What kind of ship uses a Launch as a Lifeboat?

[phavoc]

Lets say a Vilani Starship was visiting the Earth on July 20, 1969, it detected the radio signals between Apollo 11, and Mission Control, and then, there was an on board fire as their jump fuel mixed with the air in the engine room and caught fire destroying the maneuver and Jump Drives, most of the crew survived, but they forgot to bring their life boat, They are about a 375,000 kilometers away from Earth, so they signal to Mission Control in Houston, "Help, we've had a catastrophic explosion in our engine compartment, please send help immediately!" Does NASA answer the call? Can they do anything about it in time to save the Vilani crew? I think the Vilani Merchants should have brought their lifeboat, because then they could have landed on Earth themselves!

Assuming Earth was part of the 3I I would suspect there would be a grav-capable craft lying around somewhere that could help them out. Planets are going to have higher tech devices than what they can produce locally. It's ludicrous to assume otherwise. The question becomes one more of 'how many would they have?' rather than 'TL7? They'd have to build a rocket to get to orbit!'.

We have that today. Banana republics have crap for infrastructure, but oddly in places they have the latest in tech. In some ways they get to benefit from tech (even expensive imported tech) improvements by jumping up tech levels. The US had a well-developed telecom infrastructure, Kenya did not. Kenya jumped straight to 3G mobile tech while we dicked around on ours because the phone companies had money sunk into older tech and didn't want to screw with their profit margins. Same goes for copper vs. fiber. Phone companies would still be on copper if they didn't have disruptive competitors going straight to fiber.

Things like grav tech are so clearly superior to say rocketry that importing a few surplus 50ton modular cutters would just make so much more sense than trying to support your space needs with locally sourced materials. Look at some of the countries that are flying the 787. Ethopia Airlines is operating 10 of those puppies right now. But they can't even build most of the parts for it. Everything is imported, and most of the 'C' and 'D' heavy maintenance work will be outsourced.

So those Vilani dudes would most likely be in luck. But if they were out by say Titan, well, they might just be screwed unless Free Trader Beowolf has been repaired and happens to be in port.

 

[Condottiere]

If your ship is starting to break up in orbit, you could break out the (air) life raft.

 

[Reynard]

"Something I've never seen discussed really much is the idea of a local station taxi/runabout, that comes to ships in parking orbits to pick up small cargo and crew/passengers."

That would be all those Freight Handler Pods and Ship to Ship Shuttles plus a stable of the iconic small craft with a variety of seating and cargo configurations. Actually, the 20 to launch would be very common in that role at a taxi level for systems with smaller needs for surface to orbit transfer.

 

[locarno24]

It all boils down to 'what is a credible accident' - I don't mean the specific technical failures; I mean general problems.

A small-craft is a nice-to-have for any number of reasons - albeit a bizzare choice on a small, already atmosphere-capable ship, as noted. But under what circumstances would you want one assigned purely for emergency reasons? A lot of it will depend on the system you're in when it happens, too.


If you're at 100D from a major mainworld with meaningful orbital traffic and a system fleet, then escape pods are enough if not overkill. Unless the ship is going to forcefully explode, you might as well hang around; in worst case, you'll spend a couple of hours in vacc suits before the rescue ship arrives.

Misjumps could land you a long way out of orbit, though - and since a misjump may indicate a problem in the drive room, might well be tied up to a failure of the M-drive - a parasite craft with reasonable legs might be vital in that case.

Most failures are probably incredibly unlikely. But one thing I've never been too confident about is the crew; look at major commercial passenger airlines today, and you have competent personnel, extremely safe equipment and carefully scripted procedures. I'm sure major shipping lines in the 3I are the same. Jeff & Cletus on the SS Mortgage Deficit, no matter how smart the original designer of the ship might have been, are not in the same league for safety, and said designer (allowing for this) may have deliberately put in the small craft to allow for when every logical safety feature he puts in the design gets ruined by twenty years of skipped maintenance and ill-treatment on the Imperial borders.

 

[Reynard]

I see people on these forums want to stick Cramped bridges on to ships for more cargo space without regard to crew skills. If that's okay, why would money hungry crew be all safety conscious if a lifeboat you may never need will eat up a lot of cargo space? They won't. Lifeboats (and escape pods) are a luxury for the rich and paranoid who would end up dying anyhow somewhere they shouldn't be. Darwinism.

