Space Travel

[phavoc]

Over on COTI there has been a very, ah, interesting thread regarding use of lifeboats. Once of the arguments against the need for lifeboats is that a ship is only hours away from the 100D diameter, and it would always be safer to remain sheltered aboard the ship then evacuate in a lifeboat (which by that logic would forever be unnecessary).

The lifeboat issue aside, the reasoning against them, i.e. the 100D issue, got me thinking. Pretty much every ship you see designs for or deckplans for shows it equipped with jump drives. Which leads one to think "oh, ships in Traveller only need M-drives to get in/out to the 100D limit."

Granted, if your destination is more than 7 days away in normal space its faster to use a jump drive. But there are times when that's not practical (you course takes you through the sun or gas giant) or not economical (slow freighters hauling rocks don't need the fastest of M-drives).

How many of you have intra-system traffic where the jump drives don't come into play? Is it THAT uncommon for ships to never travel for long periods in normal space? Or do you simply ignore these things during your sessions?

 

[JP42]

How many of you have intra-system traffic where the jump drives don't come into play? Is it THAT uncommon for ships to never travel for long periods in normal space? Or do you simply ignore these things during your sessions?

I've had entire campaigns where the biggest ship the crew ever laid hands on was a ship's boat or modular cutter. They went from planet to inhabited moon to outer gas giant to one of the outer moons to the asteroid belt and back and never felt compelled to leave the system.

The fact that most basic Traveller games give you just one "inhabited world" to work from does a disservice to the potential richness of the rest of the solar system.

 

[rust]

How many of you have intra-system traffic where the jump drives don't come into play?

In about half of my settings intra-system travel played a very
important role, in the other half it happened at least occasio-
nally.

 

[F33D]

How many of you have intra-system traffic where the jump drives don't come into play? Is it THAT uncommon for ships to never travel for long periods in normal space? Or do you simply ignore these things during your sessions?

For the average Tramp/Free Traders, it is very unusual to travel from one planet to another in my game (and in the OTU). Since they have fuel purif plants they can always get fuel at the star ports they "land" at. Using GG's just isn't economical time wise. Even with the slowest (1G) M drives getting to/from jump is a matter of hours. Can you lay out examples (based on how trade is set up) where ships WOULD be travelling between planets in system in any but very unusual circumstances? You should probably address from that direction 1st...

 

[DickTurpin]

Can you lay out examples (based on how trade is set up) where ships WOULD be travelling between planets in system in any but very unusual circumstances? You should probably address from that direction 1st...

I can easily imagine systems with colonies or research outposts on multiple planetary, moon, planetoid, asteroid, or deep space locations that need supplies, crew replacements, etc. Even simple asteroid miners need to get from their claims to a spaceport to sell their ore and resupply.

And then there is always the chance that a ship will either mess up their jump calculations or misjump to a location many AUs away from their intended destination.

 

[phavoc]

For the average Tramp/Free Traders, it is very unusual to travel from one planet to another in my game (and in the OTU). Since they have fuel purif plants they can always get fuel at the star ports they "land" at. Using GG's just isn't economical time wise. Even with the slowest (1G) M drives getting to/from jump is a matter of hours. Can you lay out examples (based on how trade is set up) where ships WOULD be travelling between planets in system in any but very unusual circumstances? You should probably address from that direction 1st...

The trade model for Traveller is not really a model. It's quite abstracted. As JP42 pointed out, a star system is gonna have more than one planet that has people/industry on it. Hell, there's gonna be more than one starport too, but everything is simplified down to THE starport and THE planet.

Most systems should have a great deal of intrasystem traffic I would suspect. Miners will be hard at work in the asteroid belts, collection ships will be transporting raw materials and fabricated things. There will be supply vessels, tankers, passenger ships, shuttles, etc, etc, etc.

If you take our oceans as an example, we have a lot of big "jump" freighters taking cargo's between continents to the major "starports" on the coasts. Then that cargo gets broken up and moved via truck, rail and smaller vessels to its final destination. And then they turn around and bring new things back to the ports for shipment back out. A star system's economy will most likely operate in the same way. Far-flung outposts and stations will still need supplies and personnel transported. Smaller colonies and mining facilities are going to be shipping raw materials somewhere to be made into products. And the major starport listed on the Traveller system sheet might not the major inhabited planet (though typically it probably is since it derives the most traffic). There should be life (and traffic) beyond the 100D limit, hence the need for non-jump capable ships.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[rust]

I have the impression that we are somewhat writing past each other.
It seems to me that F33D means starships doing intra-system travel
while other posters mean spaceships (= ships without jump drives).

