What real use are escape pods?

[swordtart]

It isn't EXPLICITLY in the rules not do the rules EXPLICITLY say it isn't right. The only example is for 2 hulls. If there were an example for 3 hulls then it would be explicit one way or the other. I know of no official examples for more than 2 hulls.

It is explicit that is it 2% of the Combined Hull Tonnage. Not 2% per section. If it were per section it would have to be 1% per section anyway for it to remain consistent with the 2% for the inferred example of two hulls.

In fact the description mentions two OR MORE independent vessels.

If it gave an example of 3 hulls and the extra tonnage required were 3%, 4% or 6% it would be inconsistent with the rule.

Since it doesn't give an example of 3 hulls there is no inconsistency and 2% regardless of the number of sections is the only possible interpretation consistent with the RAW.

Personally I'd be happy to go with 2% of the tonnage of the smaller vessel, but that is a change to the rules.

EDIT:
There is an official example with more than 1 breakaway section. The Deepnight Endeavour (Great Rift Adventures 1-5 p45) is 100,000 DTons and has 6 breakaway fuel modules of 10,000 Dtons each.

The tonnage lost to the breakaway aspect is 2,000 DTons. This 2% of the combined tonnage.

 

[rinku]

I mean, how much is in each section is going to depend a bit on the design anyway. If the engineering section and the main section are built as breakaways, you already have them as fully sealed and functional sections, and mostly need to just double up on the bulkheads between them. One bulkhead already exists, so the new bulkhead could be placed in either section, or shared between them if it's not a retrofit.

If you're building something that breaks away that doesn't normally have bulkheads on all sides, like a stateroom, it'll definitely need some of the 2% - probably split in that case.

 

[Condottiere]

It seems off.

But, you can specify that breakaways are specifically configured, and the slots need an exact fit.

 

[swordtart]

I mean, how much is in each section is going to depend a bit on the design anyway. If the engineering section and the main section are built as breakaways, you already have them as fully sealed and functional sections, and mostly need to just double up on the bulkheads between them. One bulkhead already exists, so the new bulkhead could be placed in either section, or shared between them if it's not a retrofit.

If you're building something that breaks away that doesn't normally have bulkheads on all sides, like a stateroom, it'll definitely need some of the 2% - probably split in that case.

How many bulkheads you have is an entirely cost free choice. You can make every compartment on the entire ship of bulkheads and iris valves if you want it is just something to draw on the deck plan.

There doesn't appear to be any consistency or logic. The EM Far Trader HG2022 p168 for example has bulkheads for each stateroom on deck 1 and not for those on deck 2.

Common sense would indicate there should be some constraint, but couldn't find anything in the MGT2 rules about it other than the Armoured Bulkhead which has a specific in game effect.

 

[lategamer]

Actually there's a good half-dozen assumptions there that aren't necessarily so. Does the Imperium use Civilian contractors? Do they use a bid process or do they use a fixed cost method? What are their specification documents? How much is managed by the Navy? Ad nauseam.

So those are possibilties which are ...possible. However it's a capitalist society so yes, your Free Trader was built by the lowest bidder and with the scale of the Imperium, it's entirely possible the design is commoditised. In fact, the generic parts would have to be commoditised in order to make interstellar travel safe.

Even if managed by the Navy (ugh), that may just drive costs up without necessarily improving quality. (Traveller is many things but a Utopia it ain't and we have the benefit of history to guide us).

(the tangent of bidding process or fixed cost makes absolutely no sense. Both will lead to contractors cutting costs)

Honestly, your point doesn't stand as the only way or even as the best way.

It should be perfectly plain that everyone is talking about their subjective Traveller. If your shipbuilding is handled 100% by the Navy and they're incorruptable and efficient then ENJOY. If you don't think escape pods are a good idea, then great (but then why argue about it). I've sailed through storms and had my boat disabled by Orcas...I can see the value of a liferaft - but if your utopia doesn't allow for such things as problems then GREAT.

 

[rinku]

Some of the ideas being floated here might actually be better done using modular hulls, especially the stateroom idea of mine. Technically a breakaway hull needs a bridge and powerplant, but an ejectable module may not. It's been discussed that the ejection equipment is probably small enough that it's just a credit cost. Staterooms also have gravitics, so it's conceivable that the ejection is done gravitically, powered by the main ship.

(And modular staterooms aren't a bad concept anyway, especially for a ship that has a base they can store modules on. Stateroom bank module, cargo module, fuel module, etc)

 

[lategamer]

Some of the ideas being floated here might actually be better done using modular hulls, especially the stateroom idea of mine.

I really like the stateroom idea.

Low berthers are already in “pods”. Stateroom can generate enough power for a long long time.

And it reminds me of the modules in The Culture.

 

[rinku]

If the ship is a dispersed structure sort, it might be even simpler.

 

[Condottiere]

First, you probably have to describe the evacuation procedure.

Then, you can fit in the appropriate space vehicles to efficiently carry that out.

 

[swordtart]

I was looking at modules last night. I think you would need to pay the full hull cost rather than the cheaper module cost as an escape pod would need to be fully space worthy and if you want to be able to land. A 4Dton stateroom module with the same dimensions as a 4DTon cargo container would be entirely logical and would allow dynamic reconfiguration depending on what the current market for passengers were. If it were standardised on a particular route a company could have local stocks of such modules on hand. A low berth version would allow additional flexibility.

It depends on the percentage of hull as well as the costs could disproportionately high for a mainly passenger vessel.

I was looking at the serpent class scout as an exemplar and the four staterooms would lend themselves very well to being modular.

