could be that taking advantage of it increases the chance of a misjump.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Hyperspace transiting - reshaping the jump bubble may have an effect on travel; teardrop solar sail variant might be slower but require less fuel/energy, or a streamlined cone (point forward) might be faster.


2. Hull-size - Thirty thousand tons looks optimum for light cruisers and similar combatants, due to the largest size for three sections.


3. Detachable bridges - apparently can fly at 0.1 gees and safely land; would have thought you'd need grav 1 for that, unless the bridges are equipped with some form of gravity neutralizers.


4. Docking clamps - two thousand ton hulls seems optimal, as that's the maximum limit mentioned for a twenty ton clamp; anyone know the maximum tonnage a fifty ton clamp can handle?

 

[Condottiere]

If fleet support vessels are in attendance then another three months can be added to the time needed before maintenance is required.

1. Incredibly vague; probably would need some system of maintenance and repair points.

2. It could be implied, that for every one percent of cargo devoted to stores and spare-parts in a supply ship devoted to a particular class or type of ship, it can go for another month.

3. Could this fleet support be onboard and inhouse, giving it an inherent extra three months?

4. After four months, is it mandatory to dock at a starport for routine maintenance?

5. When do ships need an overhaul, or a mid-life refurbishment?

6. Can starport facilities be enabled on a mobile space station?

 

[Condottiere]

Smallcraft Starship

1. New variant, variant of a variant.

2. The ship splits in the middle, but both halves are connected by a docking clamp variant or extendable tunnel/corridor.

3. As the halves separate, folded hull metal unfolds fan like, and when fully extended, are rigid.

4. Not quite sure if air tight.

5. Or, they could unfold concertina like. This would probably be air tight, but not quite sure if the material could take too much damage from micro-meteorites.

 

[Condottiere]

Detachable Bridges

1. Fifteen tons, for a ten ton bridge.

2. Five tons includes 0.1 grav (presumably) drive, two week batteries, life support (for how many people), pantry. Airlock?

3. 0.1 grav drive 0.0375 tons at 75'000 Cr.

4. Fifteen ton hull 1.15 MCr.

5. 0.1 power plant 0.09 tons; battery 1000 hours/1 hour full manoeuvre at 0.9 MCr.

6. 80 MCr. for this particular option installed in a Scoutship seems a tad expensive.

 

[Condottiere]

Sandcasters

1. They shoot out canisters of sand. Amongst other things.

2. However, how does the launch mechanism work, is it a powered down mass driver?

 

[Condottiere]

1. Thorium reactors - supposedly easier to handle and cheaper to fuel: whatever happened to them? There's been three millenia to work out the bugs.


2. Waste disposal - always assumed that would get shunted into the reactor. Or do spaceships litter?

 

[Condottiere]

1. Militarized Multi-hulled Multi-purpose Modular Mothership - I like that.

2. Discarding most of the hangar space and using docking clamps to hold the smallcraft in space, you'll come to the conclusion you need a central strut to which the docking clamps can be attached, at a mionimum, and be used as a bridgeway to the docking clamps.

 

[Condottiere]

Militarized Multi-hulled Multi-purpose Modular Mothership

1. Maximum hull size of 2KT, due to the fact you need to sectionalize anything above that, including probably drop tanks.

2. A lot of ships would probably be built around 30KT, since it's the largest size before you need to add in another section and command module.

3. The M5 design would be built around three primary parts, each containing it's own command module.

4. In the rear, you have the propulsion section where you would have a power plant feeding the manoeuvre drive.

5. In front, you'd have the payload modules, including the navigation bridge.

6. The heart of the design would be the central hull, that originally I had six 2KT drop tanks attached, containing the requisite jump drive and power plant.

 

[rje]

Cheers Condottiere!

3. Smallcraft starships - I've been mulling this question over last night and this morning I noticed that someone suggested extending spars to create a virtual shape that encompasses the supposed space a hundred ton ship would take and complete the grid.

4. Mongoose perspective - hundred tons is absolute, though I question the requirement that you need an Adventure hull, since we use a jump bubble and the costs between smallcraft and hundred ton Adventure hulls are relatively the same.

5. Minimums - you need a ten ton bridge, sixteen ton A-suite, ten tons jump fuel, two tons power plant fuel, four ton stateroom, half ton airlock, half ton ship's locker, one ton rocket fuel, forty three, which we'll round off to fifty tons.

Got a couple extra thoughts for you.

(a) Two 30-ton drop tanks, attached to a pinnace equipped with a jump drive, is sufficient to push the volume to 100 tons and allow it to jump. For a maneuver performance gain, drop the tanks upon entry into your target system. A bit of a trade-off, but it's a fun topic.