 

[F33D]

I have the impression that we are somewhat writing past each other.
It seems to me that F33D means starships doing intra-system travel
while other posters mean spaceships (= ships without jump drives).

That's because it is the premise presented by the OP. "Pretty much every ship you see designs for or deckplans for shows it equipped with jump drives. Which leads one to think "oh, ships in Traveller only need M-drives to get in/out to the 100D limit."

I don't believe that the OP was taking about how often non-starships find themselves doing interplanetary travel in N-Space. Maybe I'm wrong though. :?

 

[phavoc]

To both Rust and F33D - My question was more broad-based, and it included the idea of both STARships, and SPACEships.

The reason I worded my question the way I did is because the ships we see in the books and pretty much most of the adventures involve starships using their jump drives to travel from star system to star system. We see very little, if any, mention of the rest of the system, or the other part of the space traffic that flys between planets.

And, as I also asked in the original question, starships have maneuver drives that pretty much seem to be designed to get them to/from the 100D limit. And I was wondering how others treated good-ol fashioned travel in-system (by starships and spaceships).

 

[F33D]

And I was wondering how others treated good-ol fashioned travel in-system (by starships and spaceships).

I gave my "star ship" answer above. As to spaceships, that's all they do. Travel in system between worlds. In rare situations where there is significant in system travel that would take >7 days (I can see this in Glisten to give a OTU example) J-1 starships are used in some cases. For other light traffic of less than that there are small "liners". Slow automated cargo ships for bringing mined materials to the main world for processing etc. Fast executive small craft to get key people out to the mining worlds, etc.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Pretty much every ship you see designs for or deckplans for shows it equipped with jump drives.

Navy ships, scout ships, interstellar traders, pirates that need to get away from those that hunt them, Nobles who want to see more than mining instalations and outposts in their own system, ships of other races... in general, all ships that I would expect jump drives on. There are numerous non jump under 100dt craft - perhaps in some cases the number of passengers and cargo does not require larger ships. I believe both mining ships presented in Adventure 1: Beltstrike do not have jump drives. The core rules has the non jump police cutter. Scoundrel has a non jump Customs Patrol Cutter. Supplement 2 Traders and Gunboats has a few non jump ships; mostly system defense boats.

How many of you have intra-system traffic where the jump drives don't come into play?

We do.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Every craft.

MTU uses static wormholes and gates... so no need for jump/hyper drives.

 

[locarno24]

I'd concur. A star system - at least, one with significant off-mainworld assets - is going to be full of local craft stooging around on M-drive.

However, there is rarely going to be a case where a J-drive ship will do anything but jump in, fuel and jump out again.

Most of those would be non-standard issues like misjumps, required repairs that can only be done at a different world, answering GK signs, chasing someone/running from someone, carrying cargo that for some reason the client doesn't wish to trust to the in-system shipping organisations who would do it far more cost-effectively, and other odd and questionably safe/economic/legal behaviour...

...Or, to put it another way, the average Traveller gaming session.

 

[coldwar]

I like the idea of intersystem traffic.
I a campaign idea sorta popped in to my head thinking with this. The PC's form the crew of a Small SDB or a Police Cutter (From the Scoundrel Book). Think something like that would allow allot of variance. Assisting a merchant who's been attacked by pirates. Searching the Gas Giant/moon/hidden base/base/planet for a Pirate. Interdicting on two argueing merchants/Seekers who are firing upon another. Interdicting a Massive Liner, with loads of complications, social and whatever you like.

On a side note.
Life boats I think are possible needed on some ships. Notable in regions of space where there are very little space faring worlds.
My other suggestion on life boats, would rarely come up, but can be used when the parent ship is on a direct collision/catastrophic course with something, whilst the main ships drives have broken down.
O, o boy, moment could be, arrive at 100D limit from jump, head to the world. half way the drive fails, and the ships course would now, because the original course took in to account that it would slow down, now takes the straight in to the planet, orbital facility, close orbit moon etc, only real choice is to get out. In a high transit regions, fairly easy, another ship picks you up, but where theres no high G-performance ship, or even no transit nearby you'd need a life boat.

Any way, I'll finish blabbering on now. Hehe.
regards.

 

[alex_greene]

It beats me that the system never developed dedicated sublight rescue craft and police boats and cutters in various sizes - 30 ton, 50 ton modular, 100 ton.

If the system is TL 8+ and there is more than one planet, chances are there will be colonies around those worlds and moons, which means a rescue service would be pretty much de rigueur, with perhaps a larger, mobile sublight rescue base like a 5,000 ton or 10,000 ton flying hospital / mobile police base equipped with a fleet of ambulance boats or police cutters, respectively.

