How ships land

[TheOtherDude]

Hello all,

this is my first post. I plan to gamemaster a campaign in a serenity-esque universe, and decided to use Traveller on which I had an eye for a long time.

I bought some of the Mongoose stuff, but after reading some posts here, I am not so sure if this was the wisest of choices, but now I already spent to much money...

Anyway, I have a general question concerning how ships land on a planet in Traveller. According to the Core Rulebook all ships are classified as follows:

• standard - able to glide to the surface in a controlled manner, but needing a launch setup to start gain
• streamlined - allowing it to enter the atmosphere easily
• distributed - incapable of entering an atmosphere without risk of crashing or taking heavy damage

Okay, so for the most landings only the streamlined ships are of interest. But how do they land? I have not found anything suggesting VTOL capability, neither for space ships nor for small craft in the design chapter or with the official ships. So the only logical way would be to land like today's aircraft, using a runway and a wheeled landing gear.
Also, the placement of the drives, in a fixed aft position, in all official space ships, do not suggest VTOL capability, as most ships of the Serenity universe posess with their pivoting drives.

In 'The Third Imperium - Starports' two landing facilities are mentioned: landing pads and landing strips. And in the examples there are starports that only have landing pads.

To use these, ships need VTOL capability - which I cannot find mentioned anywhere...

Can someone please shed some light on the way Traveller ships land for a newcomer?

Thank you very much.

Confused Regards

TheOtherDude

 

[HG_B]

Okay, so for the most landings only the streamlined ships are of interest. But how do they land? I have not found anything suggesting VTOL capability, neither for space ships nor for small craft in the design chapter or with the official ships. So the only logical way would be to land like today's aircraft, using a runway and a wheeled landing gear.

The author of that part of the MGT rules answered here before. Someone edited the rules after he wrote them and messed it up.

Standard & streamlined ships can land on worlds with or without atmosphere, no problems or launch facilities needed. So, that rules out landing like an airplane and requires VTOL ability.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

remember that most traveller starships are powered by gravitic drives, so it would not be hard to assume they can generate enough of a anit gravity effect to rise clear of the landing pad and then begin forward flight.

 

[HG_B]

so it would not be hard to assume they can generate enough of a anit gravity effect to rise clear of the landing pad and then begin forward flight.

On an airless world, there is no difference between forward flight & vertical flight.

 

[far-trader]

Welcome aboard TheOtherDude

No, not that other dude, you

There's nothing wrong with Mongoose Traveller and much to recommend it. And as it's what you have don't sweat it, play it

Anyway, for a another view that jives with the rules (and the intent there seems to be in keeping with most of past Traveller rules)...

...I have a general question concerning how ships land on a planet in Traveller. According to the Core Rulebook all ships are classified as follows:

• standard - able to glide to the surface in a controlled manner, but needing a launch setup to start gain
• streamlined - allowing it to enter the atmosphere easily
• distributed - incapable of entering an atmosphere without risk of crashing or taking heavy damage

VTOL is implied, at least for streamlined ships. Generally it is a presumed gravitic lifter technology, similar to that of Air/Rafts and other grav vehicles. That's the bulk of the cost reason for the extra expense of a streamlined hull.

Standard hulls lack that and require something along the lines of a launch tower to be set up for lift off after having dead stick landed on a long runway. And if the thrusters (maneuver drive) are only 1G and you land on a world with 1G local gravity or more (size 8 or larger) then you'll also need a booster lifter strapped on. Think the US Space Shuttle for example.

Finally the distributed hull is such that bits sticking out will be ripped off by atmosphere on reentry(1) or simply bend and break under their own weight once under the influence of gravity. They simply aren't built to support their weight and are essentially deep space zero-g designs only. So you can land, but bits are almost certainly going to be non-functional in doing so. Possibly important bits and it probably won't fly again without serious work.

For what it's worth I think "streamlining" is a bit of a misnomer. It is only partly or vaguely the actual shapes of the hulls in play. It is more other factors at play.

(1) Yes, some will argue that with gravitic drives etc. one can simply float down into any atmosphere like a leaf no matter what your hull shape. I think that is false. And in any case it is against the letter and spirit of the rules.

 

[HG_B]

(1) Yes, some will argue that with gravitic drives etc. one can simply float down into any atmosphere like a leaf no matter what your hull shape. I think that is false. And in any case it is against the letter and spirit of the rules.

So, in YTU, ships with Standard Hulls are unable to land on airless worlds?

Also, see the actual quote from the person who designed this part of the MGT rules...

 

[Dragoner]

Welcome!

I agree with the others that Traveller ships have gravitic VTOL and reactionless drives, too many situations outlined show this is the way it is.

 

[Spinward Scout]

(1) Yes, some will argue that with gravitic drives etc. one can simply float down into any atmosphere like a leaf no matter what your hull shape. I think that is false.