 

[DaveT]

For a ship that might have a lifespan of 80 years or more I reckon inherent flexibility would be a desirable design feature and 'fitted for but not necessarily with' fits the bill (here in the UK we'll soon be getting a new aircraft carrier...with no aircraft, for a pretty extreme example of that!).

So if the Fat Trader, for example, had the hangar for the launch on the cargo deck and accessible to it, the operator would have the option of running without a launch and using the hangar as extra cargo space instead. Reminds me of a design I once did where 3dtons were put aside for fire control equipment in one compartment which was taken up with either gym equipment or a hot tub!

 

[Condottiere]

I've never considered a cramped bridge worth the skill penalties.

To offset the loss in space, you could have the secondary craft pre-loaded with cargo.

 

[F33D]

I've never considered a cramped bridge worth the skill penalties.

I've never bought into the lie that a cramped Bridge (how many tons for two crew?) lowers skill usage with super high tech controls. Look at an F-16 cockpit. It was a rule made by a person who doesn't understand what they are writing about.

 

[Condottiere]

I tend to question the entire bridge design.

As regards to the cramped option, it probably kicks in if you're doing anything intensive or you've been sitting there too long.

 

[F33D]

I tend to question the entire bridge design.

As regards to the cramped option, it probably kicks in if you're doing anything intensive or you've been sitting there too long.

Even that doesn't cut it. This is NOT a stick and rudder operation. It is point and click or touch screen or voice command. Have you ever seen sub controls? That is more cramped than the compact bridge in MGT.

 

[Reynard]

It wouldn't be cramped if it had no effect. Part of game mechanics is balance. The standard bridge on 100+ ton ships is optimized. Cramp that down by 25% is ungainly and imposes a -1DM. Same goes for the small craft cabin and the cramped cockpit. If a vessel doesn't regularly involve skill tasks then one can accept the penalty for the gain on space. Same with the holographic controls. If you're 25% more to the bridge cost, you should expect a bonus because it's an upgrade from buttons and levers.

A specialized 20 ton lifeboat could have only one crew in a cockpit since it's primarily an emergency craft. All it expects from the pilot is fly toward the safest destination thus avoiding the -1DM for size and the penalties for multi-actions.

Remember in all these examples tasks don't kick in for unless the situation might be negatively impacted. Routine piloting or driving doesn't need to be rolled every few time units. A cramped cockpit in an aircraft doesn't call for regular checks until the feces hits the fan and the -1DM for a cockpit is offset because fighter pilots are not rookies with low skills.

 

[F33D]

It wouldn't be cramped if it had no effect. ...

I'm NOT saying that if I use pretzel logic and a large dose of LSD that I cannot come up with justifiers for the rule. I'm saying that it is a stupid and illogical rule. It is ham fisted rule writing is all. A huge reason is that the rules were a port from earlier versions without any thought.

 

[Condottiere]

Cramping increases fatigue and reaction time; I'm sure that any number of reasons could be found.

Cramping in an escape vessel would allow more space for evacuees, which would justify it's use.

 

[F33D]

Cramping increases fatigue and reaction time; I'm sure that any number of reasons could be found.

Like I said, I could invent a million of them. None would hold water though. Best to write rules that are logical.

 

[Reynard]

Or find that RPG out there where all the rules are logical, well thought out and no mistakes. SOMEONE had to have made it. Can't say I've seen it and I own a LOT of RPGs from the last 40 years.

The Mongoose rules are a step above the Classic and don't go micro-manage as MegaTraveller. There are areas of errata and some vague spots but somehow I can build worlds, ships and even characters without going munchkin and it works. I've played the game with what the rules create and had fun. I'd wouldn't mind seeing a next edition with corrections and clarifications without becoming as thick as T5. For now I will build variants of launches without resorting to homebrew rules so they fit within the game as it is and can be played by anyone else. I really can't keep discussing non-existent, or reinterpretation of, rules. Makes it easier to describe the hows and whys of lifeboat inclusion in ship designs.

 

[Condottiere]

My impression of Tee Five was that you tend to get lost in the details, that the design system lacked a natural flow.

 

[simonh]

I've been thinking about the lifeboat issue from a different angle. 20 dtons is a lot of tonnage to lose from a small or medium sized spacecraft, especialy a trader for which lost tonage is lost profits on every trip. Still, I think there are resonable arguments to be made that a lifeboat of some kind, above just small survival capsules, would be desirable for vessels that might transit through low population, or low tech systems or ones without much space infrastructure.

You clearly can't use the internal space of such a vehicle for cargo space, because if it's full of cargo, in an emergency there's nowhere to put the evacuees and it would take too long to remove the cargo safely. But what about passenger space?

