CT Only: 2nd Generation Type-S

[Brandon C]

Perhaps a small craft built with a small craft bridge has artificial gravity and acceleration compensation, while a small craft with no bridge doesn't. I hadn't considered that before but it makes sense of sorts.

The only things specifically included in a small craft bridge are (limited) life support and couches for two crew, regardless of ship size (minimum of 4 tons, up to 19 for a 95 ton small craft), although one could reasonably add bridge stations at the cost and tons given for crew without a small craft bridge (Book 5, p.34). It is worth noting a small craft bridge has half the cost per vessel tonnage than a ship bridge. I cannot find if there are different sensor and comm ranges for ships vs small craft (there is a sensor range difference for military vs civilian ships, but nothing in the design process to account for this beyond the referee waving a magic wand).

Also worth noting Book 5 notes that staterooms actually average about two tons (same as small craft staterooms), with the other two tons going to corridors, galleys and such (p.33). However, ship staterooms are 10x the cost of small craft staterooms, which can't be explainly only by access space (it is implied that small craft staterooms only have life support for days, not weeks, though).



Oh, and of course all ships contain a sextant, it gives the navigator something to do other than carry the generate cassette or the jump cassette to the computer...[/QUOTE]

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Perhaps a small craft built with a small craft bridge has artificial gravity and acceleration compensation, while a small craft with no bridge doesn't. I hadn't considered that before but it makes sense of sorts.

And 1000 Dt ships with the same 20 Dt bridge as a 100 Dt ship has very weak artificial gravity?


No, sorry it does not make any sense. Anything proportional to hull size or people carried can't be magicked away into the bridge tonnage.

 

[mike wightman]

And 1000 Dt ships with the same 20 Dt bridge as a 100 Dt ship has very weak artificial gravity?


No, sorry it does not make any sense.

The 20t 'bridge' is the smallest you can build the machinery necessary for starship artificial gravity and acceleration compensation but it is good for 100 to 1000t - much like some Traveller rule systems insist on a minimum size for jump drives and the like.

Anything proportional to hull size or people carried can't be magicked away into the bridge tonnage.

Why not? I say it can and I can make sense of it. I could also dig out MT or TNE and design every single specific system. I'd rather just say the stuff that isn't included in the LBB2/5 design sequence is handwaved into the only component that could account for it.

After all waste heat is magicked away, artificial gravity and acceleration id magickly explained and fuel use rates are just silly.

My preference for a complete ship design has long been FF&S, but I am happy to wing it with LBB2/5.

 

[Brandon C]

Why not? I say it can and I can make sense of it. I could also dig out MT or TNE and design every single specific system. I'd rather just say the stuff that isn't included in the LBB2/5 design sequence is handwaved into the only component that could account for it.

Actually, artificial gravity could just as likely be part of stateroom tonnage. After all, on a ship with no passengers or long term crew, you really don't need artificial gravity.

Given the lack of detail in CT ship design, many things fall into the realm of referee preference, which means that the exact same ships in Book 2 may be treated differently in minor respects in different campaigns. Nothing is wrong with this.

Saying the bridge must (or must not) have certain unlisted systems in it is like saying all CT campaigns must be set in the 3I universe. It all comes down to what works best for each referee.

 

[Condottiere]

Artificial gravity is now part of the hull (cost).

If I understand Tee Five correctly, inertial compensation is part of the (gravitational) manoeuvre drive.

 

[mike wightman]

CT only thread.

So lets see:
subcomponent 1 - grav plates - 0.5% of hull, minimum 5t
subcomponent 2 - acceleration compensation - 0.5% of hull, minimum 5t
subcomponent 3 - controls, avionics etc. - 0.5% of hull, minimum 5t
subcomponent 4 - airlocks, main compartment life support etc - 0.5% of hull, minimum 5t.
Total - 2% of hull, minimum of 20t

 

[Brandon C]

So lets see:
subcomponent 1 - grav plates - 0.5% of hull, minimum 5t
subcomponent 2 - acceleration compensation - 0.5% of hull, minimum 5t
subcomponent 3 - controls, avionics etc. - 0.5% of hull, minimum 5t
subcomponent 4 - airlocks, main compartment life support etc - 0.5% of hull, minimum 5t.
Total - 2% of hull, minimum of 20t

If that works for you, use it, but it doesn't work for many of us.