Funny you mention that. There was something I read (of course I can't remember where offhand) that was talking about 'feathering' - a fixed-wing orbital craft making a series of controlled stalls in order to keep the entry speed to a minimum. The theory is that an incoming spaceship could rock back and forth (or forward to back) in the air like a feather (or a leaf) and then come in for a controlled landing not much different than an airplane.

 

[robject]

As others. VTOL via lifters (light-duty gravitic modules, plates, or somesuch).

Greetings T.O.D.

 

[Icosahedron]

Welcome TOD.

The important thing to remember is that the rules, any rules, are only a guide to help the GM to create a coherent universe. If there's a rule (or several) that you don't like, throw them out or rewrite them.

The question is - how do you want ships to land In Your Traveller Universe (IYTU)?
Whatever you want, that's the way it is.

Now, the usual way, as the others have mentioned, is for anti-gravity thrust to be incorporated in the drives. On some designs this may be supplemented by streamlined lifting body forms that allow gravitic thrust to be applied horizontally to add speed once the ship has lifted and exceeded stall speed (though obviously not on a vacuum world, and yes, IMTU gravity and inertia will wreak havoc on a dispersed structure, G-drive or no). This stuff comes from Striker in Classic Traveller - I'm not sure what Mongoose says about it.

 

[aramis]

To give OtherGuy the various options...

Abbreviations
MD Maneuver Drive
AG Artificial Gravity
IC Inertial Compensation
CG Contragravity
MT MegaTraveller
TNE Traveller: The New Era
PP power Pland

In MegaTraveller... ship's with gravitic MD could produce thrust off-axis. Up to 10° off was 100%, dropping to 50% at 90°, and to a 10% at 160° to 180°, or something pretty close to that. Further, for short periods (several minutes), the drive could be over-rating by up to 400%... so a 1G ship could lift like a VTOL, then rotate, and use the main axis for going up. Due to AG and IC, the people aboard feel a steady "1G down" that is towards the floor.

In TNE, Contragravity (CG) disconnects 98% of the mass from gravity. Therefore, the ship "weighs" only 2% of it's mass. That is, the energy that would accumulate to accelerate downward is 2% of what it should be based upon mass and position. The RCS thrusters should be able to get it to lift, and like MT, the AG and IC mean no one aboard feels it. Also, it means being able to take off from worlds with up to 50x your drive's rating, if you can keep thrust going long enough.

In T4, you have both MT style thruster plates, and TNE style CG. So you can have ships viffing, no problem.

Note that ships with an airframe hull should be able to make a glider landing so long as the PP is running, and a powered aircraft landing if the MD is running.

 

[TheOtherDude]

Thank you all for your replies.

The important thing to remember is that the rules, any rules, are only a guide to help the GM to create a coherent universe. If there's a rule (or several) that you don't like, throw them out or rewrite them.

The question is - how do you want ships to land In Your Traveller Universe (IYTU)?

Of cource I will tweak the system But first I wanted to understand the 'official' way.

Currently I am contemplating the following solution for my universe:
- streamlined ships converted from Serenity/Firefly have VTOL capability
- streamlined ships taken from Traveller don't, they have to land and start using a runway (so no gravity effect)

Now I am not sure how I will handle cost. As the Mongoose Traveller ship building rules assume VTOL capability (as you confirmed), the logical thing would be to construct the Serenity ships using the rules as written and making existing Traveller ships with streamline hulls cheaper (to compensate for lacking VTOL).
Labourwise, leaving the Traveller ships as they are and making the Serenity ships more expensive would be better...

Another question, I don't like my characters to refuel for free whenever they pass a gas giant, so there will be no fuel scoops and fuel treatment devices on the ships. Would you reduce cost for these missing parts as well (fuel scoops are included in the 10% increase for streamlined hulls), or do you think the advantage is to marginal to be expressed in Cr.?

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

Thank you all for your replies.



Of cource I will tweak the system But first I wanted to understand the 'official' way.

Currently I am contemplating the following solution for my universe:
- streamlined ships converted from Serenity/Firefly have VTOL capability
- streamlined ships taken from Traveller don't, they have to land and start using a runway (so no gravity effect)

Now I am not sure how I will handle cost. As the Mongoose Traveller ship building rules assume VTOL capability (as you confirmed), the logical thing would be to construct the Serenity ships using the rules as written and making existing Traveller ships with streamline hulls cheaper (to compensate for lacking VTOL).
Labourwise, leaving the Traveller ships as they are and making the Serenity ships more expensive would be better...

Another question, I don't like my characters to refuel for free whenever they pass a gas giant, so there will be no fuel scoops and fuel treatment devices on the ships. Would you reduce cost for these missing parts as well (fuel scoops are included in the 10% increase for streamlined hulls), or do you think the advantage is to marginal to be expressed in Cr.?

remeber that it's only "free" if no one is policing you. In many places, the gas giants are controlled by the mainworld who charges fees for skimming rights. also, most bodies of water on a panet are going to be sombodies. who may not be happen when you land your dirty ship in thier nice clean pool and steal a few hundred tons of thier water.

i'd say take the fuel scoops, but let the players have the processors, with the crevat that "foraging" for fuel is going to be harder than normal traveller, and locals won't look kindly on you stealing their water.