 

[phavoc]

I'd concur. A star system - at least, one with significant off-mainworld assets - is going to be full of local craft stooging around on M-drive.

However, there is rarely going to be a case where a J-drive ship will do anything but jump in, fuel and jump out again.

From a normal commercial viewpoint, I believe you are right. Regularly scheduled liners and freighters would not do that. But I think you'd possibly see smaller ships doing it, especially player-sized ones. It's unfortunate we don't see more materials reflecting that.

On a side note.
Life boats I think are possible needed on some ships. Notable in regions of space where there are very little space faring worlds.

My other suggestion on life boats, would rarely come up, but can be used when the parent ship is on a direct collision/catastrophic course with something, whilst the main ships drives have broken down.

I totally agree. I've developed some house rules to accommodate that. The arguments on the COTI forum were driving me nuts with the constant 'it's not the same analogy as ships today' because of the water vs. vacuum issue. Drives me nuts! For me I've got the cabins with emergency life support capabilities (each one becomes a 'lifepod' of sorts). But I still have lifepods that are meant for passengers (or crew), and are for those occassions when you need to haul ass away from your ship. Since I can't come up with every reason why a disaster might occur, or that you'd be within 100D of a world that had rescue capabilities.... I just gave up on the argument because the logic from the other side wasn't, well, logical!

It beats me that the system never developed dedicated sublight rescue craft and police boats and cutters in various sizes - 30 ton, 50 ton modular, 100 ton.

I think it was in a GURPS book that they had a modified 100 ton ship that was a rescue vehicle. Capable of 6G's it was designed to get to the scene as quickly as possible, evacuate the people and get them onboard. Then other ships would deal with the remaining issues. I should probably try to find that somewhere.

 

[F33D]

The arguments on the COTI forum were driving me nuts with the constant 'it's not the same analogy as ships today' because of the water vs. vacuum issue. Drives me nuts!

Sounds like basic logic. The difference IS pretty inescapable

 

[phavoc]

The arguments on the COTI forum were driving me nuts with the constant 'it's not the same analogy as ships today' because of the water vs. vacuum issue. Drives me nuts!

Sounds like basic logic. The difference IS pretty inescapable

Yes, and no. Basically both environments are hostile to humans, and in both environments you need artificial means to survive. You can't drown in space, but you can't run out of air floating in the ocean. That's the real difference.

For both environments you need food and water to survive. For both environments you need protection from the weather. Radiation exists in both environments, but is applied different. On the ocean you don't have to worry about micrometorites, but you still need to worry about holes in your boat, so they are similar in that way too.

Essentially as I see it they are very much the same in having to cope with risks and danger, but the actual risks are applied differently because yes, they are different environments. But there is more similarity than not. So many of the same concepts can be applied to either environment without too much change.

 

[F33D]

Yes, and no. Basically both environments are hostile to humans, and in both environments you need artificial means to survive.

Yes. BUT, the differences alone will GREATLY alter the reasons one would abandon "ship". So, just list the reasons (and likelihood/frequency) that those conditions would occur in let's say a Free Trader...

 

[phavoc]

Yes. BUT, the differences alone will GREATLY alter the reasons one would abandon "ship". So, just list the reasons (and likelihood/frequency) that those conditions would occur in let's say a Free Trader...

Oh, I agree, but only to an extent. An ocean liner might get a fire, whereas a spaceship gets a hydrogen leak. Fire extinguishers might put out the fire, but the damage could be done (and now its sinking). A hydrogen leak might be fixed by evacuating the affected sections, or it could be too late and the resulting explosion destroys the life support section and emergency backups and the only air available is what is in your suit or compartment. In either case evacuation might be your only option.

The issue I have with the arguments against is that there's an assumption that you'd never want to leave your safe little space ship, or that help will always be hours away, so you cling to the wreck. You plan for an emergency and a disaster the best you can. Sometimes it's not practical, but that doesn't mean you just abandon the concept completely. You don't get a parachute on a plane because you really can't use one anyways. But you get flotation devices and life rafts, even though odds are if you crash in the ocean, you'll prolly die. Space vessels have the same idea behind them - though while they crash, they really don't "sink"... unless you count gas giants maybe...).

Planes don't crash into the ocean all that often, but every commercial passenger plane carries water survival gear. Ships don't sink that often, but every liner carries enough boats for every passenger and crew member. I don't have the statistics for how often a free trader or other vessel has to evacuate handy... :shock: