Ship power plant settings

DFW

Mongoose
These settings are for daily calculation. You have to use the power setting in full day increments to get the fuel usage reduction.

1/2 power: No M-drive usage, all other systems usable. 75% EM signature

1/4 power: No M-drive, no Energy weapons. 50% EM signature

1/10 power: Basic life support, radio reception, emergency beacon. 25% EM
 
DFW said:
These settings are for daily calculation. You have to use the power setting in full day increments to get the fuel usage reduction.

1/2 power: No M-drive usage, all other systems usable. 75% EM signature

1/4 power: No M-drive, no Energy weapons. 50% EM signature

1/10 power: Basic life support, radio reception, emergency beacon. 25% EM

Would this include neutrino output as well?
 
phavoc said:
DFW said:
These settings are for daily calculation. You have to use the power setting in full day increments to get the fuel usage reduction.

1/2 power: No M-drive usage, all other systems usable. 75% EM signature

1/4 power: No M-drive, no Energy weapons. 50% EM signature

1/10 power: Basic life support, radio reception, emergency beacon. 25% EM

Would this include neutrino output as well?

Yes, if you use those type of sensors...
 
When I 1st started playing Traveller, back in 1980/81 or so, I never really thought much about some of the details of ship design. In general, the rules were just the rules.

However, over the years, power plant and fuel requirements have been one area that I really had hoped to see updated, as it doesn't really make sense to me that a ship would be running everything at full power at all times.

As such, your recommendations here look very interesting.

Thanks for the post.

Regards

Pat
 
It is a conceit of ship design that the powerplant is capable of running every system on the ship at full power for the entire month (or whatever). Why? Because ships are easier to design that way.

This conceit was not really examined until the gigantic power numbers and the inefficient fuel usage of MegaTraveller caused a lot of iconic designs to only barely work even at TL15. Once the mental block was overcome, MT ships became slightly more interesting to design, but could attain performance numbers closer to what was seen in CT.

TNE and T4 allowed for similar approaches, as does GURPS Traveller, simply by the metagame expressions these systems used for powerplants.

MGT backed up to the CT method, at least for small ships, making tuned powerplants basically impossible. On the other hand, a ship can take all of 10 minutes to build. Capital ships are also about one detail short of being able to do tuned power.

Tuned Power = having power requirements and durations of fuel for ship subsystems specifically designed. Allows for lower fuel volumes for the powerplant. Does NOT reduce the size of the Powerplant.

MGT small ships can do tuned plants at the cost of added detail. If no one else beats me to it, I can take a stab at it. DFW's simple settings above have the advantage of elegance in the face of absent detail, but that isn't the solution for everyone.
 
PFVA63 said:
As such, your recommendations here look very interesting.

Thanks for the post.

You're welcome.

GypsyComet said:
MGT small ships can do tuned plants at the cost of added detail. If no one else beats me to it, I can take a stab at it. DFW's simple settings above have the advantage of elegance in the face of absent detail, but that isn't the solution for everyone.

My next major pjt is to take the MRB drive tables and change to % increments instead of random. THEN, try and figure out power points. Not sure if it will be 100% backward compatible with MGT as it isn't currently, a logical design system, power usage wise...
 
Despite the clumsy appearing table, the numbers for small ship MGT drives are surprisingly reliable. Both the drives and the powerplants show nice scale efficiency progressions between 100 tons and 2000 tons, when the Cap Ship percentages take over. There are some bumps in the progressions for P1 and P2 as the granularity of the standard drives is a bit much, but overall powerplants start at about twice the CapShip percentage of volume and fall smoothly to very close to the CapShip percentage at 1800 and 2000 tons.

This suggests that the powerplant, at least, is less nonsensical than first appears.

(The scale efficiency progressions for Jump and Maneuver are also visible, but different than that for Power.)

Fuel usage is not so easy.

Fuel usage scales evenly with Powerplant number for really small ships. Until 800 tons, a P6 burns six times the fuel that a P1 does, roughly, and P1 fuel usage is flatly related to tonnage; no scale efficiency at all. Scale efficiency does kick in at and above 800 tons for P2 and higher, however, to the point that a 2000 ton P6 ship is twice as fuel efficient as a 100 ton P6, burning only three times as much fuel as a 2000 ton P1.

While initially boggling, this provides a hint to the relationship between drive power and the power for the rest of the ship.
 
Since per the rules, the size of a solar sail is base on 1/10th the size of the power plant, as long as you are within a solar system, it looks as if you can power your life support with the solar sails alone per your suggested system. Or at least low births / emergency low births if your food/water run out. But normally solar sails simply extend the amount of weeks on "minimal" power.
If you can draw enough energy from a solar sail, I see no reason to need power plant fuel for minimal life support (at least to power the systems)
 
Jak Nazryth said:
Since per the rules, the size of a solar sail is base on 1/10th the size of the power plant, as long as you are within a solar system,

I chucked out that nonsense rule the 1st day I got the game.
 
One interesting question is just how much power IS required to generate gravity, power lifesupport and keep the stove on in a starship. A ship in jump space should have comparatively low power requirements since the biggest users of power - jump drive, maneuver drives and weapons, are all offline.

I'm sure even the smallest fusion plant operating at bare minimum capacity would have more than enough power to run the ship's systems. Which would decrease fuel comsumption as well as decrease your EM ratings.

I would think that at 1/10th power you'd have enough power for everything - life-support, sensors, communcation, ships computer, etc. Just not any energy weapons or maneuver drive.
 
For what it's worth I prefer simple re power and fuel. Not quite as rigidly simple as some the rules but not as involved as others either.

Basically there are two big power users on a starship. The jump drive and the maneuver drive.

Jump drive - Power plant must match or exceed the rating of the jump drive and be providing that level of power throughout the jump. Yes, that is what keeps jumpspace from ending your trip before you reach the exit. Loose the power plant while in jump, you die. Run out of power plant fuel while in jump, you die. In MTU at least. The only fuel savings available in this area is if for example you have a P2 and J2 but engage in a J1 allowing you to throttle back the power plant to a P1 at a like reduced fuel consumption for that trip.

Maneuver drive - Power plant must match or exceed the rating of the maneuver drive and be providing that level of power while in normal space for the safety and comfort of the ship, even if not under acceleration. The M drive also includes/incorporates the inertial compensation (automatically dampens all drive thrust*) and the (magic ;) ) shielding that protects from background radiation and small mass impact collisions. A ship may save fuel by throttling back the power plant to match the currently engaged maneuver drive level, for example a J3, M1, P3 ship exiting jump space can drop from the P3 level of fuel burn used during its 3 parsec jump to just P1 for maneuvering safely in normal space.

* note - does not dampen all acceleration from outside the hull, such as local gravity or impacts, these still act on the hull and may be felt inside the hull, a hit by a missile or debris will be felt, landing of a world will transfer the local gravity to within the hull but may be compensated by the artificial gravity

A few other significant power users are:

Artificial gravity - minimum P1 to maintain (P = G) but feeds off the flow to Maneuver or Jump (as long as the appropriate drive is functional, and at up to the current operational level).

Energy weapons - requirements vary and are in addition to Maneuver drive.

Defensive screens - requirements vary and are in addition to Maneuver drive.

Electronics - advanced computers/electronics also require additional energy.

By applying points to the power systems one can permit some management choices, like forgoing energy weapons fire to divert power to shields.

And because I like my space sci-fi with a submarine warfare quality (yes, there is no stealth in space, but... ) I also allow silent running. The power plant is shut down and the ship runs minimal systems on battery power. The power plant provides for/includes battery backup for minimal systems to operate for 1 week per rating, or 1 turn per rating at full power (though that creates the same signature as running at full power). Minimal systems are low life support (minimal heating and air) and low lighting. There is no power for maneuver or jump naturally. Nor artificial gravity, inertial compensation, protective shielding, energy weapons, defensive screens, or advanced electronics. All excepting the surprise use of full draw on the battery/capacitors, which not only fully drains but damages them. It is a handy surprise tactic though, or a last ditch save option in a crash for example.

Two minor flaws (features ;) ) in this method are:

The introduction of J0, aka microjumps. I'm not really comfortable with the idea (it doesn't always fit my take) but it has been there for ages. Treating it as a short plotted J1 works, which is the usual method.