 

[HG_B]

remeber that it's only "free" if no one is policing you. In many places, the gas giants are controlled by the mainworld who charges fees for skimming rights.

Actually, I've never seen that mentioned in Trav rules. That would be purely a house rule in YTU

 

[rancke]

remeber that it's only "free" if no one is policing you. In many places, the gas giants are controlled by the mainworld who charges fees for skimming rights. also, most bodies of water on a panet are going to be sombodies. who may not be happen when you land your dirty ship in their nice clean pool and steal a few hundred tons of their water.

I really doubt that it would be necessary to patrol the gas giants. Almost all of the traffic will be commercial and the time wasted by going to or from a gas giant before or after going to the mainworld to conduct business is not remotely worth the few hundred credits you save by wilderness refuelling. Even if you were paying Cr500 per ton of fuel it wouldn't be worth it, but if you are capable of wilderness refuelling, you will have a fuel purifier, which means you can buy unrefined fuel. Saving Cr100 per ton is REALLY not worth it.

Mind you, a system defense force may be patrolling the gas giants for other reasons, in which case they might as well enforce local tariffs, but they won't be there to make money.


Hans

 

[ThunderChilde]

In almost all of the Traveller games i've been in, wilderness refueling was what happened in the wilderness. Well off the beaten track low tech planet trade rings, with the rare C starport for maintenece.

The exceptions being when your up to no good and trying to leave as few traces of your presence as possible. The other was a campaign where the GM kept us so damn poor that wilderness was difference between bancruptcy and stringing it along for another month. That got old after a while.

Another being the misjump, they never seem to arrive in settled systems do they? Always somewhere back of beyond Robin Hoods barn it seems. Without the means to gather and process whatever fuel they can find they are in a tight spot.

 

[HG_B]

but if you are capable of wilderness refuelling, you will have a fuel purifier, which means you can buy unrefined fuel. Saving Cr100 per ton is REALLY not worth it. Hans

Yes, unless the GG is an inner system type (higher probability than thought) the extra few days aren't worth it.

 

[Nightwind1]

Funny you mention that. There was something I read (of course I can't remember where offhand) that was talking about 'feathering' - a fixed-wing orbital craft making a series of controlled stalls in order to keep the entry speed to a minimum. The theory is that an incoming spaceship could rock back and forth (or forward to back) in the air like a feather (or a leaf) and then come in for a controlled landing not much different than an airplane.

"I'm a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar..."

 

[whartung]

"I'm a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar..."

Yea, basically.

Simply put, if taking off and landing is more involved that the Millenium Falcon blasting "Punch it, Chewie" style out of Mos Eisley, it's "wrong".

Space travel, like fusion power, etc. is ubiquitous in Traveller. Cheap, handy, and in ready supply. Thrusters, boosters, external infrastructure (beyond a nice solid surface to settle on) -- that's all a no go. Maybe for low tech levels (where space travel is NOT ubiquitous and cheap), but not for the TL11-15 worlds with Free Traders flitting back and forth routinely through jump space.

I'm all game with limitations on what can land, or how (streamlined, partially stream lines, un-streamlined). Happy to accept the token "fiery re-entry" as long as it doesn't do long term damage to the ship, etc.

Someone mentioned elsewhere recently how the Space Shuttle replaces its windows each flight. Totally understandable, but that's not Traveller to me. A starship is to the point where it's basically a large boat. May be complicated and expensive and need routine maintenance, but it doesn't really consume more than fuel to operate on a general basis. Being required to swap out windshields would be right out with this.

Ships go to downports for their wide open spaces, flat, hard tarmac, handy freight and fueling facilities. They also may go so they don't get chased around by Custom authorities and what not. But they should still be able to land in a barren desert or back woods meadow if they want, and ideally without starting a massive wildfire when they land or leave. What fun is ocean refueling if I can't land, open the fuel doors, let the ship sink a couple feet as it fills up, and then take back off?

I'm hard SF as the next guy, but the story element of the starship in this case, with all of its freedom and capability, is just much more important than having to keep up with red tape, rent a "launch pad and tower" or anything else.

 

[HG_B]

Space travel, like fusion power, etc. is ubiquitous in Traveller. Cheap, handy, and in ready supply. Thrusters, boosters, external infrastructure (beyond a nice solid surface to settle on) -- that's all a no go. Maybe for low tech levels (where space travel is NOT ubiquitous and cheap), but not for the TL11-15 worlds with Free Traders flitting back and forth routinely through jump space.

Especially when one requires that a ship have wings to be able to land on an airless world & saying that ships without lifting surfaces glide. That is just bizarro beyond belief.