For myself, I see #1 as coming from stateroom tonnage (a ship without long term accommodations doesn't really need artificial gravity) and #2 coming from staterooms and the maneuver drive. #4 I have problems with for sirlocks, since the needs of a 100 ton and 1000 ton ship are significantly different.

 

[mike wightman]

The solution is simple - come up with a different design system. 'Til then we are limited to the LBB2 or LBB5 design sequences and the necessary handwaves.

And, cards on the table time, I wouldn't and don't use anything like what I have posted, its just an example of how it could be done.

A redesign of the LBB2 system could take into account separate gravitics, acceleration compensation, heat management, life support, controls, avionics, sensors, comms, airlocks, landing gear, common areas, corridors etc but that tonnage has to come from somewhere.

Do you reduce the size of drives? Reduce the size of staterooms? Reduce the size of the bridge? It doesn't matter really where you handwave it to, you see most design systems post CT reduce the bridge to allow for the inclusion of the other systems.

Interesting discussion though.

 

[Grav_Moped]

It's only a game

Most of the issues here are that the rules (in this case, LBB2) are for a game, not a simulation. They were designed to force tradeoffs: no, your 100-ton scout ship can't be Jump-6, your Free Trader only gets this much cargo space, and the Wave Motion Gun needs to get power from somewhere (which is why there's LBB5). And throughout, the theme that bigger is better, and only high tech lets you build bigger.

LBB5 makes different tradeoffs, most of which are adaptations to suit its space combat system and the paradigm that high tech always better, regardless of size.

This discussion is looking at the edge cases where the rules-as-simulation break down. The XBoat from LBB '77 is broken (but not irretrievably so) under LBB '81, the Type S has silly powerplant fuel requirements, and why does attaching a 1-ton drop tank to a 199-ton Free Trader mean you suddenly need a navigator? It's because these are rules for a role-playing game, not Kerbal Space Program with Jump Drives (I may be slightly mis-characterizing KSP here).

The edge cases are a useful place to look at and debate over. It helps you to develop your own internally-consistent set of house rules or hand-waves. In some cases it turned into updated rules with greater complexity (T5.x, anyone?).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So lets see:
subcomponent 1 - grav plates - 0.5% of hull, minimum 5t
subcomponent 2 - acceleration compensation - 0.5% of hull, minimum 5t
subcomponent 3 - controls, avionics etc. - 0.5% of hull, minimum 5t
subcomponent 4 - airlocks, main compartment life support etc - 0.5% of hull, minimum 5t.
Total - 2% of hull, minimum of 20t

And, cards on the table time, I wouldn't and don't use anything like what I have posted, its just an example of how it could be done.

Sure, we could do that. We could also say that all bridges include a 5 Dt elephant stable, but why would we?

All this discussion is based on your assertion that air locks, life support, and gravitics are part of the bridge tonnage.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

A redesign of the LBB2 system could take into account separate gravitics, acceleration compensation, heat management, life support, controls, avionics, sensors, comms, airlocks, landing gear, common areas, corridors etc but that tonnage has to come from somewhere.

No, why would we do that? We already have FF&S.

LBB2 and LBB5 are very simple and usable systems, which is why we still discuss them 40 years later. Why would we want to destroy that quality?


I think our basic disagreement is:

Within the LBB2/5 design system there is only the bridge tonnage that is only loosely defined and could thus accomidate the systems I mentioned.

I disagree; all systems in CT ship design are loosely defined, and reasonably include everything that is needed to make them work.

Do we really need to specify that the 15 Dt "power plant" consists of 2.37 Dt reactor, 3.14 Dt power transformer, 3.22 Dt power distribution, and 6.27 Dt radiators, or whatever it is?


And why would we say that the tonnage of the power distribution network is not exactly specified, so it must be part of the bridge tonnage?

 

[whartung]

Most of the issues here are that the rules (in this case, LBB2) are for a game, not a simulation.

The other key point is that there's little need for the added detail unless there's real gaming impact beyond simply consuming hull space, and consuming hull space really only affects the trade game.

But even then, there's nothing that says the trade game RaW is a balanced system with ship design taken in to account.

It clearly isn't when you can readily find a milk run within the rules of enough wealth to buy a ship that has no real trade limitations. Some of the stock ships are borderline viable or not, but there's nothing that says the trade and ship design system were built around making a 200 ton freighter challenging gameplay.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The other key point is that there's little need for the added detail unless there's real gaming impact beyond simply consuming hull space, and consuming hull space really only affects the trade game.