Misjumps. Being hurled into level 12 jumpspace when you only have the protection of a P2 is bad. Of course that's the risk one takes for cutting corners. Jumpspace bleeds through the insufficient protection but because there is some protection you might not die. Maybe you just get badly "burned", like going to the beach with SPF-5 on a day when the UV rating would call for SPF-30. Only this burns your mind too.
 
far-trader said:
For what it's worth I prefer simple re power and fuel. Not quite as rigidly simple as some the rules but not as involved as others either.

Similar here. I too run inert comp & artificial grav off the M-drive. Also, with a fusion PP you can get tritium as a by-product. I use this tritium as a sort of constantly renewed nuke (alpha ray) battery to run emergency systems if you lose the PP.
 
I think it'd be tough to total stuff like this, as the Jump-Drive takes in a certain amount of hydrogen to work, but otherwise the fuel needed to run the ship is whatever the P-P table decides it is (obviously the J and M-Drive decide how efficient fuel intake is).

However it seems to be a ship just drifting round or one belting at full Thrust with a Gravitic Drive uses the same amount of fuel.
It would then seem that the Power-Plant takes into consideration continual thrust with the M-Drive but not if it was shut off.

Energy weapons are harder to clarify to due to the Particle Beam restrictions, but they dont have a discernable ammo, so again they can fire (theoretically) repeatedly until the power plant runs out of hydrogen, however long that is.

I would say Life Support, such as air/food/water reclamation would be the drain on the Power Plant, something that is generally always on. The size of the ship and drain on resources the J and M-Drive perform decides the power dictated to these and other things such as Art-Grav.

Of course theres also the fuel consumption in small craft table in High Guard...
 
GURPS does I nice job on this very issue. Since you can size life support for different areas of the ship, you can turn off specific areas to save power. Each weapon has it's power requirements, all sub-systems have their requirements as well. And the need for the power plant to "Match the same engine designation" is not an issue. You simply add up the power loads, and size the plan accordingly.
 
DFW said:
Jak Nazryth said:
Since per the rules, the size of a solar sail is base on 1/10th the size of the power plant, as long as you are within a solar system,

I chucked out that nonsense rule the 1st day I got the game.

oops.
I miss-typed. I did not mean "solar sail" but "solar panel".

Sorry for the confusion. My dad died recently and my concentration has been a bit off...

Do you think the size requirement for a solar panel is a dumb rule or the actual use of solar panels are dumb?

My point is that you should be able to run minimal power via solar panel without any fuel usage, if the panels are sized accordingly. According to the rules, the size of a solar panel 1/10 the size of the power plant, 1 ton minimum. (I am assuming the small size is when the panels are folded/stored away) The good thing about solar panels is that they save a lot of internal space for power plant fuel on extended missions.
 
Jak Nazryth said:
oops.
I miss-typed. I did not mean "solar sail" but "solar panel".

Sorry for the confusion. My dad died recently and my concentration has been a bit off...

No worries, I understood it as panels. Sorry about your father.

Jak Nazryth said:
Do you think the size requirement for a solar panel is a dumb rule or the actual use of solar panels are dumb?

The "dumb" part is that as you move further from the star, the power doesn't fall off accordingly. I use that power rating if you are within the habitable zone of the star.

Jak Nazryth said:
My point is that you should be able to run minimal power via solar panel without any fuel usage, if the panels are sized accordingly. According to the rules, the size of a solar panel 1/10 the size of the power plant, 1 ton minimum. (I am assuming the small size is when the panels are folded/stored away) The good thing about solar panels is that they save a lot of internal space for power plant fuel on extended missions.

I agree with those points.
 
Has anyone considered alternative power plants like say a fuel cell powered by the hydrogen already stored on the ship? They have industrial-sized ones today that can get into the megawatt range. So question becomes just how much power would a powered-down starship need if it's running 'silent'?
 
phavoc said:
Has anyone considered alternative power plants like say a fuel cell powered by the hydrogen already stored on the ship? They have industrial-sized ones today that can get into the megawatt range. So question becomes just how much power would a powered-down starship need if it's running 'silent'?

Do you mean drifting with just very basic life support & no active sensors?
 
phavoc said:
So question becomes just how much power would a powered-down starship need if it's running 'silent'?
A modern high sea submarine of approximately 100 dtons operates with
fuel cells providing 300 kW, which includes the power required for slow
movement. Based on this, I would think that 100 kW should be sufficient
for a powered down starship of similar size.
 
Back
Top