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