Small Ship Traveller

[Infojunky]

10,000 dtons are 140,000 cubic meters, for example a ship 200 m long,
25 m wide and 28 m high. This is not really that big, and therefore I do
allow ships of this size even at TL 9.

Not that large in relation to what?

It's about a tenth of the size of a modern aircraft carrier, one sixth the size of an Iowa class battleship

Ok... And you for got Super Tankers, and anything in the Panamax or Capesize size class.

and one third of the size of a ballistic missile sub.

Er?!? I don't think so an Ohio Class SSBN has a submerged volume of roughly 1400 dTons. Or 15% of Rust's example.

In fact Rust's Example runs pretty much along the lines of a Handy Sized Freighter or a SeawayMax vessel.... Which are still quite large...

 

[rust]

In fact Rust's Example runs pretty much along the lines of a Handy Sized Freighter or a SeawayMax vessel.... Which are still quite large...

Yep, the Large Cargo Ship in Traveller's Aide 8 / Through the Waves has
33,000 dtons.

 

[captainjack23]

Er?!? I don't think so an Ohio Class SSBN has a submerged volume of roughly 1400 dTons. Or 15% of Rust's example.

In fact Rust's Example runs pretty much along the lines of a Handy Sized Freighter or a SeawayMax vessel.... Which are still quite large...

ken Pick has an excellent article on displacement tonnage, mass tonage and traveller tonnage obver on Freelance traveller. I think I recall that Subs fit a basic conversion of displacement/5 =Trav dTons. I think. Look it up if it matters.

Besides, it may be one of the big Typhoon class boomers that he's referencing, not an Ohio.

 

[Infojunky]

I think I recall that Subs fit a basic conversion of displacement/5 =Trav dTons. I think. Look it up if it matters.

Well, that would be wrong. A subs submerged displacement is going roughly give its volume in terms of displaced sea water, which general has a density about 1 ton per cubic meter. thus divide by 14 and you have a good estimate in Traveller's dTons.

Besides, it may be one of the big Typhoon class boomers that he's referencing, not an Ohio.

At the max estimate a Typhoon comes in at 3400 dTons.

 

[rust]

At the max estimate a Typhoon comes in at 3400 dTons.

Yes, the highest number I have ever seen were the 48,000 tons submer-
ged displacement of the once planned Typhoon-based cargo submarine,
and according to the notes I made when researching submarines for my
water world setting, this was also the highest submerged displacement of
any submarine I did find at the time.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

For calculating the displacement tonnage of an Ohio class submarine, you can go from the basic dimensions.

Calculate the volume of a cylinder that is 40 feet in diameter and 550 feet long.

Converting to that nasty metric units, it comes out to be 19,580 m^3 or 1398 Dtons (at 14 m^3 per Dton as in the TMB).

So, 1400 Dtons is basically correct for the Ohio Class Ballistic Missile Submarine.

 

[Infojunky]

For calculating the displacement tonnage of an Ohio class submarine, you can go from the basic dimensions.

Calculate the volume of a cylinder that is 40 feet in diameter and 550 feet long.

Converting to that nasty metric units, it comes out to be 19,580 m^3 or 1398 Dtons (at 14 m^3 per Dton as in the TMB).

So, 1400 Dtons is basically correct for the Ohio Class Ballistic Missile Submarine.

Why bother when we have the submerged Displacement?

 

[captainjack23]

Well, that would be wrong. A subs submerged displacement is going roughly give its volume in terms of displaced sea water, which general has a density about 1 ton per cubic meter. thus divide by 14 and you have a good estimate in Traveller's dTons.

yeah ? well, check this out, mr smarty. You are right.


...guess who forgot that submarines submerge.......


Thanks for the reality check.

 

[Jame Rowe]

One little bit of heresy here, and just a thought at that:

why not just do it so that jump fuel is calculated by jump number times jump drive size times 0.1? It seems interesting, especially for higher tech levels... :twisted:

 

[Infojunky]

One little bit of heresy here, and just a thought at that:

why not just do it so that jump fuel is calculated by jump number times jump drive size times 0.1? It seems interesting, especially for higher tech levels... :twisted:

Actually it was that way in MT and TNE... Meaning the jump fuel was based on the drive more than the hull....

It generally worked out to 5+(5*Jn)%

 

[atpollard]

One little bit of heresy here, and just a thought at that:

why not just do it so that jump fuel is calculated by jump number times jump drive size times 0.1? It seems interesting, especially for higher tech levels... :twisted:

You are going to need to spell that out for me.
Your formula is not affected by TL, so what difference does TL make?

It sounds like you want less Jump Fuel required.
Why not just eliminate the Jump Fuel alltogether if that is the goal?
Jump Drives become like Maneuver Drives, they function as long as the PP is working.