But even then, there's nothing that says the trade game RaW is a balanced system with ship design taken in to account.

It clearly isn't when you can readily find a milk run within the rules of enough wealth to buy a ship that has no real trade limitations. Some of the stock ships are borderline viable or not, but there's nothing that says the trade and ship design system were built around making a 200 ton freighter challenging gameplay.

Agreed. Another point towards your argument is that they didn't change the trade game when they added implicit Jump Governors* (explicit in LBB5 '77, implicit in LBB2 and 5 '81). This radically cut fuel use for high jump-capability ships used for shorter Jumps, and should have affected cargo and passenger rates. It didn't. Maybe it was intended in part as a fix for those issues?

I'm pretty sure they didn't fully understand the trade implications of introducing a Big Ship Universe (LBB5). In a LBB2 '77 universe with ships capping out at 2k tons, you could have a high-pop, high-tech industrial and Non-Ag world right next to a low-tech Ag world and even a large fleet of freighters couldn't make a dent in the demand for shipping, so milk runs could persist indefinitely. Less so in LBB2 '81 with its 5k ton ships, though. Allow 40k ton bulk freighters from LBB 5 and at the very least the ag cargo market gets saturated -- and the high-tech cargo on the return leg saturates that market as well. Bye-bye money-spinning machine!

Not that it really matters. The broken-ness of the trade game (particularly for passengers and generic cargo) was a feature, not a bug.


* First edition had ships use their full Jump fuel allocation regardless of the actual range of the Jump. HG1 added a "jump governor" as an accessory that cut that down to 10% per parsec regardless of capability. Later books simply changed the fuel consumption requirement to match that without any additional hardware.

This is also an explanation for Annic Nova's two Jump Drives -- it was the only way to get a 5-parsec (but not 6) total range in LBB2 '77. A single J-3 drive would need fuel (in this case, accumulators and "magic particle" tank) for two J-3s, since without a full 30% "fuel" load for the drive it couldn't use the Jump drive for a second jump at all.

 

[mike wightman]

Not sure why you think there is a 2000t size cap in 77 LBB2.
LBB2 77 allows for 5000t ships, with Z drives you get jump 2. See page 10 LBB2 Maximum Drive Potential Table.

On the same page it explicitly states:

Custom hulls of up to 5000 tons mass displacement may be ordered.

 

[Shadow Shack]

Yep, LBB-2 allows up to 5K tons, although it only specifies engineering requirements for up to 1K tons. As discussed upthread, various editions of Book-2 have different allotments for performance based on what MD/JD/PP you have in those post-1K hulls.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Not sure why you think there is a 2000t size cap in 77 LBB2.
LBB2 77 allows for 5000t ships, with Z drives you get jump 2. See page 10 LBB2 Maximum Drive Potential Table.

On the same page it explicitly states:

Yep, LBB-2 allows up to 5K tons, although it only specifies engineering requirements for up to 1K tons. As discussed upthread, various editions of Book-2 have different allotments for performance based on what MD/JD/PP you have in those post-1K hulls.

Misunderstood a recent mention of LBB2 '77 regarding drive capabilities in larger hulls. Haven't seen a copy of first edition since the mid-80s, and it wasn't my copy. Ought to find myself one somewhere, just for reference purposes.

 

[whartung]

Not sure why you think there is a 2000t size cap in 77 LBB2.
LBB2 77 allows for 5000t ships, with Z drives you get jump 2. See page 10 LBB2 Maximum Drive Potential Table.

Back in the day when I was munchkining my trade milk run, I distinctly recall building a 3000 ton ship for extra munchkining and more milk.

 

[mike wightman]

I have an 'upper' upper limit of 12000t using the following fudge.

A Z drive can grant a 3000t ship drive factor 4, or a 4000t ship drive factor 3 and finally a 5000t drive factor 2.

So a 5000t ship carries a 5000t external pod reducing it to drive performance 1, but a 4000t ship could shift two 4000t pods for a total of 12000, and by the same logic a 3000t can shift three 3000t pods for a total of 12000.

Or just build the maximum sized jump 1 12000t ship...

 

[GypsyComet]

although it only specifies engineering requirements for up to 1K tons.

I suspect you are mis-interpreting the meaning of the "Standard Hull" with its fixed Engineering space.

 

[Condottiere]

I presume that shifting bulkheads around is time consuming and expensive.

However, recalling the Titanic and warships in general, dividing up engineering is not a bad idea.