(b) No reason small craft can't have a proper jump-capable hull -- it is possible that small craft that are grappled to the outside of a starship have this anyway. And, though 100 tons is absolute in every Traveller system except for TNE... it's not absolute for any game where a referee wishes to have jumpboats... and (perhaps) any published variant which doesn't adhere to that part of the Traveller rules?

(c) Minimums - tho the rules only allow a 10-ton bridge, it seems reasonable that smaller, perhaps more cramped bridges are possible.

 

[AndrewW]

(c) Minimums - tho the rules only allow a 10-ton bridge, it seems reasonable that smaller, perhaps more cramped bridges are possible.

Well, if you are going with small craft those bridges are smaller.

There is also the compact-bridge option in High Guard.

 

[rje]

There is also the compact-bridge option in High Guard.

Thanks for that reminder -- I'll look that up.

 

[Condottiere]

Hello rje


1. Smallcraft starships - Marc Miller would most likely agree with you; unfortunately, I can't find a loop hole, extrapolation or exception in Mongoose.

2. Dispersed Structure - That would be the obvious basis of arguing for a more spread out configuration but it's not mentioned for Adventure hulls and not too sure if it would apply for smallcraft.

3. Compact Bridge - The problem is that you have a DM-1 for all actions due to the confined space, which I can't believe would be worth saving only twenty five of volume.

4. The two exceptions I would make would be an missile-armed ultralite interceptor, where the pilots would be trained to skill two, and an emergency command module.

5. As I mentioned above, I doubt that hundred tons is absolute, that jumps can be carried out with a one percent volume margin on either side without affecting the calculated jump, and upto ten percent with an increasing chance of misjumping.

 

[rje]

Excellent points all -- cheers Condottiere.

1. Smallcraft starships - Marc Miller would most likely agree with you; unfortunately, I can't find a loop hole, extrapolation or exception in Mongoose.

2. Dispersed Structure - That would be the obvious basis of arguing for a more spread out configuration but it's not mentioned for Adventure hulls and not too sure if it would apply for smallcraft.

Hmmm, I'll take an action item on those!

5. As I mentioned above, I doubt that hundred tons is absolute, that jumps can be carried out with a one percent volume margin on either side without affecting the calculated jump, and up to ten percent with an increasing chance of misjumping.

Of course I think you're right -- 100 tons is not absolute. The limit is there to constrain writers (we all know what happens when the rules have some 'give' -- the writers 'take'!) In my games, however, those sorts of things are played out as scenarios.

 

[Condottiere]

M5 - Central Section

1. For reasons that will be self-evident, I christen this the Hydra class; nickname could be the pencil.

2. Configuration - conceived as cylindrical, a more convenient cross-section might be hexagonal due to the attachments.

3. Unsure if the drop tanks would just be increased in height to allow space forward for seven twenty ton docking clamps or if you could off-set them rearwards; needless to say, the drop tanks would be hexagonal in cross-section, as well.

4. This allows everything to fit neatly together, and theoretically, should allow some form of protection to the central section.

5. The rear would have a single twenty ton docking clamp for the propulsion section.

 

[Condottiere]

M5 - Central Section

1. The problem with a fifty ton docking clamp is that you're not quite sure what's the weight limit, but rather unlikely to be 14KT.

2. That's one of the reasons the forward section wasn't going to be solely coupled with the central section, as compared to having individual docking clamps emanating from the central section to the payload modules.

3. Because of space limitations, you actually have to construct it at TL15, despite my preference to do so at TL14 and below, which is more in line with Solomani capabilities.

4. 2KT over 30KT is 6.67%. 0.5% for the bridge, 2.5%/1.875tl15 for factor three powere plant, 4%/3tl15 for factor three jump drive. 7%/5.375tl15.

5. 1.295% leaves space for a propulsion unit, which might be limited to only 14KT one gee, as it would be only be used as a manoeuvre drive, prior to coupling up with the rear section.

6. While twelve thousand tons of jump fuel is sufficient for factor four, but space limitation of the central section means that even at TL15 you can only squeeze in a factor three drive. It would also create a need to have a separate reserve tank for the power plant, since I see no mechanism to pump in fuel from either the forward nor rear sections (though you could attach a hose), nor how to transfer energy from their respective power plants.

7. Jump three means that only nine thousand tons of fuel is required for a transition; this would allow the replacement of one of the drop tanks by another payload module, plus freeing a thousand tons for energizing the power plant.

 

[rje]

7. Jump three means that only nine thousand tons of fuel is required for a transition; this would allow the replacement of one of the drop tanks by another payload module, plus freeing a thousand tons for energizing the power plant.

Any chances of using an ice-asteroid for a fuel source?