A Ship's Boat has a 13 dton cargo hold. That could in theory be fitted out to provide the equivalent living space to three staterooms. Lets suppose we fit it out to provide two staterooms worth of accomodation space, but arrange that space with fold-away acceleration couches, beefed up life support equipment and a store of survival rations. The extra 7 dtons should be plenty to allow for these adaptations.

Acceleration couches allow 2 people per dton, and we have 7 dtons left over after two staterooms worth of space, so even without re-purposing any space from the staterooms we should be able to pack in 14 acceleration couches. Taking that 7 dtons and adding in say half the space from the staterooms as re-useable space that gives 11 dtons of space in emergency mode. That should be enough for maybe 16 people in emergency couches and enough supplies to keep them alive for a few weeks. Then add in the two crew stations, that's 18 people, enough to cover the passengers and crew of a Type R. It would be cramped, uncomfortable and they'd all come out a lot thinner but at least they'd be alive.

This would allow useful commercial utilisation of the ship's boat's space. Alternatively, A chunk of the boat's cargo space could be adapted into an open space such as a lounge area or even a bar. This would make it fairly easy to quickly adapt it to other uses such as cargo or personnel transfer. Again perhaps 8 dtons of it's space might be available for those uses by just folding away obstructing fatures such as tables and chairs.

For emergency purposes I think it's reasonable to relax the rules on life support and fuel requirements. The standard x weeks of operation assumes x weeks of fairly heavy use. If you just manoeuver the vehicle into a parking orbit your fuel should last a heck of a lot longer. ALso for life support, if you're just making do with susbsistence rations and minimal heating and air recycling you should be able to last a good while on low levels of supplies. I think standard supply rates assume a fair amount of non-essentials.

Simon Hibbs

 

[atpollard]

I was reading the Core Rulebook, and in the section of small craft, under Launch it says it is also termed a "life boat" So I am currently designing a ship that uses these launches as life boats. It has 14 "life boats" with 7 "life boats" mounted on each side. They are there in case the passengers and crew need to evacuate the ship. So how big a starship do you think this would be?

Personally, I fall in the "you just can't justify the cost of a lifeboat" crowd. (A lifeboat on a cruise ship is a tiny fraction of the cost of the ship, a starship lifeboat will come closer to doubling the cost of the ship.)

So if you are going to have 14 Launch/lifeboats, then they are going to need to do double duty.
My suggestion would be a passenger liner where safety might be the highest priority ... perhaps something like a mobile embassy.
Working the numbers backwards from the lifeboat, let's start with 13 dTons of space fitted with 26 first class 'couches'. Add 'Pullman' fold down bunks to accommodate another 26 passengers in an emergency and assume that another 26 people can stand in the aisle. Each Launch can now provide high-priority shuttle service for 26 passengers and act as an emergency lifeboat for 78 passengers.

Since you have 14 Launches, you have 'shuttles' for 364 (14x26) high priority passengers and emergency lifeboats for 1092 passengers (14x78).
At 4 dTons per staterooms, 1092 passengers require 4368 dTons of staterooms and 1092 dtons of luggage (High Passage), so the entire ship will be in the 10,000 dTon range.
Since you have fast, personal shuttle service from the ship to the ground (perhaps delivering passengers to 14 different specific locations at the same time ... rather than just the downport), you can make the ship unstreamlined (dispersed) and save some money to offset the high cost of the launches.

You have a liner that will provide personal door to door service for over 1000 passengers that can load/unload in 3 round trips ... that includes the extra perk of complete lifeboat capacity for those times when 'HAL' decides to fly the ship into the sun and there is nothing that 'Dave' can do to stop it.

 

[F33D]

A Ship's Boat has a 13 dton cargo hold. That could in theory be fitted out to provide the equivalent living space to three staterooms. Lets suppose we fit it out to provide two staterooms worth of accomodation space, but arrange that space with fold-away acceleration couches, beefed up life support equipment and a store of survival rations. The extra 7 dtons should be plenty to allow for these adaptations.

Simon Hibbs

Kinda like a Motorhome. Pull it into the hanger and plug in power, water & sewage to the main ship. That would be a economical use. Double duty.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

I was reading the Core Rulebook, and in the section of small craft, under Launch it says it is also termed a "life boat" So I am currently designing a ship that uses these launches as life boats. It has 14 "life boats" with 7 "life boats" mounted on each side. They are there in case the passengers and crew need to evacuate the ship. So how big a starship do you think this would be?