 

[Infojunky]

One little bit of heresy here, and just a thought at that:

why not just do it so that jump fuel is calculated by jump number times jump drive size times 0.1? It seems interesting, especially for higher tech levels... :twisted:

You are going to need to spell that out for me.
Your formula is not affected by TL, so what difference does TL make?

It doesn't sorry I was kinda brief....

It sounds like you want less Jump Fuel required.
Why not just eliminate the Jump Fuel all together if that is the goal?
Jump Drives become like Maneuver Drives, they function as long as the PP is working.

Actually Jump fuel isn't on my list to mess with.

One of my base assumptions it that any Jump drive's potential is governed by two things; the size of the hull it's installed in, and the technical sophistication of the jump controller module (or in gross Terms Tech Level). Jump fuel trends with the potential not the technical sophistication of the drive.

As a side note I use Tech Levels slightly differently than a lot of people, I use them as the overall technical infrastructure of a world. Knowledge/concepts have no TL ratings.

 

[simonh]

oops, I used a thread on the COTI board as a source for my dTonnage numbers, but was actualy propagating a faulty meme. Mea culpa for not fact checking.

Still, it turns out a Nimitz class supercarrier comes to a volume of around 300,000 cubic metres, which is nigh on 20,0000 dTons. So I think it's reasonable to assume that similarly sized or even larger spaceships will be achievable feats of engineering for space capable, industrialised worlds in Traveller.

Simon Hibbs

 

[Infojunky]

Ok, there has been some drift in topic; even on my part.

What I really looking for is more detail for smaller ships including small craft.

Part of the issue I am running into is the granularity of the lower end of the system. Some of this is hold over from Ct, other parts feel like the authors have nary a clue about the size of the things they are trying to describe. (Ok that is harsh).

 

[AndrewW]

What I really looking for is more detail for smaller ships including small craft.

I agree though I wouldn't limit it to small craft but include larger craft as well.

 

[Jame Rowe]

One little bit of heresy here, and just a thought at that:

why not just do it so that jump fuel is calculated by jump number times jump drive size times 0.1? It seems interesting, especially for higher tech levels... :twisted:

You are going to need to spell that out for me.
Your formula is not affected by TL, so what difference does TL make?

It sounds like you want less Jump Fuel required.
Why not just eliminate the Jump Fuel alltogether if that is the goal?
Jump Drives become like Maneuver Drives, they function as long as the PP is working.

Actually, it could be affected by TL - how's about, from TL 9 - TL 12, a jump drive consumes the amount as posited in the book (JN*hull*0.1), but as of TL 13+, it's JN*JDrive*0.1.

And is it wrong to want less Jump Fuel?

 

[atpollard]

Ok, there has been some drift in topic; even on my part.

What I really looking for is more detail for smaller ships including small craft.

Part of the issue I am running into is the granularity of the lower end of the system. Some of this is hold over from Ct, other parts feel like the authors have nary a clue about the size of the things they are trying to describe. (Ok that is harsh).

Have you examined Avenger's Golden Age Starships 5: Archaic Small Craft and Space Stations?

It provides design rules for 2.5 dTton and 5 dTon hulls with both Reaction and Grav Drives, as well as Chemical, Fission and Fusion Power Plants. Since it is from Avenger, it was checked by Mongoose and fully approved for Traveller.

[In the interest of full disclsure, some of the artwork is mine, but don't hold that against it.]

 

[atpollard]

And is it wrong to want less Jump Fuel?

Nothing unless it involves Rube Goldberg formula and rules.
As I said, just make the Jump Drive like the Maneuver Drive.
No Jump Fuel. No messy rules. Just a working Power Plant.

 

[Jame Rowe]

oops, I used a thread on the COTI board as a source for my dTonnage numbers, but was actualy propagating a faulty meme. Mea culpa for not fact checking.

Still, it turns out a Nimitz class supercarrier comes to a volume of around 300,000 cubic metres, which is nigh on 20,0000 dTons. So I think it's reasonable to assume that similarly sized or even larger spaceships will be achievable feats of engineering for space capable, industrialised worlds in Traveller.

Simon Hibbs

I might suggest that the only reason that spaceships might not be as large as modern seagoing vessels is either propulsion versus energy/mass or the physics of jump space. Either answer is a handwave, though.

As for a ship scale, I'd suggest starting out with TL 9 being able to construct 3000 ton vessels. I'd explain it but I have to get off the computer now.

 

[Jame Rowe]

Here's my ship hull suggestion for a small(er) ship universe:

TL9: 3000 Tons
TL10: 6000 tons
TL11: 10000 tons
TL12: 12500 tons
TL13: 15000 tons
TL14: 17500 tons
TL15: 21000 tons