 

[Condottiere]

View attachment tesla.webp

 

[Midas]

A couple of tangential points.
1) Weirdness Magnet - this is a common problem with adventurers. There are thousands of flights happening every day, with no problems what so ever. But...what are the odds that the shuttle that the travellers take happens to have Dan Cooper on board? Definitely not zero.

2) Pilferage. People are blithely saying "Just have a dose of Fast Drug with the escape pods or whatever." With the sticky fingered culture of default Traveller, how long does anyone think it will be before someone swaps them out?

Edit: re pt 1: This is why escape pods are necessary, with travellers around, something is going to happen.

 

[lategamer]

With the sticky fingered culture of default Traveller, how long does anyone think it will be before someone swaps them out?

What do you mean the escape pods are painted dioramas?

Someone went to the time to produce micro-dioramas and glue them to the window of the escape pod so that when we looked in we would see … a high end escape pod. But really it’s an escape pod for ants.

 

[rinku]

In real life, it often only takes one or two high profile disasters before emergency equipment becomes mandated.

Clearly YTU stuff, but that's the actual answer to the OP. Their real use is compliance with enforceable safety standards. Because of that one time that a bunch of people died horribly for the lack of something like that.

And then they become plot points as shonky ship owners evade regulation and proper maintenance

 

[lategamer]

In real life, it often only takes one or two high profile disasters before emergency equipment becomes mandated.

The changes to safety standards after the Fastnet disaster were considerable.

Clearly YTU stuff, but that's the actual answer to the OP. Their real use is compliance with enforceable safety standards. Because of that one time that a bunch of people died horribly for the lack of something like that.

And then they become plot points as shonky ship owners evade regulation and proper maintenance

The substantial debate comes in whether there is utility. Just like in sailing, an escape pod/life raft should be the absolute last resort. Space is much more hostile than the open sea. The chance of rescue more infinitesimal - at least in sailing we now have satellite comms/ePIRBs. No such luck in Traveller (other space games may differ).

I would maybe think that the only time it makes sense to enter an escape pod is with a low berth. Maybe that’s the item you add to the ship? Escape Pod low berths.

 

[swordtart]

The changes to safety standards after the Fastnet disaster were considerable.



The substantial debate comes in whether there is utility. Just like in sailing, an escape pod/life raft should be the absolute last resort. Space is much more hostile than the open sea. The chance of rescue more infinitesimal - at least in sailing we now have satellite comms/ePIRBs. No such luck in Traveller (other space games may differ).

I would maybe think that the only time it makes sense to enter an escape pod is with a low berth. Maybe that’s the item you add to the ship? Escape Pod low berths.

Fast drug lessens the requirement for a low berth at far lest cost and space. Once you are carrying a low berth per normal passenger you might as well just carry low passengers.

I can see a case for low berths having a low/no cost option to auto eject in the event of ship loss. RH gives the Advanced Low Berth at only KCr90. This can cryofreeze almost instantaneously, has vacuum protection and has a duration of 4 weeks by default (extra batteries could be provided at low additional cost - KCr10- to extend this to 4 months). Solar coating could extend this indefinitely, but frankly if you haven't been rescued after 4 months it isn't going to happen.

This would allow some interesting plot effects though. Maybe you want to advance the campaign by 10 years without the characters being part of that change. A pirate attack followed by eject and then they wake up 10 years later in a greatly changed universe.

"...Oh, and you missed the 5th Frontier War - huh! what do you know, you still get to claim 10 years back pension, so not all bad eh!"

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

"...Oh, and you missed the 5th Frontier War - huh! what do you know, you still get to claim 10 years back pension, so not all bad eh!"

Unfortunately the world with all your pension records was devastated in the war and your records were destroyed so the pension is gone. "Fortunately" the world with all your criminal records survived and there were trials in absentia so you are legally considered to be "on the run" and to have run out on your ship mortgage which has grown due to non payment. Good Times.

 

[Condottiere]

One possibility is figuring out the price point, where ye default passenger would choose to be flash frozen, in preference to share steerage with a bunch of smelly strangers.

 

[swordtart]

Unfortunately the world with all your pension records was devastated in the war and your records were destroyed so the pension is gone. "Fortunately" the world with all your criminal records survived and there were trials in absentia so you are legally considered to be "on the run" and to have run out on your ship mortgage which has grown due to non payment. Good Times.

Indeed, oh and by the way, you were declared dead and your son inherited, he has also been claiming the dependent portion of the insurance policy, but as you are no longer dead...

Thusly was plot generated

 

[rinku]

The changes to safety standards after the Fastnet disaster were considerable.



The substantial debate comes in whether there is utility. Just like in sailing, an escape pod/life raft should be the absolute last resort. Space is much more hostile than the open sea. The chance of rescue more infinitesimal - at least in sailing we now have satellite comms/ePIRBs. No such luck in Traveller (other space games may differ).

I would maybe think that the only time it makes sense to enter an escape pod is with a low berth. Maybe that’s the item you add to the ship? Escape Pod low berths.

I dunno. Space IS famously big... but the 100D bubble around a world is a lot less so. Since most ships spend their time in that zone, emergency measures would be oriented around that. Some pod that can get you headed towards the starport and away from the disaster, while electronically shouting "OVER HERE!!!" would do. Size 10 world has a 100D of 1.6 million km, but a pod that applies thrust 1 for a single space combat turn will be travelling at 3600 m/s and would only take around 5 days to arrive at the mainworld. Not impractical, and more or longer thrust (or a smaller world) would get you there sooner. Hopefully there would be a rescue ship turning up well before that anyway.

I could see a case for basic escape pods being integrated in the ship's systems or hull.