Personally, I fall in the "you just can't justify the cost of a lifeboat" crowd. (A lifeboat on a cruise ship is a tiny fraction of the cost of the ship, a starship lifeboat will come closer to doubling the cost of the ship.)

So if you are going to have 14 Launch/lifeboats, then they are going to need to do double duty.
My suggestion would be a passenger liner where safety might be the highest priority ... perhaps something like a mobile embassy.
Working the numbers backwards from the lifeboat, let's start with 13 dTons of space fitted with 26 first class 'couches'. Add 'Pullman' fold down bunks to accommodate another 26 passengers in an emergency and assume that another 26 people can stand in the aisle. Each Launch can now provide high-priority shuttle service for 26 passengers and act as an emergency lifeboat for 78 passengers.

Since you have 14 Launches, you have 'shuttles' for 364 (14x26) high priority passengers and emergency lifeboats for 1092 passengers (14x78).
At 4 dTons per staterooms, 1092 passengers require 4368 dTons of staterooms and 1092 dtons of luggage (High Passage), so the entire ship will be in the 10,000 dTon range.
Since you have fast, personal shuttle service from the ship to the ground (perhaps delivering passengers to 14 different specific locations at the same time ... rather than just the downport), you can make the ship unstreamlined (dispersed) and save some money to offset the high cost of the launches.

You have a liner that will provide personal door to door service for over 1000 passengers that can load/unload in 3 round trips ... that includes the extra perk of complete lifeboat capacity for those times when 'HAL' decides to fly the ship into the sun and there is nothing that 'Dave' can do to stop it.

The ship I'm designing has a volume of almost 700,000 dtons, I have 6 pages of quad-inch graph paper which details the floor plans of 1 deck, the dimensions of the starship are 171 meters long and 66 meters wide, it is in the shape of a cylinder, I calculated the volume of this cylinder and divided by 13.5 to get a tonnage of 680,735.4, The deck I'm detailing has the 14 lifeboats. At the rear of the starship is the maneuver drive, it is 11 squares long and 40 squares wide, that maneuver drive is 9,500 dtons, the rest of the deck is rooms, corridors, with waste space being fuel tankage. My plan is to put most of the ship's fuel below this deck, and to put the Jump Drive and Power plant above the deck, The Jump Drive is 42,500 tons, and the power plant is 24,500 tons, the total fuel for Jump-4 is 280,000 tons, fuel for 2 weeks operation of the maneuver drive is 10,000 tons. I've extrapolated this information from the core rules, basically these are the figures for a 1400 ton starship with a Jump-4, and a maneuver-2 multiplied by 500, so this is equivalent to 500 1400-ton starships. I don't know what the High Guard statistics would be for a ship of this size, perhaps someone could tell me what they would be since I don't have that book. The floor plan deck is the middle deck, above are the power plant and Jump Drive, below is the fuel, and in the rear is the maneuver drive, since that has to be in the back of the ship in order to push it forward. I think the Jump Drive and power plants can be located anywhere. Since this ship is 44 squares wide, I imagine it would have 22 decks each 2 squares or 3 meters thick. Basically I set up the middle deck as a dungeon crawl adventure, maybe I'll start beginning characters here or something else. Whatever the case the characters awake in the middle of this deck, they don't know how they got their except for the fact that someone slipped some drugs into their food and drink while they were discussion future employment with a patron. So basically what I'm designing is both a starship and an adventure rolled into one. Each room description includes contents, and encounters. The PCs when they wake up aboard this ship are in unexplored space, they were in low berths for quite a long while, about 6 months. There is no sign of a crew when they wake up, there are all sorts of other creatures and robots, and traps, and things to loot. The biggest prize of all is the starship, but the PCs don't have enough people to crew it, it is possible to pilot it from the bridge, but they can't possibly man all the ship's weapons or maintain the starship. Much of the ship is automated however, and the ship's AI has a resident AI that is controlling a bunch of things, including remotely operating the robots, and "flesh bots" I mentioned earlier. The AI is not entirely free-willed, the programmers have programmed some restrictions into it that prevent it from doing entirely what it wants and forces it to follow through on the programmer's agenda, which is a bit of a mystery to the PCs. The PCs are basically guinea pigs of some grand experiment, they have been shanghaied onto this starship against their will, and left to fend for themselves on this dungeon level. The goal probably would be to gain control of this starship or to escape in one of the lifeboats on the side short of that.